An exchange

I just had an interesting exchange with someone over at a news blog I read frequently. The original article was about the preacher who baptized Jeffrey Dahmer. He is quoted saying that Dahmer, who claimed to have repented his crimes, is in heaven. Most commenters at the blog found it ludicrous that all that would be needed to be considered "saved," even when guilty of the most atrocious crimes, are professions of faith and repentance. I made a short comment on the validity of this theology (within the Christian theological framework).

A regular poster at the site, an ardent but not over-bearing Christian, also chimed in, with an expansive exposition on the nature of sin.

I then added, in good nature, this:

"Paul, thanks for the hermeneutics, but drawing on two thousand years of Christian teachings, although it sounds authoritative, doesn't make your theology true.

"Just playing Devil's advocate."

To which, he replied:

"Oxhead--Interesting. Please explain. Or email me to save posting space..."

I can't resist an invitation like this so, on my company's time, I wrote him. To follow is our exchange of about 30 minutes ago (reproduced here with his permission.)

Paul,

It is a heavy burden for an agnostic like me to love the Bible so much, but I can't help it. It's like me and chess: I love the game, but I'm terrible at it. I've read the Church fathers and the medieval scholastics, and the theologians of the reformation--I just can't get enough of that stuff--but I'll never be a Christian believer.

Everything you wrote at Obscure Store reflected Church (as in Catholic; but it applies to most Christian thought, no?) teachings on the nature of sin. It's beautiful and logically compelling. But the point I wanted to make was that a self-contained, hermetic system of thought, is only logically impervious if all its premises are accepted. An atheist could listen to you expound on the nature of sin for six hours and then undermine you by questioning the premise of God's existence.

I said that the preacher's comment about Dahmer is actually sound theology, but to accept that as a relevant statement one would have to accept God as a real being.

--
Oxhead
Washington, D.C .

Oxhead,

Couldn't agree with you more. In fact, I think that theology is more for the believer than those who don't believe. I once heard of a man who had the entire Bible memorized in two different translations! When I found out he was an atheist, I was dumbfounded. But then I realized one fundamental truth that I was overlooking: all the knowledge in the world doesn't mean anything if the heart is not transformed to be able to have faith.

For me, there is plenty of evidence to support why I believe. But that is not why I believe. I do so, because God changed my heart, opened my eyes to see his truth and not what I think it should be. My life, experiences, and events are testimony to me about the reality of God. Without that, I am simply a religious studies major. For me, it's less about knowledge and more about a relationship with God on a deep level that cannot be expressed adequately with words.

I would never presume to think I can change anyone's mind or heart. It's true, I can talk to an atheist until I am blue in the face, but unless God removes the veil from their eyes, they can never truly believe.

I am curious why you would not allow your heart to explore the possibility of experiencing his love, grace and acceptance. Never say never, my friend- God had changed harder hearts than yours.

I hope you don't mind if I pray for you in your search for truth and answers. I am glad you are agnostic- never stop asking the tough questions. Nothing is worse than a "Christian" who believes simply because they are told to or feel they should based on upbringing or pressure or whatever. It is highly probable that they are being self-deceived in thinking they have a faith when really they are on a borrowed faith living for approval of others.

Thanks for your insights. I pray you find what you are seeking and that one day you would cross-over from the intellectual to the real.

Paul Johnson

I was not aware that intellect is something apart from the real...or am I over-reacting? I suppose I am. I get his point, which is an exceedingly old one, almost Pauline, in fact: don't over-intellectualize the matter, just have faith. This is strong stuff. It's what moved the early Christians to allow themselves to be beaten, whipped, crucified and tossed to the lions when all they had to do to avoid such troubles was to utter four words, "The emperor is divine." That kind of devotion to a philosophy or faith is downright scary to me. If I had lived in those times, I'm sure that my penchant for the underdog would have made me a Christian, but the prospect of having my eyes gouged out would have turned me back into a pagan straight away.

As for Mr. Johnson praying for me, well...I'm not a believer, but why should I object? If the god of Paul Johnson is real, I shouldn't mind a small deposit of prayers in my name. A little Pascal wagering can't hurt.