Revisiting Sin, Salvation and the Afterlife

It’s interesting to me that this blog entry has been so challenging to get my head around; but when you think about it, maybe more than anything else, the concepts of sin, salvation and the afterlife are the most emphasized in fundamental Christianity. Certainly in my Christian upbringing, these concepts were central to everything. I said in one of my first blog entries that if someone had said to me in my early Christian life, that there was proof that there was no afterlife, I would have had no idea why I should be a Christian – getting saved and not sinning SO THAT you could have eternal life was what it was all about.

And a big part of what I grew up with was a guilt factor around sin and a scare factor about salvation and the afterlife. You’d go to church and the congregation would be "preached" at from the pulpit about what awful people we were (i.e. man's fallen nature); we would be asked to think about how we had sinned that past week, month, year, etc.; and we would be challenged about whether we were really saved. And if not, repent…lest you spend eternity in hell. So for me, even though my thinking has changed on a lot of topics (as evidenced in my previous blog entries), I still find it difficult to get out from under the guilt of sin and the scare factor surrounding salvation and the afterlife. So all that to say, this blog entry has been challenging to write.

Let’s start with sin. What is it? Well, most would think of it as disobedience – against God’s commandments and laws. Others would describe sin as being focused on pride or self-centeredness. Others would focus on estrangement or separation from God. Others would say it relates primarily to unfaithfulness (i.e. not loving God with all your heart, mind, etc.). Others would say that sin is not about evil and moral depravity…it is more the actions that result from the survival nature within the human life and is just a part of the reality of humanity’s wholeness (as opposed to resulting from humanity’s fallen nature).

For salvation, most would describe it as “going to heaven” because you’ve believed or done (or not done) what is necessary. As an aside, it’s interesting to me that with such an emphasis in Christianity on faith (i.e. “believe and you will be saved”) and grace (i.e. not works), that everything still seems to come down to WHAT you do (i.e. did you sin and did you get saved). Many would say this isn't the case, but, in my view, the overriding preoccupation in fundamental Christianity is on exactly this topic.

So where am I at on the three concepts of sin, salvation and afterlife topic? Well, let me start with a fourth concept - repentance. From what I’ve read, the Hebrew biblical concept of repentance is more about resolve than contrition. It is about returning “from exile”, reconnecting to God. And in the New Testament, the focus of repentance is on following “the way” of Jesus - that is, the path of transformation (see my blog entry The Way). “The Greek roots of the word combine to mean ‘go beyond the mind you have’…go beyond the mind you have been given or acquired…go beyond the mind shaped by culture to the mind that you can have in/with God. " (1)

In terms of the concept of sin, it seems to me that it is more about mankind’s separation from God (or estrangement from God or lack of centering in God) than it is about disobeying a set of “divine rules”. From the time we are infants, we naturally begin to take on a more self-centered perspective and, by doing so, become less and less centered in God and God’s character (e.g. love, compassion, justice, etc.). If we think of that condition as being in exile from God (or having a life that isn’t centered in God’s character), that is how I would describe the condition of sin. Now, I’m not implying that we should go about doing whatever we like and ignore the implicit moral code that was present in many of the traditional perspectives or teachings on the classic sins. The result of that type of lifestyle would be to continue to hamper one’s ability to be centered in God and God’s character. What I am implying though, is that sin is not about disobeying a set of “divine rules” and suffering the consequences (e.g. eternal damnation).

In terms of salvation, for me it is about a personal transformation that results in a life that is centered in God and God’s character. It is about becoming conscious of our relationship with and connection to God. It is about becoming intentional about deepening our connection with God by experiencing God and trying to center our identity in “the sacred”. “Spirituality is the midwifery process of salvation – it midwifes the process of birthing the new self.” (1) The result of salvation (or the process of salvation, or the process of being “born again”) is a life marked by freedom, joy, peace, love and compassion (or as John Shelby Spong would say a life that fully loves and is fully lived). It is about a life centered in the presence of God.

Finally, the afterlife. I believe there is something after this life. There are enough snippets of thought on the afterlife, as well as experiences and reports of near-death experiences that make me think there is something beyond this life. What will it be like? I have no idea. There are so many versions of what people think it will be like that I don’t see how one can even start to try to decipher which is right. All I know is that we will die. And my hope is that when we do, we die into God’s presence…and if that’s the case, that can’t be a bad thing, now can it?

Will everyone experience an afterlife? Again, I have no idea. But my gut feel is that the answer may be no…I sometimes wonder if the degree to which we “experience God” and achieve a connection to God in this life is preparing some part of our spirit (or soul?) to experience God in the afterlife. I don’t know…just a thought. And if I’m right and some don’t connect with God in the afterlife, I don’t think there is an alternate afterlife experience (e.g. “hell”)…I think there is just eternal separation from God…nothingness...which is how some define hell (although most of the time, there are a set of flames to go with this description).

As an aside, the thing that is really interesting to me is that the concept of the afterlife doesn’t seem to hold the same importance it once did to me within my Christian beliefs. I think that is because I’m no longer scared of “going to hell” if I don’t believe, say and do the exact right things. It’s all up-side...there is a chance I can connect with God both in this life and in the afterlife! Is that just wishful thinking? Again, I don’t know, but I guess that’s part of working out these types of things with “fear and trembling” (or not “fear and trembling” in this case!).

So in summary, where am I at on sin, salvation and the afterlife? If I had to summarize at this point, I think:

(1) The concept of sin relates mainly to mankind’s natural separation from and lack of centering in God and God’s character. It is not about disobeying a set of “divine rules” and suffering the consequences (e.g. eternal damnation).

(2) Repentence is not about contrition and guilt, but about resolving to reconnect to and center oneself in God and God’s character.

(3) Salvation is about a personal transformation that results from a conscious and intentional centering of one’s life and identify in God and God’s character. The result is a life that fully loves and is fully lived; a life that is characterized by love, freedom, peace, compassion and justice.

(4) The afterlife is a great unknown, but I believe there is something after this life, and I’m hoping it is us dying into God’s presence – which would be the ultimate experience of and connection with God.

POSTSCRIPT: 3 YEARS LATER, I PUT MUCH LESS THOUGHT AND EMPHASIS ON ANY OF THESE CONCEPTS. I THINK THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH IRRELEVANT AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LIVING A FULL LIFE...WHICH IS WHAT I THINK IT IS ALL ABOUT. I HOPE THAT THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THAT WOULD BE LIKE...THAT'S IT...NO IDEA. AND REGARDLESS, I AM LIVING MY LIFE NOW ASSUMING THERE ISN'T AN AFTERLIFE...SO THE GOAL IS TO LIVE FULLY NOW. AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IGNORING BASIC HUMAN MORALS AND DECENCY...BUT I DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THE CONCEPTS OF SIN, REPENTANCE AND SALVATION WHEN DECIDING WHAT I WILL DO OR NOT DO.

Notes:
(1) Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

Faith Matters

What do you think of when you hear the word “faith”? Dictionary.com defines faith as “belief that is not based on proof”. I would suggest that this is the most common understanding of “faith” today. And certainly within Christianity, the concept of faith means believing a set of Christian beliefs to be true (sometimes interpreted as believing questionable things to be true and ignoring scientifically proven evidence in the process). Interestingly, there are other meanings of “faith” throughout the history of Christianity, which I will touch on later, but for now, let’s deal with the most common understanding of the word, as described above.

The belief-focused understanding of the word “faith” is so prevalent and emphasized in Christianity today that its effect has been that “Christian faith has turned into a ‘head matter’. Faith has become primarily a matter of the beliefs in your head – of whether you believe the right set of claims to be true. That Christian faith is about belief is a rather odd notion, when you think about it. It suggests that what God really cares about is the beliefs in our heads – as if believing the right things is what God is most looking for, as if having “correct beliefs” is what will save us. And if you have “incorrect beliefs”, you may be in trouble. It’s remarkable to think that God cares so much about “beliefs”.” (1)

For me:

(1) While faith should not be about believing things that go against our factual knowledge of the way things are, I do firmly believe that faith is a required component of a Christian life.

Why? Because, ultimately, for me, being Christian means affirming the reality of God (see My More Than God). In addition, Christian faith means affirming the centrality of Jesus (as a disclosure of God and what a life full of God looks like – see Jesus…“My God”, Man), and affirming the centrality of the Bible (not as the literal words of God, but as the foundational document for the Christian tradition – see Bible Beliefs).

Can these three things be proven beyond doubt? No. Can they be disproved beyond doubt? No. All three of these things require some degree of belief (or affirmation) in things that cannot be proven scientifically - that is, there is not "certainty" about these things. Ultimately, though, in my opinion, affirming these three things is central to being a Christian (i.e. these are central Christian convictions). And to hold these convictions requires faith.

I noted earlier that the understanding of “faith” as a set of beliefs is a fairly recent development (i.e. within the last few hundred years). Prior to that time, faith was more a matter of the heart than the head. Two developments led to this change in understanding of faith – the Protestant Reformation (with its focus on beliefs) and the Enlightenment (the birth of modern science and the emphasis on verifiable factuality as being the sole basis of truth).

In Marcus Borg’s book The Heart of Christianity (1), he describes four meanings of the word faith from Christian history, three of which are heart-focused and one of which is head-focused (sort of). In highly summarized form, Borg describes the four meanings as follows:

• Faith as Assensus (this Latin word is closest to the English word “assent”) which is faith as belief – giving one’s mental assent to a proposition. However, it should be noted that, prior to the Protestant Reformation and the Enlightenment, faith as assensus was quite different than today. Before mankind developed such substantial knowledge about so many things, it was more or less effortless to believe in things like the Bible, as there was nothing else to consider as possible alternative truth.
• Faith as Fiducia (this Latin word is closest to the English word “trust”) refers to radical trust in God (not trust in a set of statements about God, but trust in God himself). The opposite of fiducia would be anxiety or worry. Faith, when viewed as radical trust, has great transforming power.
• Faith as Fidelitas (this Latin word is closest to the English word “fidelity”) refers to faithfulness to our relationship with God. That is, loyalty, allegiance, the commitment of the self at its deepest level, the commitment of the heart – a radical centering in God. How do you do this? By paying attention to the relationship and by loving what God loves (e.g. compassion and justice).
• Faith as Visio (this Latin word is closest to the English word “vision”) refers to faith as a way of seeing. That is, the way we see “the whole”…the way we see “what is”. We can see “the whole” as hostile and threatening (i.e. death will get us) which results in a defensive response to life. Or we could see “what is” in an indifferent manner (i.e. the universe is indifferent to mankind – this is the most common modern secular viewpoint). This view usually results in a concern primarily for ourselves and those who are most important to us. The third way to see “the whole” is to view it as life-giving and nourishing. “What is” is filled with wonder and beauty, even if sometimes a terrible beauty. This way of seeing the whole leads to radical trust, and generates a willingness to spend and be spent for the sake of a vision that goes beyond ourselves (i.e. the kind of life we see illustrated in Jesus’ life).

Martin Luther is likely as responsible as anyone for “faith” being central to the Christian vocabulary. But what form of “faith” was Luther’s? Not primarily assensus. “After entering a monastery after being struck by lightning, he went through a decade of agonized terror and ascetic self-denial, seeking to be righteous enough for God. During these years, he had assensus aplenty – and it terrified him. Perhaps because he believed “all of it”, he was filled with fear and anxiety. His transformation occurred through an experience of radical grace that transformed how he saw (visio), led him to see that faith was about trusting God (fiducia), and led him to a life of faithfulness (fidelitas) to God. For Luther, saving faith was not assensus. It was about visio, fiducia and fidelitas.” (1)

POSTSCRIPT: NOT MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THIS 3 YEARS LATER. I'D LIKELY PUT LESS EMPHASIS ON THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF "FAITH" BECAUSE IT IS SO FIRMLY ENTRENCHED IN TERMS OF HOW IT IS UNDERSTOOD TODAY. AND FOR ME, I WOULD HAVE LESS EMPHASIS ON THE CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE...AND MORE JUST ON THE "GOD" PERSPECTIVE.

Notes:

(1) Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

Pay Dirt: Interview with Karen Armstrong

From an interview with Karen Armstrong on CBC's radio show Tapestry on February 19, 2006:

"Lots of the time we are worried about religion. We're thinking about trancendance, going beyond, and what we are trancending to...what is the nature of God, Jesus, and so on. But really it is about what you are transcending from, but what you are going away from which is ego, greed. And once you've lost ego and greed, you should find that you've lost a lot of fear."

"What our world needs now is not more certainty. We've seen too much certainty - political and religious certainty - recently. What we need is compassion to be able to feel with the other."

"I had a very parochial religious upbringing...I was raised Catholic and that was it...I actually didn't even know much about Protestants for heavens sake. And actually this discovery of other religions - Judaism, Islam, Greek and Russian Orthodox and finally Buddhism - showed me what religion could be. It showed me what my own tradition had been trying to do at its best. And then I could reassess my own tradition more kindly and see much more about it than I had been aware of, despite my intensely religious childhood and youth."

Pay Dirt: The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot

In responding to a recent comment on one of my blog entries, I found myself referring to the fact that throughout time (including today), there have been many varied beliefs within Christianity.

Along that line of thinking, I found myself in my local book store tonight flipping through a new book by Bart Ehrman (those who have read my earlier blog entries may recall me referencing one of his previous books, Misquoting Jesus). Ehrman's new book is called The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. Now I haven't read much on the many other gospels (e.g. Thomas, Peter, Judas) or other gnostic writings that have been found in recent centuries, so I sat down and perused Ehrman's book.

What I found was fascinating. I read a gospel written around the second century which purports to describe Judas Iscariot's experience with Jesus. This is one of the gospels declared heretical by Bishop Irenaeus around A.D. 180 in his treatise Against Heresies. It's quite obvious that this gospel isn't like Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, which Irenaeus declared worthy of Biblical status. This gospel includes a description of creation involving a "god" which is many hierarchies below the "ultimate devine"; this creator "god" was the one who created humanity; and part of Jesus' teaching to Judas was that worship of this creator "god" was pointless and that when some humans die, they will have their spirits released to dwell with the "real" God; so the rationale behind Judas betraying Jesus was to let Jesus' spirit go free to dwell with the "real" God...well, something like that anyway.

Now the point of this entry isn't to talk about the validity of this gospel (since I think it - along with the Bible and other texts - says more about the author writing the text and his perspective or "take" on things than anything else). My point here is just to highlight that (especially) in the early centuries of Christianity, there were many VERY DIFFERENT points of view about Christianity. It just so happens that the Rome-based version of Christianity won out at the end of the day (yes, that's how we get to Roman Catholic Christianity), largely due to the wealth and power-base within Rome, no doubt. And that's why we see a more streamlined view of what Christianity is today (although there are still many differing viewpoints within Christianity today) .

So when people talk about today's Christianity (or their version/denomination within Christianity) as being the single truth, I think this is too simplistic a view. There have been, and continue to be, many different beliefs (within Christianity, and obviously between religions). To state that the one set of beliefs that you happen to have been taught is most certainly the correct one would be a somewhat naive belief in itself, in my opinion. This isn't to say that you can't find some truth in the beliefs you have been taught, but I think our real challenge is moreso to determine how to leverage our beliefs to truly experience "the sacred" and undergo a personal transformation...not to be fundamentalist about the correctness of our beliefs and our certainty of their being the single truth.

In any event, for more on the gospel of Judas, its discovery, pictures, expert views, and more, see this National Geographic website.

The Way

Okay, so I grew up with a "Jesus is the only way" understanding in terms of the path to God. That's it. No compromise, no if's, and's or but's...Jesus is the way. Take it or leave it. Any other way is the wrong way.

Interesting! What were we thinking (or not)??? The whole notion that God has decided to be known through only one religion is somewhat strange in itself, when one thinks about it. But, fortunately, we (in my case, the Christians) were lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time to be taught that one way. What about all the others throughout the world who were brought up Hindu or Buddhist or another major religion? Well, too bad for them, right?

Here's an interesting scenario to think through. If you were brought up Christian, think about your experience of coming to know about Christianity. It was more than likely taught to you as truth and you accepted it as such. And did you believe the other religions were also the truth? If you are like many, probably not. But what if you happened to be born on a different continent and were brought up as a Buddhist? Do you think it would have been taught to you as truth and you would have accepted it? Would you believe that other religions were the truth? Similarly, probably not.

And depending on your religious upbringing, it might get even more complicated (or convoluted). I'll stick with Christianity (since that's my background). If you were born a Protestant Christian, you likely thought that the Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians also had it "wrong" to some degree. Not as bad as those from other religions than Christianity, but somewhat wrong nonetheless. And let's say you were raised Pentecostal (or United or Anglican, etc.), you probabaly thought that those other Protestant denominations had it slightly wrong as well. Again, not as bad as the Roman Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on, but still, they didn't have it all right like your denomination did.

Hmmm...isn't that convenient. You just happened to be raised up and taught the exact right teachings about the one pathway to God. Whew!!! What luck...otherwise, you'd be finished. What's that? Your one slice of the religious pie is just a small proportion of the overall religious landscape? Well, again, all the more lucky for you right?

Okay, you get my point. So what do I believe about pathways to God?

(1) The enduring world religions are mediators of the absolute (the sacred) but, like Christianity, are not absolute in themselves.

(2) Christianity, as one of the world's great religious traditions (and my personal religion), is my pathway to God.

By extension, though, this doesn't make each religion the same. Marcus Borg notes the following similarities in his book The Heart of Christianity (1):

• They all affirm "the more", "the sacred", etc.
• They all affirm a path of transformation of the self.
• They all provide practical means for undertaking "the path" or "the way" of transformation.
• They extol compassion as a primary ethical value of life.
• They contain a collection of beliefs and teachings.

It is often the last point noted above where the religions are most different - in their specific stories and beliefs, largely driven by the cultures and histories that shaped them.

As a Christian, than, how do we deal with the exclusive language often referenced by fellow Christians? The most famous 'exclusive' reference is "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). A few thoughts on this:

• This verse is found in John - the last gospel to be written. This "I am" language isn't found in the other gospels, and is thought by many to be more of an interpretation of the early Christian community than the words of Jesus.
• What is "the way" being referred to? The way is the path of death and resurrection - dying to an old identity and being born into a new identity...a personal transformation. "The way" is not a set of beliefs about Jesus..."as if one enters into new life by believing certain things to be true or as if only those who know the word "Jesus" can be saved. Thinking that way virtually amounts to salvation by syllables." (1) Rather, for us, as Christians, "the way" is represented in Jesus - Jesus is "the way" for us...even though not the only expression of the way.
• This verse should be seen as being written in the language of devotion. As Christians, Jesus is our "way". As such, written as it is, it represents the language of devotion of the early Christian community. It doesn't have to be interpreted as exclusive language.
• Finally, the historical setting within which this verse was written was "a situation of bitter conflict in which John's community of Christian Jews was experiencing sharp social ostracism from non-Christian Jews. As a result, some of John's community would have been tempted to return to their community of origin. So when John wrote these words, he was thinking not of all the religions of the world, but of the synagogue across the street. He was saying, in effect, 'Stay within the community of Jesus. Don't go back to the way you left behind. Jesus is the way; that way isn't.' " (2)

So in summary, for us, as Christians:

(3) Jesus is "the way". He is the disclosure of what a life full of God looks like. This is who Jesus is for us...and we can say this without saying that God is known only in Jesus.

POSTSCRIPT: ON REFLECTION (3 YEARS LATER), MY VIEWS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE ON THIS ONE...BUT NOT DRASTICALLY. I WOULD PUT LESS EMPHASIS ON CHRISTIANITY BEING MY PATHWAY TO "GOD"...I AM MORE OPEN TO WHATEVER WISDOM WRITINGS HELP ME EVOLVE IN MY HUMANITY AS OPPOSED TO BEING SO CLOSELY WEDDED TO CHRISTIANITY. ALSO, I WOULD TEMPER MY COMMENTS ON HOW ALL THE MAJOR RELIGIONS PROVIDE A PATH OF TRANSFORMATION, ETC. - I THINK SOME DO, BUT OTHERS HAVE SUCH FUNDAMENTALIST TENDENCIES, THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY MORE DAMAGING THAN NOT.

Notes:

(1) Marcus J. Borg, The Heart of Christianity (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003).

(2) Marcus J. Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (San Francisco, HarperSanFrancisco, 2001).

Pay Dirt: Interview with Marcus Borg

I came across a series of clips from an interview with Marcus Borg. Very interesting.

Watch the clips here