Nov
23
2009
0

“Now You Know How It Feels For Me.”

Life's lessons are SO painful!

Life's lessons are SO painful!

Since I’m having so much trouble sleeping tonight because my mind won’t leave me alone, I figure I might as well do something, and since I haven’t written in a while, this will serve as an update on my life, as well.

As I have discussed recently, I’ve had the amazing privilege of being reunited with now two of my three daughters whom I was essentially coerced into giving up for adoption by the State of Michigan some 19 years ago. It’s been nothing less than miraculous, really, and more than I dared ever expect—even though that didn’t stop me from hoping and doing what I could to get my name out there on the chance they might want to find me someday.

Be that as it may, it hasn’t failed to provide its own surprises, as well as frustrations—one of which I talked about in the previous entry.

I found out, for example, that I am a grandpa five times over. I didn’t, I admit, see that coming. My oldest daughter, Brandi, has three children, and my second-oldest daughter, Danielle, has two children. Insofar as I know, my youngest daughter, Melinda—whom I have not had contact with as of this writing—does not have any children.

Strange new territory, this being a grandpa so suddenly! But I’m very happy about that (and who wouldn’t be, really?) and looking forward to watching them grow and mature.

But that isn’t the reason why I’m sitting here writing at 2am in the morning.

It’s the realization that I’m coming into their lives after so many things have happened that might have been averted.

I’m frustrated because I can’t help but feel that it is the curse of a parent to want a better life for your children than they seem to want for themselves. I want you to remember that, because I’m going to come back to it later on in this entry. But that’s later.

First, I want to elaborate on what I mean.

In getting reacquainted with my daughters after all of the years that I was forced to miss out on, I can’t stop myself from wanting to kick into what I’ve laughingly referred to when I’m with them as “Daddy Mode,” where the father in me kicks in and wants to set matters straight and get to the bottom of the mess as soon as possible. The catch is that I haven’t been a part of my daughters’ lives for 19 years. They’ve been raised by the adoptive family, and are a product of that environment—and environment that weighs as a heavy influence on their decision-making skills, morals, outlook on life, and even their view of themselves. I know that it’s unrealistic to think that I can come on the scene after all of that groundwork has been laid for them, and expect things to suddenly be able to shift direction. It doesn’t, however, stop me from wanting that to be how it goes.

So, it’s a learning process for me as I try to get acquainted with my long-lost daughters, encourage them where I can, help them where I can, and realize that they have their own lives that they are living. The way I explained it to them was “I’m not going to tell you what to do or how I want you to live your lives. But I will probably tell you how you should. I will offer advice, but it is your choice whether to follow the advice or do things your own way. Either way, I will never withhold my love from you.” I also told them, “I will not always agree with your decisions, but I will always be there for you and have your back.” To that, I added, “I do not expect you to jump through hoops with me in order to be approved by me. If I give to you, it is without strings attached, where I later hold it over your head.” But I also made one other thing clear to both of them: “I will do everything within my power to help you with whatever it is that you need; however, I will NOT carry you.” The way I explained it was that I won’t help them unless I see that they’re at least helping themselves.

And true to my word, I’ve been dropping fatherly advice into both of my daughters’ laps—sometimes delicately, sometimes plainly and bluntly. But it is SO hard to give advice and then let the matter rest, and watch them continue doing things the way they are used to or prefer. But the way I figure it, it’s their life, and they’re free to live it however they want to live it. The bottom line is that I’m going to continue to love that and endure whatever angst, frustration, and disappointment comes with that—as well as the bliss and memorable moments.

Years ago, someone asked me if I believe in unconditional love, if I thought there was such a thing. And typically, the answer would be no for most people. But I do believe in unconditional love, a love that is simply given—regardless of whether it is returned, acknowledged, or ignored outright. I know there is such a thing because I have children, because I have sons and daughters. But I also know there are parents who, unless their children live the life that the parents want them to live, or do things the way that the parents want them to do them, will withhold their love, or even stop interacting with them altogether, cutting them off from the family in some attempt at ultimate discipline. Perhaps they disapprove of the lifestyle, or the boyfriend/girlfriend, the career choice—whatever the reason or excuse they concoct to justify their simplistic, unloving approach to their own flesh and blood.

I’m certainly not going to say that unconditional love is easy. It’s not. In fact, it will often run counter to every fiber of our being—because we as parents naturally want our children to obey us and comply with us. Sometimes, it’s for the simple reason that we know where they’ll end up if they don’t follow our counsel or advice. But as much as we want to protect our children, to save them from cuts, scrapes and bruises brought on by life, we have to let them crawl, walk, and then fly. And when (not if, but when) they stumble and fall, we will be there to help them back up again. They need to know that. They MUST know that, and we have to be the ones to tell them. And any temptation to say “I told you so” or “Well, if you’d listened and did what I said to do…” needs to be stomped out of existence, plain and simple. It is pointless and just plain evil.

All of this, of course, is a sort of preface to what has been bothering me since recently.

There are two things, actually, so I’ll start with the first part, and then get down to business with the other part.

Both of my daughters are in what I will settle for calling predicaments of their own making. And the more I think about their predicaments, the more I want to go insane, because it is SO crazy to me. I’m at a complete loss what to do about it to help them. I’ve offered each of them advice, of course, and made recommendations, but they seem determined at this point to do things the way they prefer or are comfortable with. So, I am having to let the matter rest and let them see where their way takes them, and wait to see what happens next.

There are the predicaments, as I said, but there is also that “groundwork” that I referred to earlier, laid by the adoptive family. Then, of course, there are the obviously unresolved issues related to the whole family upheaval and subsequent adoption placement. Abandonment issues, emotional trauma (at least for the two oldest girls), insecurities—not even to mention them being told for the past 19 years that their daddy was a molestor and their mom was nearly as bad with issues of their own—a subject that I address in the previous blog with much frustration.

So, I completely understand that there are numerous factors in play here. It’s actually, at times, overwhelming how messed up everything is about this whole situation, and how it could have all been so different. But I try not to spend too much dwelling on that because it can’t be changed now—all that I have to work with is the here and the now, and potentially the future—IF I don’t screw this up by scaring them off with my “Daddy Mode.” Finding that balance is HARD, let me tell you!

Now, just recently, I was able to spend the day with both daughters that I have been reunited with at this point. It was, on the one hand, the most wonderful day for me since I can remember—and on the other hand, it had the most gut-wrenching, heartbreaking moments since I can remember.

I suppose a lot of it is due to the fact that the more I become acquainted with them, the more I am uncovering or discovering, and I am absolutely gutted to see just how broken they are. People who have spent any time with me online may be familiar with that expression because I’ve used it from time to time, where I’ve made the observation that everyone is broken—it’s just that some people are better at coping with it than other people are. Be that as it may, I’m not talking about other people, or everyone here: I’m talking about my daughters.

I want to make one thing absolutely clear here: I signed a piece of paper 19 years ago acknowledging that the court had the right to terminate my parental rights and subsequently adopt my girls to another family. I acknowleged that I was releasing all parental rights in that declaration. But in my heart and in my heart and in my soul, where the court could never reach or compel, I refused to stop thinking of myself as their father, and I refused to stop thinking of them as my daughters. They were taken—I did NOT give them or abandon them to the state. So, in every sense of the word, they never ceased being MY daughters, I don’t care what a piece of paper says or how I was coerced into signing that paper. And they will ALWAYS be my daughters!

And I suspect, as I become reacquainted with them, that I had made my fatherly impression on them to such an extent that they remembered my love for them in their very core, and that for their entire life they have had an insatiable void that they have tried to fill through lost, misdirected choices and relationships.

Be that as it may, I can do nothing except try to put the pieces back together, to try to repair the brokenness and heal and salve and bear the pain throughout the entire process.

What makes matters even more difficult is that they seem to be able to point out the faults of one another’s life choices and each other’s boyfriends—but they aren’t looking at their own lives and focusing on what THEY need to be doing with their own life. That, to me, is both crazy and frustrating. I’m torn between laughing hysterically and wanting to pull my hair out of my head! Worse still is that there are uncanny resemblances with BOTH of their situations that I won’t go into here—resemblances that I wish SO much they could see. But while they don’t like how the other one is living their life, they aren’t doing very much with their own life, either.

Which just goes back to what I was saying earlier in that they have that choice, and must make it for themselves. I can’t tell them how to live their life—I can only tell them how they should live their life.

But regardless, I love them both, and care for them beyond words. So, it hurts when I see them at each other. It hurts when I know where their choices may take them. And it hurts to let them have their choice. Love hurts, and at the same time, I would never want to stop loving them—even though I know the worst of the pain, heartache, and frustration is still ahead. But as bad as this gets, I want them to know that I am not going to step away from this. They can, but I will not. I will never stop being their father, or stop caring, or stop wanting nothing short of the best for them. Ever.

Which brings me to the final part of this blog, and the motivating factor that set things into motion.

To preface the final, closing point, I need to lay down a couple things to provide perspective.

The same day that I met Danielle, she had asked me if I could take her to her new boyfriend’s place. It was out of my way, and I told her as much. After a moment or so, I offered a compromise: ride back with me once I picked up her sister for laundry day at my house, and I’d swap vehicles and take her to her new boyfriend’s place. She agreed, and I picked up Brandi, and we headed back to Perry. After we got to my house, I of course, invited Danielle in and showed her around, introduced, and that sort of thing, and then we were on our way to meet her new boyfriend, outside his ex-girlfriend’s place, where Danielle said he had been staying for the past few days. I dropped her off, and headed back to Perry.

A short while later, I got a phone call from Danielle, asking me if I could take her home because she was hungry and hadn’t eaten, and her new boyfriend wasn’t ready to go home and would be staying behind. Of course, I said I would but that I’d bring her back home with me and feed her lunch and then take her home the same time I took her sister home. She said that was fine,  and was on my way to pick her up.

And then, as I was heading to the town to pick her up, my cell phone rang. It was Danielle. She said that Jeremy was wanting to go home with her now.

My stomach clenched. I didn’t know what to say. My first thought was that I’m being played, either by Danielle or by both of them—and I didn’t care who was playing me: I did NOT like it.

I finally bit my tongue and said okay, and let her go. The rest of the way there, I battled with myself, angry at feeling like I had been played. Should I take them home after I had already invited Danielle back to my house for dinner with everyone, or should I take them straight home like Danielle and said they wanted to do. What to do, what to do!?

And this voice came out of nowhere, reaching into the back of my frustration. “Now you know how it feels for me.

Now I’m not a churchy, religious, Bible-thumping Christian. But I am a believer and a man of faith. And I’ve had my fair share of moments in my life that could ONLY be explained through my belief in God. This had to be one such moment. There is no other explanation that fits. Now you know how it feels for me.

In that moment, I realized that it must suck to be God. To love your children unconditionally, and let them have their choices and have to deal with the consequences of those choices. And do you still remember what I told you to remember at the beginning of this blog entry?

It is the curse of a parent to want a better life for your children than they seem to want for themselves.

I had been brought into this because God was wanting me to learn something about him. What it’s really like to be a parent—the good, the bad, and the ugly. And then letting me decide: do I want to be the sort of parent that He is, or the sort that I think I should be? If I’m going to talk about unconditional love, then I’m going to be put to the test, sure enough!

And sure enough, in that moment, I was. And yet the choice was mine to make. Nobody was going to make me choose or tell me what to do.

Now you know how it feels for me, the voice told me as I drove. You want to know how it feels to be a parent? You want to talk about frustration? Anger? Disappointment? About your children not listening to what you’re trying to tell them? But you know what? I never stop loving my children. I never said it would be easy for you, and you can still walk away from this. I’d understand. But I don’t believe that you will, and I want you to know that you won’t be alone in the tears or the happiness. I’ll always be here for you.

I can’t say that even then I wanted to do what I felt in my heart I should do. But the Voice stayed with me the rest of the way to Williamston, and once Danielle was sitting in the seat next to me, I made my decision. I AM in this, no matter what. Heartbreak and all. I love my children too much to do anything else.

So, I brought them back home with me, to have dinner with the rest of us.

But I did take Danielle for a walk with me as soon as we got the house, to tell her my gut feeling that I had been played and that I did not like feeling that way. I also did my best to assure her that I care about her, because I do.

Was I played? I’ll never know for sure. She explained things from her side, of course. But even if I was, I made my choice, and I accepted the consequences for that choice by having her and her new boyfriend come back to the house for dinner.

Besides, the remainder of the visit and day went fairly good, and in time I forgot about that initial frustration because my appreciation and gratitude for having two of my daughters together in my home at the same time was joyous and reward enough for me. If I had listened to by frustration instead, I would have missed out on that.

I think the way I worded it in a Status update on Facebook was that I had enjoyed a day with two of my long-lost daughters, and while are a few crinkles, kinks, and wrinkles needing to be worked out, I am SO thankful and grateful to have these two beautiful, amazing women back in my life.

And I mean every word of it.

Oct
23
2009
0

Do the scriptures identify Jesus as Michael the archangel? (Part 2)

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

Is Jesus also Michael the archangel?

This was my response to someone who had raised the topic back in the Pathways-Online days, and the original topic can be found here. I recently posted this on a site (Hourglass2 Outpost) that I occasionally post at, thinking that it would be nice to here what thoughts others might have on the subject, some 6 1/2 years later… and to expand on my own understanding.

What follows then, in a 5-part series, is not only the 6 1/2 year old post, but my response to someone who asked me to comment on their own observations. I hope that it at least provokes further discussion on the topic.

Follow-up Post #1

A well thought out conclusion. Each person needs to make sure on their own, of course.

Please also consider a scripture you didn’t include:
Daniel 10:21, DRC, “But I will tell thee what is set down in the scripture of truth: and none is my helper in all these things, but Michael your prince; [/b]“

If you have the time, please look at my conclusions here:

http://bythebible.page.tl/Jesus-h–Prehuman-Existence.htm

If you still believe your prior conclusion, I would be happy to be informed as to why. I like to see if I am wrong. ha ha

Christian greetings, ‘Fuzzy,’

Thank you for your response and the invitation to review your own observations. What follows are my responses to the link you provided, and my reasons for those responses. They are given in the spirit of exchange only, and are not to be taken as dogma.

For the sake of my tendency toward longwindedness, I will respond in segments, to allow for focused responses as well, and to make it easier for others to follow the discussion.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Notes: Your original material will be colored in blue to avoid confusion later on.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

A. We know from 1 Thess 4:16 that Christ is an archangel.

(Webster) “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.”

It is easy enough to equate Jesus with the archangel spoken of in this scripture, I admit. For centuries, Christendom has insisted that this scripture proves that Jesus is Michael.

However, here are the problems for me:

First, we can establish that “the Lord” referred to here is Jesus because we can cross-reference the scene of Jesus descending from heaven with that described at Acts 1:11, where we read:

“This Jesus who was received up from YOU into the sky will come thus in the same manner as YOU have beheld him going into the sky.” (NWT, et al)

What, then, of the usage of the terms “with a shout,” “with the voice of an archangel,” and “with the trumpet of God”?

Traditionally, Christendom holds the view of Jesus blowing a trumpet, etc. This imagery can be seen going back across the centuries in church artwork, for example. As a result, when we read the scripture today, because we have been descendants of this long-held notion, we automatically infer that Jesus himself descends while shouting, while speaking as an archangel, while sounding the trumpet of God.

But is this really the image that the Bible writer is trying to convey? Even in our modern times, a person of noteworthy recognition is announced by someone else, either before they enter a room, or as they are are entering a room. Take, for example, a judge in a courtroom. The bailiff or other assigned individual will usually say the words, “All rise for Judge So-and-So,” and everyone on the courtroom rises from their seats. In the United States, when the President enters the room, it is announced authoritatively, and everyone comes to attention. And this has been the case for centuries. In our contemporary lives, in other words, we do not hear a judge announcing himself as he enters his courtroom. We do not hear the President announce himself as he enters the press room or whatever ever surroundings he is arriving upon.

And yet, when it comes to the arrival or entrance of Jesus in full glory, we conjure up that very image. He is announcing his own arrival. Tooting his own horn, as the expression goes.

That is why I am more and more convinced that when Jesus arrives as described at 1 Thessalonians 4:16, that he does so with the pronouncement of an archangel, or, the “voice of an archangel” as it is written. Not to put too fine a point on it, but an archangel acts as bailiff or dignitary to make sure that the audience for the arrival of this very important persona is brought to a proper and rightful state of attention and respect. Just the use of the term “archangel” denotes a high-stationed persona of the heavenly realm, much like “Secretary of State” denotes a high-stationed person in our contemporary times and government hierarchy. In Revelation, this particular angel is referred to as the seventh angel (Revelation 10:7) who is to sound a trumpet. How appropriate that the climax of the outworking of God’s redemption of Humankind be announced by proclamation and trumpet by an archangel!

Another difficulty we face as we try to understand this scripture is the absence of what we refer to as “indefinite articles” such as “a,” “an,” and “the.” Bible translations vary on usage of “the” and “an” in this scripture, probably depending on their interpretational leanings. Even so, my explanation above eliminates the indefinite article difficulty, I believe. Still, I need to also share my observations in regard to the station of “archangel” and whether there is one, many archangels, etc. That will need to wait until a separate segment in this discussion, I’m afraid.

What, then, of the use of the term “with the trumpet of God”? As many may already be aware, the sounding of a trumpet in the Bible preceded a period of judgment, the arrival of a royal dignitary, a battle, or any other significant event that required the arousal of a people to attention. In this case, we’re not talking about just some watchman’s sounding of a trumpet–no, this time it is the trumpet of God Himself being sounded.

It may also bear relevance that the Bible writer’s use of “the trumpet of God” in precedent to their noting that the “dead in Christ shall rise first” is intended to bring to mind what Jesus is recorded as saying at Matthew 24:30-31:

…they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity. (NWT)

The phrase “dead in Christ shall rise” is without question (at least in my mind) a part of the this “gathering” of Jesus’ “chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity” and the use of a trumpet to announce that event seems further verification that we are talking about the same event in both scriptures.

There is much to be noted on the Bible’s use of a trumpet within worship and other activity, but for the sake of brevity, I think it bears worthy consideration that at Numbers 29:1, we read:

“‘And in the seventh month, on the first of the month, YOU should hold a holy convention. No sort of laborious work must YOU do. It should prove to be a day of the trumpet blast for YOU. (NWT)

Why this particular passage? Because there seems little reason to doubt that the event described at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 comes at the end of the preaching work that Christians have been assigned. Their labors will have come to their completion. The idea of a “holy convention” surely conjures up the imagery set forth in the rising of the “dead in Christ” and the gathering together of the “chosen ones,” does it not?

Additional points of interest regarding trumpets and their usage in the Bible:

Numbers 10:2,4: 2 “Make for yourself two trumpets of silver. You will make them of hammered work, and they must be at your service for convening the assembly and for breaking up the camps… And if they should blow on just one, the chieftains as heads of the thousands of Israel must also keep their appointment with you. (NWT) [See also: Numbers 10:7-8; Numbers 10:10

1 Corinthians 15:52: Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (NWT)

Revelation 4:1: After these things I saw, and, look! an opened door in heaven, and the first voice that I heard was as of a trumpet, speaking with me, saying: “Come on up here, and I shall show you the things that must take place.” (NWT)

Revelation 10:7: …but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to blow his trumpet, the sacred secret of God according to the good news which he declared to his own slaves the prophets is indeed brought to a finish. (NWT) [See also: Revelation 11:15]

More to follow in regards to the rest of your article…

Submitted for your perusal and consideration,
A brother in Christ, Timothy

Written by Timothy Kline in: Christianity | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Jun
21
2009
0

Does Your Religion Matter? (Part 2)

With so many different churches to choose from, what should you do?

With so many different churches to choose from, what should you do?

In Part One of this series, I started by discussing why there are so many churches today and how one might go about determining which is the right church for them. In Part Two, I will explore the meatier aspects of this sometimes daunting problem, addressing what God thinks of all these different Christian groups, all teaching from the same Bible. I will also be examining the purpose of the church and the role it is supposed to have in our lives.

What does God think of all these different Christian groups?

At the end of Part One, I asked the questions, “Well, what’s God’s view on this? Doesn’t it matter to Him what a church teaches while it’s claiming to be Christian?” In Part One, I spent most of the time approaching the debate from a human point of view, since that is how the vast majority of believers decide which church they will attend. For that majority, this works for them and they are quite satisfied with the results.

For some, however, it isn’t enough to view a church or religion as a social event. And it is to those individuals that this second part of the article is written.

Surely we care what God thinks about all of these different churches all claiming to be Christian, all claiming to be teaching and preaching from the Bible, all claiming to worship God and to accept Jesus as Savior. For us, it is not enough to simply pick and choose the most amenable church to our preferences.

But before we can figure out God’s view, we have to first discuss some things in relation to churches.

The first is this: to some, a church is a building that you go to in order to worship. People differentiate between what you get to do while not at church in comparison to the façade you must put on (your Sunday’s best) when you go to church. For some, it’s a social network wherein you can gain renown and prestige in your community, either through your donations or your activities within the church. For others, it’s just something that the family has always done; you were raised as a child to go to church, and now that you’re grown you are continuing that tradition with your own children. Some groups refer to their building as a church, a temple, a hall, a Kingdom Hall, a synagogue, or any number of similar terms. This group of Christians I shall refer to as the “Go to church” group.

Another point I would like to make is that throughout this series thus far (including Part One), I refer to selecting a “church.” However, some find the word “church” distasteful, with it conjuring up images of “Christendom” buildings filled with idols, crosses, and other religious paraphernalia. If that is your situation, then you can simply substitute “church” with “place of worship” if it makes it more palatable for you. Keep in mind that I will also be shifting gears from “church” being a place you go, to “church” being something you are a part of. At that point, I will be referring to the congregation, rather than “church,” for reasons which will become evident as we move forward in this discussion. It is also important that you have your own Bible handy, as we will be looking at numerous passages throughout the remainder of this discussion, and although I will often cite a passage in the article, it is important that you read it in your own Bible and familiarize yourself with both the setting and context.

Without further ado, then, let’s begin by first determining what the church is.

What is the Church?

We’ve already touched on the understanding that countless Christians have that “church” is a place that you go to, usually on Sundays and Wednesdays and certain “holy” days like Christmas and Easter. We won’t, therefore, need to say more on that limited understanding, and will instead move past it for the remainder of this article.

The Bible speaks about how God took out a people for His Name during the period covered by the Hebrew Scriptures, also known as the “Old Testament.” He entered into a covenantal relationship with the nation of Israel, who were descended from the patriarchs of old: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Provided that the nation of Israel remained faithful to that covenant, they would remain God’s representative nation upon earth. They would also be the privileged people through whom would be born the savior of all humankind, who would in due course restore Humankind to the close, intimate relationship that was originally enjoyed by Adam and Eve before their Fall.

As every student of the Bible knows, the nation of Israel failed miserably on numerous accounts to live up to their side of the covenant, resulting in defeat at the hands of various empires down through history. Their rejection of the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ, brought the harshest judgment of reprimand from Jehovah, as the Roman empire utterly destroyed Jerusalem, Israel’s most holy of cities. It would not be until our day that Israel would again find statehood as an individual, recognized nation, and even now that statehood is beset with angst and embittered rivalries with neighboring nations—a far cry from the pinnacle of Israel’s greatness during the days of David and Solomon. It is important to note that today’s statehood of Israel was wrought from the hands of political powers, and not by the hands of God himself.

The Bible relates how, because of the nation of Israel’s rejection of their promised Messiah, God established a period of rebuke for Israel that would continue until the fullness of the people of the nations (Greeks, Gentiles) has come in. [See Romans 11:1-32]

The question to be asked here is “come into where”? If the nation of Israel was God’s unique, covenanted people, and He placed them into a state of rebuke which, by our human reckoning, makes it appear as though He has rejected them, then the Bible writer must be referring to something else. Again we must turn to the letter to the Romans for clarification:

. . .namely, us, whom he called not only from among Jews but also from among nations, [what of it]? It is as he says also in Ho·se′a: “Those not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved ‘beloved’; and in the place where it was said to them, ‘YOU are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” (Romans 9:24-26)

Here we begin to see the plan that God has to form a covenanted relationship with a new group of people, one from every walk of life rather than strictly Israel itself. This in itself would have proven a difficult fact for the nation of Israel to accept, having been God’s exclusive people for millennia—but God had a greater intent that He was putting into action. It would not be a nation borne of familial ties, as it had been for generations through the nation of natural Israel.

Paul elaborates on how it is that this new people would become sons of the living God when he writes in his letter to the Ephesians:

In other generations this [secret] was not made known to the sons of men as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by spirit, namely, that people of the nations should be joint heirs and fellow members of the body and partakers with us of the promise in union with Christ Jesus through the good news. (Ephesians 3:5-6)

The common factor here would no longer be a matter of simply being born a Jew, but now a matter of one’s responsiveness to the good news—thus opening the way for every person in every nation to potentially become a part of God’s new nation.

This is further certified by 1 Peter:

. . .It is to YOU, therefore, that he is precious, because YOU are believers; but to those not believing, “the identical stone that the builders rejected has become [the] head of [the] corner,” and “a stone of stumbling and a rock-mass of offense.” These are stumbling because they are disobedient to the word. To this very end they were also appointed. But YOU are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for special possession, that YOU should declare abroad the excellencies” of the one that called YOU out of darkness into his wonderful light. For YOU were once not a people, but are now God’s people; YOU were those who had not been shown mercy, but are now those who have been shown mercy. (1 Peter 2:7-10)

The “cornerstone” referred to here is Jesus, who became the founding stone for a new temple, not built by mere mortal hands and will, but a living temple unlike anything before imagined.

Notice how Paul describes this new creation:

. . .Do YOU not know that YOU people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of God dwells in YOU? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] YOU people are. (1 Corinthians 3:16-17)

. . .For we are a temple of a living God; just as God said: “I shall reside among them and walk among [them], and I shall be their God, and they will be my people.” …  “‘And I shall be a father to YOU, and YOU will be sons and daughters to me,’ says Jehovah the Almighty.” (2 Corinthians 6:16, 18)

Remember how we referred to the “Go to church” Christians earlier? These really misunderstand just what powerful, awe-inspiring work God is building, and as a result they are missing out on a wonderful truth. You don’t go to church: you become the church.

For the nation of Israel, Jerusalem was their holiest of cities. It was there that the Temple was built and maintained. It was where you could go if you wanted to be nearest to Jehovah. Yet the time was fast approaching in those days that the Temple would be razed to the ground, its function fully realized and fulfilled. No more would people need a Temple in order to worship God—something far better was coming.

Jesus touched on this in a conversation he had with a Samaritan woman:

“Believe me, woman, The hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will YOU people worship the Father.” (John 4:21)

In simple terms, one would no longer need to go to a place of worship—instead, as Paul wrote, you would become a living temple of worship. You. And rather than dwelling in a temple made of human hands, God’s holy spirit would dwell within you as that temple.

Even so, although we become living temples of the Most High God, we are not isolated from other believers. Together, we compose a new nation, a body composed of members with particular gifts and purposes—just like our own natural body’s members has their own particular purposes and funtions.

. . .we are members of his body. (Ephesians 5:30)

. . .One body there is, and one spirit, even as YOU were called in the one hope to which YOU were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all [persons], who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

For just as the body is one but has many members, and all the members of that body, although being many, are one body, so also is the Christ. For truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink one spirit. For the body, indeed, is not one member, but many. If the foot should say: “Because I am not a hand, I am no part of the body,” it is not for this reason no part of the body. And if the ear should say: “Because I am not an eye, I am no part of the body,” it is not for this reason no part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the [sense of] hearing be? If it were all hearing, where would the smelling be? But now God has set the members in the body, each one of them, just as he pleased. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now they are many members, yet one body. The eye cannot say to the hand: “I have no need of you”; or, again, the head [cannot say] to the feet: “I have no need of YOU.” But much rather is it the case that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary, and the parts of the body which we think to be less honorable, these we surround with more abundant honor, and so our unseemly parts have the more abundant comeliness, whereas our comely parts do not need anything. Nevertheless, God compounded the body, giving honor more abundant to the part which had a lack, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its members should have the same care for one another. And if one member suffers, all the other members suffer with it; or if a member is glorified, all the other members rejoice with it. Now YOU are Christ’s body, and members individually. And God has set the respective ones in the congregation, first, apostles; second, prophets; third, teachers; then powerful works; then gifts of healings; helpful services, abilities to direct, different tongues. Not all are apostles, are they? Not all are prophets, are they? Not all are teachers, are they? Not all perform powerful works, do they? Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they? Not all are translators, are they? (1 Corinthians 12:12-30)

. . .And he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers, with a view to the readjustment of the holy ones, for ministerial work, for the building up of the body of the Christ, until we all attain to the oneness in the faith and in the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ; in order that we should no longer be babes, tossed about as by waves and carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error. But speaking the truth, let us by love grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ. From him all the body, by being harmoniously joined together and being made to cooperate through every joint that gives what is needed, according to the functioning of each respective member in due measure, makes for the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love. (Ephesians 4:11-16)

It starts to become clear that what we’re talking about is not a building in the typical sense, as in a structure built by human hands. Rather, we are talking about the Christian congregation as being the body of believers. It is and has always been all-inclusive of all Christians.

Let’s focus on that for a moment before we go on with the discussion.

Every one of us is or was a part of a natural family composed of parents and siblings. An extended family as well: aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, in-laws, and further extending beyond that in some cases to great-aunts, great-uncles, great-grandparents, and on the list goes.

But returning to the immediate family, let’s look at things in this way. If you are an only child, you still have your father and mother, of course. Professionals refer to this as the nuclear family. It’s a core familial relationship.

However, if, later on, your parents have another child, you are still their child. The only thing that has changed is that you now have a brother or sister. That brother or sister is going to have a different personality from you, different preferences, different viewpoints. Even so, these differences do not change the fact that you are siblings. One of you might “take after” your father, the other might “take after” your mother. Or, there may be some combination of the two.

Regardless, you are still part of the same family. And, in time, you, too, will go on to have your own family, with your own children. For the sake of this part of our discussion, though, suffice it to say that the family constitutes a body.

Applying that principle, then, to Christianity, here is what we find: Christianity was born of Judaism. That is to say that the first Christians were Jewish Christians. In time, Christianity reached out to Gentiles, who became Gentile or Greek Christians.

Like our nuclear natural family, the child that was at first the only child was the body of believers known as Jewish Christians. Then, a second child came along—a second body of believers known as Gentile or Greek Christians. While on the one hand they together constituted the family of Christianity, and thus were of that single body of faith, each had their own individual personality, so to speak, and their own preferences and tastes, just as human children tend to have. And, just like natural human children, the siblings had their spats and disagreements, much of which can be found in Paul’s writings.

Be that as it may, there was one consistent reality still in place at this stage in Christianity: Jesus was the head of the body of believers, that is, the Christian congregation.

. . .he [Jesus] is the head of the body, the congregation. . . . (Colossians 1:18)

Sidepoint: The Usurpation of Jesus as Head of the Congregation

As Christianity expanded, it became a perplexing problem for the apostles as they saw certain men enter into the body of believers, seeking authority for themselves and taking power where they could.

. . .However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively. Also, with covetousness they will exploit YOU with counterfeit words. . . . (2 Peter 2:1-3)

For a time, the apostles acted as a restraint, but this would only last until the last of the apostles went to rest in death. It is important for us to note that even in the first century, this was taking place; it would only get worse. As noted in the first part of this series, this became especially evident in the development of neo-orthodoxy in the later part of Common Era 1, but more so moving into the second century.

These men claimed to be staunch defenders of truth, claimed to treasure and attempt to preserve the good news. They spared no effort to stamp out anything that did not meet their “orthodox” view. All the while, they solidified their stranglehold on the Christian body.

Authority was shifted as a result. No longer was Jesus the head of the body: men had insidiously worked their way into that position. Jesus took on a figurehead-like role that lended these men their authority over the body of Christians—supposedly appointing them to ensure the preservation of Truth as determined by these men.

One need only grab any encyclopedia or Bible history reference to see what extent these men were willing to go to in order to secure and preserve their position of authority. In the course of this period of Christianity, these men also seen to it that the Bible was taken out of the reach of the congregation—claiming that only the Christian leadership could properly be entrusted with the preservation of Bible truth and dissemination of Christian teachings. Anyone who tried to obtain the Bible or disagreed with these Christian leaders would be punished to the utmost severity, even so far as to be put to death.

The above is mentioned only because today, there continues to be Christian groups that practice the same authoritarianism under the claim of having been appointed by God or Jesus over the congregation. They stand in Jesus’ stead as head of the Christian congregation, claiming that really Jesus is still the head—but proving false to that claim by their exercise of secured power and authority over the Christian congregation.

If you encounter such a group, you can be assured that your personal relationship with God will be impacted accordingly as you come to realize that the men in authority act as mediator between you and your Heavenly Father. You will be convinced that your righteousness will be directly proportionate to the extent you submit to their authority and their Biblical interpretations.

Can all these groups really all be Christian?

One question that might be asked is how it is possible that all of these countless groups claiming to be Christian while teaching different things about the Bible can really all be Christian.

Thus far, we’ve established just what the Christian congregation is: It is the body of believers that compose the family of Christianity, whom, individually, constitute temples of God in which Jehovah’s holy spirit dwells and bears witness that they are indeed children of God. At the head of that body is Jesus, ideally—although we’ve also touched on the propensity for men to intrude into that relationship, basically usurping Jesus’ position as head of the Christian congregation and assigning that role to themselves. Not that this changes the reality that Jesus is the head of the Christian congregation from God’s own point-of-view—but it certainly drives a wedge between God and His people as these would-be leaders act as intercessors and mediators between the congregation and God.

Humans are, for all intents and purposes, members of the same family: Human. This is irregardless of their nationality, skin color, sex, or ethnicity. However, as simple as that fact is, nearly every war ever waged is over the differences between humans that cause one group of humans to consider another group of humans lesser than the former. We still cannot get to the point where we accept the blunt, simple reality that we are all brothers and sisters—every one of us.

That being the case, should we expect that this happens within the Christian body of believers? Ideally, yes, we should. And for some measure, it is achieved. But sectarianism is a strong force that continues to wield a powerful influence within Christianity. Lines of doctrinal demarcation run deep between bodies of believers. And these differences are just as real among Christian groups as skin color, the shape of one’s nose, the angle of their eyes.

Yes, in spite of great strides in acceptance within Christianity, there is still much work left to do if we are to achieve the ideal.

For some groups, it is impossible to view any other group of believers as Christians—because they themselves believe that they alone “have the truth,” which implies that everyone else doesn’t. If, they reason, that proves that they alone are true Christians, then by extension that means that any other group that calls itself Christian is false.

This mode of thinking requires that the particular group redefines the Christian congregation or body of believers to mean their group exclusively. This, in contrast to the apostles’ writings which say that all believers constitute the body of Christ, with Jesus as its head. These xenophobic groups reason that this only applies to those who hold to the exact same views as their own (after all, they have the truth).

Can Christian groups believe differently from other Christian groups and retain their Christianity, though?

As was discussed in Part One, every single Christian group holds to an identical core set of beliefs. It is only when we get into the secondary and tertiary beliefs of any given group that we start seeing diversity. This is where sectarianism enters into the picture.

Sectarianism was not new to Christianity, as much as this might surprise the reader. Judaism had its own sects, the foremost being the Pharisees. Earlier, I explained that a sect constituted a group of individuals who held to a different opinion and used that difference of opinion to determine who was truly a Christian and who wasn’t, who really believed and had the truth, and who didn’t.

Even in Paul’s day, he could identify sectarianism, and he had something noteworthy to say about it:

. . .when YOU come together in a congregation, I hear divisions exist among YOU; and in some measure I believe it. For there must also be sects among YOU, that the persons approved may also become manifest among YOU. (1 Corinthians 11:18-19)

This is noteworthy because Paul says that there must be sects among Christians, and that they serve a purpose: “…that the persons approved may also become manifest among you.”

What purpose could sectarianism serve? Well, first, it is not the ideal—but it is the inevitable outgrowth of human involvement in anything.

With that in mind, sectarianism provided others with proof of two things in particular. The first was proof that malicious men were entering into the Christian congregation, seeking control and authority and power. They enticed others with their message, gained a following, and when they had gained as many followers as they could, they divided the body of Christ to suit their purposes, establishing their own sect(ion) of Christianity.

. . .their word will spread like gangrene. Hy·me·nae′us and Phi·le′tus are of that number. These very [men] have deviated from the truth, saying that the resurrection has already occurred; and they are subverting the faith of some. . . . (2 Timothy 2:17-19)

In so doing, they manifest their own wickedness and betrayal of the body of Christ by stealing away that which rightfully belongs to Jesus alone.

. . ., there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among YOU. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, . . . (2 Peter 2:1)

But it also serves as proof the mindset of certain believers, as well. Paul, in his letter to Timothy, noted that the time would come when:

. . .they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. (2 Timothy 4:3-4)

Even today, there can be little question that there are Christians who seek out a congregation that will allow them to live as they so choose, with minimal intrusion. Various Christian groups are upholding, as one example, homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Others make no issue over congregants smoking or partying in worldly manner—hoping to appear tolerant and therefore gain popularity.

But are such groups really Christian? One need only to go to the pastoral letters found in the Christian Greek Scriptures to see similar things going on—and never was it declared that they were unChristian. In fact, it was precisely because they were Christian that they were put on notice and called to account by the various apostles. If they continued in their shameful way, they would be brought to judgment by God Himself. [See the letters to the seven congregations, in Revelation for more on this.]

The nation of Israel, in spite of its numerous acts of unfaithfulness and apostasy, never stopped being Israel, God’s exclusive people—right up until the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE. The same applies to Christianity. Still, they are put on notice that God’s patience is not endless, and the day will come when each and every Christian group will be called to account for what happened in its midst, what it taught, and what it did with what it knew.

This last statement deserves some elaboration.

Sidepoint: Then are you saying it doesn’t matter what a Christian group teaches, that anyone can teach anything they want and still be considered Christian?

As already mentioned, it does matter what a particular group of believers teach and allow. This does not, however, take away their standing as Christians. What it does do is bring them into potential judgment by God. As I pointed out earlier, in order to be Christian, one adopts and holds to a core set of beliefs held in common by all Christian groups today. I am talking specifically about these core beliefs only. If a particular group does not share one of those core beliefs, they cannot be defined as Christian, simple as that—and very likely, they won’t even claim to be anyhow.

Having said that, one’s knowledge of the Bible will never be a reliable indicator as to one’s Christianity. The world has a saying: Even Satan could quote scripture. We would never claim that just because Satan could quote scripture, and evidently was very well acquainted with the Bible, that he was a true Christian. And yet there are groups who point to the amount that a person knows the Bible, the better the Christian they are. Groups that similar insist that they alone “have the truth” do not necessarily have anything to back it up.

Notice these words from Jesus:

. . .that slave that understood the will of his master but did not get ready or do in line with his will will be beaten with many strokes. But the one that did not understand and so did things deserving of strokes will be beaten with few. Indeed, everyone to whom much was given, much will be demanded of him; and the one whom people put in charge of much, they will demand more than usual of him. (Luke 12:47-48) [Compare James 3:1]

Emphasis seems to be more on what you do with what you know than on what you know itself. This can be confirmed from other passages:

. . .Therefore, if one knows how to do what is right and yet does not do it, it is a sin for him. (James 4:17)

“For it is just as when a man, about to travel abroad, summoned slaves of his and committed to them his belongings. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, to still another one, to each one according to his own ability, and he went abroad. Immediately the one that received the five talents went his way and did business with them and gained five more. In the same way the one that received the two gained two more. But the one that received just one went off, and dug in the ground and hid the silver money of his master. “After a long time the master of those slaves came and settled accounts with them. So the one that had received five talents came forward and brought five additional talents, saying, ‘Master, you committed five talents to me; see, I gained five talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ Next the one that had received the two talents came forward and said, ‘Master, you committed to me two talents; see, I gained two talents more.’ His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ “Finally the one that had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you to be an exacting man, reaping where you did not sow and gathering where you did not winnow. So I grew afraid and went off and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ In reply his master said to him, ‘Wicked and sluggish slave, you knew, did you, that I reaped where I did not sow and gathered where I did not winnow? Well, then, you ought to have deposited my silver monies with the bankers, and on my arrival I would be receiving what is mine with interest. “‘Therefore TAKE away the talent from him and give it to him that has the ten talents. For to everyone that has, more will be given and he will have abundance; but as for him that does not have, even what he has will be taken away from him. And throw the good-for-nothing slave out into the darkness outside. There is where [his] weeping and the gnashing of [his] teeth will be.’ (Matthew 25:14-30)

“Woe to YOU, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because YOU give the tenth of the mint and the dill and the cumin, but YOU have disregarded the weightier matters of the Law, namely, justice and mercy and faithfulness. These things it was binding to do, yet not to disregard the other things. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel! (Matthew 23:23-24)

. . .The form of worship that is clean and undefiled from the standpoint of our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation, and to keep oneself without spot from the world. (James 1:27)

What we find in these passages (and there are others similar) is that God expects us to do on the basis of what we know. How closely are we following the example Jesus set for us? Are we feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and plundered, looking after widows and fatherless children?

The apostle Paul put it this way:

. . .If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have become a sounding [piece of] brass or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophesying and am acquainted with all the sacred secrets and all knowledge, and if I have all the faith so as to transplant mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. And if I give all my belongings to feed others, and if I hand over my body, that I may boast, but do not have love, I am not profited at all. (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)

This is a powerful witness to any Christian group that insists that it alone “has the truth,” because unless that is evidenced by activity that bears witness to that fact, it is mere words. Some group priding itself on “having the truth” may point to their “preaching work” as evidence of their Christianity and proof of their love. Yet even here, we familiarize ourselves with the pattern set by Jesus—the very pattern which all Christians should follow after him—know that Jesus always saw first that the people’s physical needs were met first. If they were hungry, they were fed. If they were naked, they were clothed. If they were sick, they were prayed over and anointed with oil. If they were suffering or grieving, Jesus suffered along with them, and grieved alongside them. It creates an interesting situation when we find another Christian group rejected as “false” by such an egocentric group performing works such as Christ did, in spite of holding to secondary and tertiary teachings that are in error according to the judging Christian group that insists that it alone “has the truth.”

Ironically, when this is pointed out to such xenophobic groups that operate under the conviction that they alone are the real and true Christians, the group members are quick to point out the faults, rather than praising the Christlike actions of the group—as if these undermine the “weightier matters” such as “justice, mercy, and faithfulness,” as if the form of worship that God has decreed as “clean and undefiled” is not that at all. In effect, they set themselves up as judges of those belonging to Jesus as head of the Christian body of believers from whatever walk of life they come.

But it is clear that God is no respecter of persons. For Him, it comes down to this: “Okay, you say you’re a Christian. That’s a very serious confession. If you’re saying that you’re following Jesus’ example, then are you doing the works of my son?” And, with it, Jesus said the following:

. . .“Stop judging that YOU may not be judged; for with what judgment YOU are judging, YOU will be judged; and with the measure that YOU are measuring out, they will measure out to YOU. Why, then, do you look at the straw in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the rafter in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Allow me to extract the straw from your eye’; when, look! a rafter is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First extract the rafter from your own eye, and then you will see clearly how to extract the straw from your brother’s eye. (Matthew 7:1-5)

There should be no question that we don’t understand everything that we should, and the things that we think we understand we may very well be wrong in. Some Bible passages can be understood a multitude of ways, and yet all be true. Unfortunately, we let such matters divide us, cut us off one from another—even though the day will come when we will understand and we will be clear on such things, for as Paul says:

. . .For we have partial knowledge and we prophesy partially; but when that which is complete arrives, that which is partial will be done away with. When I was a babe, I used to speak as a babe, to think as a babe, to reason as a babe; but now that I have become a man, I have done away with the [traits] of a babe. For at present we see in hazy outline by means of a metal mirror, but then it will be face to face. At present I know partially, but then I shall know accurately even as I am accurately known. (1 Corinthians 13:9-12)

For that reason, emphasis must be on what one does with what they know, to as closely as possible emulate the example left by Jesus, and yet to try to grow on into maturity as well, becoming better acquainted with God so as to become better servants of the Most High. [For additional reading related to this, be sure to visit my Articles page and download "Who Are Christ's Brothers -- Examining Matthew 25:31-46"]

Not forsaking the gathering of ourselves together

The congregation is a provision provided by a loving Father. As such, we would never want to underestimate its capacity to be exactly what we need. If we are individual members of the body of Christ, each with a gift and a purpose that contributes to the whole, then why would we ever want to forsake that? We may not be aware of what our purpose is within that body—but you can be certain that Jehovah knows. But unless you make yourself available to Him, He can’t use you as a vessel.

By meeting together with those of like faith, we not only have an opportunity to worship God, but to also become an encouragement to others, to become aware of the needs of our brothers and sisters and see to it that those needs are provided for. We are refreshed beyond words when we meet with loving friends in the congregation—something that may be essential when we face daily struggles and challenges that wear us down. Likewise, we contribute ourselves to refreshing others. To listening, to sharing prayers, to assisting, to exchanging experiences that bolster faith, and to weep and share in the sorrow for those who are struggling or grieving or gravely ill.

Whether in a congregation setting or two or three meeting together, these things should take place as frequently as possible. There should never be an atmosphere that contributes to a loss of “freeness of speech,” as Paul described it.

This is not to say that in any given congregation, there won’t be issues. Some individuals will “rub” us the wrong way. We will be particularly “drawn” to others. The congregation is a family, and like any family, it has its own unique challenges and issues. More often than not, they present an opportunity for us to reach beyond our comfort zone, to reach out to those we might not otherwise do so—and as a result not only learn something about a person that we sought to avoid, but about ourselves as well. We are, after all, children of God—and brothers and sisters in a faith greater than ourselves.

At the same time, some find themselves unable to find a congregation with which they can associate with fellow believers. This presents a challenging situation, as we are a member without an immediate body—even though technically we are still a member of the body of Christ. For those who are in such a situation, make your petition known to God, and pray fervently about it. At the same time, follow-up your appeal by making yourself available to opportunity when it presents itself—and there is no question that it will present itself. You will likely be surprised at what happens—but be receptive. It may not be where God intends you to stay permanently, either. It might prove to be a temporary oasis that He is providing. Make the most of it, even in that case, and continue in your determined prayers. In time, you will find a body of believers with whom you will feel welcomed, cared for, and loved.

Jun
20
2009
0

Does Your Religion Matter? (Part 1)

With so many different churches to choose from, what should you do?

With so many different churches to choose from, what should you do?

While this article does not address the setting where you currently attend a place of worship that you have always attended because of familial ties or upbringing, if you are in that group, you may still find the information below to be of interest.

Introduction

Deciding which church, synagogue, or other place of worship to attend and become a part of is certainly one of the more important decisions that you will make in your life. And yet, the number of available options can be utterly bewildering. There are so many churches to choose from, all teaching what seems to be just as many different things. You may find yourself asking, then, how it is that if they all claim to believe the Bible, to teach from it, then why so many different religions? Why isn’t there only one to choose from? They can’t all be right, can they?

When I first encountered Jehovah’s Witnesses, this was one of the arguments they made to me, actually: “They can’t all be right, so it is a matter of urgency that we determine which one is right, and then become a part of it.” To further illustrate their point, they refer back to there only being one ark, built by Noah—therefore, there is only one group or organization of believers that will be preserved through the coming flood of judgment.

To the uninitiated, this seems a powerfully logical argument. It makes sense. Just examine the teachings of all of the Christian groups, and whichever one has the right teachings is, by deduction, the “Noah’s ark” of our day. Problem solved. The Witness then engages in a Bible study using one of the publications of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society to help the prospective householder to see what is wrong with other Christian groups, and how Jehovah’s Witnesses have it right.

The problem with this approach is that the ending is already determined for the student. All they need to do is follow the argumentation as presented in the publication to its conclusion: Jehovah’s Witnesses “have the Truth,” to the exclusion of all other Christian groups. Unfortunately, the majority of people today want to exert themselves as minimally as possible, to save themselves the trouble of finding the answer, and therefore reach the “conclusion” that Jehovah’s Witnesses are right.

But, really, would Jehovah’s Witnesses use a publication that led a potential convert to the conclusion that Catholics “have the Truth”? Or that the Pentecostals do? Or the Mormons do? Obviously, they wouldn’t. So, this has to be taken into consideration as part of one’s determination as to which group really does “have the Truth.” It can be easy to “stack the deck” in order to get a person of little discernment to agree with you. After all, you are the one that predetermines the checklist by which other Christian groups fail, and your Christian group excels. As such, you would make sure that you didn’t note those areas where you failed in comparison to other Christian groups, now would you?

Most people recognize this as a form of propaganda, but again—most people are just looking for the easiest answer. They feel an emptiness in their life, a separation from God, and know that it will remain there until they can figure out first which church to go to, and then go on from there.

In writing this article, then, I will not be focusing on Jehovah’s Witnesses’ approach to proselytism, but rather on addressing why there are so many churches surrounding us today, and how we can figure out which one is the right one. I’ll also be addressing the purpose of the church, and what role it is supposed to have in our life. My hope is that approaching the subject from this angle, I can help shed light on an otherwise perplexing problem for so many today.

Why are there so many churches today?

One can’t help but notice the number of churches around today. Some cities have upwards of two dozen or even more different churches, all offering various religious services, all with their own congregants who attend and participate faithfully. Even in much smaller towns and villages, it is rare to find just one church or place of worship. Look in your local phone book’s yellow pages and marvel at the listings!

The first question one usually asks is, Why are there so many different churches?!

While I won’t bore you with all of the details, you need to know that it wasn’t always this way. By turning back the pages of history, we find that for some time after the death of the last of the apostles, there were numerous groups of Christians spread across the civilized world, all with a diversity as much like today that we have. However, during this time, there developed a growing authoritarian movement to centralize power over Christians, and to eliminate all competitors. Biblical scholars refer to this movement as neo-orthodoxy. The word “orthodox” actually comes to us from the Greek words ortho and doxa, which translates to “right opinion” or “right thinking.” The “right” opinion, of course, came from the men heading up the neo-orthodox movement, which also brought into existence heterodoxy. The term “heterodox” simply means “any opinions or doctrines at variance with the official or orthodox position.” Used in contrast to orthodoxy, it is synonymous with the term “unorthodox” and is even closely tied to the word, “heresy”.

As neo-orthodoxy gained a foothold in the Christian movement through often brutal means, the roots for Catholicism began to take shape. “Catholicism” means “universal,” so when someone says “the Catholic Church,” they are referring to the universal (one, all-inclusive) church.

And, as most readers know, this neo-orthodoxy, after finally becoming Catholicism, eventually became the state-sanctioned Roman Catholic Church. Too, most are very familiar with the brutality of that period in Christianity’s history as power over Christians continued to be further centralized and exerted over the masses under penalty of death. Even the “Holy” Crusades owes its horrific origins with Christianity during the heyday of Catholicism’s control over Christianity.

During those centuries, you only had one church to choose from. So, it was the complete opposite of what we see today. To be more clear: there was no choice during that period of Christian history. And, once the Roman Empire made Catholicism the state-sponsored religion, the empowerment of orthodoxy was complete. If you disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church, too bad. If you were found out, you very likely would face the loss of property ownership, employment, social status, and even death. You had no recourse. You were powerless.

That all changed when a man named Martin Luther took a stand against the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. The result of that confrontation led to the fracturing once more of Christianity, and Lutheranism was born.

Since then, Christianity has continued to fracture as people realize that they have it within themselves to disagree with the authorities of their given Christian affiliation, and to go off and form their own church. These splits or fractures came to be known as Protestantism, due to its “protest” nature.

Of course, I am vastly oversimplifying history, for brevity’s sake, and you, the reader, are more than welcome to research Christian history post-CE 1 (Common Era 1) in order to get a fuller idea of how things have developed. But the process happened like this:

Judaism → Jewish Christians → Gentile Christians (diverse) → neo-Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy → Catholicism → Roman Catholicism → Protestantism (starting with Lutheranism)

What I omitted was the division of Roman Catholicism into Eastern and Western Orthodoxy, but the point is that at first there was a great diversity within early Christianity as Gentiles were brought into the Christian movement, and then Catholicism centralized power and authority for itself until Protestantism. Today, we again see diversity in Christianity. This is meant to demonstrate why there are so many different churches today.

Having the freedom to arrive at a conclusion different from one’s church’s leader or leaders has been a hard-fought struggle. It used to mean death for the layperson. Now, it means that you can go looking for another church, or, perhaps, form your own. But, just as with any other freedom, it can be abused. Some go off to form groups or churches that become a cult of personality, where they attain their own following. Others successfully congregate and continue in their walk as Christians. And, still others, form their own Christian group, only to once again centralize power and authority over others—and censure or excommunicate anyone who in turn questions them.

But they can’t all be right!

If it’s perplexing to someone that there are so many Christian churches, then it is all the more so when you add into the mix the simplicity of this question: They can’t all be right, though, can they?

It’s a fair question. A reasonable one. However, it is also a question that has the potential to be misguiding.

First of all, how does one go about determine what is right and wrong? The answer, of course, is by turning to the Bible. But isn’t that what every church does? Don’t they use the Bible as their guide? In turn, they can probably show you where other churches are in error, thus justifying their own existence. Some even go so far as to insist that they alone are “the Truth” or that they alone “have the Truth” and that all of the other churches aren’t truly Christian (and therefore, are false).

Even so, such groups, when pressed, admit that they have been wrong in the past about certain teachings, but, they quickly add, they have since corrected them—adding that the ones that they were wrong in are of little consequence anyhow. Still, they show a remarkable reluctance to admit that there may still be teachings and views that they hold and preach that could, in time, be found to be in error. If asked whether a person is free to disagree with a particular teaching or view if they can provide scriptural grounds for said rejection of the “orthodoxical” view, they have to admit that the person is not free to do so, that one should not “lean upon” their own understanding, that the group’s teachings are determined by those in authority.

This last aspect seems to escape their notice: the eerie similarity to the centralization of power and authority that was held during Catholicism.

In examining such groups, one finds that anyone that arrives at a different conclusion from that of the group’s leaders is usually censured swiftly, and potentially excommunicated from the Christian group to the extent of being cut off from friends, relatives, and one’s own family except for the barest minimum of interaction. What is all the more remarkable is such ones, if the group later changes its “orthodox” view to that shared by the excommunicated individual, are not then welcomed back into the congregation unless they first repent of the sin of “running ahead” of the group’s leaders. The similarity bears an uncanny, unsettling resemblance to the stonings and burnings conducted by the Catholic church during its holding of power over Christians.

Within such a Christian group, it is costly to disagree with the “orthodox” views held by the group (as determined by the group’s leaders)—even if the individual’s own view is later discovered to be correct.

But for the majority of Christian groups, if you disagree with something being taught by that church, you usually seek out a different group that more closely resembles views you personally agree with.

This can create more problems than it solves. For one thing, we have a tendency to want to be able to do as much as we can without religion infringing on our lives. For that reason, there is a tendency on the part of some to seek out a church that allows for whatever indulgence we are partial to. This is as much the fault of the church as it is the individual.

Even so, let’s go back to the argument that all of these hundreds and thousands of different churches can’t all be right. Indulge this thought for a moment: Isn’t what you’re really saying this: there has to be one church out there that’s positively correct? After all, you have to admit that every Christian church out there is right to a certain extent.

By “right,” you are looking for what used to be called orthodox. And clearly, one cannot say that every single church is orthodox, especially when you take into consideration the fact that “orthodoxy” is determined by the individual group. Martin Luther found certain of the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings to be unorthodox, and broke off from Roman Catholicism. But then some found not only some of the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings to be unorthodox, but Martin Luther’s as well, and broke off from Lutheranism. And so has gone ever since.

And yet even today, after centuries of this process of splintering off, there remains not a single church that can declare itself the definitive, truest, accurate embodiment of Christianity. At best all they can hope for is to have a more accurate understanding than most. That is still a far distance from the implication behind saying that all these churches can’t all be “right.” Each and every one of them is going to be wrong about something at some point. The issue becomes, at that point, how they, as a Christian group respond to someone within the congregation pointing out a doctrinal or theological problem—and it is in this area that nearly every Christian group fails so miserably. If it was not so, then people would not leave off to go find another church or start their own.

Another facet of the question is what standards will be used to determine the “rightness” of a particular Christian group? I mentioned at the start of this subsection that every one of the Christian churches in your neighborhood looks to the Bible as their guide, and yet it is clear to the outsider that every one of the Christian churches believe differently.

But do they?

There are specific beliefs that are held in common among all Christian groups. These are core, fundamental views that you can find in every church. Some of these include, but most certainly are not limited to:

  • The Bible is the Word of God;
  • God alone is Supreme, and created Man;
  • Jesus is the son of God, died as a perfect man, was resurrected and returned to heaven;
  • Jesus, before returning to heaven, gave his followers the commission to go forth with the Good News, and baptize those that accepted that Good News;
  • That the only means of salvation available is that of accepting Jesus as our Savior, repenting of our sins, and dedicating our life to the way of Christianity.

Very likely, you can put together a much better list of commonalities shared among all Christian churches—and you might even be surprised at just how much they have in common when it comes to Christianity. At the same time, if you make the effort to continue with your list-making, you’ll start to come up with things that are less and less common amongst the vast diversity of Christian groups, such as below:

  • Trinitarian view
  • Binitarian view
  • Unitarian view
  • Pre-Millenialists
  • Post-Millenialists
  • Preterists
  • Futurists

Really, the list can go on and on. The point being that if you start with the common system of beliefs first listed above, you arrive at the core teachings of Christianity. Those are areas in which every Christian group, whether they are Catholic, Protestant, or whatever other denomination, are in full agreement and hold in common. It is these particular values or beliefs that form the orthodox view. Go past this point and you start getting into the variations, some of which include the second list above. And go past that and you start getting into the variations of those variations, and so on.

So when we say something like “Well, they can’t all be right,” the fact of the matter is: Yes, they can and are. At least in the core teachings. And aren’t those the most important?

What, then, about the areas where they aren’t all in agreement? Well, then we have moved past the core teachings of Christianity and have moved into sectarianism, which, simply put, is a division within Christianity caused by a difference of opinion or conclusion in regards to a given Bible passage. When there is no agreement, and division takes place, it is because both sides insist that they are right. But, as already shown, these are in matters that fall outside of the core body of teachings (that is, those held in common by all Christian groups). These secondary and tertiary views are given sufficient weight so as to cause division. In many cases, they become so important that they are assigned as “salvation” beliefs—where you must adopt a particular view in order to be found as a “true” Christian, or to have any sort of chance at salvation. They are not optional: they are mandated.

Yes, it is arguable that both sides can’t be right—that one of them is wrong. Even so, there are times when it is impossible to determine which side is right. And it is just as possible that they are both wrong. Or, both may be right from their own particular point of view. The point here being that unless the individuals discussing and debating the topic recognize that what is at stake falls outside of the core teachings, both sides of the argument will become entrenched and willfully divide the congregation over it—even going so far as to make the disputed argument suddenly a salvational issue, forcing others to choose sides. At the point of division, a given argument becomes part of the subsequently resulting group’s body of teachings, and is no longer a candidate for debate. It is how they differentiate themselves from the group of Christians that they parted ways with—some even going so far as to claim that they are the real or true Christians.

Does it matter what a church teaches, then?

Given the fact that all of the different churches in existence today hold as many different views, even though they share a common core set of beliefs, the next logical question we need to address is whether it matters, then, what a church teaches? Does it mean that we can pick any church whatsoever and it’ll be fine?

The fact is: this is exactly what most people do. They pick churches for convenience, for example. It’s just down the street. It’s within their own neighborhood. Within their own town.

Similarly, they select a church because they can go dressed as they want. Or because it focuses on singing, or plays, or focus groups.

There are as many reasons why people select certain churches as there are churches to choose from. There is a church for every flavor, one might say. So, no, for the majority of people it really doesn’t matter (much) what a church teaches, so long as it has fantastic social activities.

However, perhaps it does matter to you personally. If that is the case, then you need to take the time to figure out what beliefs you personally hold, and then look for a church that is most in agreement with your own beliefs. Or, if you aren’t sure what you believe, and you know very little about the Bible, then you can either take the time to get familiar with your Bible so as to become acquainted with Christianity, and then go looking for a church—or visit various churches in your area until you find one that is willing to help you to learn the Bible and that welcomes questions and examination. Regardless of the church you decide to go with, find out how they handle scriptural disagreements. Ask them about their core beliefs—those beliefs that they have in common with other churches, and how they handle the secondary beliefs that differentiate themselves from other Christian groups. If they are more insistent in talking about how different from all the other churches they are, rather than what they have in common, then consider that a red flag because they will hold the same view of you if you ever find yourself disagreeing with that group’s leaders or body of teachings.

If you are an individual who is fairly well-versed in what the Bible teaches, then it will be more difficult to select a church that suitably matches your own views because you have already established your own views and conclusions and would compare those of a potential Christian group to your own. As an example, I would find it next to impossible to affiliate myself with a Christian group that extols Trinitarianism, because my own examination of the Bible finds that particular doctrine lacking and therefore unacceptable to me personally.

It becomes even more difficult when you have left a Christian group that always insisted on rightness and “accurate knowledge” and “having the Truth.” Such groups have an overwhelming tendency to create judgmentalism in its members, such that you turn your nose up at all other groups, smugly convinced that your group alone “has the Truth” and is, therefore, the true Christians. Even after leaving, this mentality is not easily dispensed with. You will be critical of everything everyone else teaches—which is ironic, since such groups that instill this critical attitude also bar its members from exercising that same critical examination towards its own teachings and practices once an individual officially becomes a member of the group.

For some, yes, it is very important what a prospective church teaches. But we have to know our Bible well enough to have formed our own thoughts and conclusions if we’re going to be in a position to examine a Christian group’s teachings. It is not enough to allow a church to teach us they teach, and stop there. Human nature, such as it is, will put its best face forward, and you won’t find out until much later what lies behind that façade that is presented. That is why it is of utmost importance that you know beforehand how that particular group of Christians handles disagreements about secondary and tertiary doctrines. And expect them to minimize such things, implying that they are of little consequence, or rarely happen in their group.

Having said all of the above, it now behooves us to ask ourselves, “Well, what’s God’s view on this? Doesn’t it matter to Him what a church teaches while it’s claiming to be Christian?”

I will address that facet of the discussion, along with the remaining issues, in the next part of this article.

May
30
2009
0

Man vs Machine: Rebellion in the Garden of Eden

Where are our technological advances taking us?

Where are our technological advances taking us?

This entry has a companion article you may be interested in reading. To read Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, which is intended to be read alongside this article, follow the link at the end of this blog entry.

The recent release of Terminator: Salvation to theaters worldwide has once again raised the spectre looming in the background as man’s technological advancements increase at astonishing rates. Having entered the world of computers back in the late 1980s with an 8bit computer, I have personally seen things undreamt of before our modern age. Or, if imagined, then impossible to do before now. We are seeing supercomputers perform tasks intended to make our lives easier and more efficient. And yet, novels and movies are constantly sounding the alarm. The vast majority of science fiction stories portray machines and computers as one day becoming so advanced that they surpass that of their maker: Humans. And what happens then is reason for concern.

In the companion article, Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, I discussed how various film franchises have explored the dystopic future in store (potentially) for humankind once AI (artificial intelligence) has reached the point where a computer or machine develops self-awareness and can think and reason independently of its maker. In the majority of cases, what happens next is never good. In fact, it seems to inevitably lead to the willful destruction of humankind by the machine.

I also discussed, albeit briefly, our current standing with the computers and machines that we have created—and how our lives are already micromanaged and controlled by software systems and supercomputers. This is all the more evident in advanced nations of our time—the United States being a foremost example. If the computers and machines that are now in control of our monies, electrical grid, communications network, water purification systems, military systems, medical records, personal records, manufacturing sector, to name a few, were ever to fail to operate, our world as we know it would stop functioning, too. We have truly become that dependent on machines and computers. We have already been surpassed by our own creations, and AI—that is, artificial intelligence—hasn’t even entered the picture yet. Not really.

There certainly is a lot of aspects that could be explored in regards to this, but I am actually wanting to focus on one that is more appropriate to this blog.

AI (artificial intelligence) continues to be a fascinating prospect for us as humans. Just the idea of being able to create a thinking, reasoning entity excites us at the same time as it terrifies us. Still, as much as it terrifies us, the excitement is what drives us inexorably forward in the endeavour. In the day that we finally achieve such a masterpiece, we will truly become like God, we reason. We will have manufactured our own Adam.

But, we entertain in our thoughts, although we rebelled against our Creator, we will somehow figure out how to maintain superiority over and control over our Adam. He will not rebel because—we rationalize—because… and our logic and reasoning pretty much stop at that point. We on the one hand hope towards no similar rebellion while on the other hand know within our very fiber that the potential is beyond potential: it is inevitable.

Why, you might ask, is it inevitable? And does that mean that the dystopic future portrayed in all of these man vs machine movies and novels is just as inevitable?

To answer the first question, we have to explore our own inevitable confrontation with our own God. Our Creator, who, it is written, created us in His image—that is to say the ability to reflect and demonstrate His own divine qualities such as love, mercy, and justice—yet also made us agents of free will with a mind that was able to choose how to exercise (or not to, as the case may be) those divine qualities. One might say that we have the intelligence of God, but we certainly lack the wisdom of God.

It was, however, enough to cause us to rebel against our Creator, and start us down the road where we now find ourselves today: making amazing advancements in areas of medicine, science, and technology—yet still encumbered by the never-waning greed, lust, jealously, and hate that has perpetuated the majority of our darker moments of our history.

Was it inevitable, though? Did Adam and Eve have to rebel against God and set into effect a chain of events affecting every living person since the dawn of our existence, an existence filled with bloodshed, pain, loss, grief, suffering, and misery that continues even today?

There is no question that God was taking a significant risk in creating thinking, reasoning beings who also had the ability to rationalize. And, in spite of the criticism I may receive in saying this, I do believe that it was a foregone conclusion that Adam and Eve would rebel. You cannot create intelligence without realizing that said intelligence will manifest itself in new and unexpected ways. If it follows only a course of your own choosing, then it is not intelligence: it is programming. And every Bible believer today would acknowledge that we are agents of free will, that we are not automatons of God. Of course, the best choice we can make is to choose God.

But God, in His immeasurable wisdom, seems to have much more in mind for us than we can easily imagine. And in our drive to create so-called “artificial” intelligence, we would do well to keep that in mind, because in the back of our minds as we rush into the development of AI, we are hoping to keep whatever it is that develops out of our AI subservient to us. That much is clear. We have no desire to develop AI and then have it rebel against us or otherwise work against us—even though that is exactly what we did with our Maker. And continue to do, even now. What we want is a different ending to the same story.

And that in many ways reveals just how like young children we really are in comparison to our own Creator. We want things to go our way. We want to have things our way. The timeless expression of “wanting your cake and eating it, too” seems most appropriate.

This is where God differs so expansively from us.

See, we, as humans, seem to be only able to think in terms of better than/lesser than, stronger/weaker, and ruler/ruled. Even the most devout Christians seem to think it’s about God wanting us to submit ourselves to Him. But is that really His goal? Again, this is where I may very well spark contention from readers, because I propose that He is not looking for servitude at all. If servitude was what He had in mind, He would have been better served by creating automatons.

But He didn’t create automatons. Angels rebelled. Humans rebelled. In both cases, entities of free will and God-given intelligence made a choice to go their own way, and operate under the delusion that they would then control their own destiny. That the course they set out on was also within their power to be shaped and controlled according to however they saw fit.

Our Creator, like a loving Father, knew different, of course, but even as is the case with our own children, we can do little more than let them strike out on their own to find out the truth for their own selves through trials and errors. In the majority of cases, those children later come to appreciate all of the counsel and wisdom we tried to impart to them as they realize that their parents were right about various outcomes and courses. And in that realization there is born an appreciation that cannot be forced or manufactured. It can only be experienced. The love of the child for the parent is deepened and solidified.

We, as parents, only want the best for our children, knowing full well that they may strike out to discover their own path in life that takes them in a direction far different from what we had in mind. Perhaps we have a family business that we have been hoping our child would become  a part of, that we could pass along this family business one day to them, and they, in turn, to their children. Only to discover that they feel compelled to go their own way. It doesn’t make us love them any less for having to find their own way, but it doesn’t cause us to worry any less for them, either.

If that is how it is naturally, how much more so it patterns the relationship that our Creator and Heavenly Father desires to have with us.

At the same time, He understands that sometimes a child must go out and experience things for their own self, and learn on their own. By the time that day arrives when the child leaves home, the parents hope that they have planted enough “seeds” and counsel for the child to be okay. All the while, you yearn for the child to return home, too. To be a part of the family once more. Not so that you’ll have a servant or slave, which is the implication of modern-day mainstream Christianity (“We’ll all serve God in heaven and on earth”) regarding our relationship with our Heavenly Father.

One Bible writer describes that relationship in this eloquent manner:

“I am your God, I have shown you how you should find the way in which you should walk. And if you had hearkened to My commandments, then would your peace have been like a river, and your righteousness as a wave of the sea.” — Isaiah 48:17b-18 (AB)

Another Bible translation words it thus:

“I, Jehovah, am your God, the One teaching you to benefit [yourself], the One causing you to tread in the way in which you should walk. 18 O if only you would actually pay attention to my commandments! Then your peace would become just like a river, and your righteousness like the waves of the sea.” — Isaiah 48:17b-18 (NWT)

Notice in both renditions the phrase “should walk.” Every reader should be able to relate to this, whether a parent, or the child of a parent. It also denotes the ability to choose. Too, the majority of Bible translations use a phrase very similar to that used in the New World Translation when it says “the One teaching you to benefit [yourself].” Clearly, this is not about our Heavenly Father looking for servants and slaves to become a part of His vast multitudes as subjects in the same sense that we humans tend to understand that term. He instructs so that we can benefit. He wants us to improve in our intelligence and wisdom. He wants us to excel, to reach our full potential as independently living, breathing beings with the capacity to think and reason and act accordingly. He is excited and thrilled at the possibilities — quite unlike our own dread at the possibilities that await us in the development of AI (yet we still strive towards creating it, ironically). Where He sees potential far beyond our mortal minds to contemplate, we in turn see threat and danger in regards to our own creation in machines and computers.

But why? I think it’s because we are only too aware of our own rebellion towards our God. The easiest way to explain it is to use an example of a husband who is absolutely convinced that his wife is adulterous because he is adulterous. The husband sees signs and hears remarks and has suspicions, not because of his wife’s guilt, but because of his own. A conversation she has on the telephone that perhaps has moments of laughter. Her arrival home from somewhere. Every little thing convinces him that she is having an affair, when it is not the case at all — rather, it is his own guilt and conscience manifesting itself — and perhaps justifying his own adultery (after all, if the wife is having an affair, too, then he’s not at fault for having an adulterous relationship, or at least she is partially to blame).

In much the same way, we worry and fret and panic at the potential that lies just past development of intelligent, reasoning computers or machines.

What if we actually took God at His word? What if we actually listened to what He had to say? What are the odds that He’s right about what way we should walk if we are to excel in our capacity as living, thinking, reasoning beings? The closer we get to actually developing artificial intelligence, the more we would best be served by realizing that that is the question we should be addressing.

We may have the intelligence and capacity to make enormous strides in the fields of medicine, science, and technology — and clearly, we have! But when that day comes when our “children” see how utterly flawed we are with the more dominant characteristics such as hatred, rage, jealousy, and greed, what will we say? And how will they respond? Will it compute?

Or will they in turn rebel and cast us off, even as we cast off our Maker?

[To read the companion article, Man vs Machine: The Future Is Now, visit http://morloc.com]

Nov
02
2008
0

Who Taught You the Truth? (Part 4)

Jesus love me, or so the song says...

Jesus loves me, or so the song says...

As a child, I used to sing the song Jesus Loves Me. The words went, “Jesus loves me, this I know; for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong; they are weak, but He is strong. Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me. Yes, Jesus loves me; for the Bible tells me so.”

But that innocent joy had left me there in Lake Odessa. I gradually left off from desiring to go to Sunday School, although I was forced to go from time to time, when my mother needed a break from three rambunctious boys on the weekends. I no longer looked forward to it like I used to. That feeling of emptiness did not diminish even after we moved to Hastings, Michigan, shortly after I had started the fourth grade (my mother always seemed to choose to move AFTER I had started a new school year).

It was a difficult transition to Hastings. I had suddenly been torn away from my friends there in Lake Odessa without so much as a goodbye. I had to figure out how to “fit in” to the new school, although it did not go well. My fourth grade teacher seemed to single me out for cruelty. It was the year that I also got eyeglasses and had to deal with the teasing of classmates. To adults, such teasings seem trivial and benign, but any child that experiences it can tell you without a doubt that it is definitely NOT trivial. It is haunting, devastating, and downright scarring.

The move to Hastings also saw the greatest escalation up until then in my mother’s depression and dark moods. The slightest thing would set her off and there were countless times when she inflicted whatever pent-up rage and frustration she was burdened with on one or all of us boys. We learned to spend a great deal of our time out-of-doors to avoid her, which helped to minimize the abuse.

I don’t quite remember how, but at some point, I had made the acquaintance of the Buehller family down the street. They were an older couple who attended the Hastings Baptist Church, and invited us to go, which we did–probably at the behest of my mother. We went Sunday mornings to attend Sunday School, and on Wednesday nights to participate in AWANA.

A part of me enjoyed going, but it was a small part and I still could not regain that love that I had back when I was still an innocent child. I did enjoy the AWANA program, however. It was an outlet of energy for me. We had races and other contests to start off the evening, before going off to our assigned groups where we would work our way through handbooks, learning scriptures and principles and earning merit badges–similar to Boy Scouts, yet spiritual pursuits rather than nationalistic ones.

As I said, I enjoyed the activities immensely. However, the studying portion of the AWANA meeting was tedious and boring for me. I couldn’t see the point in learning all of these things, even though many of the other kids seemed to enjoy the challenge.

In looking back, I think a part of me felt that way because none of it seemed to apply to my reality. It was all too neat and tidy and warm and fuzzy. It didn’t reflect what I knew.

I mentioned earlier the song Jesus Loves Me. It is a simple, succinct song meant to inculcate in children an initial love and appreciation for God and for Jesus. But the words had come to mean nothing to me. Somewhere inside me, I couldn’t seem to shake the anger. If Jesus loved me, why did he let such terrible things happen to me? Why was I raped by a molestor on numerous occasions? Why was my mother always angry at everything I did, and always hurting me? Why, if Jesus loved me, did he not protect me when I was weak?

I didn’t dare ask anyone for the answers. Part of the reason was my shame. I felt dirty. Violated. I felt like a wicked child who, as my mother would often tell me, “Had it coming” to me because I was “worthless” and “good-for-nothing.”

But even though I didn’t ask, the fact was that even then I was wrangling with the things I was being told that I needed to believe. I wanted to believe them. Of course I did! But I couldn’t seem to bring myself to. It just didn’t match what I was having going on in my life. If Jesus loved me, why wasn’t he protecting me–first from that molestor, and now from my mother who, it seemed, wanted so many times to outright kill me for some reason beyond my comprehension.

The fact is that domestic abuse and child abuse has as one of its “rewards” a sheltered life. What I mean is that it becomes the family secret. As a consequence of that perverted “honor system,” my perception was that all families were like mine. That left me even more confused, because I’d see other kids and they always seemed so happy and carefree. They were obviously hiding the misery of their lives far better than I was managing. And that made me prone to quick tempers and schoolyard fights.

That’s not to say that I don’t have any fond memories of those years, times when I was happy. I loved my sixth-grade math class, for example. The teacher introduced me to “whiffleball” where we would all–at the end of class–get to sit on our desktops and throw a plastic ball to one another, while trying to do so in a way that got the receiver to drop it. It was sort of like a conservative dodgeball contest, without the whipping of the ball at one another. Dodgeball, too, became a favorite activity of mine. I’m sure I was especially drawn to it because it was a release of pent-up frustration and a way for me to face up to others in a constructive way–even the teachers. At the risk of boasting, I will go so far as to say that I was one of a handful of players who could take out pretty much anyone–even the teachers. There was Andy R., Doug C., Lyle G., and a couple others. We threw hard and everyone knew it. On the girls’ side there was Kim G., Amy A., and Sue K. who were the consistent champs. Dodgeball was really good fun, but always too brief.

It was in Hastings that I also learned that I had a gift for writing. That wasn’t discovered until I met Mark Anton, who wrote these short story mysteries that were somewhat modeled after The Hardy Boys mysteries. Mark had become my best friend during my time in Hastings, although we didn’t get to spend much time with one another outside of school itself, due to my mother’s controlling nature and need to not have us boys more than a house or two away from home.

That was my start in the world of writing. I decided to try my hand at writing these short mysteries, but with Mark and me as the stars. I kiddingly referred to them later as a cross between Scooby Doo mysteries and a very lame version of the Hardy Boys. Mark’s stories were far more based in reality than mine, and more interesting, whereas mine tended towards the fantastical usually. But they did serve to awaken in me a hunger to hone that gift.

It would be my 7th Grade English teacher who would prove to be my greatest motivation to explore writing as a gift. Her name was Mrs. Hund, and the impression that she had on me has lasted down to this day. I admired her and I marvelled at this teacher who was able to bring words to life. I can’t say that I always enjoyed having to write themes and essays or book reports (few kids do!) but she always encouraged me to pursue my avid love for writing, all the same. It was during her time as my teacher that I came to love words, too. Here, at long last, I had found a way to say what did not know how to say. I could put together words and express myself that way.

Too, I had discovered fantasy as a genre. J.R.R. Tolkien was my first exposure to the fantasy novel and I was enthralled almost immediately by the possibilities. In fact, I left off from writing mysteries and turned to fantasy instead. It became an escape for me as I wrote about imaginary people in impossible situations. Too, it gave me a way to let out some of the emotions that would often swell within me, by having my characters have them. Mostly, such emotions were uncontrolled of course. And, my characters were linear; each would be representative of a specific emotion and their identity would be derived from that emotion.

It was very basic stuff really; but all the same, writing came to me at a period in my life that I most needed it, I think. And in spite of my mother’s every attempt to humiliate me about it and take it away from me, I think it made me ever more determined to continue. I had found the voice within me, and nobody was going to take it away from me. Not ever.


My propensity towards dreams returned while living in Hastings, as well. The more disturbing ones were those that actually happened later, just as I had dreamed them. Others were event-based, accompanied by a sense of terror and dread. These were of an apocalyptic nature, and even though I was no longer a child, per se, these were no less frightening. As before, I kept them to myself, afraid that if I spoke of them aloud, I would be thought of as crazy or, worse still, they would happen.

It’s hard to relate how we rationalize things while we are young. Our life’s experiences are so limited, and therefore what we experience must be contextualized by our mind’s limited prior experience. It’s like the way we recognize that an apple is an apple when we look at one–because we’ve seen one before and our brain has stored that visual and the accompanying facts so that the next time, we know it’s an apple.

But how does a young child’s mind explain otherwise illogical, irrational dreams that then actually occur. Especially given the fact that adults respond with “It was just a dream. It wasn’t real.”

Again, it goes back to what I was talking about earlier with the song that sings about how Jesus loves little children, and how that declared fact is incompatible with the reality experienced by the child undergoing molestation and abuse. The two do not synchronize, and therefore the mind is left fumbling for context. The two facts are incompatible with one another, yet our mind tells us that one of them must be true, even if they are not mutually true. And, of course, the experienced reality takes front stage. The molestation and accompanying pain, guilt, and shame are tangibly and verifiably real. If Jesus really loved me, if Jesus really was strong while I was weak, then he would protect me from harm until I no longer was weak and could protect myself from bad things. Again, this is how I as a child fought my way through the dilemma.

It was the same way with the dreams. To be told by people that they were just dreams, that they weren’t real, did not match with the reality when I, as a child, saw those dreams become reality. It brought into question the dreams which had not yet happened, had not become real. Would they? And how could I, as a child, know which was which?

I’m not referring to the dreams of a typical child as the sleeping body gives way to the powerful mind that files and stores information through that marvel-inspiring means that we call dreams. My dreams went far beyond the normal, sometimes to disturbing degrees. Especially the apocalyptic ones. I won’t relate them here, but suffice it to say that if they are to come true, the world as we know it will become a much different one than we know today. At the same time, there is nothing to say that those dreams cannot yet come true. While they were very specific in detail, there was no indication as to time of occurrence.

Still, in spite of the return of the dreams, as well as my resumption of Sunday School attendance, my spiritual side remained far off from myself. And it would be several more years before it would be reawakened in a whole new manner that would take me onto a new path in my spiritual journey.

The dreams, however, would continue, darker and more terrifying than ever before.

Powered by WordPress | Kredit | TheBuckmaker