What is Faith, Really?

This should be a very short devotional. Because the answer to this is so self-evident that I should be able to simply say what it is and move on. However, in listening to atheist talk about faith, one would think of faith as some type of magical evidence machine that produces belief from nothing. That causes miracles to happen. They claim that having faith is the equivalent of replacing evidence. And they tend to derive that teaching from certain Christian groups, that do tend to teach this version of faith, usually based upon Hebrews 11:1:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Substance of things hoped for? Huh? Evidence of things not seen? Appears to fall right in line with the atheist's assumptions.  But hold on. There is more to chapter 11 than verse 1. The author then goes on to list several examples to illustrate what is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. What do those multiple examples show? They show people having faith in someone that becomes the evidence of things not seen, and the substance of things hoped for.

In short, faith is not some magical answer to every "God of the gaps" issue that comes along, as atheist tend to portray it. That is the creating a straw man and knocking it over, though I'll grant that some Christian groups do teach faith in that manner. Rather, faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen because of faith placed in a person, like God or Jesus. Because we have faith that they are who they say they are, we come to trust their words. The Bible, for one point.

I know what an atheist would say at this point. They would point out that there is little reason to put their faith in the Bible, or even in Jesus, and His belief in the Scriptures. They would point out that there is little reason to put one's faith in the Christian God over other competing gods, like Allah, the Jewish god, or even the multiple gods of Indian religion or of Greek/Roman mythology.

I could go through an apologetic here of why one should place their faith in Jesus, but that would take us a ways from the point of this short devotional. The point being that the evidence isn't missing, it is simply not pointing to a something, but a someone, namely, God. You either have faith in someone, that what they say is the truth or not, or you don't. Nor does it preclude the other person having some evidence upon which they place their faith in said person.

Because the average person does the same thing with science. Most people don't have the time and resources to do or read all the literature that is regularly put out by the scientific community. Most people will rely upon what science says; they place their faith in the scientist, And they do so based upon the data they have that science is right or wrong most of the time. Likewise, they base their faith in a certain god based upon the same data, whether in their experience it is the right decision or not.'

And while atheist will point to "errors" and bad morals by God, like the "approval" of slavery and the killing of children (they tend to take those out of context and view it from their secular world view and deem them "bad"). they totally ignore the opposite evidence that helps to verify it: That despite the "errors" they note, that the Bible, written by many people over many thousands of years has a consistent message: that despite our sin and fall from grace, we can be saved by Him through faith in Christ, who conquered death through death.

They would claim, in that regard, that to have faith in a God who feels it necessary to kill his son to atone for humanity's sins to be crazy. Of course, they tend to go with what they were taught in whatever church they grew up in, and not too many teach the more rational version of atonement being that due to the fall, we cannot stand in God's presence without experiencing Hell, That's why we can't see him directly. So, God sent his son in order to heal us of our fallen condition by defeating death, our sickness, through dying, going to Hades, and breaking down its gates since death could not hold the giver of life.

While I'm sure an atheist would still find problems with that explanation, it does address their concerns with the satisfaction theory, and additionally it has the benefit of being the original understanding of what the atonement is about.

Now, one's acceptance of the above would in part depend upon what you place your faith in. A) Me, and all those who have taught the same down through history, B) One's self, in your own logic and understanding, partial though it may be. Or you may place your faith in a certain group of scientist you admire, so if they suggest that a certain thing has been proven to be true, you'll tend to believe them before you've researched it or read all the papers on it, because you have faith that they have diligently done that work and have adequately assessed the conclusions. Why? Because you have experienced that in the past.

In other words, faith doesn't happen in a vacuum. It has reasons and experience of the person that causes them to have faith. This is why Christianity is often referred to as The Faith. Because it is placing our faith in Jesus Christ, in God. However misplaced a particular person may feel that faith is placed by someone, it doesn't happen apart from reason. It isn't an evidence from nothing.

Christianity isn't believed by faith in a something like the Bible, or by faith in a particular Church, rather it is because we have faith in a person, Jesus Christ, that what he says is true, that we believe things like the Bible. It's because we have faith in the person of Jesus Christ, that we believe it when He says that He is the Son of God.

That is what faith really is. Faith in the person of Jesus Christ: God. Everything else flows from that faith. Even as it does with the atheist.

Flat Earth?

Recently, I've tended to waste my time, just a bit, watching flat earth and flat-earth debunking videos on YouTube. No, despite the name of this blog, I've not become a Flat Earther, as they tend to call themselves. Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether we are on a sphere or a flat disk. Whatever we are on, will be revealed in the next life, I'm sure, and it will make no difference to my salvation.

What is interesting about this whole debate between the Flat Earthers and the "Globalist" as they tend to call them (not to be confused with globalist who are the opposite of nationalist, though one would imagine there are persons who believe both, etc.), is the religious aspect. Without fail, all the non-scientific beliefs of the Flat Earthers are based upon the premise that the "Earth is a sphere" model is anti-Christian in that it denies that man and the Earth is significant, due to, no less, that the Earth is not the center of the universe. In the Flat Earth model, it is. Commonly believed to be the only thing in the "universe."

They will tend to use certain verses to justify their position Biblically. Just up my ally. So I thought I would take a look at some of them.

Before we do that, let's briefly describe, for those not familiar, what the Flat Earth model is. Of course there are variations on this, but I'm describing the most generally accepted model.

Most Flat Earthers believe that we live on the Earth, which is a giant disk covered by a glass dome, surrounded by nothingness. That the sun and moon travel at different speeds over this disk, like the hands on a clock, approximately 1/4 from the edge of the disk's diameter, and that they are both much smaller than science tells us,  The sun doesn't shine all over the place, but is more like a spotlight, though strangely enough, a spotlight that accurately covers only half the Earth's disk in light, while inexplicably stopping at that halfway point over the entire length of the disk. I guess the spotlight is a weird shaped one that would have that effect. There is always an explanation.

Oh, and there is no gravity. That is an unproven, for them, theory. I've heard two explanations on what holds us to this disk. One is gravity is substituted by electromagnetism. Which I find difficult to imagine since electromagnetism doesn't work on everything, only metal. I know it doesn't work on humans. That said, apparently they believe it works on everything, not merely certain metals like in real life. In which case, you don't have electromagnetism, but something new. Sort of like gravity, but not. So that explanation gets a bit dicey. Anyway, they explain things as being buoyant (less dense) as floating while denser things, (like, I assume humans) as staying on the ground. I suppose this is how electromagnetism works on things it can't work on, though without gravity, density wouldn't matter. However, that doesn't explain how the sun and moon stay aloft. Are they not as dense as they appear? Nor does this explain why they circle the flat Earth and why drag doesn't slow them down since they would be in the Earth's atmosphere. What propulsion system keeps them jetting around in a circle over the earth?

The other explanation to replace gravity is the belief that our disk is continually accelerating upward. That would be a good explanation if it wasn't for the reality of inertia. For once we had attained a certain speed, inertia says that everything would be going that same speed on the disk, and so there wouldn't be anymore gravity-like effect. Everything would start floating off the disk, including us. Of course, there is also a glass dome over the whole thing, so at most, we'd all be bouncing around in the dome. To work, it would have to be continually accelerating. So aside from the problem that we would have to be going faster than the speed of light by this point, another problem would be that even if one could come up with a good reason why we are continually accelerating to a faster speed, what happens when we reach the limits of Earth's propulsion system, whatever that is--as well as that everything, no matter the density, would fall to Earth and stay there short of a different force acting upon an object, like propulsion or lift of an aircraft? But the Sun and Moon would fall to the ground.

Likewise, the stars and planets we see in the sky don't exist in the Flat Earth world, because they are merely lights on the dome (but what makes those lights and why do they appear so 3-D when one views them from a telescope?) The sun and the moon, if they were really as close as Flat Eathers say they are, would react differently than they do in reality. They would appear from our perspective to accelerate as they approached and would attain a top perspective speed once overhead. Likewise, upon moving away from us, they would appear, due to perspective, to go slower and slower. Also, they would appear to grow as the approached the viewers position, and grow smaller as they receded. The fact that they both appear to stay at a fairly consistent speed and size in reality as they cross the sky, would comply more with the understanding that they are very, very far away and very, very big. As a matter of fact, it would be impossible for the moon to appear to "follow" you in a car if it was so close to the earth as they suggest it is. We would expect to see them move much more than they do, at least as they floated by overhead. That, or they would in reality be giant balloons inside of those objects, filled with helium, that wasn't affected by wind, which has its own set of impossible problems that don't jive with reality.

Then there is the Antarctica issue. Flat Earthers believe that the continent is really an ice wall that goes around the exterior of the disk, holding all the oceans and water in. And that through a treaty, the governments of the world prevent your average Joe from going to the South Pole,which of course, doesn't exist. And if someone is reported to do so, they are part of the conspiracy to keep us in the dark about the Earth being a disk. All the governments on the Earth are in on this conspiracy, including many in those various agencies, like the astronauts, the jet pilots who have to navigate differently on a Flat Earth than they would if it were a sphere. And since many decades ago, they have kept people from defecting from this giant and pointless conspiracy that the Earth is really flat.

The problem is it would be easy to prove or disprove either model by simply flying around the tropic of Cancer and Capricorn respectively, If they are roughly the same distance, the world is a sphere. If, however, the trip around Capricorn is much, much longer than around Cancer, then the world is a disk. There are no government bodies prohibiting either trip. And it would prove once and for all, who is right and wrong. I suggest we stick a Flat Earther and a Spherical Earther in a jet plane to fly around the world together, one time over each latitude. Then there would be no question about it.  See, that was easy! Because we all know that they would be roughly the same distance. I dare any flat Earther to do that experiment!

Okay, those are the main points and problems with their model. Now that you know what it is, we can view the Bible verses that "prove" a flat Earth.

Which would be a major task seeing how one of the websites I'm basing this on lists over 240 verses that they claim indicates such. However, most of them are context sensitive and rely upon a particular interpretation to understand. So we can look at the first few to get an idea of their arguments. I'm pulling these from: https://www.flatearthdoctrine.com/flat-earth-scriptures/

The first one they use is in Genesis 1:1-19, and point out that the Sun was created on day 4, whereas the earth was created earlier, on day 1. Their point being, I would think, that the sun wasn't the first thing God created? That the earth being created before the sun would somehow translate to a belief in a flat Earth? Not sure how this disproves that the Earth is a sphere or proves how it is a disk, but there you go.

The answer to that is the literary context of this passage of Genesis. If one examines it closely, you would see that this is a form of Hebraic poetry in that it isn't necessarily detailing the order God created everything in, but the message of creating first the environment, and then the things or persons that are to fill that environment. So on day one we have the environment of light, both on the face of the deep and as dots in the sky. On day 4, we have those bodies that fill the sky. On day 2, the sky and waters are created. Then on day 5, all the birds and fishes were created. On day 3, the land and plants were created, then on day 7, all the animals and man who inhabit that environment were created. So there is no need to suggest that the earth was created first, then the sun. Indeed, under my interpretation, the sun and its light would be created well before the land and its animals. Genesis doesn't tell us what order God created, as much as it tells us why He created us and our purpose in His creation. Note He goes from the general to the specific, and ends with man. The triple indication concerning man's creation, indicates this is the climax of the section.

Now, you personally may not follow that interpretation, though I happen to believe it is a more valid one than the common interpretation, nor do I believe I have to choose one over the other. The point is, there is a valid way to understand it without having to believe in a flat Earth.

But, for arguments sake, let's assume that it is true that the earth was created before the sun. What does that prove? Nothing. Or are we saying God couldn't create a spherical Earth before the Sun if He wanted to? The only thing we can take from them including this verse is that the earth had to be created before the Sun, because the Sun is part of Earth's atmosphere in the dome. But what is to stop God from creating the Sun first, then enclosing it in a flat Earth dome? Or why then, did he create the light before he created the Earth and the Sun? I don't see this as a proof text for a flat Earth.

Then they point to a series of verses that suggest that no one knows the measurement of the Earth.

Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? (Job 38:4-5 KJV)

This is a cultural issue in that no one had measured the Earth at that time. No one knew how big it was. Today, however, we know those things. What God was doing there was attempting to show Job how insignificant he was in the grand scheme of things. Sort of contradictory to what you were hoping to show, I know. Sorry to point that out to you. That said, we are His special creation nonetheless.

They also suggest in the above verse that the measurement of the Earth is done with a "line", not a curve. I laughed at that thought. This is referring to a plumb line that construction people use to measure things with at the time. This is God being silly with Job, as if Job could measure the Earth with such a line. The picture it paints is meant to be sarcastic to a degree. What line could even hope to measure the Earth with? He wasn't suggesting here that such a line could measure the Earth. Much less that it was the proper tool for doing so.

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in. (Isa 40:42 KJV)

In this and the subsequent verses, they point out that the Earth is described as a circle.

When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth (Prov 8:27 KJV)

That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? It is turned as clay to the seal; and they stand as a garment. (Job 38:13-14 KJV)

I'm guessing a "circle", "compass", and "take hold of the ends of the earth," in their minds, all translates to a flat Earth. Hum, first the "circle" could equally describe a sphere as it could a disk, from their perspective. Not to mention that it is all framed in metaphors here, that God sitting on the edge of the Earth is a metaphor primarily of how big God is to us and our Earth. Sort of like calling the Earth "God's footstool." So unless one is ready to suggest that the heavens are spread out over us like a giant tent . . . wait a minute. I forgot briefly who I'm talking to here. Scratch that.

Likewise, I don't see what "setting a compass upon the face of the deep" has to do with the Earth being a disk instead of a sphere. Only if one interprets a compass to equal a disk, which would be a tenuous metaphor for the Earth as a disk.

The "take hold of the ends of the Earth" is so much of a metaphor for shaking the wicked out of it, that any interpretation that derives the Bible as proclaiming that the Earth is flat would be highly questionable. One might as well suggest that this proves a blanket Earth than a disk, if one wants to go there.

This is in addition to the fact that at the time, the people all thought this way. Many believed that the Earth was flat, or very big. As a matter of fact, I would suggest many would say they didn't know. Because, well, they didn't. So factoring in many as being the honest type, that's what they would say. So any language that would be used by such people wouldn't correlate that they knew it to be flat anymore than they knew it to be a sphere.

"But it is God's word. If one part is wrong, then we would have to doubt the whole thing." No, we wouldn't. That is a very "fundamentalist" view of the inspiration of Scriptures. There is also the view of inspiration that allows for the reality that God used human authors who on unimportant matters, like the shape of the earth, might state things from their own point of view, in their time and culture that they wrote in.

That said, I don't believe any of the above has to be interpreted as "the Earth is therefore flat." It could suggest such, but it is not necessary to do so. The only verse I could find that could be a reference to a flat earth model, assuming it was to be taken literally and not figuratively is:

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth. (Duet 31:7)

But again, one would have to assume "end of the Earth" was meant literally. Many who believe the Earth is spherical would use that statement figuratively to indicate a very great distance. Same with "as far as the East is from the West."

Most of the verses that follow are based upon taking what is meant as a metaphor, literally. Like the "face" of the Earth as suggesting a flat area Yeah, right, my face isn't flat. The message they intended to convey to the people of that time--using this metaphor for those who stood on the earth's surface, curved or otherwise--was not a flat Earth.

And then there are the ones that take a plain upon the Earth to be speaking of a flat, not a curved surface. Etc. Etc. Etc. That a plain appears to be flat to our eyes, as it would have at that time, isn't any proof for a flat Earth. With something as large as the Earth, any horizon is going to appear straight to our naked eyes because the curve is so subtle as to not be easily detected except over really vast distances. And it has been proven multiple times that all the pictures showing no dip into the horizon, indicating no curve, actually prove there is a curve by not seeing the bottom of the building or mountain as would be expected based on the calculated curve of the Earth.

Also important to note the context of the term "earth" as it is used in the Bible. It follows from Genesis 1:10:

And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. (KJV)

You see, "earth" is understood in the Old Testament to be a specific reference to the land upon what we call Earth-the whole thing. This is clearly the understanding of "earth" used in the following verse:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. (Exodus 20:4 KJV)

Water under the earth? What could this be speaking of if earth is taken to be either a sphere or a flat disk? But makes perfect sense when "earth" is understood as the land. It is the water which is below the surface of the land, which fish appeared to live in. So the "face of the Earth" which they promote as a flat-Earth scripture reference would be only referring to the land surface, which "face" makes more sense then.

Consequently, a section of the earth, like a plain, appeared flat to their eyes, but just that one section.

So all of these verses could have multiple interpretations based on beliefs of inspiration, and whether one takes the context, both literary and/or cultural, into account. If a Christian wants to take these verses as proving that God created and knows that the Earth is flat, then it requires a specific set of beliefs. Beliefs not so widely shared either, even among Christians.

But this shows the basis of the flat Earth belief. It resides in a particular view of how God communicates in the Bible and appears to be primarily based upon the understanding that if the flat Earth model isn't reality, then man becomes an insignificant spec in the big universe--that we are not the pinnacle of God's creation as stated in Genesis 1.

Those verses concerning out special created status stands as true whether one believes in a spherical Earth or not. Our importance is in relation to God's plan for us, not whether the universe revolves around us or not. The idea that the world is oriented around us, that the universe circles us, is a place of pride, not the humility that the Bible clearly and unequivocally supports in many places and ways. Flat Earthers start with a set of beliefs, then look, sometimes force, verses and science into their beliefs, rather than informing their beliefs. If it was important to know that the Earth is flat, God would have clearly and convincingly said as much in the Bible.

It is also why Flat Earthers will rarely if ever, seriously listen with an open mind as to why their model won't work. That's because it is based upon religious beliefs instead of science and proofs. Rather, they attempt to prove that their religious beliefs are correct, and ignore anything that proves the contrary as wrong. Because, their belief cannot be wrong, but are always right. Otherwise, they fear, they lose God's Word, they lose their salvation, and they lose their importance to God. And that cannot happen.

But, rather, be ye humble as Christ was humble. Not considering himself as important, but as a servant to all. Caring nothing for teaching what shape the Earth is.

Can Death Be Defeated?

Pascha (the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for "passover."), or Easter as it is commonly known in the West, is the central and critical event in human history.

Saint Paul believed this so much that he wrote a whole section on the fact that if the resurrection didn't happen, then we might as well stop playing church and forget about religion. It is the whole purpose of and point where Christianity becomes the religion that is more than a religion, but is the truth. That's because, as He said, He is the Truth, the Way, and the Life of mankind.

In the services of my communion, the Orthodox Church, we have songs we sing which are called troparia. It is a song which summarizes for us the gist of what we are celebrating that day. The one for the Resurrection goes as follows:

Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death. And upon those in the tombs, bestowing life.

In our communion, that is the gist of what Christ did at the resurrection. He defeated death, our enemy to whom we were held in bondage, and through that, He then is able to bestow life upon us so that we may live as it clearly states in Romans 6. After all, what's the point of defeating death if you fail to get life out of it? Gaining eternal life of Christ in us is the only way to defeat the death that sin introduced into our world through Adam and Eve.

Without that reality being true, we are doing nothing more than holding a "religious" club meeting by doing all this church stuff. Without a risen Christ, we are simply playing around.

So keep that thought in mind both for those in the Western Easter services last week, and the upcoming Orthodox services this coming Sunday. The resurrection is central to all we do. With that said, I'll  leave you with Paul's sermon on the importance of the resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15 (KJV)

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily. If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Can Attending Church Save You?

Church of Holy Trinity in Iškaldź
taken by Olga Maximova in 1975

That can be a loaded question. The common belief is that one does not need to go to church to be saved and one with God. They'll point to the thief on the cross that entered Paradise on his "deathbed." Forgetting, of course, that he was an exceptional case. If you want to have a deathbed confession of faith, and live like you want to most of your life, then you may have a rude awakening on Judgement Day. Especially when there is no time for a deathbed conversion.

All it does is point to: 1. God can save who He wants, by whatever means He deems necessary to accomplish His Will. 2. That it can be bypassed when necessary. It isn't an absolute necessity to accomplish one's salvation.

Now, I'm not suggesting that an occasional miss here and there for valid reasons is going to necessarily damn you to hell. All depends upon the circumstances and one's reasons as to whether that is problematic or not. However, there are some important considerations in faithful church attendance to one's salvation.

In each case that one can point to of someone who "made it" into paradise, there were circumstances that prevented church attendance or very frequently in most every case. There are the examples of several monastics who went to the "desert." They had little community church services that they attended. The most famous of these is probably St. Mary of Egypt. She was a whore for several years of her life. She is only recorded as having attended two, maybe three, "official" church services. Yet, she went into the desert for over 40 years and grew to be one with God more so than most at that time or since.

The problem with pointing to her as a reason that going to church is not necessary for salvation is multifaceted. One, she was called by God to go out into the desert. At first, mainly so she could stay away from men, her primary temptation she had to overcome.

Two, what convicted her was going to a church service. When she attempted to go into the service venerating the cross of Christ, she was prevented from entering. It was through repentance and prayer to God that she was able to enter the church, and is what turned her life around.

Three, she still had "church" services on her own, most of the time. All monastics do, whether in a community or on their own, they are constantly in prayer and services, even while doing other work. You will rarely ever find a monk sitting in front of a TV playing games. It was through St. Mary's prayers and focus on God that she grew to be such a great saint, due to her closeness to God. As a matter of fact, most monastics who go out on their own do so with the approval of their abbot, because most of them, and us, cannot pray consistently enough without the support of a community.

It is this last point that is the reason the Scriptures say:

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching. (Heb. 10:24-25)

Communion with God is the point of salvation. For most of us, that will require assembling ourselves together where we can pray as a community of saints, provoking each other toward love and good works. In other words, most of us won't commune with God as we should unless we are provoked.

"But, what if the congregation I find doesn't provoke me to love and good works? What if it provokes other, not so good, qualities in me?"

That is a valid consideration, in that churches are hospitals for sinners, like ourselves. So no one church will always provoke each other only the good things. In some cases, they may end up provoking hatred and gossip and other sins, with very little love and good works mixed in. Some people, to protect their salvation, may have to find an alternate means of communion.

"But, I have had bad experiences at every congregation I've been at."

Two issues here. One, was it one or two people at this church that were "bad"? If so, there were likely others there who were loving and encouraging. We often have the view that one bad apple spoils the whole lot. Yes, sometimes, depending on circumstances, one person can make attending a church destructive to one's salvation. However, in many other cases, it is someone who mistakenly is searching for the perfect church. So any sin, no matter how small or confined to one or two individuals, gets blown out of proportion. Make sure that is not happening in your situation,.

Two, an exception to the rule does not negate the rule. If you have genuinely not found supporting, loving people in the churches you attend, then maybe you are looking in the wrong place? Maybe you are surrounded by bad churches? On the last day, they will likely get spewed out of Christ's mouth. Instead of staying away from God, maybe your response is to pray to God on behalf of those people and churches. Christ will judge those churches on the last day, not us.

Going back to the title of this article, can I get away without attending church services and still be saved? Do I need to attend church to be saved?

Well, based on Scripture, you'll either need to have a deathbed experience, which if intentionally done, negates the conversion as sincere, and is risky at best; or you'll need to adequately hold services yourself, that is, communion with God, in such a way that you become one with God. A very tall order for anyone to fulfill on their own.

This doesn't even touch upon the bishop/priest of each parish as representing Christ and the Eucharist, as understood in the more traditional churches, as being something essential.

The truth is that Christ established the Church, the Body of Christ. That means we are all interconnected into one Body. Every child of God, is one with each other. But as Jesus said, there are tares among the wheat. That means we will have to put up with some tarry behavior at times. Jesus has already warned you that would happen. It should be no surprise when you find sinners in the Church. Just look at your own life. Any church you enter will have at least one sinner in it. The rest of the church also has to put up with your sins as well.

Now, I know what some people are going to say. That one isn't "saved" by such works. One is saved by faith in Christ. Sure, there is that. And if you are a "once saved, always saved" Calvinist, then what I've said here won't make much difference. (In which case, why have church at all?) But for everyone else, who believes along with St. Paul that you need to fight to attain the "crown." (1 Cor 9:25-27), our salvation is in large part also dependent upon our union with God remaining strong and growing toward him. For most of us, that will only happen in a church environment, if at all. So, yes, by far, most of us need to attend church to find salvation and grow in salvation.

After all, the apostles gave their lives to establish churches with bishops overseeing them. They must have felt it important enough to do that. Perhaps we shouldn't take it so lightly ourselves?

Allegorical or Literal?

Back when I was in seminary,  being a literalist in the interpretation of scripture,  I was curious about those who practiced allegorical interpretation. So I studied Augustine's view on the subject.

Needless to say,  he said things that were concerning to me at the time, as well as things I supported.

Essentially, he said that it was okay to interpret scripture allegorically as long as it ended up at the same destination as a literal interpretation of scripture.  Which,  he believed, the overarching destination all interpretation should end up at the greatest commandment:  that God loves us and we are to love God and each other.

Sounds good,  doesn't it? The problem is it forces every bit of scripture into this one message, as good as it is.

So when one reads that God commanded the Israelites to kill everyone,  including the children,  that doesn't fit the narrative of a loving God. So Augustine needed to interpret that passage allegorically in order to arrive at the "correct" message. See how this works?

I imagine I've got most of my readers nodding their head by this point. Certainly it is a problem when we want to arrive at a certain interpretation. A person is tempted to shoehorn scripture into a predefined narrative, often interpreting any section of scripture whose literal interpretation he doesn't like, allegorically.

But we are just as guilty of this as Augustine?

What!  Surely not!

First we should define when scripture is interpreted allegorically. The answer is . . . when it is written allegorically. One of the clearest examples is John 15, "I am the vine, you are the branches" speech. Most everyone agrees that Jesus did not intend for us to take that series of metaphors literally.

But that is the problem: clarity. Some sections of scripture are not clear which way they go. But what if that is more due to a history of interpreting scripture a certain way than because the text demands it? What if we have a end goal in mind that a scripture has to end up speaking about?

One example of that is "this is my body,  this is my blood" statement. From early on,  this was interpreted literally. Then around 1500 years later,  the interpretation changed to be allegorical. Why? Because the literal interpretation didn't fit the end goal. "Certainly Jesus didn't mean it literally," we'll suggest.

And so the debate goes on. However, is the allegorical being used because the literal meaning is unacceptable, or does the text written to be interpreted allegorically?

If we have those examples,  how many other interpretations of scripture do we hold that we tend to interpret allegorically when the literal is really what God meant? Could we be wrong about several parts of God's Word?

What's the Point?

Herod's Sheep Gate

What if I told you that the point of getting "saved" was not to avoid going to Hell? Not even to go to Heaven. Those are by-products of obtaining salvation, but not their purpose and goal. Yet, that has been the popular focus of what they are about in much of American Evangelicalism beginning primarily in the 1800s with the revival camp meetings.

I mean, you'll hear people talk about salvation as an "insurance policy" to avoiding Hell. The whole focus on Johnathon Edwards' sermon, "Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God" was specifically to this point. And how many others have preached similar messages from the pulpits of many of our biggest churches and denominations? Sort of the carrot and the stick approach to evangelism. Carrot: you'll get to go to Heaven. Stick: you'll go to Hell if you don't.

Rather, that the whole point of salvation is to glorify God by becoming more like Him. We obtain salvation not to get that mansion in the great by-and-by, but to become one with God through Jesus Christ.

This point was brought home to me yesterday as my priest preached on John 5:1-16. This is the story of the man who had been paralyzed for 38 years, who waited by the Pool of Bathesda for an angle to stir up the water, and the first one in the water was healed. The only problem was this man was unable to move, at least very fast, and so someone else always got into the water before him. Jesus asks him if he wants to be healed, and so Jesus does, and the man picks up his pallet and walks out of the place.

Now I hear you asking, how on earth did you get from that to the point I'm making? No, this wasn't at all what the priest focused upon in this passage. Rather, my mind went down this rabbit hole. Because it struck me what the reaction of the spiritual leaders was to this event.

For you see, once the man picked up his pallet and began to walk out of the temple, some of the Pharisees began questioning the man saying that it was not legal to carry anything on the Sabbath. The man told them what had happened, and cast the blame upon Jesus in that He had told him to pick up his pallet and walk. As if this released the man from his responsibility, the concluding verse of this section of the story says:

And on account of this the Jews began to persecute Jesus, and were seeking to kill Him, because He was doing these things on the Sabbath. (John 5:16 EMTV)

What struck me about this is that this man just gave them a wonderful testimony. That he'd been healed of an affliction he'd suffered from for 38 years! And all the Pharisees were concerned about was him carrying a pallet on the Sabbath? Really? And it was such a big deal that they began to find a way to kill Jesus for commanding him to carry it on the Sabbath?

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. What should have become a cause for celebration and rejoicing instead was morphed into a death threat. Horror of horrors! He carried a pallet on the Sabbath. We need to kill someone!

And that's when the thought struck me. We do the same thing as it concerns salvation. We've become so practically focused on salvation as a means to avoid Hell and gain Heaven, that we've missed the whole point of why we get saved in the first place. As if the whole point of killing Jesus was so I could gain Heaven and live in bliss. Rather, St. Paul puts it this way:

More than that I also consider all things to be loss, on account of the surpassing worth of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have sustained the loss of all things, and I consider them to be rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through faith * in Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith; so as to know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if in some way I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Phil. 3:8-11 EMTV)

Paul sums up the Gospel message here. In verse 10 and 11 he gives the purpose of the Gospel. To know Jesus Christ, God the Son, in His suffering, His death, and the power of His resurrection, for the purpose of attaining, interestingly he says "somehow," the resurrection from the dead personally.

Now we know that everyone will have a resurrection from the dead, for there will still be a last judgment to go through. What St. Paul is talking about here is obtaining a resurrection from our spiritual death brought on by the fall of Adam. Yet it is through becoming one with Christ's sufferings, death, and resurrection that this is accomplished. As I mentioned, getting to Heaven and avoiding Hell is a natural by-product of getting "saved," but it is far from the whole of it, much less the central focus of it.

The result of us focusing on what we'll get out of salvation is for us to be like the Pharisees, who could only focus on the fact that someone had broken their law of what constitutes working on the Sabbath, ignoring the miracle that has taken place right in their midst. When we reduce salvation to what we'll get out of it, we ignore the central miracle that has taken place in us and the commitment we are making by joining ourselves with Him.

The question we have to ask ourselves is whether our faith is so shallow that in getting saved, we've focused more on where we are going instead of who and whose we are to become?

The Meaning of the Resurrection

This past Sunday marked the celebration of Easter in the Western churches. In Orthodoxy and other Eastern Churches, this coming Sunday is Easter, or more appropriately,  Pascha (The English transliteration of the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word for "Passover," because originally this feast was known as the "New Passover" when we passed from death to life).

Why this difference in time tables? Without getting off into the weeds, the simple answer is the West adopted the Gregorian calendar while the Orthodox remained on the Julian calendar. Currently, those two calendars are 13 days apart, so depending on when the new moon is means our Pascha can fall on the same Sunday, one week later as it is this year (because it has to happen after the Jewish Passover), or even almost a month later.

Anyway, that is just by way of explanation, not the focus of this devotional. Would be a pretty dry one if it were.

What I want to focus on this Holy Friday is the following verse:

That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. (Phil. 3:10-11)

The question I hope to answer is this: Is the resurrection simply a celebration to us, or is it a life-modifying reality?

For St. Paul, it was the driving force of his existence. He was ready to even be made "conformable to His death." That's how important it was to St. Paul. Is it that important for us? Are we ready to throw our prosperity-laden sub-theologies under the bus in order to have "fellowship of His sufferings?" Is the faith really all about "Sunshine and Roses, only a thorn now and then?" Not according to St. Paul. The resurrection is so powerful, it enables us to conform to the sufferings of His death. It enables us to pick up our cross and follow Him.

Not for any kind of abstract happiness, but that we too might attain to the resurrection from the dead, when we will know what divine joy is really all about. As St. Paul also says in Romans 6, we must die with Him if we expect to be raised to new life with Him. You can't have only the resurrection without also going through the suffering of death, both metaphorically as well as literally.

That is why in our Friday service called the Lamentations of Christ, we sing in hope, not despair. Because we know how the story ends, and we know we too, through Christ's death, can attain to His resurrection from the dead for ourselves. Amen.