by Lewis Carroll
(from Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There, 1872)
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
I really enjoy this poem, but I can't tell you why. It's amazing to me that you get a sense of fear, of suspense, of joy ... all from a nonsense poem. None of it makes real sense, but you get the sense of it. Now, that's talent. Thanks, Mr. Carroll.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Saturday, January 06, 2007
No Ground to Stand On
Extreme Islamic fundamentalism has ignited a fear under the feet of many people in America. They have begun to think that fundamentalism of any sort is dangerous. As a result, Christians who believe that the Bible is God's Word are being viewed more and more as dangerous. And it's not merely those who fear fundamentalism. There are many in the Church who are starting to toss out their Bibles in favor of a "kinder, gentler Christianity". They are complaining that "fundamentalism", the belief that the Bible lays out our beliefs and practices, is too narrow and doesn't take into account interpersonal relationships and social issues. It's book knowledge, not practical. How relevant can a 2000-year-old book be? The question resounds both outside and inside Christianity.
What happens when we remove the Bible as our basis? In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, there is very little shift. Tradition and the Church are the final say on matters of faith and practice. They can keep those up just fine, although on what they will base those decisions is now in question. The rest of Christianity is in trouble. On one hand it may seem to be a good thing. We've seen thousands of years of disagreeing about what Scripture means, and that would be gone. It would be irrelevant.
Let's proceed, for a moment, down the path without Scripture. We'll move it, for the sake of this discussion, from primary source to a nice book with some good ideas but certainly not The Word of God. There are mistakes. It is the ideas of men -- some good, some not. Where would we stand?
This position carefully undercuts the discussion. Without authority to which we can appeal, there is no ground of common truth. We would normally say, "Well, the Bible says ...", but we have removed that. The Bible is now only as valid as we wish it to be, not an absolute authority. Jesus's "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me" is an idea, not a truth. You Christians ... you're so narrow. Surely God isn't that narrow. All those presumptions about homosexual behavior being a sin ... toss those out. Now it's purely your opinion without basis. Indeed, we now have no real basis for any of what is considered "Christian morality". We could point to chapter and verse to tell why this, that, or the other ought or ought not be done, but now it's mere speculation, simple opinion.
Is that bad? Well, Christianity is unique among religions. While all other religions focus almost exclusively on morality, Christianity is focused on the Gospel, "the Good News". What is the Gospel? This good news has two components. The first is the bad news: Human beings are in real trouble. Without the bad news, there is no good news. This is why Paul, in writing to Christians he hadn't met, focused the first three chapters of his letter to the Romans on bad news. What is the bad news upon which the good news is founded? Man has violated God's Laws and stands condemned. But wait! We've just tossed that stuff out as pure conjecture, mere opinion. I mean, even the simplest of rules -- the 10 Commandments -- are not true for everyone, right? Most of those in the world have set aside any concern about the morality of "other gods", the proper use of God's Name, keeping some "Sabbath", or honoring parents. Those are limited rules to limited people. No, I think that "bad news" isn't so bad after all. Like the rich young ruler, I've kept the law. So ... what's your good news? Oh ... well ... the good news is that since you stand in violation of God's law ... which you don't appear to anymore since we've tossed that ... then God has provided a way of escape ... which, it appears, isn't necessarily true either. Okay. Never mind.
You see, without the basis of a God-breathed Word of God, Christianity becomes meaningless. There is no "bad news" of sin and no "good news" of salvation. Christianity simply melts into the background of countless other morality religions that urges us to be good for unknown reasons and with unrealistic standards and is terribly arrogant for agreeing with its founder, Christ, when He claimed exclusivity.
Many Christians today are trying to "ease off" the Bible. They are aiming toward a more "relational Christianity". Be more inclusive. Be less stringent. I mean, seriously, how relevant can a book written 2000 years ago be? But the truth is that it is either absolutely relevant and provides us with the real Gospel or it is completely irrelevant and even those Christians who are easing off the Bible have nowhere to stand. If the Bible is not the basis for Christianity, then we have none and it would be nonsensical to stand for a faith without reason.
What happens when we remove the Bible as our basis? In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, there is very little shift. Tradition and the Church are the final say on matters of faith and practice. They can keep those up just fine, although on what they will base those decisions is now in question. The rest of Christianity is in trouble. On one hand it may seem to be a good thing. We've seen thousands of years of disagreeing about what Scripture means, and that would be gone. It would be irrelevant.
Let's proceed, for a moment, down the path without Scripture. We'll move it, for the sake of this discussion, from primary source to a nice book with some good ideas but certainly not The Word of God. There are mistakes. It is the ideas of men -- some good, some not. Where would we stand?
This position carefully undercuts the discussion. Without authority to which we can appeal, there is no ground of common truth. We would normally say, "Well, the Bible says ...", but we have removed that. The Bible is now only as valid as we wish it to be, not an absolute authority. Jesus's "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but by Me" is an idea, not a truth. You Christians ... you're so narrow. Surely God isn't that narrow. All those presumptions about homosexual behavior being a sin ... toss those out. Now it's purely your opinion without basis. Indeed, we now have no real basis for any of what is considered "Christian morality". We could point to chapter and verse to tell why this, that, or the other ought or ought not be done, but now it's mere speculation, simple opinion.
Is that bad? Well, Christianity is unique among religions. While all other religions focus almost exclusively on morality, Christianity is focused on the Gospel, "the Good News". What is the Gospel? This good news has two components. The first is the bad news: Human beings are in real trouble. Without the bad news, there is no good news. This is why Paul, in writing to Christians he hadn't met, focused the first three chapters of his letter to the Romans on bad news. What is the bad news upon which the good news is founded? Man has violated God's Laws and stands condemned. But wait! We've just tossed that stuff out as pure conjecture, mere opinion. I mean, even the simplest of rules -- the 10 Commandments -- are not true for everyone, right? Most of those in the world have set aside any concern about the morality of "other gods", the proper use of God's Name, keeping some "Sabbath", or honoring parents. Those are limited rules to limited people. No, I think that "bad news" isn't so bad after all. Like the rich young ruler, I've kept the law. So ... what's your good news? Oh ... well ... the good news is that since you stand in violation of God's law ... which you don't appear to anymore since we've tossed that ... then God has provided a way of escape ... which, it appears, isn't necessarily true either. Okay. Never mind.
You see, without the basis of a God-breathed Word of God, Christianity becomes meaningless. There is no "bad news" of sin and no "good news" of salvation. Christianity simply melts into the background of countless other morality religions that urges us to be good for unknown reasons and with unrealistic standards and is terribly arrogant for agreeing with its founder, Christ, when He claimed exclusivity.
Many Christians today are trying to "ease off" the Bible. They are aiming toward a more "relational Christianity". Be more inclusive. Be less stringent. I mean, seriously, how relevant can a book written 2000 years ago be? But the truth is that it is either absolutely relevant and provides us with the real Gospel or it is completely irrelevant and even those Christians who are easing off the Bible have nowhere to stand. If the Bible is not the basis for Christianity, then we have none and it would be nonsensical to stand for a faith without reason.
Friday, January 05, 2007
Extreme Truth
It is possible, I think, to take just about anything true to an extreme that as absolutely false. When the Reformers argued that God would keep His own from finally falling away ("Perseverance of the Saints"), the Roman Catholic Church argued that this would lead to rampant sin without consequences. Therefore, it cannot be true. There are hyper-Calvinists, hyper-Dispensationalists, oh, likely hyper-just-about-anything-you-can-think-of-ists. There is likely someone for every right, biblical truth that will take each and every one to a place they were never intended to go. Human beings, it seems, can think logically and rationally, step by step to the wrong conclusion.
The problem, of course, is that when folks take truth to a false extreme, the onlookers tend to then question the truth. "Well, that's obviously wrong ... so this is likely wrong as well." And this is the very same problem. The truth in this case is that the extreme was wrong, so the next extreme would be to call the truth wrong.
It's an easy mistake. Dismiss Calvinism because we've talked to hyper-Calvinists and we know they're wrong. Dismiss spiritual gifts because we've talked to extreme Pentecostals and we know they're wrong. Dismiss Christianity because we've talked to bizarre, extreme Christians and we know they're wrong.
I am convinced that the truth that is biblical Christianity is a thin line. Okay, it doesn't take real convincing. Jesus talked about the narrow gate that leads to everlasting life, and we're all pretty clear on that, but He also spoke of the narrow way. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matt. 7:13-14). The truth that is biblical Christianity is a thin line. I am also convinced that it is a "middle of the road" sort of thin line. It avoids the extremes. Pick an extreme, and you're likely to find that it is outside of biblical Christianity. God wants everyone to be rich? Not in there. God wants everyone to be poor? Not in there. God wants us to all be healthy? Not in there. God wants us all to be sick? Not there either. Extremely inclusive or extremely exclusive is not likely to be found in the pages of Scripture.
So let's be careful. Any truth can be taken to a false extreme. Let's not do that. Neither let us dismiss something that is true because someone has taken it somewhere it shouldn't go.
The problem, of course, is that when folks take truth to a false extreme, the onlookers tend to then question the truth. "Well, that's obviously wrong ... so this is likely wrong as well." And this is the very same problem. The truth in this case is that the extreme was wrong, so the next extreme would be to call the truth wrong.
It's an easy mistake. Dismiss Calvinism because we've talked to hyper-Calvinists and we know they're wrong. Dismiss spiritual gifts because we've talked to extreme Pentecostals and we know they're wrong. Dismiss Christianity because we've talked to bizarre, extreme Christians and we know they're wrong.
I am convinced that the truth that is biblical Christianity is a thin line. Okay, it doesn't take real convincing. Jesus talked about the narrow gate that leads to everlasting life, and we're all pretty clear on that, but He also spoke of the narrow way. "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it" (Matt. 7:13-14). The truth that is biblical Christianity is a thin line. I am also convinced that it is a "middle of the road" sort of thin line. It avoids the extremes. Pick an extreme, and you're likely to find that it is outside of biblical Christianity. God wants everyone to be rich? Not in there. God wants everyone to be poor? Not in there. God wants us to all be healthy? Not in there. God wants us all to be sick? Not there either. Extremely inclusive or extremely exclusive is not likely to be found in the pages of Scripture.
So let's be careful. Any truth can be taken to a false extreme. Let's not do that. Neither let us dismiss something that is true because someone has taken it somewhere it shouldn't go.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Have you ever noticed?
Have you ever noticed that the people who like to complain about rude, overbearing Christians tend to be rude and overbearing in their complaints? Have you ever noticed that people who complain that Christians are intolerant and judgmental typically do so with intolerance and judgment? Why do you suppose that is? (I could cite examples, but doing so typically tends to draw fire and leads to more caustic, rude, overbearing, intolerant judgment.)
I'd like to say I find it amusing, and, I suppose, in one sense I do. On the other hand it just seems so sad. "You rotten conservatives! You stink to high heaven! I will be rude, unkind, acerbic, and sarcastic to you to show how rude, unkind, acerbic, and sarcastic you are. I will be high and mighty in my rant against you being high and mighty." What's wrong with us?! What makes people do that?
There are, of course, several possible answers. Sometimes people are more attuned to certain evils because they suffer from them. A person with a problem with a foul mouth, as an example, might be more sensitive to other people using foul language. But that's typically only true if they are either consciously or unconsciously aware that they have a problem with it. If not, they won't even notice. Sometimes people are feeling guilty about their own problems and failures so they seek to impugn others. Or there is the one we all know. It's the "bully syndrome". Someone suffers from feelings of inferiority or impotence, so they pick on the one we think most obvious and least capable of defending themselves. Oh, there are lots of reasons. These are just a few.
The unfortunate thing is that none of them should be the case in Christian dialog. I knew a lady who was a fine Christian. She was quick to tell people how bad they were for going to R-rated movies or for smoking cigarettes (things that can't be found in the Bible) but simply refused to submit to her husband or love her neighbor (things found explicitly in the Bible). It created such unnecessary division and tension. It was not marked by love, but by self-defense, Pharisaical superiority, and blindness to issues.
We don't need that. We don't need to fight fire with fire. We need to speak the truth, but we need to do it in love (Eph. 4:15). We need to stand for what is right, but we need to do it with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15). We are to stand firm, but let's not do it by being caustic, rude, overbearing, intolerant, or judgmental. There may be a point where a parody or sarcasm is the most effective means of getting across the truth in love, but surely that is a rarity. The Bible says the Gospel is foolish and offensive to non-believers (1 Cor. 1:23). We don't need to be more foolish or offensive than that.
I'd like to say I find it amusing, and, I suppose, in one sense I do. On the other hand it just seems so sad. "You rotten conservatives! You stink to high heaven! I will be rude, unkind, acerbic, and sarcastic to you to show how rude, unkind, acerbic, and sarcastic you are. I will be high and mighty in my rant against you being high and mighty." What's wrong with us?! What makes people do that?
There are, of course, several possible answers. Sometimes people are more attuned to certain evils because they suffer from them. A person with a problem with a foul mouth, as an example, might be more sensitive to other people using foul language. But that's typically only true if they are either consciously or unconsciously aware that they have a problem with it. If not, they won't even notice. Sometimes people are feeling guilty about their own problems and failures so they seek to impugn others. Or there is the one we all know. It's the "bully syndrome". Someone suffers from feelings of inferiority or impotence, so they pick on the one we think most obvious and least capable of defending themselves. Oh, there are lots of reasons. These are just a few.
The unfortunate thing is that none of them should be the case in Christian dialog. I knew a lady who was a fine Christian. She was quick to tell people how bad they were for going to R-rated movies or for smoking cigarettes (things that can't be found in the Bible) but simply refused to submit to her husband or love her neighbor (things found explicitly in the Bible). It created such unnecessary division and tension. It was not marked by love, but by self-defense, Pharisaical superiority, and blindness to issues.
We don't need that. We don't need to fight fire with fire. We need to speak the truth, but we need to do it in love (Eph. 4:15). We need to stand for what is right, but we need to do it with gentleness and reverence (1 Peter 3:15). We are to stand firm, but let's not do it by being caustic, rude, overbearing, intolerant, or judgmental. There may be a point where a parody or sarcasm is the most effective means of getting across the truth in love, but surely that is a rarity. The Bible says the Gospel is foolish and offensive to non-believers (1 Cor. 1:23). We don't need to be more foolish or offensive than that.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Hard Sayings - "Turn the Other Cheek"
38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 "And if anyone wants to sue you, and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "And whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you" (Matt. 5:38-42).What could be clearer than that? Obviously Jesus is commanding complete pacifism. All Christians must, if they are to follow the teachings of Christ, be pacifists. They cannot join the military. They cannot engage in legal battles. They cannot defend themselves and their families and homes. In short, Christians, if they are to follow the clear teaching of Christ, are to be doormats.
If there was no more information present in Scripture, we would be forced to conclude that this is what Jesus is commanding here. Further, we would be forced to do it or actually stand in opposition to the Lord. Many Christians have held this position. Historically, much of the early church believed that it was a sin to be in the military. Even today there are such churches as the Quakers, the Amish, and the Mennonites that believe that the only Christian choice is pacifism. The position is not new nor is it untenable. But there is more information, and when we look at it, we will find we have a problem with this view.
God's original design included the military and self-defense. God routinely commanded and blessed war in the Old Testament (assuring us that the concept of a "just war" is real). God commanded that a new husband was not required to go to war (Deut. 24:5). David wrote, "He trains my hands for battle, so that my arms can bend a bow of bronze" (2 Sam. 22:35). Face it; war was part of the Old Testament. And if we try to argue that the old was done away with, we have new questions to face in the New Testament. If pacifism is Christ's command, how do we explain the events in the Temple when He used a whip to clear it? Why would He command His disciples to buy weapons (Luke 22:36)? We find Cornelius, a centurion, who comes to Christ and nothing is mentioned about needing to leave the military. Paul says the the authorities bear the sword for good reason (Rom. 13:4). And if the command of Christ meant not to defend oneself at all, then Paul was a real mess when he defended himself against the Jews ... more than once (Acts 22; 24:10-21; 26). The argument is that Jesus clearly commands pacifism in Matt. 5, but if this is the case, He commands it against God's rules in the Old Testament and He and His apostles violate it. I would suggest that pacifism cannot be in view here, else we make Christ a sinner. Apparently we need to revisit Jesus's words here and find out what He did mean when He said, "Do not resist him who is evil." If Jesus did not mean that Christians must be pacifist doormats, what did He mean?
A lot of people have examined this question and come up with a lot of answers. Quite a few assure us that a strike on the right cheek from a right-handed person is a backhand insult, and this is a very specific instance. They conclude from this that turning the other cheek is either a demand for equality or allowing an insult and not at all about self-defense. That seems a bit obtuse to me. Let's try something simpler. What was the context?
Jesus starts in Matt. 5:17 by stating His overall direction in the things He is about to say. "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill." Okay, clear enough. His goal is now to illustrate ways of fulfilling the Law. He does this in a series of statements that begin with "You have heard it said" followed by "But I say". He goes on in this manner to talk about murder and what it really includes, adultery and divorce, keeping promises, and this topic. What is this topic? What is He contrasting here with "You have heard it said"? "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you ..." (Matt 5:38-39). Now, the rule "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" represents a drastic reduction in acceptable response to evil from the world around them. As an example, a thief could have his hand cut off in the world around them, but God commands a more proportional response to a thief, including repayment of that which is stolen. The idea here is in regards to vengeance and justice. What should I do in retaliation to an injustice?
Hopefully I've planted a seed here, and you can begin to see where the rest is going, but let's look together. Note that Jesus did not speak of "whoever is going to slap you on your right cheek". The event occurred. He speaks about one who has already been forced to walk a mile. He is speaking of evil that already exists, not evil that might occur. He is speaking of the right retaliation to evil. In other words, Jesus is saying what Paul echoes when he says, "Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord" (Rom. 12:19).
I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage as saying "Never do any violence" because Jesus did violence. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Never defend yourself" because Paul defended himself. I don't believe it is possible to stand on this passage and say, "Keep quiet about sin" because Jesus, the prophets, and the Apostles all spoke out against sin. The New Testament is full of the notion of the militant Christian, standing firm (often using the same term, by the way, that Jesus used when He said "Do not resist evil"). I think the only possible conclusion here is that Jesus was speaking out against retaliation for evil -- vengeance. To contort this into the place where a husband, for instance, tells his wife, "You can't protect yourself from me because Jesus said not to" is a lie. To twist this to say we cannot defend ourselves is simply to ignore Jesus, His words, His life, and the rest of Scripture.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
The Sadness We Call "Divorce"
It doesn't take long. Just peruse the blogs on the list of Christian bloggers and you'll find more than one in the midst of a divorce. Keep looking. Others are being abused by their husbands. Some actually think that's okay. And, of course, if you don't limit yourself to that shortlist, almost everyone will likely know at least one person who is 1) a Christian 2) getting or contemplating or recently divorced.
It makes me sad. No, that's not accurate. It grieves me. Why are there so many who call themselves Christians with so little regard for what God says about marriage? Now, before anyone leaps on that question, it was intended to be quite general. Why are there so many men who call themselves Christians and abuse -- physically, emotionally, even spiritually -- their wives? Why are there so many men who call themselves Christians and refuse to even attempt to be the husbands Christ commands? Why are there so many women who call themselves Christians and refuse to be the wives clearly spelled out in the pages of the Bible? Why are there so many couples who consider themselves to be Christians who think nothing of divorce?
What was Jesus's "opinion"? The Pharisees tested Him by asking a simple question: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" Historians will tell us that the question arises out of two schools of thought at the time. One side believed that a husband could only divorce his wife in extreme cases, while the other believed that if she burned his toast he could divorce her if he wished. But we aren't actually given the benefit of this background in the question. The question is, "Is there any cause allowed for a man to divorce his wife?"Jesus's first answer is not vague. "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." There is no ambivalence, no equivocation. "What God has joined together let no man separate." In other words, "Don't do it!"
Like today's Christians, the Pharisees don't buy that one. "Oh, yeah? Then why is there stuff about divorce in the Mosaic Law?" Jesus's response is again clear: "Because of your hardness of heart." Some have argued that Jesus is saying that Moses put that in there but God never intended it. To me that's problematic. What other laws did Moses insert that God never intended? And what can we conclude about inerrancy and infallibility if Moses was inserting laws willy-nilly in the name of God that God never intended and of which we have no indication? Maybe that whole "Don't eat pork" thing was Moses's idea, not God's? No, let's not go there. Jesus says that Moses inserted information on divorce because of Man's hard-heartedness. I can only conclude that he did so at God's behest.
Today those who call themselves Christians are flocking to divorce court at rates equal to or even exceeding that of non-Christians. As they do so, they flood past Christ who says, "Don't do it! If you do, you do so out of hardheartedness!" And they beam and say, "It's the best thing we can do." "He didn't give me what I wanted." "She wasn't the wife I expected her to be." "I lost too much of myself." "I wasn't free to do whatever I wanted." "Single is so much better; I can watch whatever I want to now." And all heaven weeps.
Marriage is a sacred institution. Paul calls it a mystery, the image of the relationship of Son to His followers (Eph. 5:32). And if you ask Moses, you'll find that God doesn't like it when images He has set up are disturbed. In Numbers 20 Moses was told to speak to the rock which he had struck earlier. In his anger at the people he struck it instead, ruining the picture God intended of a Savior who is struck for us and ever after provides living water when He is spoken to. For this "infraction", Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. Yet Christians blaze past Christ into divorce court without blinking an eye and declare an end to a relationship that God put together and God uses as an image of His Son's relationship to the Church.
So it grieves me. I weep when I read how she's divorcing him because he wasn't nice to her or he didn't give her what she hoped for. I weep when I read that he's divorcing her because she wasn't what she should be. It grieves me when I see men who call themselves Christians refusing to love their wives, to surrender themselves sacrificially, and think that it is their right to be possessive, cruel, untrusting, and unloving ... and pass that on to their children. I cannot fathom the notion that the way he squeezes the toothpaste tube or hangs the toilet paper or fails to clean up properly after himself is grounds to hurl insult in the face of Christ who commanded, "What God has joined together let no man separate." It grieves me that people who call themselves Christians care so little for what Christ commanded, for what God says in His Word about how we should relate to one another in a marriage. Like James I say, "My brethren, these things ought not to be this way" (James 3:10).
It makes me sad. No, that's not accurate. It grieves me. Why are there so many who call themselves Christians with so little regard for what God says about marriage? Now, before anyone leaps on that question, it was intended to be quite general. Why are there so many men who call themselves Christians and abuse -- physically, emotionally, even spiritually -- their wives? Why are there so many men who call themselves Christians and refuse to even attempt to be the husbands Christ commands? Why are there so many women who call themselves Christians and refuse to be the wives clearly spelled out in the pages of the Bible? Why are there so many couples who consider themselves to be Christians who think nothing of divorce?
1 And it came about that when Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee, and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and great multitudes followed Him, and He healed them there.There are those who argue that there is no biblical reason for divorce -- period, end of sentence, nothing more need be said. I think that they have some pretty good arguments. I fall short of "no biblical reason for divorce" for a couple of reasons, but I think it is indisputable that Scripture in general and Jesus in particular would view divorce as something that ought to be rare among His followers. Today, we wink at it and consider it normal, advisable, likely a good thing in many instances.
3 And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" 4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said,' For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 "Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery." 10 The disciples said to Him, "If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry." 11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 "For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it." (Matt 19:1-12)
What was Jesus's "opinion"? The Pharisees tested Him by asking a simple question: Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?" Historians will tell us that the question arises out of two schools of thought at the time. One side believed that a husband could only divorce his wife in extreme cases, while the other believed that if she burned his toast he could divorce her if he wished. But we aren't actually given the benefit of this background in the question. The question is, "Is there any cause allowed for a man to divorce his wife?"Jesus's first answer is not vague. "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said,'For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." There is no ambivalence, no equivocation. "What God has joined together let no man separate." In other words, "Don't do it!"
Like today's Christians, the Pharisees don't buy that one. "Oh, yeah? Then why is there stuff about divorce in the Mosaic Law?" Jesus's response is again clear: "Because of your hardness of heart." Some have argued that Jesus is saying that Moses put that in there but God never intended it. To me that's problematic. What other laws did Moses insert that God never intended? And what can we conclude about inerrancy and infallibility if Moses was inserting laws willy-nilly in the name of God that God never intended and of which we have no indication? Maybe that whole "Don't eat pork" thing was Moses's idea, not God's? No, let's not go there. Jesus says that Moses inserted information on divorce because of Man's hard-heartedness. I can only conclude that he did so at God's behest.
Today those who call themselves Christians are flocking to divorce court at rates equal to or even exceeding that of non-Christians. As they do so, they flood past Christ who says, "Don't do it! If you do, you do so out of hardheartedness!" And they beam and say, "It's the best thing we can do." "He didn't give me what I wanted." "She wasn't the wife I expected her to be." "I lost too much of myself." "I wasn't free to do whatever I wanted." "Single is so much better; I can watch whatever I want to now." And all heaven weeps.
Marriage is a sacred institution. Paul calls it a mystery, the image of the relationship of Son to His followers (Eph. 5:32). And if you ask Moses, you'll find that God doesn't like it when images He has set up are disturbed. In Numbers 20 Moses was told to speak to the rock which he had struck earlier. In his anger at the people he struck it instead, ruining the picture God intended of a Savior who is struck for us and ever after provides living water when He is spoken to. For this "infraction", Moses was not allowed to enter the Promised Land. Yet Christians blaze past Christ into divorce court without blinking an eye and declare an end to a relationship that God put together and God uses as an image of His Son's relationship to the Church.
So it grieves me. I weep when I read how she's divorcing him because he wasn't nice to her or he didn't give her what she hoped for. I weep when I read that he's divorcing her because she wasn't what she should be. It grieves me when I see men who call themselves Christians refusing to love their wives, to surrender themselves sacrificially, and think that it is their right to be possessive, cruel, untrusting, and unloving ... and pass that on to their children. I cannot fathom the notion that the way he squeezes the toothpaste tube or hangs the toilet paper or fails to clean up properly after himself is grounds to hurl insult in the face of Christ who commanded, "What God has joined together let no man separate." It grieves me that people who call themselves Christians care so little for what Christ commanded, for what God says in His Word about how we should relate to one another in a marriage. Like James I say, "My brethren, these things ought not to be this way" (James 3:10).
Monday, January 01, 2007
Way Too Easy
It doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge or experience to recognize that the world is in a constant state of degeneration. Now, I believe the degree of that corruption to be sloping at a much smoother angle than most people like to think, but the breakdown does remain quite tangible. Just looking at the pattern of everyday life is evidence enough of that. At my work, I am heralded as an exceptional employee beyond the scope of any of my peers. Yet, for all the credit I am given (and in some rights have earned), my value as an employee is not so much determined by what I accomplish as by what others do not. To be an above average worker these days requires simply that you show up on time on a semi-regular basis. The actual efficiency and intelligence lent to the job are merely peripheral to the fact that you are PHYSICALLY there. This watering down of the workplace I have learned to accept and plan to glean the benefits for as long as I may.
Now, the question is not whether the degeneration exists, but whether it is within the realm of possibility for humanity to alter its state. What makes me think of such a question is because of people that I have known over the years who must be much more intelligent than the appear, people that just could not possibly survive in life if they were as ignorant as they seem. I think we have all known a few like that. Usually it is a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy where either someone close to them or they themselves downplay their own potential for so long that the litany no longer becomes a joke, no longer becomes a chastisement, but a reality of their being. So can man derail from the ever-descending tracks laid out before him? Without Christ, I must say whole-heartedly, "No!", and I weep for those that try.
Now, the question is not whether the degeneration exists, but whether it is within the realm of possibility for humanity to alter its state. What makes me think of such a question is because of people that I have known over the years who must be much more intelligent than the appear, people that just could not possibly survive in life if they were as ignorant as they seem. I think we have all known a few like that. Usually it is a matter of self-fulfilling prophecy where either someone close to them or they themselves downplay their own potential for so long that the litany no longer becomes a joke, no longer becomes a chastisement, but a reality of their being. So can man derail from the ever-descending tracks laid out before him? Without Christ, I must say whole-heartedly, "No!", and I weep for those that try.
Sunday, December 31, 2006
Clarifying the Discussion
I wrote a post on the problem we face sometimes in being unable to talk about certain issues. One of the obvious ones for men is the issue of women as pastors. That post produced a brief dialog, which included this comment from The Median Sib:
In the strongly "anti-traditionalist" (my word) article by Cindy Jacobs of For His Glory entitled Women In Ministry, Cindy assures us:
Both The Median Sib and Cindy Jacobs suffer from a misunderstanding of "the traditionalist" view. Let me say that a different way. I am somewhat of a "traditionalist" on this topic, and I agree with the two quotes from these two ladies. No one as far back in history as I can see has ever suggested that 1) women are not gifted to teach or 2) women are not allowed to teach. I have never seen anyone (except, perhaps, the lunatic fringe) suggest that women cannot minister. I have never seen a version of 1 Tim. 2:12 that says, "I do not allow a woman to teach -- period, end of sentence, that is the complete thought, please stop here."
The "traditionalist" view has always seen the verse as a linked thought. "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." The question, traditionally, has been one of women's authority over men, and specifically in terms of the church structure. No one of whom I am aware has ever suggested that women cannot teach ... women. I've never seen any suggestion that women cannot teach ... children. My point in these two statements is not to offer limits, but to indicate the problem with the statements above. Can women minister? No one has ever suggested that they cannot. Can women teach? Absolutely! No one (at least no one that we all, traditionalists or anti-traditionalists, don't dismiss out of hand) has ever suggested either prohibition. So when people today who have gained new enlightenment on Scripture that the "traditionalist" hasn't are complaining that we are trying to prevent women from ministering or teaching, this is not the case.
As I said, for me to try to clear up the argument to everyones' satisfaction would be a fool's errand. You will all come to your own conclusions. I'm not trying to sway anyone here to my way of thinking. I am simply trying to point out that we need to be careful about our language and rhetoric. If we attack a false position, we waste our time and fritter away our arguments. These types of disputes typically produce only heat and no light. And perhaps heat in the winter is nice ... but this kind of heat doesn't seem to warm anyone.
I firmly believe (based on the Bible and words of Jesus) that God never intended for women to NOT be ministers and work fully in His service. I've known too many wonderful and spirit-led women ministers to believe otherwise.Now, be it known that I have often enjoyed reading The Median Sib blog, and be it further known that wading into this debate is a foolish idea on my part (as in trying to resolve the questions to everyones' satisfaction). However, there is something here that bespeaks a miscommunication, and I'd like to clear it up.
In the strongly "anti-traditionalist" (my word) article by Cindy Jacobs of For His Glory entitled Women In Ministry, Cindy assures us:
We must open our eyes to the fact that when God anoints women with the gift of teaching, He is releasing great revelation and blessing to the church through them.She seems fairly sure that the wording of 1 Tim. 2:11-15 was aimed at not teaching an extremely specific heresy that Eve was the source of Adam, and perhaps even aimed at a specific woman. Women today, she is quite sure, are not under this "obscure passage". Fortunately, it seems, the Church has finally, after nearly 2000 years, figured out what God really intended (with the help of the Women's Liberation Movement) and the Church has been either ignorantly wrong all this time or, perhaps, suffering from a male conspiracy against women.
Both The Median Sib and Cindy Jacobs suffer from a misunderstanding of "the traditionalist" view. Let me say that a different way. I am somewhat of a "traditionalist" on this topic, and I agree with the two quotes from these two ladies. No one as far back in history as I can see has ever suggested that 1) women are not gifted to teach or 2) women are not allowed to teach. I have never seen anyone (except, perhaps, the lunatic fringe) suggest that women cannot minister. I have never seen a version of 1 Tim. 2:12 that says, "I do not allow a woman to teach -- period, end of sentence, that is the complete thought, please stop here."
The "traditionalist" view has always seen the verse as a linked thought. "I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." The question, traditionally, has been one of women's authority over men, and specifically in terms of the church structure. No one of whom I am aware has ever suggested that women cannot teach ... women. I've never seen any suggestion that women cannot teach ... children. My point in these two statements is not to offer limits, but to indicate the problem with the statements above. Can women minister? No one has ever suggested that they cannot. Can women teach? Absolutely! No one (at least no one that we all, traditionalists or anti-traditionalists, don't dismiss out of hand) has ever suggested either prohibition. So when people today who have gained new enlightenment on Scripture that the "traditionalist" hasn't are complaining that we are trying to prevent women from ministering or teaching, this is not the case.
As I said, for me to try to clear up the argument to everyones' satisfaction would be a fool's errand. You will all come to your own conclusions. I'm not trying to sway anyone here to my way of thinking. I am simply trying to point out that we need to be careful about our language and rhetoric. If we attack a false position, we waste our time and fritter away our arguments. These types of disputes typically produce only heat and no light. And perhaps heat in the winter is nice ... but this kind of heat doesn't seem to warm anyone.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Liberals and Liberality
Okay, let's review. Here's what we know. We know that liberals care about people, while conservatives only care about themselves. We know that religious conservatives claim to care about people but only care about their own religious groups. We are pretty sure that liberals out-give conservatives and we are confident that they out-volunteer conservatives. We certainly know that liberals are the primary support for such causes as animal rights, environmentalist movements, and the like. We're all pretty confident about these facts.
So along comes Arthur C. Brooks. Dr. Brooks is Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Dr. Brooks has written a book called Who Really Cares. And Dr. Brooks is causing a stir.
Dr. Brooks's first observation is that charitable giving is fundamentally tied to one's religious beliefs and practices. If you are very religious, you are much more likely to give. This giving does not include church giving, but does take into account charitable giving and volunteering as well as other things such as giving blood. In fact, according to Dr. Brooks, if liberals gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood reserves would be up 45%. And, as it turns out, these same religious folks are the ones who are giving most to secular causes such as animal rights, environmentalism, and the like.
It seems that one's economic condition plays a factor in one's willingness to give. Statistically, the American working poor are, relative to their income, some of the most generous people in America today while those with above-average incomes say they don't have enough money.
Perhaps we were wrong in what we thought we knew. When my son was in junior high school, he came home excited because he had learned something about politics. "Our teacher taught us the difference between a liberal and a conservative," he beamed. "A liberal wants to help others, while a conservative only wants to help himself." Well, teacher, it would appear that, while your perceptions are likely in line with a lot of others, they are quite wrong. It appears that conservatives care about people more than liberals, and that, wonder of wonders, the leading indicator of whether or not a person will actively involve themselves in helping others is whether or not they have a real, living religious life. How odd! It appears the "popular view" might be wrong!
So along comes Arthur C. Brooks. Dr. Brooks is Professor of Public Administration and Director of the Nonprofit Studies Program at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Dr. Brooks has written a book called Who Really Cares. And Dr. Brooks is causing a stir.
Dr. Brooks's first observation is that charitable giving is fundamentally tied to one's religious beliefs and practices. If you are very religious, you are much more likely to give. This giving does not include church giving, but does take into account charitable giving and volunteering as well as other things such as giving blood. In fact, according to Dr. Brooks, if liberals gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood reserves would be up 45%. And, as it turns out, these same religious folks are the ones who are giving most to secular causes such as animal rights, environmentalism, and the like.
It seems that one's economic condition plays a factor in one's willingness to give. Statistically, the American working poor are, relative to their income, some of the most generous people in America today while those with above-average incomes say they don't have enough money.
Perhaps we were wrong in what we thought we knew. When my son was in junior high school, he came home excited because he had learned something about politics. "Our teacher taught us the difference between a liberal and a conservative," he beamed. "A liberal wants to help others, while a conservative only wants to help himself." Well, teacher, it would appear that, while your perceptions are likely in line with a lot of others, they are quite wrong. It appears that conservatives care about people more than liberals, and that, wonder of wonders, the leading indicator of whether or not a person will actively involve themselves in helping others is whether or not they have a real, living religious life. How odd! It appears the "popular view" might be wrong!
Friday, December 29, 2006
False Dichotomy
In the past I've made a couple of posts on the topic of logical fallacies. They had fun little Latin names like "Tu Quoque" and "Post hoc ergo procter hoc". This one doesn't (and many shed a sigh of relief). It's simply the concept of the false dichotomy.
In the false dichotomy, you are typically given two choices: "Either this or that." Unfortunately, rarely does life offer you merely two choices. But you are often presented with either an obviously good choice or a clearly bad choice and you are "free" to choose which one. Sometimes your are given no good choice ... choose.
The fun example is the classic courtroom scene. The attorney asks, "Yes or no ... Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife?" Now, poor Mr. Jones can say "yes" to indicate he is not beating his wife to which the lawyer cries, "So! You used to beat your wife, but no longer!" No, no, that's not the right answer. How about "no"? "So! You admit that you still beat your wife!!" Obviously there is a third alternative: "I never beat my wife."
We find ourselves often facing false dichotomies. We must either agree with his theological point or be heretics or, at best, obviously ignore Scripture. We must either agree with her view on how to act in this situation or we are obviously uncompassionate. You cannot, for instance, recognize sin without being "judgmental" or agree with a creed without being "outdated" and "narrow-minded". You can't stand on a biblical truth without being unloving and harsh. I recently visited a website that argued in favor of Universalism. The position offered was this: Either all people are saved, or God failed. These are all false dichotomies.
False dichotomies are very effective. In the fun example above, the attorney gives the witness choices. He's not forcing anything, right? I mean, how fair can he be? The false dichotomy appears to offer options, to be "open-minded", to be fair. But by narrowing the options to two, it carefully redirects your attention from the truth. The argument is like a magician who gets you to watch over here while he manipulates something over there and ... poof! ... it's magic! The argument says, "Look, here are the choices," and if you agree to the premise you will not see the world of options outside of the question.
One of these false dichotomies that has been used so effectively these days is in the arena of the argument of homosexual behavior. Many Christians have eased off the biblical position that homosexual behavior is sin because of these false dichotomy arguments. Someone points to Leviticus and says, "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:13). The response is, "So, are you saying we need to follow the Old Testament law? Do you think we should do away with pork? Should we eliminate football?" (I actually heard this argument made on The West Wing.) This is a false dichotomy. "We either follow all the Old Testament Law or we follow none of it." Of course, the sweeping argument against the biblical Christian is far more prevalent and combines more than one fallacy, but includes this false dichotomy. They simply say, "If you claim that homosexual behavior is a sin, you are a bigot, a homophobe." It's a false dichotomy. Either you agree that homosexual behavior is normal, acceptable, right, or you are a bigot, scared of homosexuals. There are other options, of course. It could be that one is not bigoted or homophobic, but simply intent on following the clear teaching of Scripture. But in order to avoid the accusation, many have decided to leave the clear teaching of Scripture and stand on the other side.
Unfortunately, the argument about homosexual sin is only a hint of the numbers of false dichotomies we face. You are either conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, a hawk or a dove. As a Christian you are either concerned about biblical truth or concerned about the needs of people. Love, in fact, seems to present a host of these dichotomies. You can't love and ... many things. You can't love and tell the honest truth. You can't love and punish. You can't love and believe doctrine. You can't love and recognize sin. This false dichotomy has put God in an awful box. It is not possible to love and send people to Hell. Fortunately, all of these are false dichotomies. These are all part of the False Dilemma, Bogus Dilemma, Bifurcation, Black-and-White Fallacy, Either-Or Fallacy. They are all premised on the belief that there are only two options. They are all logical fallacies.
A bad argument in favor of a good idea is possibly more harmful than a good argument in favor of a bad idea. We need to be careful of the approaches we take when supporting truth. We need to avoid the false dichotomy. If there really are only two possibilities, we must first demonstrate it before we argue it. Otherwise, we must avoid the manipulation. And when we face the argument, we should be aware of it and recognize it and call it what it is rather than caving in to bad arguments and faulty conclusions. Check the options given and see if there aren't more available. Rarely are there only two. Let's think, Christians.
In the false dichotomy, you are typically given two choices: "Either this or that." Unfortunately, rarely does life offer you merely two choices. But you are often presented with either an obviously good choice or a clearly bad choice and you are "free" to choose which one. Sometimes your are given no good choice ... choose.
The fun example is the classic courtroom scene. The attorney asks, "Yes or no ... Mr. Jones, have you stopped beating your wife?" Now, poor Mr. Jones can say "yes" to indicate he is not beating his wife to which the lawyer cries, "So! You used to beat your wife, but no longer!" No, no, that's not the right answer. How about "no"? "So! You admit that you still beat your wife!!" Obviously there is a third alternative: "I never beat my wife."
We find ourselves often facing false dichotomies. We must either agree with his theological point or be heretics or, at best, obviously ignore Scripture. We must either agree with her view on how to act in this situation or we are obviously uncompassionate. You cannot, for instance, recognize sin without being "judgmental" or agree with a creed without being "outdated" and "narrow-minded". You can't stand on a biblical truth without being unloving and harsh. I recently visited a website that argued in favor of Universalism. The position offered was this: Either all people are saved, or God failed. These are all false dichotomies.
False dichotomies are very effective. In the fun example above, the attorney gives the witness choices. He's not forcing anything, right? I mean, how fair can he be? The false dichotomy appears to offer options, to be "open-minded", to be fair. But by narrowing the options to two, it carefully redirects your attention from the truth. The argument is like a magician who gets you to watch over here while he manipulates something over there and ... poof! ... it's magic! The argument says, "Look, here are the choices," and if you agree to the premise you will not see the world of options outside of the question.
One of these false dichotomies that has been used so effectively these days is in the arena of the argument of homosexual behavior. Many Christians have eased off the biblical position that homosexual behavior is sin because of these false dichotomy arguments. Someone points to Leviticus and says, "If a man lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death" (Lev. 20:13). The response is, "So, are you saying we need to follow the Old Testament law? Do you think we should do away with pork? Should we eliminate football?" (I actually heard this argument made on The West Wing.) This is a false dichotomy. "We either follow all the Old Testament Law or we follow none of it." Of course, the sweeping argument against the biblical Christian is far more prevalent and combines more than one fallacy, but includes this false dichotomy. They simply say, "If you claim that homosexual behavior is a sin, you are a bigot, a homophobe." It's a false dichotomy. Either you agree that homosexual behavior is normal, acceptable, right, or you are a bigot, scared of homosexuals. There are other options, of course. It could be that one is not bigoted or homophobic, but simply intent on following the clear teaching of Scripture. But in order to avoid the accusation, many have decided to leave the clear teaching of Scripture and stand on the other side.
Unfortunately, the argument about homosexual sin is only a hint of the numbers of false dichotomies we face. You are either conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, a hawk or a dove. As a Christian you are either concerned about biblical truth or concerned about the needs of people. Love, in fact, seems to present a host of these dichotomies. You can't love and ... many things. You can't love and tell the honest truth. You can't love and punish. You can't love and believe doctrine. You can't love and recognize sin. This false dichotomy has put God in an awful box. It is not possible to love and send people to Hell. Fortunately, all of these are false dichotomies. These are all part of the False Dilemma, Bogus Dilemma, Bifurcation, Black-and-White Fallacy, Either-Or Fallacy. They are all premised on the belief that there are only two options. They are all logical fallacies.
A bad argument in favor of a good idea is possibly more harmful than a good argument in favor of a bad idea. We need to be careful of the approaches we take when supporting truth. We need to avoid the false dichotomy. If there really are only two possibilities, we must first demonstrate it before we argue it. Otherwise, we must avoid the manipulation. And when we face the argument, we should be aware of it and recognize it and call it what it is rather than caving in to bad arguments and faulty conclusions. Check the options given and see if there aren't more available. Rarely are there only two. Let's think, Christians.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The Road to Sacrifice
Here is another one from my son, Jonathan:
Sometimes, when I'm feeling disconnected from God, or spiritually stagnant, I have a hard time figuring out how to resolve the issue. I can sense the problem but I am not sure how to rectify it. Most Christians encounter this feeling from time to time and probably more than just myself start to think that the way to turn things around is to give something up. The notion of sacrifice. Whether it be fasting, devotion of time, or any kind of sacrifice, it just seems like that's what needs to be done in order to get myself back kneeling before the throne of God. Yet, if we were to look at how seldom or how temporal that method works, it must mean that something is wrong with the premise. And then I realized the whole basis is out of whack. I should not be trying to sacrifice so that I can come before God; I should be sacrificing myself to God, and He will decide what needs to be changed in my life. The urgency to sacrifice to make oneself clean before God is almost like tossing a dog a bone. We are too frightened to actually face the unbridgeable gap between our sin and our God, that we use sacrifice as a deterrent. "Well, I can't come before God while my soul is in this condition" or "Certainly you don't expect me to try and help other people towards Christ when I am in such a state. That's hypocritical!" Don't you see? We are fallen. The only way to come sanctified and cleansed before God is to come before Him when we are dirty and broken. How clever it is to use our own desire to return to a stronger relationship with God as an excuse to stay away from Him until we "feel" prepared to serve Him properly. And what is lost? The time between trying to get right with God and actually figuring out that you can't and have to plod on anyway, all that time where so much good could have been accomplished has withered away.
Sometimes, when I'm feeling disconnected from God, or spiritually stagnant, I have a hard time figuring out how to resolve the issue. I can sense the problem but I am not sure how to rectify it. Most Christians encounter this feeling from time to time and probably more than just myself start to think that the way to turn things around is to give something up. The notion of sacrifice. Whether it be fasting, devotion of time, or any kind of sacrifice, it just seems like that's what needs to be done in order to get myself back kneeling before the throne of God. Yet, if we were to look at how seldom or how temporal that method works, it must mean that something is wrong with the premise. And then I realized the whole basis is out of whack. I should not be trying to sacrifice so that I can come before God; I should be sacrificing myself to God, and He will decide what needs to be changed in my life. The urgency to sacrifice to make oneself clean before God is almost like tossing a dog a bone. We are too frightened to actually face the unbridgeable gap between our sin and our God, that we use sacrifice as a deterrent. "Well, I can't come before God while my soul is in this condition" or "Certainly you don't expect me to try and help other people towards Christ when I am in such a state. That's hypocritical!" Don't you see? We are fallen. The only way to come sanctified and cleansed before God is to come before Him when we are dirty and broken. How clever it is to use our own desire to return to a stronger relationship with God as an excuse to stay away from Him until we "feel" prepared to serve Him properly. And what is lost? The time between trying to get right with God and actually figuring out that you can't and have to plod on anyway, all that time where so much good could have been accomplished has withered away.
Rehab
I'm trying to get my son to contribute to my blog, but he's reticent. He did send me this little piece, which I pass on to you. In the future he'll likely send me more which I'll pass on to you. So, this is from my son, Jonathan.
You can't flip on the TV anymore without hearing about some celebrity or another going into rehab for any and every reason under the sun. Somehow it has become the get-out-of-jail free card for anyone seeking, whether truly or just for public image, the redemption that comes with admitting you have a problem. Since when did admitting your shortcomings become an acquittal of guilt? But I digress as that is not the point I am trying to make. Watching another celebrity taking shade beneath the all-encompassing umbrella of rehab, a thought occurred to me that has never been there before. What about a Christian rehab? What about a place for the fallen and backslidden Christians looking for a chance to return to some sense of normalcy in their walks with God? I am sure that they must exist already, (I'm not that original of a thinker) but I can't think of ever hearing of one. And if they do exist, should they not be fostered and encouraged to grow? The Salvation Army for the spiritually homeless and needy in every church, a grand idea. Just imagine it like an AA meeting. It would be difficult to feel included in a group where you feel the others around you have never tasted a sip of the spiritual fire water that has engulfed you. Would it not be worthwhile to be in a place where you can help those more desperate than yourself while being able to seek help from those a little further along when your own will falters? Like I say, such a system is probably already in place and one has only to say a few words to me to make me slap my forehead in embarrassment, but for now the thought stays and I am intrigued.
You can't flip on the TV anymore without hearing about some celebrity or another going into rehab for any and every reason under the sun. Somehow it has become the get-out-of-jail free card for anyone seeking, whether truly or just for public image, the redemption that comes with admitting you have a problem. Since when did admitting your shortcomings become an acquittal of guilt? But I digress as that is not the point I am trying to make. Watching another celebrity taking shade beneath the all-encompassing umbrella of rehab, a thought occurred to me that has never been there before. What about a Christian rehab? What about a place for the fallen and backslidden Christians looking for a chance to return to some sense of normalcy in their walks with God? I am sure that they must exist already, (I'm not that original of a thinker) but I can't think of ever hearing of one. And if they do exist, should they not be fostered and encouraged to grow? The Salvation Army for the spiritually homeless and needy in every church, a grand idea. Just imagine it like an AA meeting. It would be difficult to feel included in a group where you feel the others around you have never tasted a sip of the spiritual fire water that has engulfed you. Would it not be worthwhile to be in a place where you can help those more desperate than yourself while being able to seek help from those a little further along when your own will falters? Like I say, such a system is probably already in place and one has only to say a few words to me to make me slap my forehead in embarrassment, but for now the thought stays and I am intrigued.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Consequences
A couple of years ago there was this story in the news about a truck driver. It seems that he was a Christian, married, and a long-haul driver. As a long-haul driver, he was assigned a partner to drive with and share the sleeper. He told his boss that he couldn't drive with a female driver because it would violate his beliefs. As might be expected, his boss assigned a female driver. When he refused to go with her, they fired him.
The story became news because of the lawsuit that followed. The ACLJ waded into the situation and sued on behalf of the Christian driver to get his job back. He was fired for religious reasons, they argued, and it was wrong ...
In another story over at Puritan, a 13-year-old student in Australia refused to write a paper on how she would cope if she was a heterosexual living in a homosexual community on the moon. Now, given, the details are murky. The whole "don't tell your parents" thing is really odd, for instance. However, the basic story is that this 13-year-old Christian girl stood her ground based on her moral beliefs and paid a price for it in the form of her first-ever "F". Of course, outrage followed, both on the part of parents, then joined by State Opposition and Australian Christian Lobby, forcing a change in policy and a resolution to the event. (Note: There are questions about the facts of this story, as indicated in the comments here. The questions regarding the facts have no impact on my point.)
It's not new. Christians are placed in situations that violate their particular beliefs. Maybe it's work. Maybe it's school. Maybe it's even at home. And we admire those Christians who, faced with these situations, stand firm on their beliefs. But what disturbs me is the perception that once a person stands firm on their beliefs, they shouldn't have to bear consequences.
There is an example story in Acts 4-5. Peter and John were arrested for preaching the Gospel (something they were commanded by Christ to do). The rulers and elders were opposed to their preaching, but were somewhat concerned because they had just done an undeniable miracle (Acts 4:16), and 5,000 people (Acts 4:4) had just come to agree with what was being preached. Rather than face down the crowd, the leaders decided to simply command them not to speak about Christ (Acts 4:18). Peter and John responded, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). The two were further threatened and then released. So they went to their local Christian lawyer and filed a suit to prevent the rulers from blocking their free speech and freely exercising their religious beliefs.
No, that's not in there. They went to the other believers and placed the situation in the hands of the One who could handle it. "Truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur. And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence, while Thou dost extend Thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus" (Acts 4:27-30). That was their plan. Leave it in the hands of the One who orchestrated the death of His own Son.
So they went out and started preaching and healing again. They followed the direct command of Christ to make disciples in direct opposition to the authorities of the day. The result was jail (Acts 5:17-18). When they went to trial, they repeated their position. "Peter and the apostles answered and said, 'We must obey God rather than men'" (Acts 5:29). Then their lawyer showed up and demonstrated that they were within their rights to stand on their beliefs and that the Sandhedrin had no right to prevent them from preaching. No, that's not in there either. Instead, they were whipped and warned.
Funny thing ... nowhere in any of this account is anything about "That's not fair!" There is nothing about their rights, nothing about how wrong the Sanhedrin was, nothing about how they shouldn't have to suffer for their beliefs. James the brother of John is beheaded (Acts 12:1-2), and there is no moral outrage. Peter is arrested, and he's surprised when he is freed by an angel (Acts 12:3-17). Paul was stoned to death in Lystra (Acts 14:8-19) and I don't read anything about his moral outrage. Instead he told the Christians there, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). When he and Silas were imprisoned, they didn't call their lawyers; they sang hymns (Acts 16:25).
Our primary example, of course, is the one after whom we are named: Christ. He bore the ultimate injustice and did so as a lamb, silent. He was without fault and bore the fault of all of us without a complaint.
We are indeed to stand on our beliefs. We are indeed commanded to stand firm. But the real glory is not in standing firm behind our lawyers and rights. The real glory is in sharing in the same suffering as Christ. "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil 1:29). "If when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God" (1 Peter 2:20). By all means, stand. But expect consequences. That is the right thing to do.
The story became news because of the lawsuit that followed. The ACLJ waded into the situation and sued on behalf of the Christian driver to get his job back. He was fired for religious reasons, they argued, and it was wrong ...
In another story over at Puritan, a 13-year-old student in Australia refused to write a paper on how she would cope if she was a heterosexual living in a homosexual community on the moon. Now, given, the details are murky. The whole "don't tell your parents" thing is really odd, for instance. However, the basic story is that this 13-year-old Christian girl stood her ground based on her moral beliefs and paid a price for it in the form of her first-ever "F". Of course, outrage followed, both on the part of parents, then joined by State Opposition and Australian Christian Lobby, forcing a change in policy and a resolution to the event. (Note: There are questions about the facts of this story, as indicated in the comments here. The questions regarding the facts have no impact on my point.)
It's not new. Christians are placed in situations that violate their particular beliefs. Maybe it's work. Maybe it's school. Maybe it's even at home. And we admire those Christians who, faced with these situations, stand firm on their beliefs. But what disturbs me is the perception that once a person stands firm on their beliefs, they shouldn't have to bear consequences.
There is an example story in Acts 4-5. Peter and John were arrested for preaching the Gospel (something they were commanded by Christ to do). The rulers and elders were opposed to their preaching, but were somewhat concerned because they had just done an undeniable miracle (Acts 4:16), and 5,000 people (Acts 4:4) had just come to agree with what was being preached. Rather than face down the crowd, the leaders decided to simply command them not to speak about Christ (Acts 4:18). Peter and John responded, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge; for we cannot stop speaking what we have seen and heard" (Acts 4:19-20). The two were further threatened and then released. So they went to their local Christian lawyer and filed a suit to prevent the rulers from blocking their free speech and freely exercising their religious beliefs.
No, that's not in there. They went to the other believers and placed the situation in the hands of the One who could handle it. "Truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur. And now, Lord, take note of their threats, and grant that Thy bond-servants may speak Thy word with all confidence, while Thou dost extend Thy hand to heal, and signs and wonders take place through the name of Thy holy servant Jesus" (Acts 4:27-30). That was their plan. Leave it in the hands of the One who orchestrated the death of His own Son.
So they went out and started preaching and healing again. They followed the direct command of Christ to make disciples in direct opposition to the authorities of the day. The result was jail (Acts 5:17-18). When they went to trial, they repeated their position. "Peter and the apostles answered and said, 'We must obey God rather than men'" (Acts 5:29). Then their lawyer showed up and demonstrated that they were within their rights to stand on their beliefs and that the Sandhedrin had no right to prevent them from preaching. No, that's not in there either. Instead, they were whipped and warned.
Funny thing ... nowhere in any of this account is anything about "That's not fair!" There is nothing about their rights, nothing about how wrong the Sanhedrin was, nothing about how they shouldn't have to suffer for their beliefs. James the brother of John is beheaded (Acts 12:1-2), and there is no moral outrage. Peter is arrested, and he's surprised when he is freed by an angel (Acts 12:3-17). Paul was stoned to death in Lystra (Acts 14:8-19) and I don't read anything about his moral outrage. Instead he told the Christians there, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God" (Acts 14:22). When he and Silas were imprisoned, they didn't call their lawyers; they sang hymns (Acts 16:25).
Our primary example, of course, is the one after whom we are named: Christ. He bore the ultimate injustice and did so as a lamb, silent. He was without fault and bore the fault of all of us without a complaint.
We are indeed to stand on our beliefs. We are indeed commanded to stand firm. But the real glory is not in standing firm behind our lawyers and rights. The real glory is in sharing in the same suffering as Christ. "For to you it has been granted for Christ's sake, not only to believe in Him, but also to suffer for His sake" (Phil 1:29). "If when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God" (1 Peter 2:20). By all means, stand. But expect consequences. That is the right thing to do.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Sexist Women?
In an email discussion I was having with my mother (regarding the article referenced in The Good 1955 Wife), my mother sent me this. (I reference my mother for two reasons. 1) She sent it to me. It is standard to reference your source. 2) As I said in this post, men aren't supposed to talk about this stuff because it makes us "sexist". Well, this is my mother's perspective.)
Are these women wrong?
Philippians 2:5-11 paraphrased for a wife:Okay, my mom isn't Judith Lake. But she concurs with Judith that this is a good perspective.
I, being made in the image of God -- a believer, a woman and a wife, having equal worth in God's sight and equal access to the Lord as my husband -- choose not to grasp after a position of equal leadership with my husband which is not my God-given place. Rather, I choose by God's grace to make myself nothing, taking on the very nature of a servant, which was the attitude of Jesus -- desiring with all my heart to be humble like Him. I choose to be obedient to God's command to submit to my husband and die to myself. I understand that this decision will cause pain and suffering at times, but in those moments may I all the more identify with my Lord. When the cross is hard to bear, I pray for the will to give Him the burden of my heart and to learn to rest in Him. I trust God and His Word and am confident that He knows what is best for me. One day He will exalt me in heaven as one of His own who obeyed His will. By His grace, I will receive my reward worshiping Him in His presence forever, confessing Jesus Christ as Lord to the glory of God the Father. (by Judith Lake)
Are these women wrong?
Monday, December 25, 2006
Christmas Story - A Perspective
Mary
“Now that’s something you don’t see every day. An angel shows up to tell you you will become pregnant. And without relations with a man. He called me ‘Blessed one’. I’m not even sure what he meant. What kind of a greeting was that? What brought me favor with God? I don’t understand. And what a child! The Son of the Most High? The King? I don’t understand at all. Who can I tell? Joseph is a nice enough guy. We will be married, after all – I hope. But he wouldn’t understand. Who would? I’m carrying the Child of God! Well, Gabriel said that my cousin Elizabeth has a miracle baby on the way as well. I have to share this with someone. I’ll go see her.”
Joseph
“Oh, this is bad. This is really bad. Pregnant? My fiancé is pregnant? How could she? Mary seemed like a nice enough girl. Now she gets herself pregnant? How will this look? This is bad, really bad. I really don’t want to do more damage to her reputation than is absolutely necessary. I’ll have to break off the engagement and send her away. It won’t be pretty. I’ll do it quietly. But this is really bad.”
Joseph and Mary
“Hi, Elizabeth. Can I talk to Mary, please? Hi, Mary.”
“Oh, hello, Joseph. I suppose you’re here to tell me it’s over between us.”
“Actually, Mary, no. I’m here to ask you to marry me sooner.”
“Sooner? Haven’t you heard? I’m pregnant.”
“Yes, but I was told who the Father is.”
“Oh, you know then? This is really strange.”
“Tell me about it. But if God wants to father a child through my fiancé, I’m fine with that.”
“How about naming Him ‘Jesus’?”
“Oh, you got that information, too? Yes, the angel that visited me said the same thing.” (Aside: “See, I knew it was too bizarre to be imagined.”)
“When do you want to marry?”
“Well, we have this requirement from Rome to go to our home town. Marry me before that, and you can go with me.”
“As you wish.”
God
“This is going to be tricky. I’ve planned for a peasant girl to be pregnant without an earthly father involved. I’ve planned for her husband to raise the child. I’ve planned to get them to Bethlehem, where I told My people the Savior would be born. I’m dropping my Son, my Only Begotten, into human form, into the form of a baby. I know that Satan, that dragon, is waiting for Him. I will need to protect Him from Satan, guard Him from Herod, and carry Him along the path that I have foreordained He will walk. This is going to be very tricky. Shouldn’t be a problem at all.”
“Now that’s something you don’t see every day. An angel shows up to tell you you will become pregnant. And without relations with a man. He called me ‘Blessed one’. I’m not even sure what he meant. What kind of a greeting was that? What brought me favor with God? I don’t understand. And what a child! The Son of the Most High? The King? I don’t understand at all. Who can I tell? Joseph is a nice enough guy. We will be married, after all – I hope. But he wouldn’t understand. Who would? I’m carrying the Child of God! Well, Gabriel said that my cousin Elizabeth has a miracle baby on the way as well. I have to share this with someone. I’ll go see her.”
Joseph
“Oh, this is bad. This is really bad. Pregnant? My fiancé is pregnant? How could she? Mary seemed like a nice enough girl. Now she gets herself pregnant? How will this look? This is bad, really bad. I really don’t want to do more damage to her reputation than is absolutely necessary. I’ll have to break off the engagement and send her away. It won’t be pretty. I’ll do it quietly. But this is really bad.”
Behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for that which has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sins" (Matt. 1:20 22).“Oh, now this is bizarre. When was the last time you had a visit from an angel in your dreams? Was I dreaming? Was it real? Seemed real. Maybe I imagined it all. But who makes this stuff up? Conceived of the Holy Spirit? He will save us all from our sins? This is not the kind of thing one imagines on his own. It must have been real. My fiancé isn’t merely pregnant. She is carrying the Savior. Really bizarre. We should probably get married soon – the sooner the better. This is really strange.”
Joseph and Mary
“Hi, Elizabeth. Can I talk to Mary, please? Hi, Mary.”
“Oh, hello, Joseph. I suppose you’re here to tell me it’s over between us.”
“Actually, Mary, no. I’m here to ask you to marry me sooner.”
“Sooner? Haven’t you heard? I’m pregnant.”
“Yes, but I was told who the Father is.”
“Oh, you know then? This is really strange.”
“Tell me about it. But if God wants to father a child through my fiancé, I’m fine with that.”
“How about naming Him ‘Jesus’?”
“Oh, you got that information, too? Yes, the angel that visited me said the same thing.” (Aside: “See, I knew it was too bizarre to be imagined.”)
“When do you want to marry?”
“Well, we have this requirement from Rome to go to our home town. Marry me before that, and you can go with me.”
“As you wish.”
God
“This is going to be tricky. I’ve planned for a peasant girl to be pregnant without an earthly father involved. I’ve planned for her husband to raise the child. I’ve planned to get them to Bethlehem, where I told My people the Savior would be born. I’m dropping my Son, my Only Begotten, into human form, into the form of a baby. I know that Satan, that dragon, is waiting for Him. I will need to protect Him from Satan, guard Him from Herod, and carry Him along the path that I have foreordained He will walk. This is going to be very tricky. Shouldn’t be a problem at all.”
Sunday, December 24, 2006
The Christmas Story - My Way
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth1. And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good2. But all of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way3. "There is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there is none who seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one."4 All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God5. The wages of sin is death6.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us7, sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins8.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men9. Although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men10. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth11. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God12.
Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace13.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn14.
1 Gen. 1:1
2 Gen. 1:31
3 Isa. 53:6
4 Rom. 3:10-12
5 Rom. 3:23
6 Rom. 6:23
7 Eph. 2:4
8 1 John 4:10
9 John 1:1-4
10 Phil. 2:6-7
11 John 1:14
12 John 1:10-13
13 Isa. 9:6
14 Luke 2:7
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us7, sent His Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins8.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men9. Although He existed in the form of God, He did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men10. And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth11. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God12.
Unto us a child is born; unto us a son is given; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace13.
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn14.
1 Gen. 1:1
2 Gen. 1:31
3 Isa. 53:6
4 Rom. 3:10-12
5 Rom. 3:23
6 Rom. 6:23
7 Eph. 2:4
8 1 John 4:10
9 John 1:1-4
10 Phil. 2:6-7
11 John 1:14
12 John 1:10-13
13 Isa. 9:6
14 Luke 2:7
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Religion or Christianity?
I have been told repeatedly and sometimes belligerently that "Christianity is not a religion, it is a relationship." Now, I honestly understand the point ... but why must it be such a point of contention? Based on the Random House Dictionary, religion is "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." The American Heritage Dictionary says it is "belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe, or a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship."
So ... how is Christianity not a religion? What I fear is that the modern church's anti-intellectualism and anti-creed stance has made it ... not a religion. Creeds and reason provide systematic methods of examining a common set of beliefs. Without a doubt, if creeds and reason are included in Christianity, then it is indeed "a set of beliefs", "reverence for a supernatural power", a "personal [and] institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." The question then becomes "Do we not want it to be?"
So ... how is Christianity not a religion? What I fear is that the modern church's anti-intellectualism and anti-creed stance has made it ... not a religion. Creeds and reason provide systematic methods of examining a common set of beliefs. Without a doubt, if creeds and reason are included in Christianity, then it is indeed "a set of beliefs", "reverence for a supernatural power", a "personal [and] institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship." The question then becomes "Do we not want it to be?"
Friday, December 22, 2006
Christmas Carol Quiz 2 - the Sequel
Just when you thought it was safe ...
I've received these carol quizzes over the years and I enjoyed them. I thought you might as well. To the authors of the quizzes, I apologize. I have never known the source. But thanks.
(Again, the answers will be in the comments, so if you want to play, don't look there yet.)
(Oh, and there is no guarantee that there aren't duplicates from the first quiz.)
1. Bleached Yule
2. Castaneous-colored Seed Vesicated in a Conflagration
3. Singular Yearning for the Twin Anterior Incisors
4. Righteous Darkness
5. Arrival Time: 2400 hrs -- Weather: Cloudless
6. Loyal Followers Advance
7. Far Off in a Feeder
8. Array the Corridor
9. Bantam Male Percussionist
10. Monarchial Triad
11. Nocturnal Noiselessness
12. Jehovah Deactivate Blithe Chevaliers
13. Red Man En Route to Borough
14. Frozen Precipitation Commence
15. Proceed and Enlighten on the Pinnacle
16. The Quadruped with the Vermillion Probiscis
17. Query Regarding Identity of Descendant
18. Delight for this Planet
19. Give Attention to the Melodious Celestial Beings
20. The Dozen Festive 24 Hour Intervals
I've received these carol quizzes over the years and I enjoyed them. I thought you might as well. To the authors of the quizzes, I apologize. I have never known the source. But thanks.
(Again, the answers will be in the comments, so if you want to play, don't look there yet.)
(Oh, and there is no guarantee that there aren't duplicates from the first quiz.)
1. Bleached Yule
2. Castaneous-colored Seed Vesicated in a Conflagration
3. Singular Yearning for the Twin Anterior Incisors
4. Righteous Darkness
5. Arrival Time: 2400 hrs -- Weather: Cloudless
6. Loyal Followers Advance
7. Far Off in a Feeder
8. Array the Corridor
9. Bantam Male Percussionist
10. Monarchial Triad
11. Nocturnal Noiselessness
12. Jehovah Deactivate Blithe Chevaliers
13. Red Man En Route to Borough
14. Frozen Precipitation Commence
15. Proceed and Enlighten on the Pinnacle
16. The Quadruped with the Vermillion Probiscis
17. Query Regarding Identity of Descendant
18. Delight for this Planet
19. Give Attention to the Melodious Celestial Beings
20. The Dozen Festive 24 Hour Intervals
Christmas Carol Quiz
These are popular Christmas carols. Can you figure out their normal names?
1. Approach everyone who is steadfast.
2. Ecstasy toward the orb.
3. Listen! The Foretelling spirits harmonize.
4. Hey, Minuscule urban area southeast of Jerusalem.
5. Quiescent Nocturnal period.
6. The Autocrat troika originating near the ascent of Apollo.
7. The primary carol.
8. Embellish the corridors.
9. I'm fantasizing concerning a blanched yuletide.
10. I apprehended my maternal parent osculating with a corpulent unshaven male in crimson disguise.
11. During the time ovine caretakers supervised their charges past midnight.
12. The thing manifests itself at the onset of a transparent day.
13. The coniferous nativity.
14. What offspring abides thus?
15. Removed in a bovine feeding trough.
16. Creator, cool it, you kooky cats!
17. Valentino, the roseate proboscises wapiti.
18. The slight percussionist lad.
19. Father Christmas approaches the metropolis.
20. Seraphim we aurally detected in the stratosphere.
(Don't read the comments until you try to answer them yourself. I have put the answers in the comments.)
1. Approach everyone who is steadfast.
2. Ecstasy toward the orb.
3. Listen! The Foretelling spirits harmonize.
4. Hey, Minuscule urban area southeast of Jerusalem.
5. Quiescent Nocturnal period.
6. The Autocrat troika originating near the ascent of Apollo.
7. The primary carol.
8. Embellish the corridors.
9. I'm fantasizing concerning a blanched yuletide.
10. I apprehended my maternal parent osculating with a corpulent unshaven male in crimson disguise.
11. During the time ovine caretakers supervised their charges past midnight.
12. The thing manifests itself at the onset of a transparent day.
13. The coniferous nativity.
14. What offspring abides thus?
15. Removed in a bovine feeding trough.
16. Creator, cool it, you kooky cats!
17. Valentino, the roseate proboscises wapiti.
18. The slight percussionist lad.
19. Father Christmas approaches the metropolis.
20. Seraphim we aurally detected in the stratosphere.
(Don't read the comments until you try to answer them yourself. I have put the answers in the comments.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)