christians

He didn't pay too much attention to me when I was a child. He didn't have much use for the silly words that came out of my mouth, or the carefully sculpted play-doh faces with stark white eyebrows and over-sized noses. He didn't care too much for those... but he put them all on his mantle, on his refrigerator, on his desk at the office, and told everyone who saw them that I was his son, his beloved... begotten... estranged.

He was a little jealous. I mean, I started life so meagerly, so disparate than he. I was something that he didn't understand - or even want - he was the eternal. Nothing was really foreseen or predicted. I was the happy accident that he had designed for himself... I got to be the one to wear the suit. I hadn't known that he set me up for failure before I even took the first breath. Sometimes I wish I hadn't found out about it.

It was so much easier for him to rant and rave, to be angry and vengeful, before I came along. He didn't have to worry about consequences, the pain or the tears - because it was all justified in his mind. Everyone worked for him anyway, why try to make a difference in how they lived? But after he understood what I was all about I think he was a little upset that I thought of it first. But I knew what it was like to live here. I'd been born, lived, fell... I lived through the scrapes and cuts, I'd lived the childish fantasies and play scenarios, I suffered the broken bones and fistfights, I had the stolen kisses, and passionate crushes, little hurts and betrayals. I knew lost love. I made it this far and had sanity... divinity intact because I was part of that little flesh suit. I forgot that it was borrowed; I'd claimed it as mine because I was real.

So, I'm not sure what he expected. I mean, I was certain of the outcome. I knew that, of all things, people couldn't stand perfection and innocent love. I mean, I tried to be bad, but I just couldn't give into the temptation. It was too difficult, there was too much at stake. I was trapped inside the flesh and couldn't bear the thought of losing touch with it. I was the human, I wasn't the divine at all... not like Him. Not like Dad. I forgot how to be God. Perfection wasn't acceptable.

Because people could be mean. I would walk down the street and they would point and say "Look! There's God!" and then laugh. It was difficult and sometimes made worse because I understood why they hated me. It was no mystery.

Sometimes I wanted to cry until I bled. At those times I would try to get in to see dad. He was always busy.

Sometimes a son just needs some support from his father, or a hug... sometimes I just wanted to be held for a little while and told: "This too shall pass..." But it was always the same. Mother was there for the comfort and Dad... Dad looked at me, turned me around and pointed to the door saying: "Go show them what you're made of - you're my son. Go, be a man."

So, I was a man. Funny that it made him so angry.

But no one got it. They just didn't want to hear what I had to say, they were too busy selling faith, telling lies, and making rules, living like they had someplace else to go. They didn't see that it was all right here and nothing mattered if the now wasn't good. They didn't get that I wanted to make a difference right then.

Sometimes I wonder if, in the end, if I made a difference at all- I started to think that maybe I was talking to the wrong person.

They were too busy taking what they wanted, ignoring meaning for selection, selling fear and control in place of love. I thought I could be in there somewhere... couldn't I? When it came down to the wire, could even my father change? Would I always be left thinking: Was it worth it, being a man?

Dad never said much on the topic. As usual He was distant. When the shit started to come down he looked down from his 100th story office complex, through his stained glass windows, and tried to ignore what I wanted to show him. I don't think he wanted to forgive anything.

Sometimes, I don't think he did. But I had to show him who I was... what I meant. He had to understand why. I was so scared, but I had to show him how to be a Man.

It was up to me- what else would it all mean? What I was willing to do for what I believed? Dad wouldn't agree with it... how could he? He didn't understand death; he didn't understand life - he experienced neither. He only knew the idea- the concept. He was intellect and reason and contracts and covenants and creativity and destruction. How long had he impassively watched everyone live and love, suffer and die without any idea of what it meant? He had no idea... Dad was fucking clueless.

So I realized what I had to do - I somehow had to make him understand - and to see me. I had to make him grieve. I had to turn myself around and show him what I was made of... to show him that I was a man. That was why I was here, wasn't it? Because he never understood what it meant to love, or die, or grieve, or live. His happiness was something that sat high in his head. I had to teach him to feel it in his heart. He had to create one - and lose it.

As the shitstorm began I thrust myself, as a mote in his eye, to show him that maybe there was something of value in my life and death. After all, without it, he really didn't have to give a fuck about anything... his revelations would be simply like reading aloud the last page in a book- interesting but meaningless in a vast, empty universe. It would all be a joke, wouldn't it (as if it isn't already sometimes)? I hoped he understood it - that it wasn't just me. I hoped that maybe there was something beyond the sting of death and grief that I gave him - and that I got.

Sometimes I wonder if Dad ever figured it out. I wonder if he really cared. I wonder, when he finally turned his back on me, if he even cried... the greatest gift that I could possibly give my father was the pain of grief and death - because it was real, just like me.

In the end, he needed to understand what it meant to live on the rock, to come down from his skyscraper mansion, and his perfection, to come down and get his feet dirty and his hands bloody and his mind muddled and clouded with life and smell and taste and kisses... to simply walk in the flesh and know life and fear and... to feel.

I wanted to show him those around him. I wanted to show him... everything... everything that I saw.

He needed to understand that he could look in any face and think in absolute awe: "Look. There's God."

According to the 1964 edition of The Roman Ritual (The Bruce Publishing Co.), the following prayer/ceremony, to be conducted by a priest with the assistance of one or more other people, is a valid way of blessing a seismograph machine. This prayer was approved by the Congregation of Sacred Rites on Feb. 13, 1924.

Priest: Our help is in the name of the Lord.

Response: Who made heaven and earth.

Priest: The Lord be with you.

Response: May He also be with you.

Priest: Let us pray.

Priest: Almighty everlasting God, whose very gaze causes the Earth to tremble, pour out your blessing on this seismograph; and grant that the signs of the Earth's tremors may be precisely recorded by it, and then rightly interpreted by man, both for the benefit of your people and for the greater glory of your name; through Christ our Lord.

Response: Amen.

Priest: O Virgin Mary, in view of your own sorrows take pity on us and pray for us.
St. Emidius, pray for us, and in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, protect us and also this seismograph from the terror of earthquakes.

The priest then sprinkles the seismograph with holy water.

---

After having consulted with an author/former priest-in-training, I believe the above noncommercial, educational duplication of the prayer to be a fair use, since prayers are intended for free public performance during religious ceremonies.

"When women stand up and challenge the current rules, then the iron curtain in the Catholic Church will crumble."

-Janice Sevre Duszynska

A lone woman stands up during a Catholic ordination service, asking the bishop to ordain her; she says she has been called . The bishop asked her to sit down, for only men were called to the priesthood . This woman was not ordained during that service, and if she is ever to be ordained, she is going to have to face staunch opposition from the leaders of the Catholic Church. (Duszynska) Many people have written her, supporting her, as well as opposing her. The question at hand is, why, when this woman feels that she has been called to the priesthood, is she not allowed to be ordained? The answer to that question lies in years of Church doctrines and tradition, but the debate continues over more recent decisions, like those made in the Second Vatican Council and in the 1990’s by Pope John Paul II. Women are recognized in these documents, but their ordination is still prohibited.

While Pope John Paul II recognized the role of women in society, he did not recognize that role as extending to the priesthood. In his Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis , which was written in 1994, he "declared that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women." Kenneth L. Woodward stated that "Popes have a motto: Roma Locuta, causa finita —‘Rome has spoken, the case is closed." This statement was reaffirmed in Ratzinger’s Responsum ad Dubium , which looked at the infallibility of the doctrine. This document talks about the reaffirmation (by the Second Vatican Council and the teachings of the Church today) of " in persona propria ," which refers to how the priest is truly working in the place of Christ. It also states that this "natural resemblance" between Christ and the priest must exist through a man, because Christ was a man. Although society has changed, the Church’s stand on this issue has not. People question the infallibility of the doctrine. In 1994, John Paul II declared that, on the question of the ordination of women, the prohibition "is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" ( Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ). In essence, he was restating the infallibility of the doctrine.

To support its position, the Church draws upon Biblical and traditional references. In his book, Women and Orders , Robert J. Heyer points out 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35, "… For it is shameful for woman to speak in church," which is a reference to the subordinate role women play in the Catholic Church (48). He also makes reference to Genesis and the fall from grace. Another argument the Church uses is the fact that Jesus chose twelve men to be his Apostles. Leaders in the Church believe that because Jesus gave the power to consecrate and heal to only men, Jesus wanted only men to serve as priests. This has been the tradition in the Catholic Church. There is no clear Biblical evidence of women ever being ordained during the time of Christ, and so the Church has continued the tradition of ordaining only men.

While the debate over the ordination of women was going on before the Second Vatican Council, there was a strong resurgence of interest in the debate after the Council. Questions began to arise over the reasoning behind the doctrine, and the fact that the Church considered it to be infallible. According to Women in the Priesthood? by Manfred Hawke, the Dutch Pastoral Council was in favor of ordaining women as priests in 1970. Canadian bishops also were in favor of ordaining women in 1971 (62). Although there was support for their ordination, women’s voices were not heard, because in 1990, Pope John Paul II said that the possibilities of ordaining women "are not to be taken into consideration" (Sweeney).

The pope declared that the doctrine was final and binding to all Catholics. Theologians questioned if that statement would also apply to future popes as well. For if it is, perhaps we may once again see the phenomenon Terrence Sweeney spoke about in his book, A Church Divided , where 100,000 priests and 300,000 nuns left the Church after the Second Vatican Council. (133) For there are those, in the Church as well as outside of the Church, that strongly support the ordination of women. Their voices are not being heard because of Rome’s refusal to confront the issue.

These voices may not be heard now by the pope, but other people are listening. Between 1920-1970, the leading proponents of women’s organizations were members of seminary faculties and members of official committees. After 1970, the leaders were organized women with an agenda. The Women’s Ordination Conference brought this issue to the public eye in the United States. In 1997, at the national meeting of the Catholic Theological Society of America, a resolution to keep the debate open passed 10-1. This was decided based upon a paper entitled, "Tradition and the Ordination of Women." This paper looks at John Paul II’s stance on the ordination of women and his reasoning behind it. The resolution is not meant to encourage the ordination of women, but it is a step closer to it.

Other groups that support the ordination of women are: Catholics Speak Out, Call to Action, the National Assembly of Women Religious, and Las Hermanas. These organizations are strong grassroots groups that aim for the same goal as the Women’s Ordination Conference. Although their names are not heard as much, their support of the movement is crucial to keeping the debate open and to putting pressure on the Church.

Essentially, these groups are responding to the reasoning behind the tradition of prohibiting the ordination of women. In Women and Orders , Robert J. Heyer states that one reason that women are prohibited from being ordained is because Christ was male. His response to that argument is that God should not be viewed in the terms of sex. God is not a human being, and does not have the human quality of sexuality. Terrance Sweeney also points out that over 40% of parishes worldwide do not have a resident pastor. The importance of that fact is that there are women, who feel they have been called to the priesthood, that are willing to fill some of that 40% gap.

The Second Vatican Council called for the overcoming of all "forms of social or cultural discrimination in basic personal rights, including unjust treatment ‘on the grounds of sex’." In Women in the Priesthood? , Manfred Hawke makes reference to this statement, and refers to an accusation Mary Daly put to Pope John Paul II. Mary Daly is a prominent feminist theologian who finds that the lack of clarification about the above statement was "not specific about the implications of this ‘equality’ in rights between the sexes" (58). Hawke also quotes the Lumen gentium , which states that there is "…no inequality arising from race or nationality, social condition or sex" (58). The Church states that there is to be no discrimination based on sex, but the ban against the ordination of women is obviously an inequality between the roles of men and women in the Church.

In 1997, the Catholic Theological Society of America did more than encourage the debate to be kept open. The resolution written stated that, although Jesus "ordained" only men, "they the authors of the resolution doubt that his intention was to exclude women." They believe that Jesus appointed only men based upon the cultural beliefs of His time. Also, nowhere in the Bible can a passage be found where Jesus prohibits the ordination of women.

According to a UK-based group, "A Discipleship of Equals," women should be ordained for many reasons. The main reasons they state are: scripture, theology, tradition, and justice. They stress the fact that God calls these women to be priests. These women do not call themselves to serve God.

There are many examples of men and women in leadership roles in the Bible, but no examples of the ordination of men or women to the priesthood. Ordination came later in history. The Discipleship of Equals also provides Biblical references for why women should be ordained. In Genesis 1:27, it states that "…male and female God created them." God created them in His own image, man and woman. Also, in Galatians 3:28, it says that "…there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This provides a background for the equality of men and women. This quote is key in the debate for women’s ordination. A key argument against the ordination of women is that women are not created in the image of Christ, because they are not male. This quote supports the fact that women are created in the image of God. The doctrine states that Christ can work through the priest, who is made in the image of Christ , as a male. Yet if women are also created in the image of Christ, that doctrine should hold in the case of female priests as well.

When looking at the tradition of the Catholic Church, it is easy to see that change is not embraced by Church leaders. Aquinas believed that women were "slave(s) by nature (by nature of subjection)." Still today, it can be seen that women are in a subordinate position. No positions of authority are held by women in the Church, although 80% of pastoral workers are women. The need for more people in positions of authority is apparent. The willingness of women to fill those positions is known yet the Church still staunchly opposes their ordination.

Although the Pope is openly opposed to the ordination of women, it is interesting to note that some feminists view it in a dark light as well. Mary E. Hunt, the co-director of WATER (Women’s Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual) presented a paper stating her beliefs on the ordination of women at a meeting of the American Academy of Religion in New Orleans. She states that although the ordination of women is inevitable, women will still be subordinate even within the realm of the clergy. She believes that the Church will see that ordaining women will be a way of maintaining "kyriarchy," and therefore continuing the subordination of women. Hunt is convinced that "the combination of long hours, low pay, low prestige and endless nurture makes priesthood a recipe for a woman’s job in a patriarchal society, similar to what happened with teaching and nursing." This is a very stark opinion of what the ordination of women could do to the Catholic Church, and to the public’s opinion of female priests (if they are allowed to be ordained in the future). She supports the ordination of women for the symbolic and political importance, but instead pushes for new models for the Church that reflect a post-modern society.

There are many arguments from both sides and many questions continue to go unanswered. Vatican II cannot fully defend why women who feel they have been called cannot become priests. Jesus never prohibited the ordination of women. He chose his twelve apostles in a time that has long been lost to people today. It is in the best interest of the Church to recognize the changes in society, acknowledge the fact that women play a large role in the modern world, and they should be recognized as leaders in the Church as well.

Bibliography

Discipleship of Equals. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/justitia/ Internet Source.

Duszynska, Janice Sevre. "Ordination season brings on big dreams: hope for an inclusive priesthood lives on." National Catholic Reporter. May 15, 1998, v34, n28, p19. Magazine Index.

Hauke, Manfred. Women in the Priesthood? Ignatius Press: 1988.

Heyer, Robert J. Women and Orders. The Missionary Society of St. Paul the Apostle: 1974.

Howe, E. Margaret. Women & Church Leadership. The Zondervan Corporation: 1982.

Hunt, Mary E. "It’s inevitable: women will be ordained: Rome reversal would maintain ‘kyriarchy,’ postpone real reform." National Catholic Reporter. Fe 21, 1997, v33, n16, p25. Magazine Index.

John Paul II. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. http://www.microweb.com/burnside/html/ordvat2.htm Internet Source.

McClory, Robert. "Women strongest advocates of own ordination." National Catholic Reporter. March 6, 1998, v34, n18, p6.

Responsum ad Dubium. http://www.knight.org/advent/docs/df95os.htm Internet Source.

Schaeffer, Pamela. "Theologians opt for diplomacy in dispute: wary scholars urge more study, debate on women priests." National Catholic Reporter. June 20, 1997, v33, n32, p3. Magazine Index.

Sweeney, Terrance. A Church Divided. Prometheus Books: 1992.

Woodward, Kenneth L. "Was the pope wrong? Catholic theologians second- guess the Vatican on the question of ordaining women priests." Newsweek. June 16, 1997, v129, n24, p48. Magazine Index.

History
- or -
Where did you people come from, anyway?

The Assemblies of God as a denomination has its roots in revivals that occurred in the United States around the turn of the century. In the late 1800s, Christians began to hunger more for the things of God, to find a way to experience more of God’s power working in their everyday lives. To this end, both in groups and individually, they started searching the Word, seeking God in prayer, and pressing in closer, hoping to experience more of God.

Those who sought, found. The Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost, they are used interchangably) began moving in these groups, and the results were different from what was found in the churches of that time. People began to experience "a joyous, spontaneous worship and an intense desire to spread the gospel…as in the Bible in the Book of Acts." Of course others had captured a similar thing in times past, but in this movement, everyone who experienced this baptism in the Holy Spirit saw that it was accompanied by speaking in unknown languages. The movement began to be associated with Pentecost (Acts 2) and members of the movement were known as Pentecostals.

In 1901 at Bethel College in Topeka, Kansas, a group of students began researching the association between the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in languages unlearned. Around that same time, one of the first recorded Pentecostal revivals broke out at a prayer meeting at this school. The students came to the conclusion through their research and experience that the baptism in the Holy Spirit is always accompanied by speaking in unknown languages, or tongues.

The revival that began in Kansas spread across the United States to Missouri, Texas, and California. The well-known Azusa Street revivals lasted for three years and spread the Pentecostal movement even further. As the movement gained members, those ascribing to Pentecostal ideas found themselves ostracized from local congregations. They began to meet on their own, and soon hundreds of distinctly Pentecostal congregations were meeting all over.

By 1914, some of the leaders in the movement began to recognize problems with such a segmented arrangement. They needed ways to recognize and credential ministers, to send and support missionaries, and make sure everyone was on the same page doctrinally. The first general council convened in Hot Springs, Arkansas that year, drawing about 300 people from 20 different states and even some foreign countries. They met for five reasons: "doctrinal unity, conservation of the work, foreign missions interests, chartering churches under a common name for legal purposes, and the need for a Bible training school." Out of that meeting, a cooperative fellowship known as The General Council of the Assemblies of God was born in order to "unite the assemblies in ministry and legal identity while leaving each congregation self-governing and self-supporting."

Statement of Fundamental Truths
- or -
What does the AG believe, anyway?

Two years later, the General Council added a Statement of Fundamental Truths to its constitution which has remained virtually unchanged over the past century. The AG does not claim this list to be all-inclusive, but it does hold that they are fundamental doctrines. Below is just a summary of the AG position on each of the sixteen fundamental truths. A complete version, including scriptural backing, is available on the Assemblies of God website.

1. The Scriptures Inspired
   The Bible, both Old and New Testament, is inspired by God and infallible.
2. The One True God
   God is the I AM, the Creator, the Redeemer. The doctrine of the trinity is also covered here, whereby God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, distinct, yet three in one.
3. The Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ
   Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died for us on the cross, was bodily resurrected, and now sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven.
4. The Fall of Man
   Man was created good, but by willful transgression (Adam and Eve in the garden with the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) incurred both physical and spiritual death, which is separation from God.
5. The Salvation of Man
   The only way to be saved is through Jesus’ shed blood, his work on the cross.
6. The Ordinances of the Church
   There are only two: baptism in water and holy communion.
7. The Baptism in the Holy Ghost
   All believers should seek and expect the baptism in the Holy Spirit.
8. The Initial Physical Evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Ghost
   The baptism in the Holy Spirit is evidenced first by speaking in unknown tongues.
9. Sanctification
   Christians should live a life of holiness, separated from evil, and continually dependant upon God for help in being holy.
10. The Church and Its Mission
    The church consists of the Body of Christ, of believers. Each believer has a part and is important to the body. The church’s mission is three-fold: to evangelize the world, to be a body where individuals can worship God, and to build and disciple believers.
11. The Ministry
    Ministry is divinely called and ordained in order to lead the church in its three-fold mission.
12. Divine Healing
    God still miraculously heals people.
13. The Blessed Hope
    Jesus is coming back again to take believers to be with him. It could happen at any moment. This is commonly known as the rapture.
14. The Millennial Reign of Christ
    The second coming of Christ includes the rapture, followed by the visible return of Christ with believers when he sets up his kingdom on earth and reigns for one thousand years.

15. The Final Judgment
    Also known as the Great White Throne Judgment, the wicked, both dead and alive, will be judged according to their works. Anyone not found in the Book of Life (in other words, anyone who did not accept Jesus’ substitutionary death on the cross and trust in him for redemption), will be confined to hell with the devil, his angels, and his agents that showed up in the last days (Antichrist, etc.).
16. The New Heavens and the New Earth
    After all that, heaven and earth are recreated.

FYI

• The AG was not the only denomination to be born out of the turn of the century Pentecostal movement; the Church of God (which is different from the Worldwide Church of God) traces its roots to the same revivals. Once Pentecostals found themselves on the outside of their home congregations, the white Pentecostals gathered together to form the Assemblies of God and the black Pentecostals gathered to form the Church of God. Doctrinally, the two denominations are very similar. Today, 75% of Assemblies of God membership is white.
• Women can be credentialed as ministers through the Assemblies of God. However, without exception until only recently, divorced people could not. The AG bylaws were recently revised to allow for those who were divorced prior to their conversion to be credentialled. Anyone divorced after conversion, however, is still unable to earn credentials.
• The AG is a very missions-minded denomination. A high priority is placed on sending and supporting both foreign and home missionaries in an effort to spread the gospel around the world. The focus is largely on planting churches and equipping local people to pastor those churches. Today there are 12,000 AG churches in the US and over 210,000 churches and outstations in 186 other countries.
• The national headquarters of the AG is located in Springfield, Missouri.

---

Resources:
http://www.ag.org (all quotations taken from this site)
http://www.chofgod.org
lectures from the History and Polity class at Mount Hope Bible Training Institute...wow it's been a long time since Bible school!

Thanks bookw56 for asking the question that led to the writing of this node. Hope this answers you!

Moderation in all things?

Christian Fundamentalism is seen as a major political force these days, especially in the United States. Apparently opposed to it, and certainly disapproved of by it, are movements such as the Unitarian Universalists, a radical offshoot of more traditional Unitarian Christianity. Between these extremes, often viewed as being conservative and liberal respectively, lies a wide range of Christian viewpoints. In contrast to those extremes, I should like to present a theological explanation of some of the views held by those in this middle ground. As the field is very diverse, and people's ideas of what constitute moderate views vary, these ideas are necessarily my own, and coloured by my upbringing in the Church of England.

'This is the Word of the Lord'

A common point of controversy is the status of scripture. There is currently often assumed to be a clear distinction between those who regard the Bible as word for word, sentence for sentence, the inerrant word of God, and those who hold the text in contempt. This is, naturally, a misconception. In ancient times writers like Origen and Clement of Alexandria (both second century) had no concept of a fixed canon of scripture, and although the bulk of what is now the New Testament was held in a high regard, there was not considered to be a clear dividing line between those texts and others to which history has been less kind. The early biblical text Codex Sinaiaticus includes the epistle known as the Shepherd of Hermas in addition to its 'canonical' contents.

But even the settling of the New Testament canon by the early church did not constitute any statement of faith in the literal truth of every sentence. The mythic message of the text was considered to be of such prime importance that the very rare questions raised over the word-by-word meaning were of no great significance. The relative value of the passages continued to be debatable right through the Reformation and into the modern era. Martin Luther once referred to the Epistle of James as 'a right strawy epistle'. It was only when discoveries in science - especially in geology - began to offer reasonably verifiable ages for rocks and the like that vastly exceeded the assumed age of the Earth of a few thousand years that the cracks began to appear. Whereas Isaac Newton and his contemporaries had largely seen science as exploring the wonders of God's creation, a new interpretation of science was emerging which appeared opposed to religion.

Two cultures

Various explanations were put forward to reconcile the two competing world-views. The discovery of dinosaurs and the first hints, from Erasmus Darwin, for example, of a theory of evolution, gave added impetus to those wishing to challenge the authority of scripture. At the same time, and as a natural reaction, attempts were made to define what was meant by that authority. Claims were advanced that the fossils had been placed in the rocks by God at the time of creation, in order to deceive the unwary. In parallel with this, the higher criticism was developing in Germany, which (initially at least) aimed to show what the origins of scripture had been, and whether the various books had really been composed by the people to whom they were attributed. Out of this developed a more aggressive, radical and political form which sought essentially to discredit traditional, Bible-based beliefs about the life of Jesus. To most modern eyes, even of non-Christians, such works appear wildly biased and unscientific. The criteria applied were so stringent as to exclude precisely those things that these critics were purportedly looking for. There is in fact ample historical evidence, from Christian and non-Christian sources alike, to demonstrate that Jesus of Nazareth really lived and died much as described in the gospels. The points of difference between the gospels add to, rather than detract from, their trustworthiness as historical texts, as they point to the varying experiences of several independent eyewitnesses.

Who Almighty?

Having established, with reference to Josephus, to the canonical and non-canonical gospels, and to other early sources, that Jesus really existed, what should those who claim to be his followers believe? Jesus himself clearly taught belief in a loving, forgiving creator God, a God who loves truth and mercy. Arguments about the precise nature of the miracles attributed to Jesus are of secondary importance to the fact that he is portrayed in those stories as a healer, a teacher, and one who has the deepest compassion for humanity. In essence, Jesus himself possessed the qualities which he taught his followers were the attributes of God. Christians therefore call him the Son of God, and this is emphasised in the writings of St Paul, the first Christian writer. In the moderate view presented here, there is no reason to challenge this, and traditional Trinitarian theology predominates, with the understanding that as fallible humans we can never adequately describe God.

It must be observed that these assertions about God cannot be proved in a straightforward mathematical sense. We are necessarily in the realm of faith, but having placed our faith in the ideas and principles of Jesus, we can say that our beliefs are reasonable, based on the choices of faith we have made, which are in turn choices we can justify by reference to a real historical person and movement. So we believe God to be truthful, and to have created the world. This has profound consequences for our attitude to science and the Bible. To take a relatively simple example, it is possible (by, for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment) to measure the speed and properties of light. We can also measure the distance to the stars, and thus deduce that some of them are so far away, the light has been travelling for millennia to get here. Similar deductions apply to the age of the earth, and to the antiquity of the human race compared to other species. The conclusion, working from these premises, is simple - whatever the book Genesis is, it can't be a fully literal account of the first days of the earth. This doesn't mean it's to be discarded out of hand. Whereas the evidence against, say, humans appearing within six days of the earth's creation, is pretty strong, there's no such evidence against the life story of Abraham. Moreover, the beliefs about God expressed in Genesis - that he is responsible for the universe, and created human beings in his own image and possessing free will - are coherent with those expressed down the ages in scripture, religious practice and the faith of the church. These are not undermined by our increased understanding of the physical nature of the world and the more prosaic origins of the species. The attention given to what's called general revelation - that is, the truth of creation itself - is not intended to undermine the message of special revelation - that is, the understanding of God expressed by the authors of scripture. Rather, it sets it in its natural context.

Truth and facts

It might be asked where this leaves the authority of scripture. In the moderate tradition, the Bible is the central text of the church, but God himself, understood as a mystery partially revealed to us, is at the heart of the faith. To describe the Bible as 'only words' is misleading, as the words are vitally important. But they are the words of men (and women) - the Word of God is the light of the world ultimately expressed in Jesus Christ. This Word is also found in the Bible, but is necessarily presented through the perceptions and opinions of the individual authors. The writers of Genesis, not knowing about the doppler effect, parallax, or carbon-14 dating, described the origin of the world in a way which showed their faith in creation as the handiwork of God.

Moderate Christians - at least, those who think about such things - nowadays argue that the power and mystery of God is enhanced, not diminished, by the belief that the creation which he directs is the complex, multi-faceted entity described by modern science, rather than a simple fait accompli of a single inhabited planet and its sun and moon. The emphasis on the breadth and incomprehensibility of God is common in this type of thought. Not intended to detract from the immanent and personal properties of God, it serves to remind people that as they push back the boundaries of knowledge, they do not push God back, but broaden the scope of their intellectual access to him.

A Bright Mystery

A question which is often asked by Christians of others is 'Are you saved?' What's meant by being saved in this context is subject to a fair amount of variation. A Roman Catholic who believes in Purgatory will have a different idea of the process of being saved to that of a Jehovah's Witness who believes that a hundred and forty-four thousand prime seats in Heaven are already taken. But common to all these traditions is the understanding that Salvation - generally the preservation of the immortal human soul in a state of bliss - is the consequence of the action of God, particularly through the death and Resurrection of Jesus. From this starting point, matters tend to get quite complicated, and the next few paragraphs are no exception, I'm afraid. One of the characteristics of Christian fundamentalism is the assertion that this is to be uniquely viewed as taking place by substitutionary atonement. This view states that mankind was inevitably doomed to death and hell, but that God laid their punishment on Jesus instead, who was able to accept it. The salvation thus gained is only open to those who accept it through belief in Jesus as the Christ.

However, this is not the only Christian interpretation of these events and their consequences. It is often said that in the Incarnation, God raises humanity to himself. By taking form as Jesus, he does not lower himself to our level, but rather raises our level to his own, fulfilling the belief that humans are made in the image of God. Death is a part of human life, and in suffering an agonising death, Jesus shows that this, too, can be godlike. His Resurrection, then, is not only of importance for his personal narrative, but shows that while death is part of human nature, so also is eternal life. The gift of Salvation was always there, but the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus at a specific point in time and space are the means by which God makes it possible.

An objection that is sometimes raised to the doctrine of substitutionary atonement is that it depicts God as vengeful, apparently condemning humans whom he is supposed to love and forgive. However, this view misunderstands the situation somewhat. Humans are in need of salvation because they cut themselves off from God by the abuse of their free will. Created in God's image, but finite and thus limited, we often try to shut God out. Jesus' death restores our access to God by his participation in our separation from the Father. His use of Psalm 22's 'why have you forsaken me?' shows that even this pitiful state can be drawn back to God. Jesus' self-sacrifice is not so much to appease God as to make creation whole, by joining the fallenness of humanity to the incorruptible nature of God. If there is a problem with substitutionary atonement, it is that it presents as simple what is a deep and varied mystery of Christian belief.

The Why and the How

So, having decided that Salvation is complicated, how do we know how to gain it? Are we all saved anyway, because God loves us all? Is belief enough? Who else will be saved? Although the emphasis in moderate traditions on being saved is apparently less than in more evangelical ones, it's nevertheless part of the heart of the faith. Jesus said 'If you love me, keep my commandments', and it's from this saying and others like it that we can draw a partial answer to our questions. The division between salvation by works and by faith is something of an illusion - those who have faith will try to do good works. Often, the moral, loving dimension of the faith is all but forgotten in a welter of dogma and debate on theology. Yet it is this aspect which is essential in making a proper response to God's call to unity with him. As we've already stated, Salvation, although a free gift from God, is said to be a gift that must be accepted to be realised. Humans must turn and face God in order to take what he gives freely.

This then raises the issue of other faiths. Is it necessary to confess God by the name of Jesus to be saved? The Bible offers several perspectives on this: St Paul's analogy of the olive tree is particularly relevant. The honest answer for a moderate Christian is that we cannot know with certainty who is saved. In our relations with others, we should witness to our own faith, but not decry others that may lead to the same One God, whom we trust to save and bless everyone he can. Particular affinity is felt for Judaism and Islam, which share so many of Christianity's precepts and so much of its history.

And now...

These days the church is a diverse and often divided institution. Ideas like those found in this article are found throughout most mainstream churches - though not, as far as I am aware, to any great extent in fundamentalist denominations. The combination of doubt, scepticism and trust in God's mercy is not as uncomfortable as some might think, and leads to a creative and usually compassionate engagement with contemporary issues. The spread of women priests in the Anglican communion is an example of the fruit of this questioning, self-critical brand of Christianity. At the time of writing - June 2003 - debates are emerging over the questions of women bishops and homosexual clergy. There will doubtless be those who regard the moderate position as selling out on these issues, and also those who will see any decision which falls short of extreme political liberalism as another example of the church's irrelevance in the modern world. The challenge for Christians is to resist the temptation to accord with every political whim of the public, while retaining a fresh and unclouded view of their faith in order to address these issues with compassion and insight.