So. How does one read the Bible?

Nancy wrote: It's freakin' 1am but I have to write this thought before I forget (it's the one I was going to write next earlier hehe) : I always thought that you were supposed to read the Bible from beginning to end, and I haven't even opened mine yet because I'm terrified of not being able to finish it... so maybe the way you're reading it would help! Thanks for the suggestion!

Heh. You think 1 a.m. is bad? It's 3:49 a.m. here, and I'm blogging. Eh. It's hot. I kept having the same dream over and over (something about life being two dances - one that is an expression of our personality, one that was a rejoicing of the opportunity to live a Christian life. Sound poetic? It's not - not when the dance finishes and starts again and again and again in the dream.)

Anyway, definitely don't be afraid of not being able to finish the Bible. I still haven't finished all of the Old Testament - I thought that it wasn't relevant and that I couldn't understand it and whatnot, so I avoided it for years. It's only been recently that I've been reading it the way that I have.

I've always thought of reading the Bible like eating a box of very expensive chocolates: you don't gorge yourself; you eat one and savor it. The Bible's the same way; read a little bit and meditate on it. There are times, yes, when I read the Bible more like a book - reading it for breadth rather than depth, but, to be honest, that's pretty rare.

I thought maybe I'd explain the different books of the Bible, to maybe help you think about where you'll want to start. Please forgive me if I'm saying things you already know; I just thought the explanation might be useful for anyone who is considering reading the Bible.

Also, you might be interested to learn that Genesis wasn't the first book of the Bible to be written, even though it's the first book in there. I just learned in reading Searching for God Knows What that Job was actually the first book that Moses wrote.

Mike just got up. He's a crazy man. Who gets up before 4 a.m.? (I'm sure he's probably thinking the same thing about me, sitting here typing away.)

OK. I'm going to start with the New Testament. It starts off with the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), which are four of the disciples' accounts of Jesus' life. I think it's pretty neat to see which stories overlap to get a sense of the different perspectives.

The next book is Acts; this book describes the early church - the body of believers right after Christ returned to heaven after His resurrection.

This is followed by Romans, which was written by Paul. It's probably the most specific book describing the Christian faith. It's very blunt, while also being deeply philosophical. This is the book many Christians use to explain why they believe in their personal need for Jesus.

After Romans are the two letters to the people in Corinth: 1 and 2 Corinthians. These are long letters written by Paul, explaining different aspects of the faith that those people were struggling with, including things like marriage and spiritual gifts. Remember, the church was just establishing itself, so beyond the teachings of Christ Himself, there wasn't a clearly defined "Christian life" at this point.

This is followed by Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians and Colossians. These are also letters, written to Galatia, Ephesia, Philippia and Colossia (not sure if that last one is right). However, these letters are short, only 4-6 chapters long. I like these books a lot - in fact, in beginning to get back into reading the Bible for myself, this is where I started.

Then you have more letters, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, as well as two letters written by Paul to a young and inspired believer named Timothy. In 1 and 2 Timothy, you'll see more instructions to the church: the role a woman should have, what a deacon/elder's life should look like, etc. In reading these books, I think that there needs to be a degree of cultural interpretation. For instance, someone who reads the Bible as if *every* word must be followed in order to be obedient to God is often called "legalistic," because some of the instructions don't make sense in our time period.

This is followed by two more short letter, to Titus and Philemon. I don't have my Bible upstairs with me, so I can't think of how to explain these two right off the top of my head.

OK. Next is Hebrews, which is a neat but - in my opinion - somewhat technical book. Since it's written to the Hebrews, a lot of it is about the Jewish law and what has changed since the Messiah came. There's a lot of talk about the High Priest and whatnot. I think that this would be a challenging book to start with for someone not familiar with the Jewish faith.

Ooh. Next comes James, another letter. I like this one a lot. It's got a lot of wisdom and suggestions for life, like not letting your tongue control you, and things like that.

Next we have 1 and 2 Peter, which I just read recently. The girl that I'm mentoring from Hector's youth group is studying 1 Peter with me. I find these books to be really encouraging and challenging (not challenging to read - more of a challenge in how to live life).

This is followed by 1, 2 and 3 John. I finished rereading 1 John today and will start 2 John tomorrow. 1 John talks extensively about God's love for us, and that if we love God, we'll demonstrate that love by loving other people.

Finally, the New Testament concludes with Jude (a short book warning against corruption) and Revelation - a prophecy of the End Times. A lot of people, like my brother, are fascinated with Revelation. For many, it's the only book of the Bible that they've read. I find it a little fantastical for my taste, but I'll probably start rereading it within the next week or so, as I continue moving through the New Testament.

This site has really good explanations of the different books of the Bible, probably better than I could explain at 4 a.m. without a Bible in front of me.

I'm going back to bed. Tomorrow I'll try to explain some of the more "key" books of the Old Testament, ones that might be more useful to you as you begin reading the Bible. I have a busy day, though, so I may not get to it until Friday.

I really hope this makes sense. My eyes have been watering the whole time I've been typing, so I'm pretty tired and out of it.

Can the Bible be for real?

Whew! You guys are wearing me out with these questions... just kidding! I'm having fun sitting here writing answers, but I am in a sort of writing-daze at this point. When I look away from the computer, everything else looks sort of hazy.

Nancy wrote:
1. Your answer makes a lot of sense to me, because of The Bible verses. (Since I haven't read the bible yet, but I just bought one, so hopefully soon my questions will be more intelligent hehe) But what if (Please don't be offended by this question, I've always always wondered this and no one seems to be able to give me a real answer, or they don't want to...) What if The Bible is a work of fiction ? What if God thinks The Bible is nonsense ? What if a group of religious people gathered one day a long long time ago and decided to write a book to make the people behave, scaring them into behaving ? I haven't read the whole Bible, but I've read parts, like Genesis. I really can't grasp how we can know for sure that the Genesis story is true. Who was there ? And also how do we know that Noah really built a gigantic ark for a gigantic flood and that he was sane ? The Bible says that Noah was 600 years old when the floodwaters came on earth. How do we know this ? It's probably not an easy question to answer huh ? hehe Sorry... I just have always had this question bugging me.

She actually wrote two other questions, but I'm going to tackle them one at a time, since - knowing me - I'll get really wordy with each one and overwhelm you with all kinds of thoughts.

I'm really excited that you got a Bible. Woot! Even if you don't believe in it as a religious text, I personally think it makes for some good reading - parts of it, anyway. I was wondering if you have a plan for reading it. In my opinion, starting with Genesis and going from there isn't always the best tactic; I usually burn out by the third book, Numbers, when I try it that way. Hector usually recommends that people start with the New Testament. In my daily reading, I usually read two chapters of a book of the Old Testament, a chapter or two from the New Testament, and a Psalm or two. If you're just starting out, it may not be the best idea to scatter yourself like that - you may get more by just going straight through one book. Let me know if you have any questions as you're reading; I'd love to help answer them, if I can!

Oh, and by the way, your questions are anything but unintelligent. They've been debated by scholars for as long as Christianity has been around. I'm really sorry no one has tried to answer your question, and I'm baffled sometimes why people are offended by questions like this. I mean, the Bible even says: "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander" (1 Peter 3:15-16). How can I, as a Christian, be prepared in giving an answer if I haven't thought through the question and found an answer for myself?

I have three levels of answers to this question: a biblical answer, an intellectual answer, and an intuitive/emotional answer.

I realize, first of all, that the biblical answer is, to a degree, counterintuitive, because if we are questioning the validity of the Bible as an inspired text, how can we use it to respond to that question? However, I still feel that I would be negligent in not addressing what the Bible says about itself in terms of being the Word of God.

First, in his second letter to Timothy, Paul writes: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (3:16-17). This is an interesting response to the common argument that, after all, the Bible was written by men. However, throughout the Bible, we read about the Trinity: God as Father, God as Son (Jesus), God as Holy Spirit. In every area of the Bible, the Spirit equips humans to do things that are not humanly possibly. Sounds supernatural? It is. And sometimes, because that's out of our realm of experience, we dismiss it. So even though it was men writing the Bible, I believe that the Spirit of God was leading them to write what they wrote.

The gospel of John begins somewhat mysteriously in its discussion of the Word (a.k.a. the Bible, the Scriptures): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God." In other words, if God is outside of time, in His mind, the Bible has always existed. That's something of a challenging metaphysical concept, and right now, I'm starting to feel a little brain-dead to fully develop that thought. Does it make sense?

Now, I don't expect you to accept this as my only explanation, but I do feel it's important to explain my biblical basis for what I believe about the Bible, since the Bible is where I find authority.

I said that I also have intellectual reasons for believing that the Bible is a divinely inspired text. I simply cannot imagine a human author being able to craft a text as intricate as the Bible. I am fairly well-read, being an English teacher and avid reader, and I've never encountered a book nearly as well-devised as the Bible. The cross-references are almost unfathomable. My Bible is almost 1400 pages long, and on each page, there is no less than 20 cross-references to other verses, across both the Old and the New Testament. Most pages have nearly 30 or 40 references to other verses. That's a minimum of 28,000 cross-references! I think about the time it takes me to search for the few verses that I include in each blog entry, and it's unfathomable to include 20-40 a page. Completely unfathomable.

Additionally, the "plot" connections are unreal. The Old Testament has a ton of very specific prophecies (around 800) - or predictions - about Jesus as the Christ. To then create a character - a historically supported character, at that - who fulfills all of these prophecies is nothing short of amazing. Here is a basic list of some of those fulfilled prophecies, and this site is very comprehensive in explaining the concept of prophecy; I encourage you to read it, because the author(s) are certainly more scholarly and versed in this concept than I am. I think it was in Don Miller's book Searching for God Knows What that I recently read the very key point that, throughout history, we've had countless people claim to be God embodied in human form. However, we've only had one of those who was acknowledged by many people of the time to be God as a baby, before He could even talk.

I also said that I have intuitive/emotional reasons for believing in the Bible as a supernatural text. I cannot tell you the number of times in my life that I have turned to a verse that exactly supports a situation that I am going through. I'm sure that others would explain this away as being mere coincidence, but I personally don't buy it. I believe God guides me to those verses when I need them. And I'm always moved by the relevancy of the Bible - that despite the drastic changes in culture that we've seen in the 2000 years since Christ's life, that so much of the New Testament still speaks to the human heart today.

You repeatedly asked how we know that the stories in the Bible are true. There is no denying that we still lack "proof" for these stories; I personally believe that modern science and anthropology are so far behind these discoveries. Believing in the Bible absolutely requires faith, and no scholar will deny this. However, I would ask you this: if God really is all-powerful (and I cannot imagine a God that is not, because then what would separate Him from humans, really? What would be His point in existence if He had limitations?), wouldn't it be in His realm to make all of these stories happen? Wouldn't He have the ability to alter the length of a year, or to change the human life span? Couldn't He part a sea? Couldn't He flood the earth or send a plague of locusts? When we try to rationalize these stories to being mere fables or parables, we limit the power of God, and I'm not sure that's something that we should do.

Interestingly, I have had the subject of creation on my plate of things I'll be writing about really soon. I don't want to get too much into it right now because I'm seriously brain-dead from all of this writing and deep thinking, and I also want to wait until I can fully develop that post for itself. Stay tuned on that regard!

You ask: " What if a group of religious people gathered one day a long long time ago and decided to write a book to make the people behave, scaring them into behaving ?" Historical evidence would discount, first of all, the idea that they gathered "one day." The Old Testament itself was written over a thousand-year period. But I think the root of this idea is that perhaps man wrote it to "scare humans into behaving." To that I would ask: why this method? Why a text that is predominantly about love? Certainly instilling the fear of human violence would be much more effective; parents, for instance, are much more apt to threaten to spank their children to get them to behave then they are to suggest the wrath of God. It is surely easier to believe in a real, evident and present threat than it is to believe in a hypothetical one.

I really hope that I, in some way, answered your questions. I realize that you may choose to disagree with my response, but I certainly don't want to avoid offering a Christian's response to those concerns. Let me know if anything isn't clear or if you want to follow up - I'd be happy to revisit any part of this or elaborate after my brain restores itself :-)

The mega-church.

I seriously can't even tell you guys how relieved I am to have a chance to sit and write responses to your questions. I've been mulling over these for days on end, and to sit and finally get these thoughts out feels like a burden lifted. Heh. I'm only slightly neurotic. I actually have post-it notes of comments I want to make or verses I want to include sitting all around my computer desk.

Miika commented:

I think this is part of the reason why I can still "stand" you, even though you're a christian :-) You're not the type I usually come across who is oozing with godly-ness and "I am so much more perfect than you"... Anyhow, that was a compliment :-)

But my question is, if you view christianity the way you do, what do you think of those so-called mega churches? There was an article in a magazine here a little while ago (the german equivalent of National Geographic) and it just completely creeped me out. I'm not sure what exactly I found so creepy, but I think it was that, first off, they think they're so much better than everyone else, and cultivating this "betterness" by mixing only with "their kind" (even as far as home schooling, and letting kids attend only activities sponsored by their local church, which runs their whole life already) and then the thought that with a little "Jesus is great! Amen!" you can fix everything, and just praying and being a "good christian" will mean that your family will succeed and that you're all going to be perfect. It's sort of a "christianity light" in a way.

Thanks, first of all, for the compliment. That seriously made my day. I really believe that genuine Christianity is humbling. Even Paul - who was one of the boldest early Christians and wrote several of the books of the New Testament - wrote: "But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life" in his first letter to Timothy (1 Timothy 1:16). Anyone reading that would probably think that Paul was being overly humble - he had done so many great things in his lifetime for the glory of God, but I believe that's how Paul genuinely felt, and I think anyone who is regularly reading the Word and praying will realize how far from godly he/she actually is. It's hard to read the Bible without realizing just how much you do wrong - from ignoring the tremendous need that exists in the world or not loving other people the way they should be loved, and on and on.

Anyway. Sorry about that little rant. I've got lots to say about this mega-church question of yours, and there are different parts to my response, so I'd better dive in.

First of all, mega-churches seem to be becoming increasingly popular in the United States, and while I'm not really up on what's going on around the globe, I'd imagine the same is true abroad, from what you've written. I have a few theories for this popularity.

First and foremost, we live in a world that is more isolated than ever before, due to technology. I first realized this back when I was living in the dorm and D told me that when he had been a student, the TV room was the most popular place to hang out and really fostered a sense of community. That had changed by the time I was a student and everyone had a TV and cable in their own dorm rooms. The same is true in households - put a TV/computer/cell phone in each person's possession, and he will virtually have to go out of his way to interact with actual human beings.

The mega-church can develop a sense of belonging to someone greater than one's self. Plus, it is a bit more immune to the gossip that can be prevalent in smaller churches, since you can maintain your anonymity in a church of 1000+ members quite easily, so you can go on Sunday and feel that you're a part of something - without actually being a contributing part.

Now, I think that the church we see in the Bible is more than just a place people go on Sundays; the church is the whole body of believers in Christ. Paul writes to the Romans: "Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function, so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. If a man's gift is prophesying, let him use it in proportion to his faith"(Romans 12:4-6, emphasis added).

The reason I included this verse is because I see a problem in every church, whether small or large. I realized this quite recently, after Hector and I lamented the lack of ministry towards young adults in churches and longed for some sort of mentoring program of which we could be a part. Churches tend to divide into smaller groups - you have a program for retirees, for singles, for couples, for moms, for men, for teens, for kids - and the groups become these small entities unto themselves. In one sense, there is a definite benefit to the small groups, because - indeed - each group has its' own needs; you would hardly minister to a child in the same way you'd minister to a single adult. However, we lose the sense that we are all the body of Christ. Instead, I really feel that each group should be seeking what they can do to bless and benefit the other groups, thereby drawing the body together. For instance, the mens' ministry should be reaching out to the moms and the retirees, seeing if they can help with household projects that single women or older persons might not be able to complete on their own. The couples' small group could be reaching out to the younger adults, offering mentoring. The teens could be doing dramas for the kids. And I could continue indefinitely.

I address this in response to your question because the mega-church has the mega-opportunity to be doing this - not only for those that are in the church, but for those that are in the community, and I think that, for many reasons, the ball has been dropped in this regard.

However, I think you've hit on some other true issues with mega-churches - and, actually, with many churches of today's time, particularly with this: they think they're so much better than everyone else, and cultivating this "betterness" by mixing only with "their kind" (even as far as home schooling, and letting kids attend only activities sponsored by their local church, which runs their whole life already).

You've definitely hit on one of my spiritual pet peeves. I will part ways with you on the "they think they're so much better than everyone else" bit, because I think the motivation to do everything together is different than mere exclusivity. There is a great deal to be said for the fellowship that can come from spending time with other Christians. It's very encouraging. The Bible talks about how Christians are hated by the world (1 John 3:13), with "the world" meaning people who are not Christians. To a degree, I think that some Christians bring this upon themselves by the way they act, but to a greater degree, I think Christians are hated because people like living their lives the way they want or choose to live, and they don't like being reminded that maybe that way isn't right. The Bible also says that Christians are "as aliens and strangers in the world" (1 Peter 1:1, 2:11). Plus, the Bible also says that non-believers won't understand Christians: "The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him." (1 John 3:1).

Now. Lest you think that I am in complete defense of this isolation among Christians, I vehemently am not. "To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven" (Ecclesiastes 3:1). Just as there is a need for fellowship with other Christians for encouragement and accountabilty, we are clearly called by the Bible to spend time with non-believers. If we look at Jesus' life, as it is retold in the four gospels, He spent minimal time with those that were already religious. The bulk of his time was spent with untouchables: the diseased, the prostitute, the demon-possessed. Shouldn't Christians be following His model? The Bible is clear that Christians are to be in the world, but not of the world. Jesus even said, in John 17: "I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified" (14-19, emphasis added).

I think that's so important, that Jesus prayed that God wouldn't take believers out of the world, but that He'd protect them. Many Christians try to protect themselves, and particularly their children, through isolating themselves with other Christians. I've always vehemently opposed Christians schools for this reason: I think children need to learn how to deal with age-appropriate temptations. If we isolate children from the temptations of the world, they will be ill equipped to deal with the tremendous temptations of adult life.

That was a long answer, but it boils down to this - I understand why many Christians choose to live their lives like this, but I believe that it is due to complacency and an unwillingness to live the uncomfortable, pressured life that Christ calls believers to live.

You also wrote: "then the thought that with a little "Jesus is great! Amen!" you can fix everything, and just praying and being a "good christian" will mean that your family will succeed and that you're all going to be perfect."

Yeah. I have issues with that line of thinking, too. Jesus does promise that His yoke is easy, His burden is light (Matthew 11:30), but I believe that means more that we do not need to stress over what He asks of us because He will provide. The issue of "success" is interesting, too, because I highly doubt God's view of a successful life is the same as ours. God does promise to provide for us, but that promise is hardly to give us a 4,000 square foot house with a three-car garage and a maid.

For instance, a young man approached Christ and asked, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" Christ responded with several of the commandments. The man responded that he had always kept those, and to that, Jesus replied: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me" (Matthew 19:16-21). Interestingly, "when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions" (verse 22).

Obviously, God isn't saying that our possessions are indicative of our success. Instead, throughout the Bible, we learn about "fruits" of our ministries. We each are given different talents, or gifts. I like to think that perhaps one of mine is writing. God calls Christians to use those gifts for His glory, and that He will bless those efforts. (If you want, I can find the verses to support, but I've already been writing this for almost an hour already.) That is God's view of success - and He does indeed promise success and protection.

"Christianity light," in my opinion, is a contradiction in terms, because the life of a Christian is difficult, although it certainly does offer a great deal of freedom - from worry, from guilt. Yet the Bible is clear that Christians will face persecution for their beliefs - and that is hardly "light."

In conclusion, the "mega-church" is no more at fault than any other church, or the Church at large, really, because each is run by inherently flawed man. God's Design is perfect, but we are not. Every church will always have its issues, because we humans always have our issues. "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached" (Philippians 1:18).

Whew. I'm beat now. Any questions or thoughts in response?

Is Christianity the only possibility for a true religion?

Ah, dear readers, how I have been neglecting this little blog.

For those that have posed questions, I am truly sorry. I honestly ponder each of your questions every day, so my lack of response does not mean I haven't been thinking about them. With being away several days last week, the previous few days were too busy with packing/cleaning/prepping the house for sale to be able to sit and luxoriate over my answers, and I really didn't want to shortcut them.

Anonymous had asked (way too long ago):
I am still not sure though why your "way" is the right one? Dont get me wrong, I totally respect your beliefes, as I do anyone's, even if I do not agree with them. The thing is I believe we create our own God/Goddess (the reason I also say Goddess is because the Goddess is a major part of my faith.), so if someone is already follolwing a "religion" or spirituality that they are completely faithful of, why are they wrong? If you met somebody like this would you try to "convert" them?

I do hope I'm making sense. And I would like you to know that I mean no offence!

First of all, don't worry about offending me - I'm not easily offended and am always open to rational discussion about any of my beliefs. I hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions about your own beliefs for clarification, and I hope that you know that I, too, am asking these respectfully, out of genuine curiosity.

It's interesting that you believe that we create our own God/Goddess. Can you explain more about that? I've never met anyone with that belief. How does one create a God/Goddess?

I'm really curious about this, since - from my experience - the Creator is always greater than the Creation. Anything I would make would seem that it would, by nature, have to be less than me. I can't imagine worshipping something that I made, since it would be less than I am. In that light, it would make more sense to worship myself, but that, too - to me - seems unfathomable, because knowing everything I've done in my life, I don't consider myself anywhere near worthy of worship.

You ask if I met someone with different beliefs than me, if I'd then try to convert them. My answer is yes and no. I believe that God is the One who calls us to salvation in Christ. I also believe that He calls everyone to that salvation. However, we are all at different points in our lives, and sometimes, we aren't at the point where we are ready to respond to that call. For ages, there has been a debate among Christians about free will versus predestination - for instance, are we all puppets of God's, moved around by His will (presdestination), or do we make our own choices, even though God knows what they are ahead of time (free will)? Personally, I don't believe that we could possibly be God's puppets, because if that were so, we wouldn't mess up as often as we do. Therefore, the free will that we have interferes with God's call to salvation.

I know this answer is getting long-winded, but I'm getting to my point. I don't think any person has ever been argued into faith with Christ. I could sit with a person and counter-argue every point that they make, but unless their heart is ready to accept Christ and both the rewards and the ramifications (for a Christian life is one that is held to a higher standard) of that commitment, the arguing will get us nowhere.

I don't believe that *I* have the power to convert a person. It depends on the point that their heart is at. That's why I don't believe in some Christian evangelical programs that teach Christians how to "witness" - to go through a list of steps that a person needs to go through to get "saved." I think that we do evangelism a disservice if we launch into a pre-rehearsed script when speaking with someone who doesn't believe in Christ. Instead, I think my responsibility is to listen to that person's unique and individual concerns, to respond to those to the best of my knowledge and then to demonstrate the love of Christ to that person and to pray for that person. Do I hope a person will get converted? Absolutely, because - like I wrote in my last response - I believe that Jesus is the only way to God (John 14). But you also won't find me on street corners going up to random people teaching them the Romans Road.

I know I still haven't answered the main question that you asked: I am still not sure though why your "way" is the right one. I have been trying to think of another way to explain this in the two weeks since my last communication with you, and I find myself going in circles. I can explain my answer in terms of what the Bible says, but this is futile if you do not believe the Bible to be an Inspired text. For clarification, it is impossible to believe that both Christianity and another religion are both right, because one of the premises of Christianity is that it is the only true way to God, so you would be contradicting Christianity if you believed in both it and another faith. To prove to you that Christianity is true is an impossible metaphysical argument; I simply cannot prove it on a purely intellectual level. Do I have intellectual reasons for believing in Christ and Christianity? Absolutely. I am an intelligent person - I simply could not accept a faith on intuition alone. But to present fool-proof evidence that Christianity is it is beyond me, and perhaps even beyond the purpose of Christianity, which requires faith - "the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

If you are interested in some of the intellectual "evidence" that I have used to establish my faith in Christianity, I encourage you to read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis (a deeply philosophical book) or A Case for Christ by Lee Stroebel. Stroebel was the legal-affairs editor for a major U.S. newspaper when his wife became a Christian. An established atheist, Stroebel set out on an intellectual pursuit of historical evidence that would prove to his wife that Christianity was wrong and historically inaccurate. Instead, to his skeptical dismay, he found the opposite and ended up becoming a believer in Christ. His writing, while very smart, is also very conversational and is anything but dry.

I look forward to hearing back from you!

Dear anonymous and miika -

I'm sorry I haven't responded to your questions yet! I am going to the beach today, so I won't have a chance, but I promise that I'll answer both first thing tomorrow morning!

Dear anonymous...

I just wanted to let you know that I got your message - we are celebrating our Independence Day today, so I'll be out all day with family... I'll definitely respond tomorrow, though, when I have more time! Thanks for checking back for my response!

A question. And my answer.

Anonymous just asked:

"I am just wondering, as a Christian do you believe that your religion is the one and only way? The right way? If someone is following a path other than your own but they are an all-round good person, does that make them wrong? I am just curious about this as I am not a Christian? "

Wow, that's an amazingly good question, and I'm going to do my best to answer.

I'll start by saying "yes" - I believe that my "religion" is the one and only way. But I need to clarify a few things with that. By "way," there are a few things we could mean: the way to live? the way to heaven? the way to God?

I put "religion" in quotes, though, because I truly believe Christianity to be something other than a religion. Religion, to me, seems dead. Religion, as I perceive it, is a list of rules created a long time ago that offer us a way to live. Christianity, though, is a living relationship with God.

Here's the problem with the idea of just being a good person, as I see it. God is perfect. No matter how good we are, we aren't perfect. We've told a lie in our life, or we hated someone, or we were selfish. Most likely, we were a lot of things.

So, then, the question would be "how good do we have to be?" and "what is the purpose of being good"? I think many people perceive religion as a way to get into heaven. Again, I think Christianity is as much about life here on earth, but to make it easier, let's assume that being good is the way to get into heaven. If God is perfect, and we are not, how good do we have to be to get into heaven? What would the cutoff be? If I died as a thirteen-year-old, it makes sense that I would have done less wrong in my life than if I died as a forty-five-year-old. So would I, as a teenager, have a better chance of getting into heaven than the adult?

That doesn't make sense to me. Likewise, it doesn't make sense that we could be "good enough" to be welcome in the presence of a Perfect being.

What if trying to be our best throughout our lives just isn't enough?

What's awesome about Christianity is that it offers us hope. In Judaism, there needed to be a sacrifice made to cleanse you from sin - to make you perfect in God's sight. The sacrifice was typically an animal sacrifice. When Jesus came, He was the ultimate sacrifice - a Perfect being offered for all of our sins.

So, since I know I can never be good enough and I need another way to God's presence in heaven, I need Jesus, a Messiah, a Savior - which is something that only Christianity offers. In the gospel of John, chapter 14, Jesus says, "'Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.'" Jesus also says, in John 14, "'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'"

And in Romans 5:8, it says, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." It's easy to think about dying for a good person - not so easy thinking about dying for someone who isn't.

But the beauty of Christianity is that it's not just about what happens when we die. It's not just about receiving a moral code for how to live our lives.

Imagine living a life where you *know* - you truly know - that you are loved by the God of Creation, that He is passionate in pursuing you, offering you His love. I think we humans consume ourselves with looking for love - our parents fail us, our friends fail us, our lovers fail us. Deep down, I think there's a desperation in that - a questioning of our own worth and value. But to know that there is a Being who has seen everything I've done in my life - the Very Good and the Pretty Bad - and loves me through all of that - well, it's a tremendous, life-changing concept. There is nothing more freeing than that.

1 John 4:7-19 says this:
"Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

"We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

"We love because he first loved us."

Let me know if I should clarify anything or if you have any questions - I like thinking through this stuff!

What the world needs now.

I've been thinking a lot about Christians lately. It's no secret that I've struggled with them, and in the past few weeks, as I've been praying about it, God's really been showing me in His Word that He has commanded me to love them... that there is to be no division in the church (and by that, I mean the whole body of believers, not whichever church I choose to worship in on Sundays).

While reading Don Miller's Searching for God Knows What (which, by the way, is going to play a prominent role in the next few posts), I jotted down this thought: "Maybe the world hates Christians because we act more like the Pharisees than we act like Christ."

The Pharisees were religious leaders during the time Christ was alive, and they really struggled (to put it mildly) with the idea that Christ might be the Messiah. They challenged Him on pretty much everything He did, quoting Scripture. He, of course, had a response for them each time.

It makes sense that they'd challenge Him, though, because they had a comfortable position of authority in the culture of the time. Jesus threatened that authority - a tough thing to swallow. They just couldn't face someone who was holier than they were (see Matthew 12:14).

The major problem with the Pharisees, though, is that they got completely tangled in the religion of the time. Their religion was based on rule-following, and they really didn't like it when Jesus told them the greatest two commandments were the ones based on love - love your God above all else, and love your neighbor like yourself. The Pharisees were like the annoying know-it-all tattletale you probably remember from elementary school.

What's sad is that they missed the point, really. What are you trying to prove when standing before the Lord of Creation in human form?

I think we, too, need to realize that Christianity is not an us-versus-them mentality. If you are truly a Christian - a believer in Christ - then you are called to be an advocate for the lost. They are *not* the enemy you are battling against. I am not saying that we condone their behavior but recognize that we are as immoral as they are. Our awareness that we need salvation and that it has been offered to us does not make us better, less immoral people.

Last year, when taking a special ed class, I learned about something called "person-first" language. In other words, you wouldn't say "the deaf woman," noting her disability before acknowledging her as a person. You'd say, "the woman with the hearing impairment." I think that we can carry this into the way we relate to nonbelievers. Instead of saying "that lost person," maybe we should just see them as a person, as needful of Christ's love as anyone else. It really doesn't matter whether they are Christian or not - we should be demonstrating Christ's love to all people in all circumstances.

I've always hated the expression "love the sinner, hate the sin." I don't know that we get very far by pointing out people's sins - I think we need to just stop at "love the sinner." Telling a person that they are wrong gets us nowhere because he'll just get defensive. But loving them with and through Christ's love - that can bring a sinner to grace.

Think about the testimonies you've heard about how people became Christians. Have you ever heard one where someone claimed that another person convicted them about how wrong they were? No - in testimonies, people always say how broken they were and how God's love rescued them.

There's no question about the lack of morality in our society. Christians and non-Christians alike have seen this. Enron has had a deep, lasting impact on us. My education professors lately have been discussing the push for Ethics classes in public schools - which always raises the impossible question - which ethics do you teach? Regardless, nothing about this immorality will change until people receive the unconditional and unchanging love of God.

We as Christians need to pray to be set apart from the world. Usually when we talk about praying this, we mean to be set apart from sin - protected from stumbling. I mean it differently. We need to be set apart by our clear and evident love for all others, and for me, that means to love Christians as much as I love non-Christians. But deep and abiding love has the power to completely change lives.

"Good behavior" will only cause others to resent us - but who will run away from unconditional love?