A Living or Dead Creation

Young Earth Creationists believe that God created the world and likely the entire universe in six 24-hour day periods.

Old Earth Creationists believe that God created the world over long periods of time, where each creative day is thousands or millions or billions of years.

Evolutionary Creationists believe that life evolved on earth over billions of years, but that God purposefully directed evolution to produce all life, even humans.

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

1 Cor 15:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

I like science, but I'm not a scientist. I think I understand the arguments but I'm ill prepared to provide a convincing scientific argument for a Young Earth Creation to people who do not believe the Bible.

But for Christians, I have some questions:

Did death come upon creation when Adam sinned?
Does the Bible consider death a normal part of life, or a consequence of evil?
Is death, something to be conquered or tolerated?
Something not there in the beginning and not there in the end?
Does the Bible consider death evil or good?

The problem with Old Earth Creation is not in reconciling the Creation account with fossil records or carbon dating but with scripture itself.

Imagine, no death in the world, no sickness, a perfect paradise. Imagine two little bugs, male and female, with all the food they can eat, even if -- without food they might not die? How many bugs will there be in a year? In a thousand years? A million? Imagine thousands (at the least) species of bugs? Imagine thousands of species of other animals. If God created man, perfect, and gave him everything in the garden to eat (before the Fall), then it is clear that eating and consuming are part of the good, natural order.

Simply, if death did not enter the world until the Fall, then you have massive population problems, competition for resources, long before Adam arives on the scene. Adam would be up to his nose in crickets before he took his first breath. The earth, even perfect, is not built to sustain exponential multiplication of every created life form.

Adam and Eve did not have children until after the Fall. If God did not intend for creatures to multiply until after the Fall, then you answer the problem of over-population, but then you don't need thousands or millions of years until Adam. Old Earth is supposed to harmonize with the fossil record showing massive, ancient deaths, but if there's no multiplying before Adam, than you've said the fossil record is wrong anyway.

If the earth is millions or billions of years old, then death is necessary. Competition for scarce resources demands it. And ancient fossils are nothing except dead animals. If we accept their age, but accept that the Bible is correct when it records roughly 6000 since Adam's time, then death reigned before Adam's fall and the Bible is lying. If Adam is older than this, then the Bible is lying.

Did God create a Creation that was already dying and call that good? Where Universally people proclaim that death as evil? Where God sent his only Son to die so we wouldn't have to? People even accuse a good God of being evil because he permits death and suffering. Are we really supposed to teach them that God created death and called it good?

Evolutionary Creation has the same problem, but worse. Evolution theory *depends* on new species developing from old species, but each development is "tested" through survivability. Genetic mutations that sometimes make one creature more competitive for scarce resources usually result in corruptions that instead make other creatures less competitive and they die faster. Evolution depends on death. Death is the significant factor in the evolution story. Natural selection selects one organism to live and multiply and another to die. If God used this process, every animal, then was created by God to die.

Those who are consistent will admit that Adam was then born already dying. Some even suggest that the ancient fossil men or monkey-men, are forefathers to Adam.

In Exodus 16:29, 20:11, 31:17 we learn to honor the Sabbath day of rest because God worked six days, and then rested on the Seventh.

For Christians to abandon the simple language that God created the heavens, earth and all that is in them in six simple days, is to open ourselves up to not trusting scripture, that death is the result of sin alone, that death is unnatural, and that Christ died -- needed to die -- to save us from the unnatural.

If death is natural, then God in Christ is a liar. Christ's death is a gesture but unnecessary to undo death, since God could reverse death without touching sin one way or another.

On the Trinity

‎"When Jesus prays to the Father, is He praying to Himself? Therefore the Trinity is false." This is what amounts to a clever argument in some circles and people in those circles happily wag their heads "ooh, you've got them!"

It's not so much the argument, but rather the people that think it is clever and decisive that gets me. You see, you've got three basic camps in Christianity:

1) Unitiarianism (God=Father=Jesus=Holy Spirit; God shows himself in different "modes" at different times)

2) Arianism (God=Father, Father != Jesus, Holy Spirit=?), and finally

3) Trinitarianism (The Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not Jesus is not the Holy Spririt).

When an Arian uses the above argument, it's not clever. It's irrelevant.

Trinitarians aren't Unitarians. They don't believe Jesus IS the Father.
Trinitarians use that argument to REFUTE Unitarianism.

Ignorance is understandable. We all have things we don't know.

When an Arian proclaims that this is a clever argument, he is trumpeting from the rooftops that:

1) he doesn't understand Trinitarians,

2) that he has not really studied the scriptures concerning Trinitarian arguments, but worst of all,

3) he doesn't believe it is necessary to understand the Trinity in order to preach to Trinitarians.

Ignorance is forgivable. Pride, less so. Pride mixed with abysmal ignorance is just bad taste.

Islam and Culture War

In the recent decade perhaps nothing has gripped the American attention so much as its relationship with the Islamic world. In the receding wake of the Soviet collapse, neither a unified Europe nor a China ascendant has captured the same attention and concern as what is happening in these many countries sandwiched between the world’s primary power bases. Russia, eager to reclaim influence it relinquished so suddenly and ignominiously, appears still as a world power to the American people, but not a competitor. Earlier we worried about Europe’s economy as it eclipsed that of our own, but we resigned ourselves to be smaller in size, comforted in that per capita we’re still ahead. China, making bold economic moves as only an authoritarian regime can, expanding its military and advancing its level of technology in order to compete with us, is still viewed with a fair measure of indifference. Per capita we’re richer, they remain decades behind us in some technologies, and there is question as to whether their social and political structures, especially considering an aging population, can sustain their growth.

The Islamic world however is another matter. Instinctively, we are aware of being confronted on an entirely different plane, perhaps one where the playing field is neither level nor in our favor. On the surface, this may seem another East West struggle, but to average American the Soviet strength was perceived as comparable to our own; they could match us in most areas. Alternately, we may view it as a struggle of values, perhaps simplified to Judeo-Christian traditions (by association, even if the particular players are not religious) pitted against Islamic. But if this were the case, Judeo-Christians are voluntarily yielding ground at a rate foreign to most centuries of their existence, deferring to Islamic customs, taking great pains to afford equal if not preferred status even on our own turf to what is still a minority. At any rate, American Christianity has largely sat out a number of cultural struggles prior to the appearance of Islam as a competitive worldview in this country.

What the rise of Islam as a culture presents to the world, where it is a credible threat to prevailing culture, is a struggle against post-modern philosophy and sensibility; an arena in which Western Christianity long ago capitulated and only now in these late times is getting back into the fight.

Within a post-modern worldview, it is the moment – the here and now – that alone has any significance. If everything is fleeting, then nothing can have any permanent value. Absolutism, objectivism is replaced by relativism. If truth cannot be accurately known, then the best we can do is by definition subjective and one man’s truth must be –objectively (ironically) – valued no higher than another’s. It can’t be known, and at any rate, it doesn’t matter. Leveraging their common power in language and history, we still use words like “truth, right, wrong, ethics, and morality” but in a post-modern world these concepts are by definition suspect.

At best a post-modern society defines its highest virtue as tolerance, and even then it is a subjective term because it is frequently more than tolerant of other intolerant societies (China, Iran, North Korea) in a bid to exemplify tolerance to outsiders. Within the tolerant sphere however no native worldview may be permitted to consider itself dominant or superior. What appears exceptional in history, even pre-dating the rise of nationalism in the world, is that at no point have successful nations considered themselves as anything other than exceptional, superior, offering their worldview as a path to success. However, in the United States, American exceptionalism – the notion that what we have to offer to the world is truly worthy and superior -- remains heavily debated, under withering fire. It is chic to point out this country’s problems, to graciously apologize on the world stage for failings perceived and real, in an effort to evidence a higher plane of morality. It becomes uplifting to rise above all petty sentiments of nationalism, to view one’s country as irrelevant, and to usher in the era of world citizenry and citizenship of mankind as a whole: the new man. And it is this new man who alone has the strength of character to reshape the world to the limits of his imagination. But the first step is to decry the antiquated traditions and wisdom of the old man. Here tolerance becomes a weapon against the old worldviews; the label “intolerant” as a slur. Rich parallels exist between the distributed post-modern efforts of Western intelligentsia and the modernist struggle of the Soviet new man or the German übermensch to remake the world to their respective visions.

Tolerance however is not a worldview, but a practice regarding them. Post-modernism offers little more than disregard of worldviews as its worldview. It offers nothing to compete against another established worldview, especially where it grants blanket exemptions to the foreign, intolerant worldview; instead targeting any perceptions of native intolerance however minor in comparison. This bizarre behavior serves only to delegitimize further the notion of tolerance as a supreme virtue or worldview. A U.N. body, seeking to be all inclusive, elects representatives to human and women’s’ rights commissions from countries that have appalling records. American feminism, so instrumental in improving the lot of women many decades ago, remains disturbingly quiet on the abuses in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, concentrating only on the evils of countries where women enjoy the most freedom. If the Western way of life is under such directed fire from its own philosophies, small wonder that another competing worldview, even one that has been largely irrelevant to modern Western history and the formation of this country, may be felt instinctively as a potent threat to our way of life. Or alternately, as a refreshing beacon of stability where one is cast adrift in a sea of relativity. It need not be the strongest worldview, but in this society, so long as it remains the strongest of the surviving worldviews proclaiming absolute truth, unapologetic in declaring right from wrong, unreserved in confronting the culture and unashamed of its own naked sense of exceptionalism, it stands to compete in the mainstream and win dominance by default.

Whether or not it so characterizes individual Founding Fathers, America’s beginning is steeped heavily in Judeo-Christian tradition and worldviews. While it draws from Classical and Enlightenment philosophy, it is from those worldviews that we derive a moral compass, that stubborn sense of right and wrong, honor and shame, and a respect for human life and freedom. These are worldviews that historically have competed successfully against all others. From it our way of life is taken, and a cultural narrative is constructed and enshrined into the American mind. But that way of life is precarious, unstable once post-modernism undermines the validity of the foundational worldviews.

The greatest threat to our standing in this world is this fading of American exceptionalism; not just the simple belief that we are exceptional (which is under assault) but the practical reality of an exceptional productive culture. That is, freedom of religion strikes us as a particularly good principle, but becomes worthless in a society that hardly values religion itself. Who will die for a freedom that makes little impact in one’s own life? Freedom of speech is highly valuable to a culture where a cacophony of ideas and voices enrich a life and create and produce. But when the voices start to sound the same for lack of careful thought, when freedom of speech is most commonly interpreted as the freedom and mandate to express what one is feeling at a given moment, whether another listens or not, cares or not, this is no longer a treasured freedom. Writers from Solzhenitsyn who, finding the freedom to critique, opine and understand long denied him in the Soviet Union, lamented the trivial expressions of that freedom he encountered here, to Postman to McLuhan to Bloom, have spent careers attempting to understand the decline in the quality of Western thought among the general population. Freedom is not the end in and of itself, but necessary for a great many ends, so long as those ends are sought after. And when they are not, those freedoms cease to be a critical part of the social narrative.

We’ve seen even in this last century, prominent societies change due to the presence of a strongly worded, well spoken minority when they refuse to compromise, leading to bloodless (or largely bloodless) internal upheavals of the establishment. While the credit most often goes to those minorities, it is really a function of the society’s unwillingness to address or confront the newcomer that permits it in. In the early 1900s, following the deposition of the Czar, the Bolsheviks were not a sure bet. Nor were the National Socialists in the Weimar Republic when they began winning seats in the Reichstag. Iran’s overthrow of the Shah might have resulted in a beautiful democracy populated by intellectuals, if not for a well-organized, determined minority. In recent years, secular Turkey has made alarming shifts towards Islamic hard lines, jeopardizing economic and even military relations with the most functional democracy in the Middle East and our strongest regional ally. The groundwork is laid slowly, often with little real opposition.

Despite popular concerns regarding outside influences, including the increasing presence of Middle Eastern-style Islamic influence within our borders, the greatest threat to the American way of life may be the loss of our sense of America as an exceptional country, with something that ought to be presented to the world, as not one nation among many, but one with a duty to lead by example. Someone will pick up our flag where we put it down, but they do so because we have put it down of our own volition.

Thoughts from a Resurrection Sunday

Prov 14:12There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.

When I was younger, loving parents taught me a loving message of good news: that a poor, suffering world had been redeemed by God in its entirety. Although this message would be one of comfort to everyone whose life was unhappy, who lived anxiously, uncertain of what awaited them after death, it was specifically targeted to bringing Christians into a new and growing light, one where their fears of hell were banished. It was to be good news in the truest sense. After all, how can the good news that is Christ’s gospel sound anything but good to the people we preach it to?

But the problem, evidenced by diminishing congregations and growing apathy, as we got better at preaching good news, is that Christ’s sacrifice is unnecessary to a world of people that, unhappy with their lives, would prefer a consequence-free life of their own choosing, to anything God would have for them. That God saves them all is a happy bit of news, freeing them to get on with their lives without anxiety. But the death of one man on a cross is little more than a side-note; at best, a means to an end.

Matt 11:28 Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.

Matt 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. 5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. 6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.

Gal 3:24Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

2 Cor 3:7 Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, transitory though it was, 8 will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? 9 If the ministry that brought condemnation was glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!

The death of Christ, the heart of Good news, has meaning to someone who is weighed down for the right reasons: weighed by his sin and guilt before God. For anyone else whose life isn’t going according to plan, they would be happy with another plan which didn’t ask anything for them to do or set conditions as Christ does. Christ isn’t a cure for general unhappiness. He is a cure for an unhappiness that is a terrific awakening of the soul that the Holy Spirit alone performs: one that makes him uniquely aware of his need for a Savior and one that will unfailingly draw him to that Savior.

1 Cor 2:14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

No surprise that the good news everyone else wants is one that lets them get on with life. It’s no shame to want to preach good news to the world, but our good news is not commonly seen as good news to people who have no interest in understanding their poverty before a God who dares measure them against a perfect standard.

Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 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.

Back then, we often talked about the “poor farmer in Africa”, that easy to imagine example of someone in this world who has never heard the name of Jesus Christ, who apparently works as hard as he can to be as good as he can. After all, we see so many “good people” around us. We give them the benefit of the doubt, that they want to actually be good. It is this same example of earthly goodness who others, unfeeling, unthinking superficial believers, calling themselves Christians, condemn casually and happily to an eternity of torture as if their good intentions are worth nothing.

If you never heard of Christ, if you never had the opportunity to be saved, how is it fair to simply be condemned?

But what if we are not condemned because we didn’t hear about Jesus and thus couldn’t believe, but because we willingly sin against God? Against what we have heard and seen? What if our guilt and punishment before God is universally just and fair?

Is 64:6For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.

Rom 3:10as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; 11There is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one."

What if all of our goodness is little more than a dramatic show to ourselves that we are good, at the same time keeping God at arms length? A wishful proof to ourselves that we can be good without those extra conditions? It’s a buffet-style goodness, where we pick and choose the goodness we want to (and can) perform, and then declare that we have fulfilled the standard. It looks good to everyone else doing the same thing. But not to God who alone is and defines what is truly good.

It’s not about how we seem and relate to each other, but how we relate to God. In the end, that poor pagan farmer in Africa is no better off than we are, in his instinctive, primal search for a God-less goodness.

So, what if God made himself so clear and obvious… that the universe – that truth itself -- could cry out in revulsion and anger when we ignore Him? When we, unable to ignore Him because our consciences rebel at some level, are then forced to substitute any other concept of god and glory to explain and attribute the things that are God’s alone?

Why is it so easy to excuse and explain away that people don’t believe in God? Why are we so inclined to want to try? Why is it so easy for me? Enough so that it starts to makes perfect sense that God must have a different salvation for everyone else in the world who doesn’t believe in God. Because not believing in God must be excusable in some way.

Rom 2:12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.) 16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

It’s obvious because God wrote it on our hearts, long before he gave any ten commandments.

2 Cor 4:1 Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,”[a] made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

Back then, Verse 4 appeared obvious as the excuse. I said: It is not the “time” for the world to believe. If the message fell on deaf ears, there was no pleading nor mourning. There was never a sense of loss. God has let Satan blind them because it isn’t their time yet to believe. But they will, I assured myself.

Unsurprisingly, there was never a sense of urgency and passion in preaching. The Gospel was an hors-d’oeuvre, to be offered at a party. Some took, some didn’t, all enjoyed.

John 12:39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:

40 “He has blinded their eyes

and hardened their hearts,

so they can neither see with their eyes,

nor understand with their hearts,

nor turn—and I would heal them.”[i]

41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.

In Isaiah 6 God pronounced a judgment upon Israel. Because they wouldn’t believe when God sent preachers and teachers, He would make sure that they couldn’t believe by removing the truth from them and hardening them to what they had. Satan would happily fill any vacuum to secure them in their blindness.

John 3:19"This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.

The rest of “for God so loved the world” that few care to read anymore because it doesn’t fit the sweet sentiment of the preceding verses. We love our sin. That’s why we don’t believe. Under every philosophical argument, there it is.

Heb 9:27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

It seemed very clear to me, many years ago, that everyone would die once, to be resurrected again through Christ into a kingdom where they would finally have a true chance to choose – or not – to serve God. Judgment was thusly explained away as that kingdom where people would be rewarded or punished fairly according to what they did at that time, all prior sins washed away. Like the “Judges” period in Israel, where the people were ruled by tribal authorities and disputes decided by God-appointed judges.

But virtually everywhere else, judgment is as it sounds, simply that: a judgment declaring true or false (where there is question of fact) or right or wrong (after some crime has occurred) hardly different than our own judges do now. Judgment is rendered, after a work. It should send up great warning flags that if every time we hear a biblical word like “judgment” or “hell” written in a in a clear, plain, simple verse; that if we have to go into entire speeches and pages and books of explanation before we feel comfortable using them, something is wrong with our method of interpretation.

Everyone dies once. Salvation is from the sins of this life only. And salvation is for those who are waiting for Christ.

Heb 2:14 Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— 15 and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. 16 For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. 17 For this reason he had to be made like them,[k] fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.

An ancient Jew would have seen the atonement, that annual sacrifice applied to Israel and no other. Israel was not a picture of a bigger salvation, but a picture of saving the smaller group of believers out of a larger world of unbelievers.

Rom 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? 25 As he says in Hosea:

“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;

and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[i]

26 and,

“In the very place where it was said to them,

‘You are not my people,’

there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”

That ancient Jew would have understood this, what we forgot: that salvation was for the Jewish people alone; that Gentiles would have to become part of Israel to be saved. What he wouldn’t understand until Christ was how; and that was that God, choosing people out of mercy, would include them through their faith in an Israel defined not by blood relation to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but by the Holy Spirit. (see the end of Romans 11: “so all Israel will be saved”).

Gal 3:7 Understand, then, that those who have faith are children of Abraham. 8 Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”[d] 9 So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.

Along with everyone else I perverted this promise, determining that “all the nations will be blessed” must mean that everyone who ever lived on earth would be blessed. That because (Gal 3:29) we also become Abraham’s seed, we must be doing the blessing of the nations. But if God is permitted to interpret his own promise, it is crystal clear in the preceding verses that the promise is fulfilled through the salvation of people within the nations. Abraham’s children are not meant to be just a blessing to others, but they are the blessed people promised to Abraham, by the One Seed, which is Jesus. And so we are the heirs, being blessed by Christ, according to that promise.

Rev 20:7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison

Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

The message I preached was that all of the poor unbelievers of this world would be resurrected into a 1000-year kingdom where Satan was restricted and Christ alone ruled, along with his Church. This was THE GOSPEL that set me apart from every other Christian – that we believed, mercifully, in a happy salvation for those who weren’t given enough “light”. Everything depended on the 1000 years being for the salvation of those who didn’t believe in this world. This would be “their time”.

Very few Christians know much prophecy about the last days of the earth, and my Gospel message depended heavily upon prophecy.

And yet, the ONLY place in the Bible that ever describes about the 1000 years (by that name) is very clear: unbelievers will be resurrected AFTER the 1000 years is finished. You can make your explanations about what judgment they can expect (that its not a rendered judgment but maybe a period) but the 1000 years, the heart of the Brethren’s gospel message, is not for a resurrected unbelieving world.

I haven’t heard one explanation to defend the gospel I grew up with, that wouldn’t make for pages and chapters to produce some explanation why this really can’t mean what it says plainly.

Finally, regarding the Gospel of Jesus Christ,

Matt 3: 1 In those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea 2 and saying, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Matt 4:17 From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.”

Paul’s evangelism of Governor Felix went this way: Acts 24:24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He sent for Paul and listened to him as he spoke about faith in Christ Jesus. 25 As Paul talked about righteousness, self-control and the judgment to come, Felix was afraid and said, “That’s enough for now! You may leave. When I find it convenient, I will send for you.”

Instead of “Repent for the kingdom of God is near” the Brethren preach the 1000 year Kingdom for unbelievers is near. Their message, my former message, was one of hope and comfort for any who did not believe in God. This is in the tradition of Jer 6:14 and 8:11, proclaiming “Peace, peace”, trivializing the pains in this world, when destruction is coming.

Heb 6:1 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,[b] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Note that eternal judgment is considered an elementary and foundational teaching, along with the fact that the dead can and will be resurrected.

1 Cor 15:20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

I was quick to accept the “party line” that v22 means that everyone on earth who ever lived will be resurrected (to anything resembling free life – there is clearly a second resurrection to judgment), despite that “all in Adam” and “all in Christ” is the proper interpretation. That all are “resurrected” is no comfort unless both resurrections are described positively.

1 Cor 15:23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

The only ones resurrected in a positive sense after Christ are those who belong to them. Everyone else is wrapped up in “the end”. If this isn’t enough then the next verses show that the only resurrection Paul has in mind is a resurrection for believers to glory.

Finally, despite Immanuel meaning “God with us” and many references to Jesus’ Godly, eternal and uncreated nature:

John 1:3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

Neither I nor my wife recall hearing any of the Brethren willingly and easily admit the above, and call Jesus simply “My Lord and my God” or “our great God and Savior”. If they have to say it, it will always be accompanied by long explanations of how Jesus is god but not God and that he wasn’t always god. They can use the same words but their hearts are not in it.

2 Cor 11:3 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the Spirit you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

It has taken me a long time to accept that where you cannot preach the Gospel as simply as the prophets, apostles and Messiah preached it, if you cannot even call Jesus by the simple terms his own people used, then this cannot be and is fundamentally incompatible with and opposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I am often reminded, as I was yesterday, of why I left a fairly comfortable way of living and thinking, even many people I love and those I grew up with considering them my own family, of close bonds and sweet, shared memories. Largely, it is from the need to speak the truth, but the smaller part is one of a certain regret and sadness; a feeling of betraying the goodwill and friendships of those I spoke to, offering false assurances that eased me even more than they and left them no better off for having met me.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. 9As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Sometimes good news isn’t. And sometimes the hardest news is the best when it has the power to heal.