Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: smayo@iii.net (Scott Mayo) Subject: s.r.c FAQ Organization: iii-net Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu This is a posting of the tentative "short faq" for s.r.c. (2nd posting). If it doesn't raise a storm of protest - and the last one did not - I will look into posting it monthly in net.answers, and occasionally here. **** This is a short FAQ for soc.religion.christian. Short is a relative term; this file is over 2,500 lines long. However, it is an attempt to cover, in one place, some of the topics and issues that most frequently cause flames and disputes to spring up in s.r.c. s.r.c has an entire library of topical FAQs, available through FTP, as described below. If what you want isn't here, it is probably there. This file was last updated on: 05-Jul-1995. ------------------------------ Subject: Abbreviations in use in s.r.c Commonly Used Abbreviations and buzzwords in s.r.c s.r.c soc.religion.christian newsgroup NT New Testament OT Old Testament IMHO In My Humble {or Honest} Opinion OFM Our Fearless Moderator clh The current moderator's initials Xian Christian NIV New International Version (of the Bible) KJV King James Version (of the Bible) RSV Revised Standard Version (of the Bible) NWT New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses Bible) RC Roman Catholic (church) A/G Assemblies of God (church) JW Jehovah's Witnesses (church) LDS Latter Day Saints (Mormon church) SDA Seventh Day Adventists (church) UU Unitarian Universalists (church) fundie Fundamentalist. Often, not always, used in derogation. BC years before Christ's birth AD years after Christ's birth (doesn't actually stand for After Death) Other abbreviations, preceeded or followed by digits, are generally references to Bible verses. For example, 1 Cor 13:4-7 means the first book of Corinthians, the thirteenth chapter, verses four through seven. ------------------------------ Subject: The rules of s.r.c The moderator, historically, has allowed postings from any viewpoint, including frankly atheist ones, into s.r.c, as long as Christianity forms some part of the discussion. This is in keeping with the charter of the group. I am told that only unreedemingly pointless personal attacks are rejected. Everything that is said about gracious wording, apology, and tact in newsgroups applies to soc.religion.christian, perhaps especially so. Many of the readers consider Christianity to be the single most important aspect of their life. A rude or callous post about the most important part of a person's life says a great deal (and none of it good) about the poster. The moderator is happiest when he can scan an article and accept it. Hostile, or relentlessly inaccurate, or wildly unclear postings only increase his workload, and contribute to general frustration. Don't do it. There is no rule to this effect, but I have found that requests for prayer are handled specially in s.r.c -- most people respond to public requests with private mail, as opposed to posting replies. This is a good thing, in my opinion; it contributes to the petitioner's privacy, and doesn't fill the newsgroup with a dozen polite variations on "I'm praying for you." However, it may also give lurkers the false impression that s.r.c contributers don't respond to prayer requests. From personal experience, they do, in numbers. Private mail is also a wonderful way to resolve differences of opinion first revealed in postings. If you feel the driving urge to straighten out someone else's theology, private mail is the best way to start. Christianity is filled with a diversity of opinion, and if everyone posted "corrections" to everyone else's beliefs, there would be no room on the net for anything else. And, of course, posting such "corrections" to *widely held* beliefs is especially pointless. You might not believe in the authority of the Pope, but there is no denying that large numbers of Christians do, and you are not going to accomplish anything by posting your crushing proof of the contrary position into s.r.c. Private mail, or nothing, is a better approach. You may safely assume, with the writer of Eccelasties, that it has all been said in the ages before. Look in s.r.c's archives, in fact, and you will probably find evidence of it. ------------------------------ Subject: The rules of this FAQ It was written by a small committee of volunteers, starting in 1994. Scott Mayo first organised the effort, because he (that's me) wanted to cut down on the level of redundant postings: much of s.r.c tends to hash out the same ground over and over, and if an FAQ lessens even a little of that repetition, it is a help. The current contributers are Scott Mayo, Alison Wyld, Peter D Banos, Frank Yao, Steven Foust, John Baskette, Orion Auld, Charles Hedrick, Marty Helgesen, Daniel Moloney A number of important points have to be raised here. First of all, while the moderator's name appears on this list, he is responsible for little of its content, so complaints should not automatically be sent to him. Whatever name is at the top of the list is the person serving as current editor. Secondly, people were not chosen based on their theological background. We are not all from the same country or church by any means. The main criteria for accepting volunteers was simply that I took anyone who volunteered before a given cut-off date. Writers were therefore not chosen on theological grounds, but more on their chutpzah. Volunteers are largely laity in their respective churches; we have an elder and a few folk studying for degrees in theology, but no one should mistake this FAQ for the voice of *anyone's* Church. Finally, some questions discussed here were answered by more than one contributer; a simple dashed line (---------------) separates answers to the same question. Each question gets a box, like the one that follows. Note that the FAQ is not written from the perspective of what is interesting to Christians; it is written in response to a lot of perinnial questions that have appeared in s.r.c. ------------------------------ Subject: Where is the charter? Where is this FAQ? Where are the s.r.c archives? This soc.religion.christian faq is stored in the faq subdirectory of the anonymous ftp site, described below, and will periodically be posted to s.r.c. It will also be mailed to you if you send a message to smayo@iii.net with this (exact) Subject: daemon: get srcfaq The charter and s.r.c faq files in general are available via anonymous ftp or through the world wide web. The world wide web URL for the soc.religion.christian home page is: This home page is an excellent starting point for finding Christian resources on the internet. The anonymous ftp site is The soc.religion.christian charter is stored in the file charter. In this directory are three subdirectories that contain the s.r.c faq archives. Our moderator describes them as follows: faq These are documents that try to be objective summaries of some question. mine These deal with questions that are likely to be controversial. I [our moderator] wrote them. others These deal with questions that are likely to be controversial, from someone else. I agree with some of them, but I didn't write them. Outside of the s.r.c archives, gopher or WWWers can find quite a number of interesting files, especially the Christian Resources on the Internet list, at Non-Web'ers can FTP a copy of the Resource Guide from Another resource is: ------------------------------ Subject: How do I send mail to the Moderator? Send requests and comments to the moderator at: christian-request@cs.rutgers.edu To post to the newsgroup by email, send your posts to christian@cs.rutgers.edu ------------------------------ Subject: What other newsgroups exist that touch on these topics? The following newsgroups discuss Christianity: alt.religion.christian (unmoderated) bit.listserv.christia (moderated) The following moderated newsgroup is devoted specifically to Bible Study. It is open to any religious perspective: soc.religion.christian.bible-study The following groups deal with areas of special interest for Christians: alt.education.home-school.christian misc.education.home-school.christian rec.music.christian (unmoderated) soc.religion.christian.youth-work (moderated) christnet.* The following groups discuss particular religious traditions that are Christian or have relations to Christianity: alt.messianic soc.religion.quaker soc.religion.unitarian-univ bit.listserv.catholic alt.religion.mormon (There is periodic talk of a Jehovah's Witnesses newsgroup in alt. Check around.) The appropriate newsgroup for discussions about the scientific merits of scientific creationism is: talk.origins The appropriate newsgroup for political discussions regarding abortion is: talk.abortion (s.r.c is not an abortion dicussion group per se.) The following newsgroups often discuss issues pertaining to the Christian faith. Christians are, I believe, welcome to join these discussions, but it is worth noting that the members of this group may not wish to be witnessed to. Discussion is the order of the day in these groups. talk.religion.misc alt.atheism alt.atheism.moderated sci.skeptic bit.listserv.skeptic alt.pagan Some other alt groups: alt.fan.jesus-christ alt.christnet.* IRC chats on Christian topics occur in "#jesus!" and "#heislord". The "#jesus" channel is not specifically for Christian discussion. ------------------------------------- Subject: Why do Christians believe in God? There may well be as many answers to this as there are Christians. Christian thinkers throughout the ages have proposed various "proofs" of God's existence. Often cited are the "5 Ways" of St Thomas Aquinas, and the "Ontological Proof" of St Anselm. It is unlikely that these have actually convinced many people; the small minority with the training to understand them fully are by no means in agreement on their validity. "Pascal's Wager" is also often quoted in this context. This does not attempt to show God's existence, but rather the desirability of believing in Him if there is even a tiny chance of His existence. Again, it is unclear that this has ever persuaded many people who weren't already believers, or strongly inclined to believe. So where do all these Christians come from? The fact is that most of us were raised in at least nominally Christian families, or in nominally Christian surroundings. And even in other cultures some concept of a God or Gods is likely to be imparted to most people in childhood. The very first Christians were born and raised as Jews; they didn't need to be convinced that God existed, only that He appeared to them through Jesus. The next batch of converts after the Jews came from polytheistic cultures; they had to be convinced not that there was a God, but that there was _only_ one. Conversion to Christianity is seldom if ever from a state of having no concept of God at all. Conversion to Christianity -- whether from disbelief, or from a "nominally Christian" state, or from another religious background -- is a matter of coming to relate this concept to a real Being, revealed through Jesus, and able to have a real impact on our lives. This seldom has much to do with logical proof; it is often a profoundly emotional experience. Skeptics on the Internet often refer to the subjective state of believers as a "Warm Fuzzy Feeling" or WFF... Sometimes it does sound like that; other believers report experiences that aren't warm or fuzzy at all. The trigger may be a crisis in a person's life, or it may be just hearing the Gospel preached in a certain way, or reading it while in a certain mood, or encountering another Christian and being impressed somehow. And of course there are plenty of Christians who never questioned the God-concept they were raised with and can hardly be said to have made a "decision" or had a "conversion" at all; though some will deny that such persons are "really" Christians. ------------------------------------- Subject: What do Christians believe about the Trinity? Do Christians worship three Gods or one? Christians worship one God. (Exodus 20:2-3; Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Ephesians 4:6) Christians worship the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:13). The Father is God (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Son is God (John 1:1,14; Colossians 2:9). The Holy Spirit is God (John 14:15-17) Treating the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as equal (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:13 confirms this, as does John 14-17.) This is not a contradiction, or a claim that three equals one. It is an expression of the reality of God, which we can know only because He revealed it to us, that is too vast for us to understand it completely, but we can understand some of it. To begin to understand the Trinity we have to make a distinction which is vitally important, but which is so simple that any child can make it automatically. If a child hears an unfamiliar noise, he will ask, "What is that?" But if he hears an unidentifiable voice or other specifically human sound, he will ask, "Who is that?" "Nature" answers the question "What?" A thing's nature tells us what it is and what it can do. The ability to fly is part of eagle nature, the ability to breathe underwater is part of trout nature, and the ability to think about God is part of human nature. "Person" answers the question "Who?" A more formal definition of "person" is "a rational center of attribution." This means that a person is a being to whom we can attribute the rational acts of knowing intellectually and choosing or loving with the will. A being's nature determines what it can do. I cannot fly or breathe underwater because those abilities are not part of human nature. But when I am doing any of the things a human can do, I--the person--am doing them. A person acts through his nature. One would not say, "My human nature is writing this essay," but, "I am writing this essay." I am using aspects of my human nature to write it--persons act through their natures--but I--the person--am doing it. In our experience each person has one and only one nature belonging to him, through which he acts, and no nature is possessed by more than one person. (The psychiatric problem of "multiple personality" involves a different definition of the word.) However, there is nothing in the concepts of "person" and "nature" that requires this one-to-one correspondence, and we know from God's revelation that there are other relationships. There is one God--one Divine Nature--but there are three Divine Persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each of whom fully possesses and acts through the one Divine Nature. Note that I said each fully possesses the one Divine Nature. They do not share it, with each of them being one-third God. Each of the Divine Persons is fully and completely God. This interrelationship is outside our human experience and beyond our comprehension. We know it only through God's revelation. The distinction between person and nature also is essential to understanding the Incarnation. God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, took to Himself a created human nature, body and soul. In Christ there was one person, a Divine Person, and two natures, the one Divine Nature, eternally possessed by God the Son, and a created human nature. Because God the Son had a human nature he could perform truly human actions, but because the actions were performed by a Divine Person they were truly acts of God. This is why, for example, we can say, despite the denial of Nestorius, that God died on the Cross. Not that God ceased to exist, nor even that God the Son ceased to exist, but that God the Son experienced in His human nature the separation of body and soul that is death. This also is why in A.D. 431 the Council of Ephesus could define against the Nestorian heresy that the Virgin Mary is truly the Mother of God. This does not mean that she is equal to God or older than God. Those interpretations would be blasphemous and absurd. It means that the person to whom she gave birth was a Divine Person, God the Son being born in His human nature. ---------------------------------------------------- Subject: What do Christians believe about the Bible? Why? John 5:39-40 For the most part, to Christians, the Bible represents the inspired word of God. Stripped of terminology, this means that in some real sense, God authored or commissioned the content of the books. Whether He merely wished to get certain points across, and moved people to write something touching on those points as they saw fit, or whether He laid out every single word and simply used the writers as copyists, is a widely debated point among Christians. Both those views are extreme (and rarely held); most Christians hold opinions somewhere between the two. What virtually all Christians hold in common is the belief that the Bible is the written work that defines the faith of Christianity. Among inerrantists, an argument is considered won when scripture can be shown to support one idea or another; but virtually all Christians, to some degree, also use the Bible as the touchstone of the faith. Christians, for the most part, also see at least the NT as a fairly accurate history of God's involvement in man's history, and many would extend that to the OT with little or no hesitation. Inerrancy is the view that everything in the Bible is true. In an extreme form, inerrancy is taken as a tendency to assign everything in the Bible at face value and literally true, but one can be an inerrantist without demanding exacting and literal interpretation of every verse. An inerrantist will take the view that God contrived to convey only accurate information in the text, and preserved that accuracy across the centuries, even to the extent of causing copying errors to be caught and fixed. In a slightly weaker form, an inerrantist might claim that the text was given to man and it is up to man to maintain it, but God arranges man's history so a reasonably accurate rendition (ie, one diverging for originals in only unimportant ways) can be transmitted. The Bible is still held to be accurate in all "essential" details, those dealing with salvation, general ethics, and the relevation of God's own nature, and also in most historical detail, though perhaps not in every particular. More liberal views, not inerrant, take more liberties with the text. For example, the next step from the weaker inerrantism described above would be to argue that the theology of the Bible is sound, but the history is in part allegorical -- for example, one might argue that Abraham never existed, but we are meant to draw morals from the account of his life; God has given us a symbolic history rather than a literal one. This view is commonly enough taken towards early Genesis, for example; it is not generally held towards the New Testament, which is easier to verify and holds up quite well where it can be verified at all. Few Christians hold the view that the Bible is an elaborately constructed myth. When dealing with the NT, few historians do either. Alongside the question of whether the Bible is accurate is the question of whether it alone is to be trusted, or whether other sources also carry equal weight in terms of laying out salvation and ethics. This is a question that tends to split neatly on denomination lines. The Catholic position, which I am not qualified to write about, puts Church teaching and tradition on an equal footing with the authority of scripture. Protestants take a Scripture-only view, and are much happier ignoring traditions and teachings that they perceive as being in conflict with scripture. Needless to say, there are difficulties with both approaches, and history has revealed them. Scripture itself does not determine the answer to this question; at least, to my mind, the verses used to argue both these positions are flimsy. It is perfectly possible to be a Christian and take yet more liberal views of the text of the Bible -- for example, proposing that the writings of Paul diverge from Jesus's original meaning and intent, but still holding fast to Jesus as Saviour. In opposition to this statement, I note that in s.r.c, many people who start to deny the validity of large stretches of scripture will also be heard to make statements that throw their own relationship with Jesus into some doubt; but I can think of no compelling reason why this *must* be true. One thing is obvious. It is dangerous to judge anyone else's faith, based on their view of the Bible. One cannot be judged an unbeliever because one doesn't trust the writings of James, for example. Arguments to that effect in s.r.c can be immediately dismissed without comment. Biblical criticism is a complex topic which will not be covered here. Suffice to say that there are various approach taken by scholars in determining authorship and validity of books of the Bible. These vary widely, and it is not at all obvious to me that they don't largely come down to opinion in the end anyway. The vast majority of the NT text can be traced reliably to first century origins, and some texts are dated to within less than forty years of Jesus's death; but specific authorship is debated in some cases. There is no historical support for certain theories, held by some popular writers, for the Bible being the work of a late conspiracy. --------------- Christians are interested in Jesus; the Bible is the major source of information about Jesus. So there are few if any Christians, no matter how "liberal," who ignore the book altogether. Probably the "left" wing is made up by those who treat it as a "mere" historical source, written by fallible humans, not uniformly reliable; who support and are content with the efforts of scholars such as the "Jesus Seminar" to take apart and criticize the text as we have it in order to get at a "historical Jesus." The Jesus Seminar in their recent book "The Five Gospels" express the conclusion that "eighty-two percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the gospels were not actually spoken by him." Many liberal Christians are content with an image of Jesus based on the other 18%, give or take a few. (BTW, in spite of the title, the only gospels the Seminar considers useful in defining the "historical Jesus" are Mark, Q (the hypothetical source of sayings common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark) and Thomas (a "Gnostic" text unearthed at Nag Hammadi this century.)) ...Many other Christians object that this approach does not leave any room at all for inspiration. A moderate position is that the Bible as a whole is valid and authoritative, but not necessarily in the way the more conservative Protestants tend to use it. Moderate-liberals are unwilling to throw out the Gospel of John the way the Jesus Seminar is, or to disregard the Pauline Epistles completely because they express what appear to be outdated values, but at the same time are skeptical of the ways conservatives insist on proving all points of doctrine by means of Bible verses, interpreted literally. Especially when verses are taken out of context from different parts of the Bible and stitched together; especially when what is being proved is a matter not of basic doctrine but of politics or natural history. Such proofs seem to rely more on human ingenuity, and less on honestly letting the book speak for itself, than the people offering the proofs realize. The moderate-left view sees the Bible as the words of men _as well as_ the Word of God; or perhaps more precisely as the Word of God -- the Good News about Jesus -- _conveyed_ by the words of men: ordinary men who encountered God in their lives, whether in the history of Israel, or the prophetic calling, or -- finally and most completely -- in the person of Jesus, and who did their best to report on that encounter. The Holy Spirit speaks to us _through_ the Bible, _if_ we let it; sometimes this means just reading the text as it is, in the order in which we have it, letting it move us the way a work of literature moves us; sometimes it is OK to try to second-guess the human authors, to try to see how what they wrote reflects their personal situation in history, their own respective agendas. The Word of God, in this view, is ultimately beyond our present comprehension; we must try our best to get hold of it, but humbly, with respect for our mutual differences. ----------------------------------------------------------- Subject: What about those extra Biblical books? The early Church probably used the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), which today only the Orthodox use in its entirety. The Septuagint includes all the books of the Hebrew (rabbinic) canon, as well as some books and Psalm 151 which are of later origin. St. Jerome, who translated the Old Testament from Hebrew into the Latin Vulgate in the fourth century, wrote prefaces to each of the books that were in the Septuagint but not in the Hebrew canon, which he called Deuterocanonical books, i.e. books of the 'second canon'. The ecumenical councils of Nicea and Constantinople IV quoted these deuterocanonical books as authoritative, which is part of the reason that the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches consider them authoritative. There is little or no theology that rests on these books alone. ------------------------------------- Subject: Is there a Heaven? Is there a Hell? Purgatory? I believe in Heaven and Hell, because Jesus spoke of them, and spoke of them in a manner that does not seem allegorical. However, while I believe in them; I don't know what they are like. What little description we have of each probably *is* allegorical. I don't believe in Purgatory specifically; the action of cleansing usually relagated to Purgatory, if needed at all, I would guess occurs in Heaven, but I have no Biblical reason for assuming this: it is pure speculation. --------------- "Is there a Heaven?" Yes, the Bible frequently speaks of the reward God will give to those who are faithful. (Cf. Matthew 25:31-46; Romans 8:17-18). However, Heaven is not like cartoons showing people sitting on clouds playing harps. Heaven is the direct face-to-face experience of the infinite perfection of God (Matthew 18:10, 1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 John 3:2; 2 Corinthians 5:6-7). Those in Heaven enjoy a created share in God's divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). This will be a happiness beyond our power to imagine (1 Corinthians 2:9). If it doesn't seem particularly attractive to us, that is because we are not yet spiritually mature enough to realize that that is what we really want. We are like a small child who cannot understand why adults are interested in things that he finds dull and boring. All of the legitimate pleasures of this world came from God, and are pale shadows of the greater pleasures of Heaven. "Is there a Hell?" Yes, the Bible frequently warns against Hell. (Cf. Matthew 18:8-9; Matthew 25:31-46) God desires that all men be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) but Heaven is a loving relationship, and love must be freely chosen. God will not force it on those who reject it. Like Heaven, the real Hell has nothing to do with the cartoon version. The essential suffering of Hell is the self-imposed separation from God and the loving union with Him that is Heaven. St. Augustine wrote, "You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you." The souls in Hell know they will never rest in God. (The fantasy, _The Great Divorce_ by C. S. Lewis illustrates how seemingly minor sins, judged by human standards, can constitute a shutting God out of one's life.) "Is there Purgatory?" The Catholic Church teaches that some people who go to Heaven pass through a state of final purification between death and entrance into Heaven, which is called Purgatory. Purgatory is temporary. It is not an alternative to Heaven or Hell. Everyone who goes to Purgatory will continue on to Heaven. Many other Christians have similar beliefs, although they may reject the word and the explicit doctrine . C. S. Lewis was a member of the Church of England. In his book _Letters To Malcolm: Chiefly On Prayer_ he stated his objections to "the Romish doctrine concerning Purgatory", a phrase taken from the 39 Articles of the Church of England, which reject it, and then said: "The right view returns magnificently in Newman's _Dream_. There, if I remember it rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer 'With its darkness to affront that light.' Religion has reclaimed Purgatory. "Our souls _demand_ Purgatory, don't they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I'd _rather_ be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know.' -- 'Even so, sir.'" We all have sinned. Christ has won forgiveness of our sins through His perfect sacrifice. But when we repent of our sins and obtain our forgiveness, we often retain some attachment to the sin. Our sorrow for having offended God is not perfect. It is enough for God to forgive us, but still incomplete. But Jesus said we are to perfect as God is perfect (Matthew 5:48) and St. John tells us that nothing defiled can enter Heaven (Revelation 21:27). Purgatory is God's means of cleansing from us the defilement of residual attachments to sins that have been forgiven. Other biblical verses cited in discussions of Purgatory are 2 Machabees 12:46 (which Protestants do not recognize as part of the canon of scripture), Matthew 12:32, and 1 Corinthians 3:15 and Colossians 1:24. None of these verses serve as a proof text, but they indicate an attitude or spirit into which Purgatory fits. ------------------------------------------------------- Subject: What does Christianity teach about other religions? Are non-Christians automatically damned? The simple answer is "maybe." This question is often (perhaps too often) debated in s.r.c; probably because in this age it is against the prevailing fashion to say anyone else might be wrong, as if religion might be expected to bow to someone's view of political correctness. Because of this prevailing tendency, many people tend to view Christiaity's exclusivist view as wrong, or actually evil. The more literally the Bible is interpreted, the likelier this answer is to be presented as Yes. In the book of John, Jesus is presented as the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and no man comes to the Father (God) but by Him. In conjunction with other verses, it is not at all difficult to present the view that belief in and obedience to Jesus (relying in Him and repenting of sin) is the criteria, and only criteria, for salvation. This was clearly the focus of the gospel message, and it is the simplest consistant view. However, there are dissenting positions. Paul, in Romans 2, makes a vague, in-passing reference to the possibility of salvation of those who do not know the gospel message. A single sentence is a thin foundation for such an important argument; but that one sentence accords with what many people suspect -- that God has not consigned a large portion of humanity to Hell or oblivion because of an accident of birthplace or birthdate (either of which can guarantee that you never hear of Jesus; consider the case of a Chinese peasant in the third century B.C.) However, this argument, as simple and reasonable as it sounds, opens a door to some difficult problems. If God chooses to save some people without Jesus (that is, without the person's active acceptance of Jesus), then was Jesus necessary at all? Why was the crucifixation and resurrection the central event of history, fortold in Hebrew prophecy for generations, foreshadowed in other religions, and all the rest, if God did not need salvation by faith in Jesus at all? The answers get complex. One view is that Jesus's redemptive act was required, but belief in or understanding of can be optional. In other words, perhaps God can determine whether a person *would have* accepted Jesus, given the chance. For people who have heard the gospel message, the question is entirely moot -- they accept or they don't, and everything is straightforward. But someone who has not had that chance might still be "claimed" by Jesus and saved by Him. The basis of how Jesus would select such people is hotly debated, and all the views have their own difficulties. For example, if Jesus "claims" those who behaved well, we have re-introduced salvation by works, which is untenable. If Jesus claims those that He is fond of, we have some of the problems inherent in predestination. One answer is simple and must be remembered in any such discussion. Jesus said very little about the fate of those who do not hear the gospel message. He only said He wanted everyone to hear it. He has not outlined His view of those that simply are not told in any clear way, and arguments about what God *might* do, in the absence of actual scriptural direction, are unlikely to get very far. If, as a Christian, we are asked "what does God do to those who have never heard the gospel?" it is entirely appropriate to reply "I don't know, but I trust Him to be fair." Keep in mind that someone asking this question is hardly *ever* in the position they are asking about, and it might be a better use of everyone's time to talk about their own relationship with God, not a hypothetical one. There is one view that does not work. Amalgamation religions, in which Jesus is held to be just another form of God, along with Krishna, Buddha, and so on, are not recognisably Christian. Attempts are sometimes made to make such a view consistant, but the process of doing so invariably ignores most of what these people have said, and focuses instead on the few things they have said in common (for example, "please treat each other fairly"). Thus, it is inappropriate to argue that one might reject Jesus, choose Krishna, and invariably be saved. To call such a view "Christianity" requires deleting most of the Bible and virtually every Christian writer in the last two thousand years. --------------- The traditional answer is summed up in the expression, "no salvation outside the Church." Until a few hundred years ago it was reasonably clear what this meant. The Church was a particular organization, with a set of doctrines, a governing body, a set of moral rules and ritual practices, embracing virtually the entire population of European countries, and minorities elsewhere. Actually there were competing organizations, the Roman Catholic Church in the West and the Orthodox Churches in the East, but these tended to dominate whole territories, and travel back and forth was much less common than today, so for practical purposes everyone knew what "the Church" was, and was told that to leave it or be expelled was to risk eternal damnation. It was always accepted in principle that the Holy Spirit worked in mysterious ways, and could very well arrange the salvation of individuals apparently beyond the reach of the Church; but this was not something people should count on happening. Rather Christians should first of all remain obedient to the Church themselves, and secondly support efforts to spread the Church to other lands. The Reformation, though not intended to do so, inevitably had the effect of complicating people's understanding of this question of the Church and Salvation. Suddenly there were competing organizations in close proximity to one another, all claiming to be The Christian Church. It became known to everyone, not just as an abstract fact but as an aspect of everyday life, that there were people claiming to be Christian who belonged to different Churches from one another. Even members of a family might find themselves in different Churches. Was salvation really reserved to one Church only, and if so, which? At the same time, the doctrines of many of the Protestant Churches placed a new emphasis on the individual's relationship to God, rather than his/her membership in an outward community. This meant that just as it was possible to contemplate the salvation of others outside one's particular Church, one also had to consider the possible damnation of people who were outwardly perfectly good members of whatever one took to be the "right" Church. That is, they might not really have in their hearts the necessary faith, regardless of their outward membership. The widespread belief in Predestination added a further factor: some taught that a person could be subjectively totally certain that he/she _had_ faith, his/her inner experiences might seem indistinguishable from those of a saved person, and yet that person might not be saved... In the centuries that followed, not only did the Christian Churches get more accustomed to the fact of their plurality, but there was also increasing contact with non-Christian religions and cultures, first through the imperial expansion of the Western nations. People in the Christian world had more opportunities to get to know non-Christians, to learn to respect them as individuals, to appreciate that often they followed similar ethical standards, and that their various traditions contained much of value. It became ever harder to believe literally in the old idea of "no salvation outside the Church." Today there are several views on this subject: The Roman Catholic Church has been placing much more emphasis on the idea -- which was always present -- that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of reaching beyond the Visible Church, working on people individually and even _through_ the non-Christian religions, so that everyone has a chance to be saved regardless of whether he/she is _consciously_ a Christian. (Nevertheless, the ideal is still to bring everyone into the Church; missionary activity should still be supported.) Conservative Protestants tend to adhere strictly to the idea that salvation requires a conscious faith in Jesus. Many are inclined to believe that God makes an exception for those who die in infancy; some think this exception may be extended to all who die without having heard the Gospel; but they would say that this is speculation, motivated by trust in God's mercy, rather than provable doctrine. More liberal Protestants tend to cover the whole range from the conservative end over to a position close to the Catholic one, or even farther, towards Universalism, though this latter view has almost universally been regarded as heretical. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject: Christians disagree alot. Doesn't that discredit the religion? No. There are areas of human conduct that Jesus never spoke specifically about. These, presumably, man is left to work out on his own, using (at least) existing tenants as guidelines. However, man is a reasoning animal and loves to reason, even in unreasonable ways. With the best of intentions, arguments abound. It is part of the calling of Christians to make sure they know *why* they believe something, to be firmly convinced of it, and to *lovingly* discuss the question with others, or to withdraw from discussion entirely. It would be helpful if this was more generally remembered in s.r.c. --------------- Christians disagree. At their best, they do so in a spirit of love and tolerance. At their worst they go to war. The world has probably seen more of the worst than of the best of Christians. Haven't we denied ourselves the right to a hearing? The above does not seem unreasonable. However, the dreadful behaviour of Christians down the ages (see separate answer) and today's disagreements do nothing to change the content of the Christian message. Christians by their behaviour discredit themselves -- the Christian faith is stronger than that. I would like to suggest to anyone who has been put off by the behaviour and attitude of Christians, that he or she skip the Christians and go instead to the Gospels. Give Jesus a fair hearing, and the decide what you think about him -- not about the Church or about Christians you know. It is also worth thinking about why Christian disagreement can be so vehement (or even violent). In general, it is not because we are hateful people, but because we care passionately about our faith. This can cause us to lose perspective and lose the ability to disagree kindly. This is not an excuse, but it is a partial explanation, and a challenge to all of us. --------------------------------------- Subject: What do Christians all agree about? The beliefs common to all Christians can be wrapped up best in a simple, common, creed: I believe in God the Father almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord; Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; He descended into hell. The third day He rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of God the Father. From there he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. --------------- The fundamentals of the Christian faith are as follows: o One God, who has a triune nature, who is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. o The virgin birth of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. o The redemption of sin through Jesus' death on the cross. o Jesus' resurrection from the dead, on the 3rd day, according to prophecy. o The resurrection of the dead, and final judgement of man by God. --------------- A Christian is by definition a follower of Christ. This Christ is the man named Jesus whose career is described in the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, i.e. the first four books of the New Testament in the Holy Bible. Therefore Christians all look to the Bible as at least a major source of information about their leader Christ. Any further statement will inevitably exclude _some_ people and groups who consider themselves "Christian." _Most_ Christians believe that Jesus Christ, even while being a male human like any other, was at the same time God the Son, one of the three persons of the Triune God. That by suffering the horrid death of a common criminal, and by rising from the dead, he actually conquered Death itself, and atoned for the sins of all who believe in him. That we normal humans cannot avoid sin by our own efforts or make up for it in any way except through Jesus' atonement. _Most_ Christians consider the rite of Baptism to be essential to membership in the Christian community; they also perform, with greater or lesser frequency, the rite of the Eucharist or Holy Communion, in memory of Jesus' Last Supper. Beyond this it is hard to say anything that wouldn't risk excluding more professed Christians than it includes... ---------------------------------------------------------------- [ Some protestants say Catholics are going to Hell. Some ] [ Catholics say things about that bad about protestants. ] [ The Jehovah's Witness next door tells me that all ] [ non-JWs will be destroyed at Armegeddon, and that there ] [ isn't a Hell at all. No one will even talk to me about ] [ Eastern Orthodox belief. Frankly, I'm confused and don't ] [ think any of you know what you are talking about. How do you ] [ respond? ] ---------------------------------------------------------------- In some cases we *don't* know what we are talking about. A number of highly ill-informed opinions and misrepresentations of doctrine float about in Christian communities, and not always just among the lay folk. A protestant that claims a Catholic must be bound for hell, for example, has forgotten that it is Jesus who justifies; even taking the absurdly radical position that Catholicism is wrong in virtually every particular, there is no justification for saying that a person who is wrong about many things but still tries to obey and follow Jesus, trusting in him for salvation, will not be saved. A Catholic that maintains that a protestant is not a member of the body of Christ is almost certainly misunderstanding the Catholic position, especially that of recent years. The question, then, is how is a non-Christian to differentiate between uninformed Christian "hot air" and real doctrine. The ultimate touchstone is probably scripture; a view that cannot be braced up by scripture is at least suspect. It is always reasonable to challange a writer in s.r.c to back up a statement with some facts and references; no Christian can justify acting insulted at having his faith examined! ------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: What is pantheism? Can I be a Christian and still be one? No, you can't. Pantheism is the view that *everything* is God: trees, rocks, people, planets, stellar gas clouds, the universe itself: these are what God is in the pantheistic view. It is entirely possible to be a pantheist, though in my opinion you have to face some embarassing questions to make the philosophy work. (If the universe is god, did god create himself?) What a pantheist cannot manage is a Christian view of God. Christianity demands that God is perfect in holiness; the univese is not perfect in holiness, because it is in part made of man, who is himself not perfectly holy. It also requires a view of Jesus as, in a unique sense, God incarnate (though how Christians understand that varies), a view that makes little sense if rocks are God incarnate too. Christianity also teaches a separate and continuing existance for some if not all of mankind after the universe itself is gone, a difficult concept for the pantheist. Finally, Christianity requires that the Creator be worshipped, not the created -- which sets up a firm distinction between the two. Attempts to reconcile these difficulties invariably insult both sets of beliefs. It is often tried anyway. -------------------------------------------- Subject: Don't all religions say the same thing? No. Christianity is unique in its claims about Jesus and about itself. Other religions are distinguished from Christianity by the fact that they do not specify salvation as available only through Jesus; and as that claim is a non-negotiable element of Christainity, Christianity is in the curious position of being "unmixable" with other religions. The nearest approach, occasionally seen in s.r.c, to mixing Christianity with other religions is seen in the claim that Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, and other figures were in fact the same entity (or at least avatars of the same god). The argument against this position is quite telling -- we have *no* record of Jesus ever suggesting that He had taught salvation under any other name, and his disciples and followers were utterly convinced that He held quite the opposite position. Scripture in fact explicitly warns against belief in "another jesus". --------------- Yes and no. First it should be noted that the question presupposes that there is an identifiable set of comparable things called "religions," and that it is meaningful to characterise them in terms of what they "say." Just as we see the world's physical area divided into territorial sovereign states, which for all their differences function in many similar ways, offer their respective subjects many of the same basic services, impose many of the same obligations, and generally have written constitutions and lawcodes that we can read to find out just how they are at least supposed to work, so we tend to regard the "religions" of the world as having mutually exclusive sovereignty in the spiritual realm, serving many of the same functions in the lives of their respective subjects, and having authoritative textual statements which can be compared for their contents. This is not the only way to look at the matter, nor is it always a very useful way. For one thing, there is no universal agreement on what _is_ a "religion." If asked to list the "religions of the world," most people would come up with similar lists, but not identical ones, and there is no clear way to resolve discrepancies. Is communism or secular humanism a "religion?" Is Wicca? Is Mormonism a separate "religion" from Christianity? Are Catholicism and Protestantism the same or different? The answer usually depends on the speaker's own agenda rather than on objective criteria. Also it is noted that many cultures exist in which there are clearly phenomena which most of us consider "religious," but where there is no organized body of doctrine, or no hierarchy, or perhaps not even any "religion" that can be named as such. There are languages in which a term exactly equivalent to "religion" does not exist, or didn't until recently, but whose speakers seem to do or say or think the things that we associate with "religion." Sometimes it seems that there is an "essense" of "religion" which is independent of the great institutions we call "religions" -- which can exist outside of them or be absent within them. But there is no generally accepted definition of this "essence." Having said this, the following answer will avoid further discussion of these issues and take for granted the common-sense view that the great socio-cultural complexes we call "religions" -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, to name the ones likely to be on most people's lists -- really are a coherent set, and can be compared. Do they say the same thing? Yes and no. On the one hand, each one clearly has its own unique teachings. The first three teach the existence of a creator God, who makes laws for humanity and can reward our obedience and punish disobedience. Hinduism is apparently polytheistic, though many of its spokesmen claim there is a single divine essence of which all the various "gods" are just local manifestations. Buddhism is often said to be atheistic; actually it does not deny the existence of "gods," only their importance: they are, however exalted, merely part of the round of birth and death, and man's goal is to transcend all that. Of the three main monotheistic religions, Christianity in most of its versions adds a complication: the Trinity. The One God exists in three "persons," one of whom walked on earth as the man Jesus of Nazareth. Even among Christian traditions there are some that do not accept this; and to Jews and Muslims it raises doubts as to whether mainstream Christianity is properly "monotheistic" at all. Moreover, Jesus is said to have died as an atonement for human sins, and to have been raised from the dead. We cannot avoid or overcome sin on our own, and can only be saved through Jesus. This again clashes sharply with the other Monotheisms, which hold that man can obey the Divine Laws and can expect to be rewarded for this obedience. Buddhism rather looks to release from suffering by means of progressive cultivation of an attitude of detachment from the world; the actual methods vary greatly from school to school though, and some come close to advocating dependence on a savior-figure almost in the manner of Christianity. Hinduism can hardly be said to have a single generally accepted teaching on what man "should" do; rather a wide range of practices and teachings exists within the Hindu "family," some stressing self-disciplined detachment from the world, others various forms of devotion to one or another deity, all held to be useful to different people in different circumstances. On the other hand: all "religions" teach very similar moral precepts. All exhort people not to kill one another, or steal, or indulge in irregular sex (though what this means exactly is culturally conditioned); they encourage generosity and oppose selfishness; though the monotheisms see these as divine commandments, and the others more as means of perfecting or liberating ourselves. This similarity may just be because the "religions" are (among other things) social organisms, and every social organism must inculcate some basic behavioral standards if it is to survive at all. At a different level, all the "religions" can be said to teach in some way or another that this everyday life of ours on earth is not the only or ultimate reality; that there is another dimension to existence, either a "Kingdom of God" or a realm of bliss beyond passion, and awareness of this dimension should affect the way we live our everyday lives. The details, however, of how this other dimension works, and how to go about orienting ourselves to it, differ very greatly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: What issues areise in the concept of separation of church and state in America? What laws apply? What Christian teaching apply? Romans 13 Christians are to obey civil authority (1 Peter 2:13-15), but not when the commands of civil authority commands violating God's commands (Acts 5:29). Jesus said "Give to Caesar (i.e. the civil authority) what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Matthew 22:21), but He did not say in detail what was Caesar's and what was God's. Over the centuries Christians have tried almost every possible variation from the civil government being run by clergymen to the church being subordinate to the civil ruler. Most Christians believe in a relationship somewhere between those extremes. Some Christians believe that Christians should concentrate on the things of God and leave civil government to unbelievers, but that position, which seems to assume a rather narrow definition of Christian, is not widely held. Most Christians, especially those living in modern democracies where the constitution acknowledges the right of citizens to participate in their government, believe that Christians should act in the political area in accordance with their beliefs. Some non-Christians seem to think that Christians should forget their faith when acting as citizen, that to take their faith into account would be imposing their beliefs on others. In answering this extreme secularist position Christians point out the distinction between forcing people to practice or support a religion, which would be wrong, and using knowledge gained by faith in formulating laws regulating behavior. The Bible teaches that murder and robbery, for example, are sins against God, but that fact does not mean Christians cannot support laws against murder and robbery. Almost all laws involve a judgement that certain conduct is wrong and should be forbidden. There is no justification for claiming that Christians, or religious believers in general, may not seek to have their ideas of right and wrong reflected in the laws of a country while non-believers are free to have their ideas of right and wrong reflected in the laws. St. Thomas Aquinas said that law is an ordinance of reason promulgated by the appropriate authority for the common good. Catholic political philosophy generally holds that civil laws need not forbid sinful conduct unless it affect the common good. Other Christian traditions may be more open to having the law enforce private morality. One usually cannot tell by looking at the laws someone supports because people can legitimately differ on which sins affect the common good to the extent that legal restriction is justified. In the United States church-state relations are governed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, which say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as extending these restrictions to state and local governments, but it still applies only to governmental bodies. Therefore, it is impossible for any private individual or organization, including a clergyman or a church, to violate the First Amendment. The exact meaning of the First Amendment is a matter of debate. Some say that it was meant to ban all government involvement or cooperation with religion. This has been the position generally taken by the Supreme Court since 1948. Others say that it was intended to forbid only a formal establishment of religion, similar to the Church of England in England, the Lutheran Church in Sweden, or the Catholic Church in Spain. They point out that the First Congress, which approved the First Amendment and sent it to the states for ratification, also voted for chaplaincies and other cooperation with religion. --------------- Legally, the American goverment may not dictate the religious practice of an individual. This apparently arose out of a very strong desire on the part of the Founding Fathers that there not be a State Church in America. In practice, the goverment does have the right to intervene in an individual's worship in some cases. A person convinced that his religion requires murder will not be able to avoid justice by claiming a religious need for his actions. Separation of church and state generates a great deal of heat, and very little light, as a topic. On the one hand, many American Christians are gravely unhappy about the fact that schools can freely teach about (as examples) Native American or Jewish traditions and religious usage, but will not talk about Christian teachings. On the other, many folk view with outright alarm the attempts of some Christian groups to force the teaching of Creationism into schools, or ban books from schools that are held to encourage experimentation in immorality. >From a Christian perspective, it is worth noting that Christians are exhorted to obey those in power (Romans 13:1-7). Given that, Christians ought to work within the law in the practice of their religion. Of course, that's easy for an American to say; in some places, the very practice of Christianity is itself restricted or simply illegal. -------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Why are Christians all republicans, right-denying extremists, and abortionist-killers? That's the impression I get from my newspaper. They aren't. Newspapers are prone to all sorts of biases, especially any bias that tends to help them sell more newspapers. Because a largish segment of the population reacts with horror or glee when Christians do or say evil things, and because horror and glee sell papers, *any* event that shows Christianity in a bad light will tend to find a prominent place in a paper. Christianity is not unique in receiving this treatment. Politicians, other religions, and activist groups of all kinds face these sorts of biases too. As it turns out, many, many Christians quietly work for liberty, happen to vote Democratic, and/or are appalled at the slaughter of abortionists (even while many are appalled at abortion itself). However, none of these things are at all "newsworthy." Thus they do not appear in newspapers. --------------- I am a Christian, and though I may not fall neatly into the average Christian category, I would say that I am not Republican. I would be slightly more Democrat if I had to choose, but I'm Canadian, so I don't. I know of many more people who also are not Republican and are Christian. There are of course, some Christians who think that certain recent democratic presidents were devil-sent. And of course, the outrage from the moderate Christian community over the murder of those abortion doctors should serve as an indication that not only are most Christians not abortionist killers, but that they strong condemn such violent actions as a violation of God's commandments. And that's what it comes down to. It's a question of extremes and moderates. The extreme right Christians have a louder voice, and hence attracts more media coverage. The moderates are usually likely to sit back and do very little until someone stirs them to signing forms letters to their government representative. Of course, there are many moderates who do charitible things, but serving in a soup kitchen doesn't get the media coverage it deserves. ------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Homosexuality. Is it wrong? Are Homosexuals damned? Romans 1:26-27 1 Corinthians 6:9 The state of homosexual inclination is not specifically wrong, according to the Bible. However, homosexual *practice* is forbidden by several texts. While it is possible to construct interpretations that soften the impact of these verses, it is very difficult to conclude that the writers had anything positive to say about homosexual activity. However, to say that a homosexual is "more damned" than anyone else is nonsense. Homosexuality may be a condition of birth, for all anyone knows. However, practicing a homosexual inclination -- just as practicing a heterosexual one outside of the context of marriage -- is sinful and forbidden. --------------- The question of the morality of homosexuality has been one that has crossed my mind, and news reader more than once. For the literalist, there is no question at all. It is wrong, and they have at least a dozen verses from various parts of the Bible to back their point. Some of these verses are from the OT. The anti-gay camp insists that these laws are still valid, while laws they do not follow any more, are not still valid for the Christian. I find this a very big inconsistancy, as the methods used in choosing which laws are valid and which are not seem almost made in such a way that suited the philosophy involved. Most of the other verses are from the NT, written by Paul. The two [Most? What else is there?] most used are Romans 1:26, 27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9. In Romans, it is described as somehow unnatural, and that homosexuality is practiced by people who have forsaken God for His creation, or at least the anti-gay side claims. The pro-gay side would say that Paul was very specific and was condemning the people who had forsaken God, and homosexuality (to him) was one of ways of spotting them. In other words, the denouncement of homosexuality was given in the context of temple prostitutes, not in general. This is the same argument used by the pro-gay side when it comes to 1 Corinthians 6:9 which says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. To the Corinthians, homosexual would almost automatically be identified with temple prostitutes. Today, homosexual does not equate to anything like temple prostitute or even someone who has forsaken God. So those verses cannot be just taken at face value without cultural context, just as the verse about women being quiet in church have to be taken with the cultural context in mind. The final argument against homosexuality is that God instituted marriage between a man and a woman, and that's the way it is, and that's the way it will always be. Of course, I disagree with this. The necessity of having such marriages at the beginning cannot be overlooked. The human race would not survive long if there was no reproduction. Just as the human race would not have survived long without incest. However, today homosexuals made up somewhere between 3-10% [10% is a discredited number] of the population, and there is no worry that the human race will not continue to produce because of this. [end note: these two show essays serve to indicate that differences of opinion exist in the Christian community over the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour. This is one subject that is pointlessly argued, again and again, in s.r.c. My advice is, unless you have extremely strong personal reason to worry about Christianity and homosexuality - e.g., you yourself are a homosexual - there is no reason to being this topic up in s.r.c. -Scott] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: The world is ending tomorrow - my pastor said so. Should I be concerned? It depends. Has he ever been wrong before? At certain times in OT history, a prophet that was found not to be speaking God's word, when he claimed he was, was found guilty of blasphemy, and was dragged off and executed. This tended to hold the number of false prophecies to a bare minimum. We have no such rules today, of course, and as a result anyone can write a book announcing the imminent end of the world. Many do, and apparently it can be quite profitable. So far, no one has gotten it right, though several have gotten rich trying. Your pastor may be the one who has gotten it right, but strictly from a statistical viewpoint, the odds are poor. It is far more likely that he has fallen into whatever delusion that has caused so many others to falsely announce the end. It is important to realise that the Bible states that no man knows the hour or the day of Jesus's return. It is one thing to expect it to happen "soon", it is another to expect it to happen on September 12th at 10am. Someone who claims to know such things is opposing the words of Jesus, which is scarcely a Chrtistian thing to do. Just about any prophecy comes complete with an explanation of why the verses about "no man knowing the hour or the day" don't apply to it. Usually these explanations are weak. --------------- Yes: you are in the wrong church. The Bible is very clear about the fact that no one, not even Jesus knows when the world is going to end. Any such statement made by anyone will most likely be false, and false prophets are not people of God. If that false prophet happens to be your pastor, I would say, "Get out!" You are most likely in a cult of some sort. Most pastors will not make such statements because of Biblical support that it cannot be made. Perhaps the world will end tomorrow, but if you repent/convert just for that reason, you probably won't make it to Heaven anyways. God wants people to love Him for Him, and not as a mean to an end. --------------- Yes, you should be concerned, but not about the world ending. If your pastor is serious about this, then he will pass this test: Have him sign over EVERY ONE of his personal belongings and assets to YOU, beginning 3 months from tomorrow (in case he was just a "little bit" off). If he is NOT willing to do so, then he's not serious about it. If he *IS* serious about it, you need to find out he can justify this claim against what the Bible teaches. There are various references throughout the New Testament that state that no one will know the day nor the hour of the return of Christ. Rather, we will know what things will occur *around* the time of his return, and we are to be watching and waiting for his return (of which we will become aware, if we pay attention). People are easily fooled into believing things which are according to their own wisdom rather than God's, and pastors of churches are no exception. They tend to be the focus of "the evil one's" attacks, because a pastor who teaches false doctrine can do more damage than a hundred individual Christians who fall into some sin. I would suggest finding a well established church in your area that focuses on the Bible, and discussing this issue in detail with one of their leaders. ------------------------------------------------------ Subject: What is a cult? Is Christianity one? How do I tell if I am in one? ] The term cult is used in several senses. Some relevant dictionary definitions of the term from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary are: 1. A formal religious veneration or worship. 2. A system of religious beliefs and ritual; also its body of adherents. 3. A religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also its body of adherents. Sociologists also use the term. _The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Sociology_ by Professor Gordon Marshall (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994) defines cult as follows: "cult In the anthropological meaning, a cult is a set of practices and beliefs of a group, in relation to a local god. In sociology, it is a small group of religious activists, whose beliefs are typically syncretic, esoteric, and individualistic. Although it is related to the concept of sect, the cult is not in Western society associated with mainstream Christianity. As a scientific term, it is often difficult to dissociate the idea of a cult from its common sense pejorative significance, and it does not have a precise scientific meaning." Since the 1970's a number of clearly destructive cults have been prominent in the media. In the early 1970's Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by followers of Charles Manson who had formed his own small cult. In November 1978, Congressman Leo J. Ryan was shot to death on a runway near Jonestown Guyana by members of the People's Temple under the leadership of the Rev. Jim Jones. Shortly afterward, 900 people died in a mass suicide. In recent years, there has been the fiery deaths of the Branch Davidian cult members at the hands of the BATF and the suicide or murder of 25 cult followers of Luc Jouret in Switzerland. In modern times, the term cult is often used to refer only to such "destructive" cults. There are other much larger "destructive" cults such as the Unification Church and the Church of Scientology. They are regarded as destructive because of the methods of operation used to recruit and maintain members and to extend their own power. These tactics may include isolation from former families and friends; complete control of what members wear, what they eat, when and where they work, sleep; and control of what they are to believe and think. Failure to comply with the demands of the group will often result in excessive punishments and rewards. New members may have to endure sleep deprivation or fastings. Sometimes such groups will resort to illegal means to obtain money and influence in society. It is important when using the term cult to understand the exact context of the use of the term. For example, back in the 1960's a book was written by Dr. Walter Martin titled _The Kingdom of the Cults_. This book is popular source of information used by evangelical protestants about various Christian sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses that are regarded as being heretical. The book calls these sects "cults", but the term was used to refer to religious offshoot of Christianity that was regarded as "unorthodox or spurious". Of course "unorthodox or spurious" is a relative term. Early Christianity started as a branch of 1st century Judaism that many Jews regarded at unorthodox and spurious. They would have been within their rights to regard early Christianity as a "cult" of Judaism. When religious believers call another group a cult, they will often do so on the basis that the "cult" in question denies some cardinal doctrine of the larger religion. For example, many Christian believers would regard any Christian sect that denies the Deity of Christ a cult. Based on the dictionary definition of the term, they are within their right to do so. It does not follow, however, that the sect in question deserves to be regarded as a destructive cult. Sometimes the term cult is used only in a descriptive sense. For example, references are sometimes made to the "Cult of Mary" in the Roman Catholic Church by Roman Catholics and others. "Cult" in that context refers only to "A formal religious veneration or worship" and should not be interpreted as being derogatory or carrying any kind of negative connotation. Perhaps the most common use of the term cult in contemporary times is to refer to a "destructive" cult. As such, the term has taken on an emphatically derogatory and negative connotation. The contemporary use of the term is problematic because the term is rarely defined and the normally accepted dictionary definitions do not adequately define the term as it is now used. One problem that arises is the tendency to equivocate on the meaning of the term. It is not uncommon for a Christian, for example, to attribute to all groups labeled as "cults" characteristics common to modern destructive cults. The Christian is using the term cult in the contemporary sense when making such characterizations. The problem arises when the Christian goes on to label churches such as the Mormon church as a cult. The cult label in that case is unwarranted because there is no evidence that the Mormons engage in any of the destructive practices common to contemporary destructive cults. There are many who are opposed to organized religion or to the Christian religion who make similar equivocations when labeling a major religion such as Christianity a "cult". Another problem is that the traditional uses of "cult" refer to forms of religion. Many modern destructive cults are entirely secular. There are political cults such as the followers of Lyndon LaRouche or the Aryan Nations organization with their survivalist training camps. There are cults rooted in psychology and self improvement such as Werner Erhard's est training where advanced participants become subject to the same kind of coercion and control as in other destructive cults. Even many commercially oriented pyramid sales programs take on cult like qualities. Yet another problem is the tendency of people to define "cult" in any way that suits their own purposes. One soc.religion.christian post for example defined a cult as a group that 1) Claims a human is divine, 2) Their way is the only way to salvation, 3) Downgrades other gods and religions, and 4) Uses guilt and fear by teaching its members that certain acts are wrong and will incur some kind of punishment. This definition effectively calls most religions cults. Such a definition absolves many other cults normally regarded as destructive such as Scientology. Most confusion can be avoided by noting that it is not particular beliefs that define a cult. It is the methods of operation and the extent of control over followers that best define what is a destructive cult. Here is what Steve Hasan, one of the top cult "deprogrammers" or exit counselors, has to say: >From _Combatting [sic] Cult Mind Control_, (Park Street Press; Rochester, Vermont, 1990), p. 37: "The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate the prevalence of unethical coercive mind control by describing the different areas of society in which cults arise and the techniques used for recruitment. Methods of operation are what make cults destructive. How a group recruits and what happens during membership determine whether or not it respects people's rights to *choose for themselves what they want to believe.* If deception, hypnosis, and other mind control techniques are used to recruit and control followers, then people's rights are being infringed upon." Note: I am using the stars about the text (*the text*) in the above quote to show the author's italic text. Steve Hasan along with a number of other authorities believe that destructive cults actually exert a kind of "mind control" over its members. Cult authorities such as Dr. Ronald Enroth and Dr. Margaret Singer and organizations such as the Cult Awareness Network claim that it is possible to literally force people to believe and make choices. The cultist becomes unable to make responsible and rational choices while under the influence of the cult. Other cult authorities, however, do not agree and dispute the mind control model. This issue is discussed in a recent "Cornerstone" magazine issue #102/103 in the article, "Overcoming the Bondage of Victimization". Books by proponents of the Mind Control model: _Churches That Abuse_ by Dr. Ronald Enroth _Combatting Cult Mind Control_ by Steven Hasan Books by critics of the Mind Control model: _New Religious Movements: A Practical Introduction_ by Eileen Barker _Strange Gods_ by David G. Bromley and Anson D. Shupe --------------- The answer to that question depends on what definition of cult you use. (Please refer to the question "What is a cult?" for definitions of the term "cult"). Christianity began as an offshoot of Judaism and was regarded at its inception as "unorthodox and spurious" by many of the Jews. In this sense Christianity can be regarded as a "cult" of Judaism. In other respects, however, Christianity is not a cult. It is true that there are some superficial similarities between Christianity and many of the more destructive cults. Christianity has a charismatic leader and founder. The Christian faith asks that the believer turn their total person, their intellect, their mind and emotions -- everything over to the control of Jesus Christ as Lord. These similarities, however, are strictly superficial. Neither modern Christian churches nor the apostles practiced unethical or coercive tactics. Neither do the vast majority of churches demand a totalitarian control over the lives of their followers. Many churches have a rigid set of moral teachings, but the most "control" that is requested of followers is weekly church attendance and giving some money. Not even these controls are enforced in any coercive way. How do I tell if I am in one? First you ought to ask, "Are my beliefs true? Is my religion or belief system correct?" If your belief system is true, then what does it matter if your church or organization is regarded as a cult? Destructive cults are characterized by their methods of operation. Some things to look out for: 1. Most destructive cults are extremely authoritarian. Power is structured like a pyramid with ultimate power residing at the apex in the hands of a single omnipotent leader or sometimes a group of leaders. 2. Many destructive cults do not freely disclose their true doctrines and beliefs to outsiders or to new members. The doctrines of the group are presented deceptively so as to mislead and deceive the public. 3. Cult recruitment techniques are deceptive. Recruitment is often performed through front organizations. Recruiters will deny that they are recruiting. 4. Cult often demand all of their members time and money. They will require that members cut of contacts with their old friends and family. 5. Cult members often face severe sanctions if they try to leave a cult. Former members may even be subject to violent attacks, legal harassment, and blackmail. --------------- "Cult" has a specific definition, which is largely ignored in s.r.c, and which I will also ignore here. You are in a cult if certain questions may not be asked, if certain actions which have no clear basis in widely discussed writings or deeply rooted tradition are held as "necessary" on the say-so of a very small number of individuals, or if disagreement with the leader on relatively minor issues leads to censure. A church run on NT lines will never be a cult. ---------------------------------------------- Subject: What do Christians believe about abortion? The abortion debate is one which runs and runs. In general, it should take place in talk.abortion. There is a whole biological debate about what an abortion involves. Is an embryo or fetus in the womb alive ? If so, is it an independant human life, or is it a part of the mother's body ? If the latter, at what stage does its status change? These are issues that should be discussed on talk.abortion. So, what if anything does the Bible have to say about the unborn child ? Most references are in the Old Testament, and most talk about God creating us in our mother's wombs. The fullest development of this is probably in Psalm 139, but this idea also crops up in Job 31:15, Psalm 119:73, Psalm 22, Isaiah 49:1. The clear implication of this teaching is that the unborn child is a human being, created by God in his image. There is no mention of any other start to life than conception. Some comentators see Exodus 21:22-23 as placing a lower value on the life of the unborn child than on that of its mother or other people: If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely, but there is no serious injury, the offendor must be fined...But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life... NIV They argue that "no serious injury" refers to the death or injury of the child, and "serious injury" to the death or injury of the woman. However, many others would see both as referring to either mother or child. In the New Testament, we have a description of John the Baptist "leaping" in his mothers womb in recogniton of the unborn Jesus. >From this sketchy survey (I urge all who are interested in this issue to research it thoroughly themselves) it appears that the Bible regards the unborn child as a living human being. To take the life of an unborn child is to take a human life. But, is it always wrong? After all, many (if not most) Christians allow for some killing in some circumstances (wartime, and capital punishment being the two most prevelant). Answers to this question vary. In general, the Bible appears to sanction killing only in extreme circumstances. It is also very hard on those who kill the weak and defenceless. And who is weaker or more defenceless than a child in the womb? The Roman Catholic Church's postition is quite clear. Abortion is always wrong. Many Protestants would go along with that. However some Protestants would allow abortion in some circumstances. The most common would be to save the life of the mother, or when the child is so seriously handicapped that it would be unlikely to survive to term (for example, an anencephalic child). Obviously, decisions like this are hearbreakingly difficult. There are also some Christians whose position is closer to the secular "woman's right to choose" position. I do not feel competant to outline their rational, however, they would argue that life begins either at birth or at some time during gestation, rather than at conception. (I _think_ the arguement centres round the fact that Hebrew uses the same word for breath and life or soul -- ruach, or some such. By this view, true human life only begins when the infant takes its first breath.) --------------------------- Subject: What is Predestination? Predestination is the idea that God is responsible for choosing specific people for salvation. It is a special case of the more general concept of providence, the idea that God is responsible for everything that happens. The term that advocates of predestination more commonly use is "election." That is, it is said that God elected (chose) those whom he would save. I will use both terms interchangeably. Predestination, in varying forms, has been held by most of the classical Western Christian traditions. One of the best-known statements of the idea was by Augustine, in his conflict with Pelagianism. The term "Augustian" is sometimes used for doctrinal positions that include predestination and original sin, with "Pelagian" being used for the opposite. Major portions of Protestant tradition also teach predestination, since it was held by both Luther and Calvin, the two major teachers of the magisterial Reformation. The term "Calvinism" is also often used for predestination and associated views. (This is not entirely fair to Calvin, as predestination was far from the most important part of his theology.) Predestination can be supported by several passages in the Bible. Probably the most commonly cited is Rom 9:10 ff, which discusses God's apparently arbitrary choice of Jacob rather than Esau, and concludes that like a potter, God has the right to do whatever he wants with what he creates. However Eph 1:4 ff and 2 Tim 1:9 are in some ways better, as they fairly clearly talk about Christians as chosen before the foundation of the earth. (The context of Rom 9 makes it likely that it is really talking about a temporary blinding of Israel, not predestination in the most direct sense.) Several passages in John also talk about God having given Jesus those who are to be saved (e.g. John 15:16 and 17:2). Calvin also cites the election of Israel as an example, citing particularly Gal 4:28, which connects Christians with Isaac as children of God's promise. A basic assumption is that humans are helpless without God, because of their sin. Sin has destroyed our ability to respond to God in any way that would be meritorious, or could even lead to salvation. This means that God cannot simply offer us salvation. He must create in us the ability to receive it first. For many authors, the result is a portrait of people being entirely passive recipients of God's justification. Luther compared us to horses, with God and Satan battling over who would ride us. At issue are a number of implications. Among the major ones: 1) Is salvation entirely a work of God, or are people required to make a decision on their own? The issue is not whether people choose. Everyone agrees that they do. However in the picture involved with predestination, the ability to choose God can only be created by God. The danger is that if a truly independent decision is required, ultimately our salvation becomes a matter of how we choose. As we can see in much of evangelical culture, this results in emphasizing a "decision for Christ", so that our salvation ultimately results from our own act. There are both theoretical and practical objections to this. The theoretical one is that this is "works righteousness". It suggests that we are not entirely fallen. While we need God's help, we are still able to make an independent choice to come to him. The practical problem is that this can lead to the kind of problem that haunted Luther before his "conversion": If salvation rests on our own decision, how can we ever be confident that we've made it properly? Perhaps we were only carried away by emotion, but have not made a true commitment to Christ, or in some other way our decision was not really saving. (One of the major ironies of the Protestant tradition is that evangelicals constantly refer to "justification by faith" and other Reformation slogans, while holding a position on justification that is nearly identical to Luther's Catholic opponent, Erasmus.) 2) Did Christ's death actually achieve salvation for anyone, or did it merely create a situation where people might or might not decide to accept salvation? According to predestination, Christ actually saved a specific set of people. According to the opposing view, Christ created a situation where people could accept salvation for themselves. 3) Who is in charge? For Calvin it is very important for us to accept everything that happens as a gift from God. Even bad things are meant for our good. But this only makes sense if God is responsible for everything that happens, including human actions. There are a number of common misunderstandings about predestionation and its implications. The most common are that it eliminates human responsibility, that it eliminates any motivation for evangelism, and that it creates a situation where someone might desire to be saved but not be able to be, because he isn't one of the elect. None of these is in fact true. 1) Most people who accept predestination adopt a position that is sometimes called "compatibilism", the concept that human and divine responsibility are not contradictory, but are compatible with each other. Augustine and Calvin both taught this, though Calvin tended to emphasize divine responsibility in such a way that he sometimes appeared to deny human responsibility. The best discussion I know of about this issue is Jonathan Edwards, "Freedom of the Will." The basic idea is that human and divine responsibility operate, as it were, on different "levels". On the human level, people actually make decisions, and those decisions reflect their character and goals. On the divine level, God is responsible for the overall process, including the character and experience of each individual. It is interesting to see authors talk about their experience in writing novels. Authors claim that characters take on lives of their own. Within the world of the novel, a good author makes sure that their characters have their own integrity. Their decisions are consistent with their character and motivations. Yet the author is still responsible for everything. 2) As to evangelism, it is a historical fact that those who believe in predestination have been at least as zealous in evangelism as those who do not. It may however affect the way evangelism is done. Those who believe in election will see themselves as one of the means that God has established to carry out his plans to save people. Their job, as defined by Christ himself, is to preach the Word. However it is not their responsibility to save anyone. That is God's responsibility. They are like the sower in the parable (Mark 4). This tends to lead to a more patient, long-term approach. For more information, I refer you to the section "The Puritans in Ministry" in J. I. Packer's "A Quest for Godliness." (This book as a whole is one of the best presentations of the justification for and consequences of the Reformed tradition, one of the primary traditions that teach predestination. I would recommend that this book is the best place to start if you want to investigate predestination further.) 3) It is common for people to ask about someone who wants to be saved but can't be because he isn't one of the elect. In fact, this cannot occur. No one can desire God unless God has first moved in their heart. Therefore someone who genuinely wants to be saved must already be elect. I say "genuinely" because there are people who appear to want God, but who in one way or another are not serious. For example, they may be carried away temporarily by religious emotion. I would like to make one qualification, and then close by discussing two common distinctions among those who believe in predestination. The qualification involves a problem that I often see in discussions of predestination. Often, particularly when discussing the question of compatibilism, predestination is presented in a way that makes it look mechanical. It is pointed out that God is responsible for who we are, our characters and experience, and thus at one level is responsible for all of our decisions. It is easy to conclude that God's responsibility is a mechanical one: he set up the rules and the initial conditions, and let things go. Now in fact he *is* responsible for the rules and initial conditions, but Christians believe that he also continues to be active in the world. He is present with the elect in a direct, personal way. This means that he works in two rather different ways. Both the elect and others do his will. But the elect do it knowingly, with the aid of his presence. Others do it unknowingly, as characters in a novel carry out their author's plan without knowing of the existence of the author. Now the distinctions: I'm going to discuss two: the distinction between supralapsarian and infralapsarian predestination, and the distinction between single and double predestination. The question in the supra/infralaparian positions is the extent to which God is responsible for the Fall. No Christian wants to make God the "author of sin". However it's not entirely agreed what that means. The supralapsarian position is that God ordained the Fall. The most direct Biblical support for this position is Rom 11:32. It suggests that God intended all to come to him via grace, and that the Fall is actually the first part of his plan to save us. This does not mean that God is the source of sin. He did not directly create it, nor did he inspire anyone to sin. However he gave us a character that he knew would fall. Apparently he believed that justifying and saving a fallen mankind would show his purposes more clearly than creating all creatures incapable of falling. Paul, in Rom 11:25-36 speaks of this as a mystery, which it appears even he may not fully understand. The infralapsarian position attempts to avoid saying that God specifically willed the Fall. He permitted it, but did not will it. The second major distinction is between "single" and "double" predestination. These positions are associated with Luther and Calvin respectively. Luther considered God responsible for saving the elect, but those whom he did not save were responsible for their own damnation. Calvin was more symmetrical in his presentation. He believed that God willed from eternity both that a specific set of people would be saved and that a specific set of people would be damned, and that we were to glorify God for both of these. In fact this difference is probably more one of emphasis and presentation than an actual doctrinal difference. Luther certainly understood that those whom God did not elect would be damned. Both he and Calvin believed that without God's election, our situation is hopeless. On the other side, Calvin did understand that there was some asymmetry between the elect and those who were not. The elect were saved by the personal aid of the Holy Spirit. While there can be a certain negative effect of the Holy Spirit on those who are not saved (any contact with holiness serves to make their condition even worse), God does not actively place sin in hearts of the damned as he places righteousness in the hearts of the elect. However despite these agreements, Luther was reluctant to say that God specifically intended to damn people. He allowed for it. It was part of his plan. But he would not say, as Calvin did, that God actually had as one of his goals from the foundation of the world to damn a certain set of people. Luther's position would appear to be supported by a number of Biblical passages saying that God wants all to be saved (e.g. 1 Tim 2:4). The discussion above is my best attempt at a sympathetic presentation of what is most commonly meant by predestination. I'd like to close with some personal comments on this subject. The most basic Christian tradition on this subject is that it is important to maintain both God's overall sovereignty and human responsibility and freedom. The earliest authoritative statement of this position is the canons of the Council of Orange (529). I believe that the basic presentation of predestination give above is Scriptural, and thus in general I accept the conclusions. If it matters to you, I accept the supralapsarian position, and something that may not be entirely either single or double predestination. I think it's important how we think of God's relationship to the world. If we think of predestination being carried out in a mechanical way, there is little room for human freedom or responsibility in any but the most abstract sense. However if we think of God as being more an author than a watchmaker, I believe it is possible to reconcile the two requirements. I think God tells the story that he wants to tell in the way he wants to tell it, but that he also maintains the integrity of all of the characters in it. This is not so much a mystery in the doctrinal sense as a matter of a master artist at work. While I believe God is completely responsible for his story, I also think that there is room for traditional Christian ideas about free will. There are things that God will not do, because they would violate the integrity of one of his characters. It is not that he is unable to do it, but that as an artist he has chosen to create a certain kind of story, and that commits him not to write in certain ways. Yet it remains his story. I am reluctant to commit to single or double predestination, because the whole concept of God starting out with lists of people he does or does not want to save seems an oversimplification of his task as an artist (and a violation of the Scriptural assurance that God wants all to come to him). That does not mean that I want to save God from taking responsibility for salvation and damnation -- Like Calvin, I think God is responsible for both. With J.I. Packer, I affirm that Christ died, not just to set up the possibility that some might be saved, but actually to save people. But the two classic choices for God: that his goal in creation was to save specific people, or that he simply forsees what choices we will make, do not either seem to do justice to his artistry. --------------- "Predestination" is not so much about the workings of the inanimate universe; it is taken for granted that God can do more or less whatever he wants with His creation, though He generally seems to let it run according to the laws He built into it. "Predestination," as Christians generally use the term, has to do with humans, and with the great question of Salvation. The "naive" view of Heaven and Hell, a view found in many religious traditions, is that we are rewarded for our good deeds and punished for our bad deeds, period. This implies that we are more or less free to choose to act one way or the other, and so are morally responsible. No doubt many members of Christian churches tend to think this way as well; but mainstream doctrine emphasizes that in reality "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23), and therefore we cannot earn our way into Heaven unaided. Therefore we need the atonement of Jesus; and the way we access this atonement is by faith. "Those who believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the only Son of God." (John 3:18) But what is the nature of this faith? Is it something we choose for ourselves? Much present-day conservative Protestant thinking emphasizes the need to make a "Decision for Christ." God, according to this view, has given all humanity a chance at salvation -- Jesus -- and it is up to us whether to take advantage of it. If we say "no," we have in effect chosen Hell, and God, though he desires not the death of the sinner, will _respect_ that choice. "Predestinarian" thinking takes as its starting point rather the perception that faith is itself a gift, a form of grace, rather than a "free" decision. Salvation is _totally_ God's work. He "chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. He destined us for adoption as his children through Jesus Christ, according to the good pleasure of his will..." (Eph. 1:4-5). And there is language in the Gospel of John suggesting that the saved were already entrusted to Jesus before He came, and cannot be lost. Perhaps more important, how many of us can really claim _credit_ for having made a "Decision for Christ"? To some Christians, perhaps many - certainly to Luther and Calvin -- it seems that God rather made the "Decision" for _us._ So: if the saved are saved because God predestined them to be saved, why are any damned? The Calvinist answer is: because God predestined that also. The strict predestinarian position is summed up in the acronym TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints. The first two points are widely accepted beyond Calvinist circles. They merely sum up the idea that we do not deserve Heaven, that it must come to us as a free gift. Irresistible grace, (and I think Perseverance of the saints,) was taught by Luther as well as Calvin: this is the idea that the saved are saved because God chose them, and God will not _let_ them throw their salvation away. Limited atonement is the tricky one: IF the saved are saved by predestination, and NOT all are saved, then God never meant to save them in the first place. They are predestined to be damned. Jesus' atonement was not meant for the whole world, only for those destined to be saved. A lot of people have trouble with this. It contradicts not only the idea many of us have of a "loving God," but also a number of Biblical passages that seem to mean that God doesn't wish any to be damned. Ezek. 18:23, for one. But what are the logical alternatives? Damnation by our own choice, as in most Decision for Christ thinking? This runs into the problem, as said above, that we are not really all that responsible for what we "believe;" many of us _do_ experience conversion as "irresistible grace." One alternative, attractive to many, is nevertheless generally considered heretical: Universalism, or the eventual salvation of _everyone._ This is what you get when you drop the "L" from TULIP and keep the rest. The trouble with it again is scripture: there are too many warnings of Hell for us to safely ignore. The Lutheran churches have developed an alternative that they call "single predestination" -- that is, predestination of the saved, _nothing said_ about the damned. In effect this avoids the question altogether. Is this honest? Not if you are trying to map out the fate of all souls in a consistent way. The Lutheran tradition however is less interested in that sort of universal consistency. Luther always focused his attention on the first person, and the second: "What does this mean to _me_? What does it mean to _you_?" His insistence on "irresistible grace" was meant to assure himself and his congregation of the total reliability of God's grace. We cannot blow it by making a wrong "decision." His purpose was to strengthen _faith._ Faith in what? in God's _promise._ He promised us Salvation. He did not _promise_ us to damn the others. That is not something we should even think of asking Him for. So what exactly happens to them and why is not an _essential_ part of doctrine: as long as we acknowledge that all of us, especially we ourselves, _deserve_ Hell for our own sin. ----------------------------------------------- Subject: Has Christianity been disproven by science? There is a way in which science could disprove Christianity: if the bones of Jesus were discovered, the resurrection would be shown to be false, which would strike at the heart of Christian belief. Christianity is falsifiable because it makes some historical claims that are falsifiable. On the other hand, modern sciences like physics or biology are not and cannot be at odds with revelation. Christians do not believe that truths of science can be at odds with the truths of revelation, because there is only one source of truth, God. Since God is the source of all Truth, any apparent conflict between what science tells us and what is revealed must be the result of a misunderstanding. Either the scientific claim is false or improperly applied, or our understanding of revelation must be adjusted in the light of what science has established. In either case, there is only one truth, even though there might be several roads to apprehending it. But, one might say, are there not some real conflicts between reason and revelation? For instance, does not evolution disprove the creation of man as told in Genesis? Well, if you assume that the theory of evolution is true (and there are a number of respectable philosophical and scientific reasons to doubt this), you might conclude that the creation story is intended to teach us that God created the universe, His creation is good, it is according to a plan, and that the disorder in the world and in our own lives is our fault and not His. The specifics of the story are meant to explain this to a people whose knowledge of creation was other than our own, since knowledge and understanding of God's activity in this world is intended even for those people who are not as well educated as we are today. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Christians have been responsible for atrocities; they are evil. How do you explain this if you claim to have a special relationship with God? Christians have done many evil things. A short list might include: The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of so-called witches by the Puritans, the execution of Thomas a Beckett and the plundering of monastaries by Anglican reformers, the murders of abortionists in the U.S. by individual evangelical Christians, the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims by the Orthodox Serbians--humans have done terrible things to each other, and Christian humans are no exception. The perfect truths of the Christian faith are preserved by imperfect, fallen men and women, who do not always live up to the example of Jesus. Since Christianity encourages zeal, and zealotry can be so dangerous, shouldn't Christianity be considered dangerous? Since believers when organized into Churches can do even more harm than individual zealots acting alone, shouldn't organized religion be considered a threat to humanity? Despite all the evil committed on behalf of Christianity, the good committed in Christ's name by His believers and His churches greatly outweighs even these evils. On a humanistic scale, Christian institutions have contributed great poetry, works of art, scholarship, and music. Without churches, the West would not have universities, widespread literacy, natural science, or democracy. Michelangelo, Beethoven, Descartes, Gregor Mendel, Francis Bacon, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr. were all provoked and inspired by specifically Christian ideas and themes to achieve what they did. Without organized Christanity, the world would be incomparably poorer even on purely humanistic terms. In terms of salvation, Christian churches are even more successful, having nurtured millions of souls, orienting them towards a love of God and neighbor. If "By their fruits you shall know them" is the standard, then Christian institutions will gladly be judged by it on any occasion. What about all the atrocities committed by Christians? Well, part of what vindicates Christian institutions is that they have within themselves the resources to to correct their past errors. The abolitionists of the nineteenth century appealed to Christian principles in their fight against slavery, which was being justified by Christians with references to slaves Scriptures. The Catholic Church, which used to condone the execution of heretics, now fights capital punishment where it is not necessary to prevent an aggressor from further attacks. Rev. Pat Robertson admits today that his opposition to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement was in error. These acts which were deemed acceptable at one time but are considered immoral today are considered so because our understanding of Christian morals has grown and developed with time. We would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if all Christian institutions were abolished because they were not forgiven for errors in judgment which they recognize. ------------------------------------------- Subject: What do Christians believe about Jesus? I'm going to cop out slightly on this one, and quote the Apostle's Creed. Although maybe using a statement that the majority of Christians for the majority of history would assent to isn't really a cop out... Lines from the creed are followed by a brief paragraph explaining any jargon and highlighting areas of disagreement in interpretation. I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord Christ is a Greek term meaning anointed one, used to render the Hebrew word for Messiah. Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit Jesus' conception was no ordinary event. He had no human father, but rather the Holy Spirit did whatever was done. Born of the Virgin Mary Different traditions vary. RC's believe that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Others believe that Jesus had younger brothers. Some liberal theologians believe that the virgin birth is a story to help us think about how special Jesus is, rather than a statement of historical fact. suffered under Pontius Pilate Pilate was the Roman official who presided at Jesus trial and ordered him flogged and crucified. Pilate certainly existed, and was a nasty piece of work, by all accounts. Crucified, died and was buried Crucifiction -- a particularly nasty way to go -- appears to have been reserved by the Roman authorities for real riff-raff and trouble-makers. A citizen could not be crucified (I think). Jesus died and his friends recovered his body and buried it. On the third day he rose again The miracle at the heart of Christianity. When Jesus' friends went to his tomb to finish the burial work, his body was gone. He then appeared to them alive. Christians believe that by dying a sinner's death and by rising from death he offers us freedom from sin and eternal life with God. Historical Christianity believes in a literal, physical resurrection. Some liberal theologians believe the matter was rather more metaphysical than that. He ascended into heaven. He is seated at the right hand of God the Father Jesus took his rightful place. The right hand is the seat of honour. Notice the present tense. We believe that Jesus is every bit as alive as he was on that first resurrection morning. And he will come to judge the living and the dead. The story isn't over. One day, Jesus will come back. We will all be judged on how we have responded to him. --------------- [This next answer made heavy use of existing files in the s.r.c archives. In the interest of space, I have removed some quotes and retained references. -Scott] Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God who died for our sins, was buried and rose again. He ascended into heaven. One day Jesus will return again to judge all of humanity. Jesus is the one mediator between God and humanity; whoever will believe in Him will receive the gift of eternal life. Christians believe that the person, teachings and works of Jesus, his miracles and his crucifixion and resurrection from the dead are reliably communicated to us in the New Testament scriptures. The great majority of those who call themselves Christian including all of the major strands of Christianity share in common a number of teachings regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ. Principle among these teachings are: 1. Jesus is the Messiah. --------------------- The Jewish prophets spoke of a time in the future when God would establish a new kingdom under the rule of a descendant of King David, also known as the Messiah or "anointed-one". The terms Messiah and Christ are transliterations of the Hebrew and Greek terms for anointed-one. Christians believe that Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph, is Jesus the Christ. These prophecies are found in passages such as Isaiah 11:1-10; Isaiah 65:17-25; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Jeremiah 31:31-34; Micah 5:2; Daniel 9:24-27; and Ezekiel 37:21-28. Christians believe that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the coming Messiah including those such as Isaiah 53 which Christians believe speak of the suffering, humiliation and death of this Messiah. Jesus has already inaugurated the new order of things in his first coming and will complete this work at his second coming in the future. 2. Jesus is preexistent and sinless. --------------------------------- There is no doubt that the New Testament writers regarded Jesus as being much more than a mere good man or prophet. Jesus is described as the one through whom God, "made the worlds" and who is "the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image" of God who is far superior to the angels. (Heb. 1:2-4) This is explained in more detail in the soc.religion.christian faq, christ-is-god. Christians are united in acknowledging that Jesus was a heavenly being called the Logos or Word, and that He existed before the creation of the world. He was the one through whom and by whom everything else was created. As John 1:3 says, "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." Christians are also united in acknowleding that Jesus was without sin. (I John 3:5, II Corinthians 5:12, Heb 4:15, I Peter 1:18-19) 3. Jesus is the incarnate Word, fully God and fully man. ----------------------------------------------------- The details of the doctrine of the incarnation as believed by virtually all major strands of Christianity were set forth at the church councils of Nicea (A.D. 325) and Chalcedon (A.D. 451). The definitive statement of this teaching as approved by the Council of Chalcedon acknowledges "one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin..." Here are some excerpts from the soc.religion.christian faq files that discuss the doctrine of the incarnation: The official definitions speak of Christ as having two natures, God and human. The human being is a normal human being, with all of the normal limitations (except for sin). Nevertheless, God is united with this human being in such a way that Christ's death is God's self-sacrifice. "In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself" (2 Cor 5:19). In all the official doctrinal statements, it is clear that in Christ there are two distinct things: a normal human life, and God's very presence. Christian theology must do justice to both of them, and not confuse them. E.g. we do not think of Jesus as a demi-god, something neither quite human nor quite God, but halfway between. Rather, he is a normal human being. And God -- the real, God, not some lesser creature -- is fully present in him. Furthermore, these things shouldn't be thought of as competing, as if God were present *in spite of* Jesus' humanity. Rather, it is precisely Jesus' human life and character that shows us God. One of the major themes of John is that God's glory is present precisely in Jesus' humility. But it is God present *through a human being*, not God in his "native" form. Part of the problem comes when Christians lose sight of the "indirectness" or "hiddeness" of God's presence in Jesus. This is often done with the best of intentions, to fight the tendency of many people to see Jesus as simply a teacher or prophet. But it's just as dangerous to go to the other extreme, and lose sight of his humanity. [from the soc.religion.christian faq, christ-is-god] To summarize the final synthesis, which is presented at Chalcedon, the editor [1] says: "Orthodoxy consists in the acknowledgment that Jesus is one subject, who is properly spoken of both as God -- the divine Logos -- and as a human being. To give an account of Jesus, then, one must talk in two ways simultaneously. One must account for all that he is and does by reference to the Logos of God, that is, one must identify him as God acting in our midst. At the same time, however, one must account for him as a human being in the ordinary sense of that term. Both accounts are necessary." However Chalcedon does not specify a specific explanation of how that can be the case. "There is a sense, therefore, in which .. Chalcedon solves the christological problem by laying out its terms. Its formula dictates not a Christology but formal outlines of an adequate christological language." [from the soc.religion.christian faq directory, chalcedon] [1] clh is quoting Richard A. Norris, Jr., editor and translator of _The Christological Controversy_, (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1980). This book contains a translation of several passages from the early church fathers (such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Athanasius among others) that are relevant to the Christological controversy that lead to the councils of Nicea and Chalcedon. This is one book in the Sources of Early Christian Thought series. The one major strand of Christianity that formally rejected the Christology of Chalcedon consists of the eastern monopysite churches such as the Coptic church. According to Hedrick: * the heirs of those who would not accept Chalcedon (the monophysites) have recently begun to have discussions with other Christians again. At this point it appears that we essentially agree. It is now apparent that their differences with Chalcedon are just terminology. That doesn't mean that this was always so. I think it took both sides maturing separately before fruitful discussions could take place. [from the soc.religion.christian faq, chalcedon] 4. Jesus was born of a Virgin. -------------------------- The virgin birth of Jesus is clearly taught in the New Testament (Matthew 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-38) and has been a long and well established belief of the historic church. Many Christians regard the doctrine of the Virgin Birth as fundamental and non-negotiable. In spite of this, it must be acknowledged that there are Christians who believe in the incarnation and bodily resurrection of our Lord who do not accept the Virgin birth. Historically, the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was regarded as an important aspect of the incarnation. The Virgin Birth is the means by which the incarnation became a reality. 5. Jesus was crucified to atone for the sins of humanity. ------------------------------------------------------ The soc.religion.christian faq file, atonement, discusses the meaning of Christ's death on the cross. Some of the theories of the atonement are: a. Forensic Substitution Theory. This view is the dominant theory held by western Protestants. This view says that Christ died on the cross to receive the punishment and pay the penalty of sin due to sinners. The sins of the believer are imputed to Christ, and Christ pays for our sins in order to satisfy God's demand for justice. Christ's righteousness is likewise imputed to the sinner. This view has its roots in Anselm's work _Cur Deus Homo_. b. Ransom Theory. This view holds that Satan had certain claims on the human race. The human race was redeemed from the claims of Satan by the offer of Christ as a ransom to Satan in exchange for humanity. Christ pays our ransom through His death on the Cross, but triumphs over Satan anyway by His resurrection from the dead. The church father Origen championed a view like this. c. Recapitulation Theory. This view is compatible with the others. It holds that Christ came to recapitulate the phases of the life of Adam, including the death on the cross as a consequence of Adam's sin. Christ, however, does properly everything that Adam failed to do. Christ's, as the second Adam, communicates his life to us. This view was taught by Irenaeus in the second century. It is echoed in the Eastern Orthodox view on theosis. d. The Moral Influence Theory. This view says that Christ came to reveal the Father and to reconcile God and humanity -- and ended up being crucified for his trouble. This extreme sacrifice demonstrates just how much God loves and cares for everyone of us. It shows clearly the loving heart of God who desires to forgive sinners. Look at what he did for you! This view of the atonement was championed by St. Abelard. Note that these views are not necessarily mutually exclusive. 6. Jesus rose again from the dead and ascended into heaven. -------------------------------------------------------- According to Paul, Christ "was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification." (Romans 4:25) The Resurrection of Christ from the dead is perhaps the most central and important fact of the Christian faith. Paul describes the importance of this teaching in I Corinthians as follows: 15:13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. 15:15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. 15:16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: 15:17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. The resurrection of Christ is an essential part of the core of the message preached by the apostles. I Corinthians 15 may preserve the earliest known formulation of the gospel message: 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures The consensus of Bible scholars is that I Corinthians was written sometime in the A.D. 50s. In these verses it is believed that Paul is quoting an early creed that Paul likely learned from the other apostles. This creed would likely date to within a few years of the ressurrection. In the book of Acts, the first sermon preached by Peter was about the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2). When the disciples sought a replacement for Judas, they required that whoever it would be had to have been a witness of the resurrection (Acts 1:22). Without the Resurrection there is no Christianity. After the Resurrection Christ ascended into heaven as taught in Luke 24:50,51 and Acts 1:9-11. Christ returned to God in His resurrection body and is now alive where God is. 7 Jesus is the mediator between God and man. He is the way of salvation. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The apostle John quotes Jesus as saying, "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one comes to the Father but by me." Christians believe that it is Jesus Christ who reconciles God and humanity. Anyone who attains salvation does so because Christ has mediated that salvation in some sense. There is a difference between being saved by Christ and knowing Christ personally. A great many Christians believe that it is necessary to have knowledge of Christ in order to obtain salvation. Not all Christians, however, believe that this is the case. Some believe that many non-Christians will obtain salvation. Some theologians hold to a doctrine that identifies such people as anonymous Christians. 8 Jesus is coming again. ---------------------- A number of scriptures talk explicitly about the second coming or return of Christ, such as Matthew 24-25; I Thessalonians 4 and 5; Luke 21; II Peter 2 and Revelation 19. There is a tremendous diversity in Christian views regarding exactly how these end time events will transpire, but all Christians believe in a few central ideas: a. When Christ returns, He will descend out of heaven in the same manner that He ascended (Acts 1:11). b. At His coming, all who are "in Christ" will rise from the dead. c. He will judge all humanity for their sins. d. He will reign forever as our Lord and King. ----------------------------------------- Subject: What do Christians believe about sex? For the purposes of this answer, "marriage" is defined as a formal committment between a man and a woman to live their lives together, contracted under the laws or customs of the society in which they live. The first thing to note is that sexuality is a part of God's creation. It is therefore good. The pre-fall naratives in Genesis 1 and 2 make it clear that maleness and femaleness are part of the created order. They introduce the idea of the "one flesh" relationship and it is worth noting that the man and the woman are described as naked and unashamed. Another demonstrations of the Bible's high view of sexuality is found in the Song of Songs, which is pretty sexy stuff, and whatever metaphorical meanings you care to find there, is clearly first and foremost a celebration of passion and sensuality. In the New Testament, Jesus honoured the idea of marriage, and restates the "one flesh" idea. (Matthew 19) Furthermore, Paul honours both marriage and singleness and again, reiterates the idea of the "one flesh" relationship. He teaches that sex between husband and wife is a normal and healthy part of marriage and that it is for the fulfillment of both partners. Note in passing that either partner is given the right to initiate love-making. (I Corinthians 6 - 7) Why do Christians (mostly) limit sex to marriage ? The fundamental reason is the Bibles teaching on "one flesh". What it seems to be saying is that from the moment a man and a woman have sex, their whole lives become entwined in a new and radical way. This happens regardless of how fleeting or casual the encounter is and regardless of the feelings of those involved. This one flesh relationship has repercussions at a spiritual as well as a phyiscal and emotional level. Sex outwith marriage therefore, is wrong, not because of the risk of pregancy, AIDS or whatever, but because it creates a relationship that there is no committment to maintain. To quote Richard Foster's quotation of Lewis Smedes: [sex before marriage] is wrong because unmarried people thereby engage in a life-uniting act without a life-uniting intent (Smedes, Sex for Christians, quoted by Foster in Money Sex and Power) So, what about singles ? I'm afraid this leaves singles with celibacy. This is a tough calling, but not one that God leaves singles alone to cope with. It also does not mean that single people should try to deny that they are sexual beings. The Bible asks for control, not repression. Nor does it mean that all physical expressions of affection are out -- a hug or a back-rub (for example) can convey all kinds of love apart from sexual desire and may well be appropriate among friends. I am well aware, that as a married woman, who furthermore married young, I am outside of my own experience, so I won't say more here. What is sex within marriage for ? The primary purpose of sex within marriage appears to be the creation and strengthening of the one flesh union. It also has the biological purpose of creating children. Does anything go within marriage ? The Bible doesn't forbid any particular sexual practices. However teaching on mutual love and submission would seem to require that anything that makes your partner uncomfortable is out. What about contraception ? This is an area of disagreement between Christians. The Roman Catholic church teaches that contraception is wrong. Every act of intercourse must have at least the potential for creating new life. Most Protestants (and in fact many otherwise faithful Catholics) disagree. Although most regard having children as the norm, very few now say that it is wrong to use contraception at the very least to plan or space births, if not to avoid them entirely. However, anyone who has bothered to to any research into contraception knows that it is not infallible, and Protestants would certainly accept that any particular act of intercourse might well end in pregnancy and that children conceived even at the most inconvenient time are still a gift from God to be loved and cherished. What about dating ? Christians disagree about the amount of physical contact that is appropriate in a dating relationship. Some frown even on hand-holding while others encourage (or at least don't disallow) a degree of sexual exploration. If sex is tied up with commitment, it seems sensible to say, at the very least, that the physical side of a relationship should not move ahead faster or further than the emotional or spiritual sides. Also, full intercourse, or anything which a particular couple knows themselves will likely lead to it, should certainly be reserved for marriage. But why wait to be formally, legally married ? It is quite common for young Christian couples (and others) to decide that the fact they have made a private commitment to eachother is enough to warrant them going to bed together. However, the Bible is quite clear that marriage is a public commitment, that has to do with society as a whole. In Genesis 2 "the man will leave his father and mother and will be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" points to the foundation of a new household, that will be recognised as such by the community. This is why Christians register their marriages with the civil authorities in countries where a religious ceremony is not enough to constitute a legal marriage (this is the case in many European countries). And finally, don't believe the media... Young unmarried Christians reading this have doubtless picked up the idea from the media that sex is an easy means of pleasure. However, I'm sure that most of the sexually experienced readership will smile wryly and agree its not always like that. Love-making is a skill that has to be learned like any other skill. You wouldn't expect to jump into the pool and to break the world sprint record without practicing first. A stable, committed relationship, where you can laugh when it all goes horribly wrong, and when you know your partner won't leave you if you don't measure up, is a wonderful place to learn. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: What do Christians say about the role of women in the church, family and society? The glib and short answer to this, is "it depends which Christians". But that's probably not what you are wondering. The range of Christian views on this subject is pretty wide, as wide as the range of non-Christian views. At one extreme, you have the view summed up by "Kinder, Kirche and Kuche". By this teaching, a woman's proper sphere is domestic. She should be in submission either to her husband or her father, and concentrate on creating a happy Christian home, in which her children can be nurtured in the faith and the spiritual and physical needs of they and her husband can me met. She has no place in the workplace, in public or political life and should defer to her husband in all things. At the other extreme, you have the kind of separatist feminist teaching that says that women can and should be building lives for themselves independantly of men (patriarchy) and in some cases even cutting all relationships with mem. Most Christians fall somewhere between these two extremes. Lets try to sort out some issues, identify some arguments and establish the parameters of the discussion. KEY BIBLICAL PASSAGES Since the entire Bible is the story of mankind's relationship with God, it is hard to find a subset that relates particularly and only to women. However, here is a list of passages that commonly come up: Genesis 1-3 (creation of mankind, male and female, fall of mankind, ditto) Deuteronomy 29:9-18 (duties and responsiblities of covenant community male and female) Stories of various Old Testament women (Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Bathsheba etc) Proverbs 31 (poem about the ideal wife). Jesus' teaching about and to women (Samaritan woman, Mary and Martha, Easter morning etc) 1 Corinthians 7, 11 and 14; Ephesians 5; Colossians 3; 1 Timothy 2; and 5 Titus 2:1-6; 1 Peter 3. Examples of early Christian women - Lydia, Priscilla... The key issue is who/what are women. This takes us back to the creation narratives in Genesis 1 and 2 and the fall narative in Genesis 3. The clear teaching of Genesis 1 is that God created mankind in his image (Genesis 1:27). Male and female are both described as being in the image of God and God describes his creation as good. They are jointly given the command to be fruitful and multiply and to exercise stewardship over the rest of creation (my summary of Gen 1:28-31). Genesis 2 fills in some detail. Woman is created to be a "helper" to man, to break his lonliness. Men and women together can form a new unit (the "one flesh" relationship). The Christian world is split over these two chapters. Some see the woman's later creation and the description as "helper" as implying subordination to the man. They also tend to see the "job description" in Gen 1:28-31 as assigning "multiplication" (baby care and by extension the entire domestic sphere) to women and stewardship to men. Others can find no such teaching in this passage. Instead they seem men and women created by God in his image, both under God's authority, and neither with authority over the other. They point out that the command to fill and take care of the earth is given to them both (to use a good Scots legal phrase, they are "jointly and severally liable). The Hebrew word translated "helper" by the NIV is also used in many places in the OT to describe God as the "helper" of his people and therefore does not bear any connotation of subordination. So far, everything in the garden is lovely... Enter the snake... The events of the fall are well known. The snake talks the woman into eating the forbidden fruit. She talks her husband into joining her. God finds out and there is a major row, culminating in their expulsion from Eden. Most discussion of Genesis 3, focusses around vv14-19 the so called "curse". Note first of all that neither the man nor the woman are cursed. The snake is cursed as is the ground, but the man and the woman are not. In Gen 3:16, the women is told that childbearing will become more painful. She will continue to feel desire for her husband, and he will "rule over her" (dominate her ? my paraphrase). The man is told that the work of stewardship will become harder and painful. In other words, both parts of the creation mandate have been made difficult and unpleasant, and the equal relationship betweem man and woman is broken. Here, if anywhere, there is an introduction of hierarchy and of split responsibilities. The arguement here centres around whether God's words to the man and woman are prescriptive or descriptive. Is he passing sentence, or describing the consequences of their actions ? And, if he is passing sentence, does that sentence stand for all eternity or is is modified or nullified by the cross ? Now, it is undoubtedly true that the condition of most people through most of history has been a pretty good reflection of these words. Wresting food from the earth that been back-breaking and precarious and having and raising children has been the major preoccupation of most women, but, is this how God intended it to be ? Punishment or consquence ? Skipping a few centuaries of millenia...we come to...Jesus and the gospels. What is remarkable is the way in which Jesus treats women like people. Not like children, not like moral defficients who are incapable of knowing any better, but like accountable human beings, sinners in need of redemption, grown-ups capable of responding to him. (See for example, John 4 and Luke 10) It is also notable that Jesus doesn't give any particular separate teaching to men and women or wives and husbands. He uses both men and women in his parables and other teaching, sometimes to criticise, sometimes to praise, and seems to do so in a way that almost disregards gender. However, Jesus did choose only to call men to be his closest disciples. Social convention, or an intended pattern for the Church ? He does not say. We do know that many women were among his most faithful followers, accompanying him on his travels and helping to provide for him. This fact may provide an arguement AGAINST relying on social convention to account for Jesus' choice of only male apostles. On the other hand he also chose only Jews, so it is debatable how far this arguement can be pushed. But what about Paul, what about all that nasty submission stuff, what about women preachers, married women, widows...? This answer is supposed to be short, so I'll keep it brief. Sooner or later you get to Ephesians 5. What is Paul on about ? What does he mean by "head" and "submit" ? In brief, the arguement turns on whether the controlling statement of Ephesians 5`s teaching on relationships is "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ"(v21) or "Wives (submit) to your husbands as to the Lord" (v22). Is Paul asking for more submission from wives than from husbands and more love from husbands than from wives, or, is he describing a life of mutual, self-giving, submissive love. Again, Christians just plain disagree. As for the head metaphore, well, its a tricky one. The associations between headship and leadership are strong in our culture, but this may not have been the case in Paul's day, and this may not be what his is getting at. He may be re-inforcing his teaching about loving and caring instead. (Briefly, if head means "source" not leader, the parallel may be with Christ's role as sustainer and nourisher of the Church and not with his role as Sovereign Lord.) A note about authority: this word is used about the marriage relationship only once, in a sexual context. See the answer on sex for further discussion. Woman preachers ? There are examples throughout the Bible of women teaching other women, women teaching children and women teaching men privately. What is at issue here is the public teaching of the word. Unfortuanately, the evidence is scanty and ambiguous. YOu really need to look at all of 1 Tim. and take it together with Paul's other teaching and his practical working relationships with women. BUT, the key hot verse is 1 Tim 2:11-12: A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent...NIV The first sentence could just be a description of how any believer should listen to Christian teaching. It is also not clear who the submission refered to is to -- the teacher, the scriptures, God, her husband or father ? The second sentence is the one that raises the issues. A conservative reading sees this as the clincher -- there is no role for women in the public teaching of the Word. A less conservative reader might raise a number of questions: "I do not permit..." Why does Paul personalise this, is he merely describing his own personal practice or does he intend to lay down a rule for all christians. If the latter, is his status as a apostle sufficient to allow him to do so ? "have authority" Why does he not use his normal word for "authority" ? The King James recognises his odd word choice here, and translates "usurp authority". Is Paul saying that for a woman to hold authority is always "usurpation" or, is he dealing with a situation where some women were trying to usurp the authority of an existing leader ? "she must be silent" Has Paul now decided he was mistaken earlier in his ministry when he gave instructions for how women were to behave when participating in public worship ? Or is he just saying "don't blether during the sermon" ? If 1 Tim 2 is a ban on women particpating in public worship, what are we to make of mentions of women prophets (such as "Philip's daughters") or of instructions on how women are to dress when prophesying publically. Is Paul now, later in his ministry, deciding that he allowed too much license earlier, and tightening up, or is he dealing here with a particular set of circumstances and answering questions now lost to us ? NOTE: The entire idea of a preacher's authority is controversial. Does ordination confer authority, or is a preacher always under the authority of the Word. Views on this vary across denominations. What about women priests ? In Protestant circles, the arguement tends to circle around the legitimacy or not of a woman exercising a public preaching and teaching ministry. In the Roman Catholic Church, the issues are somewhat different, and center around whether a woman can be a priest. In brief the arguements seem to be: If Jesus intended women to be priests, why didn't he call any as disciples. He wasn't known for bowing to social convention, so why would he do so over this issue. and Can a woman represent the people to God and God to the people as part of a priestly function ? This seems to boil down to a debate over Genesis 1-3. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Brauch, Manfred: Hard Sayings of Paul, Hodder and Staughton, ISBN 0-340-52948-2 Evans, Mary J.: Woman in the Bible, ivp, ISBN 0-85364-337-7 Storkey, Elaine: What's Right with Feminism, SPCK ISBN 0-281-04180-6 van Leewen, Mary Stewart: Gender and Grace, ivp ISBN 0-85110-693-5 [end of s.r.c faq]