The letter to the Pastor

Alright its been a long time, almost a year since I've been on here. Since then I have fallen in love with an amazing woman. We became intimate and conceived. We became engaged and through the tribulations of family and faith she backed out of the engagement. She claimed that it was her doubts about my faith that lead her to this conclusion. We sought the counsel of a Pastor, instead of counseling he gave us a biased analysis of my faith. Since I did not accept the axioms of their beliefs he thought I had a poor relationship with the Lord. I let him know of my contentions but he continued in such a manner.... This is my letter to him (names where changed):

Dear Pastor Jimmy,

This letter is written in lieu of the religious based conversations between yourself and I, and perhaps many others. You have assisted me with your time in my relationship matters and for that reason I am very grateful. On top of it being that you were assisting me, time constraints, and that the meetings were at your house, I held my thoughts and temperament in reserves. However, as I previously noted, I have felt that your demeanor and approach have been ill-mannered. Why? Well because of my beliefs. In the end, this letter is not written with the expectations of having you reach a eureka point of enlightenment; as I do appreciate the gravity of the beliefs of others.

As you may or may not know, I am a logician, philosopher, psychologist, and a talented writer. So I will utilize my skills to show that the positions that you have held to be true are logically invalid. It is not my intentions to be disrespectful, but much as I understood the obligations of a pastor to be a pastor or a bird to fly; I hope that you will see that I was entrusted with these capacities.

Without further ado I shall outline the logical flaws of "the truths" you have held so self-evident in our conversations. In logic, statements are broken down into parts, in its most elementary forms: two. These being the antecedents and the consequents: also known as the premises and conclusions. I assure you, the extent of the importance of this in our conversations will quickly appear. For instance, we shall take a bold suggestion of yours that was stated during our last meeting: my avoidance of premarital relations with Ashley would have shown my love for her. According to your implications since I did not fulfill the first clause, there was properly not a fulfillment of the second. Unfortunately for you, you simply made a rather common logical fallacy. But, we shall return to this point later.

In order to better understand this I shall further explain using another example. Let's say that you notice that when you are in the room the lights are always on. So you then determine that if you are in the room then the lights are on. But, what happens to the lights when your presence in the room is absent? Maybe the lights stay on, perhaps they do not, whatever it may be we cannot be certain. There is a variety of reasons why the lights would stay on including the presence of another person, or better stated as another variable. To assist you I will better explain: the "IF" clause is known as the antecedent, and the "THEN" is the consequent. There are very common fallacies that people commit regularly. One being attempting to affirm the presence of the antecedent through the consequent. Another being, your consistent fallacy that has taken place over the duration of our conversations, in that one believes that denying the antecedent denies the consequent. The latter causes invalidity in a manner dually noted above with the lights on in the room.

Similar to affirming knowledge of my relationship with Ashley you have spoken about my relationship with the Lord in our conversations. Your speculation of my faith is based on my failure to enlist in a liveliness in tune with certain aspects, thus I have not accepted the Lord in my life, into my soul as my savior. Well within these statements also exists several very serious variables which you are not taking into account. One simply being that it is your subjective analysis of my life that brings forth your conclusions. Another, being that you are once again denying the antecedent in order to deny the consequent and thus affirm your conclusion.

You have remarked during our conversations the acknowledgement of what I too believe to be the more important aspect in the depiction of a Christian. It is not the deeds they do or not do in their daily lives that will save their souls. Instead the necessary premise for the statement would be that accepting the Holy spirit in your heart and the Lord as your Savior is a necessary condition for one being a Christian. But then you wish to attempt to comprehend readily the hearts of men, and whether or not we have entrusted them to our Lord? Well at the very least it is a logically flawed pursuit that you are partaking in. Additionally, this is something that cannot be accounted for through the calculations of men. Take for instance, the prodigal son of the Old Testament, David, whose sins included murders and adultery among many others. Did these sins wash away that fact that he was a believer of God? Did they in turn make David unworthy of God's love? Well for that case, who among us is worthy of it? Even Job possibly the most faithful of men found that he was not worthy to freely interpret God's actions and love. So if not David, Job, or myself, would you ever lend yourself to believe that you are? We mortals are all born of sin, and constantly partaking in it. Am I then saying that we should revert to a state of "learned helplessness?" Where we would simply give in to the sins and accept our fates as prescribed sentences that would allow unchecked hedonistic lifestyles with disregards for all moral responsibilities? Well if that's the exaggeration you wish to conclude from my words then so be it. But, these are not the purposes of my words. For I do full-heartily believe that despite the acknowledgement that we are all sinners that we will be held responsible for our actions. That even in the presence of forgiveness from our Lord that we will have to face the consequences of our actions as determined by the Lord. These consequences take place not only after life but with the expansion of our physical being. By now, you can better understand that the presence or lack of my actions does not insinuate a definitive acceptance of the Holy spirit, which in turn allots me the title of a Christian.

I do not wish to insult your beliefs, but it is becoming more apparent to me that you believe that there is a cascade of fundamental elements that make a "true" Christian. While I do think that the only truly necessary element is acceptance of the Holy spirit, you wish to negate its presences through a lack of variables that you have prescribed. This is the reason why I seem to not have a relationship with the Lord in which you believe to be optimal. I can assure you that you will always (unless your premise changed) believe that I have an inadequate relationship with the Lord. Why is this? Because my beliefs will never accept your premises to be accurate.

You say that your guide is only the word of God written down in the books that compose the Bible. As a pastor you preach of not of "your truth" but "the truth." The truth which stems from the certainty of Biblical inerrancy: the paramount of the beliefs you behold; and interestingly myself as well. So then how is that our premises differ? It is because although I too believe the Bible to be the inherent word of God written by men and without error, I do vehemently contest certain aspects of your interpretation. This is why I cannot hold "your perspective" to be "the truth." But, first I regress.

It is not my attempt to prove the flawlessness of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, well because we both know that would be a frivolous task. To me it is not surprising since the Church is an assembly of men of flesh and sins. And so one may say that The Catholic Church has committed many sins in its two millennia history, but I would tend to afford them another way to think about it. The Church is much like a river and the people its waters, both being God's. Never being composed of the same water for very long it is constantly flowing. The tendons of the Church are those that were founded by the Apostles of Christ, and Jesus is our springs. As you may or may not know that the word "Catholic" means universal holding that all is part of the Church: hence, the belief in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. It is not the Church but the people within it that are of sin: much like a river being polluted due to additives that compromise the integrity of its water.

While very similarly I am sure your Church's tendons are formed with positive motives I have my contentions with several points and their implications. I have heard members of your Church to proclaim that the Bible alone is their guide, "unlike Catholics." However, much as the clergy of my church has voiced their interpretation of scripture so has your. While your church may not have the higher structures of a Pope, bishops, archdiocese, saints and so forth, you have a line of pivotal members that have molded your perspectives: Cotton Mather, William Miller, John Wesley, John Darby and even today's John Hagee being among them. Fundamental/Evangelical "movement" dates back to at least the mid 1700's in England. The movement was initiated with the motive of making biblical authority as its primary concert to its faith. In spite of this their noble intentions they would come to hold postulates that are very easily argued to be unfounded biblically without interpretation. For instance, the word rapture is never explicitly mentioned in the bible. While it is can be understood that "caught-up" in 1 Thessalonians 4:17, this is an interpretation. So to what extent does this belief have in your understanding? In the way you see "the truth?" While I do not contend the validity of the rapture at length, but I do oppose the way in which dispensationalism is so highly regarded in evangelical and fundamentalist perspectives. What are the biblical foundations for this? Interpretations of verses scattered throughout the bible. Why would you believe John Darby to be so unique that he would decode the sequence of the coming of Christ when others had not in over a millennia and half? Well we await to confirm whether or not his ideas were right. As they did in 1843 and 1844 with William Miller's countdown to the ends of days. The loose connections of Daniel 8:13-14, Isaiah 66:8, Revelations 11:1-2, and 21:4 interpretations in dispensationalism seem to be contrary to biblical authority being your primary concert. Seems to me that you are carving the truth out of the bible to create "the truth," one which myself and many others contest. It is not only through my education and faith of the bible that I hold your axioms to be inaccurate but also because of their implications.

I study Middle-East foreign policy, namely the state of Israel. While I have yet to visit this has been my primary focus since high school and I have at length seen how your beliefs affect the region. Since the 1930's thousands of Muslims have been displaced and murdered as a result of Israeli transgressions. The world has noticed that the usually heavy handed United States seems to be non-present in those regional affairs, except for perhaps when they see American made military equipment of the Israeli Defense Forces. For over 30 years Israel has received the highest amounts in the world of foreign aid from the United States, despite its momentous human rights violations. This is rather odd for the patron of freedom to take such a contradictory stance. So why would our nation do this? The interpretation of Isaiah 66:8 and Revelations 11:1-2 by Christian Zionists believe that the state of Israel and perhaps even that the rebuilding of the Temple Mount are necessary events that need to take place for the coming of Christ. It is not so much then the love of the Jewish brethren but the yearning desire to usher in the new order, and the interpreted rapture that your actions take place. To aid in the facilitation of these beliefs members of the movement supply treasuries worth of capital to the cause. This capital is not simply raw funds to the state of Israel but applied to domestic politics within our nation as well. While Jewish lobbyists are the predominant actors, evangelical Christians remain a noteworthy part of the collation that results in the unparalleled US-Israel relations. When you visited Israel how much time did you spend in the West Bank or the Gaza Strip?

I am not sure why a movement would be so eager to have the coming of Christ. What truly makes your believe that you are unique in history? Since the events Darby outlined had yet to be fulfilled prior generations hoped in vain for the coming of their savior? Personally, I would be more likely to use Nostradamus for predictions rather than Miller, Darby, or the like. First off, Nostradamus' 500 year track record of "predications" seems to be more accurate than any of the previously mentioned. And, still I do not make the renegade Catholic the hallmark of my faith. Even in conjunction of his warning that there shall arise Great War in the Middle East due to the rise of extremists’ religious views. For that matter, if Darby why not take I Ching or the Mayan predications of the end of days into account? St Augustine dually warned the masses about attempting to believe or speculate of the coming of Christ, instead to simply live faithfully. This is further noted explicitly in Mathew 24:36: "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This is also why I reserve great contentions to your perspective.

Furthermore, you propagate that acceptance of the Lord should fill the void in one's life. How mislead you are, it is of the soul. Your life and its tribulations will not dissipate simply by receiving the Holy spirit. Instead, God affords us the luxuries and happiness in terms of his understanding not ours. Christ made it clear that the new order did not discriminate between the Jews and the gentiles alike instead were universally part of his kingdom. That means there are no "chosen people," there are none worthier than others: including your kind and the like. Instead, you hold that Christ will sooth your contentions over others? This seems to me like a "romanticized" God, in which I would gladly choose my "mental" God over. God of course knows all; the very principal of limitations would dissolve his infinite glory. The Lord has no beginning and no end, all happens only with his allowance. So then are my acts in vain since the fulfillment of the prophecies will take place any way? I do not believe so. So then do you decree my God to be "mental" since I do not simply think of my life as predestined venture, but accept that the Lord confided within all of us responsibilities to carry out? Or is it since I have a differing opinion of what should be emphasized in our Lord’s teachings? Do you not understand that when you say that “your truth” is “the truth” you de facto make others points of view immoral? This is why I say my perspective, since I can see that there can be logically differing variables attributed to the concept of a Christian. In my approach it does not condemn your view to heresy as yours does. Is this “my mental” God then? If so, well I will gleefully accept such an accusation. For I believe them to be closer to the tendons of Christ than yours.

To better understand the teachings of Christ one only needs to see what attracted the Apostle Paul to his works whom we attribute almost a third of the New Testament to. Yes, the road to Damascus was essential to Paul’s enlightenment and the revelation the peace of mind gained through the deep conviction of their relationship to God. To Paul this was not through the judgment of mans' sins, but through a harmonious and loving relationship with the Lord and his flock. The stoning of Stephen among other events let Paul see the capacity of a believer’s heart. Instead of condemning the man sent to stone him, Stephen prayed that God might forgive the man for his trespasses. Love is the revolutionary aspect of Christ’s new order, not judgment.

According to Jesus himself the two greatest commandments are: “love the Lord your God with your heart and with all your soul with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these” (Mark 12: 30-31). Do you not see that by attempting to judge the validity of how I committed I am to the first commandment you trespass the second? Is this not the same mistakes of the Pharisees the Lord contested? Additionally, Matthew further heeds us to see love our neighbors properly, not through judgment:

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in someone else's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye ,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from the other person’s eye (Matthew 7: 1-5).

My utmost wishes to fulfill love and respect for my fellow man in compliance with the Lord’s wishes seems create anxiety within you. I granted you peace in your thoughts, yet you attempt to question mine? You wanted me to elaborate my relationship with the Lord when I graciously respected yours. Why is this? Are you not secure enough in your relationship with the Lord that you can afford others their right to a point of view without denying its validity? You attacked the foundations of my faith, but how often have you really introverted reflected upon yours? I too could attempt to analyze the validity of your faith through variables and the choices you’ve made in your life. But, I shall not. For I see that none of them change whether or not you have received the Holy Spirit into your being; I acknowledge this to be within the Lord’s comprehension, not mine. The purpose is this letter is to help you see the implications of your part in others lives: being a Pastor comes with inherent responsibilities.

Ashley and I came to you with the faith that you will have the good will of the Lord as your compass. Instead, you made it a point to readily turn the entrusted position of a counselor into an arbiter of faith. I know my sins; I do not require the iteration of a Pastor to know my trespasses against my Lord. I am doing my best to fulfill my responsibilities and consequences of all my actions. You may not have fully seen the gravity of the implication of your “counseling,” but I do. Granted I requested your part in our matters that does not release you from accountability. People afford you respect entitled to a pastor; it behooves you to be responsible with that trust. As a counsel you were enlisted to aid us in addressing the issues that pervade our relationship. While this may have been your intention you simply aided in further rooting Ashley doubts of our relationship. You claim to known what is cannot be known by you or anyone except the Lord and myself. You performed these actions in manner outlined at length above. Under no circumstances, do I believe that you would be justified to act in accordance to your actions. Perhaps, that’s just my understanding though of my “mental” God and his teachings.

I make it a point to not only known the tendons of our Lord’s teachings but attempt to understand their depth and complexity. Yes, attempt as I do acknowledge my limitations as a feeble mortal. I analyze our responsibilities and morals introspectively, in much the same way a doctor would with medicine. Would you ask a doctor to stop practicing of medicine since the Lord is in control of all and mortality is certain? I seriously doubt that would be the case. Fornication is a sin, but that does not mean that I do not love Ashley any less. Concurrent with biblical teachings I do believe it would be a greater sin to not accept our responsibilities to the Lord, ourselves, and our child to form a bonded family entity. This is in tangent with the teachings of Jesus and scripture: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife” (Exodus 22: 16). It is not simply adherence to law that I am motivated to pursue such a feat, but since it is what is right. The text coupled with the expectations of a marriage and the raising of a child all point to the righteousness of that action. We both proclaim our faith and love for each other, and since I am unable to know anyone heart but my own I can only accept with faith Ashley’s word on that. My child deserves the privileges afforded by the presence of a coherent family unit. This is where your biased approach to counsel affects the likelihood of reaching such prospects.

And so, it is not simply for my personal objections that I write this letter but for all those in the future which might also seek your counsel. I hope that you see the responsibilities you behold in such a position. By the end of this letter you can see that I am in addition to the things listed above, I am also a International Relations theorist, Theologist, Catholic, soon to be father, lover, and many other things. But, what is most important is that I am a Christian. It is through our Lord’s teachings that I do not wish to make it a point of our differences that defines us, but our acceptance of faith and salvation. Your sins do not dissolve your bond with the Lord. Much as it would be false to believe that righteous elements do not exist with those that have not accepted the Lord as their savior, hence the reason why those elements in and of themselves are poor judgments of faith. I hold your word to be true since I concede it to not be in the realm of my abilities to know your faith. Likewise, you can never know the depths of my love for the Lord or even Ashley for that case.