---

Was the earth under judgment before God created Man (Adam)? Can you please explain this in depth to me?

As the Book of Genesis tells one story of creation, earth and heaven existed partially prior to the creation of man, but it was incomplete, because “there was no one to till the ground.” (Gen. 2.5) After God created man, God planted a garden and added trees for food. Then God created animals and birds and, finally, woman to be man's partner.

This story turns on God's instruction to Adam, that he not eat of the “tree of knowledge of good and evil.” I don't think of that as “judgment,” but as God's basic condition for human life. Together, man and woman disobeyed God's command. At that point, they hid from God in their shame. In a sense, they brought judgment on themselves by disobeying God.

God chose not to follow through on his threat of death, but he did punish them for their sin by evicting them from the garden and making their lives difficult.

To ancient Hebrews, this story of Adam and Eve explained much about their world, such as alienation from God, serpents, the existence of evil, the pain of childbirth and the toil of work. It established an image of a garden, or Paradise, which humanity, by their own wrong choices, lost. One way to understand the story of the Hebrews from this point on is to envision God trying to lead people back to the garden, back to oneness.

If by “judgment” you mean God's scrutiny, then yes, creation was being measured and found incomplete and then humanity was found to be sinful. If by “judgment” you mean God's wrath, then no, God's disappointment in humankind came after the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

Israel's “pre-history,” as expressed in Genesis, shouldn't be understood as a literal history of actual events. Israel's historic self-awareness actually began with the Exodus from Egypt. As all cultures do, Israel wanted to understand its origins (the meaning of “genesis”), and so it told stories about a garden, a “day” of creation, a God who still talked in plurals, a massive flood, a miraculous birth, warring sons, and various acts of betrayal. Other cultures had similar stories.

What was critical about Israel's stories wasn't their historicity, but their naming of Yahweh as their God, their sense of God as forming them for a purpose, and their awareness of themselves as continually falling short of that purpose, a theme that laid ground for the prophets and, as Christians understand it, for the ministry of Jesus.

(Return to Top)

---

I am a believer in God's love and Jesus, but I am terrified of Satan and his demons. I know that as a follower of Christ you are supposed to be fearless, but I am not. What should I do? I feel as if I am betraying God by my fears, that I don't have enough faith and trust.

Fear is a normal part of human life. Sometimes our fears are warranted. The power of evil is strong. The answer to such fear, it seems to me, isn't to berate yourself for feeling it, but to seek out trustworthy companions to help you confront it. Remember that Jesus gave his disciples to each other for just this reason. If you aren't already a member of a faith community, I encourage you to find one where you can talk to a wise pastor and be among healthy Christians. You shouldn't try to confront evil or your fear of evil all by yourself.

(Return to Top)

---

In studying the New Testament, a summary came up in our class: "We are identified with Jesus because... " which I felt difficult to respond to in a short answer. What would have been your reply?

I can think of many answers, but the one that came first to mind: “because we, too, are beloved children of God.”

(Return to Top)

---

In Genesis 9:13, it says, "I set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant between Me and the earth.” (NASB) Does the word "bow" mean rainbow or bow as in bow and arrow or bow as in just something else? I have always interpreted it to be as God setting a rainbow in the sky to remind us of His covenant.

This verse from God's covenant with Noah refers to a rainbow. It is the foundational covenant of the Old Testament and is different from other covenants (Abraham, Moses and David) in that it is a one-way covenant, requiring no response from humankind. After the flood, God repented of his anger and vowed “never again” to let his anger go to such lengths. When the clouds gathered, God would see the rainbow and remember his promise: “the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.” While the sign of the rainbow does remind us of God's promise, the covenant formula is that God is the one being reminded.

(Return to Top)

---

The third commandment (Ex. 20:7) is, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.” (NASB) My question: Is God saying here that we are Christ-like and made in His image and to take the name of Christ and not be like Him is vanity? Or does God mean not to use God's name in anger or in a negative way by swearing?

The book of Exodus isn't about Jesus. It predates him by 1,000 years. This commandment prohibits the “wrongful use” of the name of God (Yahweh) in situations such as magic or divination. In ancient times, people believed that names had power. The commandment refers to misusing Yahweh's name to gain power for oneself. The commandment isn't about profanity.

(Return to Top)

---

 

I have been attending an Episcopal Church. I think I would like to be received into the church (I was baptized a Catholic). My problem is that after many years on my religious journey, I have come to a place where I have a non-literal understanding of matters like the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus, etc. How can I say the Nicene Creed without being a hypocrite? This is very important to me since assenting to the assertions in this credo is part of the reception ceremony.

Many Christians are asking this same question. The Nicene Creed was developed in the 4th Century by a council of bishops in order to address certain questions of the moment and to assert the Church's doctrine as absolute. Times have changed dramatically since then. For many the ancient creed has ceased to express the faith they hold. That doesn't mean they lack faith.

The Episcopal Church traditionally has allowed plenty of room for such “gray” areas, the point of faith not being doctrine but repentance and new life in Christ. In that context, while continuing to state the Nicene Creed every Sunday, the church has allowed members to remain silent during the creed or to approach it with their own fresh understandings and not to feel marginalized. The orthodoxy-minded find that wishy-washy; I find it gracious and much in keeping with the non-doctrinal, non-legal way Jesus taught.

I suggest you take your question now to the local Episcopal priest. Unless you have landed in a rigid congregation, I think you will find the priest open to discussing this with you and looking for a way to welcome you into the Body of Christ.

(Return to Top)

---

Some months ago a very dear friend of mine who followed a non-Christian path was murdered. This has left me with some serious questions—and a lot of anger. I was raised conservative Southern Baptist and am almost scared to open my Bible because I have for so long taken it literally. Is it wrong to care deeply about people of other faith traditions or agnostics? Does God still love me—and my friend? How do I go about reading the Bible now?

First, my sympathy on the loss of your friend. Any death can be confusing and challenging to one's faith, and a violent death even more so.

Second, you are asking important questions. I will answer them as best I can. I encourage you also to consult your pastor, whose answers might differ from mine, but whose pastoral care will be helpful to you.

It is both right and necessary that we love all of our neighbors, whether or not their religious beliefs agree with ours. Jesus didn't set any restrictions on love of neighbor. He just said to do it. The world is severely impoverished when love stays within religious tribes. Love, after all, is born of God. Religion is born of humankind.

Paul said that nothing can separate us from the love of God. Not even death, and certainly not religious preference. God has chosen to love all of creation, both saint and sinner, “all sorts and conditions,” as my church's Prayer Book puts it, all races, all nations, all failings and all successes. It is humanity that draws lines and imagines a “mansion” with only a few rooms, rather than the “many rooms” that Jesus promised.

While death separates us from those we love, death brings one home to God. The distinctions that mattered so much while we walked this “mortal coil” fade to nothingness in the presence of God.

I can understand why Scripture seems distant to you now. Remember, though, that Scripture was written by certain people to express their experiences of God. It is in many ways a “tribal” document, and as such it promotes the tribe as ultimate. But God can be found therein. If you read Scripture with hungry and discerning eyes, you can see beyond the tribal pride and glimpse the good and loving Creator of all things. The 23rd Psalm, for example, isn't just about David or his tribe. It is about all of humanity. Jesus is Christians' way to God. I urge you to return to the Gospels for what Jesus says about God and life.

(Return to Top)

---

I want to know about Saint Joseph Day. I have a very good friend that is going to pass before this day is over. I am not Catholic. I am Lutheran. But I am a great believer. So please help me with this.

St. Joseph Day, observed on March 19, remembers the husband of Mary and earthly father of Jesus. Joseph was descended from King David, which accounted for his living in Bethlehem (Matthew) or going to Bethlehem for the Roman census (Luke). By some accounts, he is remembered for standing by Mary when she found herself pregnant by the Holy Spirit. In other accounts, he is simply referred to as the father of Jesus and thus as the one who raised him and protected him during childhood. Given the few references to Joseph, and lack of any references once Jesus' ministry began, scholars assume Joseph died before Jesus began his ministry around the age of 30.

(Return to Top)

---

What is the reason that some churches baptize babies and others only dedicate them?

This difference in practice goes back to the early days of Protestant Reformation. The tradition up to then had been to baptize at any age, including infancy. In view of high infant mortality, the earlier the better, many believed.

The emerging Baptist tradition, however, argued that the sacrament of initiation into Christian community needed to be a conscious decision made at an age of maturity, much like the Bar Mitzvah of Judaism. For that reason, they delayed baptism until around the age of 12. At the same time, they wanted to affirm a newborn baby and to engage the congregation in caring for that child. Hence, the ritual of dedication.

Some reformation churches, such as the Episcopal, Methodist, Lutheran and Presbyterian churches, continue to practice infant baptism, although it isn't required and the decision isn't accompanied by any medieval superstition about an unbaptized child's going to hell if they die young. Some conservative churches have adopted the Baptist tradition, known as “believer's baptism.”
As with every other argument in Christianity, each side has plenty of Scripture and Tradition to support its views.

(Return to Top)

---

A friend argues that Jesus is the only way and cites a couple of Bible verses: "The way, truth, life, no one comes to the father except by me," and "there is no other name given by which men must be saved." How can I respond to these claims of exclusivity from the Bible?

To understand this argument, you need to go back many centuries to the early years of the “Jesus movement.” The followers of Jesus were a small sect within Judaism. Originally accepted as another expression of Judaism, the Jesus people began to pull away under pressure to conform to traditional Jewish practices, such as circumcision of males.

Some within the Jewish-Christian movement argued that one must become a Jew first (that is, be circumcised) before becoming a Christian. The prevailing mood, however, was that Jesus was the only way to God (Yahweh) and that Gentiles (non-Jews) could become Christians by nothing more than baptism.

That was the argument being acted out in the early Scriptures. Claims of exclusivity were a response to questions of Jewish identity. The Gospels of Matthew and John have a strong undercurrent of opposition to the Jewish establishment. Later, when the emerging Church began to have aspirations of global sovereignty, those claims became global—not because it was what Jesus originally said or intended, but because the Church wanted a global reach. What Jesus actually said is unknown to us. The Greek rendering is better translated as, “I am way, truth, life,” without the English article “the,” which implies exclusivity. Jesus could well have intended to say, “The Law is one way to God; I am another way.”

The formation of the New Testament canon in the 4th century, in turn, was designed to cement the Church's claims. They settled on early Jewish-Christian debates as a global statement, and they heatedly excluded other writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the writings of and about women, because they focused on knowing God, not on belonging to an institution with exclusive claims.

Jump ahead to the Protestant Reformation and its claims of “sola scriptura,” that is, rejection of the Roman hierarchy and reliance on Scripture alone. Now the words of Scripture were cast as the very words of God, literally true. Books that had been selected to buttress the early Church's claims to supremacy within Judaism now took on almost magical authority as affirming the new rule of Protestants.

Yes, this is all very confusing, and it has way too much to do with power (who runs things) and too little to do with faith (coming to know God). It isn't enough to use the Bible to support the Bible's own claims. We must also consider Tradition and Reason. We must think. We must study Scripture, not just read it and quote it. It is unlikely that Jesus intended to launch an institution, especially one that would declare war on other expressions of faith.

(Return to Top)

---

I need some advice: Is it wrong to be in love with my pastor? He is not married, and I am not married. Some people have started talking, and now he doesn't want to be alone with me.

While it occasionally happens that unmarried pastors and unmarried parishioners form romantic relationships, it is generally frowned on. In some denominations, in fact, such a relationship would be cause for dismissal of the pastor. If the parishioner is a minor, there could be severe consequences. Most single clergy whom I know have made it a personal rule not to date members of their congregations.

Why is this so? The relationship between pastor and parishioner is very complex. It is like the relationship between therapist and client. The normal duties of a pastor, such as asking good questions, listening, encouraging and affirming, can come across as romantic interest. In fact, the pastor is simply doing his or her job. When the pastoral contact involves emotional issues or family crises, the presence of strong feelings can be misinterpreted as romantic interest. Clergy get confused by this, too.

You mention that people in your congregation have started to talk. That isn't unusual. Congregations get nervous when the pastor, often a parent-figure, starts behaving in ways they question.

If your pastor is setting some distance between yourself and him, I encourage you to respect his boundaries. It will be to your benefit, as well as his.

(Return to Top)

---

Is it okay to live with my boyfriend before marriage?

Every religious tradition has its own views on this question. If you belong to a church or other religious institution, I encourage you to talk to your pastor. He or she will have good counsel for you, in keeping with that tradition's norms. If you are young, I also encourage you to be entirely open with your parents.

My own view is that many couples benefit from living together prior to marriage. It isn't entirely a “trial run” for the real thing, but it has some elements of that. This is especially true when the partners are young. The divorce rate for couples who marry younger than age 20, for example, is said to be 82%. The reason for that is the huge developmental work that a person typically does between ages 18 and 25. The person they are at age 25 is often quite different from who they were at 18. This growth can be hard on relationships. Partners grow at different rates, and they often grow apart. Moreover, while the romantic urge at young age is powerful, the maturity and skills necessary for a stable relationship might not have developed yet.

You can still get hurt, of course. Any breakup hurts. But breaking up from a live-in boyfriend is a lot different from divorcing a husband.

If the relationship grows, marriage will come in due season.

You don't mention whether you are sexually active. That is another complication of living together. Some relationships move too quickly to sexual activity. Those couples are intimate before they are emotionally ready to be intimate and before they are ready to make the commitment that sexual intimacy ought to entail. I urge you to consider whether your thoughts of living together are grounded too much in sexual desire. Again, this is an ideal time to seek the counsel of a wise and trusted pastor. If you don't have a pastor, I urge you to seek out a women's health group.

I strongly urge you to wait until marriage to have children.

Many will agree with my advice; many will disagree. People hold strong views about your question. That's why I urge you to turn to your pastor and parents and to take their counsel seriously.

(Return to Top)

---

A discussion arose amongst my co-workers who were trying to understand if hurting another person is ever justified, for example, in the case of war or the death penalty. We have planned to have further discussions on this. I know my view, but I want to be able to share a more biblical and Christian perspective on this question, providing references as I am able.

Difficult question, not easily addressed from either a Biblical or Christian perspective. The Old Testament had a commandment against murder, but like others of the Ten Commandments, it referred to behavior within the Hebrew tribe. That is, one Israelite was not to murder another Israelite. The Old Testament had no problem with violence committed against other tribes, such as in warfare. Moreover, the Law allowed violence against another Israelite after certain offenses.

Jesus seemed to draw a broader ethic of peacefulness. He urged enemies to love each other, not to hate. He told his disciples not to wound the soldiers coming to arrest him. He stopped the crowd from stoning a woman. He clearly didn't intend to be the warrior-messiah that many had anticipated. And yet the early Church moved quickly to adopt a more traditional view of warfare and punishment, namely, if it would help to defend or to strengthen the institution, it was justified.

A more promising line of reasoning is to consider the common concern of both Testaments for justice. Read the prophets, especially Amos. Read the teachings of Jesus about wealth and power. When justice is the standard, then a war that oppresses the poor would be wrong, but a war that defended the poor against a tyrant might be just. Similarly, armed conflict changes character when it ceases to be two soldiers facing off with swords and becomes rather the bombing of enemy populations, including non-combatants.

The death penalty seems different from warfare and seems a more direct application of the commandment against murder. Warfare is usually a failure of politics and diplomacy. Nations stumble into war, or are attacked. Criminal punishments, on the other hand, are intentional actions, carefully deliberated and calibrated, and intended to accomplish some societal purpose. For a time, the death penalty was considered a deterrent to crime. It has never had that affect, as far as we can tell. Nowadays the logic is that the victims and/or their families have a right to expect revenge.

The Old Testament contained what was known as the "lex talionis," the law of retaliation, requiring equivalent retaliation for a wrong. Thus, if one person broke another's arm, his own arm would be broken in punishment, but not his leg. If one eye was ruined, the offender's eye would be taken, but not both eyes. This law was intended to resolve the problem of "blood revenge" common in tribal cultures, where offenses drew extravagant retribution.

Jesus, however, spoke against the "lex talionis." He said the usual custom, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," must be replaced by the practice of loving one's enemy. Jesus denied any right to kill in order to exact revenge. In the case of a capital crime, society defends itself by trying, convicting and incarcerating the murderer. Taking the final step of execution has nothing to do with defense. It is revenge and therefore denied to us.