Sh'khinah--The Abiding Presence of God

16.2. The Abiding Presence of God Commentary - A Testimony of Jesus Christwww.biblestudytools.com

The Abiding Presence of God

At the heart of the idea of a Temple is the abiding presence of God. Although God is omnipresent, He has chosen to manifest His presence in certain locations and at certain times within history. This physical manifestation of God has come to be called the Shekinah.

the Shechinah Glory is the visible manifestation of the presence of God. It is the majestic presence or manifestation of God in which He descends to dwell among men. Whenever the invisible God becomes visible, and whenever the omnipresence of God is localized, this is the Shechinah Glory. The usual title found in Scriptures for the Shechinah Glory is the glory of Jehovah, or the glory of the Lord. The Hebrew form is Kvod Adonai, which means ‘the glory of Jehovah’ and describes what the Shechinah Glory is. The Greek title, Doxa Kurion, is translated as ‘the glory of the Lord.’ Doxa means ‘brightness,’ ‘brilliance,’ or ‘splendor,’ and it depicts how the Shechinah Glory appears. Other titles give it the sense of ‘dwelling,’ which portrays what the Shechinah Glory does. The Hebrew word Shechinah, from the root shachan, means ‘to dwell.’ The Greek word skeinei, which is similar in sound as the Hebrew Shechinah (Greek has no ‘sh’ sound), means ‘to tabernacle.’. . . In the Old Testament, most of these visible manifestations took the form of light, fire, or cloud, or a combination of these. A new form appears in the New Testament: the Incarnate Word [John John 1:14].1

The concept of the Shekinah is behind the wonder of the incarnation. The very glory of God “tabernacled” within human flesh and was handled and beheld. “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us(ἐσκήνωσεν [eskēnōsen] ), and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” [emphasis added] (John John 1:14).

(Σκηνή [Skēnē] was the word used by the translators of the Septuagint for the Hebrew מִשְׁכָּן [miškān] , “tabernacle” (Ex. Ex. 25:9). During Israel’s pilgrimage from Egypt to Canaan the tabernacle was the place of worship for the people. The tabernacle or tent in the wilderness was the “tent of Jehovah,” Himself a pilgrim among His pilgrim people. In sound and meaning σκηνόω [skēnoō] recalls the Hebrew verb שָׁכַּן [šākkan] meaning “to dwell,” which is sometimes used of God’s dwelling with Israel (Ex. Ex. 25:8; Ex. 29:46).

In postbiblical Hebrew the Jews used the term שְׁכִינָה [šeḵînâ] (“Shekinah,” literally, “presence”) of the bright cloud of the presence of God that settled on the tabernacle. The Shekinah glory was nothing less than the visible manifestation of God.2)

The manifestation of the Shekinah is at the heart of understanding the meeting of God with man. In the earliest communion of man with God, God is said to have been “walking in the Garden in the cool of the day” (Gen. Gen. 3:8). This must speak of a localized presence with which Adam and Eve could interact—the Shekinah. The word itself embodies the notion of dwelling or abiding. This emphasizes the single most important aspect concerning God’s localized presence: where is He abiding? For wherever the Shekinah is, there is relationship with God in a more intimate way and all the benefits which come from His special presence. 

This is the essence of the promise made to the overcomer in Philadelphia, the fulfillment of that first love which was lacking in Ephesus: to walk once again in full fellowship with God (Gen. Gen. 3:8; Gen. 5:24; Rev. Rev. 21:3+, Rev. 21:22+). This was the ultimate desire of the psalmist (Ps. Ps. 23:6; Ps. 65:4). Thus, it is an incredible blessing to enjoy the presence of God. This was the primary purpose of the Temple throughout history: to house the Shekinah glory of God among men. It is in the Temple where God’s presence “dwells between the cherubim” over the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Ex. Ex. 25:22; Num. Num. 7:89; 1S. 1S. 4:4; 2S. 2S. 6:2; 1K. 1K. 7:29; 2K. 2K. 19:15; 1Chr. 1Chr. 13:6; 2Chr. 2Chr. 5:7; 2Chr. 6:41; Ps. Ps. 80:1; Ps. Ps. 99:1; Isa. Isa. 37:16; Eze. Eze. 41:18). Unless the glory of God “inhabits” the Temple (1K. 1K. 8:10-11; 2Chr. 2Chr. 7:1; Eze. Eze. 43:2-4; Eze. 44:1-2; Hag. Hag. 2:7-9; Mtt. Mat. 20:12) it is just a dead architectural edifice.3 Conversely, in the history of the Temple, there are grave consequences when the Shekinah departs from the Temple, for it indicates God’s displeasure with those among whom He previously dwelt and the removal of His protection and blessing in His departure. The Temple, the house of Israel, is left desolate when the glory of God departs. In at least two occasions in history, the result has been the destruction of the Temple. When the Shekinah left Solomon’s Temple in the days of Ezekiel’s prophecy (Eze. Eze. 10:18; Eze. 11:22-23), the eventual result was the destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. When the Shekinah left the Second Temple in the days of Jesus (Mtt. Mat. 23:38), the eventual result was the destruction of the Temple by Titus Vespasian of Rome (Mtt. Mat. 24:1-3).

 Whether God remains in His house is serious business! Although it is beyond the scope of our treatment here to consider an extensive discussion of God’s abiding presence, it will be helpful to note some of the most significant historical events related to the Shekinah.4 The Shekinah glory:5

• Illuminated the earth prior to the creation of the sun and moon (Gen. Gen. 1:3, Gen. 1:14).
• Walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden (Gen. Gen. 3:8).
• Ratified the Abrahamic covenant while Abraham slept (Gen. Gen. 15:17).
• Descended upon Mount Sinai at the giving of the law (Ex. Ex. 19:18; Ex. 24:15-16; Ex. 33:18-23; Ex. 34:5-6).
• Filled the Tabernacle in the wilderness (Ex. Ex. 40:34).
• Filled Solomon’s Temple upon its dedication (1K. 1K. 8:10-11; 2Chr. 2Chr. 7:1).
• Left Solomon’s Temple due to Israel’s sin (Eze. Eze. 8:4-6; Eze. 9:3; Eze. 10:4, Eze. 10:18-19; Eze. 11:22-23). The Temple is left unprotected.
• Returned to the Second Temple in the form of the incarnation of Messiah Jesus (Mtt. Mat. 12:6; Mat. 21:12; John John 1:14; John 2:15).
• Left the Second Temple desolate upon the departure of Jesus (Mtt. Mat. 23:38; Mat. 24:2; Luke Luke 13:35; Luke 21:6). The Temple is left unprotected.
• Appeared on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mtt. Mat. 17:2; Mark Mark 9:2; Luke Luke 9:29).
• Appeared to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts Acts 9:3; Acts 22:11; Acts 26:13; 1Ti. 1Ti. 6:16).
• Will return to the Millennial Temple (Isa. Isa. 60:3; Eze. Eze. 43:2-4).
• Illuminates the New Jerusalem (Rev. Rev. 21:23+; Rev. 22:5+).

Myth or Reality?--The Star and the Magi

The Astronomy Behind The Star Of Bethlehem : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPRwww.npr.org

The Star Of Bethlehem And The Magi: Myth Or Reality?

Trying to relate biblical narrative to actual historical events is a complex field of scholarship that attracts interest both from inside and outside academia.

The purpose here is multifaceted, from the believer historian or astronomer who wants to prove that there is a connection, to the nonbeliever who wants to disprove any such thing. In the middle, there are those who want to investigate the historical and, often, the astronomical data in search of phenomena or events that justify a biblical mention. Chief among such events is the appearance, as mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew, of the Star of Bethlehem illuminating the skies to the birth of young Jesus and guiding the Three Wise Men from the East toward his birthplace.

A recent book, The Star of Bethlehem and the Magi, edited by astronomer Peter Barthel and theologian George van Kooten, collects interdisciplinary perspectives from experts on the ancient Near East, the Greco-Roman world, and modern astronomy. The book is the proceedings of an international conference that took place in 2014 at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.

Largely, the articles are a response to a previous study by astronomer Michael Molnar, published in his 1999 book The Star of Bethlehem: The Legacy of the Magi, where he claims that the star was an actual astronomical event, namely the appearance of Jupiter in conjunction with the sun, the moon, and Saturn in the constellation of Aries — which modern celestial mechanics calculations show occurred on April 17 in the year B.C. 6. According to Molnar, astrologers would interpret such celestial event as a major portent, signaling a sort of royal birth. Couple that with the expectation of a Messiah born from the house of David, and the connection between a celestial event and the actual birth was justified. According to Molnar, the Three Wise Men were actually (Persian? Arabian?) astrologers well-versed in the motion of the skies and, hence, keen to see such powerful astrological sign vindicated in reality.

Barthel and Kooten summarize the results of their conference into four questions: What? (the astronomical phenomena); When? (the chronology of events); How? (the role of astronomy and astrology); Why? (the evangelist's motivation). On the nature of the astronomical phenomena, there was complete agreement with Molnar, qualified agreement and radical disagreement. On the "when," most agreed that Jesus's birth took place between B.C. 7 and B.C. 5. On the "how," there was mostly disagreement as to the intentions and interpretations of astrologers from different regions in the Middle East. One particular difficulty was to justify the appearance of only three "wise men," given the supposed power of the celestial portent. Why not a multitude? As for the "why," Matthew was the one evangelist that considered celestial portents seriously, as they indeed colored his narrative throughout. For example, for the end of time prophecy he would write (Matthew 24:29): "the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heaven will be shaken." Matthew saw prophecy mirrored in the skies.

Although opinions diverge, it seems that celestial events did occur around the birth of Jesus. The problem is that they often do, some more spectacular than others. To the extent that they provide context to a religious narrative, there is a confluence between myth-building and expectation, the skies being the realm of God and thus sacred, sending us signals of what is to come.

If nothing else, the Star of Bethlehem tells us of a time when looking up to the skies in awe and wonder was part of people's lives, something few of us relate to nowadays. Christmas offers the perfect context for us to rekindle this ancient connection.

---

Marcelo Gleiser is a theoretical physicist and writer — and a professor of natural philosophy, physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College. He is the director of the Institute for Cross-Disciplinary Engagement at Dartmouth, co-founder of 13.7 and an active promoter of science to the general public. His latest book is The Simple Beauty of the Unexpected: A Natural Philosopher's Quest for Trout and the Meaning of Everything. You can keep up with Marcelo on Facebook and Twitter: @mgleiser

Did the Wise Men Know Jewish Prophecy? -

(*click this link for the original article)
Did the Wise Men Know Jewish Prophecy? 

Archaeological discoveries are helping to illuminate the biblical account of the humble birth of Jesus.

Almost everyone on Earth knows the story of Christmas. The angels announcing the birth of the Messiah to the shepherds and the wise men following the star to the little town of Bethlehem where they found the Son of God living already in a house. (* correction according to Matt. 2:11)

But there's a lot more to the story. What led the wise men to follow a Jewish prophecy?

Few Saw The Signs

The birth of a baby -- a small event that became the turning point in world history. 2,000 years ago, the Messiah arrived on earth, but only a few people saw the signs.

"Where is he who has been born King of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the East."
Matthew 2:2

The only people who see the sign in the stars of the night are the people who are looking for it. The ones who saw the sign were wise men from the East. Their search for the King of the Jews brought them to the palace of Herod the Great.

The irony of course, is that they have seen a star that they associate with the rising of a King over Jacob and this takes us back to the book of Numbers, chapter 24 and the prophecy of Balaam the prophet

So who exactly were the wise men who called on King Herod? Where did they come from? And why did they seem to know Jewish prophecy better than the Jews?

3000-Year-Old Inscription Discovered

The answers may lie in a 3,000-year-old inscription discovered in Jordan. In 1967, archaeologists found the remains of an ancient temple in a village called Deir Alla.

On the wall of the temple was an inscription about Balaam the prophet, the same character that we know from the book of Numbers.

Balaam, the son of Beor. visited by an angel and scolded by a donkey. A freelance prophet hired to curse the nation of Israel.

But instead, he prophesied the coming of the Jewish messiah by the star of Jacob.

"A star shall come out of Jacob; a 

scepter shall rise out of Israel." 

Numbers 24:17

Only small fragments of the Balaam inscription have survived. It's written in Aramaic and it reveals a vision of judgment from the gods of Canaan.

"[It's] totally different context archaeologically with a story about him that is not the biblical story," said Stephen Pfann, one of the editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"But it shows us that his reputation as a professional foreteller or prophet was known throughout the eastern Jordan or Trans-Jordan."

Balaam is one of the few Old Testament prophets with archaeological proof of his existence.

"I think it's just exciting, Pfann said. "It lends plausibility in one sense to Matthew's story, because the people who are familiar with Balaam's prophecies are people who are coming from that side of the Jordan River."

Herod's Secret Meeting With The Wise Men

Balaam's prophecy led the wise men to look for a star and the star led them first to Jerusalem.

The tower of David -- the spot where Herod's palace once stood. A place historians have called wondrous beyond words.

It was here that Herod summoned the wise men to a secret meeting.

"The humor of the text is that they come to the King of the Jews, Herod, who does not know his own scriptures," Pfann explained.

"He has to ask his counselors and his advisers to search the scriptures so that he can find out which prophecy they're talking about while they who are foreigners and gentiles know the prophecy of Balaam," he said.

Herod's men found a 700-year-old clue from the prophet Micah. A passage that led the wise men to the birthplace of the Messiah.

"But you, Bethlehem, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel. Micah 5:2-5

(* Bethlehem Ephrathah,

you are small among the clans of Judah;
One will come from you
to be ruler over Israel for Me.
His origin is from antiquity,
from eternity. Micah 5:2)

They went to Bethlehem and found Joseph, Mary and Jesus. They brought gold, frankincense and myrhh.  Gifts that were described by the prophets, hundreds of years earlier.

"Nations shall come to your light, and kings, shall bring gold and frankincense."
Isaiah 60:2 - 6

Massacre of the Innocent

But while the wise men worshipped Jesus, Herod planned to kill him.

"I think nowadays if we were to meet Herod the Great, we would probably consider that he suffered from severe paranoia, and was in need of medical treatment and a good psychiatrist," Pfann said.

The wise men only fueled his paranoia. They were known as the king makers of the East and now they were in Herod's palace, looking for the one who had been born King of the Jews.

Herod saw their visit as a threat.

"This is just who Herod is," Pfann said. "He's a convert with no Jewish blood who is always fearful, doesn't trust anyone, loved his wife so much he killed her, loved her to death, I say."

Herod ordered a massacre in Bethlehem. Every male under the age of two was killed. An event that was prophesied by Jeremiah more than 600 years before it happened.

"A voice was heard in Ramah, Rachel weeping for her children, refusing to be comforted for her children, because they are no more." Jeremiah 31:15

Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt, a journey predicted by the prophet Hosea and fulfilled in the Gospel of Matthew.

"Out of Egypt I called my son." Hosea 11: 1

"Hosea 11:1 says when Israel was a child, and I loved him. and out of Egypt have I called my son," said Pfann. "Some of the rabbis say Matthew misquoted Hosea 11 terribly. Nonsense. "What was his point? His assumption was that his audience would know the whole verse when Israel was a child I loved him, out of Egypt have I called my son," he continued. "As it happened to Israel, it happened to the Messiah. You have this pattern all over the scriptures."

Nowhere is the promise of the Messiah more powerful than in the book of Isaiah. He spoke of a child, born of a virgin. A son called wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting Father and Prince of Peace.

Book of Isaiah Found Among The Dead Sea Scrolls

The words of Isaiah were copied by scribes, hidden in caves and protected for more than 2000 years.

When the Dead Sea scrolls were rediscovered, the book of Isaiah was found completely intact.

"I would say the one scroll that has had more impact on the world than any other scroll that was found here was the great Isaiah scroll," Pfann said.

The oldest known copy of the book of Isaiah is the only one we have today that existed before the birth of Christ.

"There we have a scroll from around 100 B.C. that is nearly as well-preserved as it was in the days it was being read over 2000 years ago," Pfann explained. "Otherwise, the next complete copies of the book of Isaiah come from a thousand years later."

"And with this, we are going to be able to say, now and for all time, that we have the text that existed 2000 years ago," he said.

From the desert caves near the Dead Sea to the ruins of an ancient temple in Jordan, the story of the Messiah was etched in stone and written on parchment hundreds of years before Jesus was born.

"And the word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."
John 1: 14 

*Original broadcast Dec. 25, 2009.

Doubting the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection?

Dear friends:

Please click this link for the whole article

Am I a Christian, Pastor Timothy Keller? - The New York Times
(Tim Keller  was interviewed by Nicholas Kristof  12/23/2016)

Can One Be a Christian and Yet Doubt the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection?

BY ANUGRAH KUMAR

Is belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus essential to being a Christian?

The evangelical Christian leader Tim Keller answers the question thus:

"If something is truly integral to a body of thought, you can't remove it without destabilizing the whole thing," Keller, the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, wrote in the Times article, which featured both Kristof's questions and the pastor's answers.

"Tim, I deeply admire Jesus and his message, but am also skeptical of themes that have been integral to Christianity — the virgin birth, the Resurrection, the miracles and so on," wrote Kristof, who writes about human rights, women's rights, health and global affairs. "Since this is the Christmas season, let's start with the virgin birth. Is that an essential belief, or can I mix and match?" he asked.

"A religion can't be whatever we desire it to be," continued Keller, a New York Times best-selling author. "If I'm a member of the board of Greenpeace and I come out and say climate change is a hoax, they will ask me to resign."

However, the earliest accounts of Jesus' life, like the Gospel of Mark and Paul's letter to the Galatians, don't even mention the virgin birth, Kristof asked further. "And the reference in Luke to the virgin birth was written in a different kind of Greek and was probably added later. So isn't there room for skepticism?"

Keller responded by saying that Jesus' story isn't "simply a legend."

"(French philosopher) Luc Ferry, looking at the Gospel of John's account of Jesus' birth into the world, said this taught that the power behind the whole universe was not just an impersonal cosmic principle but a real person who could be known and loved," Keller added.

And the Resurrection? Must it really be taken literally?" asked Kristof.

(Jesus' teaching was not the main point of his mission, Keller pointed out. "He came to save people through his death for sin and his resurrection. So his important ethical teaching only makes sense when you don't separate it from these historic doctrines. If the Resurrection is a genuine reality, it explains why Jesus can say that the poor and the meek will 'inherit the earth' (Matthew 5:5). St. Paul said without a real resurrection, Christianity is useless (1 Corinthians 15:19)."

Kristof also asked why did Mary Magdalene and some of Jesus' disciples initially fail to recognize Him after the Resurrection? "So where does that leave people like me? Am I a Christian? A Jesus follower? A secular Christian? Can I be a Christian while doubting the Resurrection?" he asked.

Keller refused to draw any conclusion, saying he would need to talk to him at length first. "But, in general, if you don't accept the Resurrection or other foundational beliefs as defined by the Apostles' Creed, I'd say you are on the outside of the boundary.")

*(continue from original interview below)

...AND THE RESURRECTION? MUST IT REALLY BE TAKEN LITERALLY?" ASKED KRISTOF.

Jesus’ teaching was not the main point of His mission. He came to save people through His death for sin and His resurrection. So His important ethical teaching only makes sense when you don’t separate it from these historic doctrines. If the Resurrection is a genuine reality, it explains why Jesus can say that the poor and the meek will “inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). St. Paul said without a real resurrection, Christianity is useless (1 Corinthians 15:19).

KRISTOF.:But let me push back. As you know better than I, the Scriptures themselves indicate that the Resurrection wasn’t so clear cut. Mary Magdalene didn’t initially recognize the risen Jesus, nor did some disciples, and the gospels are fuzzy about Jesus’ literal presence — especially Mark, the first gospel to be written. So if you take these passages as meaning that Jesus literally rose from the dead, why the fuzziness? I wouldn’t characterize the New Testament descriptions of the risen Jesus as fuzzy. They are very concrete in their details.

TIM: Yes, Mary doesn’t recognize Jesus at first, but then she does. The two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24) also don’t recognize Jesus at first. Their experience was analogous to meeting someone you last saw as a child 20 years ago. Many historians have argued that this has the ring of eyewitness authenticity. If you were making up a story about the Resurrection, would you have imagined that Jesus was altered enough to not be identified immediately but not so much that he couldn’t be recognized after a few moments? As for Mark’s gospel, yes, it ends very abruptly without getting to the Resurrection, but most scholars believe that the last part of the book or scroll was lost to us.

Skeptics should consider another surprising aspect of these accounts. Mary Magdalene is named as the first eyewitness of the risen Christ, and other women are mentioned as the earliest eyewitnesses in the other gospels, too. This was a time in which the testimony of women was not admissible evidence in courts because of their low social status. The early pagan critics of Christianity latched onto this and dismissed the Resurrection as the word of “hysterical females.” If the gospel writers were inventing these narratives, they would never have put women in them. So they didn’t invent them.

The Christian Church is pretty much inexplicable if we don’t believe in a physical resurrection. N.T. Wright has argued in “The Resurrection of the Son of God” that it is difficult to come up with any historically plausible alternate explanation for the birth of the Christian movement. It is hard to account for thousands of Jews virtually overnight worshiping a human being as divine when everything about their religion and culture conditioned them to believe that was not only impossible, but deeply heretical. The best explanation for the change was that many hundreds of them had actually seen Jesus with their own eyes.

KRISTOF.: So where does that leave people like me? Am I a Christian? A Jesus follower? A secular Christian? Can I be a Christian while doubting the Resurrection?

TIM: I wouldn’t draw any conclusion about an individual without talking to him or her at length. But, in general, if you don’t accept the Resurrection or other foundational beliefs as defined by the Apostles’ Creed, I’d say you are on the outside of the boundary.

KRISTOF.::Tim, people sometimes say that the answer is faith. But, as a journalist, I’ve found skepticism useful. If I hear something that sounds superstitious, I want eyewitnesses and evidence. That’s the attitude we take toward Islam and Hinduism and Taoism, so why suspend skepticism in our own faith tradition?

TIM: I agree. We should require evidence and good reasoning, and we should not write off other religions as ‘superstitious’ and then fail to question our more familiar Jewish or Christian faith tradition. But I don’t want to contrast faith with skepticism so sharply that they are seen to be opposites. They aren’t. I think we all base our lives on both reason and faith. For example, my faith is to some degree based on reasoning that the existence of God makes the most sense of what we see in nature, history and experience. Thomas Nagel recently wrote that the thoroughly materialistic view of nature can’t account for human consciousness, cognition and moral values. That’s part of the reasoning behind my faith. So my faith is based on logic and argument. In the end, however, no one can demonstrably prove the primary things human beings base their lives on, whether we are talking about the existence of God or the importance of human rights and equality. Nietzsche argued that the humanistic values of most secular people, such as the importance of the individual, human rights and responsibility for the poor, have no place in a completely materialistic universe. He even accused people holding humanistic values as being “covert Christians” because it required a leap of faith to hold to them. We must all live by faith.

KRISTOF.: I’ll grudgingly concede your point: My belief in human rights and morality may be more about faith than logic. But is it really analogous to believe in things that seem consistent with science and modernity, like human rights, and those that seem inconsistent, like a virgin birth or resurrection?

TIM: I don’t see why faith should be seen as inconsistent with science. There is nothing illogical about miracles if a Creator God exists. If a God exists who is big enough to create the universe in all its complexity and vastness, why should a mere miracle be such a mental stretch? To prove that miracles could not happen, you would have to know beyond a doubt that God does not exist. But that is not something anyone can prove. Science must always assume that an effect has a repeatable, natural cause. That is its methodology. Imagine, then, for the sake of argument that a miracle actually occurred. Science would have no way to confirm a nonrepeatable, supernatural cause. Alvin Plantinga argued that to say that there must be a scientific cause for any apparently miraculous phenomenon is like insisting that your lost keys must be under the streetlight because that’s the only place you can see. Can I ask: Do you ever have doubts? Do most people of faith struggle at times over these kinds of questions? Yes and yes. In the Bible, the Book of Jude (Chapter 1, verse 22) tells Christians to “be merciful to those who doubt.” We should not encourage people to simply stifle all doubts. Doubts force us to think things out and reexamine our reasons, and that can, in the end, lead to stronger faith. I’d also encourage doubters of religious teachings to doubt the faith assumptions that often drive their skepticism. While Christians should be open to questioning their faith assumptions, I would hope that secular skeptics would also question their own. Neither statement — “There is no supernatural reality beyond this world” and “There is a transcendent reality beyond this material world” — can be proven empirically, nor is either self­ evident to most people. So they both entail faith. Secular people should be as open to questions and doubts about their positions as religious people.

KRISTOF.::What I admire most about Christianity is the amazing good work it inspires people to do around the world. But I’m troubled by the evangelical notion that people go to heaven only if they have a direct relationship with Jesus. Doesn’t that imply that billions of people — Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus — are consigned to hell because they grew up in non­Christian families around the world? That Gandhi is in hell?

TIM: The Bible makes categorical statements that you can’t be saved except through faith in Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:11­12). I’m very sympathetic to your concerns, however, because this seems so exclusive and unfair. There are many views of this issue, so my thoughts on this cannot be considered the Christian response. But here they are: You imply that really good people (e.g., Gandhi) should also be saved, not just Christians. The problem is that Christians do not believe anyone can be saved by being good. If you don’t come to God through faith in what Christ has done, you would be approaching on the basis of your own goodness. This would, ironically, actually be more exclusive and unfair, since so often those that we tend to think of as “bad” — the abusers, the haters, the feckless and selfish — have themselves often had abusive and brutal backgrounds. Christians believe that it is those who admit their weakness and need for a savior who get salvation. If access to God is through the grace of Jesus, then anyone can receive eternal life instantly. This is why “born again” Christianity will always give hope and spread among the “wretched of the earth.” I can imagine someone saying, “Well, why can’t God just accept everyone — universal salvation?” Then you create a different problem with fairness. It means God wouldn’t really care about injustice and evil. There is still the question of fairness regarding people who have grown up away from any real exposure to Christianity. The Bible is clear about two things — that salvation must be through grace and faith in Christ, and that God is always fair and just in all his dealings. What it doesn’t directly tell us is exactly how both of those things can be true together. I don’t think it is insurmountable. Just because I can’t see a way doesn’t prove there cannot be any such way. If we have a God big enough to deserve being called God, then we have a God big enough to reconcile both justice and love.

Tim, thanks for a great conversation. And, whatever my doubts, this I believe in: Merry Christmas!