What I learned from my 94 year old mother-in-law about heaven

Secret admirers are nice, I suppose. I don't know for sure, of course, because if I ever had one the secret was carefully kept. But just yesterday a colleague of my wife's (unknown to me until that moment as a reader of my scratchings) told me to get on with it and finish my wonderings about heaven. "Quit leaving me in suspense," she actually said.

Well, having not quite reached Christopher Hitchens' stature, I'll take whatever adulation that I can muster, along with a much longer life than poor Hitchens was given I hope. So here you go, dear friend--what I deduce about heaven from watching my sainted mother-in-law of four score and fourteen years.

Mom still has most of the marbles she ever had, I would say. They may move somewhat more slowly in the bag, but I don't think many have escaped. She doesn't suffer from senility. She still does some cooking for herself. She reads the local paper to keep up with the goings on in our city in the country. Some tasks, especially mending and helping with food preparation for family events, are still well within her capabilities.

But like most people who reach a certain age, she suffers from short-term memory loss. I'm 30 years younger than Mom is. I was once the proud possessor of the acute Sutherland memory, as was my father before me. But I watched the erosion of Dad's ability to hang onto the remnants of events, and I know that even now my memory is not what it once was. It comes to us all.

Therefore, I find that while Mom can still remember where she was on her fourteenth birthday, she can't always recall what she did yesterday. It sometimes makes me wonder whether it matters that we do something with her, or for her, if soon the pleasure it brought her will slip through her grasp. We still involve her in various events as often as possible, nonetheless, hoping that it keeps her spirits up even if the details are sometimes long gone.

And that brings me to the issue of continuity. Suppose we were to arrive at those Pearly Gates with only very early memories of what we did for our allotted time on earth, with the rest being a blank like my mother-in-law. Or what if heaven were like birth; i.e., we arrive like newborns with no memory of the nine months in the womb (or ninety-four years on earth) as background and context for what happens next. Surely that would make a mockery of all the striving we did on behalf of the Kingdom of God while we were here. Self-denial, putting the kingdom first, etc., etc.--what's the point if it all becomes so completely immaterial that we aren't even permitted the memories of it all? What if we resemble dear old Mom in having no picture of what has gone on before to sustain us or to learn from. What if we didn't even remember who our loved ones were, particularly our parents, siblings, spouse, children, friends? This would be called senility here on earth. Are we to take on celestial Alzheimer's in the eternal state?

There is very little hard biblical evidence to support this speculation. But what there is supports my theory, I think, that we go into the afterlife (better, the next part of life) with memories intact. Consider:

1. Depictions of the followers of God in the heavenly city typically include much praising of God as the Redeemer, and Jesus as the one slain for sin, and such like. None of this would make any sense if one had no idea what one was redeemed from, or what sin is, particularly my own.

2. While one has to be very careful with apocalyptic language, Revelation chap. 6 refers to the souls of martyrs who were asking how long they had to wait to see vindication for their earthly treatment.

3. There are references to the dead standing before a large set of ledgers, which are opened to see if one's name is written there, and so on. Again this is colourful language used for effect, but it still suggests that there is some self-awareness on our part, at least to the extent that we know who we are and the significance of one's name appearing.

4. Heaven is referred to in the Old Testament as Jacob's rest. "Rest from what?", one must ask. Presumably part of the enjoyment of rest is to remember the opposite.

5. St. Paul refers to our actual activity on earth and whether it stands up to certain tests of its usefulness in Kingdom building (1 Corinthians 3:11-13 "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one we already have--Jesus Christ. Anyone who builds on that foundation may use a variety of materials--gold, silver, jewels, wood, hay, or straw. But on the judgment day, fire will reveal what kind of work each builder has done. The fire will show if a person's work has any value.) I can't imagine how this would constitute a learning opportunity if we hadn't a clue what is being judged (see also Ecclesiastes 12:14).

While it would be difficult to build a convincing case on the above, I am sufficiently comfortable with the biblical evidence and just sheer logic to assume that there is continuity between our time as citizens of God's kingdom on earth, and the ongoing life of the kingdom thereafter.

Consequently, I dismiss the idea that everyone shows up in the great hereafter on identical terms. I believe that exclamations will range from (to quote Simeon in Luke 2:30 as he held the baby Jesus), "...my eyes have seen your salvation", to "Who the hell's the big guy and what's he doing sitting on that enormous white armchair."

If we start our next phase as Kingdom of God citizens with different understandings of God's character, will, and ways with his people, what comes next?

Be patient. I'll try to think of something.

Heaven is a wonderful place, filled with glory and grace.....or is it?

Before going on with my speculation on matters of accountability and life eternal, I want to stop for a moment and think about what heaven is like. Growing up, all my wife could imagine was a scene of Corinthian columns and great bowls of grapes. For others, it's wings and harps. Some people imagine a prolonged church service with much antiphonal singing and the throwing of crowns toward the Great White Throne like a game of lawn darts. Streets of gold, considerable jewelery, and large mansions characterized Sunday School songs.

No wonder we get these sorts of reactions to life in heavenly realms:

"I have read descriptions of Paradise that would make any sensible person stop wanting to go there." Charles de Secondat

"It is a curious thing that every creed promises a paradise which will be absolutely uninhabitable for anyone of civilized taste." Evelyn Waugh

"The joys of heaven are for most of us, in our present condition, an acquired taste." CS Lewis

"In Heaven, all the interesting people are missing." Friedrich Nietzsche

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." Mark Twain

"I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse." Isaac Asimov

Heaven--not a place for those craving stimulation, civilized living, or conviviality. Why do the depictions of heaven make people come to such conclusions?

The difficulty is that there is no factual description of heaven anywhere in the Bible. St. Paul had his chance, because he once died or otherwise had an out of body experience, and came back from heaven saying he wasn't permitted to discuss it (2 Corinthians 12:2-4). What descriptions there are, are couched in apocalyptic language that is never to be taken literally.

That leaves us to speculate. Which is what I'll do next.

Is there accountability in the life to come? - New Testament indications

When we were looking to buy property I had this overzealous realtor show us what can only be described as a totally worn-out old farm. I mean the land had just been worked to death. The weeds were hardly even growing.

The smiling super salesman said, “Now really, all this land needs is a little water, a nice cool breeze and some good people.”

I replied, “Yeah, I agree, but couldn't the same be said of Hell?”

Discussions of accountability, from a religious point of view, usual take two forms. One is accountability for our actions as those who profess to believe in some higher power or creed and the requisite behavioural choices that accompany that belief. The WWJD (What Would Jesus Do?) fad illustrates how people try to hold others accountable for their actions.

The other form has to do with ultimate destiny. If one fails to make the proper life-changing choice to follow Jesus (or Allah, etc., etc.), one will suffer eternal punishment. An old preacher from my young days used to urge people to repent by shouting, "Turn or burn!"

What I've been asking myself is, if membership in the Kingdom of God is the default position for his created beings, and one has to fight one's way out of the Kingdom, rather than into it, and if Hell is a metaphor for finality rather than a real abode for the damned, in what way are we held accountable on earth for our choices and our actions?

Or to put it another way, if only a life of grievous and persistent sinning that renders a person unforgivable (see my posts in August-September/2011 on falling from grace) keeps us from eternal life with God, and if an afterlife of torment is not to be feared, why shouldn't I live the typical kind of life that doesn't necessarily "seek first the Kingdom of God", having the confidence that the slate will be wiped clean one day when we enter the heavenly state? I'll be there at the starting line with Billy Graham on my left, Mother Teresa on my right, and Bill Clinton two lanes over (beside Monica Lewinsky this time, rather than facing her).

I have already posted elsewhere why being a Christian is different from, and better than, being a member of God's Kingdom. Not better in the sense that this makes a person more meritorious in some way--a cut above, and all that. We're all sinners saved by grace, to use old fashioned terminology. Rather I mean that Christianity, to my way of thinking, is what God wants us to embrace. It is this kind of relationship with him that allows us to know him best in this life. Christianity is the best explanation we have as earth-bound humans, seeing through a glass darkly, of who God is, his will, his way of dealing with us, his love for us, his mercy and grace, and so on.

But Christianity is more than just a set of beliefs to which one gives assent. It requires a commitment that St. Paul compared to running a very difficult race. Jesus compared it to living a life of denial of some aspects of one's own preferences, if called upon to do so, in order to walk a narrower road. It brings with it a ethical system that sometimes requires God's help to live up to. That help is often mediated through friends and family who keep us accountable.

But again I say, why bother. Isn't heaven the great equalizer where we all start afresh? Why all the struggle, giving things up, taking on new priorities in this life when none of it is of any consequence in the life to come?

That's what I'll try to tackle next.

Where was I before life intervened for a moment?

As I was saying, at some point I decided to strike out on my own (well, not entirely on my own. I do have a degree in biblical studies, patiently--if at times futilely--taught to me by some very nice and generally intelligent professors), and see where I got to. I suppose it is my good fortune that this blog does not have a wide followership (about 1700 page views thus far), giving me the liberty of wearing a theological lampshade on my head with no one noticing.

I started off with one of the two more controversial positions of orthodox Christianity, the doctrine of eternal punishment (aka Hell, the Lake of Fire, Gehenna, and so on) for the damned. Associated with this is the belief that Hell is the default position for every individual unless they consciously accept the Christian faith.

[The other position I refer to above is the problem of evil and suffering and how it can be consistent with the belief in an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, and merciful God.]

I concluded, along with such heretics as Billy Graham, that knowledge of Christ or the Christian message is not a necessary requirement for entry into God's kingdom. Further, I confirmed the belief that I have had for a long time (as did other questionable parties like the late John Stott) that Hell is to be understood metaphorically. These posts were written during the month of April 2011.

I went even further in May and June, concluding that kingdom of God membership is our right as God's created beings. In other words, being a part of God's kingdom is not something we have to earn through the exercise of faith. Quite to the contrary, it is a privilege we would have to forfeit through something else.

What that 'something else' is was explored in August and September (July being a bit of a write-off due to a couple of lovely vacation periods) where I try to imagine what it would mean to commit the 'unpardonable sin' of blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

Somewhere in there (well, in the month of June if I have to be specific) I discussed why one would bother to be a Christian at all, or encourage others to become one, if most people are going to "make it" anyway. I think I came up with what I hope is a sufficiently compelling answer that we should continue to take Jesus seriously when he tells us to go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel (imagine not taking Christ seriously!).

All of this speculation led me back to daily living. If God does not really hold Hell over our heads as a combination of stick (you're going there unless...) and carrot (this is what I've saved you from, so you'd better start acting like this...), then how does he hold us accountable for all of these free choices he permits us to make?

That led me in October to look at issues of accountability. This is where I was stuck in the usual theological goo when the civic election intervened and I digressed a bit into issues of letting one's faith influence one's political decisions in a secular and pluralistic school system.

I guess it's time to get back to that topic. Praying that the quicksand won't take me down, this is where I will now spend a little more time.

Kiss me once and kiss me twice, Then kiss me once again....

....it's been a long, long time.

The lyrics to that old Louis Armstrong song were going through my mind as I opened up my great big green blogging machine this afternoon.

There's a rumour going around that a civic election was held a week or two ago and that I was in it. It must be true because my bank account seems awfully empty (here's hoping it was for advertising expenses and not bribes), my daily schedule for November is full of references to various all-candidates meetings and similar events, my wife is asking me how I've been, and I'm supposed to be at the school district office next week for an Inaugural Meeting. Apparently I'm a school trustee.

More to the point, November seems to have been blown on the election. I haven't blogged on my usual neXus-ish fare for, well, forever. Perhaps I should do a real quick summary of what I've done thus far in the hope that I can figure out what to do next.

So let's see. I decided to start exploring some of the ideas associated with emergent thinking without looking to any emergent gurus for help. Now why the heck did I do that? I'm not usually all that ambitious, and I know squat about theology.

Oh yes, it's coming back to me now. I wanted to avoid having my mind "tainted" by any particular school of thought, and see if I could get to the emergent conclusions in the old fashioned way--through what is called, in the vernacular, exegesis.

What is exegesis?, you say. I'm surprised to hear you say it since you probably can't even pronounce it :-). Well, it's literal meaning is 'to interpret'. Here's a typical dictionary definition: "a critical interpretation or explication, especially of biblical and other religious texts." It has to do with examining the meaning of words in their original contexts, considering the history that informs the use of the word, and so on. One attempts to remain objective in determining the intent of the author in choosing that word, and learn from its meaning.

The opposite tendency, and one that is all too common when the reader brings an agenda to a passage, or is unfamiliar with original meanings, is called eisogesis. This is the subjective practice of reading into a word or passage what you would prefer that it meant.

[A brief note to the more linguistically inclined. The 'ex' in exegesis means 'out of' or 'from'. The 'eis' in eisogesis means 'into'. The 'gesis' root has to do with leading or guiding. So one is led out of the text, or one guides into the text.]

In order to avoid being charged by others with being caught up in the sway of some personality whose views I would prefer over those of the Bible (a common enough accusation made by one school of theological thought versus another), I thought that if I could preserve a high view of scripture (inspired by the Holy Spirit, infallible, etc.), and use the usual historical/critical/exegetical approach to interpretation, and arrive at certain conclusions without doing violence to the text, that my arguments would be more convincing than simply laying out a few propositions.

Now, let's see what topics I've considered thus far, and how much trouble that has gotten me into.

Abbotsford, Alabama

One of the most ridiculous controversies in which I ever found myself involved the full-frontal attack on the Abbotsford school district by those who insisted that we were teaching biblical creationism.

We were accused of such by a gentleman from outside our district who, knowing nothing about our practice, blew the whistle on the school trustees for forcing their religion on the district by requiring that creationism and evolution be given equal time in the classroom. While this was a ridiculous accusation, it garnered widespread attention in the media, including all of the national Canadian television networks and CNN.

No matter what I told people about the actual practice, the same tired stereotypes were published again and again. I finally complained to one Canadian Press reporter that I lived in Abbotsford BC, not Abbotsford Alabama.

[For a rather good study of the whole business, see Lois Sweet, God in the Classroom, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, 1997, chap. 11.]

What we actually did, by the way, was allow a student in, say, a grade 12 biology class, to do individual study on the creationism v. evolution debate, with the teacher choosing whether to allow any brief discussion of same in class. This approach was completely in accord with the curriculum guides of the day.

Art Charbonneau, the Minister of Education, who assumed that because I was a professor at Trinity Western University I must also be a fanatic from the religious right, refused to meet with me, substituting his deputy minister instead and threatening to fire all us trustees if we didn't cease and desist from this loathsome practice. But to do that, he had to first re-write the curriculum guides that permitted the practice. Realizing after the fact that this would also affect faith-based high schools, he quietly revised them yet again a short time later. Brilliant chap.

The issue for me was never one of religion. While I'm no scientist, I felt that the evolutionary view was probably a better understanding of the scientific data, as did the majority of the board. What we were united on was that we were representatives of all the citizens of Abbotsford, not just the ones who shared our view (i.e., the evolutionists, who may have been at best a small majority of the city at the time). For me it was an issue of freedom of inquiry for the students, and representing the public interest. Apparently Mr. Charbonneau and the national media weren't interested in this angle, even though I talked about it repeatedly.

The one good thing that came out of it all was that I led the school trustee polls three out of the next four times I ran. All's well that ends well, I suppose.

Are you going to let your faith influence your decisions in public office?

With the 2011 municipal election coming up in three weeks, I am taking a break from my theological ramblings (that's the nicest thing I can say about them as a near theological illiterate) to talk about my views on faith and public office on the basis of my 24 years as a public school trustee, and a general interest in the topic.

I and many other politicians who make their faith a matter of public record are often asked the question in the title of this post. John F. Kennedy, the first (and thus far, only) Roman Catholic president of the United States, was hounded with queries about whether his religious beliefs would affect his presidency. A major speech he gave in 1960 to the Greater Houston (Protestant) Ministerial Assoc. more or less put an end to the controversy:

For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as president — on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject — I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come — and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible — when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. (See the entire speech at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600).

First of all, where might one's faith even have an impact on the kinds of decisions that school trustees make? The number of instances is actually very small.

The characteristics which people of the Christian faith might see as part of being a faithful follower of Jesus are true of most of the world's religions, and widely held in pluralistic society generally; e.g., goodness, kindness, self-discipline, mercy, love, patience, respect for others, avoiding doing harm, respecting authority, and so on. This is what I would expect, given the Christian teaching that all of humanity is made in God's image. Whatever sinfulness may have eroded our humanity, there is much residual character in the human race.

Consequently, when first our Abbotsford Board of Education and later our city decided to pursue a "Communities of Character" initiative, there was no difficulty coming to consensus on the traits we hoped to promote, regardless of the adherence, or non-adherence, of any of the politicians and senior administrators to a particular faith tradition.

When we as a Board consider creating or revising policies, or hiring a new employee, it is such character traits as these that help guide our decisions. From the point of view of faith, there is little or no controversy.

Not that there haven't been controversies, particularly along moral lines. But did they have anything to do with faith? I'll look at these next.

Is there accountability in the life to come? - Old Testament indications 2

The Old Testament (a seminary professor of mine preferred the term 'Less Recent Testament' so as not to undermine its present relevance) contains endless admonitions to God's designated hitters (hey, the World Series is starting), the descendants of Isreal, to either stick with the programme or face certain ruin. I gave you a lengthy passage from Amos in my last post, but it is representative of similar warnings in all major sections of the OT--the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.

That is not to say that God enjoyed this method of keeping his people accountable. Having laid another whuppin' on his ne'er-do-well children in the prophecy of Hosea, his essential love and long-suffering are revealed in this anguished exclamation:

Oh, how can I give you up, Israel? How can I let you go? How can I destroy you like Admah or demolish you like Zeboiim? My heart is torn within me, and my compassion overflows (Hoseah 11:8).

It was because of this incredible patience and mercy displayed so often by God that even in the midst of traumatic times, the prophets held out hope that God's eternal covenant with his people would endure:

Lamentations 5:19-23 You, LORD, reign forever; your throne endures from generation to generation. Why do you always forget us? Why do you forsake us so long? Restore us to yourself, LORD, that we may return; renew our days as of old unless you have utterly rejected us and are angry with us beyond measure.

Hosea 6:1-3 Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds. After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will restore us, that we may live in his presence. Let us acknowledge the LORD; let us press on to acknowledge him. As surely as the sun rises, he will appear; he will come to us like the winter rains, like the spring rains that water the earth.”

We do have this solemn warning, nevertheless, that while God may restore his people even when they have tried him almost beyond endurance, individual members of his people may chose to forfeit that mercy, grace, and love. This indication that God will, in the final analysis, achieve his purposes without overriding an individual's free choice is found in the book of Esther. Queen Esther, Jewish queen to the Persian King Xerxes who was intent upon ridding the kingdom of Jews (not knowing that Queen Esther herself was Jewish), quails at the request of her cousin Mordecai to intervene on behalf of her race.

Mordecai, clearly referring to God's covenant of grace with his people, responds in the strongest possible terms:

Esther 4:12 Then Mordecai told them to reply to Esther, “Do not imagine that you in the king’s palace can escape any more than all the Jews. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews from another place and you and your father’s house will perish.

The Old Testament speaks very little of eternity, heaven, the afterlife--whatever term you prefer. David speaks of being in the house of the Lord forever. The people of Israel longed for 'Jacob's rest'. But it is far and away an earthly book, a book of commands for living rightly, and ethical views of life. Accountability is discussed with reference to the here and now, not with the there and later.

But does God hold people accountable? Yes indeed. Does this change as we move into the Christian era?

Read on.

Is there accountability in the life to come? - Old Testament indications

We know that God is big on accountability. The Old Testament is replete with incidents of God's exasperating homies, the children (with all of the maturity that word entails) of Israel, blowing their privileges, and God, as it were, calling in the loan.

Consider, for instance, the prophecy of Amos. He looks at the perversion of Yahwehistic morality that had come to characterize the Israelites of the northern Kingdom, and notes that God had done everything to draw them back to himself, including the provision of a taste of what life is like without his love and protection. At last, he gives them up to their own choices:

Amos 4

1 Hear this word, you cows of Bashan on Mount Samaria,
you women who oppress the poor and crush the needy
and say to your husbands, “Bring us some drinks!”
2 The Sovereign LORD has sworn by his holiness:
“The time will surely come
when you will be taken away with hooks,
the last of you with fishhooks.
3 You will each go straight out
through breaks in the wall,
and you will be cast out toward Harmon,”
declares the LORD.
4 “Go to Bethel and sin;
go to Gilgal and sin yet more.
Bring your sacrifices every morning,
your tithes every three years.
5 Burn leavened bread as a thank offering
and brag about your freewill offerings—
boast about them, you Israelites,
for this is what you love to do,”
declares the Sovereign LORD.
6 “I gave you empty stomachs in every city
and lack of bread in every town,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the LORD.
7 “I also withheld rain from you
when the harvest was still three months away.
I sent rain on one town,
but withheld it from another.
One field had rain;
another had none and dried up.
8 People staggered from town to town for water
but did not get enough to drink,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the LORD.
9 “Many times I struck your gardens and vineyards,
I struck them with blight and mildew.
Locusts devoured your fig and olive trees,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the LORD.
10 “I sent plagues among you
as I did to Egypt.
I killed your young men with the sword,
along with your captured horses.
I filled your nostrils with the stench of your camps,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the LORD.
11 “I overthrew some of you
as I overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
You were like a burning stick snatched from the fire,
yet you have not returned to me,”
declares the LORD.
12 “Therefore this is what I will do to you, Israel,
and because I will do this to you,
prepare to meet your God, O Israel.”

Big time accountability. There are dozens of examples like it. But does it end with the Old Testament?

Plagiarism and the love of God

I was struck by two news articles I read in this morning's paper that on the surface have little to do with each other, but given my present state of mind promoted some furious thinking.

The first ("Schools not yet minding Minister's cheating edict," National Post, Sept. 28/11, p. A1) bemoaned the fact that in Saskatchewan students caught cheating and plagiarizing had only to re-do the assignment, with no impact on the mark received.

[As a former university dean who dealt with student discipline issues, I can assure you that plagiarism and purchasing essays from paper mills are academic problems in far more places than just that prairie province. Amazingly, when they are caught in this particular act, students are very surprised that they are given an F for the paper, or in a few cases, for the course. They anticipate a little lecture from the kindly official, a slap on the wrist, and a chance to make it up in some progressive fashion. They found that they were dealing with the wrong dean.]

The second article ("Hardly draconian: A law professor takes readers through the government's omnibus criminal-justice bill," National Post, Sept. 28/11 p. A13) addresses, among other things, the lack of accountability for the perpetrators of serious crimes, particularly towards children.

Accountability for deliberate and serious wrongdoing is the common thread, of course. What this prompted in my mind was last Sunday's discussion at neXus on the doctrine of Hell. As those in attendance know, a local pastor and writer named Brad Jersak has written a book that attempts to show (pretty well, in my view) that the teaching regarding Hell is metaphoric and that it was never intended to indicate a literal place to which a large portion of the human race would be consigned for all eternity for their sins.

I enjoyed the discussion very much, and heartily recommend Jersak's book, Her Gates Will Never be Shut. It did leave me with a problem, however. Hell has always been seen as a means of accountability. Reject Christ--go to Hell. Too much sinning--broil for eternity. Consider the revivalist American preacher Jonathan Edwards:

The sight of Hell's torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever...Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell...I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss ("The Eternity of Hell Torments" (Sermon), April 1739 & Discourses on Various Important Subjects, 1738).

Or my former colleague at Regent College in Vancouver, J.I. Packer:

...love and pity for hell's occupants will not enter our hearts. "Hell's Final Enigma" in Christianity Today Magazine, April 22, 2002.

Strong stuff. But if we don't believe it (and I don't), what sort of accountability is left. Does everyone who, to use old-fashioned terminology, enters heaven start with a clean slate? John Wesley and Jim ("There is no Christian way of doing business.") Pattison? George Grant and George W. Bush? Mother Teresa and Tariq ("Mother of all battles") al-Aziz?

Once again I head out into forbidding terrain. I haven't got a clue what shape accountability takes, for members of God's kingdom, either in this life or in the one to come. I'll lay on my usual supply of pain killer (i.e., wine and Tylenol) while I plumb the depths of what is, for me, another mystery.

Wish me luck. Or drop by the wine store on my behalf. I'll be needing copious amounts of both.

Fallen from grace: Hint #4 The work of the Holy Spirit

It's been too long since I posted something on this big dilemma I'm dealing with--how can a person, who is secure in God's hand, fall from grace? This is hard enough to figure out in traditional Christian theology; i.e., why would a believer stop believing? But I find the issue even more puzzling because I hold to the "emergent" position that God's creatures are all part of his kingdom, whether or not they know it, unless they choose to abandon this favoured situation. How do you abandon God when you have never heard of him? Or don't believe in him? Or believe in someone or something else?

Perhaps we should look at what the Holy Spirit's "job" is. Is there a clue there? William Young's depiction of the Holy Spirit, or as Young calls her/him, Sarayu, offers some insight:

Both evil and darkness can only be understood in relation to Light and Good; they do not have any actual existence. I am Light and I am Good. I am Love and there is no darkness in me. Light and Good actually exist. So, removing yourself from me will plunge you into darkness. Declaring independence will result in evil because apart from me, you can only draw upon yourself. That is death because you have separated from me: Life (136).

But before I go any further on what the Spirit does 9 to 5 (and all the other hours), a brief mention of his name. Regrettably, the Third Person of the Trinity is not known by nifty titles as are the First and Second Persons.

In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word for Spirit is Ruwach meaning wind or breath. The wind, like the Spirit of God, is unseen and active in the world. In the Old Testament, He is referred to as the Spirit of God, or the Spirit of the Lord, My Spirit or just the Holy Spirit (e.g., Psalm 51:11, Isaiah 63:10,11).

In the New Testament, the Greek word for Spirit is Pneuma, which like the Hebrew is derived from the meaning of wind or breath. The Holy Spirit is also called the Comforter or Helper, translated from the Greek word Parakletos, meaning one who comes alongside to plead the case before the judge (John 14:16,26;15:26). He is also called the Spirit of Jesus (Phil. 1:19).

St. Paul speaks of the work of the Spirit in the loftiest terms in I Corinthians 2:10-11: But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God....no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

I take it, then, that to reject the Spirit is to cut oneself off from any possible knowledge of God, his character, will, love, grace, and mercy.

We don't have to ask God for knowledge about himself--the Spirit is happy to do that for us. But if we blaspheme (diminish or reject the role of) the Holy Spirit, we cut ourselves off entirely from God. This action is not unforgivable in the sense that God drops about nine pounds of mercy at this point and turns his back on a person. Rather, a person chooses to turn her/his back on God, making her/himself unforgivable, or as Young put it, plunging yourself into darkness.

I think the way I have expressed this is consistent with the traditional roles assigned to the Spirit of revealing, redeeming, indwelling, and transforming. If through revelation, creation, or conscience the Holy Spirit reveals the life that God wants to empower his creatures to lead, and some reject this revelation, we have blasphemed the Spirit and cut ourselves off from God in so doing. Presumably the Spirit will persist in attempting to turn the prodigal's face around toward the Light, but her/his respect for free will and human choice means that the one rejecting these attempts will eventually become so hardened that no further work of grace will be possible.

The unforgivable sin. The fall from grace. The end of life. Death. Tragedy. The broken heart of God.

Charity begins at home--apparently

Like everyone else, I was sad to see Jack Layton's life end at such a young age. His breakthrough in Quebec was very heartening. Sharon and I drove around the Gaspe peninsula this summer. It was new territory for us, and we thoroughly enjoyed its beauty and history. But what particularly struck me in this stretch of long-time Bloc country was the number of Canadian flags we say flying along with the expected fleurs-de-lis. I was thrilled to see them and express my gratitude for Layton's fine work in enfolding more Quebecois into this great country.

On the other hand, I was puzzled--in fact, distressed--at Layton's seemingly uncaring attitude towards the incredible repression of women and others in Afghanistan during the federal campaign and particularly during the leaders' debates. He mocked poor Michael Ignatieff for arguing that an on-going Canadian military presence was necessary in that desperately needy country in order for the job of rebuilding to go on.

Yet at the same time, he and his other party members argued vociferously on behalf of the Canadian postal workers who were planning a strike this past June. The filibuster that Layton orchestrated in the House of Commons lasted nearly 60 hours. At that time, the average starting wage of a postal worker was $23/hour. Canada Post had tabled an offer that included a wage increase, a defined benefit pension plan for both new and existing employees, up to seven weeks vacation, and job security.

While not taking any position on the collective bargaining dispute, I don't think there is anyone who would argue that the postal workers are hard done by--quite the opposite. But Layton's overwhelming support for them, in contrast to his apparent low regard for the needs of Afghan women, children, Shiites and non-Muslims struck me as very odd. If this is the NDP's view of social justice, I think that Attila the Hun has company on his side of the political spectrum.

Fallen from grace: Hint # 3 Turning from obedience to wickedness

You know the old expression about painting yourself into a corner. Well, I find myself with brush in hand, standing on tiptoe trying to keep my shoes clean. How did I ever allow myself to start speculating on theological questions as if I were any good at it? This to say that the notion of falling from grace didn't seem that tough until I actually started trying to figure it out.

It would be tempting to be a universalist at this point, if only to rid myself of these complex questions. But as I've posted elsewhere, you can have free will or you can have universalism, but you can't have both. It takes free will to jump out of Christ's hand. Nobody can pull you out from between his fingers (John 10:27-29). That decision is purely one's own.

And as we've seen, the New Testament warns us in various places that giving up one's place in the Kingdom of God is a live option. Consider, for instance, St. Paul's words (employing nautical terms of which he seemed to be fond):

Timothy, my son, I give you this instruction in keeping with the prophecies once made about you, so that by following them you may fight the good fight, holding on to faith and a good conscience. Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their faith. Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme (1 Timothy 1:18-20).

It seems, by the way, that Hymenaeus failed to learn his lesson, even with the protection of God removed:

2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 16 Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. 17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, 18 who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”

...must turn away from wickedness. The Apostle John obviously was thinking along similar lines as he wrote his first epistle:

1 John1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6 If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Paul and John are focusing on two things here:

1. Nobody is perfect. John matter-of-factly says that nobody can claim to be faultless, so walking in darkness isn't the same thing as falling short of perfection. Similarly, Paul tells Timothy to do his best in working for God. Clearly he wasn't expecting perfection either. Paul refers to his own failings in Romans 7:24-25 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!.

2. Perverting God's truth, rather than imperfect knowledge or occasional faltering obedience, is the big issue, especially when this action is compromising the beliefs and trust of other people. St. John is particularly graphic--if we contradict God's truth we are calling God a liar. This certainly reminds one of the sin of Lucifer--seeing himself as God's equal and able to take positions of his own that rival God's.

We keep coming back to the same themes as we explore the idea of sin finally going unpardoned: substituting one's own preferences for God's will as revealed in creation, Scripture, or conscience; thinking that these preferences (whether they be beliefs or actions) are genuine options that one would not only continue to pursue but to impress upon others to their detriment; and persisting in these illusions rather than heeding any advice or action to the contrary. Perhaps this is what it means to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

Fallen from grace: Hint #2 The unpardonable sin

How would this sound at the gospel tent meeting?: "Christ died for all your sins--except one!"

I'm not sure how that would go over with the people on site, but it appears at first blush that this is what the Bible teaches. Here are the relevant verses.

Matthew 12:31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mark 3:28 Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”

Luke 12:10 And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

Other passages that might be relevant.

Hebrews 6:4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

Hebrew 10:26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28 Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

Now compare these verses with the wonderful promise in 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

A few tentative conclusions:

a. What is in view in these passages is not a lapse into neglect of one's faith, or an indiscretion. My heavens, consider Simon the Sorcerer in the book of Acts chapter 8 who at first believed the apostles' message concerning Jesus, was baptized into the fledgling church, and then thought he could purchase the power of the Holy Spirit with his own money:

9 Now for some time a man named Simon had practiced sorcery in the city and amazed all the people of Samaria...11 They followed him because he had amazed them for a long time with his sorcery. 12 But when they believed Philip as he proclaimed the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Simon himself believed and was baptized. And he followed Philip everywhere, astonished by the great signs and miracles he saw.

14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”

24 Then Simon answered, “Pray to the Lord for me so that nothing you have said may happen to me.”

Simon was guilty of what one could say was a heinous crime--perverting God's grace by thinking that he could buy it with money. Peter made himself rather clear that Simon might consider disabusing himself of that notion. Despite such wickedness, Peter still held out hope that Simon could be forgiven (for free, Simon, for free) by God. Whether Simon ever did avail himself of God's grace is left unanswered, and certainly he became a symbol for wickedness in the centuries to come. Nevertheless, the clear indication is that he had not committed an unforgivable sin.

One can think of other Scriptural giants who were guilty of great wrong yet who still found forgiveness and acceptance by God. King David, for instance, was an adulterer and a murderer. Yet in Psalm 19 he wrote that the law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul (v. 7). In the beloved 23rd Psalm, it is God who restores his soul (v. 3). The Hebrew word for 'restore' means that a person, having strayed from a place, is now restored to that same place. In this case, the place is God's arms.

Other Scriptural passages appear to indicate that "falling away" from the faith is a live prospect; e.g., 1 Corinthians 10:11-12; Hebrews 2:1-3, 3:12-13. Why be warned about the dangers of abandoning or distorting one's faith if it is not possible? But as we see with Simon and David, in such situations God's pardon is still available.

b. Whatever this sin is (and it seems to me that it can't be one act of disobedience but some kind of settled state), its effect is to prevent the person in question from wanting forgiveness, or being able to ask for it. It seems to me as well, particularly from the Hebrews chapter 6 and 10 passages, that the person whose sin is unpardonable is one who should have known better because s/he had had some significant experience with the Holy Spirit. This would certainly apply to Lucifer (Satan) and his demons who had had first hand experience with the Triune God, but through overweening pride and a desire to be God's equal, had fallen and were assigned a permanent place in Hell (i.e., abandonment by God).

This gets harder and harder! Maybe the next thing to consider is the role of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps we shall yet be enlightened.
_______________________________________________________________

I can't finish this post without first drawing your attention to a song written by that great Canadian troubadour, Gord Lightfoot. One of his lesser-known songs, Rich Man's Spiritual, is a great modern rendition of Simon's sin. You can listen to it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfJONSE8Ze0.

Fallen from grace: Hint #1 The fall of Lucifer

I've raised the question, How does one fall from grace? I ask this both of Christians and those who have not heard of Christ. I don't know the answer yet, but I am considering various hints. Here's hoping that I can make sense of it. If you figure it out before I do, please send along a comment that will enlighten us all.

Hint number one, then, is to look at the fall of Lucifer in Luke 10:18 - v. 17 The seventy-two returned with joy and said, “Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.” 18 He replied, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. 19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. 20 However, do not rejoice that the spirits submit to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”

I won't go into the controversies regarding whether Satan and Lucifer are the same being, whether Satan was an angel, and so on. The disputes are interesting to read and think about, but the majority of commentators equate the two individuals. I note the following very interesting parallels between Satan and his fallen comrades, human beings, and even Jesus himself:

a. Satan was created as a perfect being, as were our common (if mythical) ancestors, Adam and Eve.

b. Beyond perfection, Satan was of such qualities that he is described with the identical term in Isaiah 14:12--'bright morning star' or 'daystar'--as is Jesus in Rev. 22:16. In Paradise Lost, John Milton writes that Satan was "brighter once amidst the host of Angels, than the sun amidst the stars."

c. Despite his exalted position, Lucifer still had a free will. In a metaphor utilizing the King of Tyre, Ezekiel 28 describes the reason for Satan's fall:
v. 11 The word of the LORD came to me: 12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says:
“‘You were the seal of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.
13 You were in Eden,
the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.
14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.
15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.
18 By your many sins and dishonest trade
you have desecrated your sanctuaries.
So I made a fire come out from you,
and it consumed you,
and I reduced you to ashes on the ground
in the sight of all who were watching.
19 All the nations who knew you
are appalled at you;
you have come to a horrible end
and will be no more.’”

The prophet Isaiah, in chapter 14, makes a similar comment about Lucifer's great power and beauty, and why he lost his status along with his place in God's kingdom:
12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.

It would appear then, that Satan and those that followed him fell because of an immense and corrupting pride accompanied by a desire to be exactly like God.

This is, of course, exactly the temptation dangled before Eve by this self-same fallen angel in Genesis 3:5 - v. 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’” 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5 “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

Two kinds of beings, then--angels and humans. Both fallen from grace for aspiring to be just like God. No gratitude for their immense privileges. No sense that what they had was an unmerited gift from God. In fact, such pride that they forgot that God was their creator and the source of all that was good and perfect in their lives.

Wikipedia (see Fallen Angel) notes that The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of "the fall of the angels" not in spatial terms but as a radical and irrevocable rejection of God and his reign by some angels who, though created as good beings, freely chose evil, their sin being unforgivable because of the irrevocable character of their choice, not because of any defect in the infinite divine mercy.

How does one become an un-Christian?

In my previous life as an Arminian Christian, and now as a somewhat Emergent one, I am still confronted with the same question: How could I fall from grace?

First, a definition of Arminian, in case you thought I meant Armenian. Arminianism was first propounded by a Dutch theologian named Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). He broke with the Calvinistic thought of his day in a number of respects, one being "perseverance"; i.e., that those who are believers in Christ will persevere in their faith until the end. Arminius taught that a believer could, in fact, lapse into apostasy, from which s/he could not be restored.

Arminianism, in a slightly altered form, was taught by the great John Wesley. He differed from Arminius in this important respect, however: he believed that one could be restored to faith after apostasy. That invaluable resource Wikipedia provides the following explanation:

Wesley fully accepted the Arminian view that genuine Christians could apostatize and lose their salvation, as his famous sermon "A Call to Backsliders" clearly demonstrates. Harper summarizes as follows: "the act of committing sin is not in itself ground for the loss of salvation...the loss of salvation is much more related to experiences that are profound and prolonged. Wesley sees two primary pathways that could result in a permanent fall from grace: unconfessed sin and the actual expression of apostasy." Wesley disagrees with Arminius, however, in maintaining that such apostasy was not final. When talking about those who have made "shipwreck" of their faith (1 Tim 1:19), Wesley claims that "not one, or a hundred only, but I am persuaded, several thousands...innumerable are the instances...of those who had fallen but now stand upright."

The difference between the Wesleyan view and the newer Emergent view is that Wesley was talking about professed Christians only. The Emergent view is that membership in the Kingdom of God is inherited by all of God's creatures (the human ones, that is) at birth. We have to go further than to say that a person who knowingly accepted Christ could knowingly give him up.

What giving up Christ's free gift of salvation means for those who have never heard of Christ is a different question altogether. But the answer escapes me as I write this. I'll try to figure it out in my usual "theology from the ground up" way. No successful results are guaranteed :).

I may have to convert to Judaism

In my associations with various faith-based institutions, there has been one constant--a statement (written or unwritten) of faith. As a professor at Trinity Western University, I had to sign one every year along with my contract and a statement defining what it meant to be a good little boy or girl. At the two other Christian post-secondary institutions which not so gainfully employed me, the statement was an important piece of the hiring process (and probably the firing process as well, though it never came to that). Other employers rooted in a faith tradition had worked out positions on what made their organization especially satisfying to God.

Naturally any veering off course required justification. That is when you discovered what was negotiable and what was not. Interestingly, there were instances when the non-negotiables could be more representative of ethnicity or tradition than of straightforward (or more often, not so straightforward) scriptural teaching. This could range from one's view of war to one's predilection for alcohol. I was against the former and for the latter, which worked in some instances but not others.

I used to wonder how the Christians of the first three hundred years after Christ managed, given that the Church had not yet come to consensus on the great creeds that have dominated theological discussion ever since. Not being sure whether the Spirit proceeded from just the Father, or from the Father and the Son, or whether there was a Holy Spirit at all; just when Jesus would return to earth and what shape it would be in when he arrived (and whether he would be packing heat); how to baptize properly; whether or not to take Bel and the Dragon seriously--my goodness, how did the faith spread so far, and why did so many Christians turn themselves into lion food for it, when they didn't have a statement of faith against which to check their daily decisions?

Having flirted with the idea of converting to Sikhism (because of their food and the open kitchens in their gurdwaras), and the Old Order Mennonite-ism of my sainted father-in-law (I love the horses), I'm now seriously considering becoming a Jew, and not just because they dominate world finance and own the recipe for curing all the world's ills (chicken soup).

No, it's because of a column I read in the July 23, 2011 publication of the National Post (p. A17) by Robert Fulford. Fulford, like myself a goy, was exploring the concept of the self-hating Jew. In his analysis, he makes reference to the Jewish way of doing theology:

Just about every educated Jew comes into fairly close contact with the Talmudic tradition, which consists mainly of vigorously phrased disputes about religion and daily life. In Jewish texts, controversy is not an event; it's everyone's daily bread. The Talmud began as a way of explaining the Torah, the Five Books of Moses in the Hebrew Bible, but it encouraged reasoned questions about every aspect of life. Articulate argument became the essence of Jewish thought. That made Jewish intellectual life exceptionally rigorous and helped Jews achieve spectacular success in literature, law and the sciences....Harold Rosenberg, the great American art critic, wrote that for thousands of year, Jews over-produced intellectuals in their study halls. Since he was one of them, he could hardly resent this fact but he set it down to explain why Jewish life is so frequently rent by controversy. It's the Jewish way.

How could one resist this approach? Imagine being able to debate and discuss matters of great moment without first putting your thoughts through the Calvinist grid, or sprinkling them with Anabaptist insight. Do you suppose Christianity could ever be that grown up?

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to write my next book: Chicken Soup for the Wallet.

eat pray footnote

My wife has been reading the bestselling eat pray love by Elizabeth Gilbert. I was glancing over her shoulder as she perused the book on our recent flight home from Moncton, New Brunswick (via Toronto, Winnipeg, and Calgary) and noticed the following quote from page 208:

In 1954, Pope Pius XI, of all people, sent some Vatican delegates on a trip to Libya with these written instructions: Do NOT think that you are going among Infidels. Muslims attain salvation, too. The ways of Providence are infinite.

Regrettably, Ms Gilbert does not provide a footnote citing her source for this fascinating quotation. I have searched high and low for anything like it and have come up empty.

Pope Pius XI was pope from 1929 to 1939. During that time, he took a pretty standard position on the potential for salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church:

If any man does not enter the Church, or if any man departs from it, he is far from the hope of life and salvation." - Mortalium Animos," PTC:873

If Pius made the alleged statement in 1954, he was speaking ex cathedra indeed!

Why I am a Christian

The famous philosopher, Bertrand Russell, once spoke on the subject Why I Am Not a Christian to the National Secular Society in London (http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html).

It is not a particularly strong or convincing lecture, in my view, but it had considerable impact at the time. Russell, like a good many others in the 1950s when he delivered the address, suffered from a poor understanding of biblical theology and a questionable hermeneutic.

I fear, however, that I won't be any better at explaining why it is best to become a Christian than Russell was at arguing why one shouldn't. My former colleague Dr. Paul Chamberlain has done some pretty good work in this regard. He has just published Why People Don't Believe: Confronting Seven Challenges to the Christian Faith, Baker Books 2011.

Another dear friend and former colleague, Dr. Phillip H. Wiebe, has written a number of intriguing books and articles relevant to the discussion of God's existence. I draw to your attention Visions of Jesus: direct encounters from the New Testament to today, Oxford University Press, 1997, and God and other spirits: intimations of transcendence in Christian experience, Oxford University Press, 2004.

But these gentlemen have doctorates in philosophy from first rate universities. I remind you again that I am but a humble business professor. So I can offer only a plain man's take on the subject that has divided scholars for centuries.

I'll leave the debates on the existence of some kind of supernatural Being to those better versed in the arguments. Suffice to say that the majority of Canadians are convinced of the reality of the Judeo-Christian God, a conviction we share, by and large, with people in North and South America, Europe, much of Africa other than the Islamic countries, and a good deal of Asia as well. Our monotheistic colleagues in Muslim countries worship a God who is similar in some ways to ours, but is very different in others.

What differentiates the Christian view of God from that of the Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and so on is that we believe in one God (or Godhead) in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Bertrand Russell refers to this unique feature of Christian theology in his definition of a Christian:

I think, however, that there are two different items which are quite essential to anybody calling himself a Christian. The first is one of a dogmatic nature -- namely, that you must believe in God and immortality. If you do not believe in those two things, I do not think that you can properly call yourself a Christian. Then, further than that, as the name implies, you must have some kind of belief about Christ. The Mohammedans, for instance, also believe in God and in immortality, and yet they would not call themselves Christians. I think you must have at the very lowest the belief that Christ was, if not divine, at least the best and wisest of men. If you are not going to believe that much about Christ, I do not think you have any right to call yourself a Christian.

I find the evidence and the arguments for the divinity of Christ to be overwhelming. Interestingly, I wouldn't believe in the Holy Spirit at all were it not for Jesus' own affirmation of his existence. I could easily understand the activities attributed to the Spirit to be those of the Father and the Son. Nevertheless, Jesus differentiates between himself, his Father, and this third figure, and I accept his word on it.

[In passing, I just want to say that William Young does a marvelous job in his controversial little book The Shack in depicting the Spirit in his mysterious but significant role.]

If the Christian understanding of God, his character, will, power, love, justice, creativity, tolerance, mercy, grace, and so on are correct, then those who ally themselves with him have the clearest understanding of how we should then live. We have the assurance that what we are doing makes sense, not just for us as individual believers and our families, but for society as a whole. We know to take advantage of God's power and his gifts. We see the impact of Christianity on the development of the liberal democracies of the west, giving us that further confidence that our faith is transformational in positive ways. The teaching of Scripture, understood aright, frees us from fear and confusion and opens up for us a confident window; no, door; in fact, a shining path upon which to tread (I don't mean this in any sense of a blueprint to follow). We are committed to social justice.

In addition, having placed ourselves in God's capable hands, we are far less likely to want to jump out of them and run the risk of forfeiting membership in the Kingdom of God. [That is not to say that people don't.] This is not the same thing as saying that the alternative to staying in those celestial hands is eternal punishment in a literal lake of fire. This was one of Dr. Russell's major objections to being a Christian--the necessity of believing in the traditional view of Hell:

Then you come to moral questions. There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person who is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching -- an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence.

But you know from earlier posts that this is not my understanding of the meaning of Hell. Nor do I believe that all non-Christians will end up in that horrible place.

For all of these reasons, I believe that the best thing that can happen to anyone is that they become a Christian. Obviously this does not rule out goodness, creativity, commitment to justice, etc. on the part of non-Christians. We are all made in the image of God. I simply believe that the life that Christ labeled as abundant is best realized through faith in him. While St. Paul warned us that presently we see through a glass darkly, we can experience the fullest expression of God that is available to humankind.

Why bother to become a Christian--whatever that is.

I have looked at what the Bible teaches about God's justice and God's love. This study has driven me to the conclusion that membership in the Kingdom of God is accorded to all human beings as the "default" position.

But I have also thought carefully about what the Bible says about human choice, and have concluded that such membership can be forfeited--and often is. God has given his creatures many wonderful gifts, but one terrifying one--free will. It's the only gift that can't be neglected, and comes with guaranteed results.

I also believe that Hell is a metaphor for finality. While being God's child ensures eternal life--life growing into fullness over unimaginable time--forfeiting one's privilege as a son or daughter of God brings eternal death--final and complete separation from God. God's justice was satisfied by Jesus' death. He doesn't need it to be further slaked via eternal torture.

Under these circumstances, why would anyone bother to become a Christian? Or evangelize? Before I tackle that question, I guess one should ask, "Just what is a Christian?"

I have come across an interesting site recently developed by a collection of people of various faiths, including Christian. It can be accessed at http://www.religioustolerance.org/. They make the following observations about the definition of 'Christian'.

This question assumes that there is one and only one correct definition of the term "Christian." However, depending upon your understanding of the nature of truth, many definitions may be "true" to various groups:

* To conservative Protestants, a Christian is often defined according to their salvation status. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with some of their foundational beliefs: that the Bible is inerrant, that salvation is by grace, and that one must be "born-again" to be saved and avoid eternal punishment in Hell.

* To Roman Catholics, a Christian is often defined according to their baptism status and the presence of any unresolved mortal sin in their lives. Their definition is "true" to them, because it agrees with their fundamental beliefs about the nature of sacraments, their understanding of the Bible, the declarations of many Church Councils, the statements of many popes, and their church's tradition.

* To many in the very early Christian movement, a Christian was defined as a person who was baptized and proclaimed "Jesus is Lord." Their definition was "true" to them because it agreed with their understanding of their religious belief at a time when the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) had not yet been written and assembled.

* And so on, with other faith groups.

Each group has their own definition of "Christian" that agrees with their own beliefs about the nature of Jesus, God, church tradition, written text, evolved theology, the cultures in which they are implanted, etc. There appears to be no way to compromise on a single definition that is acceptable to all.

I suppose they're right. I'm happy enough to use St. Paul's definition in Romans 10:9: If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Throw in the apostle James' definition of pure religion and that should do: James 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

So a Christian is one who identifies publicly with Jesus, accepts his sovereignty, and believes in his resurrection, practices social justice, and lives a life of virtue as biblically defined.

What would be the advantage of aligning oneself with this faith over being a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Wiccan, Sikh, or atheist for that matter?

That's next.