A Conversation Between a Teacher/Evangelist and Me

Shortly after becoming a Christian in Summer 1980, I was confronted by the man with whom I had studied the Bible and who had baptized me. Our conversation went something like this:

T/E:   Hey, I hear that you believe it is okay for Christians to drink alcoholic beverages. Why do you believe that?

Me:    Because that’s what the Bible teaches.

T/E:   No, it doesn’t. Christians should abstain from alcohol.

Me:    Then why does Paul say in First Corinthians 11 that the worshipers were getting drunk on the Lord’s Supper? They could only get drunk if the wine they were using was alcoholic.

T/E:   That’s not what the original Greek says. The word translated as drunk there really means “to become full”.

Me:    Then why did the translators use the word “drunk”?

T/E:   They just mistranslated it. Come to my office with me and I’ll show you.

I follow him to his office, and he pulls out his Greek New Testament and a Greek Dictionary. He opens the Bible to 1 Corinthians.

T/E:   Okay, here it is. Here’s the verse in First Corinthians you were talking about. And here’s the Greek word that is translated “drunk”. Now, let me show you what it says in the dictionary.

          He finds the word in the dictionary, but just sits there and says nothing.

Me:    So, what does it say the Greek word means?

T/E:   It says it means to be drunk. (Pauses) I’m going to have to study this more.

Me:    Okay. Let me know what you find out.

T/E:   I will.

          I never heard another word from him on the matter.

A Conversation About Sending Missionaries

Joe:    Hey, Bob. What are your plans for vacation this summer?

Bob:  Well, my wife and I are actually going on a mission trip during our vacation time this year.

Joe:    Really? I didn’t take you to be the proselytizing type.

Bob:  Oh, I’m not. Or least I haven’t been. But recently my wife and I both decided we needed to do more to spread the gospel.

Joe:    Admirable. Of course, you know I’m an agnostic, so I would never do such a thing. But I can understand why a believer such as yourself would want to go. Where are you going?

Bob:  A remote tribe in South America. It’s my understanding that the gospel has never been presented to the tribe before.

Joe:    Wow! That remote, huh? I’d be scared out of my mind. But since you believe they are lost and going to hell without Jesus, I understand why you’d want to go. And speaking of that, I’ve always had a problem with a God that would condemn people for not believing in someone they don’t even know existed. Seems unfair to me.

Bob:  I never said they were going to hell. There are some verses in the Bible that indicate that God may judge people who have never heard the gospel using a different standard than those who have heard.

Joe:    Really? I’ve always understood the Bible to say that the only way to heaven is through faith in Jesus.

Bob:  Yes, that is true, but there is some indication that God will have mercy on those who have never had a chance to hear about Jesus. God really is merciful. I don’t believe he’d condemn people for not believing something they don’t even know about.

Joe:    Well, I guess that’s good to know, assuming that the Bible is true. But now I have to ask: Why are you going?

Bob:  How do you mean?

Joe:    I mean, why are you going to preach the gospel to a group of people who are already saved?

Bob:  Who said they are saved?

Joe:    I thought you just did. You said they would be judged according to a different standard than those who have heard the gospel. I thought that meant they were saved.

Bob:  No, salvation only comes through faith in Jesus Christ.

Joe:    So, that tribe is not going to heaven?

Bob:  I didn’t say that either. I believe they will go to heaven rather than hell, but only by the grace and mercy of God, not because they are saved. Their rewards in heaven will not be as great as a believer who is saved.

Joe:    Okay, I’m a bit confused. Isn’t the most important thing to go to heaven rather than hell, not that you get there through salvation in Christ? And isn’t heaven with few rewards much better than hell?

Bob:  Yes, that’s true, but the good news of Christ is not just about the afterlife, it’s also for this life. Knowing Jesus will make this life better as well.

Joe:    I would argue that that’s not always true, but let’s put that aside. I have a question. What happens to the tribespeople that hears about Jesus and then reject the message?

Bob:  Well, according to the Bible, they will be lost.

Joe:    And bound for hell?

Bob:  Yes.

Joe:    So why are you going?

Bob:  I answered that already.

Joe:    Not exactly. Let’s lay out what you have said so far. The tribespeople are all going to heaven. Their life here on Earth may not be as good as it could be, and they may not be rewarded as well in heaven, but at least they aren’t going to hell. To me, that seems to be a positive. Now, you plan to preach the good news of Jesus to them. What are the possible outcomes? Some will believe, which may lead to a better life here on Earth and more rewards in heaven. But those who reject the message will now be on a path to hell whereas before hearing the message they were on a path to heaven. Overall, it seems like your preaching has no upside, only a downside.

Bob:  I haven’t really thought about it that way.

Joe:    Well, maybe you should. So, now, why are you going?

Bob:  I guess my answer has to be that Jesus commanded us to preach the gospel to all tribes and nations.

Joe:    I know enough about the Bible to know that is true. But why would he ask people to do that if everyone who hasn’t heard the gospel is going to heaven anyway? Wouldn’t the only valid reason for preaching be that people are lost and bound for hell?

Bob:  I don’t know. I can certainly see your point. Perhaps I have been wrong about people who haven’t heard about Jesus going to heaven. Or perhaps some are going to heaven and some aren’t. So, he wants us to preach to everyone just in case they need to hear.

Joe:    That certainly makes Jesus’ command to preach to everyone make more sense. But it still concerns me that there might be some who are going to heaven who no longer will after hearing the gospel. I thought preaching the gospel was about bringing people into heaven, not casting them out.

Bob:  I hear you. I just don’t know how to answer that. On the one hand, I find it hard to believe that God would condemn a person who has never heard about Jesus. But on the other hand, I don’t know why he would have us preach to those who are already going to heaven if it could lead to some of them rejecting the gospel and not going to heaven. I think I’m going to have to study this topic a bit more.

Joe:    Sounds like a good plan. Let me know what you find out.

Just Long Enough - The Story of an Improbable Marriage

Growing up in Louisville, Kentucky, I was never forced to go to church. My dad never went and, since my mom didn’t drive, she hitched a ride with her cousin when she wanted to go. Sometimes I went with her. I don’t really remember anything except having a role in a Sunday School Christmas play.

As I got older, I would occasionally attend church with friends. The one visit that stands out the most was when the Sunday School teacher told us how he thought interracial marriage was frowned on by God. He said something about birds of a feather flocking together. I remember thinking that had he picked dogs for his example, a totally different conclusion would have been reached. I also wondered why God would care about who someone married since he had created us all. “But,” I thought, “I’m just a kid and he is an adult, so what do I know?”

Nothing I ever heard during my infrequent visits to church convinced me that I was a sinner in need of salvation. In fact, by the time I had reached college age, I was a deist. I believed that God existed and created the Universe, but I didn’t believe in any of the Gods of the world’s religions.

As a teenager, I was very shy. Well, as least when it came to dating girls. I had no problem being around a girl as a friend, but when it came to asking someone on a date, I froze. During my high school years, I asked exactly one girl on a date. She was someone I had known since first grade, but she turned me down. I thought perhaps I had broken the ice and asking for a date would come easier. Wrong! It didn’t help anything. Still, I had quite a few friends and was somewhat outgoing in high school. I didn’t play sports or anything, but I was in the Honor Society and the Photography Club. A group of friends and I even put together a performance for the Senior Talent Show where we sang one of my original comical songs. It was a hoot and a huge success!

During my high school years, I had crushes on several girls, but the biggest one occurred my senior year. That was when I got to know a girl by the name of Anita Zettler. I had seen her around school before, but we did not have any classes together until our senior year. I fell pretty hard for her, but still couldn’t get past the fear of dating. When prom time came, I really wanted to ask her to go with me, but I kept delaying, delaying, and delaying until I heard that someone else had asked her, and she had accepted. I was both disappointed and relieved, if you know what I mean.

Shortly after high school graduation, I finally got up the courage to call Anita. We talked for over an hour. As I enjoyed our conversation, I was secretly building up to asking her out. But before my courage reached a sufficient level, a friend knocked on the door. I let him in, and since I wasn’t about to ask for a date while my friend was listening to my every word, I ended the phone call.

So that was that. Anita went away to college while I stayed at home to attend college. I just assumed I would never see her again, so I tried to push her out of my mind and get on with my life.

Throughout college, I concentrated on my studies. There weren’t many girls in engineering school, so it was easier to avoid crushes and the agony of knowing I didn’t have the courage to ask anyone out. Also, on the religious front, I was still the same old deist.

As I was nearing the end of my college days, I was waiting for the time to move to Alabama to start my career as an engineer. I was interested in photography and astronomy, so I would sit up late reading magazines on these topics. Oftentimes I would get caught up on my magazine reading, so decided I would read the Bible from the beginning. I just wanted to see what it said; I was not on a spiritual quest. I made it through 1 Kings when it was time to move. With the full-time job, my Bible reading stopped.

In those early years at work, I was in a carpool. Two of the people in the carpool, one man and one woman, were members of the Church of Christ. At some point the woman asked me if I would like to attend church with her and one of her best friends. It turned out I recognized her friend as someone who worked at a convenience store across the street from my apartment. I wasn’t terribly interested in attending church, but I thought I’d give it a go. It turned out I really enjoyed it.

One of the things that really impressed me was how the members seemed to want to truly understand what the Bible taught and live by it. I began attending the church regularly. One Sunday my friends were out of town. I was disappointed that I couldn’t go to church, but then I realized I could attend on my own. At the end of the service, I was invited to Sunday dinner at the home of a chiropractor and his family. I accepted. I had no clue that in a few years, that man would become MY chiropractor. I had a great meal and fun fellowship.

I began studying the Bible with a man named Jim Massey. He was a teacher at the local Bible college (which was also the location of the church I was attending) as well as a preacher and an evangelist. After several weeks of study and prayer, I made the decision to become a Christian and join the church. That was in July 1980 when I was 25 years old.

I quickly got involved in the evangelistic activities of the church. One Saturday, we were meeting at the church to plan a door knocking excursion. A beautiful young girl who was attending the Bible college was there. We had met before, but I was still surprised when she came over and sat next to me. Since we were going out by twos, we agreed to be partners. I still remember her being somewhat starstruck when a well-known basketball player in our city answered the door while we were canvassing an apartment complex. Shortly afterwards we were circling around the backside of the apartment building when we came upon a pretty young girl sunbathing in a skimpy bikini. I looked at my companion and said, “Don’t worry. I’ll handle this one.” She responded, “I bet you will.” Interestingly, when we told the bikini-clad girl who we were, she responded that she was raised in the Church of Christ. We talked a bit, gave her our literature, and walked on.

Becoming a Christian changed me in several ways. One was how I viewed myself relative to others. No longer did I view myself as inferior when it came to dating. I decided that if I wanted to ask someone out, I would. If she rejected me, I was still valuable in the eyes of God. I liked this young college student, so I asked her out, and she said yes! I was nervous on that first date, but not terrified. We dated several times, but later she met another student at the Bible college who shared her desire for mission work. She broke up with me, started dating him, and later married him. It was all for the best.

One day, Jim Massey, the man with whom I had studied and who baptized me, called to give me the phone number of a young lady he thought I should call. I was a bit skeptical calling someone I had never met, but I did it anyway. I guess you can tell I was quite a different person than I had been. She accepted, and we dated several times. However, she was bit uncomfortable being several years younger than me, so it didn’t work out.

Over the following months I asked several girls on dates. Some accepted; some declined. It was all good. I no longer viewed rejection as a reflection on me as a person. There was one girl I dated off and on for quite some time. I really liked her, but we always seemed to find something on which to disagree. I finally realized it was time to move on.

Early in 1981, I was visiting my parents in Louisville, Kentucky. A good friend who had lived down the street from me as a kid invited me to go to church with him. He told me that Anita Zettler was now going to his church. She no longer went by the name Anita, but rather Kathy, which was short for her middle name, Kathleen. I couldn’t believe it. I was actually going to see the person I thought I would never see again: the girl I had a major crush on in high school.

I still remember being in Sunday School class with Anita…uh, Kathy. During open discussions, she had interesting things to say. Those old feelings began to creep back in, but I was dating someone back in Alabama at the time, so pushed them aside.

In October 1981, I was going to be back in Louisville, and I wasn’t dating anyone. I decided I was going to ask Kathy out. The Louisville Symphony was going to be performing, so that would be our entertainment for the evening. I was visiting with an old friend from junior high and high school the night I needed to call her. But no longer caring about what he might think, I told him I needed to make a call on his phone (we didn’t have cell phones in those days). I called Kathy and told her I’d like to take her out to dinner and the symphony. She accepted; I was elated.

Date day arrived. I drove to Kathy’s house to pick her up. She was living with her parents since she was teaching at a private Christian school at a low salary. We went to Sizzler for dinner and then on to the symphony. We had a great time talking, cutting up, and laughing. I always liked her laugh back in high school, especially when she was laughing at one of my jokes. Sadly, the evening came to an end. When I got back to my parents’ house, they asked me, “How did it go?” I answered, “Let me put it this way. If I had to marry someone tomorrow, she would be the one.” My mom said, “Well, it could happen.” I said, “I don’t know how. We live 300 miles apart.” She said, “Well, all it takes is 18 cents.” That was the cost of a postage stamp at that time.

I returned home to Alabama not knowing what I should do. Luckily, Kathy decided for me. I soon received a letter from her telling me how much she enjoyed our date. This encouraged me. We began writing and calling each other. Keep in mind this was in the day when long distance phone calls were expensive. Soon, we were racking up phone bills in the hundreds of dollars each month. But I didn’t care; I was falling in love. Eventually, Kathy came to Alabama to visit me. I went to Louisville whenever possible to visit her.

A short four months after our first date, I decided I was going to ask Kathy to marry me. It happened on Valentine’s Day of 1982. She said, “YES!” It was a dream come true. I even had people at work notice a change in my countenance afterwards.

We quickly started planning our wedding. We ultimately decided on July 3 of that year at her home church in Louisville. We hoped that date would allow some friends that lived in other places to attend since it would be a holiday weekend.

As the wedding date approached, we continued to visit whenever possible and send letters and make phone calls when not. The big day finally arrived, and it was great.

After our honeymoon, I told Kathy that we didn’t have to keep going to the same church I had been attending. We could visit around and see if another church better suited us as a couple. As it turned out, the first church we visited became our church. Also, in order to learn God’s word better, we began studying the Bible at home. That didn’t turn out as planned.

As we studied Genesis, I began questioning many things, and Kathy didn’t have the answers. I talked to the preacher, some deacons, and some elders at our church about my issues. None of them had the answers. Usually they would conclude, “You just have to have faith.” But that didn’t satisfy me. I wanted to know I was having faith in what was true, not just something I chose to have faith in regardless of its truthfulness. Eventually Kathy and I had to stop our private Bible studies. There were just too many unanswered questions. Ultimately, I stopped reading the Bible for fear I would lose my faith.

Five years passed. I continued to attend and participate in programs at church on a regular basis. But eventually I realized I had to confront my doubts head-on and decide what I really believed about the Bible. I started studying again on my own. Over time, the evidence became overwhelming. I could no longer believe in the resurrection of Jesus, so could no longer say I was a Christian. It was a tough time, and tears were shed by both Kathy and me. We were both concerned about how my changes in belief would affect our marriage. After all, had I not been a Christian when Kathy and I met again, she probably would not have even dated me, let alone marry me. Actually, we probably would not have even met again since I most likely would have never attended her church.

But after several discussions about our situation, it became apparent that we loved each other deeply, and neither of us had any desire to abandon our marriage. Our love was stronger than our differences.

It has been over 30 years since my deconversion and our marriage is stronger than ever. When I think of Kathy, I am reminded of the old Spiral Starecase song, “I Love You More Today Then Yesterday.” The lyrics continue with “but not as much as tomorrow.”

To this day I wonder what happened. Why did I come to truly believe the resurrection message for a little over two years, just long enough to gain confidence with women, reconnect with my high school crush, fall in love, and get married? It seems as if the whole thing was orchestrated. I often wonder if God was behind it because he knew Kathy and I belonged together, and my conversion was the only path to that end. Of course, I realize it could all just be a happy coincidence. I also frequently wonder what my life would look like had these events not taken place and I never married Kathy. I simply can’t imagine that it could in any way be better than it is. I consider myself to be very fortunate, or should I say blessed. Kathy feels the same way.

I wrote this story because I felt it was important. Perhaps it will help others in a similar situation. But even if it doesn’t, it’s still a good story. One that would make a good movie, perhaps. Well, one can dream, right? I once did and look where it took me.

On Being Jesus and Beyond

This morning I was thinking about what it would have been like to be Jesus. If he was fully God, as many assert, then from a young age he would have known every single thing he would do and say for the rest of his earthly life. Can you imagine knowing when you are two years old that when you turn 33 you are going to experience a brutal death on the cross? And can you imagine going through life having no choice but to do those things you foresee lest you prove yourself unworthy of Godhood by not having perfect foresight of the future?

On the other hand, having perfect foreknowledge could be fun. Just imagine never having to study for an exam and still getting a C% on every exam and straight Alpha’s on every report card. Think how you could handle those bullies who always want to pick a fight. You could dodge every punch and kick and win the fight through attrition without ever mustering a blow. You could be the greatest mentalist of all. Of course, you could only do those things if your foreknowledge allowed them. If your foreknowledge said you had to miss some questions on an exam, get Beta’s or Gamma’s on your report card, or take a few blows from the bullies, then you’d have to make sure those things happened.

On the other hand, perhaps God relinquished some of his powers when taking on a human form. Perhaps Jesus did not have perfect foreknowledge. After all, he was different from God when it came to other things such as pain. He bled like a human which God supposedly doesn’t do as a spiritual being. But if Jesus had fewer powers than God, then isn’t it true he was not God, but rather a human? You might ask, “But what about the miracles he performed?” Well, the apostles performed miracles. So did a number of people in the Old Testament. If performing miracles is proof one is God, then all these other miracle workers were God also. But I don’t know anyone who believes that.

You might be thinking, “Jesus was God because he was God before taking on human form. He just chose to take on a human form and give up his Godly powers for the benefit of humankind.” Perhaps so, but if God can choose to relinquish his powers when taking on a human form, cannot he choose to do so while in spiritual form? I have heard a number of people say that if the being we call God is not omnipotent (having all powers), omnipresent (being everywhere at once throughout all time), and omniscient (knowing all things and knowing everything that happens everywhere throughout all time), then that being is not really God. To me, this seems to be rather presumptuous. Who are we to tell God what attributes he must possess? Rather, shouldn’t God himself be allowed to choose who he will be and what attributes he will claim for himself?

Here’s a thought. Perhaps the primary attribute of God is his ability to choose. Choose how he will create. Choose what he will know. Choose where to be at any given time. Choose how he will interact with his creation. Quantum theory has shown us that at its base level, the Universe is probabilistic rather than deterministic. For example, electrons aren’t fixed particles with fixed positions and momentums, but rather a probability field. You might call this limited determinism or restrained chaos. If this view of the Universe is correct, it implies that God created a Universe whose future cannot be known with certainty. Perhaps he did this on purpose, not wanting to be bored for billions of years by knowing everything that was going to happen. If you want to get a sense of how utterly boring living in a totally predictable Universe can be, watch the old episode of The Twilight Zone entitled “A Nice Place to Visit”.

The current understanding of our Universe is that it consists of a multitude of invisible fields. No, sports fans, not football fields or baseball fields or soccer fields, but rather quark fields, lepton fields, and boson fields. These fields interact with each other to produce what we perceive to be matter and energy. And thanks to Albert Einstein, we know that these two things are interchangeable via the formula E=mc². But what we perceive as particles are actually bundles of probability, thus unpredictable in a deterministic way. Given that everything in the Universe is made up of these fields, that means our brains are made up of these fields as well. Yet, it seems that somehow we are able to make choices. But how? Could it be that the interactions of the fields as embodied by a brain have some sort of feedback that allows us to “nudge” the probabilities in such a way as to make them fall on the choice we want? Whatever is going on, we perceive we can take in information and make freewill choices that are non-deterministic. We also perceive we are conscious beings. Could it be that being made in the image of God means being given the ability to make choices. Choices that are limited by our physical nature, but choices nonetheless.

Here’s another thought. If the invisible fields that make up our Universe can interact in such a way as to make brains capable of knowledge, emotions, and choices, could it be that all the interactions throughout the entirety of these fields in the whole Universe makes one humongous super-brain that is much more capable than any one brain. And perhaps it is this super-brain that sustains everything. Perhaps that super-brain is what we call God.

Romans 1:20

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Acts 17:27-28

God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. ‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

Thoughts on the Movie "The Case for Christ"

Kathy and I went to see the movie "The Case for Christ" this afternoon. It was an excellent movie and well acted. I found myself being caught up in the emotion of it all.

In case you don't know, Lee Strobel is a famous Christian apologist who started out as an atheist. He has written many poplar apologetic books. This movie depicts his journey from atheism to faith. As an investigative journalist for The Chicago Tribune, he was a firm believer in following the facts wherever they led. When his wife becomes a Christian, he sets out to prove the resurrection of Jesus never happened by visiting and interviewing experts in many fields of study. Eventually he realizes that the evidence for the resurrection was strong and he could not disprove it, so he converts to Christianity himself.

I have read several of Strobel's books and used to watch a question and answer TV show he hosted. His story is intriguing, as are other stories like his, such as Josh McDowell's. There have been a number of atheists that have come to believe in the resurrection of Jesus after examining the evidence. But on the other hand, there have been a number of Christians that have become unbelievers upon more thoroughly investigating the evidence. I am one of those people as is Dan Barker, who was an evangelical preacher for 19 years before realizing that he really didn't believe what he was preaching.

So, how can that be? How can two people examine the exact same evidence and come to such radically different conclusions? It's a conundrum, but fascinating. Think about a trial where 12 people are listening to the evidence being presented about the guilt or innocence of an alleged criminal. Sometimes the evidence is overwhelming one way or the other and all 12 vote the same way. However, in other cases, the evidence is not quite so clear. There is some evidence that makes you think the person is guilty, but other evidence that makes you think the person is innocent.

So what makes a person come down on one side or the other? Well, I believe it has to do with how much evidence each individual requires in order to be convinced of something. Some people can be told that friendly space aliens are going to land in Central Park tomorrow to take willing Earthlings to a better planet, and they will be lined up waiting at midnight. Others could actually see aliens land and take people and still not believe it, thinking some sort of delusion had overtaken them.

There's many other factors that can affect someone's decision in the face of conflicting evidence. Past experiences, facial expressions of the witnesses while they were testifying, how often they have been lied to by supposedly trustworthy people, etc. So, getting 12 people to agree on the meaning of the evidence is actually quite a feat.

In my case, I'm hard-nosed. I want to have near ironclad evidence, especially when it concerns supernatural events such as a resurrection. But when I conducted my multi-year investigation of the Bible, I discovered that the evidence for the supernatural events reported in it, especially the resurrection of Jesus, didn't even come close to being ironclad. In fact, the more I studied, the more ironclad it became against the resurrection. But, it never became what I would call conclusive. And that's the problem. I recorded my thoughts concerning my studies in a book entitled, "God Is."

The Bible says that God does not want any to be lost. Yet, it also says that if you don't believe, you WILL be lost. If you had a child that was in danger and you knew exactly what that child needed to be saved from that danger, would you not do exactly what was required of you? So, if God knows what each of us needs to believe and be saved, why does he not provide that for each individual? Why leave some hanging with a lack of evidence? These are the questions I cannot answer, assuming there is really a loving, powerful God in control.

The Rights of Atheists

Today, on the radio, I heard a Christian say, “When an atheist claims he has certain rights, he is absconding the argument of the Christian, because rights can only come from God. Without God, no one has any rights.”

I understand where this person is coming from. He knows that if humans attempted to provide rights to their fellow humans, they would fall short. He wants there to be an absolute set of inviolable rights that apply to all of humankind. But here’s the problem. Suppose such a list of rights dictated by God actually exists. How do we humans determine what they are? After all, God did not carve them into the face of the Earth for all to see. So, how do we discover them? A Christian would say, “God has given them to us in the Bible.” But a Muslim would say, “God has written them in the Koran.” People of other religions would have equally diverse responses. Who gets to decide for everyone else what the true set of rights are?

As you can see, it is problematic discovering the true God-given rights of man when we can’t even agree who the true God is. In addition, people who believe in the same God can’t agree on what their God’s list of rights consists of. Further, even if two people agree on a right, they may not agree on how to implement that right in the real world.

Look at the US Constitution. Even though our Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, our founders found it necessary to include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Why was that necessary if we already had unalienable rights? Well, I believe it was because they knew there would be disagreement over what those unalienable rights were and thus needed to be defined in some way in our founding document so there would be less confusion.

Another issue is that of enforcement. If humans have rights, then it seems reasonable for there to be some sort of punishment for those that violate those rights. We humans recognize that without those punishments, we essentially don’t have any rights, for evil men could run roughshod over good men without retribution. We can state all we want that we have rights, but that will not stop a bad guy with a fist, or a knife, or a gun.

It’s this enforcement issue that makes me question whether our rights come from God. As we all know, God does not find it necessary to exact justice on those that violate others rights. But without that side of the rights coin, the other side fails. Rights mean nothing if a violator of them sees no retribution. It’s like a blind man being told that his eyes are reacting to light just fine. It does him no good if the optic nerve is damaged.

So, why would God give us rights, then do nothing to protect them? Perhaps he just wants to see us flounder about figuring it all out ourselves. The problem is that men are not omniscient. Even with the best intentions, we fail. We sometimes convict people of crimes they did not commit. We sometimes set free the worst among us. Just think of how much better it would be if God—assuming he is a good God—made the decisions about who should be punished and who should not. And I’m not talking about punishment in the next life. That does no good for all the subsequent victims of crimes after the initial one. In fact, if indeed God is omniscient, he could actually prevent all crimes before they are committed. How cool would that be? Kind of like those officers in the movie “Minority Report,” but with a perfect knowledge of the future rather than a murky one.

It seems to me that even if God does have a list of rights that all humans possess, he has left it to us to figure them out for ourselves. We must decide what those rights are, write them down for all to see, get a general agreement on their correctness, and then enforce them by punishing those who violate them. But as we can see by looking at the world around us, there is no agreement across the globe on what rights we have. That is one reason we are divided up into countries with differing sets of laws that define differing sets of rights for its citizens. Also, some countries like the USA are further divided into states, counties, and cities that each define our rights. It seems that’s the best we can do in the absence of God doing it for us.

Revenge, Justice, Forgiveness, and Salvation

My son and I have been watching the entire series of the TV show “House, M.D.” A few days ago, we started the sixth season. In one episode, a maniacal genocidal dictator, who was visiting the United States, gets ill and comes under the care of Greg House’s team at the hospital. Throughout the show, one of the team members, Cameron, struggles with helping this dictator get well because she fears she will then be complicit in any deaths he brings about in the future. Others on the team keep telling her that their jobs as doctors are not to pass judgment on their patient, but to cure him. The conflict builds and finally Cameron’s husband, Chase, who is also on the team, becomes convinced that this dictator is going to commit genocide against many thousands of his own people if he recovers and goes back to his home country. He can’t bear that thought, so switches a blood sample to make it look like the dictator has a medical problem he does not have. The treatment will most certainly kill him given what they believed his real condition was. The plan succeeds, the dictator dies, and now Chase must figure out how to cover up his actions and fight his inner demons.

Moral dilemmas in TV shows and movies have always intrigued me. They push me to evaluate how I would response if put in a similar situation. The answer is not always easy. In fact, more often than not, I am left not really knowing for sure what I would do. 

During World War II, there were quite a few Germans who saw Hitler for what he really was, which was a maniacal genocidal dictator like the one in the “House, M.D.” episode. Some of these astute citizens realized they needed to stop Hitler before he destroyed their country. Several assassination attempts were unsuccessfully carried out. I often wonder how those people, had they been successful at assassinating Hitler, would be viewed by the world. Most assuredly the German military would have executed them for treason. But much of the rest of the world would have viewed them as heroes and martyrs.

It is interesting how varied people’s opinions can be over the same actions of others. In most of the cop shows, the main issue is justice. Someone mistreats other people and the police talk about bringing that person to justice. In other movies like “John Wick,” the issue is revenge. Someone did something bad, and the victim won’t stop until he gets his vengeance against the perpetrator. In religious shows, the emphasis is oftentimes placed on forgiveness. Rather than seeking justice or revenge, seek to forgive the person who transgressed against you. Yet in other shows, the emphasis is salvation. Consider the movie “Taken.” A man’s daughter is kidnapped and about to be sold into slavery. Since the man has “certain skills,” he goes on a rampage to save his daughter. He is not driven by justice or revenge, but rather solely by rescuing his daughter from the hands of evil. Anyone who stands in his way is a target of his wrath.

This afternoon, my wife and I went to see the movie “The Shack.” I had read the book many years ago but, given the inefficiency of my long-term memory, could not recall much about it. The basis of the movie is that a young daughter of the main character is kidnapped and killed. The father struggles with this as does his wife and two other children. He gets an invitation from God to return to the shack where his daughter was murdered. There his judgmental mentality and his inability to forgive others is challenged. And, interestingly, a question that I had just challenged my wife and son with at lunch earlier was asked in the movie. “How does one decide what is good and what is evil?” If you think deeply about this, the answer may not be as obvious as it seems at first glance.

Now, ask yourself, “Which response to evil do you like the best?” Revenge? Justice? Forgiveness? Salvation? If you are like me, I think perhaps you might be saying, “I like them all.” I cheer on John Wick as he leaves a trail of dead bodies in his wake while seeking revenge on the man who stole his car, killed his dog, and knocked him unconscious. I applaud the police officers who relentlessly investigate a murder and finally bring in the murderer so justice can be served. I cry at the struggle victims go through to forgive the criminal who did them wrong. I urge on the man who will do anything to save the person he loves.

So, what’s going on? Do I have multiple personalities living within my brain? Am I simply crazy? Or is it simply coded into my DNA, and perhaps yours as well, to want all these things to occur simultaneously? Is that even possible?

Upon thinking about these questions, I have concluded that it is possible. Revenge seeks to teach an evil person how deep the pain of what they did was by having that person experience that same pain. Justice seeks to right a wrong, as much as humanly possible, by taking them out of society, thus making it impossible to perpetrate the same evil on others. Forgiveness seeks protection of yourself by letting the past go and to quit obsessing over the evil that occurred. Salvation seeks to prevent harm to a loved one and perhaps prevent additional harm to others. A combination of these things can be both therapeutic and good for society as a whole. While all four of these reactions are legitimate, different situations call for a differing mix of the four.

I don’t pretend to have it all figured out, but I do have an inkling of how these four reactions should be applied. For instance, while seeking vengeance, you must not cross a line that ends up making you the evil one. When seeking justice, one must be certain, usually through a trial process, that the right person is being punished. When seeking to forgive, you should not “deal with the devil” or place yourself or others in danger. When seeking to save, one must be confident that the actions they take do not end up bringing harm to the one you are trying to save. Accomplishing these things will most likely not be easy. Mistakes will often be made, but doing nothing will probably end badly.

After watching “The Shack,” I told my wife that I view some movies as following the Old Testament, where we typically think of God acting out of vengeance and justice, while other movies are like the New Testament, where God is defined by forgiveness and salvation. I like a little of both. Concerning forgiveness, I should note that there are actually three levels of forgiveness: 1) letting go, 2) no punishment, and 3) restored relationship. “The Shack” only addresses the first. That level of forgiveness is difficult, but the other two are much more so. For a complete explanation, please see my book, “God Is: Exploring the Nature of the Biblical God.”