So, just exactly how does one get saved?

I’ve been meaning to write for some time now, but so many things have been whirling through my head that it’s been difficult to decide just exactly what to write about. However, in amongst all the issues swirling about in my brain, there is one that seems to stand out to me. I discovered a website called topdocumentaries, and I watched several of said documentaries over the summer. There was one (and I cannot now remember which one) that focused on Christianity and its problems. Obviously, the producer had a lot to say, but one thing has stuck in my mind, and it is this: if the Bible is inerrant (as it was originally written), WHY did God not make sure that it was kept inerrant throughout the ages? Why is it that the question of salvation, KEY to the entire faith, is so debatable? Shouldn’t this, of all things, be crystal clear?

I thought back about the debates I’ve heard on this very issue. Is it sufficient to simply believe in the name of Jesus? Or must one confess sins, repent, and believe? Or must we show our faith/belief with works? Must we get baptized? And if we get baptized, must we be of age? And must we be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Or should we be baptized in the name of Jesus? Do we need to be baptized in the Spirit too? I’m sure there are other questions, but it has been gnawing away at me all summer…. if salvation is so important, why, oh why, do churches argue about what it takes to be saved?

I don’t have an answer yet. Maybe I never will have. But the question troubles me deeply. If God truly wanted all people to be able to be saved, why wouldn’t the entrance to the path be clearly signposted? And how do the Baptists or the Anglicans or the Methodists or the Catholics or the Lutherans know they are right? They cannot all be right, and in some matters, I don’t think it’s an issue. But in salvation? Yes. Yes, it’s a HUGE issue.


Rowan County Clerk and Marriage Licenses-

I’ve surfed the Internet quite a bit lately, looking at the different articles and a portion of the attached comments about the marriage license-denying county clerk in Rowan County, KY. I probably won’t add anything of substance to the debate, as it seems so many people have already commented, but even so, I’m going to add my voice to the fray.

No matter what one believes, if one is in a governmental job, one is required to DO the job. In the US, there is that magical separation of church and state. To wit, the government cannot dictate what church members believe, and the church members cannot dictate to the government. Of course, church members, like any other citizen, have the right to protest decisions they do not agree with, and they have the right to stand for office if they want to try and make changes. But they cannot impose their views onto others via a governmental position/job. If I go to the courthouse to pay my vehicle taxes, for example, I do not expect to be proselytized, or get some kind of scripture lecture. No, I expect to pay my taxes, get my little sticker, and leave quietly.

The Rowan County Clerk (RCC) apparently does not agree with same-sex marriages. Fine, that is her right as an individual (a right protected by the constitution). BUT she does not have the right to deny marriage licenses to people in her county because of her disagreement. Imagine a nurse saying that her religion forbids her from touching blood or any blood products? Or a secretary who claims his or her religion forbids him or her from contact with cellulose? The answer, in my opinion, is simple. They need to find other jobs. If one cannot do one’s job in all good conscience, one should resign. Perhaps her fat salary is more important than that conscience of hers?

But there’s another issue here. It’s the issue of picking and choosing what one believes. The RCC did not, apparently, have any problem with giving marriage certificates to divorcees, to those who were remarrying their spouse, or to those who had once been raped but were not marrying their rapist. Yet, ALL these scenarios are found, and proscribed, in the Bible. I learned today (and I have not been able to verify this) that the RCC is herself on her fourth marriage! This to me fairly sings of hypocrisy.

The RCC was not forced to take the position she has taken. Her mother had it before her, and her son will probably take over when she leaves (nepotism rules, right?). And noone is forcing her to stay. But she cannot be allowed to neglect her duties. She is a public servant and should not be allowed to deny service to those she is supposed to serve. No-one is asking her to actually marry people, simply to do her job, stop forcing her beliefs on those who wish to marry, and issue the licenses.