(I'm probably getting us off track right away, but at least it is slightly less tangential than some rabbit trails I have seen here).

Ehrman brings up a point that I wonder about when he says

"Even if we cannot, in the end, know the reasons for suffering, we can at the least have appropriate responses to it...." (etc, etc)

I would say his proposal is a Kingdom of God response to a Kingdom of this World problem. At least, that is as I understand the Kingdom of God. However, the proposal is coming not from someone who professes Christianity, but from someone who has rejected it.

What I want to understand more fully and gain clearer insight on, is when non-believers act in accordance with the Kingdom of God, is it still considered a "Kingdom of God" action? Maybe that's a dumb question, but I'm inclined towards the idea that one doesn't need to be a Christian to act like one...

And if my inclinations are correct, then does that person receive any sort of eternal "credit" for doing the work of the Kingdom? I realize that gets to some very firmly held beliefs about salvation, which I share with the majority of Christians (although I also am aware of some interesting Biblical passages in this regard). It leads to the bigger question of whether a person can be saved without knowing it just because in their heart they "get" Jesus without actually "knowing they know" Him.

I'll be interested to know what y'all think!

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 11:15 AM

I agree with you sqeaky, the Holy Spirit was in my heart long before I realized what was happening. When I read the gospel I cannot help but love Jesus, Paul, James, Peter, John and Jude. When I read the gospel I find that it agrees with me. Jesus was in my heart and I did realize it until I read the gospel.

Posted by: Oak | May 1, 2008 12:38 PM

"What I want to understand more fully and gain clearer insight on, is when non-believers act in accordance with the Kingdom of God, is it still considered a "Kingdom of God" action? Maybe that's a dumb question, but I'm inclined towards the idea that one doesn't need to be a Christian to act like one..."

If it were a dumb question, the answer would be settled among believing Christians, at minimum.

There are three ways to look at it.

One is to say that those who are part of God's kingdom were always so. As such, any effort by God's elect is taken as proof of their election, before or after any conscious act of repentance. This, in a nutshell, is the reformed view.

This is not necessarily incompatible with the second view, which is that a non-Christian can behave as a Christian, doing deeds that are considered good. Therefore, a non-Christian and a Christian can embrace a similar movement or action as good.

The third is that, irrespective of our actions, we are incapable of doing kingdom work before repenting before God and accepting the grace of Christ. This is incompatible with the first, but not with the second.

I embrace some combination of the latter two. God can use whomever to his ends, and a non-Christian may behave oftentimes as a Christian. However, the Bible is clear as to how God ultimately regards our human actions.

He is quick to take credit for the good deeds of Christians, because he has cleansed our hearts. To suggest that one's deeds are acceptable without Christ is to suggest that one is higher than God. Such a viewpoint renders God a useful fairytale, in my view.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 1, 2008 1:29 PM

Hmmm--interesting and thought-provoking responses. I appreciate them!

Sometimes it seems like some parts of "the world" have a greater vision of Christ's vision of the Kingdom than Christians do. I see this in various non-Christian groups who are focused on the poor.

For example, most recently, someone on a previous thread implied that Habitat for Humanity was "evil" (my word, but the person never did clarify if that is what s/he meant), presumably because it was founded by liberal forces and is not technically a Christian organization (in spite of the many Christians who are involved with it, including one born-again ex-President--again, that's my interpretation of the person's words, and s/he did not respond to my request for clarification).

It's almost like there is a jealous spirit in that attitude, and maybe it is something that should get us thinking--if non-Christian organizations "get it" wrt Jesus' words, we should not criticize, nor should we hinder their work. At the same time, it should motivate us to work even harder for the Kingdom...seems like the actions of Christians should be obviously more Christlike than the actions of non-Christians, but so often I have seen just the opposite, and it leaves me scratching my head...

Probably part of my view results from my own disillusionment as a young Christian, knowing how Christians are supposed to act and over the years watching Christian families disintegrate causing me to slowly realize we aren't that much different from the people of the world. We struggle with the same issues. Only difference is Christ in our lives and our faith in His salvation...

Anywho--NT Wright's "Surprised by Hope" is very mind-bending--anyone else out there reading it?

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 2:21 PM

Just because some people reject God, doesn't mean God still isn't active in their lives.

Jeremiah 31:34 says, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.”

In his letter to the Romans, Paul uses the same terminology when he writes “when Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.” (Romans 2:14-16)

God told people how to live, by writing on their hearts. They didn't live that way, so God sent Jesus, to try to explain in better detail.

According to Paul, some people, with the law written on their hearts, won't need Jesus, but do we really want to take that chance, when Jesus can be there to defend us before God?

Posted by: Jim M | May 1, 2008 2:51 PM

I spent some eighteen years under the self-imposed label of being an Agnostic. Many times throughout those years as I performed charitable measures it was often presumed or suggested that I was a "good Christian man" because of my efforts. As if Christians were the only ones capable of feeding the hungry or supporting the poor. I was never really angered by the assumption of others yet I never hesitated to set them straight about my position (for as much as I understood it myself anyway). At one point while researching for a book that I wrote during that dark period I conducted a survey of Christian friends and asked a very simple question; If you wern't a Christian and there was no "reward system" at the end of this life for you, would you still do all the good things that you do for others? I was amazed at how consistent the responses were. With rare exception I heard a common reply "NO" because they felt that their selfish nature would at some point over-ride their desire to help others at the cost of effecting them finacially or otherwise. Although I truly appreciated the honesty in their remarks I was always saddened for the world as well as for my friends by that sort of mindset.

The Apostle Paul wrote: "Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good."

IMO This should be the living creed of all mankind believer and non-believer alike.

Posted by: d.e.sharp | May 1, 2008 4:15 PM

"Is someone who is turned away from God because of a poor witness by a Christian truly rejecting God?"

Yes. One can read in the Bible of Christians who are poor witnesses. To turn away from God for this reason is to condemn those people, and to decide for yourself what God is capable of.

"Aren't they rejecting the concept of God that the poor witness presented to them?"

Yes. We are all poor witnesses compared to the witness of Christ. To reject God on this basis is to suggest that God is complicit in sin. That is a rejection of God.

"And if they have not truly made a choice based on facts, how responsible are they for that "decision"?"

How was this choice not made on facts? Sin is a fact, and without acknowledging sin, one cannot accept grace.

If we recognize that non-Christians can feed the poor, et al... All the more reason for us to recognize that works are evidence of faith, not the root of faith.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 1, 2008 4:52 PM

sangerinde--I stand corrected! For some reason I thought it was a secular organization! Maybe because I know several non-Christians who have been involved with it...thanks for the clarification!

Posted by: squeaky | May 1, 2008 5:54 PM

Appreciated all the comments so far. Not sure if anybody has mentioned grace yet. This to me is the heart of the mystery of God and the gospel. It enables sinners to come through faith in Jesus Christ to come to the heart of God. How we respond is crucial so that faith leads to a truly changed heart and good works. As for those who have not yet come to faith in Jesus Christ we disciples have the responsibility with God to persuade convince and live out the demands of the gospel but such folks standing before God is their and God's responsibility in the end not ours! I thank God for all who work for Kingdom of God values and I am sure God will reward them somehow!

Posted by: John Pope | May 1, 2008 7:54 PM

This is remarkably civil dialogue, thankyou squeaky or initiating it.

grace, faith and works, and how they apply to non-believers.

I like the parable of the workers in the vineyard (Matt 20). Grace is the offer made to the men. Faith is accepting that offer and work is what they do all day.

The graceful offer of Christ is made to all. If it's not accepted then sure you can work, but you won't be working in the vineyard (no matter how good or useful your work might be).

I only wish Jesus had elaborated on the parable to show what happened to those who agreed to work but then did not (faith and no works).

Fortunately the owner of the vineyard keps returning to the market and making new offers of grace.

Be Blessed,

Posted by: Trent | May 1, 2008 10:20 PM

"There are plenty of people even some in this very thread that don't acknowledge their sins or even know the depths of their sin. "

How do you know whether any of the commenters above acknowledge their sin? That said, I don't think any of us fully realize the depth of our sin.

"Grace is uplifts and restores, sustains and heals even when someone doesn't acknowledge their own sin. "

To fail to acknowledge sin is to condemn ones self. Without acknowledging sin, one has no need for grace, at least in their eyes. Grace is very specific. It's power is in it's specificity as it comes from the one true God.

"That's how it works, if God had waited for me to acknowledge my sin to save or to start to save me I would not be here and I honestly think none of us would be here too. "

This is the reformed perspective, and it is a legitimate interpretation. The problem, or what I would believe to be a problem for you, is that God then chooses us. The other side of the coin is that he has chosen to condemn others.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 2, 2008 12:16 PM

"Even if we cannot, in the end, know the reasons for suffering, we can at the least have appropriate responses to it. We ourselves can feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, clothe the naked; we can work to solve problems of poverty; we can give money to agencies finding cures for cancer and AIDS; we can volunteer more often locally; we can give more to international relief efforts. We can, in fact, fulfill the urgent demands implicit in Matthew's account of the judgment between the sheep and the goats, for "as you have done this to the least of these, my brothers and sisters, you have done it unto me."

This quote from Bart Ehrman rings true with me. I appreciate Ehrman much more than N. T. Wright (I have read books by both). All of the comments so far seem to assume "God" to be an external, conscious supernatural being. I no longer conceive of God in this way. If we wait for such a god to do it for us it will not get done. WE must respond to evil and injustice as Ehrman states in this quote. I cannot accept a god who condemns some while "saving" or "blessing" others... who accepts one while rejecting the other... who "heals" one sick person but not the other.

I think it is better to do the right thing because it is the human thing to do rather than doing right in ones attempt to please ones god or out of fear of not being accepted by that god. Doing right simply because it is the human thing to do out of human compassion for humanity is when we come closest to understanding the ultimate mystery of who and what God is.

Posted by: jackfate | May 2, 2008 3:00 PM

"I don't acknowledge air and yet I need it."

You acknowledge it at every moment by breathing it. If you reject it, it does not find your lungs, filling them by some magic power.

"Even when sin is acknowledged it usually leads to more condemnation."

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 3, 2008 12:06 AM

"I appreciate Ehrman much more than N. T. Wright (I have read books by both)."

I too really like Ehrman. Not because he is an agnostic but because he is tenacious in showing parts of the scriptures that simply do not line up with Wright's view on suffering. Wright, for his part, did not back down- he gave a reasoned explanation as to what those difficult passages were there for and what they meant.

At the end of the day, I came to the conclusion that Wright, through his hermaneutical analysis, downgraded the weight of the hard passages that Ehrman had cited in order to have a defensible position on suffering. While I understand why he did it (essentially having no other choice), I would hasten to point out that there is a large segment of Christians who take the whole bible literally and would not downgrade or re-interpret those passages. Moreover, that type of analysis, in my opinion, flies in the face of some alleged infallibility of scripture.

At the end of the day, though, I have to side with Wright. He leaves us with a vision of something better to come while at the same time working for God's kingdom. Kind of like Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, to whom shall we turn, you have the words of eternal life."

Posted by: JamesMartin | May 3, 2008 6:35 AM

"You acknowledge it at every moment by breathing it. If you reject it, it does not find your lungs, filling them by some magic power. "

Actually, no--I literally rarely ever think about it, unless there is something wrong, like it's full of smoke or some other noxious fume, or someone broke wind, or for some reason I am having trouble breathing. It is something your body does without the need of conscious thought or acknowledgement. You cannot avoid breathing unless you purposely hold your breath, and your body won't let you do that for long.

It's a good analogy for Grace because I think many of us, even Christians, take it for granted. I don't think any of us can possibly comprehend the depth of our sin and our need for Christ, nor can we truly recognize that we are saturated in God's grace every moment of every day.

We notice Grace most when it seems to be absent--when a loved one dies, when horrible tragedy hits our lives, when a natural disaster kills thousands, when evil abounds. All of us benefit from Grace, and not many of us truly acknowledge it, nor can we because none of us can understand its depth. Yet, few of us consciously reject it in our lives, for that would literally mean to reject all that is beautiful and to reject love itself.

However, just as someone doesn't consciously think "it is the air that keeps me alive" not many make the conscious connection that love and beauty exist because of God's grace.

So the rain falls on good and evil alike in this world as God's grace draws all unto Him, but those who ultimately reject God will eventually understand that to reject HIm means to reject all that is good in the world. Without God, there is no Grace, there is no beauty, there is no love. And, I'm guessing, when that is ultimately removed from a person's life, they experience hell, and it is then that they realize the grace they experienced in life and took for granted was from God.

I envision that such a revelation comes in the same way that any of us who suddenly has trouble breathing clearly realizes that it is the air that keeps us alive--the air we have taken for granted up until the very moment it is gone.

Posted by: squeaky | May 3, 2008 12:30 PM

"Actually, no--I literally rarely ever think about it, "

No, you figuratively never think about it. Breathing is literally regulated by part of your brain. Grace is not something that suddenly inhabits us out of the ether. It is the direct result of renewing our spirit through Christ.

Posted by: kevin s. | May 4, 2008 4:02 PM

No, you figuratively never think about it. Breathing is literally regulated by part of your brain. Grace is not something that suddenly inhabits us out of the ether. It is the direct result of renewing our spirit through Christ.

So are you saying that grace is a result of our efforts?

Is God gracious to non-Christians or not?

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 4, 2008 8:21 PM

Squeaky,

I can't define it, to define it is to kill it.

p

Posted by: Payshun | May 5, 2008 1:41 PM

"Truth is, there are some things the gospel calls us to do that really can only be done with a vision for God's work of Resurrection. A vision of the Resurrection is contingent on faith in Jesus Christ." posted by Matt K.

We have to be very careful anytime we make claims that infer that non-Christians cannot do the same things, serve in the same manner or to the same extent, or be as "good" or holy, etc. as those who call themselves Christians. It may be a comforting thought to some and it is not infrequently promoted--the old "ONLY through Jesus Christ!!!" type language--but it sounds a bit arrogant and certainly ignorant. It makes us sound like we've really been living in a bubble and cannot recognize the reality that throughout history a high percentage of people in this world do not call themselves Christian and do greater things than the greatest of these... We lose all credibility with non-Christians when trying to make such claims.

Ghandi was more like the Christ than any Christian living today.

Thanks Squeaky for this direction. I don't think we can have credibility with questioning Christians when we become too narrow and insistant--when we become insecure and jump to claim possession of the only way. It invites self-righteousness and, for many, complacency and a plateau on spiritual growth.

The Buddha, which means The awakened one, was mentioned above and many people may be bothered by that because it may be seen as a threat. Sad. The Buddha was also more like Jesus than anyone who has ever called himself a Christian because of the level of understanding of Divinity and Reality that exists as it is no matter how we describe it and no matter what words we use. The Buddha used different language to describe this reality and try to teach people the way of seeing and being. Theism is one depiction of God and perhaps not the best way to understand Divinity.

We would be wise as followers of Jesus, the Christ, to work toward understanding the ways of seeing and being that he worked and sacrificed to teach and demonstrate more than the beliefs (mental positions) that other men (early church voices and authorities) have decided are the appropriate ones to hold in one's head.

Posted by: Aaron | May 5, 2008 5:29 PM

Well done.

This is one of - if not the - the most reasonable, non-aggro, most productive threads I've ever read.

By the Grace of God or the graciousness He shares with us and we with each other?

I don't claim to have all or even any of 'The Answers' (God aside who can?) but, for whatever they're worth, my thoughts :

We are all individuals.
We don't all see things anything like the same way.
The way some of us see things - even within groups as much as between can hurt and anger others & like Newton's law of "Every action leads to the opposite reaction", vice-versa.

We share much
We laugh, love, cry, endure, enjoy, breathe, live
We are divided by much,
Politics, religious beliefs, National, state & even tribal identities & allegiances

But God loves us all
Offers grace to all
Allows us all the choice to take and give or leave and see ..
Our way ..
His way ...
His way as we see it ..
Our way as He sees it ...
Inseparable or not?
'No Man is an island unto himself.' (Donne)
God is not an island unto any of either..
But maybe sometimes we see it otherwise?

So
God is beyond us
God is within us
We are not God yet we (all? some?) have Christ within our hearts.
Expressed or granted
By Grace, by Love, by search, by deed

All a part or all apart or allapart
As we see it ourselves
And God Himself sees it ????

I cannot say as I know that I do not know
God alone knows &
Judges
What's really in all our hearts.
I shall leave it for Him to say
Or try to ...
& do the best I can anyway in hope in compassion, in my human weakness for human vices and human dis-Grace & hope of God & Grace & faithlessness &
Faith
& All

Amen & peace unto you all.

Posted by: Salaam = Shalom = Peace | May 6, 2008 4:40 AM

squeaky: "Personally, I would like to see more threads devoted to these sorts of discussions, although I realize that is not the focus of this blog. If anyone knows of another blog that does focus on discussions like this, please let me know."

I feel the same way squeaky. I've looked around and haven't found any blog so lively as this one, in terms of participation, that addresses theological issues.

Posted by: carl copas | May 6, 2008 11:41 AM