Easter Sunday Rant

When I attended the Easter Sunday service today at a church in Xenia, the pastor wasn't my favorite. The way he presented the message seemed to me as a view that followed the "that seems deep but it really isn't, it's just catchy" type of view that our modern society so often falls victim to. In addition to that, there were two times when the pastor said things that I didn't agree with.

First: The first was something that could've been interpreted as offensive, but I prefer to interpret it as the pastor's misinterpretation of the scriptures (or rather the pastor taking an opportunity to follow the mindset mentioned above and say something that was catchy, but not true). He was talking about how the scriptures often mention childbirth as an example of pain (*side note: it is my belief that whenever someone speaks of something of which they have no experience, that there should either be a preface of "I have no experience in this" or that such a topic should be avoided altogether. I usually choose the latter). When he tried to connect it to Jesus in the tomb, he said, "Jesus couldn't be held in the tomb anymore than a woman can hold a child in her womb."

My Response: First off, this rhymes and automatically makes it pleasing to the ears, causing it to become one of those sayings mentioned above (catchy, but not necessarily with any truth behind it, yet people disregard the truth for the "catchiness" of it). Secondly, to address the actual truth behind this- I think these are two different things that shouldn't be connected. The reason I think that the scriptures refer to childbirth pains is that some men (again, I have no experience in this, I'm merely speculating) recognize that childbirth, especially back then, is extremely painful and among their reference for "examples of great pain", that was the most common.

Secondly: The part that irks me the most about his message was actually something that came before the aforementioned comment. The pastor was discussing how some people might view God sending His Son to die on the cross as child abuse. He then proceeded to say, "Is it child abuse if you know you can bring your Son back from the dead?"

My Response: The first thing I usually think about when asked questions like this is to compare other examples and I immediately disproved his view. Is it child abuse if you light your child on fire, knowing that you'll douse them in water in a couple minutes? Is it child abuse to hold your child under water until they drown as long as you know CPR and can revive them? Yes. Of course it is. The end does not necessarily justify the means (that saying isn't necessarily fully applicable here, but it's close). The act of child abuse is not discounted and considered to not be child abuse simply because there was a later act of good will. What I think the keys are here in viewing God's choice to send Jesus to die on the cross are this: God not only sacrificed His Son, He sacrificed Himself ("I and the Father are One" ~John 10:30) and we must be very careful not to apply our human ideas to our non-human God. I will expound upon the second key. "Child Abuse" (even as just a phrase in itself) has very negative connotations attached to it in our minds and child abuse has to do with humans not following human standards. We cannot apply human actions and restrictions to a non-human God (no matter how strange and irrational it may seem). God is not human and He is above our reasoning, of this I am certain. "'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,' says the Lord." ~Isaiah 55:8.