I often find myself drawn to the CNN belief blog. I don’t necessarily find a ton of affinity for the particular expressions of Christianity presented, but I’m almost always thankful for the thoughtful dialog. Sometimes folks will raise questions I’ve never thought too much about. One such title is this: Is Judas in heaven or hell?

I, along with Dante, presume the latter, rather than the former. Not that I’m good company, but I think I’m in good company. 

But this hip young pastor has some interesting takes. I’ve summarized some and quoted another.

1.) He argues that both Judas and Peter sinned, and made a “mistake.” Both were filled with remorse. Peter just didn’t kill himself, so he lived long enough to see Jesus’ forgiveness.

  

Was Judas’ sin worse than Peter’s? Well, Jesus does tell Pilate that “he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin (John 19:11).” So I guess Jesus kind of squashes that thinking. And he does say, “it would have been better for Judas, “if he had not been born.” (Matt 14:21; 26:24). Still it doesn’t tell us where Judas is, only that it doesn’t bode well for him. But in my mind, 2 Corinthians 7:10 has always cleared up the difference between Judas and Peter in regards to sin, sorrow, repentance, and salvation: “For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death.”

2.)  The bible doesn’t speak of Judas’ eternal state, so we shouldn’t speculate. How do even know who’s there and who’s not?

Speculation on who’s in and who’s out is never a good thing. Great point. We’ve simply been given parameters: have the Son=life/No Son=judgment and wrath. But those parameters are such that we shouldn’t throw up our hands and say, “God only knows.” It is true that God only knows, but God does more than just know, He gives us His trustworthy Word. If someone professes faith, displays faith, and perseveres until the end (or professes faith at the end-like the thief on the cross), we ought to have a level of confidence where that person is. The “God only knows” type thinking only celebrates unbiblical uncertainty for the sake of trying to make others more gracious and less dogmatic in gray areas. Noble goals, but there are better ways to reach them.

3.)  “It is easier to debate these issues and make speculations about others than it is to actually look at ourselves in the mirror. It is always easier to think someone else is worse off then we are. But maybe as we approach Easter, we can be reminded that for Christians, the cross and the grave should silence all of these debates. We all fall short and deserve death, but because of what Jesus did on the cross 2,000 years ago, we are able to have life. And I believe that where you end up, God only knows.”

I really like this paragraph, minus the last sentence. He draws us away from speculation because it only serves to take our gaze off our own sin and to stare at the sin of others. Beautiful. That is our tendency, to look at others sins’ as worse than ours; we all could make a good living if we got paid for that type of thing. Then the truth of the gospel-that Jesus died for those deserving death. Amen. Nailed it.

I could ask some more speculative questions like “What would repentance have looked like for Judas,” but I’ll take heed of the pastor’s challenge to see my sin and see my Savior. That should take up enough time.

This is take two on “Is God really a gentlemen?” I’ve already made the point that we need a God who intervenes in our lives, who does in a very real sense “force Himself on us.” So in that way, I would say, we don’t need or should want a gentlemen God.

However, I don’t think the term gentlemen is completely without merit. It all depends upon the picture you have of a gentlemen. In the movie Last of the Mohicans, one of the characters Duncan, plays the role of the perfect-or close to it-gentlemen. While his commitment to what is “proper” leaves those less anal about “proper” (particularly during a time of war) dissatisfied, one cannot completely begrudge him his mentality. There seems a consistent commitment to sacrifice for more than just his country under the surface of this military man.

He loves a woman who refuses to love him back. He would be happy to see the one whom she does love hanged, and even bluntly says so. But he leaves us no doubt that this is truly a gentlemen of gentlemen. When the Native American captures his “love”, they decide to burn this woman to atone for the sins of her father. And so he literally steps in, offering himself instead as a replacement sacrifice. 

He dies so that she can live, even though it meant her living and loving another man. That’s a gentlemen. Giving up his life for the good of another whom he wished could be his wife.

If this is a gentlemen, then we have a God who does even more. Jesus, as the perfect gentlemen, offers himself not to temporary flames but to God the Father in order to exhaust his burning hot wrath. And he does this to secure and purchase the hand of His bride, the church. For the joy set before Him, he willingly suffers and gives himself up for the joy of His bride. Because of his death, the two can now live in intimate relationship.

Several weeks ago, Rebecca St. James came to Charleston WV to play and promote the pro-life cause. I really have been impressed with her over the years, not because of her music-which I don’t listen to-but because of her life. I can remember hearing her discuss her commitment to chastity before marriage during a youth group video as a youth director. That was 10 years ago. As I understand it, she is getting married soon or has recently married. So, like I said, I greatly appreciate the Lord’s work in her.

But I can remember a phrase in that video series which seems to pop up in others from time to time. Now in regards to that phrase popping up, it is more a zit (not good, but hardly destructive) than a cancer (destructive) or desired hair growth (desirable, especially by me). It was the first time I had heard the phrase, “The Lord is a gentlemen; He will not force Himself on you.”

The bible describes God in anthropomorphic language, or human terms, so that we can understand him better. Some pictures include “mighty warrior” (Jer 20:11), “heavenly father” (Lk 11:13) and a jealous and pursuing “husband” (Hos 2:16).

But could “gentlemen” fit? Is that a healthy anthropomorphic term for the 21st century to help us understand what God is really like? In some ways, God is very gentle and Jesus was prophesied as being so gentle he wouldn’t even break a bruised reed (Isa 42:3). And through his ministry, at least one person named Matthew recorded that prophetic consistency (Matt 12:20).
 

Yet do we want, or rather need a God who is more than a gentlemen, who actually will “force himself on us?” Or would we rather do the changing and converting by our own power? The answer for most would be the latter.

But I will say that I don’t want a “gentlemen God” who refuses to “force” himself on me, simply because the most important thing in the world to Him is my free will (allegedly). I really don’t. 

The other day I clearly I sinned before my family and I flat out did not want to repent. I didn’t.  For a while. I asked God to make me want to, and He eventually did an hour or two later. I wouldn’t have repented, unless God somehow “forced” Himself on me. It’s not just for the point of conversion (since we’re all dead in sin and need more than a gentlemen), but for the whole of the Christian experience.