All manner of atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. Their perpetrators earnestly believed they were acting on God's behalf.
Like Paul. And there's the crunch. We are taught that we need to
hear the voice of God and obey it. But of this "hearing"... some say like "I felt God was telling me to..." and I wonder are they really hearing God's voice? What if one party earnestly believes God is saying X and another party Y and X and Y are major issues and mutually exclusive? Is this how splits and new denominations happen in the church? There are rather generous estimates of up to
43,000 denominations within perhaps 40
main variations. Which gives the new convert plenty of choice. So does it matter what you believe?
If the deep outer veneers of difference are scraped off, what core value, common vision is there that defines a true Christian? Like the simplicity of Peter's "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house".
I was pleasantly surprised to find
this discussion of what it means to be a Christian on the BBC site - surprised because my son-in-law eschews the BBC considering it to be very biased. The site says "It's about a friendship - a friendship with Jesus Christ." But what does it mean to have a friendship with someone that cannot be sensed in the usual way? I am reminded of Chocky who, in
the story, is thought to be a childhood invention but turns out to be real. And here is my conundrum: those seemingly more stable Christians with whom I fellowship will claim that they
do have a friendship with Jesus, that they hear Him speaking to them, feel His presence, and so on. I've thought I did but now I am not so sure. Don't get me wrong - I love the concept, so aptly portrayed in the Narnia books, like
But no one except Lucy knew that as it circled the mast it had whispered to her, "Courage, dear heart," and the voice, she felt sure, was Aslan's, and with the voice a delicious smell breathed in her face and I long for such an experience in my own life, a longing that is as close to "faith" as I can muster. Or maybe, horrors, my spirit has somehow grown cold like the dwarfs within the stable in
The Last Battle.
On the other hand I've seen some pretty amazing things that I can put down to the hand of God. That I got married at all, let alone to an amazing woman and with resulting four amazing children. Even my closest friends at the time agreed it was an unlikely thing to happen. And more recently, after waiting in hope for so many years, J and S's adoption of a Thai child happening so fast and at such a time that one could not help comparing it with Joseph's sudden rise to second only to Pharoah. Or when I open my eyes and see creation in all its detail.
But I, being human, need constant reassurance of things unseen. Working on some scaffolding the other day I cantilevered a plank to help me reach, making the other end fast by a G-clamp to the scaffolding tower. It looked good. My knowledge of levers confirmed my observation. And yet still I very cautiously committed my weight to the projecting end of the plank. I needed more assurance than physics theory offered. And I need more assurance than Christian doctrine offers.
A recent visitor alluded to numerical patterns or "gematria" found in the scriptures, for example as purported by
Vernon Jenkins with his 37 x 73 argument. This is all very fascinating but at the same time I am cautious. Many of the patterns only work in base 10
as this site observes, but then one might argue that the decimal system is God given because He gave our hands and feet 10 digits. And does Vernon also believe that
the Earth is flat or is at least the centre of the universe?
Another guy came up with the
Bible Wheel but has more recently
debunked his own theory and now no longer calls himself a Christian. I followed this story because it is unusual for a theorist to publically recant. Without reading every word it seems that he fell into that trap of emphasising data that supported his theory whilst disregarding the rest. Commonly known as a biased sample. I think Christians are wonderfully good at this - wonderfully because it takes some guts, some perseverance and commitment, to persistently believe one thing when so much evidence points another way.
And thus Paul argues in the book of Romans:
for what can be known about God is plain to them [unbelievers]
, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools. Doubtless Richard Dawkins would not agree. If I had to choose between him and Paul I'd choose the latter any day, but still I find Paul's argument curiously hollow. Conversely the anthropic principle says the world is as it is (all those physical constants having just the right value to sustain life as we know it and all that) because here we are to prove it, and this also seems to me a hollow argument lacking substance.
In all these musings I find myself coming back to the man Jesus and his claims of deity as recorded in the Gospels. But that was a long time ago and, like Trumpkin the dwarf, I find myself thinking "Do you believe all those old stories?" and "But who believes in Aslan nowadays?". In this story Trumpkin's unbelief mercifully ends with "Son of Earth, shall we be friends?". Maybe that was just the author's fancy.
I crave such mercy.
