It is pretty logical to me that the God
who created the heavens and the earth would have the most popular
book in the world, and whoever translated or physically wrote
the word were believers themselves and were asked by God to
do so. Since there is no one who can oppose him, that eliminates
the possibility of their changing the word to suit themselves.
I am still learning and studying the bible, so have not found
any scripture to support my ideas. Can you give me some help?
Faith is largely an intuitive process, not
an adding up of proofs, data and certainties. In faith, we
respond to God's love and presence. The Bible was written over
many centuries by men and women who had been touched by God's
presence. They looked at actual events, like the conquest of
Canaan and the exile in Babylon, and tried to understand God's
purpose and activities in those events. They looked at the
life of their faith community and tried to understand what
God wanted them to believe and how God wanted them to behave,
worship and serve. They imagined the time before recorded history
and pictured God walking in a garden with the first man and
woman. They sang the songs of faith and enumerated what they
considered to be God's laws and commandments for the Hebrew
tribe. They shared important stories about King David and Jesus
of Nazareth. They wrote about the powerful impact that Jesus
had on their lives and what that meant about God's purposes
going forward.
The Bible, in other words, contains many writings about God.
They don't agree with each other, but taken as a whole, they
reveal the nature of God and how God has changed human history.
Faith generally starts in one's
own experience—a moment
of grace, for example —and then turns to Scripture for
some deeper understanding of it. Can any of this proved? I
don't think proof is the point. The point is to help you experience
God and to rethink how you live your life.
(Return
to Top)
What
are the exact biblical views on pornography and strip clubs?
Though he does not
go to them
since we’ve been
married, my husband still thinks there is nothing really wrong
with going to a strip club. I know such behavior is wrong not
only because he is married, but because it is unholy. How can
I help him see this?
To the best of my knowledge, Scripture doesn't
deal directly with pornography, as such. (Pornography being
defined as depictions of sex intended to cause sexual arousal.)
The usual Biblical argument against pornography is that God
intended sex to be part of marriage for the purpose of procreation,
and anything other than that is sinful. (However, that view
of sex is contested by many Christians.)
In general, the Bible is far less concerned with sexuality
than we seem to be in our age. The ancient Hebrews were concerned
about stability within the tribe, orderly transfer of heredity
and property, and respect for each other's property. Sexuality
touched on those concerns, but wasn't itself the primary concern.
Thus, adultery was a violation of another man's property (as
they saw wives in that era). Marriage outside the tribe confused
issues of ethnic identity.
Jesus didn't deal directly with pornography, but he did something
radical that touches on the issue: he treated women as equals,
as fully deserving of a place at the table, as no longer in
the traditional one-down position to men, and therefore, by
extension, not as a man's property. By its nature, pornography
objectifies a person (usually the woman in the scene) and sees
her as existing for the man's enjoyment, in a sense as his
property. Jesus' treatment of women would contradict such behavior,
as would his commandment to love one another (in the Biblical
sense of orienting one's will for the good of the other, as
opposed to lust.)
It seems to me that, rather than seek an external authority
for your views, you can ask your husband to respect your values,
whether or not he agrees with them. In a marriage, we make
a commitment to take the other's needs, values and beliefs
into consideration and, when we disagree, to find middle ground.
(Return
to Top)
What
is the common thought amongst theologians on what/whom
caused the death of Ananias and Sapphira?
I am not aware of any significant theological discussion
about the death of Ananias and his wife Sapphira for withholding
a portion of a donation to the Christian community. (Acts
5.1-11) One resource that I consulted termed their death
a “punitive miracle,” that is, an event that
cannot be explained except as divine punishment for their
deceitful behavior. The Book of Acts doesn't explain their
death, except to say that each “fell down and died” after
Peter exposed their dishonesty.
(Return
to Top)
I
have prayed for a husband and life-long partner who will
be good to me and my child. I don’t know if I am asking
for the right thing. I don’t
seem to get any answers to my prayers. Am I praying wrong? I
know you’re supposed to be secure with yourself before
you can be happy with anyone else. How do you do this? And,
since I seem to not get any answers, how can I keep from
being frustrated with God and losing faith that I will ever
be married?
My suggestion would be to start with the understanding
that God loves you and wants the best for you. Your ability
to perceive God's answer to your prayers is inevitably limited.
The starting point, therefore, isn't proof by perceptible answers,
but a decision to believe.
The
next step, it seems to me, is to come to a fresh understanding
of yourself as God sees you.
Not as someone's partner, but as a person in her own right
and a mother. Through prayer, self-examination and perhaps
the help of a wise pastor, you can see yourself as God sees
you. That might or might not be as someone's partner.
If
it is God's desire that you move into a partnership, then
self-awareness
and a healthy regard for yourself will be critical factors.
If God has another desire for you, then God will show you
that alternative path. The point, I think, is to seek God's
guidance,
not to persist in a script of your choosing.
(Return
to Top)
"Love
your neighbor as yourself." Do you see or know
of a connection between Christ's command and U.S. citizens'
duty in citizenship?
Jesus'
summary of the Law—Love God,
love your neighbor—seems an excellent starting point
for citizenship.
Love of God needs to take into account differences
of religion, of course, but the call to acknowledge a “higher
power,” as some put it, seems wise for us all. The call
to love our neighbor is critical to any healthy community.
It is difficult to imagine responsible citizenship that isn't
grounded in love of neighbor.
Without that love, we cannot
build community, we cannot trust our civic institutions, we
cannot sustain peace and harmony, and we are sure to stray
from the path of justice. With love of neighbor as our foundation,
we can endure any hardship, tackle any challenge, and work
together for the good of the commonweal.
(Return
to Top)
I
am a member of a local Methodist church. I recently began
attending a supportive class at an Episcopal church following
my divorce. I have come to appreciate the beauty of the services
at the there. Could you explain
to me the differences and similarities between the two denominations?
I
can try. Both Methodism and Anglicanism were born in England.
Both are expressions of Reformation Protestantism.
The Church of England came first, when King Henry VIII broke
away from Rome's authority and established a new national church,
under the Crown's authority, to serve the English. Archbishop
Thomas Cranmer supported the King, joined his new effort, and
led the writing of a new worship manual called the Book
of Common Prayer. It combined several Roman Catholic manuals
and used the common tongue, rather than Latin. The Bible was
used
in English translation, as well. Warfare between Catholics
and Protestants dominated British history for many years.
In
the 18th Century, a movement that came to be called “Methodism” began
within the Church of England, led by discontented Anglican priests who believed
the Church of England had become corrupt, effete, and too focused on the needs
of the aristocracy. Methodism cast its lot with the working class, especially
with the new industrial poor. Worship was simplified, new hymns were written,
certain forms of abstinence became mandatory, and styles such as clergy vestments
became less extravagant.
Both
movements came to the American colonies and eventually became
competing denominations within a religious environment
that now has more than 300 separate
denominations. As I perceive it, Methodist worship uses many prayers from
the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer and, depending on the
tastes of the local parish,
can seem remarkably similar to “low church” Anglican worship.
Some Methodist congregations make more of remaining simple and non-liturgical
(not
guided by standard liturgical forms). Some Episcopal parishes move in the
opposite direction with “high church” styles such as incense.
For
a time, the socioeconomic profiles of Methodists and Episcopalians
seemed different. The old saw was that Methodist missionaries
went west first and
on horseback, and that Episcopal missionaries came later by Pullman car.
Probably never true, but symptomatic of perceived differences. For many
years now, however,
the two denominations have seemed indistinguishable in terms of political
views, socioeconomic profiles, location and theology. People seem to flow
easily back
and forth between the two denominations. The United Methodist Church is
substantially larger than the Episcopal Church, equally open
to certain expressions of
modernism such as women in leadership, but perhaps not as far along in
affirming gays
and
lesbians in leadership.
(Return
to Top)
It
has been one year since my husband and I divorced. We were
married 10 years, and have two children (7 and 14). How do
I explain the divorce to the children as they mature? In
Matthew, Jesus specifically prohibits divorce except in cases
of adultery. If I am to live the life of a true believer,
must I continue working and praying for a reconciliation? There
were no affairs on either side. A dear friend of mine, while
very supportive, has told me that "God can heal any
marriage between two Christians." What is your response?
I
think your children need to hear three lessons from you and
your former husband. First, marriages do fail,
for a variety of reasons, but not because the children were
at fault. Second, it is possible for divorced persons to behave
in an honorable and civil manner toward each other, and to
continue loving their children, even if they can no longer
love each other. Third, it will be possible for your children
to form healthy and lifelong marriages, when their time comes.
They need to hear those lessons, and to see them acted out,
now, as well as later.
Neither
a Gospel prohibition of divorce nor a Church rule against
divorce can make a marriage healthy
and enduring. It isn't that easy. Marriage takes significant
work and sacrifice by both parties. When that work isn't done, the marriage
is likely to fail. The legality of divorce simply acknowledges
what has already
happened. Should estrangement have happened? No, I doubt any couple starts
a marriage with the intention of ending it in divorce. But
estrangement does happen.
Faithful people in all Christian traditions, including those that prohibit
divorce, do get divorced, do suffer from it, do get on with
new lives, and, in many cases,
do marry again and often with wonderful success.
Sure,
God can heal any marriage. But both husband and wife must
want that healing and do the
difficult work of allowing healing to occur. God won't
compel them.
(Return
to Top)
Can
you tell me why God created different races and cultures?
I
believe the current theory of evolution is that humankind
is descended from a single
African original,
and that as humans spread to other parts of the world, a variety
of influences such as weather and diet led the original species
to subdivide into different races. Those peoples, in turn,
lived in a variety of ways— hunter, gatherer, fisher,
farmer, artisan, warrior, artist, and eventually town-dweller,
city-dweller, explorer, ruler—and each of those ways
of living produced different cultures. That development of
cultures continues in different forms, such as the changing
nature of childhood in developed countries in just the past
century, changing roles of women, and the emergence of a long-lived
period of non-work known as retirement.
The
Old Testament put these realities into stories like the Tower
of Babel, from
which came multiplicity of languages, and stories explaining
how the sons of
the patriarchs produced different tribes and races. Ancient Israel looked for
some divine order in that development, in which, for example, the sons of Isaac
would be considered closer to God's heart than the sons of his brother Ishmael.
The Christian era, on the other hand, ought to take its cue from the ways Jesus
responded to such fundamental differences, which was to ignore them and to
focus instead on our common humanity.
(Return
to Top)
I
recently went to the cemetery. Most of my family is buried
there. I rarely go but
since my grandmother went, and my mother is buried there, I
went too. I have strong faith in God that when we die, we pass
over to where we are destined to be. I don't believe that anyone
is in a cemetery—the soul has passed on. Is it really
necessary to visit the cemetery?
Cemeteries and other burial places serve two
purposes. First, they demonstrate our respect for a person
after their death. Rather than just discard human remains,
we inter them in a special place. We mark the moment with prayer.
In the process, we honor the life that has culminated in this
death, and we give tender care to those left behind.
Second, burial places give us somewhere to go to “show our respects,” as
the saying goes. That means saying further prayer, continuing our grief, giving
thanks for blessings received, and celebrating life. It isn't necessary to do
that work in a cemetery. It can be done anywhere. But cemeteries usually
have a serenity that brings our prayer, grieving and remembering to the surface.
(Return
to Top)
I
was born and raised a Catholic. Lately, I have been exploring
the “born again” Christian
way. Can you explain the difference between the two? The
born again
seems to push, push, push. If Catholics are Christian-based,
what is the separation between them?
You
are asking two questions, I think. One is: what makes one
Christian tradition different from another?
The other is: why do we let those differences matter so much?
As
for the first question, Roman Catholicism is a continuing
expression of the earliest Christian communities. It values
apostolic authority, a three-level
hierarchy of ordained ministries, the unique role of the Virgin Mary, standardized
sacramental liturgies, infant baptism, monastic orders, saints as intermediaries
and guides to faith, and tradition-based teaching.
Born-again
communities arose from a time when some Christians felt it
necessary to break
with Rome's continuing expressions because, in their opinion,
Roman
practices had become corrupt. These reformed traditions tend to be more independent
of any external ecclesiastical authority. They form around a single pastor,
or possibly a senior pastor and staff. They emphasize Biblical teaching,
baptism at an older age, variety in worship, the direct impact
of the Holy Spirit,
and
life-transforming experiences known as conversion or being saved.
In
my opinion, those are differences primarily of style and
emphasis, and
they don't make either tradition uniquely correct or righteous. Why, then,
do partisans
for each tradition war so violently against each other? Why can't they
just coexist?
The
answers, sad to say, usually have to do with those standard
human failings: power, wealth and pride.
Who gets the king's ear? Who controls property?
Whose doctrines control lives? Who claims the satisfaction of being right,
superior,
uniquely favored by God?
Wisdom
lies in accepting diversity, even celebrating diversity and
learning from it. I encourage you to seek wisdom,
not power, wealth or bragging
rights.
(Return
to Top)
To
learn more about Tom Ehrich’s writings, visit www.onajourney.org.
