proving them right

Group 1: Enemies of the faith claim that we invent God and all related ideas.

Group 2: People who are for Christianity but against "organized" flavors willingly admit that their beliefs are based on their personal intuitions and emotions. For example, "The God Whom I worship would always judge people like me to be acceptable. He thinks and acts in ways that, conveniently, make perfect sense to me."

Aren't the people in group two confirming the hypothesis of the people in group 1? Whenever I read the Bible and confront its truth, I'm often reminded that the difficult doctrines of Christianity don't always fit my preconceptions and prejudices and preferences.

a few short reminders on Hell and Universalism

Of late I've been reading some controversy on the Web about the ever-disturbing topic of Hell, and one heresy thereof, Universalism. And as usual it strikes me that while some of the answers are right and some are wrong, Christians often seem to be asking either the wrong questions or phrasing the right questions in unhelpful ways. None of the following are new opinions of mine, so I term them "reminders". To the best of my understanding, my thoughts are doctrinally sound, but I suppose everyone says that about themselves...

• There is Hell. There is punishment. Put simply, God's perfect justice will fall upon the rebellious and cast them out from Him. It's their choice whether or not to obey Him by living in righteousness and love. If there were no consequences for fully-aware decisions to rebel (i.e. sin) , then Jesus Christ died for nothing. Jesus' earthly teaching was invaluable, but He is more than a teacher; He predicted His death and submitted to it for a reason.
• Without faith it is impossible to please God and be reunited to Him. This means that good people without faith are damned. There's no ambiguity on this point. 
• Faith, the kind that saves, is characterized by change. The faithful bring their beliefs and actions, their entire beings, under His lordship. Complete faith is not participation in the right ritual or word-perfect recitations of unknown concepts. Faith makes an unmistakable difference in the life of the faithful.
• As for arguments about how to distinguish/define genuine rather than counterfeit faith, my personal interpretation of the position that my Christian tradition takes is "Ask God and find out." A real God, whose Spirit person really works, can reassure you. If the Spirit is working in you, bringing about the changes of saving-faith and wielding you as an instrument for good in the world, then you're saved! If the Spirit isn't working through you, and you the weak mortal are continually failing to overcome your sin by relying on your compromised strength, then you have good reason to be unsure. The Almighty casts out fear and selfishness. Let the light in. Invite and embrace. God lives and wants to live in you in a more literal sense than the modern-day Christian acknowledges. After death, when the saved are taken by God, there's no uneasiness. For them there's no "scale" to compare the weight of good and bad actions. There's Him. The source of their Christian life, the power of their Christian life, and the destination of their Christian life. In the afterlife they'll continue what started at the time of their spiritual rebirth.

grand rewiring

The devoted Christian life is undeniably spiritual. Yet a singular focus on the spiritual dimension of everything is also an error.

This is especially true for behavioral improvement. In my opinion, many Christians would be further along if they simplified the problem by deemphasizing the "spiritual" aspects, be it only for a moment. Of course, prayer and seeking for the divine anointing of power and truth should continue, but also reconsideration through a different mindset.

Think of the soul through an analogy more commonly employed, very loosely, for the brain: a massive tangle of wires that connect sensors and reactions. At birth, the soul-wire connected to a coveted object also connects to grasping and consuming of the object. The soul-wire connected to God is connected to rebellion. A soul-wire links the self with egocentric pride. Whenever the target is sensed, the soul-wires conduct the signals in such a way that literal depravity is the soul reaction.

After salvation, when the soul comes under the influence of God and His church, a significant proportion of the wires change. Past preconceptions and attitudes begin to shift as the same situations lead to diverging responses. Increasingly the soul-wires attach to love of God and humanity, even enemies. The soul-wires that carried out a past addiction may remain for an exceedingly long time, but operating in a flaky hit-or-miss fashion. This is the grand rewiring, a miracle in which the members of the body that were formerly oriented toward evil then become oriented toward good. Holiness is no longer alien to the soul but instead suffuses it. It's not perfected but its inclination is at least less evil. Goodness is more "natural", i.e. less of a chore. Teaching is thus important because it's part of the process to renew the mind. It introduces novel categories and assists in assignments to those categories.

Now consider a strategy of holiness that's nothing more than monthly vows to do better (or, worse, a yearly resolution). Is it surprising that this strategy is flawed? Soul-wires don't move because someone makes an idle wish. Working against the effect of the unmoved soul-wires is exhausting. All the triggers that "set one off" will simply remain. Patterns will simply recur as patterns do.

Active participation in the grand rewiring requires that someone steadfastly adjust their thoughts, emotions, and actions in accordance with God's express will. Devotees don't rely on split-second course corrections to be holy. Rather, they redirect their vision to the Lord long before the moment hits. They study and memorize the Word, not out of duty but out of an ardent passion to better know Him. They're eager to reconfirm the lessons by putting into practice. They flee temptation merely because it pollutes and dilutes their attention. It may take a lot of effort to undermine and change soul-wires, which is why rewiring is best done frequently and fervently.

Observing from the outside, some people might comment that "All the worshiping and teaching of Christianity should be secondary to just doing the right thing day by day. Singing pretty songs and debating theological points is completely peripheral to what religion should be about."

Admittedly some Christians probably need to hear that sentiment. But in light of the grand rewiring it's somewhat backwards. The closer that Christian spirits approximate the Spirit of God, the holier that their behavior is.

heaven of indulgence

Is heaven good? To ask the question may appear nonsensical. Won't the good God be setting all the rules, wiping away every tear, and sustaining everything forever? Amen!

But I wonder if people may misunderstand when they presume that heaven is a place of indulgence. I for one believe that the training in righteousness and restraint that we undergo throughout life is not wasted. We don't eat right on Earth with the understanding that our heavenly bodies will then enable us to be gluttons without consequence. We don't share with and sacrifice for others on Earth with the understanding that everyone will sit on inexhaustible stacks of precious gems in heaven's economy. (Side note: ever hear the joke about the soul who tries to carry gold into heaven, only to be confronted at the gates with the reasonable question "Why are you so concerned with hoarding pavement?") We don't work industriously at our jobs as unto God with the understanding that God's court will be populated purely by sluggards and leisure seekers. And most of all we certainly don't earnestly worship the Lord before death with the understanding that in the afterlife the universe will finally revolve around us instead.

Does heaven imply the freedom to do, have, and be whatever you wish? Heavens no. People shouldn't think, whether they say it out loud, that Christianity consists of a simple trade between putting on a saintly face in the present in order to receive the "right" to unending self-gratification in the distant future. Seek and obey God and trust that He will care for you. You cannot escape from Him in any case. So holiness matters in every time and place. The cultivation and sanctification of your deepest character may as well start now.

And why not? Christianity supposes that the Master of heaven is currently reachable! Heaven is the new creation. The Spirit working in you brings about a portion of that new creation. You're intended to be a new creature whose old foibles are replaced. You're an immediate window, however smudged, for the light of heaven to shine into time. Living as He directs won't be stopped by something so trivial as human death. Heaven will be a place to act like a saint, not like a savage.

the archrival

I don't feel much of a need to comment on the appropriateness of Halloween for Christians. Although it's well-known that the roots of Halloween and its practices do have some pagan roots, going through the motions of a Halloween practice doesn't automatically make you a pagan any more than going through the motions of church attendance automatically makes you a devotee of Christianity. On the other hand, there's no getting around the fact that glorification of evil/gore/devilry/debauchery, no matter how insincere, is repugnant to the sensibilities and strivings of a Christian devotee. As is often the case, the issue is complicated enough to require judgment. Some Halloween activities are harmless, some are not, and some may be merely distasteful and unedifying.

One of the topics that Halloween tends to raise among Christians is witchcraft. And almost without exception, the danger seems overblown to me. Witchcraft is among the most unambiguous no-nos, so it isn't much of a temptation. Its spiritual power is trumped by our Lord, so it isn't especially threatening (and of course external forces cannot "take" your soul or salvation). I doubt that its popularity is nearly as high as some claim, and in my opinion it verges on ridiculous to view fiction that contains witchery as a "gateway" to actual occult. It's analogous to viewing Da Vinci Code as a gateway and popularizer to heresy, or video games as an irresistible stimulus to violent acts; people who could be so influenced by these factors must have had other problems and confusion before exposure (e.g. a lack of education about what constitutes a canonical Christian document and a grievous confounding of games and reality, respectively).

By and large, anxiety about witchcraft, at least in present-day America, is somewhat like watching attentively for an animal attack while sinking in quicksand. And the identity of that quicksand isn't another favorite hobgoblin, philosophical/scientific humanism, but simple materialism. This archrival of Christianity is ancient. Its spell is much more subtle than witchcraft. A "Christian witch" is unimaginable but we can observe Christian materialists every day. 


Furthermore the Gospels warn time and again about this possible infection. In Matthew 6:24 we learn that no one can serve both God and money. Matthew 19:24 resorts to hyperbole: it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. 


The question really becomes relevant when the two conflict. A materialist makes a sacrifice as long as it's sufficiently convenient and low-cost. A devotee holds nothing back. A materialist is concerned with earthly materials. A devotee sees earthly materials purely as tools for Good rather than ends. A materialist (addict?) craves, satisfies the craving, then craves still more. A devotee recognizes that the pursuit of mundane cravings is no more than a "treadmill" while the craving for God is the path to eternity. Desires aren't sinful, but the resulting loss of focus can possibly set the stage for sin.


Chances are that witchcraft is not the prime archrival to Christianity for most people. Open eye, remove plank, and double-check that your materials aren't a curse to you.

Glee's Grilled Cheesus episode

I usually don't post my reactions to portrayals of religion on TV. If I did, my objections would be highly repetitive: 1) the proportion of hypocrites is much greater on TV, 2) people can in fact be devotees and yet be knowledgeable and sane, 3) in my opinion "serious" discussion of religious topics tends to be largely trite and simplistic, 4) viewers should keep in mind that, as with any topic, anything that's merely photogenic is always overrepresented.

But "Grilled Cheesus" merits some special mention, both because the episode's single-minded focus is religion and because the show reaches so many people. My intent isn't to scold the TV show for attempting to address such a drastically important facet of human existence. And a scolding would of course be ineffective and unrealistic. Glee has made it repeatedly plain that, like any work of media, it has its own voice and style and ideology, so nobody should bother to expect it to be any more congenial to traditional Christian beliefs than it has in the past.

• Some of the song choices are curious: "Only the Good Die Young", "Bridge over Troubled Water", "Losing My Religion", "One of Us" (I've previously explained my annoyance with people who apply that song to Christ). Rather than songs that mention religion, why not "authentic" and unambiguous religious songs? There's no shortage! If the goal is inoffensiveness to the the American public, dare I suggest a common Christmas carol? Something in Latin? The song whose usage is so reflexive and pervasive in non-Christian contexts that it borders on kitsch, "Amazing Grace"? (What other tune would be played centuries in the future after an alien, Mr. Spock, dies?)
• A few of the episode's characters argue a distinction between religion and "spirituality" on the assumption that the latter should be treated differently, e.g. in a public school classroom. Naturally, I disagree. For many, the precepts of their religion are their personal spirituality. Their beliefs are as valid and worthy of expression as the beliefs of someone who professes to be "unorganized". It's quite naive to claim that we can talk comprehensively about human souls, supernatural forces/gods, or various customs and experiences without delving into the details of widespread religions.
• The inclusion of atheism was unsurprising given its increasing fashion and publicity in mainstream media, but the extensive coverage of it nevertheless seemed excessive for a belief system that's an undeniable minority. I was also irked by the manner in which the atheist perspective was presented by intellectual points and gibes while everyone else's perspective was comparatively unintellectual and toothless. As if the atheist reaches conclusions and others must compensate with grandiose leaps of blind faith (really, no one offers a credible counterargument to being called a "mental patient" for believing?).
• Someone commented to the effect that the notion of the unsaved going to Hell is not very Christian. This isn't the first time I've heard something similar. Know what else is not very Christian? The notion that rebellious and intentional sins have no consequences on one's relationship with a perfectly holy God.
• An appearance of a gospel choir was inevitable. Perhaps no other manifestation of Christianity has the same likable combination of excitement, showiness, and fluffiness.
• Not much more need be said about the grilled "cheesus" itself. It's a risible specimen of religion and a plot contrivance. Nothing else. Based on how it was treated in the episode, I don't think it was meant as a satire.

idolization of doubt

Recently I read a surprisingly positive sentiment about the presence of doubt in the normal Christian experience. In fact, the opinion was that a faith without doubt is no solid faith at all. And doubt never ends, so all honest and earnest Christians must embrace doubt as truth's constant companion.

I believe this exaltation of doubt is a subtle error. In my opinion, doubt's status is closer to a necessary evil than a praiseworthy virtue. Although I concur that doubt's "power of negativity" is indispensable for exposing falsities, it can also be destructive to the fundamental faith of the devotee. Every truth can be doubted; hence doubt itself is often incorrect and unhelpful. A devoted Christian is not like a philosophical rationalist who demands complete surety in propositions. Rather, they learn more deeply about the One over time through fallible methods, and faith puts the knowledge to work.

As I said earlier, doubt is necessary, but purely in service to its purpose: the gain of truth. Doubt is a means, not an end. When the Christian once obtains a beautiful truth, doubt's role is mostly finished. It's possible that the truth is a mistake, in which case doubt can yet be resurrected if appropriate. However, sooner or later doubts begin to be nothing more than obstructions that prevent people from trusting a tested truth. Doubt is a weapon against mis-truth. Just as we will cast off our weapons as we face everlasting peace, we will cast off our doubts as we face everlasting and fully-revealed truth.