Deconstructing Doctrine 6: Salvation

photo credit: wuestenigel Night view of Antigua, Guatemala from "Cerro de la Cruz" via photopin (license)

I'm continuing in my personal deconstruction of the doctrines I grew up with:  The Eleven Doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to my previous blogs for the first 5.

What's wrong with us? Christianity tries to answer this question. Most religions are concerned with this question, too:  How can we have a better life? The sixth doctrine of The Salvation Army addresses this, but requires tons of definitions with the Christianese it uses.

This is the sixth doctrine:

We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.

in 1997 I went to Germany as part of a requirement of my Master's degree to serve overseas in a missionary setting. I was invited by one of my friends to go with him to Switzerland for a youth congress he was participating in. On the bus ride to Switzerland, there was a young man who wanted to practice his English on me. He asked me which denomination I attended, in German I replied, "Die Heilsarmee" (The Salvation Army). He stumbled a bit on that and asked me, "What type of army is that? What is a 'healing army?'" This young man literally translated the word "Heil" from the German word, "heilen," which means "to heal."

In some ways, I appreciate that better than the word, "Salvation." Language is an ever-evolving thing. The doctrine here states that there is wrong in this world and the healing of this world is made by Jesus because of his suffering and death.

I agree with the first part, that Jesus came to bring healing, but I disagree with the second part, that it was accomplished by his suffering and death.

Why did Jesus die? That's a very easy question to answer. Jesus was executed for treason:  for breaking the law, for being in direct opposition to Rome as a pretender to the throne. The fact that he was a descendant of David did not help matters. On a religious side, he made claims amounting to divinity, which got the religious community in an uproar.

Have you ever sought meaning in a tragedy that happened? Why did a love one die? Why did a child die? Why did a natural catastrophe happen? It's easy to impose our own meanings to tragedies after they have happened.

I am convinced that the Early Church was trying to bring meaning to the meaningless death of Jesus. In all honesty, there was nothing special about his death. Jesus died by crucifixion. It was so common that Josephus recorded roads being lined with people executed on a cross. Even the Bible stated that Jesus was crucified between two other criminals.

It only makes sense then that the Early Church sought to find meaning in an event that already occurred. Jesus' death was ignoble. It was intended to shame and humiliate his followers. In order to counteract such a despicable death, the Church began to invent its own story as to why Jesus died.

The writer of Hebrews compared Jesus' death to that of a Passover Lamb. That symbolism works just a little bit and would resonate with a Jewish audience, but have little to do with non-Jewish people. The symbolism doesn't work completely, though, because the Passover Lamb was not a lamb of atonement. In fact, the animal that was set aside for atonement wasn't a lamb at all:  It was a goat. The goat was the animal where the sins of the nation were set upon on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Even then, it wasn't sacrificed, but forced to be abandoned in the wilderness. (See Leviticus 16:7-10.)

In more recent soteriology, many Christians love the idea of "penal substitution," the theory that Jesus had to die to take away the sins of the world and without his death, we couldn't be saved. God's wrath demands a sacrifice and it is only appeased by blood.

I reject that notion. I reject the idea that God needs blood in order to satiate God's wrath.

So I reject outright the idea that Jesus even needed to die for my sins. He did not. Such a notion makes God into a bloodthirsty deity with no regard for grace and mercy. God's "wrath" does not need to be satisfied. Let us think about this rationally:  If all we needed to do was to sacrifice Jesus, logically, the quickest and easiest way (and the most barbaric way), would be to do it when Jesus was a baby. If God demanded a blood sacrifice from a human (which goes against the Torah) (cf. Deuteronomy 12:31), this would be the most expedient way. However, the idea that Jesus had to be sacrificed to appease God's wrath is illogical.

If that's the case, where does salvation come from? Where is healing in this world? Jesus gave it to us already. When Jesus proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven or the Kingdom of God, it was something that was meant for this world, not some afterlife. God's kingdom was meant for now, not later. The examples given by Jesus of what the Kingdom of Heaven was like was something that we did. The Kingdom of God is how we treated each other. The Kingdom of God was showing love and mercy. The Kingdom of Heaven was found in the relationships we had with each other.

Salvation is not attained through a gruesome blood sacrifice.

Salvation came to us through the incarnation of the Christ.

This is the mystery that I am wrestling with now. If Jesus as the Christ, as the anointed one, was/is also divine, then our salvation comes through his incarnation.

Then what about his death? It was a tragedy, but I don't believe it was a necessity. It was definitely a sign of evil that we would put to death something that was so pure. We humans don't tend to learn, either. We continue to sacrifice pure things with no success. We sacrifice the children of Newtown, Connecticut. We sacrifice the Tutsis of Rwanda. We sacrifice the Jews of Europe.

Blood does not bring atonement. Blood does not bring salvation. I don't need a bath in blood to make me pure. I don't need to have my clothes washed in blood.

God is not a vampire. As the psalmist said, "You don't want sacrifices. If I gave an entirely burned offering, you wouldn't be pleased" (Psalm 51:16 CEB).

So, in rewording this doctrine, I might say:

I believe that Jesus brought healing into this world through his incarnation and life and is available for anyone who follows his teachings.

Deconstructing Doctrine 5: Original Sin

photo credit: Lawrence OP O Clavis David via photopin (license)
A depiction of Christ saving Adam and Eve.

I'm continuing in my series of deconstructing the doctrines of The Salvation Army. Please refer to my previous blogs for context if you are reading this post for the first time.

I love Star Trek. Despite the science fiction aspect of it, the shows tend to have an optimistic portrayal of humanity and the future. I recall a storyline where the Klingon character, Worf, is forced to answer for the supposed crimes of his father. His father had been accused of treason. Since he was dead, Worf had to answer for his father's crimes. This seemed to be a gross injustice. It made absolutely no sense. Why should anyone stand in judgment for the crimes of their parents? The whole storyline dealt with this injustice and how this character needed to prove his own innocence and the innocence of his parents.

Which is why I have so many problems with the Fifth Doctrine of The Salvation Army.

We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.

This doctrine attempts to tell why we are all facing bad things in life. The long and short of it:  It's our parents' fault. Because Adam and Eve sinned, we are all doomed and "totally depraved."

The language of this doctrine is also just cumbersome. I will give the author credit:  At least he said "first parents" and not Adam and Eve. However, using the patriarchal inclusive words of "all men have become sinners," leaves out anyone who is not male. At the same time, I can imagine most women and gender non-conforming people are quite happy that they are not included in this declaration.

The concept introduced in this doctrine is "Original Sin." Simply stated: Because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve, we are all sinners by birth. We already have a strike against us because of what our parents did. We are already damned for eternity, not because of what we did, but because of Adam and Eve. Some Christians even go so far as to say that because of their sin, disease, pestilence, etc. entered into this world. These people say that because of the sin of our parents, anything and everything that is evil in this world is their fault.

Hogwash.

That is not justice at all. This also certainly doesn't reflect the loving nature of God. Granted, one could find scriptural support for this concept. (One could find scriptural support for just about anything.) People often turn to Paul's discourse in Romans 5 as support that we are all born evil. However, I would rather turn to Jesus.

Jesus and his disciples once encountered a blind man. His disciples, curious of course, wanted to know why this man had been born blind. It is a common enough question. So many people are born into situations we don't understand and which are patently not fair. It's the question whose answer we are seldom satisfied with:  "Why do bad things happen to good people?" So the disciples asked Jesus:  "Rabbi, who sinned so that he was born blind, this man or his parents?" (John 9:2 CEB)

It's a legitimate question. Why did this bad thing happen to me? Why do I have this disease? Why was my child born with Down's Syndrome? Why did I have a miscarriage? Why did my father beat my mother up? Why was I abused?

Jesus had an answer in this case:  "Neither he nor his parents. This happened so that God's mighty works might be displayed in him. While it's daytime, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world," (John 9:3-5 CEB).

This answer, albeit somewhat cryptic, makes something clear:  this wrong done to this person was not his fault, nor was it his parents' fault.

The bad things that happen to us in this world are often not our fault; however, it is our duty to make things right again.

Because of this, I reject this doctrine outright. In fact, I find it somewhat interesting that The Salvation Army has no problem adopting a petal of Calvinism here:  Total Depravity. This is the idea that because of the sin of Adam and Eve, all humans are incapable of doing good and are born in a sinful nature.

I tend to stand more behind the idea of Pelagianism, a doctrine in direct opposition to Augustine of Hippo, which states we are not born in a state of sin, but we can through our own efforts still do good. This caused a bit of controversy back during Pelagius' day. To some people it seemed that if one thought this way, one doesn't need God at all. The teachings of Pelagius were declared a heresy and most of his writings were destroyed.

However, I tend to agree with Pelagius.  We are not born bad. We are born good. If God has declared the universe and us good, who are we to argue?

This whole idea of Original Sin is something I can understand. It's trying to give an answer as to why so many things in this world are messed up. Why is there disease? Why is there war? Why are people born in poverty while some are born in wealth? It is important to wrestle with these questions; however, I don't believe the answer lies with Original Sin.

While attending college, I visited a synagogue as part of a class on Worship I was taking. It was a reformed Jewish synagogue in Lexington. In speaking with the rabbi after the service, I suddenly discovered something:  Jews do not believe in Original Sin, either! They had the same stories that we do. They know the story of Adam and Eve, but they came to a different conclusion. I remember asking the rabbi, "It doesn't seem that you think it was a bad thing that Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil." He replied, "No, because before that there was no sex!"

Well, that certainly has my vote for discounting the concept of Original Sin!

Perhaps it's not quite that simple. Perhaps we are born good. When God created us, God proclaimed that we are good. That is nothing anyone can take away but we ourselves. The deeds of our parents cannot make us evil or sinful.

If I were to rework this doctrine, I might say something like this:

I believe that we humans were created in a state of innocency. We are all born with the capability of doing good or evil. We are responsible for our own actions and it is our duty to right the wrongs of our ancestors.

Deconstructing Doctrine 4: Jesus

Arian Baptistry via photopin (license)

I am continuing in my deconstruction of the Salvation Army doctrines. Please see the first entries if this is your first foray into my blog!

Jesus:  Who was he?

Every time I think I get closer to an answer to this question, I get further away. Still, I try to examine what I know and what is verifiable. Then certain things collide with what I know to be scientifically true and these things clash hard with Scripture. That can lead to a crisis of faith for some. Others choose to ignore the science and focus solely on the faith, turning a blind eye to what they know is impossible.

So here is the Fourth Doctrine of The Salvation Army:

We believe that in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that He is truly and properly God and truly and properly man.

I do not dispute at all that Jesus lived on this Earth. He did. This extraordinary man started a movement and a way of life that reverberates to this day.

Was Jesus divine?

For most people, this is the crux of the question. They point to his virgin birth:  a birth that was based on a misinterpretation of Isaiah 7:14. Matthew (in Matthew 1:22-23) for some bizarre reason decides to quote from this scripture and say, "This was meant for Jesus," when, in its context, it clearly does not. If you look at the whole of Isaiah 7, Isaiah was speaking about a young woman (not a virgin) who was pregnant right then and there and the child was going to be a sign that King Ahaz's enemies would be destroyed. Matthew was more than likely quoting from the Septuagint, where this word (young woman) was rendered as virgin in Greek.

Let's go on with what we know about the ancients. Women were only viewed as the ground whereupon seed was sewn. That's why women were called "barren" when they weren't bearing children. Men had the "seed," the full human offspring. The Ancients didn't realize that the genetic material of both parents made up the offspring. So it only made sense, then, that Mary was "conceived by the Holy Spirit."

Even up until the Enlightenment, this view was called "preformationism."

Let's bring science into this. That just doesn't work. It's impossible. If there were no male genetic material to go into Mary's egg, then the baby would only have female genetic material. Would that make Jesus transgender?

So what do we have here?

Does being born of a virgin make someone divine? I don't think so, but then again that's probably missing the point of the story. Being born of a virgin wasn't even important at all to Mark or John. They ignore the birth of Jesus altogether.

If Jesus were truly divine, it had nothing to do with how he was conceived. In fact, perhaps we are taking the story too literally, as we often do in our culture, and we should be taking the story symbolically.

Was Jesus human?

This question might seem laughable, but one that early plagued Christians. It's easy to shoot off the answer, "yes," but are we prepared to accept those consequences of what it means for Jesus to be human?

Did Jesus eat? Sleep? Cry? Those are easy to answer. We know those answers. We see the Bible reporting about him eating, sleeping, crying.

Let's ask the harder questions.

Did Jesus make mistakes? After all, making mistakes is part of being human and more importantly is how we learn. I cannot learn how to walk without making mistakes. I cannot learn how to talk without making mistakes. 

If I may posit, even Jesus made mistakes. This one will be hard for most Christians to wrestle with. In fact, many will find some eisegetical reason to counter it. I think Jesus made a mistake when he first refused to heal the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman. Most people are uncomfortable with this story. First of all, it shows Jesus acting quite like a racist. I can understand that. It's always easier to identify with a group and to put people into an "other" category. We do it even in this day. Racism exists and is quite widespread. Is it any wonder that Jesus, a Jew, born in a society that hated non-Jews, especially Canaanites, would show contempt for this foreign woman?

However, Jesus learned from this mistake. He did the right thing. In so doing, he showed that his message was not meant only for the Jews, but for the whole world.

If Jesus were human, was he sexual? Absolutely he was! I'm not saying that he never had sex. The Bible is silent on that, but he was human and, in being human, was a sexual being. There is a possibility that he was Asexual, but I don't believe so. And if Jesus was truly human, then he experienced most human desires and feelings, which includes our sexual drive. So when Jesus hit puberty, he more than likely had the exact same emotions, hormones, and actions that most young men do his age.

That concept is so difficult for Christians to accept. In fact, there was an early movement of Christians who rejected this altogether, stating that Christ denied himself such pleasures. We call this Gnosticism. This thought basically denied everything pleasurable and states that only Spirit is good. The Early Church considered this a heresy, while still struggling with it to this day.

Are we ready to accept what it means for Jesus to have been human?

What did Jesus know about this?

Did Jesus believe he was divine? If he did? When? Did he know it from the moment of conception? If that were the case, how could a divine being ever be truly human? Paul in his letters to the Philippians states that Jesus emptied himself of all divinity (See Philippians 2:6-11.)

If Jesus emptied himself of all things divine, how could he be truly and properly God and truly and properly human when he was on Earth?

I think I'm coming up with more questions than answers.

And that's OK.

The fact is, I don't know for certainty that Jesus knew he was anything more than human. His preferred moniker for himself was "Son of Man," which is a euphemism for "Human One." He didn't call himself the Son of God. This praise came from other people. Friar Richard Rohr likes to postulate that Jesus did not know he was divine until his resurrection. I can accept that.

In the end, I probably have just as many questions as Andrew Lloyd Weber's portrayal of Judas Iscariot.

I believe that in the person of Jesus, his humanity and divinity are worthy mysteries to investigate.

Deconstructing Doctrine 3: The Trinity

For those encountering my blog for the first time, I would recommend reading the first installments on this series on Deconstructing Salvation Army Doctrines.

photo credit: byronv2 Schoenstatt 02 via photopin (license)

The Trinity

What could be more difficult than trying to explain or figure out the Trinity? That is not one of the easiest things to do. In 1999, I was in Albania during the Yugoslav War, helping with refugee camps with The Salvation Army. One time, I was able to talk with one of our Albanian translators about God. I was trying to find common ground with him in sharing my faith.

Then we talked about the Trinity. That was my first stumbling block.

"You worship three gods. Right? Father, Son, and Mother?"

That was an interesting way to look at it and not surprising for someone who was an outside observer of Christianity.

My inept explanation did little to convince my young friend.

The best explanation ever I have seen of the Trinity is from this hilarious video about two Irishmen talking to Saint Patrick about the Trinity.

So with that in mind, let us venture to read the Third Doctrine of The Salvation Army:

Doctrine Three

We believe that there are Three Persons in the Godhead - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.

What am I to do with this doctrine? I can imagine for most Christians, the idea of a Trinity is something they accept and just move on. Trying to explain the Trinity is another matter.

What is this trinitarian God? If God is undivided in essence, then how could Jesus have died? When Jesus was human, did he separate himself from God? Where is the idea of a Trinity in the Hebrew Scriptures? It's not there at all. In all honesty, there is no statement in the New Testament either that God is a triune being.

The King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible has a corrupted translation and additions in 1 John 5:7,8:  "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

But you know what? This is a prime example of some overly zealous scholar adding to Scripture. The actual Scripture passage says only this:  "There are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree." (1 John 5:7,8 NRSV)

It is so easy for us to infuse our own preconceived notions into Scripture, making them saying something that it never meant to say at all. Even if we are well intentioned, it is still wrong.

What is going on here?

This is perhaps the easiest thing to explain. Early Christians were trying to figure out something after the fact. Jesus never denied that there was only one God. He told his disciples about the Holy Spirit and he talked about God as a Father (which, in and of itself, was something new).

Who was Jesus, then, in relationship to God? Was he a prophet, or something more? Jesus rarely referred to himself in grandiose terms. Instead, he preferred the simple term of "Son of Man," which basically means "human one." God referred to Ezekiel as the Son of Man, too.

Then there is the Spirit of God, too. The Spirit of God came and went to prophets and kings in the Old Testament. This Spirit seemed to be similar, but also different:  staying, maintaining the Church, teaching, admonishing, bestowing supernatural gifts on people. The Spirit (who is a feminine being in Hebrew), is a relational aspect of God. She moves in us and binds humans together for common purpose.

"It's alright. She moves in mysterious ways." (Saint Bono of U2)

Early Christians didn't want to do away with the idea that there is only one God, but at the same time, they didn't want to say that Jesus was only a mere man. He was something more. Thus, the Trinity was born:  something that is never mentioned in Scripture, but at the same time, describes what Christians believe is the nature of God.

Mystery upon Mystery

Is that it then? Have we summarized God into a neat category? This Trinity? Three persons, but one?

It seems to be a paradox. It fails logic. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

And I'm ok with that. 

Christianity is not some black and white religion. Christianity is a vibrant patchwork tapestry, filled with so many disparate views on God, nature, the universe, humanity, etc. Somehow I believe God is like this, too.

The Trinity begins to describe this nature of God, but it isn't the final description of God. That would be too limiting. If God is more than what I can imagine or describe, then I can find God everywhere.

I find God in Scripture. I find God in nature. I find God in my relationships with other people. I find God in science. I find God in Islam. I find God in Buddhism. I especially find God in agnosticism, where not knowing if God really is there is the beginning of wisdom.

It is sometimes hard for humans to sit with mystery. The Trinity is a type of mystery. It is nothing definite or certain. There is nothing clear about it. It is confusing, mind boggling, and people have so many ideas and concepts of it. The Trinity is both heretical and orthodox at the same time.

That can be frustrating for people who love certainty. These people enjoy singing "Blessed Assurance." They want to know for a fact that when they die they will go to Heaven, that God is there, and that there is meaning to this life.

Certainty tends to wipe out faith.

I don't know any of these things for certain. I don't know what happens when I die for certain. I don't know what will happen with my consciousness. I don't know for certain that there is a Heaven. I don't know for certain that God is there.

I have faith that God is there. I dwell within the mystery of the Trinity. I dwell within the paradox that there is something more to this existence that is measurable or knowable. In a more practical way, I practice this through meditation. Centering prayer is a great way to start, if you are unfamiliar with meditation. 

If I were to rework this doctrine, I would say something like:

I believe that God is a mystery, but one can start with the Trinity.

Deconstructing Doctrines: Doctrine 2

photo credit: profzucker House Altar wih Akhenaten, Nefertiti and Three Daughters, detail with via photopin (license)

The Reaction

If you are reading this blog for the first time, be sure to check out my previous article on Doctrine One.

I had quite a reaction to my last post. Lots of it was positive. Some was negative. It's funny how the negative ones tend to stick out more than the positive ones. I was called apostate and heretic. My first reaction was to burst out laughing. Then I remember all of the pain from my initial rejection. It was salt in the wound. I know this is part of the healing process, but sometimes the pain is intolerable, especially when it comes from friends.

My response to those who call me a heretic:  We are all heretics to someone else. No matter what we do or say, our beliefs will not align with everyone else's. How we treat that person who disagrees with us says perhaps more about our character than anything else. I also realize that when you challenge what used to be a shared belief, people often take it as a personal attack on themselves. It is not.

Also, I love the Bible. I think it is fascinating. I especially love the Old Testament, having learned Hebrew in college. It's how I read and interpret the Bible that seems to be causing issues.

To those who gave me the encouraging comments:  Thank you. The positivity outweighed the negativity. I especially want to thank those who are still in The Salvation Army who appreciated my look on their doctrines.

So on to the next doctrine:

Doctrine Two

We believe that there is only one God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver, and Governor of all things, and who is the only proper object of religious worship.

At face value, I really have nothing wrong with this doctrine. Surprise! Perhaps in its interpretation is where the conflict arises.

Let me tell you a story.

I was in 11th Grade and in my Advanced Placement History class. Right before class started, I noticed on the board a list of world religions. I calmly ticked them off as I read them:

Buddhism -- bad

Confucianism -- bad

Judaism -- bad

Christianity -- good

Hinduism -- bad

Islam -- bad

Shintoism -- bad

etc, etc, etc . . . 

What I didn't realize was that one of my fellow classmates was standing behind me. She was blunt and asked me, "So you're saying all of those religions are wrong?"

"Well, yeah."

"How can you be sure?"

Thus started a friendship that continues to this day. Eventually, I came to see her point.

If I had been born in Libya, I most likely would have grown up Muslim. If I had been born in Thailand, more than likely I would have grown up Buddhist. I cannot help where I was born. I was born in the United States and grew up Christian. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. It's just how life happened.

Most religions have a concept of the divine. It intersects and crosses over all cultures. In many ways, it unites us. For those who are agnostic, atheist, or non-theist, sometimes it helps to think of the universe, the unknown, etc.

The picture above is a relief of Pharaoh Akhenaten and Nefertiti and their children, worshiping God. Akhenaten did away with polytheism and established the first monotheistic religion, even before Judaism appeared. It failed miserably and died with his son, Tutankhaten, who became better known as Tutankhamen (King Tut). Unfortunately, the only way to appease this God was to have a special relationship with the Pharaoh. It was also a political move. Akhenaten stole the political power away from the priests of Amun.

The Problem

What I see as the problem is that our own individual concept of God, the universe, etc., conflicts with other people's perception of God. I once had a very pleasant conversation with another member of my last denomination, when he emphatically said, "You and I don't worship the same God." I had the impression that he thought I worshipped a god of my own design.

That was bizarre. We were both in The Salvation Army. We were both officers. What was different? Our view of God was different. Perhaps in this we see a critical issue.

Christians rail against Muslims, stating that Allah is not God (even though Arabic Christians use the word "Allah" when speaking about God). Muslims state that Christians worship 3 gods, thinking that Christians are not true monotheists. Wars have been fought over how we view and worship God.

The issue I see at hand is that we cannot look past each other's differences. Jesus expressed this in several ways.

There is a story in the Bible about Jesus' disciples complaining that other people were healing the sick and casting out demons in Jesus' name. The disciples wanted them to stop. I can imagine why. The attention was no longer on the disciples or on Jesus. It was on these other people. Jesus actually had no problem with it. He told them, "Don't stop him. No one who does powerful acts in why name can quickly turn around and curse me. Whoever isn't against us is for us." (Mark 9:39-40 CEB)

At the same time, it's not necessarily about what we believe, but we do that matters. Jesus himself said, "Not everybody who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will get into the kingdom of heaven. Only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven will enter." (Matthew 7:21 CEB)

It's not so much orthodoxy (right thinking) that will help us, but orthopraxy (right doing). We can say that we believe all the right things, but if what we do doesn't match with what we believe, we are hypocrites.

Jesus tried to explain this when he told the story of the Good Samaritan:  Someone who believed all of the wrong things, but was still granted eternal life because he did the right thing.

Give me a Muslim any day who feeds the hungry and heals the sick than a white Christian who denounces Muslims on social media. The former is doing the will of God. The second is just blast of wind (flatulence), as Martin Luther so euphemistically said.

What then?

Is God infinitely perfect? What does that even mean? Is God a perfectionist? I don't believe so. If we are to believe the Bible's stories about the Flood and the Exodus, God regretted creating humans, as if we were a mistake.

However, if I understand that God is in all and with all, then it makes sense to me. There is a concept I love of God, which is called "panentheism." It's not "pantheism," which means God is everything. Rather, panentheism means that God is in everything and is also beyond everything.

If there are people who disagree with how you view God, so what? God calls on all of us to love each other. How about loving God by loving others? We have differences in opinion. Does that mean we need to tear each other down and fight with each other? Absolutely not.

If I could rewrite this doctrine, I would probably say,

I believe that God is in all and is beyond all. God is the Ground of Being. How I live and engage with God is how I worship.

For more information on God as the Ground of Being, see Rob Bell's excellent conversation with Peter Rollins on this subject.

Deconstructing Doctrines

Deconstruction

Many of you realize that I used to be a member of The Salvation Army. I was not only a member (soldier), but also an officer (clergy). I grew up in The Salvation Army. Some people balk at the idea of The Salvation Army being a Christian denomination, but I thought that was and is one of the Army's strengths:  It is not always recognized as a religious denomination. In that way, they can practically help those in need.

Myself as a Salvation Army officer at my parents' retirement

Unfortunately, The Salvation Army and I had to part ways. Due to my divorce and my outspokenness for LGBT inclusion, I could never be an officer again. I even had to fight to be accepted as a member of my local congregation. This was just another example for me of no longer being welcome.

There is some bitterness there:  That part of your life is suddenly gone and you are rejected simply because of what you believe. It leaves a hole that needs to be filled.

What I had discovered was that there is no safe space within The Salvation Army to explore one's faith and to even question and doubt what one believes. I have come to learn that doubt is an integral part of our faith's journey. There is this wonderful quote by Anne Lamott in her book, Plan B: Further Thoughts on Faith

The opposite of faith is not doubt, but certainty.

Expressing and living with doubt is a difficult thing to do. Most humans like to live in a dualistic world:  Right and Wrong. Left and Right. Conservative and Liberal. What if there is more than one correct answer, or even no right answer?

Could we live in that tension of not knowing for certain?

To me, that is faith.

Because of this:  I am giving myself the freedom I was denied to do so as a soldier and certainly as an officer:  I will question and examine the 11 Doctrines of Faith that they maintain. I don't know how this will end up, but this journey is for me.

You may ask, "Timothy, if you belong to another church now, why not just leave this behind?" This is me leaving it behind. It is for me to examine what I thought I believed and never questioned.

The Doctrines

The Salvation Army has 11 Doctrines of Faith that they have not changed since they were first written in 1878. They do revisit the interpretation of these doctrines, writing a "Handbook of Doctrine," periodically.

All members of The Salvation Army affirm that they believes these doctrines. This does produce a wonderful sense of uniformity and conformity. If you believe the same as the other person, there is a tremendous sense of harmony. I knew going from one congregation to the next that I believed the same as most everyone there.

The problem comes in when someone begins to question and have doubts.

I won't be going over all 11 doctrines in this post. That would make for a very long post indeed! Instead, I will go over the very first doctrine.

Doctrine One

We believe that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God and that they only constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice.

This doctrine establishes the foundation for the beliefs of The Salvation Army. At face value, this seems really innocuous.  Its in the interpretation that one begins to have problems.

The Salvation Army uses only the Protestant Old and New Testament Scriptures as the basis of their beliefs, ignoring and sometimes demeaning the other books of the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles as being less than inspired.

But what is "inspiration?" To me, it meant that God is the Muse of the authors of the Bible. However, it typically means among more conservative elements that the Bible is inerrant and infallible, which means without error or being able to cause error. I have seen heated arguments over the nuances between these two words.

I have known many Christians who call the Bible the "Word of God," when Scripture never refers to itself in this way. For these Christians, the Bible becomes more than religious writings. It becomes God itself.

There is only one true Word of God:  Jesus.

As the Orthodox priest, Brad Jersak, likes to say:

It is sufficient to say that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions. Matthew's Gospel states that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, but Luke's Gospel states that he was born when Quirinius was governor of Syria.  Which is it? It can't be both. Herod died about 4 BC and Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria until about 6 AD, a time difference of 10 years. Mark and John don't even care about the birth of Jesus. It wasn't important in their narratives.

For goodness' sake! Mark doesn't even record a resurrection of Jesus, just an empty tomb! (Some scribe decided to add several verses to Mark's Gospel, including snake handling.)

Despite this, there is no archeological evidence for a worldwide flood. Any Young Earth Creationist who tries to bring "evidence" to this, is roundly criticized because their "evidence" never stands up to scrutiny.

There is no evidence of a mass exodus of slaves from Egypt. There is no evidence of Jericho being destroyed at the time of Joshua. There is no evidence of Esther actually being a queen to Xerxes in Persian documents.

The Bible is certainly not inerrant. Any attempts to somehow explain these inconsistencies in the Bible is just sophistry.

If one's faith is built upon the concept that the Bible is without error, one's faith quickly crumbles when presented with the actual facts, if one is willing to actually confront those facts.

What I realized, though, was that I had actually been taught this in my conservative Christian College of Asbury. It had shook the foundations of my faith then. What I did was simply ignore it and went on. I think many Christians do this. It is so hard to change your worldview once it has been set.

The Bible itself is not what we sometimes make it out to be. For example, Moses certainly didn't write the first 5 books of the Bible. If anything, they were compiled by various scholars during the Babylonian exile, which is why one has 2 creation stories and 2 flood stories in Genesis

Paul did not write all of his letters. At the most, he wrote 7 (Galatians, Romans, 1 Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon, 1 and 2 Corinthians). The others differ radically in theological concept and were most likely written in tribute to Paul, which was a very common practice in the Ancient World.

What do I do then?

Some people, when confronted with this either reject the Bible altogether or ignore the evidence. I didn't want to do either.

If the Bible is neither inerrant nor infallible, what then? I certainly don't believe any longer that "they alone constitute the divine rule of Christian faith and practice." The worship and faith of Christians isn't limited to what is described in the Bible.

What do I believe then? My doctrine would be:

I believe that the Bible was early humans' attempt at understanding and interacting with the Divine.

When I view it that way, then I understand more about why God was portrayed differently in different portions of the Bible.  "God hates foreigners" in Ezra.  "God loves foreigners" in Ruth. "There is no difference between men and women" in Galatians. "Women are lesser than men" in 1 Timothy.

It also helps me come to terms with my own faith. Faith is dynamic. Faith changes with life circumstances. Faith encompasses doubt, joy, uncertainty, and fulfillment.

I am fairly confident that my faith will once again morph as my life progresses. That is a good thing. It means that I am growing spiritually.

My hope and prayer is that you will also not be afraid to explore your doubts and questions and that you will have the courage to question what you believe.

The Power of Acceptance

Recently I had a conversation with a friend of mine about leaving my former church. I told him just how wounded and rejected I felt when my congregation refused to accept me for who I am and instead rejected me. My friend said that I should have expected this. Since I grew up in that denomination and I knew their stance on LGBT issues, it should not have come as any surprise to me that they would reject me and maybe I should have left sooner.

He had a valid point. Logically seen from a distance and with time as my perspective, it should not have come as any surprise to me that I would have faced rejection in my former church.

If I were a computer, that would be the end of the story. The update to my system made me incompatible with the old hardware. My changing theology and beliefs were at odds with my church. I should have expected to be rejected. It almost felt as if he were saying, "It's your fault you feel this way." However, I am not an automaton. It is impossible for me to look at things purely from a logical stance, especially when it comes to faith.

When I felt that rejection, it was as if I no longer mattered. I became a second-class citizen, unworthy of worshipping or being a member of that denomination. This seemed to me to reject Christ's call to love and accept all.

Some people had asked me why I had stayed so long in a denomination which discriminates against the LGBT community. Others were surprised that I stayed so long.

I grew up in that denomination. It formed the basis of my belief. I wanted to be able to see their "theology of service" mirror their "theology of worship." They simply could not see how accepting the LGBT community would not compromise their beliefs. To them the LGBT community was at best a group of people to be pitied and at worst, the ultimate threat to Christianity. Those members and clergy who are in the LGBT community are some of the most scrutinized I know.

Divine Acceptance

Jesus said, "Come to me, all you who are struggling hard and carrying heavy loads, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28 CEB) Jesus' message of love began with accepting those whom society had rejected. Jesus' message of repentance included an exhortation to love others as he had loved us. To me, that is the message of the Gospel:  God loves. Because God loves us, we should love others.

So what happens when one is rejected by one's faith group? For me it was a bitter as divorce. I went through grief, at one point, wishing I hadn't gone through this, but at the same time, realizing I no longer had a choice.

At the same time, I found almost immediately another church that accepted me for who I was with no condemnation. Even then, though, it was still a hard struggle to come to the decision to become a member of my new church.

I still remember, sitting down for lunch with the Reverend Phil Snider, pastor of Brentwood Christian Church. I remember that if I were to find a church where I was accepted, I needed to be upfront with everything I had gone through. I remember how anxious I felt when I told him that I was bisexual. I was relieved and a bit shocked when he acted like this was an interesting piece of information, but it didn't change the fact that he accepted me as I was.

Do you know how empowering and freeing that is to be accepted just as you are?

When we accept people for who they are, they experience not only our love, but they encounter the love of God.

For many people, acceptance is so close to love that it is virtually identical.

How much more wonderful when people realize that there acceptance is only the beginning of love!

photo credit: Jeanne Menjoulet acceptance matters via photopin (license)