The Anti-Sex Attitudes That Harm Religion

             This is an essay about the sexually oppressive attitudes found in fundamentalist Christianity (as well as in the more conservative sects of other religions). I will explain why I don’t think the Bible actually promotes such restriction. In writing this, I have no intention to bash Christianity or any other faith. I also won’t preach to anyone or claim that something is true simply because the Bible “says” so. I’m just going to explain, to the best of my knowledge, what it really reads. You can use this information however you wish. Ideally, this perspective will be refreshing. If you and a fundamentalist are discussing a sexual topic, this essay may be a useful resource. If you are religious and feel burdened by sexual constraints, I hope this piece will ease your worries.

            I welcome your thoughts on this matter.

*     *     * 

Part One: Language

Last month I read an article that addressed the decline of organized religion in the Western world. It said that in recent years, less young people have been identifying with Judeo-Christianity. They are not all atheists; they simply wish to distance themselves from any theological label. It’s no coincidence that at the same time, many who do identify with religion are becoming more extreme.

            When a group notices their membership is dwindling, they often respond by tightening the reins. It’s a classic attempt at self preservation, but tends to yield the opposite result. I think that Jesus taught the ideal tenets to live by, but the modern surge of fundamentalism has alienated me from Christian gatherings. Many others have told me that they share this sense of estrangement.

            Not all fundamentalists are stern, humorless, or self-righteous. However, there is a good reason why these traits are frequently ascribed to them. I’ve heard a great deal of fundamentalists express the following beliefs: “You can’t truly love anyone unless you’re a Christian.” “If you’re not a Christian, you’re an atheist by default. You may believe in another god, but ours is the only one that’s real.” I have also heard fundamentalists accuse non-Christians of “trying to rob God of his glory by refusing to worship him.” This falsely assumes that everyone believes in God, and that anyone who is not a practicing Christian is simply refusing to comply out of willfulness. They fail to see that anyone of any ideology could easily make the same claim. It doesn’t help that they tend to construe any form of dissent as persecution.
            These issues are frustrating and polarizing, but I think the biggest source of contention is sex. By this, I don’t just mean intercourse. I mean any sex-related topic at all. It’s very difficult to establish a comfortable friendship with someone if you have to walk on eggshells when you speak to them. I know fundamentalists who cringe when they hear the word “underwear.” There are plenty who want to censor media that contains sexual language. This is odd, since it’s such a prevalent theme in the Bible. In fact, the scriptures cover all of the following topics:

 

-Incest (Genesis 19:30-38)

-Bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16)

-Prostitution (Revelation 17:1-6; Joshua 6:25)

-Concubines (Genesis 25:5-6; 2 Samuel 3:7, 5:13, 16:20-23)

-Rape (Genesis 19:1-8, 34:1-31; Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 22:23-29, 2 Samuel 13)

-The rhythm method (Genesis 38:8-10)

-Breast fondling (Ezekiel 23:3, 8)

-Nocturnal emissions (Leviticus 15:16-18; Deuteronomy 23:10-11)

-Circumcision (Genesis 17:9-14; Acts 16:3; Galatians 5:1-4; 1 Corinthians 7:18-19)

-A battle in which King David killed 200 men and kept all their foreskins as trophies (1 Samuel 18:23-27)

-Castration (Deuteronomy 23:1; Matthew 19:12)

-A scene in which God grabs Jacob’s testicles (Genesis 32:25)

-The practice of placing a hand on a man’s testicles as he swears a sacred oath; hence “testify” (Genesis 24:9)

-Menstrual blood (Leviticus 15:19-33)

Last but not least, it makes references to donkey penises and horse semen (Ezekiel 23:20. Look this up on Biblegateway.com if you don’t believe me!)

As you can see, sex and genitalia are broadly covered in scripture. However, some Christians are still uneasy discussing it. Some argue that the Bible may address certain practices without endorsing them. This is true. Notwithstanding, the scriptures don’t condemn all of the acts listed above, either. Some are mentioned without any judgment passed upon them. To me, this means that the Bible does not forbid dialogue about sexual matters. And if we can talk about it, why not also joke about it?

Some cite Ephesians 5:4 as a prohibition of sexual humor: “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” But in this context, “obscenity” and “coarse” have different meanings than they do today. “Obscenity” is translated from the Greek word aischrotes, which means “filthiness.” Something can be “filthy” without any sexual connotation at all. “Coarse joking” translates from eutrapelia, which has a variety of definitions. These include “abusive,” “evil,” and “sexually aggressive.” Thus, coarse talk is not merely sex-related talk. It refers to speech that is sexually abusive; with the intent to make others feel degraded. According to the etymology, yelling unwanted explicit comments at a woman would be considered “coarse,” but making a non-malicious innuendo would not. Telling a “that’s what she said” joke would not be classified as sinful. Whether or not a statement is vulgar depends on the speaker’s intent. The same is true for cursing. When James 3:8-10 instructs Christians not to curse, it does not pertain to modern-day expletives. It refers to the actual act of “cursing” or wishing harm upon someone. Saying “I hope you die” is a curse. Saying “bullshit” is not.

The terms and gestures we consider obscene are socially relative. Centuries ago, the words “pants” and “pregnant” were deemed inappropriate. (Maternity clothing would have been a very taboo topic!) In the Middle East, offering your left hand for a handshake is a grave insult. In the Middle Ages, Germanic words were seen as vulgar because the English thought the Germans were unrefined. As we can see, our standards of “proper” language are trivial and subject to cultural change.

Part 2: Sex and Marriage

            Certain Christians may still conclude that the Bible forbids them to joke about sex because of Matthew 15:18-20, which denounces “sexual immorality.” But what is sexual immorality according to scripture? Throughout the Bible, various sex acts are described as immoral. These consist of incest, rape (unless one rapes a woman from a rival tribe), bestiality, adultery, and fornication. The word “fornication” has caused great confusion over the course of history. Today, it is most commonly associated with “premarital” sex (which is a phrase completely absent from the Bible). More conservative Christians have extended the definition to include any intimate contact outside of marriage, and even sexual thoughts. This interpretation is not biblically supported, either. According to Matthew 5:32, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for fornication, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” This clearly indicates that fornication can mean an activity other than premarital sex, since it would be impossible for someone to have premarital sex while they are married.

            The two Greek words translated to “fornication” are porneia and fornicatio. “Porneia” has the following meanings: incest, bestiality, adultery, and fornication. “Fornication” is derived from fornicatio, which meant prostitution. It came from the Latin word fornix, which meant “under the arch.” That refers to the fact that in ancient Rome and Greece, prostitutes stood under the public archway to solicit customers. Some people may respond that this pertains to premarital activity because women who had sex before marriage were considered “whores.” This argument does not hold up, because Ezekiel 16:33 states that “all prostitutes receive payment” (some translations say “receive gifts.”) Ergo, the Bible defines prostitution as the exchange of sex for money or rewards. It is distinguished from promiscuity in this sense. Promiscuity is also different from premarital sex. One can choose to only be intimate within a committed relationship, whereas a promiscuous person chooses their partners non-discriminately.

            While I’m on the subject of marriage, I’d like to point out that it may have a more subjective meaning than we’ve been taught. What qualifies a couple as married? It’s not a wedding, since you can be legally wed without going through the ceremony. To be married in a legal sense, you only have to sign some paperwork. But legal documentation doesn’t make a marriage, either. People were marrying each other long before paperwork was ever part of the process. Do the vows bond you to your spouse? Not if you don’t keep them. If a couple is legally married but are not committed or loving to one another, are they still married in a spiritual sense? I don’t believe they are. In that way, the vows don’t determine the marriage. Some would say that you’re only genuinely married if you say your oaths to each other and to God. If you follow this logic, it would infer that atheists cannot be married. Obviously, that’s ridiculous. Because of these quandaries, I believe that marriage cannot be narrowly defined. As long as two people love each other romantically and are completely devoted to their union, I think that can be considered a form of marriage. Sex within this type of relationship is healthy.

            In ancient Israel, there did not appear to be much of a distinction between a fiancé and a spouse. When Mary was engaged to Joseph and became pregnant, he was sure she had been unfaithful and planned to “divorce her quietly” instead of inciting a public scandal. How would he have been able to divorce her unless they were, in some way, already considered married? Deuteronomy 22:23-24 mandates that a man who rapes an engaged woman must be executed for violating another man’s wife. Notice that they are not officially married yet, but she is still called his wife. In various periods of history, engaged couples have been considered married. For the first five centuries of Christianity, the Catholic Church allowed betrothed couples to be sexually intimate. This was also broadly accepted in Colonial America.

            Back in the days of ancient Israel, however, it was unusual for women to carry on sexual relationships before they were married. This is because most people were married off as soon as they reached puberty. On average, they married at age thirteen. Mary was said to be fourteen when she gave birth to Jesus, which means she most likely became pregnant when she was only thirteen years old. It has always been unusual for people to be sexually active before adolescence (unless it’s non-consensual). Also, most marriages were arranged by the parents for financial gain. A wedding was basically a business transaction in which the wife was purchased. They did not date beforehand, and certainly didn’t wait to get to know each other first.

            In 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, Paul wrote, “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” When he mentioned passion, he was talking about promiscuity and sexual obsession. He was not declaring that it’s evil to have a libido before you’re married. In addition, he specified that he was sharing his own opinion, and that God was not using him as a mouthpiece (1 Corinthians 7:25). 2 Timothy 3:16 claims that all scripture is inspired by God, but that in itself was not classified as scripture when it was written. Paul’s letters were not seen as scripture at the time, either.

1 Corinthians 7 is frequently cited as evidence that the Bible forbids premarital sex. It is important to examine this letter in context. Socially, women (or, rather, 13-year-old girls) were expected to remain virgins until marriage. However, the expectation was socially sanctioned rather than biblically mandated. In their culture, slavery was an accepted norm, too. When Paul wrote this epistle, he knew that a bride would be shunned and victimized if she was “discovered” to be non-virginal. (However, their method of “proving” virginity was shoddy at best. A lack of blood on the bed sheet does not disprove virginity. Not all women bleed the first time.) For this reason, Paul believed a man should be punished for lying about his wife’s sexual history. He also believed that a girl should be held accountable if she pretended to be a virgin, but that was because he objected to any kind of dishonesty.

I suspect that the historical fixation on women’s virginity is mainly rooted in competitiveness. It’s a race to see who “gets there first.” The focus is also engendered by the concept that women are property, not people. According to this rhetoric, marrying a non-virgin is like buying used merchandise. The seal is broken; the original packaging unwrapped. We’ve all heard the misogynistic adage, “Why buy the cow when you’re getting the milk for free?” This dehumanizes women by comparing us to livestock and commodities. I have never heard this expression used in reference to a man. On a related note, men in ancient Israel were not expected to be virgins until marriage. Even after being wed, they were not required to limit their sexual partners. A married man could keep concubines and sleep with his slaves, and these actions were not considered adultery. Plenty of “righteous” biblical figures kept sex slaves, and the scriptures did not criticize them for it.

Even today, the classic bridal ensemble contains symbols of virginity. The white fabric invokes images of bed sheets. The veil clearly represents a hymen, since it’s a thin layer the groom must penetrate to gain full access to his bride. People say the white denotes “purity,” but this is clear code for virginity. Unsurprisingly, it isn’t customary for grooms to don white. To me, the quality of “purity” is irrelevant to virginity and should be recognized as such. I see purity as a state of optimism, idealism, honesty, and good intentions. In this way, you do not need to be a virgin to be pure. 

Part Three: Homosexuality

            The underlying misogyny of idealizing virgins can be seen in homophobia as well. Sexism and homophobia are tightly interwoven. Anti-female attitudes are a strong driving force behind the denigration of gay men.

            Almost everyone who is anti-gay disdains homosexual males because they “act like women.” Socially acceptable women are soft-spoken, gentle, and nurturing. If a man fits this description or partakes in interests traditionally deemed “feminine” (fashion, dance, etc), he is assumed to be gay and often ostracized. At the core of this lies contempt for “female” characteristics.

            Anti-gay Christians justify their rejection of the LGBT community by quoting Genesis 1:27; Leviticus 20:13; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Romans 1:26-27. They’re also fond of mentioning Sodom and Gomorrah. However, none of these verses provide a valid reason to shun homosexuals.

Genesis 1:27 says that “…God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them.” This is taken by many to mean that the only permissible relationship is between a man and a woman. Granted, this is the most common union and regarded as the general standard. That does not mean it’s the only acceptable pairing, though.

Leviticus 20:13 is another favorite passage for anti-gay believers to quote: “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” We have to remember that this is but one part of the Leviticus holiness code, which no longer applies. The holiness code was introduced mainly to differentiate the Israelites from other Middle Eastern tribes. It was meant to be observed by Jews, not by gentiles. This code included bans on shaving, cutting one’s hair, wearing two different types of fabric, and eating shrimp. Whenever it called something an “abomination,” it meant it was ritually unclean. This did not indicate that it was fundamentally immoral.

Jesus overwrote these laws and taught that instead of clinging to a rigid and complicated code, we are simply to love God and love one another. He said he came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it. “Fulfill” is translated from the word pleroo, which means “to come true.” It does not infer that he came to continue or add to the code. According to the text, he chose to obey all the laws so the other Israelites wouldn’t have to. Once he had “fulfilled” the ordinances in this way, the Jews could be freed from them. See Hebrews 7:12, 8:6-13, 10:1,9; Romans 7:4-6, 10:4; Ephesians 2:14-16; Colossians 2:14-17; and Galatians 3:23-25, 4:21-31. These passages all explain that the Old Testament laws are no longer required, which includes the ban on same-sex relations.

While some will concede that Christians are not bound by the Leviticus code, they argue that the prohibition of homosexual activity is featured in the New Testament and thus still applies. This claim doesn’t hold its weight under scrutiny.

In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 it is stated: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” The phrase “men who have sex with men” is translated in some modern versions as “homosexuals.” The word “homosexual” never appeared in the Bible until the 1940s, though, and had previously been translated as “effeminate.” All of these interpretations stem from the two original Greek words, malokois and arsenokoitai. (Arsenokoitai was also mistranslated to "those practicing homosexuality" in 1 Timothy 1:10, New International Version.) “Malokois” refers to young male prostitutes, and “arsenokoitai” refers to the older men they serviced. This denounces a form of child prostitution that was common at the time. It does not relate to consensual sex between two men of appropriate age.

Paul wrote in Romans 1:26-27, “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Now, that passage brings several interesting points to mind. The first is that Paul was not labeling same-sex relations as sins in themselves. Instead, he speculated that homosexual attraction is the punishment for another sin. Specifically, he believed it to be the consequence of worshipping pagan gods. He likely saw a correlation between paganism and homoerotic activity because the latter was commonly incorporated into pagan rituals. We must be aware that the sexual acts performed in those rituals were far removed from the intimate type of sex that occurs within loving gay relationships. During the rituals, men engaged in public orgies with one another. They were also known to include bestiality, prostitution, and castration in their ceremonies. These were certainly “shameful acts.”

Paul was not making a judgment about the homosexual orientation. In the ancient world, no one was even familiar with the concept. Same-gendered lovers did not live together, date, or start families. Paul could not have been referencing something he had never heard of.

He didn’t use any word that meant “homosexual,” as no such word existed. He never said that being gay was unhealthy or immoral. The word he used was physikos, which was translated into English as “unnatural.” In modern parlance, “unnatural” denotes that something is perverse. This is not the meaning of physikos. It actually means “that which is not produced by nature.” Today, any reputable scientist will tell you that same-sex attraction is produced by nature. It has been observed in over 1,400 species. It’s an involuntary instinct. Biologists call homosexuality a genetic trait. Pagans who partook in same-gender relations for religious rituals were not acting in accordance with their inborn drives. They were presumably heterosexual, and only performing such acts for the sake of the ceremony. Therefore, they were not behaving in a way that came naturally to them. This was a form of social coercion as well as self betrayal.

Genesis 19:1-29 is the final, and perhaps most famous, passage used to promote gay bashing. This is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. As one can deduce, the word “sodomy” is derived from this tale.

Sodom and Gomorrah were cities of great vice. The residents lived in decadence but refused to be charitable to the poor. They bullied outsiders and cared only for themselves. When two traveling angels came to the cities to see if they were as egregious as rumored, a virtuous man named Lot offered to let the angels stay at his home overnight. A group of townspeople gathered outside Lot’s door and threatened to rape the angels. In response, God destroyed both cities but spared Lot and his daughters.

This is not a cautionary tale about homosexuality. It’s an allegory of rape. The Sodomites intended to violate the angels, which were the purest creatures imaginable. Lot offered up his daughters in their place (despite being “righteous”), but the townspeople would accept no substitute. Raping someone of the same gender is no more sinful than raping a person of the opposite sex, and raping an angel represents the lowest form of depravity. The Sodomites would settle for nothing less. In Ezekiel 16:49-50, the sin of Sodom is explicitly explained. Once again, it is completely unrelated to gay sex: “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.’” There you have it. A Sodomite is a rapist, or a grossly inhospitable person.

Part Four: Lust and Adultery

            One of the most harmful assumptions about same-gender relationships is that they are only based on lust. Plenty of gay couples share profoundly close bonds and a deep love for one another, just as many straight couples do. There are also heterosexual couples whose relationships are strictly lust-based, yet no one uses this fact to denounce heterosexuality.

            The word “lust,” in itself, is frequently misused. It’s often taken as a synonym for “libido,” as if it’s a sin to have a sex drive at all. This cannot be true, because an immoral act would not be necessary for reproduction. In its true definition, lust is a greedy, selfish desire that trumps all consideration for other people. This can definitely entail sexual acts that cause harm, like adultery or the compulsion to commit adultery. Lust, however, is not always sexual. One can be consumed with a greedy desire for money, power, or violence. Wishing for money or influence is not evil, nor is wanting or enjoying sex. If one’s yearning causes them to lose sight of compassion or reason, however, it has gone too far. This is regarded as sin.

            In Matthew 5:28, Jesus spoke of lust in relation to sex. The verse reads, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” This is another verse that has been vastly misconstrued over the centuries. Some have taken it to mean that it’s wrong to ever feel desire for anyone. Others even think it implies that if a man is single, he cheats on his future wife by thinking about other women! The former interpretation is wrong, because desire is not immoral, and Jesus was not even discussing basic sexual impulses. By “lust,” he referred to an obsessive and demanding yen that causes people to behave selfishly. In regards to the latter interpretation, it is only possible to commit adultery if you’re in an exclusive relationship or if you get amorously involved with someone who is. The idea of “cheating on your future spouse” is preposterous because you’re not even with that person yet. Furthermore, the Hebrew word for “woman” was interchangeable with the term used for “wife.” Since Jesus cautioned his disciples against adultery, I believe he was warning them not to covet one another’s wives.

Part Five: Birth Control

            The majority of overly restrictive attitudes result from misunderstandings. When analyzing the Bible, people often make this mistake: they read verses which only applied to specific people, but assume they apply to everyone. They find passages which were only relevant in the time they were written, but assume they’re always relevant. Those who assert that the Bible bans contraception are making this error.

            The belief is born of a flawed understanding of Genesis 38:8-10. In this passage, God killed Onan for using the rhythm method in lieu of impregnating his brother’s widow. However, the practice of withdrawal was not called a sin. Onan’s sin was his refusal to comply with God’s order. God had directly instructed him to impregnate the wife of his late brother, so that their lineage may continue. Instead, Onan used the woman solely for his own pleasure. This parable does not teach that sex is only for procreation. It conveys that in this particular instance, Onan was commanded to continue his bloodline, but shirked his duty. His transgression was disobeying God and exploiting the woman. Contraception was never condemned.

            Anti-contraceptive attitudes are also drawn from Genesis 9:7, in which God ordained that Adam and Eve be fruitful and multiply. (Incidentally, this quote seems to refute the popular but misinformed doctrine that sex was the “original sin.” In the story, God encouraged Adam and Eve to reproduce when they were still living in the Garden of Eden.) Some take this to mean that God was speaking to the whole human race through Adam and Eve, and therefore we are all supposed to reproduce. This is an extrapolation. In the context of this story, God was telling the two of them to have children. He was not addressing every person who would ever live. Even if he had been addressing others, it wouldn’t entail that every person must become a parent or that couples should only have sex with the intent to procreate. It would be a general guideline, not an all-encompassing rule.

            Grievous outcomes have resulted from the misapplication of these verses. The condemnation of birth control has contributed to overpopulation (and, in turn, poverty), unwanted children, the subjugation of women, and the spread of disease. Contraception, on the other hand, has curbed those problems immensely. The use of birth control is a much more responsible choice.

Part Six: Morality

            Numerous quotes from Jesus have been warped and used to justify harsh, prejudiced, and sexually oppressive outlooks. This is often influenced by the perception that Jesus was a fundamentalist.

            Jesus was passionately dedicated to Judaism and strove to share that passion with others. That being said, he was far from the current definition of “fundamentalist.”

            Today, fundamentalism is defined by strict adherence to doctrine, a literal understanding of scripture, and the notion that you cannot be a “true” believer unless you agree with an immutable set of tenets. Any dissent is disloyalty, and to question the tenets is sacrilege. By this definition, Jesus was not a fundamentalist at all.

            Jesus repeatedly encouraged his followers to question the traditional “orthodox” teachings. He told them to judge for themselves what is right (Luke 12:57). The Pharisees were like the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the time, and Jesus criticized them for constraining people with too many demands. He also repeatedly exposed the fallacy of literal interpretation, which is driven by overly concrete thinking. Jesus’ disciples were accustomed to interpreting scripture literally, but he advised them to open their minds to a new and broader understanding. At one point, he encountered a woman at a drinking well and said he could offer her “living water” which would forever quench her thirst. She mistakenly thought he was talking about physical thirst and water, when he was symbolically alluding to her spiritual craving and the wisdom that would satiate it. When Jesus spoke of being “born again,” people were confused because they thought he was speaking concretely. In fact, when you read the New Testament, you can see that just about everyone who took abstract concepts literally was proven wrong. They served as examples of spiritual naiveté.

            Throughout Christian history, the scriptures have not always been read literally. Moreover, the tenet of Biblical infallibility did not come about until recently. It wasn’t deemed “inerrant” by mainstream sects until the early twentieth century. Martin Luther believed that the book of Revelations should be removed from the Bible. Now, people are accused of blasphemy if they express such an opinion.

            Those who insist on an entirely literal reading of the Bible and consider it inerrant also tend to lean toward a more fire-and-brimstone Christianity. They often confuse pessimism with realism, believing that theology can only be genuine if it’s unpleasant. Any approach that’s more hopeful is called “watered down” or “sugarcoated.” Such fundamentalists spend a lot of time defining who is or isn’t “Christian,” and exclude most people from the club. From my perspective, no one has the right to tell someone who regards himself as a Christian that he is not. It’s presumptuous to make that judgment call. I strongly disagree with the fundamentalist approach, but would never say they’re not “real” Christians. I think it’s better to emulate Jesus than to mimic people who think they’re like him. If anyone regards him or herself as Christlike, it automatically means they’re not. That type of self image is arrogant, which is un-Christlike by default.

            I think that biblical literalism (and the sexual oppression that grows from it) is the biggest threat to Christianity. This approach is woven from many assumptions, one being that a story cannot be mythological and true at the same time. These threads knit a shroud for Jesus and bury him under conjecture, rather than resurrect him.

            The Christian philosophy is corrupted when it’s reduced to a set of black-and-white statements that its followers must agree with. “Faith” and “belief,” the words most central to modern evangelism, have been distanced from their original usage. “Believe” derives from the word “belove.” To belove someone or something is to value it. Saying “I believe you” is not the same as saying “I believe in you.” The last sentence expresses the word’s primary intent. When the books of the Bible were written, to believe in Jesus was to love him. It didn’t oblige you to be certain he was the only son of God, that he had supernatural powers, or that his mother had been a virgin when she conceived him. If you believed in Jesus, it meant you respected him and sought to practice his teachings.

            The same is true for faith. Hebrews 11:1 is commonly translated as, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” Many fundamentalists are inclined to think this means they should take things at face value without any supporting evidence, and even despite evidence that indicates otherwise. I highly doubt this is the message the author intended. First, hope differs from confidence. One anticipates an event they are sure will happen. They don’t hope for it. Hope implies a measure of uncertainty, which is not a negative thing. Secondly, this appears to be a mistranslation. The King James Version is much closer to the authentic biblical language, and it has an alternate translation of Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (emphasis by me). Substance is distinct from confidence. With this phrasing, the verse does not advise Christians to display fidelity to God by believing things against their better judgment. It defines faith as the foundation of what we hope for, and says that our hope is evidence of what we believe in. In John 20:29, Jesus told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Again, he was not asking Thomas to take things for granted without any proof. He was reminding Thomas to trust (belove) him, and had already demonstrated that he was worthy of Thomas’ trust.

            Trust is the opposite of fear, and religious fundamentalism is deeply steeped in fear. It generates neuroticism about God, sex, and secular culture. It exalts the spiritual while vilifying the physical, as if the two were irreconcilable. The body and spirit do not need to be at odds with one another. This isn’t even a biblical concept. Paul wrote about the conflict between flesh and spirit, but he never said that everything physical is evil. He used flesh as a metaphor for humans’ carnal nature. Carnality doesn’t always relate to sex. It’s the impulse to fulfill one’s desires at the expense of others. It is callous disregard for one’s fellow man. This can certainly involve sex, in cases like rape or adultery. At the same time, it can encompass plenty of nonsexual behaviors. Cruelty, theft, and all types of violence are carnal.

            Plato popularized the notion that the spirit and body are opposites. His writings have heavily influenced Catholic thought. Plato’s theories continue to resonate in our society. They can be found in dualistic thinking, such as the idea that a smart woman shouldn’t care about being attractive. It’s conveyed in the belief that one must choose between the body and the mind.

            Bodies and sexuality are not to be feared, nor is the secular world. Many fundamentalists are wary of nonreligious media and secular activities. But God is tantamount to good, so we honor Him as long as we do what is right. We honor God when we console a friend, feed an animal, or open a door for someone. God is also honored by self respect. One doesn’t need to be completely selfless in order to have compassion. On the contrary, empathy develops from ego. When we know how we want to be treated, we learn how to treat others. Whenever compassion is shown, Jesus is resurrected and returns to this world. As long as kindness lives on, Jesus will be born and born again.

The Divided Waters (Part 4)

         These passages won’t persuade everyone. Some will continue to adhere to the doctrine of hell, regardless of what they read. I think some people will continue to believe in hell because they are afraid they’ll be sent there unless they believe in it (though no Bible verse validates such a fear.) For many, the doctrine is simply ingrained too deeply. Some are unwilling to accept the notion that salvation has already been attained because they think it would render all their efforts meaningless. Still others may continue to believe in perdition because they relish the idea of their enemies perishing. People who want those who disagree with them to be eternally damned are the ones I struggle not to hate. If I despise them, I am no better. If I strive to preach tolerance in an un-hypocritical way, I need to make an effort to tolerate the intolerant. I accept those who reject universalism. However, it’s hard to release the bitterness I feel toward those who have rejected me on account of my views.

            I am inclined to feel completely disgusted by people such as Fred Phelps and the other members of the Westboro Baptist Church. They’re easy to hate because they’re hateful. However, it’s important to remember that they are victims too. Fred Phelps abused his children so severely that their rage has never abated, and they must turn their fury against the outside world rather than against their father. They are deeply damaged people who were never able to heal. This doesn’t excuse their atrocious behavior, but I think it’s important to make an effort to understand their attitudes. Instead of seething over them, I need to pray for them and for others with a similar mentality.

            I’ve come across an alarming number of Christians who are not far removed from the religious mania expressed by the WBC. I notice a common trend among such believers: they are disinclined to trust good news. Many seem to think that a sermon can only be genuine or profound if it sounds grim. We don’t need to be cynical about how far God’s love reaches. To me, faith means trusting that a message is good enough to be true.

            My experiences with militantly exclusive Christians have taught me some painful but valuable lessons. I’ve learned that people who say they are “full of God” are deifying themselves in a sense. They may deny it, claiming that they are insignificant and God is everything. But if they truly believe themselves to be God-suffused, then they view themselves as representations of Him. After all, if they are so diminished that “God” is occupying most of their identity, who do they think their peers are really interacting with? Such people may profess humility, but even this can become boastful. It’s a paradox, but I’ve seen it happen: People can brag about their humility. The militant-minded also have a tendency to say they care more about pleasing God than assuaging others’ feelings, but I’ve noticed this is often used to justify tactless behavior or to avoid looking out for others. The Bible discourages us from such an attitude (2 Corinthians 8:20-21, 13:10; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 4:2, 31-32; Colossians 3:12; 1 Thessalonians 5:11; 2 Timothy 2:24-25; Titus 3:1-2; Hebrews 12:14). It’s easy to neglect other people if one is convinced that he or she is pursuing a loftier goal. I’ve even heard some say, “We have to believe in hell. If there’s no hell, why shouldn’t we run around committing crime?” If fear of hell is the only barrier preventing someone from committing rape or armed robbery, I can’t help but feel uneasy about them.

            I’ve found quite a bit of misinformation in exclusivist Christian literature. From what I’ve seen, such media tends to spread false information about abortion. Wherever you stand on the abortion issue, most of us can agree that it’s wrong to show pictures of miscarried fetuses and try to pass them off as aborted ones. The use of gory images is also misguided and manipulative. The fact that something is unpleasant to look at doesn’t make it immoral. (It could be immoral for other reasons, but the mere fact that it’s messy is unrelated.) One could have the same visceral reaction to a photo of open heart surgery, but that doesn’t determine its ethical value. I’ve also heard that Christian family-planning clinics regularly misrepresent themselves and let patients assume they are mainstream abortion-performing clinics. They tend to mislead women in an effort to attract more business.

            In evangelical media, I notice false information about evolution as well. Many Christian apologetics claim that evolution teaches a slow formation of each body part, which would render the parts useless until fully developed. However, modern evolutionary theory doesn’t teach this at all. A lot of people (both religious and non-religious) presume that Christianity and evolution are mutually exclusive. Even a biblical fundamentalist can believe in evolution, though. The Bible says that God created the universe, but never explicitly states how. Many fundamentalists have rejected the literal six-day creation theory, since God’s time is said to be entirely different from ours. The only biblically incompatible teaching is the theory of men evolving from apes, and a fundamentalist could simply choose to dismiss that facet of evolution while accepting all the others.

            Basically, I think God becomes limited to us when we can’t stretch our perception of Him. Our minds are finite, but God is not. As my aunt Tina once said, “Let's face it—would you want to believe in a God who was so simplistic that we could fully understand him? If that were so, who would truly be the superior being?”

            My understanding of God is encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” Since God is love, He contains all of these qualities. I am sure of this, but I don’t think I have a full understanding of God by any means. I don’t know what it’s like to be fully loving, selfless, or completely forgiving. It’s easier for us to envision God as bitter and resentful because humans can better relate to those qualities.

            I perceive the exclusivist mentality as somewhat related to Gnosticism in that it can easily regress into elitism. It can quickly become a doctrine which teaches that you can only be “saved” with the correct knowledge. A clubhouse is a lot more enticing if you need to know the secret password in order to enter, and there’s only enough room for a few.

            Some will say that you can’t understand Scripture unless you’re “moved by the Spirit,” but I’m doubtful about this. Multitudes of people genuinely believe themselves to be influenced by the Holy Spirit, yet their interpretations of the Bible vary greatly from one another. It also can become circular logic. Many believe this teaching because it’s included in the Bible, but they only trust the Bible because it claims to be truthful. It’s the same old argument of “it’s true because it says it’s true.” We need to reset the skipping record and listen to the rest of the song. There’s nothing wrong with trusting Bible verses, but we ought to base our trust on reason instead of blind faith. Doctrine is an excellent tool for understanding Scripture, but it’s not a god in itself. Over-reliance on it can lead us to overlook the larger picture, and to only define Christianity as a rigid sum of fixed beliefs.

            When we obsess over doctrinal details, we’re often too focused on rituals and technicalities to feel compassion. Such issues are so trivial in the grand scheme of things. They distract us from providing medical care and education to the underprivileged. They distract us from counseling people, donating to the needy, and protecting the environment. When you become overly fixated on small details, it’s easy to become frustrated with people because it can start to feel like you’re working diligently while most others are languishing on God’s property without even pitching in to pay rent. This attitude stunts the growth of empathy.

            When I question the relevance and weight of certain doctrines, I know some will probably ask, “Who are you to question God?” My answer is that I am a human being, and humans are bestowed with the wonderful ability to exercise logic and reason. In the Bible people question God all the time, and He responds by eagerly engaging them in dialogue. Moses questioned God continuously. David questioned Him, as did Job and Lot. If you’re looking for passages in which people question God, read Jeremiah. Read Isaiah 63:17. These passages portray a God who welcomes questions. If we don’t allow for them, we end up slamming the Bible shut in peoples’ faces like a door. The Bible needs to remain an open door and an open book.

            The idea of a completely static Bible is not even a Scriptural teaching. It’s a human-taught doctrine. It’s valuable to know the origins of doctrines so we don’t assume they can never be questioned. In the first centuries of Christianity, the beliefs were even more diverse than they are now. Some early Christians believed Jesus was fully human. Others believed he was fully divine. Some thought he rose from the dead, while others believed he never died at all. They didn’t settle these matters by consulting their Bible, because they had no Bible to refer to. The Gospels had been written by this point, but numerous other texts were being circulated which also claimed to be written by the apostles. Many were proven fraudulent, but others are disputed among biblical scholars to this day.

An official list of canonical books was not compiled until three centuries after Christ’s death. Some books were considered canonical and included in the Bible at first, but were later removed. Authorship was a major factor in this decision. The original gospels were written anonymously, and the specific apostles’ names were not assigned to them until long afterwards. Authorship of Revelations and the Gospel of John is still debated among academic circles. This doesn’t lead me to doubt the Bible’s general reliability, but it does contribute to my doubts of its inerrancy. Studying early Christian sects and apocryphal texts has taught me that the Christian perspective is very broad. I recommend we all research our belief systems, but education is not paramount to salvation. As I’ve said, I am certain that we’re already saved.

            Even Scripture advises us to test it and hold it up to critical analysis. 1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 says, “Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold onto what is good, reject every kind of evil.” Testing all prophecies clearly includes the prophecies of Scripture. Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 3:6, “He (Jesus) has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” This sounds like a warning not to rely solely on Scripture, and an appeal to not exalt Scripture above the things God tells us through the Spirit. A parallel concept is articulated in Romans 12:2. In Acts 17:11, Peter says, “Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” This verse highlights the value of questioning and testing Scripture.

Some will disagree with this interpretation on account of 2 Peter 1:20: “..No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” However, it’s useful to examine the term “Scripture” within the context of this passage. First of all, 2 Peter 1:20 was not considered Scripture at the time when he wrote it. He was not classifying his own statement about Scripture as Scripture. Secondly, many ancient writings were considered divinely inspired at that time. In ancient Greece, the Iliad and Homer’s Odyssey were said to be inspired by God due to the grand style in which they were written. The mere fact that they were called divinely inspired did not make them so. I’m not saying that none of Peter’s letter was inspired; I’m saying that this verse isn’t a good reason to avoid testing biblical prophecies. When testing them, it’s helpful to keep these questions in mind: Was the prophecy fulfilled? Have the results of it been recorded anywhere other than the Bible? Did someone deliberately carry it out so it would be fulfilled, or did it transpire without anyone’s aid? Was it a generalized prophecy that would inevitably be met, such as a prediction of war and famine? Testing Scripture is not testing God. It’s the act of examining something to see if it’s really from God.

Jesus himself advocated the testing of prophecy and Scripture. As he asked his apostles in Luke 12:57, “Why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right?” In Matthew 14:22-33, he told Peter to walk over to him on the water. When Peter began to sink and cried out “Lord, save me,” Christ caught him. He then asked Peter, “Ye of little faith, why did you doubt?” Jesus wasn’t admonishing Peter for lacking faith in him; he wanted Peter to have more faith in himself. A rabbi places an enormous amount of faith in his disciples. He only chooses them if he’s certain they can follow in his footsteps.

Jesus entrusted his disciples with a great deal. He granted his apostles the right to bind and loose, which meant to decide which laws would be upheld and which laws would not. The apostles varied in their Scriptural interpretations, so they inevitably arrived at some differing conclusions. God knew this would occur. When we look at the entire New Testament, we see how many laws have been “loosed” over the years. Christian women generally don’t wear head coverings or stay silent in church. Christians no longer greet one another with a kiss. Somewhere down the line, it was decided that such codes need not apply. The church inherited the right to bind and loose (Romans 15:14).

There is continued debate over whether “the church” means specific religious authorities or the individual members of the church. An argument could be made for the latter, because our bodies are called temples. Thus, it could be said that each person is a separate “church,” but we worship together as a collective body. Regardless, Jesus allowed for change within the church and change within our religious practices. The earth also reveals God’s openness to change. He made us the caretakers of this planet and allows us to cultivate it as we desire. In many ways we have abused this privilege, just as the Church has abused its role as the caretaker of Jesus’ teachings. The point, though, is that we’ve been granted freedom to make changes according to our interpretations and according to the times in which we live.

God knows we’ll disobey, but He perseveres in generosity because love always perseveres. I think one of our greatest roadblocks is the tendency to see God as a slave driver. If we regard Him in such a way, we are like the brother of the prodigal son in Jesus’ famed parable. The hardworking son resented the fact that his brother was rewarded for returning home after a long period of wild living, while he had never seen any rewards for his own loyalty or labor. The industrious brother failed to realize that he didn’t have to make himself miserable in an effort to earn his father’s love; he’d had it all along. Jesus elaborated on this point by sharing the parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:4).

The Bible repeatedly says there is nothing we can do to earn God’s love. Some think this means we’ll never be good enough to please Him, but it should be taken to say that we can’t earn what we already have. Atonement is often described as a gift, and a true gift is given freely. As Paul wrote in Romans 5:7-8, “Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

The Bible warns us about the pitfalls of debt. If we feel a constant need to self-flagellate for God, we weigh ourselves down with a sense of never-ending debt. Atonement has already been achieved, though. With God’s forgiveness, debt is canceled. Our job is simply to trust Him and live up to what He desires. As it is so eloquently stated in Philippians 3:16, “Only let us live up to what we have already attained.”

One of the central themes woven throughout Scripture is that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (Hosea 6:6; Mark 12:33; Matthew 9:13; Micah 6:7-8; Proverbs 21:3). This is not limited to animal sacrifice, but extends to personal sacrifices as well. Sometimes it is necessary to make sacrifices, but only if they’re the means to an end. A sacrifice is pointless if it is an end in itself. An alcoholic who checks himself into rehab is sacrificing his addiction to improve his life and rebuild his family relationships, while a woman who stays in an abusive marriage because she thinks God wants her to suffer is making a pointless sacrifice.

Some believe that it’s noble to torment yourself, based on biblical passages that say we must carry our cross and die to ourselves. This doesn’t require us to make ourselves miserable, though. “Dying to ourselves” sounds like a form of hyperbole, and it means we are to resist sin. It doesn’t demand that we loathe ourselves and denounce everything that makes us who we are. Scripture repeatedly tells us to be joyful, to set aside anxiety, and to avoid enslaving ourselves (Romans 8:15; Galatians 5:1; Philippians 4:4-7; 1 Thessalonians 5:16). As it is written in Psalm 8:4-6, “What is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? You have made him (man) a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor; You made him ruler over the works of Your hands; You put everything under his feet.” This expresses how much God cherishes us, both as a collective group and as individuals. There’s a healthy middle ground between arrogance and self-hatred. Since God loves us, why should we not value ourselves?

God’s love and mercy become more apparent when we look into the context of certain verses. Many passages speak of the “glory” of God, and how we should fear Him. The word translated to “fear” did not originally refer to terror or dread. It referred to awe and reverence, which we feel in the divine presence. The word translated to “glory” is actually the Hebrew word kavod, which means “weight” or “significance.” This makes more sense to me than “glory.” I tend to associate glory with victory in war, but God is not warlike. God is a god of peace (Romans 12:14-21, 16:20; 1 Corinthians 14:33; 2 Corinthians 13:11; Ephesians 2:17; Colossians 3:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:16; James 3:17-18).

Some Christians object to the concept of a peaceful God because of Matthew 10:34, in which Jesus declares, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” However, Jesus is not speaking of violence. He strongly discourages violence in Matthew 26:52. Christ is not speaking of a literal sword in Matthew 10:34, but of the double-edged sword of Scripture. This metaphor is additionally expressed in 2 Corinthians 10:3-4. When Jesus says he did not come to bring “peace,” it sounds like he was speaking of smug complacency. When he said he came to bring division, he meant that he wanted his disciples to avoid the immoral behavior they saw in others. They were to set themselves apart as examples. It’s good to remember Jesus’ intended audience. Most of the time, he was not preaching to nonbelievers. He preached to devoutly religious Jews who believed themselves to be in elite standing with God. His harshest words were reserved for spiritual elitists, and he rebuked them for their self-righteousness. His apostles preached equality, not superiority (Galatians 3:28; Romans 2:9-11, 3:29).

When I rejected the doctrine of hell and torment that is commonly preached by exclusivists, I found I could love God all the more. I think the idea of hell often constrains our love for God, which could otherwise be boundless. How can one enjoy Eden if there’s a gaping vacuous pit behind the Tree of Knowledge that swallows up the people you love? Plenty of hell-believers love God, and the belief in perdition doesn’t always bring out negative traits in people. It’s more likely to, though. It can foster a sense of superiority in those who believe they are spared, and give them license to persecute the “damned.” It can plant seeds of fear which germinate into horror beyond anything conceivable in the afterlife. Belief in a hell that exists elsewhere often brings it into existence here.

The further I look into the Bible, the less support I find for such a place. The more thoroughly I research Scripture, the less endorsement I find for violence, bigotry, or exclusion, which all engender hell on earth. I keep discovering more support for three specific themes: unity, balance, and regeneration.

A lot of themes mirror Christ’s resurrection and our resulting atonement. The year of Jubilee is one example. Once every fifty years, all slaves were freed and all debts canceled. Burdens were released, and things were made new. Another example is baptism. Immersing your body underwater and then emerging to the surface mirrors the way in which Jesus was buried and then rose from the tomb. The regenerative quality of water is beautifully symbolic. It cleanses both physically and spiritually. It quenches our thirst and provides for us. It is the origin of all life, and therefore a natural setting for rebirth. Water gives life, and the fire of refinement brings death: not permanent spiritual death, but the death of sin. Just as life triumphs over death and mercy over judgment, water triumphs over fire.

The flow of Christianity has been divided like the Red Sea, which has been reddened with the blood of victims over the centuries. Water, like fellowship, should be unified. Even if we don’t agree on all issues, we are separate droplets that must converge. We are individual streams of consciousness that follow one current, which flows upstream to heaven.

At this time, we are living through a flood of anger and exclusivity. We need to build an ark. Just as all the different animals coexisted on Noah’s ark, we can too. I don’t wish to keep anyone off, but to invite everyone on. Our Jewish brothers and sisters are welcome. (The paternity test came out positive—we have the same Father, even if we disagree on the Son.) Those of other faiths and those of no religion are welcome, but they will not drown if they stay in the water. I believe they will swim and continue to evolve, and we’ll all eventually meet on the same land. Our destination is not a remote island, lest we become isolated islands ourselves. My goal is to follow the rays of Son and hope to finally see a rainbow. It will be comprised of people with different beliefs, distinct but complimentary to one another.

My next question is not a challenge, but an invitation.

Are you on board?

           

            *      *     *

Suggestions for further reading

Helpful books:

-Hope Beyond Hell, by Gerry Beauchemin (Also see his website, Hopebeyondhell.net)

-Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, by Bart D. Ehrman (Note: Ehrman is a renowned Biblical scholar.)

-Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism by John Shelby Spong

-Velvet Elvis: Repainting the Christian Faith by Rob Bell

-Thank God for Evolution by Michael Dowd

- The Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary

-The New Bible Dictionary

Informative websites:

-Mercifultruth.com

-Tentmaker.org

-Religioustolerance.org

-New Testament Greek Lexicon: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek

-Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew

-Searchgodsword.org: http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4183

-Online Greek Interlinear Bible: http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

-Biblegateway.com (This site is useful for comparing verses in different versions of the Bible.)

-Calvin’s Error of Limited Atonement: http://www.ukapologetics.net/07/calvinserror.htm

-The Modern Inerrancy Debate: http://www.crivoice.org/inerrant.html

The Divided Waters (Part 3)

        There are further Scriptural examples which seem to express the idea of eventual universal salvation. The Bible doesn’t say we will all be accepted into eternal life just the way we are. There will be a period of correction and fine-tuning for everyone, but it sounds like we will all be reconciled after a certain amount of time. I base my interpretations on the verses shown below. They are divided into five categories: Verses about God’s mercy, verses indicating redemption after death, indications of God’s love for non-Christians, support for universal reconciliation, and verses I still have questions about.          

Verses about God’s mercy

This section features passages which express God’s forgiving and compassionate nature.

                                                

-Micah 7:19-“You will again have compassion on us; You will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

-Psalm 145:9-“The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all His works.” See Psalm 89:31-33, 145:8-9, 14; Jonah 4:2; Luke 6:35-36; Lamentations 3:31-33; Isaiah 55:7; Matthew 5:44-45; Job 6:14; Acts 14:17; James 1:5, 5:11; and 1 Timothy 1:13.

-James 2:12-13-“Mercy triumphs over judgment.” God’s judgments are ultimately merciful. See Zechariah 7:9-10, where He defines true justice as mercy and compassion.

-Ephesians 2:8-9-“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” This is widely interpreted to mean that personal conversion can save us. However, to convert to Christianity is an action, which would fall under the category of “works.” The Bible specifically says that grace is not based on anything we do. Thus we are not saved by the act of converting, but by God’s divine mercy. See Titus 3:3-7.

-Romans 2:4-“Do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” God is the one who incites us to repent.

-Romans 11:26-“All Israel will be saved…He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” God will remove the peoples’ flaws, rather than remove the flawed people.

Verses indicating redemption after death:

This section covers the idea that we’ll be able to turn to God after we die.

-Romans 6:7- “For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

-1 Corinthians 15:26-“The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” See 1 Corinthians 15:54. This flies in the face of an eternal hell. How could “death,” aka alienation from God, be destroyed if some people were doomed to eternal alienation from Him? If that were the case, death would not be destroyed or defeated. It would be in effect forever.

Indications of God’s love for non-Christians

These passages show that God loves people regardless of their religious beliefs.

-Isaiah 65:1-“I revealed myself to those who did not ask for Me; I was found by those who did not seek Me. To a nation that did not call on My name, I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’”

-1 Timothy 4:10-“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” This verse says “especially,” but not “exclusively.” It affirms that salvation is foremost offered to believers, but extends to others as well. If only Christians were saved, the word “especially” would not be included, nor would it say that God is the savior of all. See Ephesians 2:14 and 3:6.

-Acts 17:28-“As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” In this verse, Paul was speaking to non-Christians. This means that non-Christians are also God’s children. See Malachi 2:10.

-Romans 2:14-15-“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. 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.” Nonbelievers can be morally upright as well, since God imprints His standards into everyone’s heart.

-Isaiah 54:7-10-“’For a brief moment I abandoned you (Israel), but with deep compassion I will bring you back. In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,’ says the Lord your Redeemer. ‘To Me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again. Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet My unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,’ says the Lord, who has compassion on you.” If the Lord said He’d never rebuke Israel again and knew that some Israelites would reject Jesus as the Messiah, He must have also been planning to save the Israelites who didn’t believe in Jesus. If all of Israel will be saved, this includes those who don’t yet worship Christ (see Romans 3:3-4). The text says that everyone will eventually come to know Christ in the age to come.

Support for universal reconciliation

This section contains verses showing that the whole world will see redemption eventually. 

-Hebrews 7:25-“He is able to save to the uttermost.” God is both able and willing.

-Ezekiel 18:4-“All souls are Mine.” Because all souls belong to God, He can do whatever He wishes to do with them. God has expressed a desire to save them all, so that is what He’ll do.

-Revelation 21:5-“Behold, I make all things new.” All things include all people.

1 Timothy 1:16: “But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.” Christ’s patience has no limitations, which means he has patience for everyone and the supply will never run out. 2: Peter 3:15 tells us to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation.” When these verses are read together, it follows that all will be saved.

-Romans 11:15-16-“If their (Israel) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit (Israel) is holy, the lump (of humanity) is also holy.”

-2 Peter 3:9-“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” One can repent in the upcoming age, after they are resurrected. God wills for this to happen and will carry it out. See Romans 14:1-4, 15:21; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and Ephesians 2:1-0.

-1 Timothy 2:3-6-“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.” Here, it’s important to note that the word translated to “will” (God “will have all men to be saved”) is the Greek word thelo. The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament defines thelo as “To will as the equivalent of to purpose, to be decided upon, seeing one’s desire to execution…Thelo indicates not only willing something, but also pressing it into action.” In other words, God not only wants to save all men, but also fully intends to do it. See John 1:7-9; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 28; Colossians 1:19-20; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2, 4:14; Revelation 15:4; Ephesians 1:7-10; Acts 3:21, 25-26; Luke 2:10, 3:6, 9:56, 15:4; Joel 2:28; Daniel 9:24; Isaiah 25:6-8, 45:22, 52:10, and 53:5-6.

-Exodus 21:33-34-“If anyone uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or donkey falls into it, the one who opened the pit must pay the owner for the loss and take the dead animal in exchange.” This law promotes personal accountability and extends to the fact that God owns us, and is therefore liable for us. In Genesis, He placed the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden and was fully aware that Adam and Eve would eat from it. This must have been part of His plan, since nothing catches God by surprise and all is under His control. Ergo, it infers that God was responsible for man’s fall and will redeem us.

-Psalms 66:3-4-“Through the greatness of Your power, Your enemies shall submit themselves to You. All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You.” When everyone is resurrected and the world is renewed, all will eventually turn to God. It doesn’t sound like they’ll be brutally forced to submit, but that they’ll see the full truth of God. Once God’s goodness and truth is fully revealed, no one will want to resist Him. See Philippians 2:9-11; Romans 8:21; and Ephesians 1:7-10.

-2 Corinthians 5:18-19-“All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” The world includes everything and everyone in it. Also, consider Ephesians 4:6: “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” If everything is a part of God, it always will be, because He is infinite. If a part of God broke off and was no longer a part of Him, He would cease to be infinite. Losing a person would entail losing a part of Himself. See Colossians 1:16-18 and 2 Timothy 2:13.

-1 Corinthians 4:6-“Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.” When the early Christians were warned not to go beyond what was written, they were likely being advised not to trust some of the popular Pagan and Jewish lore which featured dramatic tales of demons and the underworld. Such lore had begun to circulate during this time. A popular interpretation of this passage says we shouldn’t look outside the Bible for answers, but the prophets were not saying this. They didn’t purport to know everything. This is expressed in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12.

-1 Timothy 1:20-“Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” In this letter, Peter uses Satan as a symbolic figure to convey that he allowed the men to face consequences so they would learn a lesson. See 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, 11:32; Hebrews 12:5-6; and Proverbs 3:11-12. (In 1 Corinthians 11:32, “the world” pertains to the world of sin.)

-Romans 5:15-21-“But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In this passage, “death” refers to physical death, or possibly unrighteousness. It says that all people receive life and justification through Jesus. Romans 5:15-16 also says “many” receive justification, which some perceive as evidence that God doesn’t save everyone. However, the same two verses also say that “many” are sinners. If taken literally, this would imply that some people do not sin. We know the Bible doesn’t teach this, though, because there are numerous verses saying that everyone sins. For this reason, we shouldn’t be hasty to assume that “many” means a limited number of people, inferring that only a limited number of people are sinners and only a limited number will be saved. The word translated into “many” is pollos, which can also mean “all”. When you look at the verse contextually, you see that it should have been translated into English as, “For just as through the disobedience of one man all were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man all will be made righteous.”

Conversely, in Romans 5:18, the word translated to “all” is pantas. In Greek, pantas is strictly defined as “all” or “everyone/everything”. There are no alternate definitions that would allow for limited atonement. It’s an all-inclusive term.

Verses I still have questions about:

This section contains verses I’m unclear about, but they seem to support the aforementioned arguments.

-1 Peter 4:6-“For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.” When he says “those who are now dead,” I wonder whether he means physically or spiritually dead? If this verse refers to the physically dead, it refutes the common belief that we receive no “second chance” after we die.

-Isaiah 57:15-18-“I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me—the breath of man that I have created. I was enraged by his sinful greed; I punished him, and hid My face in anger, yet he kept on in his sinful ways. I have seen his ways, but I will heal him, creating praise on the lips of the mourners in Israel.” I have questions about this passage. In 57:17, was God implying that He punished man in hopes that he would mend his ways, but the outcome didn’t pan out as hoped? If so, why did God do this if He already knew it wouldn’t work out? At any rate, the message is clear: The Lord reconciles us to Himself.

(Continued in Part 4)