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.

The love of God is greater far...

Is there a more lovely old hymn than the one that George Beverly Shea sang so beautifully, The Love of God? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6_S20SccIY).

The love of God is greater far
Than tongue or pen can ever tell.
It goes beyond the highest star
And reaches to the lowest hell.

Chorus
Oh, love of God, how rich and pure,
How measureless and strong
It shall for evermore endure
The saints and angels song.

Could we with ink the ocean fill
Or were the skies of parchment made
Were ev'ry stalk on earth a quill
And every man a scribe by trade.
To write the love of God above
Would drain the ocean dry
Nor could the scroll contain the whole
Tho' stretched from sky to sky.

For a more contemporary version, you might enjoy listening to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzDLLSTR9yY&feature=related.

Passages such as the ones that follow come to mind as I think about the reality of those moving words:

1. 1 John 4:8 - Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.

2. 2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

3. Ezekiel 18:23 - Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

4. Ezekiel 18:32 - For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!

5. Micah 7:18 - Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy.

6. Jeremiah 9:24 - But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD.

7. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 - This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

8. John 3:17 - For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

9. Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.

10. 1 John 4:19 - We love because he first loved us.

11. John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.

11. John 15:12-13 - My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.

In an earlier post (Thursday, May 19, 2011 - This only makes sense if that does) I argued that biblical interpretation can be difficult at the best of times, particularly when various teachings on the same topic can appear to be contradictory. I used the example of the New Testament teaching on women.

My premise is that one has to determine what is eternal principle, and what is shorter-term accommodation for some greater good. Once God's lasting principles are clear, one can make far more sense of the apparent discrepancies.

In my various posts on the topic of biblical justice, I looked at three different kinds of justice (retributive, restorative, and distributive). My conclusion was that God's (retributive) justice was satisfied at the cross of Christ, and that his love in action (restorative and distributive justice) could be extended with integrity as a result. The abundance of references to God's love naturally follow from God's justice.

Now, if we were to accept that God arbitrarily chose in advance who would be saved and who wouldn't (Calvinism), or that God in reality extends his love for eternity only to those who heard of him and accepted him while on earth (evangelicalism), then the passages noted above are cruel, misleading, and nonsensical.

On the other hand, I also argued that universal reconciliation only makes sense if there are no consequences to choices we make on earth. But if God takes human free will seriously--and there is every indication he does--then human beings must live with the consequences of their choices (Tuesday, May 3, 2011 - Theology from the ground up).

All right. Perhaps we've dealt with the matter of God's justice and love allowing for Kingdom of God membership as the default position for the human race. But that still leaves us with questions regarding hell, repentance, and why bother becoming a Christian.

This is getting harder and harder for this layperson! I wish that I had the brilliant mind of my dear friend and former colleague Dr. Phillip Wiebe. He eats this stuff for breakfast.

But as dear old Henry V of England said, Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.

What I'm trying to say is...

I feel like such a plodder, but I'm taking my time for a reason. I've looked at biblical justice in its three forms--retributive, restorative, and distributive--and while my posts are far from exhaustive, I am satisfied that God's justice falls equally on all of God's creatures. Not just on the ones who know about him. Not just on the ones who understand what he prefers (I number myself among those who have not figured this out). Not just on the ones who love him. On all of them. Through God's grace, we all pass the justice test.

Jesus, in love, took on the full force of God's wrath at wrongdoing. We don't have to bear it because Jesus did (Father forgive them for they don't know what they're doing). He died not just for the sins of us Christians, but for the sins of the whole world.

God in Christ is now reconciling the whole world unto himself. He is not willing that any should perish (spiritually that is). God takes no pleasure in the death even of the wicked (Christ took on any displeasure in his death).

God has never reserved his mercy and protection just for "his" people, whether Israelites or Christians. He instructed the Old Testament Israelites to love the alien. He instructed New Testament Christians to love their neighbour (i.e., anyone in need), using one of the "out" crowd (the ostracized, hated, and theologically confused Samaritan) to instruct the "in" crowd of priest and levite.

Does all of this love in action stop at death? Does God then aim his wrath once again at the same creatures for whom Christ had previously made sufficient atonement? Does he, all of a sudden, lose interest in reconciliation and restoration? Does he withdraw the same protection that he commanded his people to provide? And all because we lucky few never got around to telling them about our faith? Despite the fact that we were explicitly commanded to go into all the world to preach the gospel--and didn't?

No, no, a thousand times no. I won't accept a just God suddenly abandoning his own justice. I am forced to conclude that on the basis of God's justice all of his creatures are under his wings unless they choose to fight their way out.

This to me is the fundamental premise behind God's justice. Other uses of the term have short-term implications. Of course God still hates wrongdoing, injustice, selfishness, gossip, exploitation. In justice he moves to intervene at times to stop it and to punish the perpetrators. This applies to all of his creatures as well. But God is evenhanded--or else he is not just.

Now what of love?

Old Testament example of distributive justice--the sojourner

As God established a nation (Israel) through whom all the nations of the world would be blessed (with the birth of Jesus), he made a distinctive worldview and lifestyle a top priority. History showed that whenever God's people mixed Yahweh worship with that of the religions of the surrounding peoples, and/or if they began to ape their morals and some of their behaviours, the nation would rot from within and invariably crumble.

Nevertheless, God's demands for religious and moral purity never incorporated any element of racism. As long as minimum standards were met, resident aliens (or sojourners to use the old fashioned term) enjoyed many of the same privileges as did the native Israelites. As a very small minority of people of other races in a nation of Jews, they were as vulnerable to every kind of exploitation and abuse as the Israelites themselves had been while under the control of other nations. But such racism was forbidden.

Here are a few examples from the oldest part of Hebrew history as recorded in the book of Deuteronomy. My source here is Racial Peace at http://racialpeace.org/.

These [sojourners] were free foreigners who either traveled through Israel or immigrated to live within Israel's borders. They were not slaves or prisoners of war, nor were they of Canaanite background. Also, they lived in compliance with many Israelite laws. They could not share in the Passover until all the males in the household were circumcised (Ex 12:48). Many short passages in Deuteronomy are concerned with the treatment of these aliens:

- judges must judge fairly between Israelites and aliens (Deut 1:16, Deut 27:19)
- aliens must observe the Sabbath (Deut 5:14)
- God loves the alien and provides for him (Deut 10:18-19)
- aliens share in the celebration of the Feasts of Weeks and Tabernacles (Deut 16:11-14)
- foreign workers must be treated fairly (Deut 24:14-18)
- aliens share in the harvest leftovers with widows and orphans (14:28-29, 24:19-22)
- aliens share in the tithe given to Levites and widows (Deut 26:11-13)
- if Israel rejects God, the aliens in her midst will prosper at Israel's expense (Deut 28:43-44)
- aliens enter into the covenant made with Israel and must attend the reading of the Law every seven years (Deut 29:11-12, Deut 31:10-13)

From these laws, it is clear that freeborn non-Israelites were treated very well. Equality before the courts, given a share in the harvest and the tithe, allowed to participate in Feast days -- this is not discrimination. But more than insisting on mere obedience to these laws, God required a heart attitude of the Israelites:

And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt (Deut 10:19).

Note that it was not obligatory on the part of these sojourners to convert to Yahwehism to be eligible for such just treatment. If they wanted to convert, that was most welcome, of course. But it was not necessary to be Jewish to receive the protection of God. His distributive justice extended to them regardless.

God is on the side of the poor

I believe it was Christian philosopher Arthur Holmes who described God's justice as 'love in action'. Obviously this is not a reference to retributive justice, but rather to the sort of justice that Jeremiah refers to in my last post. In fact, biblical commentators, in regarding the frequent reference to distributive justice throughout the Bible, have taken the position that God is particularly on the side of the poor, the vulnerable, the marginalized, those least able to defend themselves.

Of the dozens of examples that could be given, two will suffice, both prayers of women regarding their sons. Hannah, the mother of the great Old Testament prophet and leader Samuel, uttered this lovely prayer of dedication for her son when he went into the service of the Israelite high priest Eli:

1 Samuel 2

1Then Hannah prayed and said:
“My heart rejoices in the Lord;
in the Lord my horn is lifted high.
My mouth boasts over my enemies,
for I delight in your deliverance.

5Those who were full hire themselves out for food,
but those who were hungry hunger no more.
She who was barren has borne seven children,
but she who has had many sons pines away.

8He raises the poor from the dust
and lifts the needy from the ash heap;
he seats them with princes
and has them inherit a throne of honor.

This idea that God raises up the marginalized is a regular theme in the Old Testament, as we saw with Jeremiah, but carries on into the New, eloquently expressed in Mary's Song as she marvels that she bears the Lord's Christ in her womb.

Luke 1

46And Mary said:
“My soul glorifies the Lord
47and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
48for he has been mindful
of the humble state of his servant.
From now on all generations will call me blessed,
49for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.

52He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.

So important is the Christian responsibility to meet the needs of the poor that St. Paul said: If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8).

This is entirely consistent (as one would expect of Paul) with Jeremiah's declaration that championing the vulnerable was virtually the indication that one knew God. Remember that the work 'knew' was the Hebrew word that was used not for mere awareness but for intimate knowledge, such as: Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD” (Genesis 4:1).

One final important consideration. Retributive justice and restorative justice apply to all the world's inhabitants in biblical teaching.

1 John 2:1-2 - My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense--Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

2 Corinthians 5:19 - God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them.

But what of distributive justice? Was God's mercy for the most vulnerable limited to the Israelites of the Old Testament and the Christians in the New? Or is God's concern for the marginalized also universal?