Try as I might, I’ve been unable to find explanations of such core Christian doctrines as the Fall of Man and the Atonement that make sense to me – i.e., that are intellectually satisfying even to someone who would sincerely like to believe them. Many years ago – after a postgraduate stint at a Baptist seminary, active involvement with Campus Crusade for Christ and my own studies of such heavyweight theologians as Barth and Tillich – I finally said: “I’m no longer going to pretend to believe things that are contrary to common sense and logic, my own life experience and my innate sense of what any creator of the universe could possibly be like. I’m no longer going to try to believe things that I simply can’t believe.”
I didn’t make these statements in an arrogant way. I remember many times, when I was active in Campus Crusade or a student at the Baptist seminary, saying to my wife: “In some ways, it would be great to be as simple as these folks seem to be. In some ways, I really envy their ability to accept without question things that strike me as utterly unbelievable.” And I meant it. How much simpler life would be if one could cling to the Bible as though every line were the inerrant Word of God and to the Sunday School view of reality preached in a Baptist church. But I, at least, just couldn’t do it – and I could no longer even pretend to do it without feeling as though I was being completely untrue to myself and perhaps risking serious mental problems. I decided to move forward with Paul Tillich's fundamental question as my starting-point: "Why is there anything? Why is there not nothing at all?"
These days, I say that Christianity is the “template” for my beliefs. By this, I mean that Christianity does indeed explain the world in which we live better than any other religion or belief system I’ve studied. It does seem to me that we live in a created universe, that there is a benevolent intelligence behind it, that there is a genuine (non-illusory) distinction between good and evil, and that our world is moving ever-more-rapidly down the path toward the sort of living hell that the Bible predicts for the end times. I believe that the Bible is “true” in some broad theological sense. I can accept that Jesus embodies the qualities of the creator and somehow reconciles me to the creator. I try to live my life as though all this were true, which is my definition of "faith." Beyond this, I suspect – on the basis of my own common sense and logic and my own life experiences (including a fair number of paranormal experiences) – that the ultimate explanation is way more mysterious than anything being preached from the pulpit of any church.
Does this sort of attitude force me to “pick and choose” the parts of the Bible that I find convincing? A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y. Does it put me in the role of the pot questioning the potter? Undoubtedly it does. Are some of my beliefs well outside of the Christian mainstream? Indeed they are. After many, many years of serious study, for example, I find that the evidence for reincarnation is compelling. Does the fact that I’m a “picking-and-choosing, potter-questioning, reincarnationist, Christian-template believer” bother me at all? Not a bit – I believe that a refusal to abandon common sense and logic, a determination to rely on my own life experiences and studies and to follow the evidence wherever it leads me has strengthened my faith that there is a creator and an afterlife and that our lives have meaning and purpose. I know that this approach gave me and my wife a depth of faith that sustained us through seven years of her breast cancer and eventual death in a way that completely amazed her caregivers and that I’m confident a more superficial religiosity would not have done.
Looking at doctrines such as the Fall of Man and the Atonement in conservative Christian terms, I’m curious as to what sense anyone thinks they make? Taking these doctrines at face value, the creator of the universe allowed a purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to beguile the first woman into disobeying the creator’s command not to eat the fruit of a particularly attractive tree. When the naive woman (who, by definition, didn’t know the difference between good and evil) succumbed to the urgings of this purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being (as the omniscient creator had always known she would), the creator decided her single act of disobedience had somehow infected mankind for all eternity. Some vast period of time later, the creator made everything OK, at least from his perspective, by sending his son to die on the cross and by this act somehow redeeming mankind and rectifying all wrongs. But thereafter, the creator allowed the purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to continue to roam the planet for at least 2000+ years, wreaking havoc and leading souls astray while the creator tried to win these souls for himself by working through those who believed in his son and were willing to spread the message of salvation.
Hello? Does this actually strike you as making any sense? Do you have any intelligent response beyond, “That’s what the Bible says, pal – and therefore I believe it”? Believe me, I’m not being hostile here. I was astounded when I began my serious study of doctrines such as the Fall and the Atonement to find that there are several, largely inconsistent “theories” as to what they mean and how they work – i.e., there is nothing vaguely resembling agreement, even among theologians. And none of it made sense to me, except at the level of: “Well, let’s at least see if we can try to logically connect the dots in some mathematical-equation sort of way that doesn’t make the core doctrines sound completely absurd.”
What does make sense to me is that the creator’s purpose for all of creation (i.e., angels and humans alike) is to produce beings who have made a conscious choice between good and evil and established their worthiness to be part of his kingdom. Without a dimension of evil, there would be no opportunity to make moral choices and accomplish spiritual growth. So I don’t believe that “Satan and his minions” are “at war with the creator” in any sense resembling that in which a typical Christian uses these phrases; I believe that evil is an integral part of the creator’s plan for creation and serves the creator’s purpose. The “Fall” occurs on an individual basis. I further believe that Jesus is the creator’s illustration to mankind of what “godliness” looks like, as well as the creator’s message to mankind that those who fail to measure up to this standard can still be accepted into the kingdom. This to me is the “Atonement.” I realize that this is scarcely mainstream Christianity, and I’m not trying to convert anyone – which is why I always jokingly describe myself as nothing more than Pastor Lance of The Church of What Lance Believes.
But I would be curious to know how those of reasonable intelligence who have given serious thought to the matter are able to cling to traditional notions of the Fall of Man and the Atonement.
I didn’t make these statements in an arrogant way. I remember many times, when I was active in Campus Crusade or a student at the Baptist seminary, saying to my wife: “In some ways, it would be great to be as simple as these folks seem to be. In some ways, I really envy their ability to accept without question things that strike me as utterly unbelievable.” And I meant it. How much simpler life would be if one could cling to the Bible as though every line were the inerrant Word of God and to the Sunday School view of reality preached in a Baptist church. But I, at least, just couldn’t do it – and I could no longer even pretend to do it without feeling as though I was being completely untrue to myself and perhaps risking serious mental problems. I decided to move forward with Paul Tillich's fundamental question as my starting-point: "Why is there anything? Why is there not nothing at all?"
These days, I say that Christianity is the “template” for my beliefs. By this, I mean that Christianity does indeed explain the world in which we live better than any other religion or belief system I’ve studied. It does seem to me that we live in a created universe, that there is a benevolent intelligence behind it, that there is a genuine (non-illusory) distinction between good and evil, and that our world is moving ever-more-rapidly down the path toward the sort of living hell that the Bible predicts for the end times. I believe that the Bible is “true” in some broad theological sense. I can accept that Jesus embodies the qualities of the creator and somehow reconciles me to the creator. I try to live my life as though all this were true, which is my definition of "faith." Beyond this, I suspect – on the basis of my own common sense and logic and my own life experiences (including a fair number of paranormal experiences) – that the ultimate explanation is way more mysterious than anything being preached from the pulpit of any church.
Does this sort of attitude force me to “pick and choose” the parts of the Bible that I find convincing? A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y. Does it put me in the role of the pot questioning the potter? Undoubtedly it does. Are some of my beliefs well outside of the Christian mainstream? Indeed they are. After many, many years of serious study, for example, I find that the evidence for reincarnation is compelling. Does the fact that I’m a “picking-and-choosing, potter-questioning, reincarnationist, Christian-template believer” bother me at all? Not a bit – I believe that a refusal to abandon common sense and logic, a determination to rely on my own life experiences and studies and to follow the evidence wherever it leads me has strengthened my faith that there is a creator and an afterlife and that our lives have meaning and purpose. I know that this approach gave me and my wife a depth of faith that sustained us through seven years of her breast cancer and eventual death in a way that completely amazed her caregivers and that I’m confident a more superficial religiosity would not have done.
Looking at doctrines such as the Fall of Man and the Atonement in conservative Christian terms, I’m curious as to what sense anyone thinks they make? Taking these doctrines at face value, the creator of the universe allowed a purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to beguile the first woman into disobeying the creator’s command not to eat the fruit of a particularly attractive tree. When the naive woman (who, by definition, didn’t know the difference between good and evil) succumbed to the urgings of this purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being (as the omniscient creator had always known she would), the creator decided her single act of disobedience had somehow infected mankind for all eternity. Some vast period of time later, the creator made everything OK, at least from his perspective, by sending his son to die on the cross and by this act somehow redeeming mankind and rectifying all wrongs. But thereafter, the creator allowed the purely evil, supernaturally intelligent being to continue to roam the planet for at least 2000+ years, wreaking havoc and leading souls astray while the creator tried to win these souls for himself by working through those who believed in his son and were willing to spread the message of salvation.
Hello? Does this actually strike you as making any sense? Do you have any intelligent response beyond, “That’s what the Bible says, pal – and therefore I believe it”? Believe me, I’m not being hostile here. I was astounded when I began my serious study of doctrines such as the Fall and the Atonement to find that there are several, largely inconsistent “theories” as to what they mean and how they work – i.e., there is nothing vaguely resembling agreement, even among theologians. And none of it made sense to me, except at the level of: “Well, let’s at least see if we can try to logically connect the dots in some mathematical-equation sort of way that doesn’t make the core doctrines sound completely absurd.”
What does make sense to me is that the creator’s purpose for all of creation (i.e., angels and humans alike) is to produce beings who have made a conscious choice between good and evil and established their worthiness to be part of his kingdom. Without a dimension of evil, there would be no opportunity to make moral choices and accomplish spiritual growth. So I don’t believe that “Satan and his minions” are “at war with the creator” in any sense resembling that in which a typical Christian uses these phrases; I believe that evil is an integral part of the creator’s plan for creation and serves the creator’s purpose. The “Fall” occurs on an individual basis. I further believe that Jesus is the creator’s illustration to mankind of what “godliness” looks like, as well as the creator’s message to mankind that those who fail to measure up to this standard can still be accepted into the kingdom. This to me is the “Atonement.” I realize that this is scarcely mainstream Christianity, and I’m not trying to convert anyone – which is why I always jokingly describe myself as nothing more than Pastor Lance of The Church of What Lance Believes.
But I would be curious to know how those of reasonable intelligence who have given serious thought to the matter are able to cling to traditional notions of the Fall of Man and the Atonement.
Last edited:
