Back
to Sept.2 Dailogue
Let me start by saying that I briefly browsed your web site, and this message is not intended to criticize "everything" you believe.
That being said, I must tell you that my heart breaks for you.
Dale, you are obviously a learned individual. You are strenuously testing the boundaries of religion in order to grasp a sense of balance that puts all human perceptions of truth to the test. But sadly, the tools you have chosen for your monumental endeavor are hopelessly unsuitable to the task.
Faith is the only currency that exists in the kingdom of God. This is the only tool you need to know God. You might be thinking, "I have faith." Do you? I believe, that your very own words reveal that you do not. You state that you do not believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God, because you don't understand how God could say that dashing children against the rocks is a "blessed pursuit." First of all, if I'm not mistaken, you're referring to Psalm 137. This is not represented in the bible as the voice of God, but, as I'm sure you're aware, God is represented as saying even harsher things in many other scriptures. The point here is that you refuse to believe because you don't understand.
Faith is belief, in spite of what your senses reveal. You will never know God, or the Truth, if you rely only on what "makes sense" to you.
Herein, lies the "Stumbling Stone" that keeps so many of us seperated from the presence and will of God. If we believe in things that we do not understand, what's to keep us from falling for every two bit lie that comes along? The answer is no more than three words. "The Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit is our only protection from deception. The Holy Spirit is a gift from God. You can't earn Him, and you can't learn Him. He is an operation of grace, and grace only goes where it is "needed." When grace is "needed" it is a "double portion," and it fills us with more light, love and Truth than all the cumulative "theology" of mankind. (For a beautiful illustration of this truth, read 1st Samuel, chapter one) The Pharisees rejected Jesus, because His claim to deity "didn't make sense." After all, the true Messiah must come from Bethlehem, and, as far as they "knew," Jesus was from Nazareth. Why didn't Jesus set them straight? Because, he knew that what they lacked was not information, but faith. They lacked faith because they did not have the Spirit of God in them, and they did not have the Spirit of God because they lacked faith. Thus the paradox that has plagued religion and philosophy ever since. The Cornerstone became the Stumbling Stone. If they had had faith, they would have recognized Jesus for Who He was, not by the senses, but by the Spirit.
So, is faith an exclusive club where we accept or reject ideas without having to defend our positions? Absolutely not! The bible admonishes us to "rightly divide the word of truth," and to "defend the faith." I am more than willing to back up everything I've said with "proof." I can give you all the information to support my arguments, but I can't give you faith. Only God can can do that, and that He does according to His will and pleasure.
Dale, I tell you in all sincerity:
1) The bible is the infallible word of God.
2) Jesus is not just a consciousness, or a concept. He is a real man, Who was really crucified for our sins, and Who was really raised from the dead by His Father, and Who is really God in the flesh.
3) Jesus is the only way to God, and there is "no other name" in heaven or earth by which you "must" be saved.
4) You will never find the "Truth" in other traditions, ancient or new.
5) People like "Matthew Fox" and "Tony Campolo" are as blind as the sun is hot. The book of Jude was written about just such men. Their beliefs, no matter how well intentioned, can only lead to bitter darkness and alienation from God.
The statements above may amuse you, they may hurt your feelings, or they may make you angry. But, I tell you solemnly, they are the truth. The Holy Spirit in me bears witness to that fact. I do not mention these things because I wish to alienate or condemn you. I mention these things because I long to see your heart and mind opened to the "reality" of the "person" of God. You may not like the God I've described, but that's not the issue. If what I say is true, you must learn to deal with the Truth; Who is Jesus Christ.
Mans' six working days are just about spent, and a "great mystery" is about to be revealed. You won't find this revelation in a church pew or a seminary. The measuring line has been laid and the "outer court" is about to be trampled under foot. This revelation is so wonderful, so life changing, so radical that most will miss it, at first. Why? Because the only place you can receive the revelation of this mystery is in the all consuming presence of God, and the only way into the presence of God is in Jesus. Don't let the deceiver cheat you out of a crown. Believe in Jesus, not as a concept, but as a person - in spite of what your "fallen senses" tell you, and He will reveal Himself to you. Set aside every preconceived notion, and ask Him to give you the faith that you don't have. I am convinced He will.
Sincerely - Phil Chapman
At 03:49 AM 8/10/96 -0700, you wrote:
It seems Phil, that your faith relies on a particular understanding of "truth" for you as well, so I believe you are indeed a victim of the same malady you accuse me of. But, as it stands, I find there to be so much more to faith than you seem to by your assesment of mine. There is so much to be expressed, and I have only begun. If yu would only take the time to ask some more personal questions about my walk with God, you would understand a bit more about my "faith", but you instead have chosen to do exactly that of which you accuse me, and that is to identify faith with intellectual theology, and that is a grave error.
And just what is my "understanding" then that is in error? You mean I do not understand in terms of a particular theology, and on that count you are right. I undertand the notion of inspiration in entirely different concepts than yourself. I have a theology which receives the Bible as the most extraordinary collection of documents about the human journey with God that has ever been assembled. I find it extraordinary (inspirational, educational, insightful, valuable, indeed "the word of God") because it is extremely honest about the failings as well as the triumphs of the people of God, and that it constantly reaffirms the journey of faith as a community endeavor, and constantly reaffirms our interdependence.
You seem to have contradicted yourself here. You just said that in order to have faith, it doesn't have to make sense. Then you say we have to undertstand, but you do not distinguish "making sense" and "understanding". So you see, there is a linguistic flaw in your argument as well.
I agree with you about the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is a gift from God, and you can't earn or learn the Spirit.
So why do you claim that you have, and apparently have "learned Him" enough to determine that I do not have faith. Whether or not I have faith is much more complex than whether or not I articulate and verbalize what the faith journey means to me in terms sufficiently similar to yours.
It would help, then , if you would apply this to your own assement of me and realize that the relationship betwen God and myself is very much filled with "light, love, and Truth, far beyond the capability of either you OR MYSELF to capture in words (which is, if you read further in my Web, is precisely the message I try to convey about the advantages of hypertext: it is a better (and yet still not perfect) vehicle for expression and communication of the faith journey than that of traditional print. If the Bible were redone starting in 1996, the existence of the vehicle of hypertext and the computer network culture we have as a major media for writing, the process and the coverage of the events would be be closer to the things at which our present "Printed Word". To put it a better way: If hypertext and computer networks had existed in 2000 BC, the Bible itself would not only be read differently (ie. all the text covering history of the people, the epistles and the gospels, etc) but would be better understood, since the characteristics of hypertext would make it easier to "link" experiences among the writers of the different scriptures, and make it more apparent what the context of their stories were.
NOw if you think that makes me sound like someone who "doesn't believe the Bible, then you simply fail to understand the history of literacy and the impact of today's culture on the transmission of thought (media).
I am not claiming to be Jesus, but you seem to leave no room for the possibility that you are misunderstanding me because you are using the same method to find error in what I have said that the Pharisees used to pick on Jesus: a particular "subsystem" of theological affirmations that exclude certain types of emphases, look with suspicion on advocates of such and such a view (or "hints" of it in the terminology I use)
But Phil, the difficult part is separating our own "feeling" from the Spirit of God, and it is there the danger lies. I do not question "faith" in the lives of the more conservative theological people because it is not in the thelogical systems that they have constructed that faith exists. It is in their sense of the presence of God, and in their daily life choices to live out of the "call" they sense to move toward lifestyles and choices that relect the Kingdom of God rather than cultural values (and these too are often confused, with theologies adopting cultural values and making them dogma, "baptizing them" into the system).
But what gets me is that so many conservative theological folks want to do just that (question faith) to those whose theological expressions are different from their own, as if it is the system which constitutes faith.
Phil, all that is in total contradiction. You starteed by telling me that I don't have faith, and then you argue that by talking to me about theological statements.
Phil, you totally missed my theology on that one. I AGREE with that Phil! Is the fact that I describe Jesus with theological terms unused or unfamilar by yourself that you think I believe otherwise. You seem to be working on the assumptions of stereotypes of theological types, and since I use this set of terms rather than some other, you pigeon hole me as a certain type.
YOu missed that one too, becuase I explicitly say "I believe that Jesus is the way" and the only way.
>4) You will never find the "Truth" in other traditions, ancient or new.
Funny, that's just what the Pharisees said.
Oh yeah,, Campolo is a real meanie, with all that inner city work, preaching Jesus to them and taking the gospel to Haiti and helping them create jobs and stuff. Darkness. Evil. GIve me a break Phil.
All of the above.
But, I tell you solemnly, they are the truth.
If you say so. But Phil, you are one who confuses piety with faith, and belief with intellect.
Perhaps some, but also a lot of that comes from your own mind, and your confusion of your sense of solidarity with your "troops" with "the truth"
Can't you see how condescending that is? I know God intimately....not well enough or completely enough.....but Intimately. For you to smugly sit there and say " I long to see your heart and mind opened to the "reality" of the
"person" of God " is so self righteous, give the fact that I have spent my entire post high school life (now 23 years) growing in the journey of the people of God, studying what that might mean in today's culture, and seeking to experiment with the various electronic media in order to bring the message of the Gospel to the world in the communications tools of the day.
It certainly isn't
If what I say is true, you must learn to deal with the Truth;
>Who is Jesus Christ.
Jesus is the Truth, yes, but quite a bit more complex than you have presented
> Set aside every preconceived notion, and ask Him to give you the faith that you don't have. I am convinced He will.
Phil, I have, I do, and I will. But ask God Phil, for yourself, just what of your own system is "preconceived notion". I've been through what it looks to me that you are in right now in terms of the journey of faith. The system which you have built around your concept of faith seems very familiar to me, and yet I have come to integrate the best of that with what has come since then. You give me the sense that you do not feel there is much to add to your understanding of the journey of faith, and I feel that there is a lifetime, and that the revelation of God is ongoing, always evolving just ahead of humanity, calling us forward to the great purposes God has for us.
PHil, take some time to read some of my stuff on the CHurch of the Saviour (but if you think Campolo is such a dangerous character, you may not appreciate them either) but that church is THE best example I have seen in American society of a community which truly puts the Kingdom of God first, and does more ministry healing the wounds of the society and the culture around them than I have ever seen in other "churches". Their concept of faith is "Journey Inward, Journey Outward",, which emphasizes the communal walk with God, and discovering each other's calling in life. Individual devotion, group discernment, social engagement, which is shared, explored, prayed about, waited upon, discerned again and acted upon, and around and around, and repeated.
Phil, be careful of accusing "You lack faith". Faith is what drives me to attempt this electronic experiment in the first place. Faith is what keeps me going, keeps me appreciative of life, enables me to raise my son and love my wife (and her me) through thick and thin (in contrast to our "throw away" society where divorce is just one more convenience choice"
Dale Lature wrote:
>
I never said that faith did not rise from from a particular set of beliefs. I said that you do not have to "understand" those beliefs to have faith in them. If you do understand them, great. If you don't understand them, then you can rely on the Holy Spirit to guide you in the more confusing areas. My faith relys on a very child like belief that if God created "all" life, as the bible says He did, that He is more than capable of preserving the written record of His Love song to man, which bears the name of His beloved Son. I never said that faith was devoid of understanding, I said that faith is the pathway to understanding, not the other way around. The crux of the matter is very simple. Either the bible is the infallible word of God or ir isn't. This is not a matter of some "particular" understanding, it is a clear choice. The bible says that "every scripture is "God-breathed." If it is God-breathed, it is either the infallible utterance of God or a changeable, fallible utterance that may be inspiring, but in the end is no more powerful or far reaching than the life experience of its' authors. There is much in the bible that I don't understand, but I believe that it is the infallible word of God, and I am confident if I remain steadfast in my faith, all truth will be revealed to me; according to Gods' will and pleasure. Faith confidently hopes for that which is not "seen", intellect "looks" for confident hope. God is not known by the intellect.
When we read statements like this, which are scattered throughout the bible, our first reaction is to attempt to reconcile this with the concept of a loving God. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact, God admonishes us to seek and keep on seeking. All I'm saying is that "fallibility" is not the "only" explanation for why this passage disturbs you. Faith persists where intellect expires. The bible says that every scripture is God-breathed. Believe it, and God will "prove it!" Believe me, this is not about proving I'm right. If you see someone driving down the road without their lights on, your first reaction is to flash your lights and honk your horn; not because you wish to embarrass them, show them up, or prove you know something they do not. You flash your lights because you are concerned for them, and because you believe that they would surely not "choose" to drive without their lights if they knew better. My only motivation for taking the time correspond with you is concern for your well being. If I'm wrong, then my only crime is misguided concern. I bear you no ill will.
Again, you may find the bible inspirational; but inspiration never raised "anybody" from the dead. Only the "ressurrection life" can do that, and that's the story of the bible. The bible is not about mans' quest for God, it's about Gods' quest for man! We will never find faith through community, we will find community through faith. As far as "interdependence" goes: If Abraham and Sarah had depended on each other, the bible would have been a short story. They had "no life in them." Neither do we. Life is not dependent on our relationships with others, it is dependent on our relationship with God.
All I'm saying is if something doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean it's not of God. The bible constantly warns us to be on guard against deception. Deception comes in two forms.
1) Believing a lie to be the truth.
2) Believing the truth to be a lie.
I think that both of us would agree that neither one of us has come to know the fulness of God. Until we do, our senses will "tend" to betray us. That's why faith, under the operation of the Holy Spirit is so important.
Obviously I did a poor job of articulating my point. Let me try again. In order to have faith, it doesn't have to make sense, but if we are to have faith in truths that do not yet make sense to us, if we are to hope for things not yet seen, we need some way to verify the veracity of our beliefs. Our "verification" is the "Holy Spirit," who bears witness to us of mysteries "not yet revealed." We know something is true because the Holy Spirit tells us it's true; not because our intellect tells us it's true.
Again, the bible says that "every" scripture is God-breathed. There is no room for equivocation here. Either this is true or it isn't. If it's true, you - by your own admission - do not believe it; and that is a lack of faith; according to the bible. Jesus continually reproved people, not just because they didn't believe the evidence of His deity, but because they did not believe "what He said." (John 4:48) Faith is not complex, reasoning is complex. In all due respect, it doesn't matter what faith means to you or me or anyone else. That would be defining faith by our own personal preferences. The bible "clearly" defines what faith is, and the only way to dispute that definition is to render the bible "inspirational" as opposed to "infallible." When I say you cannot "learn" the Holy Spirit, I do not mean you cannot grow acquainted with Him on a deep personal basis; rather I mean He communes with your spirit, not your intellect.
I'll address the grace issue a little further on. First, I think you may have misunderstood part of my e-mail. When I referred to the tools you were using, to find God, as "unsuitable;" I was not referring to your website or your use of modern tools like hypertext. I was referring to the earthly tools of "intellect" and "reason." However, since you mentioned it, it's worth remembering that if God truly is the God described in the bible, He was well aware of the internet and hypertext before the world was even created. Still, He chose to reveal Himself long before the advent of such things. Why? Because the truth is known by the spirit, and is not dependent on technology. He gave us His Word as a gift, and God never gives imperfect gifts. His Word reads exactly the way He wants it to read. He reveals it to whomever He pleases and He shrouds it from whomever He pleases. Historical context can be very illuminating, but not apart from the illumination of the Holy Spirit. David, Job, Isaiah, Paul and countless others did not just write from personal experience; they wrote of things which had not yet been revealed. Yet, time and time again they have been proven right.
If I think you sound like someone who doesn't believe the bible, it's because you said so yourself. You said you didn't believe "every" scripture is the Word of God, when in fact the bible says exactly the opposite. You said you didn't think we should get hung up on the name of Jesus, when the bible says there is "no other name in Heaven or in earth by which you must be saved." This is what the bible says, clearly and plainly. You tell me, do you believe it or not?
I'm not disagreeing with you because your arguments don't make sense, I'm disagreeing with you because they don't agree with the Word of God. If we just take the examples in my previous comments; you show me how your beliefs about the bible and the name of Jesus are in harmony with the strikingly "unnebulous" passages I sighted and I will be happy to apologize for misunderstanding you.
You're absolutely correct. In fact, I can hear the Pharisees saying the same thing. They probably said: "We can't go by our feelings here." "It doesn't matter how many miracles He does." It doesn't matter that we can find no fault in Him." "He's not from Bethlehem, so He can't be the Messiah." "Case closed." These are all very good arguments, and they make alot of sense. It wasn't their fault that Jesus never bothered to let them know He was actually born in Bethlehem. But they were condemned just the same. Why? Because they did not believe. Jesus "expected them to believe in something that didn't make sense." Doesn't sound fair does it? It didn't sound fair to them either. Jesus was asking them to risk possible deception to believe in Him, when as far as they knew, He didn't even meet the most basic qualification to be Messiah. The fact that seperating the voice of the Spirit from the voice of self can be difficult is only a testament to the fact that there is a very real difference. The truth is not changeable, or malleable. It is not defined by our personal experiences or traditions. It is defined by the Word of God. When you decide to "pick and choose" which scriptures are valid and which scriptures aren't, you make the process of recognizing the voice of the Spirit impossible. By believing only what you know, you block the Spirit from revealing what you don't know. You might say that the Pharisees disbelieved Jesus on the basis of scripture, but that's not an accurate representation. They disbelieved Jesus on the basis of a "small" portion of scriptures, while their lives were a testament to the fact that they had created a self serving religious system that disregarded much of the scripture. In their own vanity, they had decided to "pick and choose" the truth, and because they loved not the truth, they had no truth in them. If you can show me how my belief in the infallibility of the Word of God and my belief in the importance of the name of Jesus disagrees with even one scripture, I'm more than willing to change my beliefs. On the other hand, if you can't; I humbly suggest; If the shoe fits...
I do not question "faith"
Imagine, for a moment, that it's many years down the road. One of your children comes to you and your wife and says: "Mom, Dad, I just want to let you know how much I love you. You both have been a great inspiration to me. I want you to know, though, that I understand that you're not perfect. You see, I've been seeing a counselor, and under hypnosis, I've begun to remember how you both abused me when I was a child. At first I thought I'd never forgive you, but now I see you were only reacting to the abuse you received as children. I've decided to forgive you and put the past behind. I have faith that you are no longer abusive and that you are truly sorry for what you did. I've explained the situation to my kids and my siblings and they support me 100%. I just pray that you can forgive yourselves, so we can get on with our lives."
Imagine the horror of such a scenario. Further, imagine that your child will not believe you, no matter how much you attempt to convince him/her of the truth. Of course, you know you never abused your children, but what can you say? You certainly can't say your child doesn't accept you. But does your child accept you in reality or fantasy? It appears your child loves you, but does your child love you for who you really are? It's obvious your child doesn't know you for who you really are. On the surface, it appears your child has great faith in you. But is it really faith if it causes them to disregard the truth of what you tell them (that you never abused them) to believe the lie of their senses?
God is not interested in mere acknowledgement. He is interested in being acknowledged for Who He really is, in the person of Jesus Christ. Faith that trusts the senses more than the Word of God is not faith at all. It is frail, human reasoning.
I said you lacked faith because your belief, that not all scripture is "God-breathed," directly contradicts the Word of God. You have chosen to disregard the bibles very clear statement that every scripture is God breathed, because you cannot presently reconcile that with your concept of God. That is a lack of faith. That is trusting your own understanding more than the Word of God.
I guess you need to explain what you meant when you disregarded the passage from Psalm 137 as obviously not of God. If that is what you really believe, then you have pronounced the bible fallible, in contradiction to the passage I sighted.
As far as your beliefs about Jesus. I'm glad to hear that we feel the same, but I'm also a bit curious. If you believe the above statements about Jesus, why make the point that we shouldn't get hung up on the name of Jesus, when the bible states exactly the opposite. If the above statements are true, He certainly deserves the credit. After all, if you told me you had a gift for a friend of mine, and all he had to do was stop by and ask for it; I certainly wouldn't tell him to ask for "Jim," I'd tell him to ask for "Dale." Because that's your name. I can't recall one instance where Jesus changed His name to accomodate the "traditions" of the person He was talking to. God was well aware of the names Buddha, Shiva, and Mohammed, but not once - in all the bible - does He mention their names as acceptable alternatives to Jesus. Why? Because each of these "traditions" denies that Jesus is the Son of God and, in fact, that He is God in the flesh. They didn't just change the name, they changed the truth!
No, the Pharisees denied that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. Exactly what other "traditions" do.
Ghandi helped many, and he even spoke of Jesus; but when it came right down to it he rejected the deity of Jesus, which means he never "really" knew Him. No matter how much we may dislike the characterization, sin is evil; and sin is the rejection of God. If you reject Jesus, you reject God. If you believe Jesus is God in the flesh you cannot escape this fact. I never said Tony Campolo was a "meanie." You don't have to be mean to be hopelessly blind. He can do all the good works in the world and it will never put him in right relationship with God. I've listened to Tony Campolo speak on two notable occasions, and I was very disheartened at his ignorance of the character of God. He may preach Jesus, but not the Jesus of the bible.
I think I've covered these issues, sufficiently, in my statements above.
Whether my words are inspired by the Holy Spirit or not remains to be seen. I'm confident that all truth will soon be revealed and, conversely, all falsehood will be exposed. However, I'll continue to seek the Lord in His Word and in prayer. If He shows me that I am misguided, decieved, or stubborn in any of these areas, I'll be the first one to admit it; to you and anyone else I've mentioned.
As far as my solidarity with my "troops." I belong to no church, no political organization or citizens movement. When I came to the Lord, I didn't come in the name of Abraham, David, John, Paul, Mary, Luther, Weseley, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, or Jesse Jackson. I came in the name of Jesus. I'm not a member of the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Pentecostals, the Mormons, or any other denomination. I'm a member of the family of God. I don't vote, I pray. If I am united with anyone, it is because we are united in the Truth, Who is Jesus Christ. Unity is the fruit, not the seed.
Josephs' brothers thought that he was smug, condescending and self righteous too. Say what you will, he was right. The difference between my message and his is that I haven't postured myself as a king you'll never be. If I'm wrong, then my words are smug, condescending, and self righteous. If I'm right, my words are based in Truth and Love. Not once have I condemned you to a life without God. All I've done is challenge you to reassess your position.
I'm more than willing to hear how the "complexity" of Jesus changes the truth of any statement I've made.
Since I became a Christian, I have watched as one preconceived notion after another has fallen. All inventions of my intellect, reason, and emotions. However, these notions collapsed - not in the light of other traditions - but in the light of the Word of God. Every answer to every question is found in the bible. I have no need to look anywhere else, and neither do you.
I'll take a look.
The bible says that what is in the heart proceeds from the lips. There is no getting around this truth. Faith that is not founded on the "whole" Word of God is a shallow pool. It may carry you through a variety of perplexing troubles and tribulations, but when the Sun "truly" begins to scorch the earth - and it soon will - that shallow pool will be depleted very quickly.
My only desire is to uphold the message of the "Word of God." I'm sure you feel the same way. If my words seem harsh, it's because time is short and the stakes are high. If you truly believe the above statements are not in harmony with the Word of God, provide me with some details. I'm always ready to listen.
Sincerely - Phil
Subject: God vs Theology Part 3
Dear Dale,
Sincerely - Phil
