Faith and Belief

I am a big supporter of bible studies.  I also am a big supporter of people “visiting” other religions’ studies (if appropriate) and activities.  Like most things in life, where there are differences, the actual truth likely lies somewhere in-between the mix.  I had a “God” experience around 5 years of age, before really knowing very much ABOUT God and beliefs – just enough to know that I believed in the same God in whom several religions believe and that He proved himself to be the most important being/parent/guide.  Therefore, I have speculated a lot about the validity of many things that people claim to be “right.”  After all, not having been in history myself to make real-life observations, I can only rely on mankind’s accounts but owe it to myself to sit closer to God so He can tell me if it’s truth, just a story with a lesson, or blatant propaganda.

Sometimes Christian readings and interpretations differ anywhere from a little to quite a bit.  Hence the huge number of Christian denominations.  Many other religions also have groups with differences within them.  And that’s fine – gives us more food for thought as to which group’s “ways” are most comfortable to us.  It is the wiser person who steps out and learns to some extent other beliefs and perceptions because therein are likely to be answers to stirrings within ourselves, and it keeps us from “buying” into everything we are hearing or being told.

I’ve learned enough bits and pieces about pagan religions to know not all is “evil” but that rather quite a bit of pagan beliefs play a part in Christianity and other religions.  Since attending the Bibles and Beer bible studies with local folks from Christian and Catholic churches, the Synagogue, and the Muslim temple and an assortment of others, it is even more clear and verifiable that, throughout the ages, religious-based teachings have had an agenda attached (imagine that!).  Looking at the whole picture makes us feel we are somehow getting closer to the truth or, at the very least, discerning what is and what is not important in “God’s eyes.”

What baffles and, quite frankly, disappoints me are the religious leaders in today’s world, with all the wealth of now easily accessible information, who are not sharing this knowledge with their congregations.  Surely they are fearful of losing members to another church or having members just totally fall away from believing in God (thus losing control and power), but I do not feel that should be their concern.   For me, the transparency of various speculations and interpretations strengthens my faith because I believe God wants us to keep searching and learning.  And I highly respect the people and groups that are strong enough in their faith to examine and consider possibilities without altering their allegiance to God. 

Because of the different exposures and groups’ support over the years, I am willing to share things like my belief that Peter did not deny Jesus but rather was following Jesus’ instructions to deny him.  I am surrounded by people who allow me to explore my suspicions while helping to keep me focused and sort through what it is I am finding that causes me to think a certain way.  And then, together, we search for documentation that supports and negates the thought so that we all have more clarity about the question at hand.  How wonderful is that? 

If it were not for listening to a Rabbi and to a biblical historian speak about the laws of the time of the crucifixion era, I would not have considered the possibility that Jesus never did go before the king … nor go through the torment Christians believe he did.  If it were not for some Catholics coming forward saying Mary Magdalene was portrayed as a prostitute so that more “glory” would be bestowed upon Mother Mary, I would not have been as open to the likelihood that Mary Magdalene was actually what would be in today’s world a middle-class or wealthy woman who supported Jesus' ministry.

I have become so disappointed with the way issues are addressed by people extracting versus out of context to support their causes.  Despite my own belief about what constitutes the beginning of life, time and again I shudder when I hear religious leaders give the arguments pro life, as they define “life,” without also considering the passages in the Old Testament that clearly define life as beginning with actual, independent breathing.  I am not saying either side is right or wrong “in God’s eyes.”  What I do believe is that WE do not know for sure but can be mighty quick to claim that we know God’s mind and His intentions when, if we look closely, we really do not always know.

Possibly some of my feelings are enhanced from having read husband’s grandfather’s (who was a preaching, Lutheran theologian) opinion that religious leaders should continue to 'stay in the classroom' in the sense that, once ordained, the leader still does not know everything and, as a believer and leader, should feel obligated even more so to continue learning and searching.  The leader is there to educate AND keep followers excited about learning more about God in a safe manner.  And those leaders should also, then, be students of wiser leaders who can educate them further while also leading them to more knowledge in a safe manner.  In essence, it is an everlasting pursuit of an enhanced relationship with God.  Along those lines, then, I can appreciate one of the aspects of praying the Dalai Lama addresses.  In being wistful, we skew reality and lessen our own responsibilities (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OJ_XlPeuiU). 

We are taught we should not make deals with God.  But through studying, we learn that Moses did, and so did Abraham.  Many people take the Bible as totally true; many see it as a group of stories (fairy tales?) whose meanings are lessons in life for us to absorb.

For me, one of the two greatest verses is 1 Corinthians 13:13 where Paul declares, “And now abideth faith, hope, charity [love], these three; but the greatest of these is charity [love].”  I take that to mean that God would prefer that I be loving rather than be faithful because that is what is most important.  In love there are good intentions, and I believe even the non-believer who truly loves inwardly and outwardly will be rewarded with a heavenly life eternal.  The second verse (it provides the greatest comfort possible to me) is God’s promise in Hebrews 13:5 -  “… I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”  The first verses within that 13^th chapter of Hebrews clearly instructs us about the extent of our what our love should be.

My wish is for mankind worldwide to be interested in learning about different views and possibilities combined with also discerning what has already been proven as undeniable fact.  And for each person to find what group they feel more in synch with to enhance the feeling of belonging but also to get the support to continue learning and deepening one's own faith and strengthening his/her relationship with God.  If love (charity) is at the center of all religions, ill intentions will not exist; and respect, kindness, and good will should become our character traits.

Copyright © December 2018 by Maeke Ermarth
                        Cheyenne, WY

Why Did Peter Deny Jesus?

Thank God for bible study groups.  They are a place to examine, learn, and explore stories and subjects that are much more complicated than how they initially appear.  Hearing the thoughts and beliefs of other participants, I continually expand my own understanding of both content and intentions embedded within the pages of the bible.

After considering many points of views, questions, and contemplations, I sometimes experience revelations.  And, I continue to ascertain a clearer understanding as a result of acquiring more knowledge and insight.  It is a healthy, perpetual experience that enhances my spirituality. 

I had a revelation just this past week that really excited me.  In a six-week study group met, we focused on some chapters in the Book of John as relevant reading for Lent.  [The incidents in this article are in John, Chapters 13-21.]We recalled that prior to his crucifixion, Jesus tells Simon Peter (who I will refer to as simply “Peter”) that Peter will deny him three times before the cock crows.  Soon thereafter while in a garden with the disciples, a detachment of troops and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees came looking for Jesus.  In defense of him, Peter cut off the ear of a high priest’s servant; but Jesus told Peter he should not have done it.  Peter no more does anything but observe and remain detached.  He ends up denying he even knows or follows Jesus – three times, and then the rooster crows.  We know that after Jesus is crucified, Peter is very sad and remorseful.

In time, Peter resumes being a fisherman.  One day, Peter and other disciples are fishing; and in the distance they see a man standing on the shore.  Once he realizes the man is Jesus, Peter rushes to the shore to greet him.  Jesus questions Peter about his love for him to ascertain that Peter truly loves him more than anyone and anything else.  Peter is able to convince Jesus that indeed, he does.  Jesus then bestows on Peter the task of taking on his responsibilities – to me, the highest honor anointed any believer.

The reaction and perception we usually witness is disappointment, even disdain, that Peter denied Jesus.  It is commonly thought he basically turned his back on Jesus … abandoned him.  It is also believed that upon being reunited with Jesus, Peter receives forgiveness and grace from him. 

For many years, I have not believed Peter denied Jesus in the way so widely accepted.  I felt that Peter loved Jesus so much and was so pained himself knowing and seeing the torture Jesus was going through that he felt compelled to defend Jesus and began his defense by cutting off the servant’s ear.  After Jesus chastised Peter for his action, Peter likely felt that admitting to being a follower of Jesus, when asked, might possibly make things even worse.  Better to just remain present but silent.  So when three times in various places Peter was asked if he knew or was a follower of Jesus, he replied, “No.”  My belief is that Peter was actually following, without understanding at the time, Jesus’s insistence that Peter deny him and not help him.  I further believe that Peter was not remorseful for having denied Jesus but that he felt anguish for doing something against what his heart was telling him to do in order to do, through Jesus’s instructions, God’s will.

I stated my perception of these interactions between Jesus and Peter to the study group.  At the next week’s meeting, we spent time focusing on Peter rushing to the shore when he recognized it was truly Jesus standing there.  After voicing that I do not have the impression that Jesus was forgiving Peter for denying him and reiterating earlier my train of thought about the denials, the group leader pointed out that Peter most likely really had no power of making things either better or worse for Jesus’s journey to his crucifixion.  Good point.  There was something, then, I was missing.

I still felt Peter was simply carrying out Jesus’s instructions, and therefore no forgiveness was necessary.  Otherwise, Peter would have been very afraid to stand before Jesus; but, no – upon knowing the man was Jesus, Peter plunged into the sea and hurried to be with him again.  It seems obvious to me that Jesus and Peter very much loved and trusted each other.  While driving home, I was pondering all this when it hit me:  God’s plan is always being played out, even when we cannot recognize or make sense of it.  It was Peter who was being protected by denying Jesus.  Why?  Because Peter was already chosen by God to be the church’s fully-human foundation.  Had Peter admitted to being a disciple, he could have been in grave danger and perhaps even killed, given the circumstances and mood of the crowd. 

That was my missing puzzle.  Through the sharing of thoughts and beliefs at the bible study, one of the participants made the comment that was the link for which I had been searching.  Peter loved and had so much faith in Jesus and God that he was willing to go against his own will to do the denying of which Jesus foretold.  When Jesus told Peter he should not have cut off the servant’s ear, Peter’s belief allowed him to stand back without questioning and just let things play out without any further involvement on his part.  Peter later went off, feeling horrible as well as confused but still knew Jesus loved him.

Imagine the joy and excitement, then, Peter felt when he saw Jesus on the shore.  Of course he went to him straight away.  There was no reason to be afraid or ashamed – he did what Jesus asked of him, and the reward was to see and be with Jesus again!  Only Peter stopped the fishing and left the boat to reunite with Jesus.  So when Jesus asked Peter if he loved him “more than these,” I take that to mean that Jesus is seeking confirmation from Peter that he will give up all earthly things, including his source of income, to carry on any commands from God.  Jesus gave him three opportunities to shun that acceptance, but Peter was steadfast and dependable.

To be honest, I was not there during these events.  None of us were.  All we have are the bible stories that exist for everyone’s interpretations … not just believers.  My insights are based on the personal relationship I have with God and my views about His characteristics.  I believe that because Peter was pre-ordained to take over many of Jesus’s responsibilities, God orchestrated the path Peter needed to follow to remain safe and ultimately able to accept and take on the role God intended for him.  Part of that path meant Peter had to deceive some people in order to do God’s will.  What a testament Peter remains to this day of unconditional and unquestioning belief, love, and faith.  “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”  Thus sayeth the Lord [Hebrews 13:5].

Copyright © April 2017 by Maeke Ermarth

               Ocean City, Maryland

What Is in a Church Service Matters to Me

Why do I attend a Sunday church service?  To connect with other believers, to have my heart feel uplifted from the songs and other music that give praise to our creator, to feel God’s serenity, and to learn more about God’s word.

Sometimes services include topics of consideration that are intended to relate to what should be our religious conscious.  While I understand the overall intent, I feel uncomfortable with time spent during services on how to not be wasteful, abusive, neglectful – you get the picture.  This is something I can read every day in newspapers and magazine, web sites and on TV.  Some suggestions are controversial and more political (usually with an attached agenda) than religious and, I believe, should be addressed outside the church. 

Further, it is counter-productive how much paper and cost is being used/wasted to print up extra “stuff” that is often tucked into bulletins.  My suggestion is that we take advantage of modern technology and simply include in the church bulletins a request for comments from individual attendees regarding any topics or activities being considered.  Those comments can be e-mailed and posted on the church’s web site (many churches in today’s world do have their own web sites).  In that way, a healthy exchange of ideas can take place without anyone feeling put upon during their sacred time of worship, there is not an abuse of paper or cost, and the distraction is not drawn into the sanctuary where, to me, it does not belong. 

Jesus relayed to people how God intends for us to live in order to be in compliance with His will.  That is certainly what the focus of the message should be inside the sanctuary.  Outside of the sanctuary, we should then exercise the free will bestowed upon us to live according to that message as we feel is appropriate.  Hence, participating on the church’s web site, participating in bible studies, supporting groups and activities and issues we feel do not dilute or betray our religious beliefs, etc.  For the time spent in the sanctuary itself, I encourage emphasis remaining on songs and prayers glorifying God, and hearing what God’s word is pertaining to any and all topics -- without distraction from its purity.

Copyright © May 2014 by Maeke Ermarth

               Cheyenne, WY

Homosexuality, Same-Sex Marriage, and Religion

The topic of how religious entities address homosexuality and same-sex marriage has been publicly considered for at least 40-some years to a significant degree.  I recently attended a lecture to learn about the United Methodist Church's stand on these issues. Personally, I do not care of what sexual persuasion a person is; but I do feel that since the Bible defines marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, I feel that same-sex marriages should not be performed under a religious authority but rather by a Justice of the Peace.  I believe "committed" same-sex relationships should have legal rights but would not expect same-sex couples to be expected to follow the instructions that are biblical demands of husbands and wives. To me, they are "civil unions," not religious ones. If couples want to be called "married" for semantic purposes, I find no big deal in the word itself as a way of defining their relationship, although I personally think the terms "matched" or "partnered" are more accurate. But under whose or what blessing that title is given does matter immensely to me.

Professed Bible believers supposedly accept it with no intention of changing it.  Followers are supposed to strive to live their lives according to the Scriptures -- which is a life-long struggle and often times includes demands that we fall short of meeting, but our goal is to continue striving to do better. Perhaps the entire discussion is too clear-cut to me, but my faith tells me I must strive to be all loving, to honor and respect the teachings of the Bible, and to accept that God is everyone's ultimate judge. The Bible does not support homo-sexuality and same-sex marriage, but it does say to love one another as Jesus loved us. I doubt that Jesus would shun or ignore a homosexual but rather would be loving and caring.  I do not, however,  believe Jesus would approve of religion-based marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.  However, mankind is given free will; and if a society determines that same-sex couples are entitled to the rights and privileges that married heterosexual couples have, that sentiment can  be recognized in a secular legal system and need not water down, ridicule, dismiss and disavow religious laws.  Many hetero-sexual non-believing and non-practicing persons get married by the Justice of the Peace so as not to sign on to the expectations and demands of the religious-based ceremonies.

Also, there is no need for all the psychological, biological, and environmental studies to come into play when determining where religions stand on the topics of homosexuality and same-sex marriage -- they do not matter.  The heads of Bible-based churches are obligated to follow the dictates of the Bible which, by the way, truly are timeless and pertain to every age of human existence. "Free" societies are graced with the option of secular laws that contend with the issues society wants to recognize that may contradict religious laws. There are a good number of people I love and adore who are gay or lesbian and whose "marriages" or "unions" I respect and accept.  However, as far as I know, their marriages have been performed under secular, not religious authority.

If the church(es) I attend decides to skew the teachings of the Bible to satisfy what a group of people want instead of adhering to God's word, then it has lost my confidence in it for providing me the role models I need to enhance my Christian belief in and my relationship with God.  It will have, in my opinion, found a new idol to worship; and I will seek out a purer, more obedient-to-the-Bible place of faith.

Maeke Ermarth © Cheyenne, WY
         February 13, 2012