On Becoming a Christian

This is from an old email but I thought I would turn it into a blog post because I think it conveys some important points for consideration, to meditate upon. The question was asked:

What does it feel like to be Christian? Did you just know you were saved, like—bam—"Hey, I'm saved now" or what?

I'll be frank with you: there is no simple one-size-fits-all answer to this question. That will become strikingly evident as you notice the degree to which responses will vary. And with a thing as deep and rich and complex as the Christian faith, which at its core is a living relationship with God through Christ Jesus, that should be expected.

I shall tell you what I think this question is like. Take three women: one who has been newly married for one year, one who has been married for five years, and one who has been married for twenty years. Sit them all down in front of you and ask each of them to tell you what it feels like to be married. Are you going to get one basic, simple answer that will be consistent from all the women?

Would you even expect it? I should think not, and in that sort of context it is easy to see why. But the fact of the matter is, that is exactly what being a Christian is like. It is a relationship, a very loving, very deep, very committed relationship, one which the apostle Paul finds appropriately analogous to marriage—but a marriage in the deeply religious sense, not in the just-a-piece-of-paper sense it has been reduced to.

A woman who has only been married for one year will describe the experience quite differently from the woman who has been married for twenty years, just as a new Christian will describe their experience in terms rather different from someone who has been a Christian for decades. As relationships mature and deepen, new experiences and values are discovered and enjoyed, problems arise and get worked out and so forth. Someone who became a Christian last year will not have yet experienced the dynamic trials and triumphs of someone who has had a relationship with God for the last twenty years. For that matter, the trials and triumphs of each will not even be the same when they do happen, since every relationship is unique.

There is no simple, easily packaged and slogan-ready answer that can be offered to this question, quite honestly. This must be understood, not just by you but any honest inquirer. Christianity is not simply a set of metaphysical propositions to which one gives intellectual assent and somehow, like some altered state of consciousness, one magically feels a little differently. Propositions simply do not have that property.

Relationships do. And at the very core of Christianity is God, a personal being with whom one enters into a relationship through the incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ, about whom both the Scriptures and the corporate body of believers attest. Myself, I have been a Christian for about ten years now, in a very complex, fluid, and dynamic relationship with God on both the intellectual and emotional level. (God has a funny tendency to grab your whole entire being.) I began this journey as an atheist and—as if that did not already change my entire world—later experienced two more paradigm-shattering changes at the most fundamental levels of my epistemic convictions. Anything I could say about what being a Christian is like is going to reflect that unique personal history and those levels of enlightenment, insight, and profound growth in the knowledge and wisdom of Christ. An answer from someone else will reflect a dramatically different sort of history, and will vary to an even larger degree if that person has had a shorter or longer relationship with God.

What does it feel like to be a Christian? It feels like meeting, falling in love with, and marrying the most wonderful person in the whole world, and that experience intensifies and deepens and becomes more complex and intricate the longer you are married, a marriage whose dimensions and contours are shaped by a history rich with experiences of love, anger, relief, sadness, joy, betrayal, repentance, elation, and so on.

But that whole meeting the person for the first time? For a lot of people it can be a little awkward. It was for me too, including when that person is God.

Obama, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Being Christian

Under my last blog post "President Barack Obama" a gentlemen by the name of Matthew left some thoughts and questions for me (here):

David - yours is the first Christian blog that I've read that is supportive of Obama. All others have focussed on his extreme pro-abortion and pro-homosexual stances - were these not issues for you from a Christian standpoint?

Oh, and just to play Devil's Advocate, God most certainly did will that Obama be elected; but then, He also gave Israel the king that they wanted in King Saul.

Keep up your awesome writings ... you don't blog as often as I think you should!

First I wish to extend a personal greeting to you, Matthew, and to thank you for stopping by this blog and leaving your thoughts and questions. Second, the reason my response to you is getting its own blog post, instead of being in the comments field, is because I have far too much to say.

With regard to other Christian blogs being critical of President Obama rather than supportive? All I can really say about that—and I think your comment itself reflected this—is that it seems to stem more from a political commitment than a biblical one with a measure of willful ignorance. You say they express criticisms of his stance on abortion and homosexuality, which in North American society are obviously two polarizing political issues, especially as key positions characterizing the conservative agenda (whether the Republican party in the U.S. or Conservative party in Canada).

But as is far too often the case, these bloggers misunderstand—or shamefully misrepresent—what Obama's position is on such issues. Take abortion, for example. If you spend enough time listening to right-wing conservative radio (e.g., Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Andy Wilkow, etc.), which many of these bloggers probably do, you would think Obama is in favour of killing babies because he voted 'present' on certain bills instead of voting 'no'. He is described, even by McCain himself during the final Presidential debate, as aligning with "the pro-abortion movement" (which in itself is a retarded label because no one is 'pro-abortion'). These despicable right-wing hosts are attempting a blatant character assassination of Obama by misrepresenting his position, and even misrepresenting how the system works. You see, the actual facts of the case paint a very different picture. But they do not wish to present all the relevant facts because Obama would not look as nefarious as they want him to appear. And I think a lot of these bloggers listen to these radio hosts, and it gets reflected in their posts.

But look at what the facts are. As a skeptic, that is my consistent position: listen to the arguments from both sides, investigate what the facts are, then draw a more informed conclusion. For instance, under the rules of the Illinois state legislature, only 'yes' votes count toward the passage of a bill; i.e. to vote 'present' has the same effect as voting 'no' since it has the same result on the bill. Ergo, it is misleading to say that Obama "voted against" the bills. He simply voted 'present'. Moreover, when you vote 'present' it generally means that you have a problem with the bill—like its wording, for example, or its failure to include something you feel should be there. But neither these right-wing radio hosts nor these bloggers inform people of these relevant facts.

That is how the state legislature works. As for Obama's voting record, let's look at a specific example. The reason why Obama at the Senate Judiciary Committee in the state of Illinois was opposed to the bill purported to ban partial-birth abortions was because it did not include anything about those abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother; it would have rendered doctors vulnerable to felony indictments for adhering to their Hippocratic Oath by performing an abortion when the mother's health was in jeopardy. In my opinion, anyone with a brain would have had a problem with that bill. "If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold life-saving treatment from an infant," Obama said during the debate, "it's because it's not true . . . I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions—partial-birth or otherwise—as long as there is an exception for the mother's health and life. And this [bill] did not contain that exception" (Obama-McCain Presidential Debate III, 15/Oct/08). Imagine that. He would support a ban on late-term abortions. But, again, neither these right-wing radio hosts nor these bloggers inform people of these relevant facts.

To be fair, usually these bloggers are not themselves aware of the actual facts of the case because (i) right-wing radio often avoids the facts whenever the facts weaken their agenda, and (ii) they do not personally verify the information they hear, they do not check to see if what they are hearing is true. They hear it from a source they trust (but should not) and readily believe it, and subsequently propagate it in their blogs.

Are not the 'abortion' and 'homosexuality' topics an issue for me, from a Christian standpoint? Well, yes and no. See, your question is hinged upon what I feel is a crucial equivocation. Speaking for myself, there is a fundamental distinction on these issues as they relate to (i) the 'church' on the one hand and (ii) the 'state' on the other—predicated upon my personal conviction (corresponding to the federal Constitution of the United States) that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state.

For example, how I think the church should handle the issue of 'gay marriage' is distinct and unique from my view on how the state should handle it, such that I am quite opposed to legislating my 'church' convictions (regardless of how many people share them in common with me) over the entire constituency of the 'state' because I know there are many others who do not share them in common with me. Look at it this way: I would not want to live in a society where Islamic doctrines were legislated into state law; ergo, I am likewise opposed to legislating Christian doctrines into state law. The church can handle the issue of 'gay marriage' in accordance with its Scriptural mandate but it cannot impose those doctrines on the rest of the country's population. And the state can handle the issue in accordance with state laws, which are under the ultimate jurisdiction of the federal Constitution.

If I had lived in the state of California, I would have voted 'no' on Proposition 8; in other words, I would have been opposed to the state banning gay marriage. Why? Because there is no political or legal argument for banning it. Only a religious argument—e.g., Scriptural support for (i) the sanctity of marriage as ordained by and centered upon God, (ii) marriage being a union between one man and one woman, and Scriptural proscription against (iii) the practice of homosexuality. But religious arguments, no matter how solid or compelling they might be, are entirely moot because of the First Amendment.

Having said that, there are very strong Constitutional arguments against banning gay marriage; the arguments are complex and cite various Articles and Amendments of the Constitution but they basically boil down to this inescapable fact: if one group of people are allowed to marry, all groups are allowed to marry. If same-sex couples are barred from marriage, it is an abridgment of the privileges they are entitled to as citizens of the United States, stripping them of equal protection of the laws.

But I also insist that the state is Constitutionally prohibited from interfering with church practices. In other words, wherever gay marriages are to be recognized by the state, there must be protection for church clergy who, according to their religious convictions, refuse to officiate gay marriages. It is disgusting to me when I hear about clergy being prosecuted under a civil lawsuit because they refused to marry a same-sex couple. The "wall of separation" goes both ways.

"Oh, and just to play Devil's Advocate," you said, "God most certainly did will that Obama be elected; but then, He also gave Israel the king that they wanted in King Saul." Touché, my friend... touché.

And thank you very much, for your warm compliment about my writing.

Unequally Yoked

In a forum elsewhere, 'Sarah' asked any interested parties to weigh in on the following issue (my response to her follows):

I was having a discussion with a friend of mine a few months ago about spiritual and religious beliefs, and how they relate to your search for a life partner. He maintained that as we get older we get more set in our ways, and because our spiritual beliefs and values go to the core of who we are, these beliefs become more important with time. I argued that it should not be an issue, as long as your partner respects your beliefs. But since then, I am beginning to wonder if maybe he had it right. What is your take on this? Does it matter to you? Or is mutual respect for each other's beliefs sufficient?

For me the issue is 'somewhat important', but nearly pushes into the arena of 'very important'. There are theoretical considerations, but... for me, it was the practical lessons that drove the matter home. I had dated a Wiccan lady some years ago. As a person I thought she was quite delightful—obviously, since I decided to date her—but she eventually proved incapable of reconciling the differences between our convictions. I showed interest in her convictions by studying Wicca at length, its beliefs, rituals, and history, and asking her questions about her unique interpretation of Wicca (as a solitary practitioner). She showed precisely zero interest in my convictions, never bothering to understand me in light of them, its effect and influence on my life as a whole. I felt that was unfair but, in the grand scheme of things, acceptable. But ultimately it was more than just a disinterest on her part; she overtly disrespected my spiritual beliefs and completely failed to appreciate how integral it was to my very identity, which was demonstrated very clearly one fateful day. As we sat on the couch talking one afternoon, she noticed a black book sitting face down on the back of the couch. Curious about what it was, she picked it up and glanced at the cover, which said "Holy Bible." She made a face and a noise of disgust and dropped it back down, wiping her hand off. The relationship did not survive.

So obviously there needs to be a mutual respect between two parties with differing spiritual beliefs (or if one has no spiritual beliefs), but that only really works if the two people are merely dating. I think this is where the issue becomes more poignant and relevant, which might make sense of the realization Sarah is coming to. When the relationship goes beyond mere dating, when it transcends into a domestic covenant (whether marriage or common-law partnership), a mutual respect for each other's spiritual beliefs is no longer sufficient. When a relationship acquires substantial depth, one begins to desire more than just respect; one desires to be understood and to have harmony. And as another participant pointed out, raising a family brings the issue to a salient point, elevating the desire for understanding and harmony to a pronounced need—especially where values and morals are concerned. A pagan and an atheist might inherently agree already on values and morals, but the views of a pagan and a Christian are antithetical on that issue.

When it comes to dating, mutual respect is required. When it comes to a domestic covenant, something more substantial than mutual respect is desired. And when it comes to raising a family, that understanding and harmony goes from being desired to being needed.