My mom was raised a Lutheran, and she always encouraged me to "do the research", but she didn't want me and my dad to fight over it. She was right. And I was allowed to go my own way.

Each day I gain more respect for the way my parents raised me, them surfing the liberal bubble in those days, but remaining restrained in the way they raised me, never spoiling, making me earn my privileges.

Even my dad at one point decided he no longer felt any affiliation with the Catholic Church, even though he served as a missionary when he was young, and following some of my findings I shared while "passing by" we never ever again went to the mass at Christmas even, not as a family, and he individually didn't either.

Various persons (no one here at CG.com) lately have questioned my standing as a Christian, and my salvation, on the following grounds:

I'm not saved because I go to church on Sunday instead of Saturday. (This was a wrong assumption. I don't go to the building at all.)

I'm not saved because I observe Christmas and Easter instead of the Jewish holidays.

I'm not saved because I said I thought C.S. Lewis was a good Christian.

I'm not saved because I don't believe in the Rapture.

I'm not saved because I do believe in the Rapture. (Another false assumption)

I'm not saved because I'm a Calvinist. Or I'm not saved because I'm not enough of a Calvinist.

I'm not saved because I refuse to declare that Roman Catholics are not Christians.

I'm not saved because I don't take communion regularly.

And so on, and so on... Get the picture? There is an old Presbyterian joke that illustrates the point I'm trying to make.

A ship traveling in an uninhabited region of the Pacific passed a desert island, and the captain spotted smoke. Hoping to rescue a castaway, they dropped anchor and rowed the boat to the island.

Sure enough, there was a castaway. "I'm so glad you spotted my smoke signal!" he cried. "I've been here all alone for years and years. It'll be wonderful to go home again!"

Before leaving, the castaway took the captain on a tour of his little island. He showed his garden, the little corral full of wild goats that he was raising, and a very nice little cabin he'd built.

"What's that big building behind the cabin?" asked the captain.

"Oh, that's my church," said the castaway.

"And what's that other big building behind the church?"

"Oh, that's the church I built after I got mad and quit the other one..."

This is what I was getting at when I remarked that Christians always seem to be thrusting each other into Hell. Nobody quite meets our standards. As strange as it must seem, and as strange as it certainly feels, for me to be calling for more tolerance within the Church--well, it looks like that's what I'm doing, isn't it?

I want to answer <achieve> and <Jessicafischerqueen>, but I'm afraid I've already gone on long enough. You have both raised points well worth consideration. Gotta think it over--and the typesetting for my 3rd book just came in, and I have to get to work on proofing that... like now.

Final thought: Acts 16:30-32. When the jailor asked Paul and Silas, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house..."

Sounds simple enough, right? But notice two things didn't happen here. 1) They didn't just hand the man a Bible and say, "Here you go--you're on your own." 2) Nor did they catechize him and later subject him to a theological exam.

Yes, in the first century, in the lifetime of the apostles, the foundation, along with Jesus, of the church.

<(The Old Testament, the Jewish Scripture, was out of their reach.) >

A totally different topic, so I'll gladly go along with the parenthetical reference.

<I'm sure you know there are dozens (at least) of Gnostic Gospels and Acts of various apostles that were rejected, and so do not appear in our Bible today.>

Yes.

<Were those church doctors right in their finalization of the canon?>

The apostles were.

< I think they were, and I expect you do, too. If not, is there anything they should have admitted into the canon, that they left out; or allowed to stay in, that should have been rejected?>

I know the usual suspects that shouldn't have been included. I guess the only one I ever thought had any traction was Jude.

<And on what basis could you begin to answer such a question?>

A basis far beyond the scope of disussing on this forum. <achieve> could have been speaking on my behalf when he said <at some point simply pushed my doubts about the assembly process of the "current" biblical Canon to the back-ground, and "trusted" that if the one true God exists, of which i was 100% sure, he would have guarded the selection and collection of the by him inspired scriptures.>

In contrast, the message of Jesus was one of humility, charity, and brotherly love. He taught transformation of the inner person. Jesus presents the Beatitudes in a positive sense, virtues in life which will ultimately lead to reward. Love becomes the motivation for the Christian. All of the Beatitudes have an eschatological meaning, that is, they promise us salvation - not in this world, but in the next. The Beatitudes initiate one of the main themes of Matthew's Gospel, that the Kingdom so long awaited in the Old Testament is not of this world, but of the next, the Kingdom of Heaven.

While the Beatitudes of Jesus provide a way of life that promises salvation, they also provide peace in the midst of our trials and tribulations on this earth.

One of the first contemplations on the Beatitudes came from St. Gregory of Nyssa, a mystic who lived in Cappadocia in Asia Minor around 380 AD. He described the Beatitudes this way: "Beatitude is a possession of all things held to be good, from which nothing is absent that a good desire may want. Perhaps the meaning of beatitude may become clearer to us if it is compared with its opposite.
Now the opposite of beatitude is misery.
Misery means being afflicted unwillingly with painful sufferings."

I believe the work of the late Karsten Thiede, and Jose O'Callaghan, shows that the canonical gospels were written much earlier than modern scholars want to believe: that they were written during the lifetimes of the apostles, within a few decades of Jesus' death and resurrection: well before 100 A.D. They are all the more reliable for that--although as Christians we walk by faith, and presuppose the truth of the scriptures. Nevertheless, Thiede's work is truly fascinating.

<cormier> All of what you say is true, but you've left something out--at no time did Jesus ever annul the "thou shalt nots" of the Ten Commandments. In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount, He broadened their applicability.

<Steamed colleagues> A word to the wise: don't try to write satire. My new column on the "Nowadays Bible," written as a very broad satire (see http://newswithviews.com/Duigon/lee... ), and a blatant takeoff on irresponsible "Bible translations" and liberal theology, has only succeeded in convincing most readers that such a Bible exists. *sigh* I guess, once you've seen the video of last year's PCUSA general conference, you find it hard to recognize anything as a spoof.

"Replacing God’s word isn’t as difficult as you might think. You just get new words."

LOL! I second Howard, in fact this is my favorite of your columns so far. Despite the fact that, as usual, you and I disagree strongly on some key political issues. However, that's not stopped me from enjoying or benefiting from any of your fine columns.

You know what I think? And I'm not just joking- I think that all Christians would benefit from a healthy dose of Reggie Perrin.

This would help dispel the egregiously mistaken, but oft thought, notion that "Christians have no sense of humor."

With regard to the existing canonical gospels- that man's theory could be correct, since there's no archaeological evidence to disprove such an idea.

However- I'm not sure why you think this would make the discovery of a new text more unlikely? What is implausible about this scenario? A lesser know, but authentic, account of Jesus' life was written by someone who also witnessed him first hand. It was lost and then dug up later. And, following <Ohio> kind of, the time when this hypothetical gospel was dug up was part of God's plan in the first place.

Don't forget the DEAD SEA SCROLLS. I refer to the actual parchments, not the ill-conceived Death Metal Band by that name.

I like it best because I find that period of the English language to be wonderfully poetic. It's beautiful. I remember getting into giant arguments about the "Good News Bible" which a lot of people still say is better because "more accurate."

I'm not a hermeneutical Bible scholar so I can't address that question, but I can say this- the bad news is that the "Good News Bible" is written in appallingly dull English.

I imagine the "Good News Moby Dick" to read something like this:

"A man gets bit by a fish and can't forget about it."

<Jessicafischerqueen> Now I see what you mean... I thought you were talking about a newly-discovered gospel that contradicted all the others. Falling back on Christian presupposition, such a discovery as you imagine would only shed more light on the events of Jesus' life, and give us more information. As St. John said, the gospel writers didn't try to put absolutely all possible information into their work: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." (Jn.21:25) Who wouldn't want to know more of those things? (rhetorical question)

The Dead Sea Scrolls, some of them, are 1,000 years older than the next oldest surviving documents of Hebrew scripture: and mostly what they've done is to confirm what a good job the scribes did, over centuries, of faithfully transcribing the scriptures.

Some years ago I wrote another satirical "Bible hoax" column, this time about the New Utopian Translation, the N.U.T. Bible. It contained the usual silly names and blatant absurdities. But not blatant enough, it seems.

I received a frantic phone call from a minister in Washington State who had actually preached a sermon (!!!) on the iniquities of this new translation. Now his congregation thought he was off his chump, and he desperately needed to obtain a copy of this book so he could prove otherwise.

"I'm very sorry," I began to explain, "but the whole thing was a satire--" And I stopped there, because I heard a pregnant silence on the other end of the line. And then:

"Oh, no. What have I done? Oh, no, I see it now! The NUT Bible! Oh, what have I done?"

Last night there was a baby shower next door, and Mrs. PGP and I didn't go. We were invited, and we did give them a present, but under the circumstances I couldn't bring myself to take part in the celebration.

The mother and father are not married, and I'll be surprised if they ever do get married. The mother is still married to another man. If this case does not constitute adultery, then I don't know what does.

I felt very strongly that the whole situation was wrong, and that having a shower was, at best, in exceedingly poor taste. But everybody else in the building joined in the celebration: including people of my own age and generation.

I couldn't help but feel I should have said something, should have registered some kind of protest, should have stood up for God's law. And I didn't. As an evangelist, I made a very good mummy. Yes, my imitation of a bird bath was really on target.

There were several other pregnant young women there. I don't think any of them was married (or so I gathered from what I heard of their conversation).

Now there were certain rules that I grew up believing in, and I still believe in them with all my heart because they come from God. Among those rules, somewhere, is the understanding that first you get a divorce before you move in with your boyfriend, and preferably you get married before you purposely set out to have a baby. (They often said this was their plan, and they have carried it out.)

How did those rules get changed, and by whom? How did marriage become irrelevant? Given all we know about fatherlessness and its baneful influences upon a child's future, why is out-of-wedlock birth a matter for celebration?

And why couldn't I say anything like this to any of my neighbors? Where was my courage?

I console myself with the thought that no one would have listened to me; and anyhow the baby is already on the way and it's too late for second-guesses.

But I do think the right way to go about it would be to finalize the divorce from husband #1 and then marry the baby's father ASAP. He, by the way, has already sired another child in the opposite portion of the country: so he has spanned the continent with his sinful carelessness.

<Last night there was a baby shower next door, and Mrs. PGP and I didn't go. We were invited, and we did give them a present, but under the circumstances I couldn't bring myself to take part in the celebration.>

I wouldn't have given a present, and have not in similar circumstances. But that's a close call and your doing so doesn't register much on my scale of "You Shouldn't Have Done That".

<I felt very strongly that the whole situation was wrong, and that having a shower was, at best, in exceedingly poor taste. But everybody else in the building joined in the celebration: including people of my own age and generation.>

It was in horrible taste. * reminder to address this more at the end.

<I couldn't help but feel I should have said something, should have registered some kind of protest, should have stood up for God's law. And I didn't. >

To everything, turn, turn, turn, there is a season. I have spoken up more than once when our church got involved in baby showers for the unmarried. That strikes me as much different than the situation you are describing. I don't think God expects us to address every act of improper behavior we see. Anyway, there's not enough hours in the day.

<How did marriage become irrelevant?>

It goes back to the 60's and the purposeful rejection of all societal norms. The US may never recover.

< Given all we know about fatherlessness and its baneful influences upon a child's future, why is out-of-wedlock birth a matter for celebration?>

Denial is a powerful force. At some level, everyone involved <knew> there was something wrong. The wicked don't like dealing with the reality arguments per unmarried pregnancies, homosexuality, pornography, etc. I suppose it's a lot easier to blithely deny the existence of God and morality than to deal with a reasoned appeal to the logical consequences of one's beliefs.

<And why couldn't I say anything like this to any of my neighbors? Where was my courage?>

And a time for every purpose under heaven. I'm not sure when the right time to address it would be, but if it weighs on your conscience, deal with it some time.

If they <would> be, but are not part of your congregation, you might want to consider to just drop by and explain in a gentle conversation your thoughts on the matter.

If they aren't Christians, and I'm assuming <not everyone in the building> is, then you might consider going over to them, tell them about God and his Son, if they would allow you to, and if they would show mild or more serious interest, bring up the adultery situation, at a much later date if at all.

If anything, if you go to a festive occasion like a babyshower among non- or "passive"- believers, then just conservatively be congratulatory on the pregnancy (new life) and pending addition to "the family", as after all the new baby is a child of god.

If you feel you personally have acted inappropriately regarding your relationship and responsibilities to God, I would think you'd think the whole thing through, offer it in a prayer to Him, ask for advice, and if needed apologize. Best would have been to seek advice in advance, however short the notice was. That's why prayer and communication to our Father is not limited to meals or services or Sundays.

I do not know enough details on the situation but if anything try and be soft-spoken and plant a few seeds if opportunity arises (as it always does! ;)) and just take it from there. Mostly be busy with the strength of your personal bond with Him and his Son, and then start worrying about what others do, or do not do.