"The Slippery Slope of Evolution"

This post is part of a series of posts that deal with some common Young Earth Creationist (YEC) objections to theistic evolution.  The impetus for these posts came via a comment from a reader on a previous post.  An index of all these posts can be found here.

Here I would like to address this part of Steve’s original comment:

Joe, you claim you are a Christian yet you don't believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being. If you doubt that part of the Bible, how can you be sure the parts with Jesus in it are true? Or what he said and did are true. If you pick and choose what you will and won't believe, aren't you in fact picking apart the foundations of your faith? If that's the case, what reassurance do you have of you salvation or even of your existence?

First, it is simply untrue to claim that theistic evolutionists “don’t believe what the Bible has to say about how existence came into being.”  What I reject is not what the Bible has to say about origins, but what biblical literalists think the Bible has to say about origins.  I do not “doubt that part of the Bible”; I doubt the biblical literalist interpretation of that part of the Bible.

I believe the Bible (including Genesis) is inspired by God and is trustworthy.  But we need to be very careful about what we say a biblical text is trying to communicate.  More on that later.

Now on to the main point:

The general question can be stated this way:  If the creation account is not taken literally, then why should we take anything else literally, including the stories of Jesus’ death and resurrection?

There is a fundamental difference between the texts containing the creation accounts and the texts containing the narratives of Jesus’ life.   The difference is in the purpose of the original writers, and the literary genre of the texts in question.  If the genre is historical narrative, then there is no reason to interpret it literally, and it would be a mistake to do so.   But if the genre is poetic, prophetic, wisdom, etc., then we must be more careful.

Purpose & Genre of the Gospels

Looking first at the gospels, it is abundantly clear that the purpose of the gospel writers is to provide a historical narrative of the events surrounding Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection.  Look at the opening verses of Luke:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.  Luke 1:1-4

Here it is clear that Luke’s intention is to write actual historical facts, as they have been handed down to him, so that his audience (Theophilus) can “know the certainty of the things [he has] been taught”.  There is no reason to view the gospels as anything except historical narrative because it is explicitly stated that the purpose of the text is to communicate actual events as experienced by eyewitnesses.

Purpose & Genre of the Creation Accounts

Now turning to the creation accounts:  It is not so straightforward to determine the authors’ purpose or the literary genre(s) of the texts.  However, when we begin to understand the world in which the creation stories were written, it becomes clear that there are a whole host of reasons why they may have been written other than for scientific/historical reasons. 

The ancient near east (the historical context of the creation accounts) was polytheistic, and the gods themselves were part of creation: The sun and moon were gods, not things created by a single, transcendent God.  The creation stories served the purpose (among many others) of reminding God’s people that their God was different; their God actually created the universe, and wasn’t a part of it.  These stories used already existing myths and re-wrote them to show that Yahweh is not like the gods in which their neighbors believe; Yahweh is creator, and as a result we are accountable to Him.

I’ve discussed this further in a previous post, so please go there for more explanation.  Also, a great book on the subject is The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate by John H. Walton.

Determining Context & Purpose Builds Confidence

I think it is pretty clear that the rejection of the creation stories as literal historical truth does not then lead to a rejection of the historicity of other parts of the Bible, including the life and significance of Jesus Christ.  On the contrary, examining the purpose and context of texts like those describing the life and words of Jesus gives us confidence that the authors were setting out to increase our certainty about Jesus, and give us assurance of the salvation that comes by making Him our Lord and Savior.

C.S. Lewis: Jesus is a false prophet?

Over the last couple days, I've been having a conversation with a reader (James) regarding whether or not Paul is a false prophet. (See the comment section of this post) The conversation has centered around Deuteronomy 18:21-22, where the writer answers the hypothetical question:

How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD? -Deuteronomy 18:21b

The writer then goes on to answer the question:

If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. -Deuteronomy 18:22a

I agreed with James that this statement could be considered universally applicable, not just to be applied to the situation being discussed in Deuteronomy 18.

Given that, the test for a false teaching can be reduced to the following:
A teaching is false IF:

1) The teacher was a prophet. AND
2) The prophet must have made predictions that did not come true.

In recent posts, I've blogged about Jesus' (Seemingly failed) prediction of his own imminent return, as well as the possibility that Jesus may not have known when he would return. In one post, I discuss a quote by C.S. Lewis where Lewis suggests that Jesus was wrong about his own return.

The test above raises the stakes in this conversation, because if Jesus was wrong (as Lewis suggests), and if he can be considered a prophet (which is undoubtable) then the test above would suggest that Jesus is a false prophet. It seems that C.S Lewis has come dangerously close to declaring Jesus a false prophet.

Lewis called the verse containing what he called Jesus' "exhibition of error" the "most embarrassing verse in the Bible". As I've said before, it seems more appropriate to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, than about what Jesus said.

What Did Jesus Know? And Why Should I Care?

I've had a significant bout of what might be best described as "theology disillusionment" lately (similar to this experience described by Stephen over at Undeception). But a recent post by Internet Monk is relevant to my last post, so I thought I'd comment.

In my last post, I discussed Jesus' (seemingly failed) prediction of his own imminent return, and briefly touched on the suggestion that Jesus may not have known when he would return. At the time I didn't even consider it a possibility, but after some thought have allowed it a spot next to the other possible solutions to the problem.

Anyone raising the question "What did Jesus know, and when?" is bound to receive a thousand different answers, some backed up by proof texts and others more emotionally derived. What is common in this discussion (at least among lay-Christians) is the general attitude that the subject of Jesus' knowledge (or lack of it) is interesting, but unimportant.

I'd like to suggest that the issue is more relevant than most would allow. If Jesus truly did not know when he would return, then the expectation of a future (to us) return of Christ is reasonable. But if Jesus' prediction of his own return is to be regarded as authoritative, then it seems more likely that this prophesy was fulfilled around 70AD during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem (and the temple) by the Roman army.

This, in turn, is relevant because it affects how we view the future. Can we look forward to Jesus returning and fixing all the ills of the world? Or are we responsible for affecting this change ourselves? Do we go out and win as many souls as possible, or do we work to end poverty and oppression? So in the end, the answer to these questions lies, in part, in our answer to the question that is the title of this post.

In my Baptist church, both of the options above are heretical to some degree, so again I ask myself: What did I just step in?

"The Most Embarrassing Verse in the Bible"

I recently came across the following quote by C.S. Lewis:

"Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97

C.S. Lewis is embarrassed of Jesus?  I was sure the quote was taken out of context, so I looked it up... No such luck.  Lewis goes on to explain how he solves the problem: With the assertion that Jesus probably really did not know how or when the "world would end". He continues:

"Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side... The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance."

Now, I'm not going to pretend that the mysteries of the Incarnation are fully comprehensible, but it really bothers me that a theologian as respectable as Lewis would suggest that Jesus was wrong about his own return.  What Lewis is suggesting is that Jesus really did not know when he would return, but he still saw fit to make several predictions regarding his return. Isn't that called a lie?

Jesus' "confession of ignorance" (if it really was one) surely didn't sink in with his followers.  Even Lewis notices that the expectation of Jesus' imminent return was widespread in the early Church.  The claim that Jesus taught his own ignorance of the end-times seems unlikely. It seems more likely to me that Jesus made predictions about his return because he actually knew what he was talking about, and that the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70AD constituted the fulfillment of Jesus' prophesy.

It seems appropriate to me to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, not about what Jesus said.

The god of liberal Christianity

In my last post, I wrote about what is probably the most difficult issue I have with my faith: The multiple voices in the Bible, and how we (conservative Christians in general) elevate certain passages to supreme status, and reinterpret all conflicting passages, effectively neutering them of their meaning. In particular, the voices of Jesus and Paul stand out in stark contrast, especially when asking the question "What must I do to be saved?".

In that post, I discussed this post by James McGrath over at the blog Exploring our Matrix. In it, he discusses this problem, stating that his transition to liberal Christianity is a result of just these types of problems. McGrath states:

My own Liberal Christian position is a result of struggling with these sorts of issues. It doesn't seem to me that there is a single voice in the Bible, and we can simply listen to it and do "what the Bible says"... And so whatever it means to be a Christian, it cannot mean "believing the Bible". Because part of the challenge of the Bible itself is that it presents us with conflicting voices, and in doing so forces us away from the easy path of simply picking texts and following them, making us instead recognize that we are part of a 2,000-year-old dialogue that requires us to figure out for ourselves what it means to be a Christian in our own particular time and context.

I tend to agree with McGrath, that the proof-text approach taken by fundamentalist Christianity doesn't do justice to the character of the Bible. Furthermore, I think that anyone that says "I just believe the Bible" doesn't read it very often. Or they don't read it and actually think about what it says. To those who say just that, I would ask (taking McGrath's example): When you read Matthew 28 and Luke 24, do you "believe" that the disciples first saw the resurrected Jesus in Jerusalem, or almost 70 miles away in Galilee?

For McGrath, the solution to the problem was liberal Christianity, the willingness to approach the Bible as one would any other historical document without any preconceived notion of inerrancy or divine inspiration. For liberal Christians, the Bible is seen as a record of man's experiences in interacting with God. It may seem that a similar destination is in store for me, but there is a problem with that: To me, it seems that it is much more likely that God simply does not exist, than for the god of liberal Christianity to be real.

If God does exist, and He is interested in communicating with us (As the Bible, read as a historical and divinely inspired document would suggest) than would He not act to communicate with humankind in some sort of transferable way? Would He not leave more of a mark than just the "experiences" of some people in history? To me it seems more likely that He isn't out there at all.

To be fair, it isn't quite true that the Bible is the only way God has provided for us to know Him. But the god of of liberal Christianity (to me) seems totally fuzzy and unknowable. I think that if these problems end up pushing me to something other than conservative Christianity, it will be to atheism (or more likely agnosticism) than to liberal Christianity.

Jesus didn't really mean that, did He?

So this is my first post in a while... I've kind of been on a break - a reading, writing, thinking break. Sometimes I get a little overwhelmed with things - with ideas - and just have to take a little break. So that's what that was.

So what's important enough to jerk me out of hiding? Well, it was this post by James McGrath over at the blog Exploring our Matrix. [Don't ask what I was doing reading a blog on a "reading break"] In it, McGrath is musing about what it would be like if fundamentalist Christians were to oversee a "final exam" that everyone must take before they were allowed to enter heaven. (He suggests two questions: Would you pass?)

This caught my attention because I recently had to complete a similar "exam": An application to participate in a local ministry contained the question:

If you died today and stood before God, and He ask you “Why should I let you into My heaven?” What would you say? This is not a testimony!

Now, I understand why the application included this question, and don't really have a problem with it. And that's not why I'm writing this post. I'm writing because the rest of McGrath's post hit a nerve. It perfectly describes the problems I'm having with my faith. In a nutshell:

It doesn't seem to me that there is a single voice in the Bible, and we can simply listen to it and do "what the Bible says"... And so whatever it means to be a Christian, it cannot mean "believing the Bible". Because part of the challenge of the Bible itself is that it presents us with conflicting voices, and in doing so forces us away from the easy path of simply picking texts and following them...

Yet this is exactly what "Biblical Christianity" (as it's often called in my context) does: It elevates certain passages to supreme status, and reinterprets all conflicting passages, effectively neutering them of their meaning.

Here's a good example: My pastor once gave a sermon on forgiveness, and at one point discussed Matthew 6:14-15 where Jesus makes the following statement:

[I]f you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

My pastor gave this as an example of why forgiveness is so important: because "God takes forgiveness seriously." He explained that this verse refers to "relational forgiveness": That our relationship with God is hindered if we do not forgive others.

I was puzzled at this interpretation because there is nothing in the context of Jesus' words that would indicate anything other than the obvious interpretation: That if we do not forgive, God will not forgive our sins. On the contrary, other statements of Jesus indicate that a lack of forgiveness will result in nothing less than hell: In Matthew 18:21-35, the unmerciful servant is sent to be tortured effectively forever for refusing to forgive.

When I questioned my pastor about this, he said that since we know (from Paul's writings) that we are saved by faith alone, we must interpret Jesus' words in light of this knowledge. Therefore, Jesus could not have meant that we will not be forgiven if we do not forgive.

This answer frustrates me to no end. In his post, McGrath addresses my pastor's answer:

[W]hile one might say "Scripture must be interpreted in light of Scripture", it still remains to be asked why one should start with the typical Evangelical prooftexts in Paul and John, and say that the others must be interpreted in light of them, rather than reversing the procedure and saying that the passages that seem to affirm "judgment" being on the basis of faith alone must mean something else.

I agree with McGrath. I would go one step further and ask: (as I have elsewhere) if God did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, can't we expect Him to know what He is talking about?

I have more to say about this, but I'll put that in another post.

Understandings I'm Seeking

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for a long time now, simply because it’s subject is really the reason this blog exists.  As I said in my newly-updated About This Blog post, this is where I put some of those thoughts about my faith (speaking very generally) that bounce around in my head, and just won’t go away.  It helps to have a place to organize my thoughts, and I can come back to a particular post if I forget where my thinking was on a particular topic.  Also, for those doubts or questions that don’t really have good answers, clicking that “Publish Post” button is like flushing the toilet. 

Several months ago, Cliff Martin over at Outside The Box (a blog that I used to read regularly) posted his list of Understandings I’m Seeking – A list of difficult issues he was interested in understanding better.  Ever since, I’ve kept a mental list of my own, to which I add as new issues become important to me, and subtract as I gain understanding on some issues.  

Lately, my “Understandings I’m Seeking” list has become stagnant.  The same issues have been at the top of the list for quite a while, which means that they have remained important to me, while simultaneously proving difficult to understand, at least for me.  It is for this reason I think it is time for my own “Understandings I’m Seeking” post.  

Understandings I’m Seeking 

1. The relationship between the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul 

I'm seeking to understand how the teachings of Jesus are related to those of the Apostle Paul.  In particular, I want to understand why Jesus' teachings are so different from those of Paul, especially when it comes to the requirements for salvation.  

In my own Baptist tradition, the words of Jesus are constantly twisted to fit into a Paul-shaped mold, and to me, that just seems wrong.  I hope one might be able to assume that God-incarnate would be able to get it right!  But instead I constantly hear (in reference to Jesus' words) "Well.... You have to read that in light of ..."  - And then some passage from Romans or Hebrews.

I understand the desire to harmonize the Scriptures, and the belief that inspired Scripture must fit together.  But if God really did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, than something is wrong.  I am seeking to understand what that is.

2. The second coming of Jesus and the New Testament expectation that it was immanent 

I’m seeking to better understand why the first Christians (and especially Jesus Himself) expected Jesus’ second coming to happen soon, as recorded in passages like Matt. 10:23, Matt. 16:27-28, Luke 21:5-36  1 Thess 4:14-15, Rev. 1:1, and many, many others.  This expectation is typically explained away by claiming that Jesus, when He said "this generation will not pass away" before He returns, did not mean "generation" but instead meant the nation of Israel or even the generation that is alive when Jesus returns. (How convenient!)  

I’m continually flabbergasted that the same people who insist on using the “plain reading” of Genesis 1-2 will put forth such flimsy explanations for the very plain statements of the expectation of the imminent return of Jesus.  Once again, if God did become man, and that man is Jesus Christ, can't we expect Him to know what He was talking about?

I've done a significant amount of reading about the eschatological belief called preterism, which claims that all of Jesus' end-times prophecies were fulfilled within the timeframe he predicted, specifically in 70AD during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army.  This is not the place for a discussion on eschatology, but I should say that neither futurism nor preterism have provided satisfactory explanations for Biblical end-times prophesy.

I am seeking to understand what Jesus really meant by his end-times prophecies, and how this fits in with the rest of Biblical teaching.  I especially am seeking to understand the implications of a successful eschatology on they way I view the world:  Is the world coming to an end, or is it getting better and better?  Is Jesus coming back, and will that be soon?

3. The dogma of Biblical inspiration and (secondarily) inerrancy 

I’m seeking to understand why some Christians believe in the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration. (The equal inspiration of every word of scripture)  Christians always give passages like 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17 as proof that the Bible (every single word of it) is equally inspired by God.  Why don't these Christians notice the blatant circularity of this claim?  A text within the New Testament that refers to "scripture" cannot be referring to the New Testament.  At best, these proof texts can only refer to the Hebrew Scriptures (The Old Testament), and any texts considered “scripture” at the time the proof-text was written, if any. 

I am seeking to understand the reality of Biblical inspiration as opposed to the dogma of Biblical inspiration.  I believe that the Bible is inspired, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, but I am unconvinced by any argument for verbal, plenary inspiration that takes the form: "The Bible is inspired because it says it is inspired."  I realize that any "proof" of inspiration that refuses to grant authority to any source other than the Bible will always be circular.  I just wish that this fact were not constantly ignored.  

Of secondary importance is my desire to understand why some Christians believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  This is only of secondary importance because I have come to a settled belief that this position is entirely indefensible.  Still, I am seeking to understand the implications of this apparent fact; On how it affects the way I should read the Bible, and how it affects the task of biblical interpretation. 

4. The relationship between the Old and New Testaments

This issue has troubled me from the time I was a little kid:  I am seeking to understand why God is portrayed so differently in the Old and New Testaments.  The God of the Old Testament commands his people to kill rebellious teenagers, beat their slaves to within an inch of their death, to destroy entire cities, killing all men, women, children and babies, (including nursing babies and "ripping open" pregnant women) and actively participates in these slayings by chucking hailstones from heaven.  In contrast, the God of the New Testament commands us to be peaceful, merciful,  to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, return blessing for evil, and to live at peace with everyone.  Are we talking about the same God here?

I understand that all people are sinners and deserve death.  God can choose to do whatever he wants.  This is not the issue.  I am seeking to understand why God's message to His people, His communication to them about what is important, and His overal approach to justice is so startlingly different between the Old and New Testaments.

5. The soverignty of God and the problem of Theodicy (the problem of the existence of evil)

This issue is a little different:  It involves two seemingly seperate issues on which I have come to a general understanding (or acceptance), but my thinking on these two issues is incompatible.

It is evident to me that God (in many occasions, if not all) chooses those with whom he is going to form a relationship: God chose Adam, not vice-versa.  God chose Noah, not vice-versa. God chose Abraham, not vice-versa.  God chose Moses, not vice-versa.  God chose the 12 disciples, not vice-versa.  You get the point.  And it's hard to deny the reality of election with Bible passages like Mark 13:20, Romans 8:29-30, Romans 9:14-24, and on and on... The entire Bible shows God constantly choosing us, not the other way around.  

Now, this doesn't mean we don't have a choice in whether to love God.  A man can choose to romantically pursue a particular woman, but she will still have a choice of whether to reciprocate.  Excuse the imperfect analogy, but this may be the situation between God and us.  And God's power to woo surely surpasses even that of Giacoma Cassanova.  Still, it is obvious to me that in some way, my relationship with God is more dependent on He than on me.

The second issue involves theodicy; the problem of existence of evil in the world, and the general lack of evidence for God's existence.  I've written about this before: To me it seems the best explanation for this is that God created us to love, and love cannot be forced.  Ironically, pastor-turned-atheist Dan Barker says it best:

It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being.  [source]

I agree with Dan, and this is why God doesn't loudly proclaim His existence, doesn't do much to fix our broken world, and doesn't prove to us that He exists; He wants to give us a chance to love Him, and to do that He must give us the freedom to choose.

The problem lies in the integration of the two issues above.  If God chooses those with whom He has a relationship, then why is there evil in the world?  Why is there a need?  (And please, don't say "The Fall" - The fall came as a result of God giving Man a choice)  Conversely, if God values our free will enough to accept all the things that go along with it (i.e. evil, suffering) then does he really choose his "elect"?  In order to answer theses two questions, I must talk out of both sides of my mouth, and that really bothers me.  The answer may be as simple as my Cassanova example (above) but that has so far been unsatisfying.

So there's my list.  If you can help on any of the above, by all means, email me.  Or better yet, leave a comment on this post and let everyone benefit.  I have fantasies of someday writing a single post on each of the above, but I know better than to commit.  I'll just take it one post at a time.

Believe? Sounds pretty simple...

When I was dealing with the whole atheism thing, one of the things that always bugged me was the concept of belief.  We're always told (and we tell others) that we just need to "believe in Jesus" and we will inherit eternal life.  In the words of D.L. Moody:

Have faith in God! Take Him at His word! Believe what He says!

Is it really that simple?  What if someone really doesn't believe?  Richard Dawkins makes this point by asking the question: 

What if I don't believe? How can I just start believing something that I don't believe? Does God want a bunch of fakers?”  [a paraphrase from The God Delusion]

 Stephen Weinberg, in Dreams of a Final Theory says the same thing, but much more eloquently:

The decision to believe or not is not entirely in our hands. I might be happier if I thought I were descended from the emperors of China, but no effort of will on my part can make me believe it, any more than I can will my heart to stop beating.

So is belief something we have control over, or are we at it's mercy?  Does our will have any control over our beliefs, or are our beliefs completely inaccessible to us, as Dawkins would have us believe?

And what is faith?  Is that the same as belief? Can you have faith and not belief?  Belief and not faith? 

A second aspect to this problem is less semantic and more theological.  Ever since I started reading my Bible seriously, I have been struck by the differences between Jesus and Paul - Especially when they start talking about salvation.  Paul, of course, says over and over again that faith (or belief) alone is what saves us whereas Jesus repeatedly emphasizes that we will be judged based on how we lived our lives. Now, neither Jesus or Paul are completely on one end of the spectrum, and this disparity is not new; it is one of the main causes of the Protestant-Catholic divide.  But I am continually shocked by the efforts my fellow Christians will make to neuter Jesus' words in an effort to reconcile them with Paul's statements on salvation.  

I read something recently that helps make sense of all this.  In his book, Renovation of the Heart, Dallas Willard discusses what it means for a Christian to "believe":

Gandhi, who had looked closely at Christianity as practiced around him in Great Britain, remarked that if only Christians would live according to their belief in the teachings of Jesus, "we all would become Christians."  We know what he meant, and he was right in that.  But the dismaying truth is that the Christians were living according to their "belief" in the teachings of Jesus.  They didn't believe them!

Moreover, knowing the "right answers" - knowing which ones they are, being able to identify them - does not mean we believe them. To believe them, like believing anything else, means that we are set to act as if they (the right answers) are true and that we will do so in appropriate circumstances.  And acting as if the right answers are true means, in turn, that we intend to obey the example and teachings of Jesus the Anointed.  What else would we intend if we believed he is who his people through the ages have declared him to be?

Perhaps the hardest thing for sincere Christians to come to grips with is the level of real unbelief in their own life:  The unformulated skepticism about Jesus that permeates all dimensions of their being and undermines what efforts they do make toward Christlikeness.

The idea that you can trust Christ and not intend to obey him is an illusion generated by the prevalence of an unbelieving "Christian culture."  In fact, you can no more trust Jesus and not intend to obey him than you could trust you doctor and your auto mechanic and not intend to follow their advice.  If you don't intend to follow their advice, you simply don't trust them.  Period.  (Of course in this case you might well have good reason.)

  

I find that this helps greatly with the questions I pose above.  What is belief?  Belief is that which we are set to act upon.  In other words, we believe something is true if we act as if its true.

This helps answer the second question:  Who was right? Jesus or Paul?  Well, of course, both are right:

In Acts 16, when Paul and Silas were asked by their jailer "What must I do to be saved?" they replied:  "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."  

This "belief" does not mean that the jailer should state that certain things are true about Jesus; that Jesus died for his sins, or say a special prayer, or even say that he is following Jesus with his life.  For the jailer (and likewise, us) to believe means that the jailer really believes; and real belief will necessarily lead to doing the things that Jesus told us to do.  If he doesn't go obey Jesus, he did not believe.

Likewise, In Matthew 25, Jesus tells the parable of the sheep and the goats, and describes how, in the end times, people will be separated based on their actions: "[The wicked] will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matt. 10:46)  These actions are simply the kinds of things someone would naturally do if they believe.  We will be judged by our actions because our actions are a direct and necessary result of belief, (understood correctly).  

Unfortunately, this doesn't help answer the question:  What must I do to believe?  Richard Dawkins' question is still valid:  "What if I don't believe?"  

I think the answer to that question must have something to do with "faith".  But that is another post.

Paul Problems

I am frequently bothered by what looks like contradictions between Jesus' words in the gospels and Paul's words in his epistles. At one point I read Reinventing Paul by John G. Gager, which seemed like it might address this conflict in a new way. In the book, Gager describes his version of the New Perspectives on Paul (NPP). The NPP presents a new interpretation (in contrast to the traditional Reformation interpretation) of the writings of Paul that (among other things) seeks to explain the contradictions that can be found when reading Paul's letters.While there were a lot of interesting ideas in this book that I'll comment on in separate posts, Gager did a good job of summarizing the problems one encounters when reading Paul at a surface level.

If we look at Paul's letters, it is not difficult to pull out what on the surface appear to be directly opposing views, anti- and pro-Israel:

Anti-Israel set:

"All who rely on works of the law are under a curse" (Galatians 3:10).

"No one is justified before God by the law" (Galatians 3:11).

"For [some manuscripts add 'in Christ Jesus'] neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is everything!" (Galatians 6:15).

"No human being will be justified in his [God's] sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin" (Romans 3:20).

"Israel, who pursued righteousness based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law" (Romans 9:31).

"But their minds were hardened. Indeed, for to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil is still there, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day, whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their minds" (2 Corinthians 3:14-15).

Pro-Israel set:

"What is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way" (Romans 3:1).

"Do we not overthrow the Law by this notion of faith? By no means. On the contrary, we uphold the Law" (Romans 3:31).

"What shall we say? That the Law is sin? By no means" (Romans 7:7).

"Thus the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good" (Romans 7:12).

"To the Israelites belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the Law, the Temple, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ" (Romans 9:4).

"Has God rejected his people? By no means" (Romans 11:1).

"All Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:26).

"Is the Law then opposed to the promises of God. Certainly not!" (Galatians 3:21).

Will the real Paul please stand up?

On the surface, Paul seems to be speaking (or writing, rather) out of both sides of his mouth. He seems to be brewing up a big bubbling broiling pot of contradictions. Now throw in a little of Jesus' parables on salvation, and a bit of the book of James (how about chapter 2 for starters) and the pot boils over.

I won't address the Jesus-Paul-James conflict here, but Gager (and the rest of the NPP writers) proposes something that seems to be pretty novel for some christians: Let's try and read Paul's letters in their context.

In short, Gager suggests that Paul, the "apostle to the gentiles" was speaking to (you guessed it) gentiles. What seems like Paul's embracing of the law in one breath while denouncing it in the next is actually Paul speaking about the law in two contexts. In one context he condemns "judiazing gentiles" who were insisting that other gentiles must follow the law. In another context, he talks of the wonder and beauty of the law for Jews.

It's pretty simple, really:

Jews: Law=Good

Gentiles: Law=Bad

Now, if your red heresy light isn't flashing by now, you might want to get it checked. Didn't Jesus say:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Is Gager suggesting there are now two ways, one for the Jews through the old covenant and one for the gentiles through Jesus? Gager addresses this concern by saying, unequivocally, "Maybe." He points to 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, where Paul reveals "his real eschatological beliefs":

Then the end will come, when [Christ] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power... When [God] has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all me."

So the two ways collapse into one in the end, or something like that.

For a good summary of the book, see The Paul Page.

I think Gager's approach has a lot of merit. The traditional reading of Paul's epistles really doesn't make much sense to me; Paul comes across looking really confused. Either he was bipolar, or something else is going on that we aren't picking up on. I've learned that the former is most likely true.