---

My husband died. My question concerns the after-life. We were both raised in the fundamentalist Christian tradition; both of us sought different paths as adults and together we explored many traditions. I remain a "recovering fundamentalist," while my husband chose the pagan path of Asatru. I cannot get the biblical concept of heaven and hell out of my mind. Strict interpretation of the Bible would conclude that my husband is in hell because he rejected Christ. I simply cannot accept that fact and it is torturing me endlessly. Do you have anything to say that could help ease my troubled heart?

First, my condolences. You have suffered a great loss. The questions you ask are important.

The Bible actually says little about hell. I find only a handful of references in each of the two testaments; nothing approaching the vivid depictions of hell in the Middle Ages by the Church and its artists. Hell was thought of as a place where one didn't want to remain after death, and God was seen as able to rescue someone from there. But the concept of hell isn't highly developed and doesn't play a large role in the teachings of Jesus or of Paul.

The Bible's words about heaven are more numerous, but, interestingly, they don't lead to images of golden streets, clouds, angels, or happy arrivals getting rewarded after death. As far as the Old Testament is concerned, heaven is where God lives. From heaven God “comes down” to interact with creation. Heaven was “up there,” in the vastness of sky and space. In other words, heaven was about God, not about humanity.

The Church made much more of both heaven and hell, largely as a way of compelling obedience.

Scripture does speak of eternal life, or a life with God that doesn't end. It isn't portrayed as spatial or as a reward for anything we do, but rather as a continuation of God's love for all that God has made. As Paul said, nothing can separate us from that love—not even our behavior, choices, or death.

The assurance for you, as for all of us, is that we cannot cause God's love to cease, not even by denying God.

(Return to Top)

---

It seems that nowadays there are so many choices for religion, spirituality, etc. Can Christianity change and still motivate? Can it remain relevant in this day and age? It seems that there are so many conservative Christians out there, who has it right? Do all philosophies and religions lead to the same thing?

Yes, there are many choices in religion. In the United States alone, there are more than 400 Christian denominations. Add to that numerous other major faiths (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.), plus various movements that serve as religion to people in the sense that they call forth their ultimate devotion.

Christianity changes constantly. Even global denominations like Roman Catholicism show changing emphases, new schools of thought, new leadership speaking in new voices. One example is liberation theology, another is neotraditionalism. New ideas emerge, new responses to familiar issues, plus new issues that require attention.

It is the nature of faith that each camp thinks itself uniquely correct. People could hardly be expected to give their devotion to something they thought was erroneous or insufficient. Religious warfare is always under way, with varying degrees of violence. Healthy societies learn to balance these competing claims and not allow any one of them to hold sway. That frustrates certain partisans, because they believe that their faith and doctrine are so true that they should be able to rule.

I think it's fair to say that no one tradition has it entirely right.

If we could step back from the smoke and stridency, we might see that, yes, there are many pathways to God. Each has a piece of the truth, and they sound remarkably alike. At the level of behavior, however, it isn't likely that we can walk several pathways at one time. We need to make a choice, and then give ourselves to that choice. If we each understood our choices as our best response to what is fundamentally unknowable, we might get along better.

(Return to Top)

---

I have a reasonable grasp of the New Testament and have a feeling that it's basically a historical text. However, I have serious doubts about the Old Testament. These seem more like stories for inspiration. I mean, really, if Adam and Eve were the original humans on Earth, why are there so many fossilized remains popping up all over the world showing various stages of human development?

Both the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and New Testament contain diverse books (Latin = biblia) that tell about God. Neither testament offers a seamless narrative.

The Hebrew texts tell about God primarily through the stories of the Abrahamic tribes, Hebrew people and the nation Israel. That God is known variously as “Yahweh,” “El,” “El Shaddai” and “Adonai.” The Hebrew texts were composed over a period of 700 years by numerous people, mostly anonymous, in several different literary styles (myth, history, song, wisdom, prophecy).

The pre-history found in Genesis seeks to explain the origins of the Hebrew tribes. Their actual history starts with the Exodus from Egypt. These are books about God, and as such they tell what people believed to be true. The stories conflict because people's experiences are always different, and because political considerations entered in.

To read the Hebrew Bible effectively, you need to step into it, try to understand why a story was being told, what encounter with the Divine had occurred, or what event in human history was being lifted up as revealing God. The story of Adam and Eve, therefore, isn't a literal account of human origins, but a way of expressing a later generation's understanding of why evil existed and what people meant to God and to each other.

The New Testament is similar, except that its focus is on Jesus of Nazareth and on the faith community that formed after Easter and Pentecost. In unique literary forms (gospels, epistles, apocalyptic) composed over a period of about 100 years, the New Testament seeks to communicate Jesus—his ministry, life, death and resurrection—and the work done in his name, and then to call the reader to faith in Jesus as Christ, Messiah, Son of God.

The four gospels offer four different, sometimes conflicting, perspectives on Jesus; the letters respond to specific issues of early Christian communities and therefore have their own diverse tone and content; and the apocalyptic (Revelation to John) dealt with persecution of early Christians.

(Return to Top)

---

The resurrection of Christ: The Bible goes into detail about how Christ made himself known to the apostles to show that he had, indeed, been resurrected from the dead. The Bible also details how Christ was proven to be dead before they buried his body. But I still have to ask the question: I've never seen nor heard of anybody ever being raised from the dead in my life or in history texts. How can this be true?

The resurrection of Jesus is the foundational mystery and miracle of Christian faith. It has impact and meaning precisely because it happened only to Jesus. If it were more common, it's doubtful that a global faith centered on Jesus of Nazareth would have arisen. The four Gospels are basically Passion stories with preceding narrative attached. They tell more or less the same story, from various eyewitness accounts. Other explanations for the empty tomb could be made. But the eye of faith believes that the tomb was empty because God had raised his Son Jesus from the dead.

(Return to Top)

---

Where does the concept of "forgive yourself'" come from? Is there a Church doctrine that spells this out? I keep reading this "forgive yourself" and hear it used by Christians, but I have not found a detailed written explanation with references.

That sounds like pastoral advice, along the lines of “be kind to yourself.” I find no Scripture references to forgiving oneself. Forgiveness takes two forms in Scripture. The first is God's forgiveness of humankind. The second is our forgiveness of other people.

The two come together in the Lord's Prayer, where we ask God to “forgive us” as “we forgive” other people. Clearly, in a healthy Christian community, if I forgive you and you forgive me, then I end up forgiven. But that self-reference isn't the primary point of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a gift we receive from God and a gift that we give to other people.

Jesus said, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” echoing the commandments in Leviticus that required the Israelite to love both fellow-Israelites and resident aliens. In Leviticus, the call to love completes the commandment, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people.” (Lev. 19.17-18)

Love, therefore, didn't mean romance, or being nice, or feeling warm-hearted toward another. It meant a conscious act of the will to turn aside from wrath and revenge, and thus is grounded in forgiveness. Leviticus doesn't deal with self-forgiveness as such, but from what we know of psychology and the corrosive power of self-loathing, it would seem that forgiving oneself for wrong done to another would facilitate forgiving the other for wrong done to self. All grudges must be set aside.

(Return to Top)

---

My five year old wants to know the specifics of Heaven.
What should I tell her?

Let's talk, first, to you, and then think through an answer suitable for a five-year-old.

In the Bible, heaven primarily means “up there,” the realm above, in the sense of sky and all that lies above earth, and in the sense of that place where God is. The Old Testament community had little concept of an afterlife. When they said the “Lord's throne is in heaven” (Psalm 11.4) or “the Lord looked down from heaven” (Psalm 14.2), they meant nothing more than God's place to be. The theme was of God's transcendence, not of a life for humans after death.

The New Testament pretty much follows that theme, although there are a few references to a “city” or “house” where God and his faithful will reside together.
It was the Church that fleshed out a description of heaven as a place where the good enjoy eternal life with God, as opposed to Hell, where the evil reside for eternity.

I think we have moved beyond exotic depictions like those of Milton and Dante. But there is still today a common perception that whatever eternal life means, it takes place in a place called “heaven,” up or out there, beyond what we know, a place of serenity and bliss.

Now what do you tell a five-year-old? Personally, I believe we use heaven and hell too much as weapons to compel good behavior. That makes God a frightening figure, not at all the merciful God of ancient Israel or the loving God of Jesus' telling. I suggest something like this: “Heaven is where God lives. Someday, all life returns to God.”

(Return to Top)

---

How do you get by from day to day believing that some god is looking over you, taking care of you every step of the way? Are you blind? Can’t you see it’s the government's propaganda that’s telling us that one day we will all be free and live peacefully? Don’t you know what that means? It means when we die! God? I believe you are your own god.

I think you are asking three important questions: Is there a God? What does government propaganda have to do with faith? And where do freedom and peace come from?

Let me put to rest the second one. The government has little to do with faith, other than enforcing Constitutional protections concerning freedom of religion and providing certain tax benefits to religious institutions. The government is supposed to be in the business of protecting our freedoms and ensuring a reasonable peace at home. Whether it does that is the stuff of politics. Faith is rarely shaped by such activities.

As for the first, concerning the existence of God, reasonable people can disagree about that. There are no proofs either way. Belief in God is a personal decision, usually taken for personal reasons and leading to personal commitments. Many cannot imagine getting through the day without God.

Others, such as yourself perhaps, find their meaning and purpose in other ways. I personally find meaning and purpose in God, the Father of Jesus Christ. I can't prove I am right, nor would I want to. Rather, I can tell you stories about what this God has meant to me, and then leave it to you to decide for yourself.

As for the third, regarding freedom and peace, I believe people are meant to live freely and at peace with one another. Human institutions seem unable to bring that about, or even to allow it. Human institutions get caught up in power, wealth, privilege, rules and naming enemies. Those do little to encourage freedom or peace. Freedom and peace seem to require a power greater than ourselves that can inspire us to treasure freedom for all, to embrace humility, and to forgive those who wrong us. I take that power to be God.

(Return to Top)

---

As someone who is on a quest for spirituality in my life, I am confused by the many denominations and what they stand for. I have yet to find one book or source that can tell me the differences between Methodist, Protestant, Presbyterian, born again (although I think I understand the difference there), etc. How is it that there are so many differences and only one Christ? How does one know what the differences are so they know what faith makes sense to them?

Splintering within the faith community goes back to ancient times. Some of the divisions are based on fundamental differences, like the rural shrines that Israelites established after the wilderness wandering vs. the urban temple they built in Jerusalem, or temple cult vs. synagogue. These came about because people had different historical experiences, different views of the world from present reality (e.g. countryside vs. city), as well as the usual differences among people's perceptions and desires.

The Christian community splintered from the very start, with some following James and the Jerusalem church, some following Paul and his mission to the Gentiles, and some following other local leaders. Each of the four gospels was written for a different church, which explains why they are so different.

The Bishop of Rome tried to impose global order on Christianity, but that never happened. East and West divided early, outlying bishops vied with Rome for power, and eventually nationalistic movements began in England (Church of England), Germanic States (Lutheranism), Scotland (Presbyterianism), Switzerland (Calvinism), and elsewhere.

Those national churches eventually became separate denominations. When the American continent was colonized, those divisions came along and had a large influence on early colonial life. Even Roman Catholicism, supposedly monolithic, had different ethnic expressions in the US.

In the 19th century, American Protestantism divided further with the advent of revivals, Great Awakenings, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, Northern and Southern branches after the Civil War, black denominations like AME Zion, and, late in the 20th Century, the vast expansion of non-denominational congregations like Willow Creek and Saddleback.

To see what each stands for, I suggest you start with Wikipedia, an on-line encyclopedia. Eventually, you will need to experience them for yourself. Each denomination has some uniqueness, and within each denominations are further differences (like High Church and Low Church within Anglicanism).

In the end, as Rep. Tip O'Neill said about politics, all religion is “local.” You make your home in a specific faith community, join its mission work, love its people, learn from its pastor, and find God through its community life.

(Return to Top)

---

I am researching a woman's role in ministry and would like to know if you can explain to me what you believe the Bible says about that?

It depends on what you mean by “ministry.” If you mean ordained ministry within the religious institution, you won't find much in the Bible, other than the male-only Levitical priesthood and a few New Testament references to orders of ministry. These were presumed to be male, in keeping with patriarchal norms of the time, although there is some evidence of female bishops in the early church. (See Michael White's From Jesus to Christianity.)

Jesus said nothing about ordained ministries, or about an institutional church. Ordained ministries, you see, weren't a big deal in the Biblical eras. They became significant in the institutional church as ways of controlling power and wealth, as well as managing the institution. Women were largely excluded from those ministries until recently.

Personally, I would ask a different question: What were women's roles in the faith community? On that, the Bible says a great deal. Some of the judges who served Israel in its theocratic state prior to the era of kings were female. (See the Book of Judges.) Women served as prophets. It was Aaron's sister Miriam, a prophet, who led the celebration while Pharaoh's troops drowned in the Reed Sea. The interplay between husbands and wives in Genesis was one of mutuality and shared responsibility for the fate of the Hebrew tribe. If you ask about authority, as opposed to power, women played strong roles.

Same with the early years of the Jesus era. Jesus welcomed women to his inner circle, especially Mary Magdalene. They appear to have been leaders in the early decades, prior to being forced out sometime after 100 AD. (See John Spong's Into the Whirlwind.) Women were the first witnesses to the resurrection.

Some scholars surmise that wealthy women, such as Mary Magdalene, bankrolled the entourage that followed Jesus. Again, that’s an example of authority, not power; Jesus didn’t concern his ministry with allocating power or establishing an institution grounded in power relationships.

That's why I suggest revisiting your question. “Ministry,” as we have come to understand it, has to do with running things, managing the institution, holding power. That concept is too narrow for the Bible as a whole and quite foreign to Jesus.

(Return to Top)

---

Jesus was perfect, free from sin. Why was he sent to hell for three days?

According to the Gospels, after Jesus died on the cross, his body was placed in a tomb, where it remained. On the morning of the third day, some women came to the tomb to anoint the body, but found it missing. On that day and/or on subsequent days, the disciples saw the risen Christ. The reference, “he descended into hell,” comes from the Apostle's Creed, not from the Gospels. The Nicene Creed makes no such mention. In other words, the reference to three days in hell is non-Scriptural.

As to Jesus' being “perfect, free from sin,” that is an ambiguous matter in Scripture. The Gospel of Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam. (See Chapter 3) That lineage, coupled with his mother's being a virgin at conception by the Spirit, meant that Jesus broke the transmission of original sin from Adam. That was an important theological point for Luke. It made Jesus the “new Adam.” It wasn't important, however, for Matthew, which traces Jesus' lineage back only to Abraham and makes less of the virgin birth; and not important at all for Mark and John.

From that point on, the Gospels portray Jesus as living a full human existence, He showed emotions ranging from elation to anger to despair, as well as weakness that he had to overcome. He had a close relationship with Mary Magdalene. He made mistakes. He changed his mind.

In order to establish Jesus as a larger-than-life hero, the Church later chipped away at that humanity, portraying Jesus as perfect in every way.

Recent speculation that Jesus married and had children is nothing more than speculation. And to some it is blasphemous. But the speculation does address the important question: How human was Jesus? How much like us was he?

(Return to Top)

---