In the car, I keep a tiny green spiral pad of paper with a pen through the spirally thingies and when things occur to me while I'm driving, I grab it and dangerously jot stuff down. Most of the time, it's of a Jesusy nature, so I kind of feel like He'll watch over me and protect me from my own stupidity as I jot. Lately, I've been accumulating random thoughts, none significant enough for an entire post, so I'll just randomly cram them all into this one.
First, things I don't understand that I could probably look up but if I did, the answers wouldn't stick nearly as effectively as they do when I post them here and the universe (namely Eric) explains them to me. :D
1. Song of songs. Pastors say that so often, and I've checked my Bible and it doesn't seem to be there. Ok, that's a lie. I didn't check my Bible. And considering there are still books in there I have no idea exist, I should do that. Ok, like I thought, it's not there. I assume they're referring to Song of Solomon, but... why? Why change the name to confuse innocent, non-churchy girls who don't know these things? And why song of songs? Is it just an error? Or is this a common term for them?
2. "The Saints." From context, it seems to mean people who pray or are faithful or church workers? Or... um... I don't know. But I've never heard it till recently and now, everybody's saying it. Who are these saints?
3. Exegetical. I know what it means, but I don't get why it's used. The term, I mean. Is it to make non-believers feel that the teacher is smart so they won't discount them right away? Do non-believers know what exegetical means? I didn't, before I heard pastors say it repeatedly. Then again, we all know my vocabulary is at a grade seven level, if that...
Second, things that I'm wondering...
a. I'm still having issues with the "many" thing in Mark ch 14. In a sermon I listened to today, the pastor refers to Ephesians 1 as an example or explanation for how we can't lose our salvation. It's a gift from God and He chooses us for it (or doesn't) and once we have it, we can't lose it.
But He said many. Not all. And in Job 38:4, God says,
"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding."
So yes, we can't lose our salvation once we have it, but does saying, "I accept Jesus as my savior," or whatever the mantra is really do it? Or will we only have a glimpse of understanding the implications when we are at the end of our days and can say without a doubt that we didn't lose God? Or can we just not say a word about our salvation at all?
I know that in my lifetime, I will serve some sort of function in God's plan. That is one thing I am certain of. It might be a good function, a function that shows God's mercy or a function that ultimately shows God's justice or wrath, but I have no choice but to serve some function. That is what I'm here for, whether I believe in God or not. Obviously, I want my function to be positive, but even so, Isaiah says my works are filthy rags, so positive or not, in the grand scheme of things, I'm essentially a nobody, easily crushed by the might of God and only not crushed because He is merciful. Right? So who am I to say whether or not I'm saved?
Life isn't fair. I learned that really early on. So why would I count myself in the "many"? Honestly, I don't. I guess that says something about how much mercy I believe God to have versus how much of a nobody I am. But I don't see it that way. I think so many are too quick to bank on God's mercy and forgiveness, when we don't deserve either. God's might and my lack of ability to understand it versus my nothingness results in me not standing a chance.
Is God merciful? Yes. Is God good and just and loving? Yes. Will He choose me? I hope so, but I won't presume to know that it has already happened. The way things happened for me, the way I came to faith so brutally and against my will, makes me feel like I was chosen, and I love that feeling, but I can't know for sure if one day, I will ask God to give me faith and He won't. I do know for sure that if He doesn't it's for good reason, beyond my comprehension, but it could happen that God turn my heart hard before I'm done. It's also possible that God, knowing my heart more than I do, sees something in it that is already hard and closed off, something I deny.
Only God knows if I am saved or not. I don't understand how people spend their lives comfortable in their salvation.
b. Blasphemy of the Spirit. Pastors seem to feel the need to educate Christians that there is a devil and that there are demons. And in contrast, I've noticed that some Bible belt Christians are really quick to pin stuff on Satan. The minute something gets hard, it's Satan.
Mark Ch 3 says this:
28 "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"— 30 for they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."
And the way that was explained to me was that if we claim what is the Holy Spirit (or God or Jesus, I guess) as being of Satan, we've blasphemed the Holy Spirit. So if the Holy Spirit is responsible for some level of suffering that is meant for our good or to draw us closer to God and we blame it on Satan... then...?
So then does it become necessary to acknowledge Satan and evil, but refrain from assuming that Satan is responsible?
In Job, when Satan acted, he asked God for permission first, did he not? And even if he'd acted without it, God would have known. So however Satan acts, it is never independent of God, as nothing in this world is independent of God, so in a way, God allows it, which means... whatever is meant for evil, God means for good (as in Gen 50:20)... so if we blame Satan in any context for the sufferings in our own life, then have we not blasphemed?
c. Similarly, Luke 8:12 says:
The ones along the path are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
But God chooses who is saved, no?
d. Retroactive prayer. Yesterday, while I was snowboarding, I praised God for the awesomeness that was snowboarding, snow, sunshine, a soft spring breeze, my lack of fear in attempting to jump in spite of my crash way back when, my lack of fear when the chairlift stopped in spite of the crazy bad experience I had last spring where I thought I would surely die on a chairlift, and while I was at it, I prayed that God would take a little girl whose body was riddled with tumors and end her suffering. And when I got home, He had taken her already, earlier in the day, before I prayed. And I praised God for His mercy and realized right then that I believe in retroactive prayer. If God is without time, and He gives us what we ask for, would He not know what we'll pray for long before we pray it? And that being the case, wouldn't retroactive prayer seem logical?
What if my prayers sometime in the mid-afternoon yesterday were answered by the cessation of her suffering earlier in the day? If God is as merciful as we believe He is would He not end the suffering as soon as possible rather than waiting for a prayer He knows is coming?
It got me thinking. If retroactive prayer works, what would I pray for retroactively?
My deceased grandmother's salvation?
My deceased grandfather's salvation? Yes, definitely that. He was a Pharisee to the utmost degree. Not an ounce of forgiveness. Not an ounce of humility. And not once did he share Jesus with me, but excluded me (and my brothers) from learning about the gospel because of his fierce disdain for me (he tolerated my brothers). He did force us to go to church when we were at his cottage, but it was a hellish experience (and he really only brought us because he didn't trust us to stay at his cottage without him around).
Yes, I'd retroactively pray for him. And being that I was the outlet for my grandfather's wrath, I think, coming from me, the prayers now might have changed something a dozen or so years ago when he died and sat before God awaiting judgment.
"This little girl who never stood a chance against you, whom you called 'Erika' out of disrespect, whom you excluded from everything with a bitterness and coldness, whom you destroyed with your words, will grow up and ask me to forgive you and give you eternal life."
Seriously, he called me Erika. I even have a Christmas ornament with my birth year and Erika engraved on it.
I hated how he was so hard to please that aunts, uncles and cousins of mine ripped themselves to shreds trying to measure up. I hated how he spoke to my grandmother. I hated how he wouldn't even let her learn how to drive. I hated how he treated me, but I never expected more from him. His hatred of me was all I knew of him. It was the foundation he'd built our relationship upon and I couldn't change that. But now, after the fact, I think I can change something.
I don't doubt that my grandfather believed he was saved. I don't think he ever missed a Sunday until he was in the hospital. I think he was far too proud to ever humble himself to the thought that he might not be saved. He might have feared hell, but to deem himself unworthy of heaven? Not sure. Like I said, all I knew of him were the worst parts.
God have mercy on those worst parts.
e. And on mine too...
f. They say if you really love Jesus, you'll be ready to give up anything to be a disciple. Jesus asks the rich guy in Matthew 19 (and Mark 10 and Luke 18) to sell all his stuff and follow Him. He asks people to give up what they seem most unwilling to give up, and I think I would give it all up but at the same time, I wonder what it says about who I think God is that I would not only give it up, but that I somehow expect Him to take everything away from me just to prove it. What I mean is if my dogs, for example, are what would be the most difficult for me to give up, I acknowledge that, but then this dark part of my heart somehow waits for them to go. It's like I expect God to end their lives and ask, "Do you love me now?" I guess I don't understand why I have anything at all. I don't understand why I have a roof over my head, why I have my health most of the time, why I have water and sustenance and the fact that I don't deserve any of it creates in me this sort of sorrowful fear that God might take everything away from me to prove a point somehow. And I'd let Him. But do I really have to be reduced to Job's nothingness? Is that what has to be in the cards? Do I really have to end up with nothing at all?
And I know it comes from a sort of self-loathing humility that was burrowed deeply into me through an endless string of circumstances and events, but even if I rationalize it and try to presume God's mercy and that even if I don't deserve anything, God still wants me happy and whatnot, I know that there is no reason for any of that to be true. I know that there is no reason for assuming that having anything is what is best for me (which is a relationship with Him), and ultimately, that is what God wants, rather than happiness, no?
What prevents me losing everything? God's mercy? But if I don't deserve it and if things of this world are meaningless, why would God's mercy come in the form of sparing my dogs?
I can't justify it.
That's the thing, I think. Pastors, teachers, and even Jesus sometimes, cater to the extremes, the sort of sinning majority. Most people I know have something they would rather die for than give up. But I've lost everything already. So many times. It makes me wonder if what I have to give up is not the good stuff, but the bad stuff.
Like my assumption that the only way to truly love somebody is to give up everything for them.
But how is that wrong?
Beats me. (pun intended)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Well, Eric is WAY more theologically astute than me, so I will leave letters a) - f) to him. I think I can shed a little light on 1-3, however.
1) Song of Songs and Songs of Solomon are two different titles for the same book. I could be wrong about this, but I think "Song of Songs" is the more old-fashioned title of the two. In my Spanish version of the Bible, the book is simply entitled "Cantares" which is translated as "songs" or possibly "chants."
2)About "saints:" you have two main possible usages. The first one refers to Christians throughout history (often martyrs) that lived exemplary lives of faith and/or service and are formally recognized by the Catholic church. (The Catholics believe that if you pray to the saints, they can help intercede for you before God.) The other usage of the word "saint" is a stronger synonym for "believer" -- one who has received the gift of salvation and lives their life as being set apart for God. All committed Christians are, in this usage, saints. Eric could probably add more here but that's my understanding.
3)Non-believers and even many believers probably don't know what "exegetical" means, but I think it's a useful (but heavy-sounding) term. There is a certain approach to interpreting the truth of the Bible, and I think if someone speaks of "exegesis" that means they mean that they intend to interpret the Scriptures in a responsible, reasonable way. Namely, reading "up" their theology from what the Bible says in its original context, rather than reading their doctrine "down" onto the Bible and finding random bits here and there to justify their points. The latter approach, that of cherry-picking Bible verses to fit a pre-conceived idea, is the one taken by the Jehovah's Witnesses organization and some mainstream Christian preachers who don't know any better (or choose not to care). Any preacher who talks about "exegesis" is somebody who probably has at least some clue about how to responsibly teach the Bible.
Jay
Of course Jay would leave me the hard ones....
A short comment on 2) and 3).
"Saint" and "sanctified" come from the same Latin root "sanctus", holy. Paul writes to those made holy, the saints. This term then acquires a more restrictive meaning in the later church, namely, those who are clearly and obviously super-holy.
As for 3, exegetical refers to a specific style of reading opposed to eisegetical. Exegesis attempts to extract meaning from the text, while eisegesis attempts to read a previously-chosen meaning into the text. Like most technical words it's used because the common term isn't as precise. It's like "hermenuetic". Most of the time you could get away with another word (like "reading style"), but sometimes you can't and if you hang out with scholars you just get used to using the technical term.
A-f. What fun.
a) Waaaay too much to cover. Essentially, I do not believe in this model of salvation because I do not believe that this is what salvation is. Salvation is a progressive relationship involving transformation, therefore it is not something one entirely has now, nor is it something one really has instantly bestowed on one. It's really hard to do this all justice in a short paragraph, but I'm sure you read Jawbone and maybe one day I'll handle it there. In one bite. I've certainly already left clues.
b) Blasphemy against the Spirit appears to be pretty clear-cut. The specific example where Jesus decries it people are being healed and demons are being cast out. People who see that and say, "No, that's Satan," are clearly not just mistaken. They are opposed to God's plans to make us free. I am quite sure one cannot accidentally blaspheme the Spirit. By the same token, one does not look at, say, a woman bent almost out of humanity by years of sexual abuse and say, "That's the work of God," unless you are yourself a monster. Make sense? The gray areas, where maybe evil took a potshot at you but maybe good corrected you a bit, just aren't involved.
c) How does the devil take the word? I assume (given how the devil normally works) that he tempts them and they walk away from it. Given that we've got all of one sentence here I don't think it's a full treatise on how the devil works.
And, not being a Calvinist, I think God chooses to save everyone, and then some people choose to allow that. Others choose to follow the devil into damnation.
d) Retroactive prayer. Why not? God isn't bound by time.
e and f don't seem like questions, per se, although would a good God actually engage in the sort of obliterative breaking you question in f? Honestly, I'm not a fan of the Calvinist's God Who is obsessed with His own honor. God clearly thinks His glory is in His goodness, not in His ability to bitch-slap.
Thanks, guys.
Eric, for c, so you not believe then that God chooses who is affected and whose heart opens to the message?
No. I actually think Calvinism is pretty atrociously stupid, if I'm being honest. God seems very much into having us participate in His work. I have a lot of trouble believing that this changes completely when we start talking about salvation, as if somehow salvation and God's work aren't intimately connected.
God is not engaged in talking to His own sock puppet. He has given us wills and choice and expects us to use them.
Post a Comment