At various times in various circumstances people will, in person or online, see what I have to say and ask, "Where do you come up with this?" or something like it. Of course, typically it isn't with a sense of admiration (there's a shock, eh?), but disdain. But the reason for the question isn't important. I think the question deserves to be answered.
When I express an opinion on, say, politics or current events, it will sometimes be from ... personal opinion. Nothing more. How do I feel about gun control? Trying to correlate "gun control" to "What does the Word say on the issue?" isn't very easy (if it is possible at all), so it's just my opinion. Who should be voted into office? Typically just my opinion. Take it or leave it.
More often, however, the question is asked about the "outrageous" claims I make. While almost everyone knows that what two people do in the privacy of their own home is their own business, I have the audacity to suggest that sex outside of marriage is a sin, and sexual relations between same-sex people is sin. "What? Where do you come up with that?" See how it works? Or in a recent post I made the outrageous claim that those who are hostile to God will not find arguments in favor of God's view favorable. "What??!! Where do you come up with this stuff?"
I have what is commonly referred to as a "Christian worldview". A worldview is the view of the world around you that you hold that stitches everything together and makes it all fit. Mine is from a Christian perspective. Further, it is created, defined, and explained by the Bible. If it's in there, it's true. Doesn't much matter if others agree or not. Doesn't much matter if the tide of public opinion finds it compelling. It's the worldview I have and, therefore, the one on which I operate.
So, I read something like, oh, say, "The mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom 8:7). I look at the text, the context, the subtext, and then conclude that the mind set on the flesh is hostile to God (because, you know, that's what it says). I read something like "The Natural Man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned" (1 Cor 2:14), examine the text and context, and conclude that those in their natural condition do not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Now, I know these things are not going to be well received. I know, in fact, that many Christians will disagree. But when it says it, it is in agreement with its context, and it is in agreement with the rest of Scripture, I have to conclude that it is true and others, Christians or not, who disagree are mistaken. So where do I come up with the notion that those who are hostile to God will not find arguments in favor of God's view favorable? Well, it's in the Bible, it's pretty clear in the Bible, and I have no reason to doubt from the words and the context that it doesn't mean exactly what it says. That is, "Well, my experience says otherwise" is not a suitable reason to change my conclusion. Experience is suspect.
I understand that my approach will not be viewed favorably by many. Well, certainly not by those whose mind is set on the flesh. Certainly not by those who are in their natural state. And don't be deceived -- that may include people who call themselves Christians. But I'm left with two possible options here. I can assume that the Bible is indeed God's Word, is understandable, authoritative, and right, or ... not. For those who would disagree with those notions, I have no other place to stand.
I would like to point out, however, that while it may be accurate (even expected) to say that my view will not be "mainstream" or "compelling" or even "acceptable", it cannot accurately be said that it is "cultural" or "irrational" or "immoral" -- accusations so often expressed about what I see clearly in the pages of Scripture. It can be said, "I disagree with your view" or, because I'm fallible, even "Here is a fault in the logic", but not that morality or rationality are missing. It is true, in fact, that I am not always pleased with what I find in Scripture. I mean, wouldn't it be easier to tell people, "Do whatever makes you happy"? But I cannot alter my Christian worldview without dynamically shifting all of life's paradigms and removing all hope or even rationale. Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I cannot and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.
Wednesday, May 08, 2013
Tuesday, May 07, 2013
Transgender?
Okay, so I've looked and looked and looked and nowhere in the Bible do I find a text that says, "If you're gender-confused and feel like you're a man trapped in a woman's body, it's a sin to have surgery to make your body match how you feel." Nowhere. Clearly, then, God has no opinion, right?
These kinds of questions are difficult. I suspect, however, that there are far more of these than the other kind. You know, the kind where God says, "Thou shalt not ..." and we have a clear indication of what it is thou shalt not do. Much of life simply isn't addressed in Scripture. Is it wrong to run a red light? I can't find a single biblical reference to red lights. In fact, I can't find a reference to traffic management at all. Is it wrong for a Christian to drive a beer truck for a profession? (Seriously, I've actually had someone ask me that.) Again, not a single reference to Christians and beer trucks. There is no reference to abortion, no reference to gay marriage, no reference to Christians going to war, no reference to oh, so much of everyday life.
It would, however, be inaccurate of me to actually hold the position I've already offered -- that "much of life simply isn't addressed in Scripture." More accurately I would have to say that much of life isn't directly addressed. We are not, however, without guidance. Is it wrong to run a red light? The Bible doesn't say. But it does say that we should obey the authorities, and the authorities say it's wrong, so we have an answer. So while the Bible may not directly address questions, it clearly provides principles upon which we can answer them. So, are there principles in Scripture that would address our poor "gender-confused" fellow? I think there are.
In the very first chapter of Genesis we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). God created male and female. It wasn't an accident, a mistake, a derivation, or random evolution. It was God's design. God had a purpose when He designed male and female. They aren't "nice to have", but intentional.
So, anything else? Is that all? No, of course not. There is more.
In Deuteronomy -- the retelling of the Law -- we read "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Deut 22:5). I know the first response. "Oh, that old stuff. That was just for Israel." Okay, you go ahead with that. But it does say that "whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God", which seems to put it more in the category of "universal" rather than "ceremonial" or "Israel only". Or are we going with "Yeah, well, God hated it back then, but now He changed His mind"? No, if God found it abominable, it would seem to be ... still abominable. But if "woman" and "man" are variable sexes rather than defined sexes and "man's garment" or "woman's cloak" are simply faces of gender that might not match up with the variables "woman" or "man", why would God care? "Look, she feels like a man trapped in a woman's body. Let her wear what makes her feel comfortable! Don't go all judgmental and narrow-minded on us here, God." And apparently God disagrees. And it's not just here. Assuming that there are certainly women who can be trapped in a male body, why would God care at all if the woman trapped inside is effeminate ... you know, like a woman should be? And yet Paul lists "effeminate" as one of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). Why is that?
The Bible does not provide, in its Ten Commandments, a commandment regarding the morality of changing gender from sex. Now, we can discuss the irrationality of such a concept, but I'm looking at biblical principles here, so what do we do? Yes, the Bible is explicitly silent, but certainly not implicitly. It offers principles. God made male and female for a purpose. Further, He abhors the mixing of sexes and genders. That would suggest that the concept of "transgender" qualifies as abhorrent to God and, as such, immoral. In the absence of text or principles, I would heartily recommend not passing a moral judgment on something. That falls in the category of faith, a personal conviction. This is not the case here. I think there is compelling biblical principles upon which to base this position. Nor are there compelling reasons to come to any other conclusion. I think I have my answer.
(As a side note, there is a real question about whether or not a person can change their sex. Is "sex" defined as the genitalia you wear? Apparently not, based on the "pregnant man" who classified herself as a man while retaining female genitalia. Science will tell you that sex is based on XX or XY chromosomes. Now that is something that cannot change. And a forensic pathologist identifies sex from bone structures. Again, something that doesn't change. At the bottom of the whole question apart from morality at all is the very real question, "Can you actually change your sex?" And if someone modifies their body to mimic the body of the opposite sex but is still, physically, the original sex and then engages in a sexual relationship with a person of that same sex, wouldn't it still be homosexual sex?)
(Additional side note. The question of "cross dressing", of transvestites, as referenced in Deut 22:5, is not actually, according to most scholars, a simple reference to "wearing the clothing of the opposite gender". When Bill put on a wig and dress and did a comedy skit at the church social, he wasn't violating this passage. According to the rabbis, the Jewish commentators, and even the modern commentators, this is not merely a reference to a woman who is more comfortable in jeans, but to people of either gender dressing to appear as the opposite gender. It's not some guy secretly wearing panties, but men who dress as women to pass themselves off as women and women who dress as men to pass themselves off as men. There is, then, a deeper intent. It is a transgender intent.)
These kinds of questions are difficult. I suspect, however, that there are far more of these than the other kind. You know, the kind where God says, "Thou shalt not ..." and we have a clear indication of what it is thou shalt not do. Much of life simply isn't addressed in Scripture. Is it wrong to run a red light? I can't find a single biblical reference to red lights. In fact, I can't find a reference to traffic management at all. Is it wrong for a Christian to drive a beer truck for a profession? (Seriously, I've actually had someone ask me that.) Again, not a single reference to Christians and beer trucks. There is no reference to abortion, no reference to gay marriage, no reference to Christians going to war, no reference to oh, so much of everyday life.
It would, however, be inaccurate of me to actually hold the position I've already offered -- that "much of life simply isn't addressed in Scripture." More accurately I would have to say that much of life isn't directly addressed. We are not, however, without guidance. Is it wrong to run a red light? The Bible doesn't say. But it does say that we should obey the authorities, and the authorities say it's wrong, so we have an answer. So while the Bible may not directly address questions, it clearly provides principles upon which we can answer them. So, are there principles in Scripture that would address our poor "gender-confused" fellow? I think there are.
In the very first chapter of Genesis we read, "So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them" (Gen 1:27). God created male and female. It wasn't an accident, a mistake, a derivation, or random evolution. It was God's design. God had a purpose when He designed male and female. They aren't "nice to have", but intentional.
So, anything else? Is that all? No, of course not. There is more.
In Deuteronomy -- the retelling of the Law -- we read "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God" (Deut 22:5). I know the first response. "Oh, that old stuff. That was just for Israel." Okay, you go ahead with that. But it does say that "whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God", which seems to put it more in the category of "universal" rather than "ceremonial" or "Israel only". Or are we going with "Yeah, well, God hated it back then, but now He changed His mind"? No, if God found it abominable, it would seem to be ... still abominable. But if "woman" and "man" are variable sexes rather than defined sexes and "man's garment" or "woman's cloak" are simply faces of gender that might not match up with the variables "woman" or "man", why would God care? "Look, she feels like a man trapped in a woman's body. Let her wear what makes her feel comfortable! Don't go all judgmental and narrow-minded on us here, God." And apparently God disagrees. And it's not just here. Assuming that there are certainly women who can be trapped in a male body, why would God care at all if the woman trapped inside is effeminate ... you know, like a woman should be? And yet Paul lists "effeminate" as one of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9). Why is that?
The Bible does not provide, in its Ten Commandments, a commandment regarding the morality of changing gender from sex. Now, we can discuss the irrationality of such a concept, but I'm looking at biblical principles here, so what do we do? Yes, the Bible is explicitly silent, but certainly not implicitly. It offers principles. God made male and female for a purpose. Further, He abhors the mixing of sexes and genders. That would suggest that the concept of "transgender" qualifies as abhorrent to God and, as such, immoral. In the absence of text or principles, I would heartily recommend not passing a moral judgment on something. That falls in the category of faith, a personal conviction. This is not the case here. I think there is compelling biblical principles upon which to base this position. Nor are there compelling reasons to come to any other conclusion. I think I have my answer.
(As a side note, there is a real question about whether or not a person can change their sex. Is "sex" defined as the genitalia you wear? Apparently not, based on the "pregnant man" who classified herself as a man while retaining female genitalia. Science will tell you that sex is based on XX or XY chromosomes. Now that is something that cannot change. And a forensic pathologist identifies sex from bone structures. Again, something that doesn't change. At the bottom of the whole question apart from morality at all is the very real question, "Can you actually change your sex?" And if someone modifies their body to mimic the body of the opposite sex but is still, physically, the original sex and then engages in a sexual relationship with a person of that same sex, wouldn't it still be homosexual sex?)
(Additional side note. The question of "cross dressing", of transvestites, as referenced in Deut 22:5, is not actually, according to most scholars, a simple reference to "wearing the clothing of the opposite gender". When Bill put on a wig and dress and did a comedy skit at the church social, he wasn't violating this passage. According to the rabbis, the Jewish commentators, and even the modern commentators, this is not merely a reference to a woman who is more comfortable in jeans, but to people of either gender dressing to appear as the opposite gender. It's not some guy secretly wearing panties, but men who dress as women to pass themselves off as women and women who dress as men to pass themselves off as men. There is, then, a deeper intent. It is a transgender intent.)
Monday, May 06, 2013
Orthodoxy is Winning
Mary Eberstadt is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. She wrote a piece for Time about what appears to be a surprising phenomenon of growth among conservative Christianity while liberal Christianity declines. She concludes:
As changing views on gay marriage, among others, go to show, secularization marches on. Traditionalists may be on the losing end of historic real estate, at least for now, as well as booed out of the public square for their views on sex. Down the road, though, they still look to possess something else critical — a growing congregation without which every church, after all, is just a bed and breakfast waiting to happen.Oddly enough, it's what Edward Gibbon remarked on the strength and reason for growth in the early Christian church under the Roman Empire. Apparently "narrow" views on matters of everyday life can actually produce strength and growth in a culture that is explicitly contrary to those "narrow" views. And, oddly enough, she didn't consult me on the piece, so it appears that someone else besides Gibbon agrees with me on this. Now that is strange.
Sunday, May 05, 2013
Praise the LORD!
1 Praise the LORD! Praise God in His sanctuary;I was raised in a mid-20th century, conservative, Christian home. The date made "harp and lyre" not typical instruments in church. Okay, sure, we had timbrels (better known today as tambourines). But the conservative condition made "loud cymbals" (which appears to be repeated for emphasis) certainly not welcome. Stringed instruments and trumpets and certainly pipes -- at least those for the organ -- were okay, but I have to say, dancing was not to be.
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
2 Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
3 Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
4 Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD! (Psa 150)
So while I get the idea of this exulting psalm, I have to admit that the imagery offered here is not familiar to me. Maybe some day I'll see it. In the meantime I'll have to content myself with praising Him for His mighty deeds, His excellent greatness, His mighty expanse. You know, that might be quite enough!
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD!!!
Saturday, May 04, 2013
"Normal" and "Natural"
Before I even start, the title should tell you what I'm going to be writing about, right? Putting these two together, we know where I'm going with this. Well, you'd be wrong.
"Normal" is an interesting thing. It has a definition. It's definition, by design, is hazy. No, not the definition, but the working out of it. The definition is pretty simple and commonly understood: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual". Easy, right? That which conforms to the common or standard is "normal" and that which is "unusual" is not. Of course, defining "usual" isn't always simple. However, note that the term carries no value judgment. There is "normal" and there is "not normal" and the value judgment that might result from this description is consequent to, not part of the description. That is, if the standard of "normal" has a value judgment (say, "tall is good"), and a person or thing doesn't meet that standard (defined, then, as "not normal"), then the conclusion would be a value judgment, but not the definition of "not normal". So, just for instance, if 3% of a population have a classification that is outside of the other 97%, that cannot be considered normal. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good or bad, but it does necessarily require that the 3% are not normal.
Here, let me give an example. I remember seeing a fascinating story about this young boy that was born without arms or legs. Now, it was a story at all because this boy was not normal. I mean, if everyone was born without arms or legs, this boy wouldn't have been a story. But the very fact that his condition was not normal made it a story. And no one would say that because he was not normal he was bad. He was not born with the normal limbs, and this did not reflect negatively on him. There, you see? "Not normal" does not necessarily mean "bad".
The story was really interesting. It was about how he got along in life. He had the support of a large family. The story followed him waking up in the morning and, on his own, strapping on artificial limbs. It followed him through the day as he went about his daily routines working hard to operate normally with an abnormal condition. He was a brave kid and you admired his courage, his spirit, his attitude. Yes, he had problems from birth, but they didn't serve to define him or to prevent him from proceeding with life.
It could be said that his condition was "natural". That is, it wasn't artificial. He wasn't a victim of an accident that deprived him of his limbs. He was born that way. Now, I don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way it is a good thing." I also don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way he is bad." "Born that way" in his case indicated that it was "natural", even if it was not "normal". But this amazing kid worked every day at overcoming his natural condition in order to be more normal. And we admire him for it. We recognize that overcoming a natural condition in order to be normal can be a good thing. We applaud this brave little boy who didn't allow his birth condition to determine his life definition.
Okay, maybe I have discussed what you thought I was going to.
"Normal" is an interesting thing. It has a definition. It's definition, by design, is hazy. No, not the definition, but the working out of it. The definition is pretty simple and commonly understood: "conforming to the standard or the common type; usual". Easy, right? That which conforms to the common or standard is "normal" and that which is "unusual" is not. Of course, defining "usual" isn't always simple. However, note that the term carries no value judgment. There is "normal" and there is "not normal" and the value judgment that might result from this description is consequent to, not part of the description. That is, if the standard of "normal" has a value judgment (say, "tall is good"), and a person or thing doesn't meet that standard (defined, then, as "not normal"), then the conclusion would be a value judgment, but not the definition of "not normal". So, just for instance, if 3% of a population have a classification that is outside of the other 97%, that cannot be considered normal. That doesn't necessarily mean it is good or bad, but it does necessarily require that the 3% are not normal.
Here, let me give an example. I remember seeing a fascinating story about this young boy that was born without arms or legs. Now, it was a story at all because this boy was not normal. I mean, if everyone was born without arms or legs, this boy wouldn't have been a story. But the very fact that his condition was not normal made it a story. And no one would say that because he was not normal he was bad. He was not born with the normal limbs, and this did not reflect negatively on him. There, you see? "Not normal" does not necessarily mean "bad".
The story was really interesting. It was about how he got along in life. He had the support of a large family. The story followed him waking up in the morning and, on his own, strapping on artificial limbs. It followed him through the day as he went about his daily routines working hard to operate normally with an abnormal condition. He was a brave kid and you admired his courage, his spirit, his attitude. Yes, he had problems from birth, but they didn't serve to define him or to prevent him from proceeding with life.
It could be said that his condition was "natural". That is, it wasn't artificial. He wasn't a victim of an accident that deprived him of his limbs. He was born that way. Now, I don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way it is a good thing." I also don't know of anyone who would say, "Because he was born that way he is bad." "Born that way" in his case indicated that it was "natural", even if it was not "normal". But this amazing kid worked every day at overcoming his natural condition in order to be more normal. And we admire him for it. We recognize that overcoming a natural condition in order to be normal can be a good thing. We applaud this brave little boy who didn't allow his birth condition to determine his life definition.
Okay, maybe I have discussed what you thought I was going to.
Friday, May 03, 2013
Socially Acceptable Sin
There are lots of sins in the Bible. (Who knew, right?) And we know that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord, right? Well, perhaps not. All sins are equal in the sense that all sins deserve God's judgment, but I don't think it is true that all sins are of equal weight. We know this because of things like Jesus's words to the cities where His works had been displayed without repentance. He told them that "it will be more bearable on the day of judgment" for the cities that would have repented had His works been done there (Matt 11:20-24). And John writes about sins that lead to death and sins that don't lead to death (1 John 5:16-17). Thus, it would appear that there are levels of judgment and, therefore, levels of sin.
We're pretty sure these days that we know what "bad sin" and "not so bad sin" is. "Bad sin" would be things like homosexual behavior, adultery, fornication, you know, sexual sin. It would be things like rape and murder, theft, mayhem, certainly idolatry, oh, and that unforgivable one ... what was it? ... oh, yeah, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whatever that means. No, no, we've got this one. We're pretty clear on this.
There are several places in the Bible that actually make lists of standardized sins. Here are a few examples:
I would submit, however, that there is another list of sins that we're happy to give a pass on. Oh, sure, maybe those things are sinful, but there's no need to call them to anyone's attention, no need to make a big deal about them, certainly no need to mention them in a blog. Or is there?
America, for instance, almost runs on covetousness and greed. They are practically our motto, so they can't be that bad, can they? And while God seems to think that "disobedient to parents" is a bad thing, we often think of it as noble and right, since parents are not perfect and children tend, in today's society, to be viewed as wise. Our favorite comedies include insolence and foolishness. Hey, our entire prayer chain basically works on a gossip-and-slander method. I mean, it's not gossip if we're just sharing it as a prayer request for someone, is it? And, look, we're pretty sure that "lovers of self" is in there by accident. I mean, how can you love others as yourself if you don't first love yourself? Loving self is "the greatest love of all", they tell us.
I am concerned. I'm concerned that in seeing the obvious we miss the more deleterious. While seeing the clearly wrong we miss the acceptable wrong. We let that leaven in, sometimes intentionally, not realizing that we're in danger of leavening the whole lump. It ought to concern us, then, when we read about God's perspective on the greedy, the gossip, those who dishonor their parents, and those who love pleasure. "We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things" (Rom 2:2). "The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9). "Avoid such people" (2 Tim 3:5). While you're hastening to point fingers at the homosexual offenders, be careful it's not you who is missing the log in your own eye.
We're pretty sure these days that we know what "bad sin" and "not so bad sin" is. "Bad sin" would be things like homosexual behavior, adultery, fornication, you know, sexual sin. It would be things like rape and murder, theft, mayhem, certainly idolatry, oh, and that unforgivable one ... what was it? ... oh, yeah, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, whatever that means. No, no, we've got this one. We're pretty clear on this.
There are several places in the Bible that actually make lists of standardized sins. Here are a few examples:
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them (Rom 1:29-32).And in these lists we can see reflected our own abhorrence to some things. There's that whole "murder" problem, and "haters of God" is surely a bad thing. Oh, "inventors of evil" seem to abound, as does the giving of approval to those who practice evil. We already know that the sexually immoral and idolaters and adulterers and those who practice homosexuality are in deep trouble with God. And those who love money, who are unholy and heartless, who are brutal, treacherous, and "swollen with conceit" (What a descriptive phrase!) are surely among the most sinful.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9-10).
For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people (2 Tim 3:2-5).
I would submit, however, that there is another list of sins that we're happy to give a pass on. Oh, sure, maybe those things are sinful, but there's no need to call them to anyone's attention, no need to make a big deal about them, certainly no need to mention them in a blog. Or is there?
America, for instance, almost runs on covetousness and greed. They are practically our motto, so they can't be that bad, can they? And while God seems to think that "disobedient to parents" is a bad thing, we often think of it as noble and right, since parents are not perfect and children tend, in today's society, to be viewed as wise. Our favorite comedies include insolence and foolishness. Hey, our entire prayer chain basically works on a gossip-and-slander method. I mean, it's not gossip if we're just sharing it as a prayer request for someone, is it? And, look, we're pretty sure that "lovers of self" is in there by accident. I mean, how can you love others as yourself if you don't first love yourself? Loving self is "the greatest love of all", they tell us.
I am concerned. I'm concerned that in seeing the obvious we miss the more deleterious. While seeing the clearly wrong we miss the acceptable wrong. We let that leaven in, sometimes intentionally, not realizing that we're in danger of leavening the whole lump. It ought to concern us, then, when we read about God's perspective on the greedy, the gossip, those who dishonor their parents, and those who love pleasure. "We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things" (Rom 2:2). "The unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9). "Avoid such people" (2 Tim 3:5). While you're hastening to point fingers at the homosexual offenders, be careful it's not you who is missing the log in your own eye.
Thursday, May 02, 2013
The Golden Calf
Remember the story of the golden calf? Yeah, sure you do. God spoke to Israel as "face to face" as it gets, where the nation gathered around Mount Sinai (Exo 19) and God declared to them His law (Exo 20-23). Then God called Moses and a few extras to go up and get more info (Exo 24-31) where He told Moses about His design for the tabernacle. While they were up there, the people got a bit restless. They went to Aaron and demanded, "Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him" (Exo 32:1). Aaron fought them off, but lost, so they gave him their gold and he threw it into a pot and -- poof! -- out came this golden calf (Exo 32:21-24). Okay, so maybe Aaron didn't quite represent that event properly, but that was his story and he was sticking to it. The outcome, of course, was not pleasant for the children of Israel ... or even the adults. Moses's verdict resulted in the execution of 3,000 people (Exo 32:26-28) and God followed that up with a plague. Not good at all.
There are, I believe, a few fine points missed in this story that might be helpful and even instructive. I mean, for instance, it appears that Aaron made the golden calf for the people and clearly the people pay a high price for their idolatry, so why is it that Aaron, as payment for his complicity, gets made high priest? How did that work out? And how is it that Aaron, as Moses's cohort, took part in the first place? So let's look at some of the details to see if we can make some sense out of it.
In the story, when Aaron is tasked with making them gods, he asks them to "Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters ..." (Exo 32:2). Isn't that interesting? They had a load of loot from the Egyptians when they left Egypt (Exo 12:35-36), so why not some of that? It would appear that Aaron was stalling, knowing that taking the gold off the women and children would be much more difficult than taking a little from their stashes back in the tents. This would also coincide with Moses's apparent assumption that Aaron acted under duress (Exo 32:21). Next, Aaron tried the delaying tactic of "tomorrow". I mean, if the idol is there and ready, why wait? Note, also, that when the idol was finished, Aaron declared "a feast to the LORD." That "LORD" is the word "YHWH", the word for the One True God, not just any gods. The people had asked for elohiym -- generic "gods" -- and Aaron gave them YHWH, Jehovah, their One God. At least in name. Note, in fact, that Aaron specifically countered what was being said. "And they said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" (Exo 32:4). Who is "they"? Very possibly the Egyptians that had accompanied them. But Aaron denied that it was their elohiym and claimed that it was YHWH.
It should also be noted that there is an interesting theory about this calf. Some have suggested that Aaron was playing a "trick" on the people. The calf was a standard component of Egyptian pagan worship. They would often put the image of their god on the back of a cow, where the cow formed the seat of the god. But Aaron produced a calf without a rider. The idea is that Aaron took what the Egyptians that were with them and the Israelites that had grown up in Egypt were used to and used it as an object lesson. He was saying, in essence, "Your God is knowable like the gods of Egypt, but not visible -- not earthly -- like they are." Maybe.
Storm-God Hadad on the back of a cow
Here's what we do know. We know that the people weren't willing to wait. Moses took too long. God wasn't acting quickly enough. The actual, visible, even dangerous (Exo 19:12-13) presence of God on the Mount was not good enough. They demanded satisfaction, and it was to be a "here and now" satisfaction. It was to be represented by something known and was to act as a suitable substitute for the Almight God. Aaron offered, perhaps reluctantly and slowly, that substitute.
We live in an idolatrous world. We live in a world hostile to God (Rom 8:7-8). We live in a world beset by substitutes for God because "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). Idolatry is the standard operating mode here. We all suffer from it. We worship the creature rather than the Creator. Sometimes it's because we are unregenerate and, therefore, by nature hostile to God. But in the story of the golden calf, it wasn't those outside who were clamoring for a replacement; it was Israel. It was those who had seen God's salvation, been through the Red Sea. It was those who just said, "All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do" (Exo 24:3). That there are those in the world who have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images" (Rom 1:23) is no surprise. But we, those of the faith, ought to know better.
Idolatry is simply the substitution of something not-God for God. We think of it as a wooden image or a metal form of a false deity. We've gotten much more creative. It could be the flat-screen god in the family room or the political action committee of your favorite party or the social justice movement that is going to straighten out the world. It could be your car, your house, your spouse, your children, your job, your bank account, your own body. It is whatever you love more than Christ and whatever takes your attention from God. It is whatever you think will save you that is not God Himself. It cloaks itself in rationality and comfort. And it is a lie (Rom 1:25). Learn from the Israelites. Substituting for God does not end well.
There are, I believe, a few fine points missed in this story that might be helpful and even instructive. I mean, for instance, it appears that Aaron made the golden calf for the people and clearly the people pay a high price for their idolatry, so why is it that Aaron, as payment for his complicity, gets made high priest? How did that work out? And how is it that Aaron, as Moses's cohort, took part in the first place? So let's look at some of the details to see if we can make some sense out of it.
In the story, when Aaron is tasked with making them gods, he asks them to "Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters ..." (Exo 32:2). Isn't that interesting? They had a load of loot from the Egyptians when they left Egypt (Exo 12:35-36), so why not some of that? It would appear that Aaron was stalling, knowing that taking the gold off the women and children would be much more difficult than taking a little from their stashes back in the tents. This would also coincide with Moses's apparent assumption that Aaron acted under duress (Exo 32:21). Next, Aaron tried the delaying tactic of "tomorrow". I mean, if the idol is there and ready, why wait? Note, also, that when the idol was finished, Aaron declared "a feast to the LORD." That "LORD" is the word "YHWH", the word for the One True God, not just any gods. The people had asked for elohiym -- generic "gods" -- and Aaron gave them YHWH, Jehovah, their One God. At least in name. Note, in fact, that Aaron specifically countered what was being said. "And they said, 'These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!'" (Exo 32:4). Who is "they"? Very possibly the Egyptians that had accompanied them. But Aaron denied that it was their elohiym and claimed that it was YHWH.
It should also be noted that there is an interesting theory about this calf. Some have suggested that Aaron was playing a "trick" on the people. The calf was a standard component of Egyptian pagan worship. They would often put the image of their god on the back of a cow, where the cow formed the seat of the god. But Aaron produced a calf without a rider. The idea is that Aaron took what the Egyptians that were with them and the Israelites that had grown up in Egypt were used to and used it as an object lesson. He was saying, in essence, "Your God is knowable like the gods of Egypt, but not visible -- not earthly -- like they are." Maybe.Storm-God Hadad on the back of a cow
Here's what we do know. We know that the people weren't willing to wait. Moses took too long. God wasn't acting quickly enough. The actual, visible, even dangerous (Exo 19:12-13) presence of God on the Mount was not good enough. They demanded satisfaction, and it was to be a "here and now" satisfaction. It was to be represented by something known and was to act as a suitable substitute for the Almight God. Aaron offered, perhaps reluctantly and slowly, that substitute.
We live in an idolatrous world. We live in a world hostile to God (Rom 8:7-8). We live in a world beset by substitutes for God because "they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator" (Rom 1:25). Idolatry is the standard operating mode here. We all suffer from it. We worship the creature rather than the Creator. Sometimes it's because we are unregenerate and, therefore, by nature hostile to God. But in the story of the golden calf, it wasn't those outside who were clamoring for a replacement; it was Israel. It was those who had seen God's salvation, been through the Red Sea. It was those who just said, "All the words that the LORD has spoken we will do" (Exo 24:3). That there are those in the world who have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images" (Rom 1:23) is no surprise. But we, those of the faith, ought to know better.
Idolatry is simply the substitution of something not-God for God. We think of it as a wooden image or a metal form of a false deity. We've gotten much more creative. It could be the flat-screen god in the family room or the political action committee of your favorite party or the social justice movement that is going to straighten out the world. It could be your car, your house, your spouse, your children, your job, your bank account, your own body. It is whatever you love more than Christ and whatever takes your attention from God. It is whatever you think will save you that is not God Himself. It cloaks itself in rationality and comfort. And it is a lie (Rom 1:25). Learn from the Israelites. Substituting for God does not end well.
Little children, keep yourselves from idols (1 John 5:21).
Wednesday, May 01, 2013
Truth by Vote
As with most arguments/debates, one side "wins" and the other "loses" when one side makes the case in a way that appeals to those listening as the most rational and/or moral argument.I read this claim on another blog that someone pointed me to and was amazed. The discussion was on the rightness or wrongness of same-sex marriage. And it appears as if the claim by a self-professed Christian was that an argument can be properly determined by asking those who listen which is the most rational or moral argument. That is, truth by vote.
It is certain that you can ask an audience listening to a debate "Which argument made the most rational or moral sense?" and get an answer. (It is, of course, most likely that you will get a divided answer, but an answer just the same.) And in a generic, formal sense, it might be said, based on this scheme, that the one with the most votes "won the debate". What cannot be said was that the one with the most votes was right.
I would hope, even to this blogger, that it is abundantly clear that the second -- the right or wrong of the argument -- cannot be determined by public opinion. Any Christian who has read his or her Bible will know that 1) Christianity is right and 2) the world will not like it. Paul is not hazy when he affirms, "The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor 1:18). Any questions? Well, he wasn't done. "Since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men" (1 Cor 1:21-25). Let's see ... Jews and Gentiles vote "No" on this message. That leaves ... no one. All that is left is "those who are called". If truth is a matter of voting -- by determining the case that appeals to those listening as the most rational or moral -- then we can all give up our Gospel and go home.
It is important to be ready to give an answer (1 Peter 3:15), to "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints" (Jude 3). It is wise to be ready to do so as rationally and coherently as possible. Bad arguments do not serve well. But in the end, truth is not up for a vote. It isn't a matter of the most appealing arguments. It isn't a popularity contest. Like today's "same-sex marriage" debate, it isn't about what the culture thinks it should do that actually determines what is right. Don't fall into that trap. Because in that pit you carefully remove the Christian faith. I'm pretty sure that genuine Christians aren't going to fall for that.
Update
Good news, folks. The author of that blog I referenced does not believe that Truth is determined by vote. However, since so many do believe that is the case and do put so much stock in whose arguments are swaying the public opinion, and since the Bible is abundantly clear that genuine spiritual truth will not be acceptable to those hostile to God, the warning still stands. There are those who believe that the correct argument is whatever the majority thinks it is. Don't fall for that.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Dividing by Zero
One of the judges on the Supreme Court commented on the case around California's Prop 8 that, while it is absolutely clear that inserting "same-sex" as a descriptor of "marriage" would necessarily require a change of definition of "marriage", the primary reason for this change of definition is that our culture is redefining gender. Now, I hadn't really considered this aspect. When I do, however, I'm pretty sure he's right.
We use two common words in this discussion: "sex" and "gender". What is the difference between them? One has to do with physiology and the other to do with characteristics. "Sex" (in this use) refers to male or female bodies. "Gender" refers to male and female characteristics. The first references genitalia and chromosomes and the latter references "masculine" and "feminine" traits.
We intrinsically know about these distinctions. If you refer to a boy as a "pansy", you're suggesting he's more feminine than masculine. You can routinely hear a father telling his son to "act like a man" or a buddy telling his friend to "man up". (Oddly, you never hear a mother tell her daughter to "woman up". I suppose you might have heard at one time that she needs to "act more lady-like", but I think that has more to do with manners than femininity. Maybe feminine manners?) At the same time we're told that men need to "get in touch with their feminine side". You see, we know there is "masculine" and "feminine" and we know what they mean. Like the judge who couldn't define pornography, "but I know it when I see it", we know these when we see them.
Our culture, however, has worked hard and long to counteract these distinctives. We've petitioned to have girls on boys' teams and argued that women can serve just as well in combat as men. We've carefully dismantled the concept of "father" to mean less and less and less until many are quite sure that "father" means purely "sperm donor" and no one actually needs a real father to be well adjusted and happy. Feminism -- at first just the "radical" and now the "mainstream" -- has worked hard to destroy the concept of gender roles and gender distinctives and our culture has bought it. It is the majority opinion now. Of course, "majority" doesn't make it right, moral, or even accurate, but it is the case today. Patriarchy, once a given and even venerated, is now a bad word. Gender is becoming more and more meaningless.
As current events have demonstrated, so is "sex". It is not uncommon to hear of someone who classifies him or herself as "a guy trapped in a woman's body" or vice versa.
"But," the rational mind would counter, "isn't 'woman' defined by the body?"
"Oh, no, we now know. It is a question of gender."
"But," the rationalist might venture to ask, "didn't we just negate the concept of 'gender'?"
Oops! "Well, no, not for those who feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." Like that makes some sense.
I heard the phrase the other day, "emotional intelligence". To be fair, the term does have a definition that makes sense. It is "the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups." Fine. But that's not what we think of when we think of that idea. We think of thinking with our feelings. Being more in touch with our inner selves in order to make more inspired decisions (rather than merely logical ones). Well, we're getting there, that's for sure. We have redefined sex -- "male" or "female" -- to mean "whatever I make my body out to be based on how I feel". We have redefined "gender" -- "masculine" or "feminine" -- to mean "whatever I want it to mean at the moment based on how I feel." And having carefully and insensibly defined both "sex" and "gender" into an emotional condition without any real concrete meaning, we're looking to offer the same "salvation" to "marriage". God save us from ourselves.
We use two common words in this discussion: "sex" and "gender". What is the difference between them? One has to do with physiology and the other to do with characteristics. "Sex" (in this use) refers to male or female bodies. "Gender" refers to male and female characteristics. The first references genitalia and chromosomes and the latter references "masculine" and "feminine" traits.
We intrinsically know about these distinctions. If you refer to a boy as a "pansy", you're suggesting he's more feminine than masculine. You can routinely hear a father telling his son to "act like a man" or a buddy telling his friend to "man up". (Oddly, you never hear a mother tell her daughter to "woman up". I suppose you might have heard at one time that she needs to "act more lady-like", but I think that has more to do with manners than femininity. Maybe feminine manners?) At the same time we're told that men need to "get in touch with their feminine side". You see, we know there is "masculine" and "feminine" and we know what they mean. Like the judge who couldn't define pornography, "but I know it when I see it", we know these when we see them.
Our culture, however, has worked hard and long to counteract these distinctives. We've petitioned to have girls on boys' teams and argued that women can serve just as well in combat as men. We've carefully dismantled the concept of "father" to mean less and less and less until many are quite sure that "father" means purely "sperm donor" and no one actually needs a real father to be well adjusted and happy. Feminism -- at first just the "radical" and now the "mainstream" -- has worked hard to destroy the concept of gender roles and gender distinctives and our culture has bought it. It is the majority opinion now. Of course, "majority" doesn't make it right, moral, or even accurate, but it is the case today. Patriarchy, once a given and even venerated, is now a bad word. Gender is becoming more and more meaningless.
As current events have demonstrated, so is "sex". It is not uncommon to hear of someone who classifies him or herself as "a guy trapped in a woman's body" or vice versa.
"But," the rational mind would counter, "isn't 'woman' defined by the body?"
"Oh, no, we now know. It is a question of gender."
"But," the rationalist might venture to ask, "didn't we just negate the concept of 'gender'?"
Oops! "Well, no, not for those who feel like a woman trapped in a man's body." Like that makes some sense.
I heard the phrase the other day, "emotional intelligence". To be fair, the term does have a definition that makes sense. It is "the ability to identify, assess, and control the emotions of oneself, of others, and of groups." Fine. But that's not what we think of when we think of that idea. We think of thinking with our feelings. Being more in touch with our inner selves in order to make more inspired decisions (rather than merely logical ones). Well, we're getting there, that's for sure. We have redefined sex -- "male" or "female" -- to mean "whatever I make my body out to be based on how I feel". We have redefined "gender" -- "masculine" or "feminine" -- to mean "whatever I want it to mean at the moment based on how I feel." And having carefully and insensibly defined both "sex" and "gender" into an emotional condition without any real concrete meaning, we're looking to offer the same "salvation" to "marriage". God save us from ourselves.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Think with your heart
I'm sure you've heard the phrase before. At least the concept. Don't think with your mind; think with your heart. You get the idea. Go with your gut. Sometimes what you think is just too rational and you need to go with how you feel.
Here, a prime example. "Maybe a baby in the womb is a human being and maybe that baby is worthy of your protection, but that's all thinking with your mind. What if that baby is a product of rape? Think about how that young woman will feel! I mean, what if it was your sister, your daughter, your dear friend? Would you really want her to go through that torment? With your mind, perhaps, but don't think with your mind; think with your heart!" See how that works? It recognizes the conflict of pragmatic, rational thinking with the feelings of real people.
Let's try a less pointed example. Isn't this exactly what the car ads are doing? They'll show you how their car is fun to drive, really cool to look at, gets your heart and adrenaline pumping and ... oh, you have to have this car! "Can I afford it?" Hey! Don't think with your mind; think with your heart!
I think we can go a step further. I would suggest that, given either option, most people would tell you that the latter, not the former, is superior. Sure, sure, thinking with your mind is all well and good ... for geeks and mathematicians, but in a world of people and sensations and desires, the best and likely most enlightened way to think is with your heart. There are the ever-present "Go for your dreams" speeches that tell you not to limit yourself (because that's a failure of thinking with your mind), but to reach for your dreams (because that's a product of thinking with your heart). The mind, after all, is so limited. But the heart ... oh, no limits at all.
I submit that this is foolishness. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that thinking with your heart is inferior to thinking with your mind. I'm suggesting that it's not thinking. It is a nonsense statement. You see, how we feel and how we think are connected, perhaps, but not equivalent. They are different functions. If they were not, suggesting "heart" over "mind" would be pointless. They're different. It is, in fact, impossible to think with your heart, even setting aside the nonsensical physiology of it. In the vernacular, you feel with the heart and think with the mind. Neither component, heart or mind, does the other operation.
I've often wondered in the past how so many people can operate with so much cognitive dissonance. This is the answer. They have no dissonance because they're "thinking with their hearts" which is an oxymoronic concept. "I don't believe in killing in war but I'll kill to protect my family" isn't a problem because it's evaluated from feelings, not the mind. "I believe the Bible; just not everything it says" works fine when you operate on how you feel about it without thinking about it. "I'm not pro-abortion; I'm just pro-choice" only works when you don't think about it.
Biblically, we are warned that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Your feelings will lie to you all the time. The world will tug at your heart strings all they can in order to direct your attention away from the truth. Biblically, we are not told to renew our hearts. That appears to be God's job. But we are told to avoid being conformed to this world by being transformed by "the renewing of your minds". We don't really control much how we feel, but we can certainly alter how we think. The next time you want to "think with your heart", I'd recommend you think again. Feel with your heart, sure, knowing that the heart is deceitful, but think with your mind. We all have a way to go to improve our thinking, but it's something we can do. It is something we are commanded, in fact.
Here, a prime example. "Maybe a baby in the womb is a human being and maybe that baby is worthy of your protection, but that's all thinking with your mind. What if that baby is a product of rape? Think about how that young woman will feel! I mean, what if it was your sister, your daughter, your dear friend? Would you really want her to go through that torment? With your mind, perhaps, but don't think with your mind; think with your heart!" See how that works? It recognizes the conflict of pragmatic, rational thinking with the feelings of real people.
Let's try a less pointed example. Isn't this exactly what the car ads are doing? They'll show you how their car is fun to drive, really cool to look at, gets your heart and adrenaline pumping and ... oh, you have to have this car! "Can I afford it?" Hey! Don't think with your mind; think with your heart!
I think we can go a step further. I would suggest that, given either option, most people would tell you that the latter, not the former, is superior. Sure, sure, thinking with your mind is all well and good ... for geeks and mathematicians, but in a world of people and sensations and desires, the best and likely most enlightened way to think is with your heart. There are the ever-present "Go for your dreams" speeches that tell you not to limit yourself (because that's a failure of thinking with your mind), but to reach for your dreams (because that's a product of thinking with your heart). The mind, after all, is so limited. But the heart ... oh, no limits at all.
I submit that this is foolishness. Now, don't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that thinking with your heart is inferior to thinking with your mind. I'm suggesting that it's not thinking. It is a nonsense statement. You see, how we feel and how we think are connected, perhaps, but not equivalent. They are different functions. If they were not, suggesting "heart" over "mind" would be pointless. They're different. It is, in fact, impossible to think with your heart, even setting aside the nonsensical physiology of it. In the vernacular, you feel with the heart and think with the mind. Neither component, heart or mind, does the other operation.
I've often wondered in the past how so many people can operate with so much cognitive dissonance. This is the answer. They have no dissonance because they're "thinking with their hearts" which is an oxymoronic concept. "I don't believe in killing in war but I'll kill to protect my family" isn't a problem because it's evaluated from feelings, not the mind. "I believe the Bible; just not everything it says" works fine when you operate on how you feel about it without thinking about it. "I'm not pro-abortion; I'm just pro-choice" only works when you don't think about it.
Biblically, we are warned that the heart is deceitful and desperately wicked. Your feelings will lie to you all the time. The world will tug at your heart strings all they can in order to direct your attention away from the truth. Biblically, we are not told to renew our hearts. That appears to be God's job. But we are told to avoid being conformed to this world by being transformed by "the renewing of your minds". We don't really control much how we feel, but we can certainly alter how we think. The next time you want to "think with your heart", I'd recommend you think again. Feel with your heart, sure, knowing that the heart is deceitful, but think with your mind. We all have a way to go to improve our thinking, but it's something we can do. It is something we are commanded, in fact.
Sunday, April 28, 2013
A Psalm for Thanksgiving
1 A Psalm for Thanksgiving.Human beings, by their sin nature, are prone to ungratefulness (Rom 1:21). All of us suffer from it. So maybe today, without requiring an official "Thanksgiving Day", perhaps we can "Enter His gates with thanksgiving," and "Give thanks to Him." You know, just as part of worship. It would be a good practice on a daily basis, but we can start with just one, can't we?
Shout joyfully to the LORD, all the earth.
2 Serve the LORD with gladness;
Come before Him with joyful singing.
3 Know that the LORD Himself is God;
It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;
We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.
4 Enter His gates with thanksgiving
And His courts with praise.
Give thanks to Him, bless His name.
5 For the LORD is good;
His lovingkindness is everlasting
And His faithfulness to all generations (Psa 100).
Saturday, April 27, 2013
A Cautionary Parable of Persecution
Disclaimer: This is fiction. It's a parable, a story intended to illustrate a point. And, as anyone knows, a really good parable doesn't need to be explained. You'll figure it out.
________
I was arrested the other day and here I sit in jail, completely baffled about my crime. I'm going back over it in my mind and can't figure out what I did wrong.
I'm an open-minded individual. I think that we should love others without limits. I think we should embrace grace, that we shouldn't impose our views on others. I think that condemning people for how they are is wrong and I favor loving others exactly as they are. That's my motto. That's how I am.
So when my baby was born, I embraced grace. I refused to impose my views on this little one or condemn him for how he was. I sought to love him just as he was. So when he came into this world naked, I left him naked. I didn't try to impose my views of "don't poop here" or "urine should be contained" on this little guy. No, I embraced him as he was, a free spirit. Even when other mothers glared at me for the naked baby in the grocery store, I proudly ignored their intolerant stares and went on with my lovely little boy.
He proved himself to be a selfish little boy as all babies tend to be, but that didn't stop me. I loved him for who he was, not for what he was. And when he drowned the kitten we gave him because he thought it was fun, I understood that no one was perfect and my narrow ideas of "kittens shouldn't be drowned for fun" wasn't necessarily a view to impose on my child. No, we cannot be so narrow as to view life as a series of rules and regulations. We need to be free to pursue happiness. Just because his happiness didn't correspond to mine was no reason to limit him.
He had no interest in school, so I didn't send him. He wasn't born with books, so why inflict them on him? (Besides, I suspect there were no schools around that would let him run around naked like that. Narrow-minded bigots.) So I let him learn from his own life experiences because life is its own teacher. I suspect he might have gained from being taught not to run out in the street, but I figured that out too late when the car hit him.
And when the authorities found out how I had loved this little boy and embraced him for all he was without interference or judgment or intolerance, they arrested me. I exemplified what our culture is calling the epitome of goodness by loving my boy just as he was, and now I'm sitting in jail on charges of cruelty and child abuse. How can this possibly be? What's wrong with this narrow-minded society?
________
I was arrested the other day and here I sit in jail, completely baffled about my crime. I'm going back over it in my mind and can't figure out what I did wrong.
I'm an open-minded individual. I think that we should love others without limits. I think we should embrace grace, that we shouldn't impose our views on others. I think that condemning people for how they are is wrong and I favor loving others exactly as they are. That's my motto. That's how I am.
So when my baby was born, I embraced grace. I refused to impose my views on this little one or condemn him for how he was. I sought to love him just as he was. So when he came into this world naked, I left him naked. I didn't try to impose my views of "don't poop here" or "urine should be contained" on this little guy. No, I embraced him as he was, a free spirit. Even when other mothers glared at me for the naked baby in the grocery store, I proudly ignored their intolerant stares and went on with my lovely little boy.
He proved himself to be a selfish little boy as all babies tend to be, but that didn't stop me. I loved him for who he was, not for what he was. And when he drowned the kitten we gave him because he thought it was fun, I understood that no one was perfect and my narrow ideas of "kittens shouldn't be drowned for fun" wasn't necessarily a view to impose on my child. No, we cannot be so narrow as to view life as a series of rules and regulations. We need to be free to pursue happiness. Just because his happiness didn't correspond to mine was no reason to limit him.
He had no interest in school, so I didn't send him. He wasn't born with books, so why inflict them on him? (Besides, I suspect there were no schools around that would let him run around naked like that. Narrow-minded bigots.) So I let him learn from his own life experiences because life is its own teacher. I suspect he might have gained from being taught not to run out in the street, but I figured that out too late when the car hit him.
And when the authorities found out how I had loved this little boy and embraced him for all he was without interference or judgment or intolerance, they arrested me. I exemplified what our culture is calling the epitome of goodness by loving my boy just as he was, and now I'm sitting in jail on charges of cruelty and child abuse. How can this possibly be? What's wrong with this narrow-minded society?
Friday, April 26, 2013
Molinism
There's a term you don't hear too often, right? Here, let me clear that up for you. It is the official name of the concept more popularly known as "middle knowledge". There, all set, right? "Uh, yeah, Stan, thanks for nothing. Clear as mud."
Molinism or "middle knowledge" is actually a fairly popular view. It is held by Christians (yes, genuine Christians) who are very smart and even whom I respect. Hey, even I held this view for a long time. Here's the idea. We have a problem. How do you correlate Man's Free Will with God's Omniscience and Sovereignty? (I capitalized the terms because they needed it.) If Man is going to have a genuine "Free Will" and God actually knows all things and is sovereign over all things, how do we put those together?
Well, people much smarter than I considered this question and posited two components of God's knowledge. One is "natural knowledge" and the other is "free knowledge". The former refers to all things true, such as mathematics, definitions (a square is not a circle), and principles. The latter refers to things as they actually are -- the world that God created. Thus, in the economy of the philosopher, it is said that God knows all things and all contingencies.
Now, to folks like me, that's the end of the question. God knows all things. What you will choose He knows. That means that you will choose it because He knows it, but I don't see that as an impediment to "free will". But to others, in order for the will to be considered free, it has to be able to choose other options as a real possibility. The fact that it can but won't is not "free will" to these libertarian-free-will folk. So while we have "natural knowledge" and "free knowledge", the Molinists offer a third category -- "middle knowledge". Luis de Molina (thus, "Molinism") suggested that, given all possible worlds (and God knows them all), God knows what humans would freely choose in every possible circumstance. Then the Sovereign God chooses the best combination of people and choices that most closely serves His purposes. And we've managed to preserve God's omniscience and sovereignty right along with Man's Free Will.
The value of Molinism is that it retains "indeterminism", the view of free will that demands that nothing outside of the person causes or determines the choice of the person. It is "libertarian free will" that necessarily excludes God as a cause in human choices. Biblical support for this view typically includes 1 Sam 26:6-13, where David asks God what will happen if he goes out against an enemy and God tells him what will happen. You see, if David did what God said to do, then the outcome would be as God said. Lots of those kinds of passages. A favorite would be Matt 11:21-24, where Jesus says something like "if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes". See? "What if?". (These serve to demonstrate that God knows "what if" -- all contingencies. Do they demonstrate "middle knowledge"?)
The problem with Molinism is that, well, it ends up negating the Sovereignty and Omniscience of God. Well, no, not entirely. And, no, they would not agree. But the suggestion is that God is limited to Man's Free Will if Man is to have "free will" in any reasonable sense. If this is so, God cannot be Sovereign. He is, by definition, limited in His sovereignty. (Again, the capitalization or lack thereof is intentional.) God is limited in the world He created to that which people would possibly choose. If He wanted Bob, my fictional friend, to choose Christ and there was no possible world in which Bob would choose Christ, God's will could not be accomplished where Bob was concerned. He can only accomplish that which most closely serves His purpose.
It also doesn't seem to solve the problem. Given all possible worlds, is this the best He could choose? Is there not a possible world where more people are saved? Molinism is determined (a little play on words there) to hold that God's greatest desire is to save as many as possible. Is this the most possible?
I really used to like this view (before I ever knew that it had a name). "Let's see," I would imagine God saying as He looked down the corridors of time, "if I do this and that and then that, Stan will come to faith and be saved. Now if I do this and that and then that, Hitler won't. Well how about if I do that and then this other and then this? No, not then. In fact, nothing I do will bring Hitler to me. So, Stan is one of the elect because he will freely choose me and Hitler is not because he will freely reject me." Nice. Not rational. Not defensible in Scripture. But nice. I can't do that anymore. I've had to set aside libertarian Free Will that holds sway over God's possible choices in favor of God's Sovereign Will that holds sway over Man's free will. Now, I don't doubt that Molinists can certainly be Christians. No problem there. I just don't see how to maintain the Sovereignty of God with the Man's Free Will. Molinism doesn't seem to fix that. I'll have to stick with what I have.
Molinism or "middle knowledge" is actually a fairly popular view. It is held by Christians (yes, genuine Christians) who are very smart and even whom I respect. Hey, even I held this view for a long time. Here's the idea. We have a problem. How do you correlate Man's Free Will with God's Omniscience and Sovereignty? (I capitalized the terms because they needed it.) If Man is going to have a genuine "Free Will" and God actually knows all things and is sovereign over all things, how do we put those together?
Well, people much smarter than I considered this question and posited two components of God's knowledge. One is "natural knowledge" and the other is "free knowledge". The former refers to all things true, such as mathematics, definitions (a square is not a circle), and principles. The latter refers to things as they actually are -- the world that God created. Thus, in the economy of the philosopher, it is said that God knows all things and all contingencies.
Now, to folks like me, that's the end of the question. God knows all things. What you will choose He knows. That means that you will choose it because He knows it, but I don't see that as an impediment to "free will". But to others, in order for the will to be considered free, it has to be able to choose other options as a real possibility. The fact that it can but won't is not "free will" to these libertarian-free-will folk. So while we have "natural knowledge" and "free knowledge", the Molinists offer a third category -- "middle knowledge". Luis de Molina (thus, "Molinism") suggested that, given all possible worlds (and God knows them all), God knows what humans would freely choose in every possible circumstance. Then the Sovereign God chooses the best combination of people and choices that most closely serves His purposes. And we've managed to preserve God's omniscience and sovereignty right along with Man's Free Will.
The value of Molinism is that it retains "indeterminism", the view of free will that demands that nothing outside of the person causes or determines the choice of the person. It is "libertarian free will" that necessarily excludes God as a cause in human choices. Biblical support for this view typically includes 1 Sam 26:6-13, where David asks God what will happen if he goes out against an enemy and God tells him what will happen. You see, if David did what God said to do, then the outcome would be as God said. Lots of those kinds of passages. A favorite would be Matt 11:21-24, where Jesus says something like "if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes". See? "What if?". (These serve to demonstrate that God knows "what if" -- all contingencies. Do they demonstrate "middle knowledge"?)
The problem with Molinism is that, well, it ends up negating the Sovereignty and Omniscience of God. Well, no, not entirely. And, no, they would not agree. But the suggestion is that God is limited to Man's Free Will if Man is to have "free will" in any reasonable sense. If this is so, God cannot be Sovereign. He is, by definition, limited in His sovereignty. (Again, the capitalization or lack thereof is intentional.) God is limited in the world He created to that which people would possibly choose. If He wanted Bob, my fictional friend, to choose Christ and there was no possible world in which Bob would choose Christ, God's will could not be accomplished where Bob was concerned. He can only accomplish that which most closely serves His purpose.
It also doesn't seem to solve the problem. Given all possible worlds, is this the best He could choose? Is there not a possible world where more people are saved? Molinism is determined (a little play on words there) to hold that God's greatest desire is to save as many as possible. Is this the most possible?
I really used to like this view (before I ever knew that it had a name). "Let's see," I would imagine God saying as He looked down the corridors of time, "if I do this and that and then that, Stan will come to faith and be saved. Now if I do this and that and then that, Hitler won't. Well how about if I do that and then this other and then this? No, not then. In fact, nothing I do will bring Hitler to me. So, Stan is one of the elect because he will freely choose me and Hitler is not because he will freely reject me." Nice. Not rational. Not defensible in Scripture. But nice. I can't do that anymore. I've had to set aside libertarian Free Will that holds sway over God's possible choices in favor of God's Sovereign Will that holds sway over Man's free will. Now, I don't doubt that Molinists can certainly be Christians. No problem there. I just don't see how to maintain the Sovereignty of God with the Man's Free Will. Molinism doesn't seem to fix that. I'll have to stick with what I have.
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Grace vs. Law
Christianity is the only religion that operates under the belief that you cannot earn your way to heaven. The "bad news" of Christianity is that we're all sinners beyond the capacity to be good enough to make it. Our "good news", then, is that salvation is by God's unmerited favor (grace) through our trusting in Him (faith) and unequivocally not of works (Eph 2:8-9). Paul says without any lack of clarity, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (Rom 3:28). Does it get any clearer than that?
As a result of this glorious Gospel, we sing our delight in the fact that Christians are "not under the law". Indeed, Paul writes, "Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace" (Rom 6:14). "Not under the law, but under grace" -- what a wonderful phrase. We're free from rules!
And that's when it gets unclear. Or, rather, that's when we realize we've failed to understand. Is it true that Christianity is opposed to the law, that we are now without rules? Well, Paul leaves no doubt. In the very next verse he asks and answers that very question: "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" (Rom 6:15). And following his revelation that we are "justified by faith apart from works of the law" he says, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom 3:31).
Well, now, it would appear we have a dilemma. If we are no longer under the law but under grace, in what sense do we uphold the law? What does grace have to do with the law? What do rules have to do with Christianity? We are not saved by them. What then?
James offers part of the answer when he warns, "Faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17). Paul warns that "neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). He goes on to say, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). John writes, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9).
What does grace have to do with the rules? Well, actually, not much. Grace refers to the favor God shows us who do not deserve it. Mercy refers to the punishment we do not receive that we so richly deserve. And the law -- the commands of Scripture -- do not tell us how to receive salvation. In fact, they never have. They tell us what God wants, what God expects. They tell us what brings glory to God (Matt 5:16) and what is good for the creature. They do not confer righteousness, the sadly lacking component of Natural Man.
Biblically and logically it is a false dichotomy to pit grace against the law. They are not connected. When Scripture tells us we are not "under the law", it is not saying we are without any rules. God is telling us that the law is not our means of salvation nor is it any longer that by which we might obtain approval. Neither of these suggest that the law no longer serves the purpose of informing us of what glorifies God and is beneficial to us as creatures of God. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater here. We're not under the law, but we "uphold the law". Don't get trapped beneath it ... but don't leave home without it.
As a result of this glorious Gospel, we sing our delight in the fact that Christians are "not under the law". Indeed, Paul writes, "Sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace" (Rom 6:14). "Not under the law, but under grace" -- what a wonderful phrase. We're free from rules!
And that's when it gets unclear. Or, rather, that's when we realize we've failed to understand. Is it true that Christianity is opposed to the law, that we are now without rules? Well, Paul leaves no doubt. In the very next verse he asks and answers that very question: "What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!" (Rom 6:15). And following his revelation that we are "justified by faith apart from works of the law" he says, "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom 3:31).
Well, now, it would appear we have a dilemma. If we are no longer under the law but under grace, in what sense do we uphold the law? What does grace have to do with the law? What do rules have to do with Christianity? We are not saved by them. What then?
James offers part of the answer when he warns, "Faith, if it has not works, is dead, being alone" (James 2:17). Paul warns that "neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,
1Co 6:10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor 6:9-10). He goes on to say, "And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor 6:11). John writes, "No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9).
What does grace have to do with the rules? Well, actually, not much. Grace refers to the favor God shows us who do not deserve it. Mercy refers to the punishment we do not receive that we so richly deserve. And the law -- the commands of Scripture -- do not tell us how to receive salvation. In fact, they never have. They tell us what God wants, what God expects. They tell us what brings glory to God (Matt 5:16) and what is good for the creature. They do not confer righteousness, the sadly lacking component of Natural Man.
Biblically and logically it is a false dichotomy to pit grace against the law. They are not connected. When Scripture tells us we are not "under the law", it is not saying we are without any rules. God is telling us that the law is not our means of salvation nor is it any longer that by which we might obtain approval. Neither of these suggest that the law no longer serves the purpose of informing us of what glorifies God and is beneficial to us as creatures of God. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater here. We're not under the law, but we "uphold the law". Don't get trapped beneath it ... but don't leave home without it.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Justice Delayed
Arizona is in the news these days for its trial of Jodi Arias, the poor young lady who shacked up with her boyfriend, engaged in all sorts of sexual practices she said she enjoyed, admitted that she could have left at any time, but feared in the end for her life and, in a fit of self-defense, accidentally shot him in the head and then stabbed him 27 times and cut his throat. Whew! Safe at last! It's a nasty story and I don't know how anyone following can come to any conclusion except guilty, but it is indeed a story that is being followed. Regularly. Unlike some less interesting stories like the boring case of Kermit Gosnell who killed babies and endangered women. Yes, abortions, but also live-birth babies. Apparently in the hundreds. And women. At least two. No, that kind of stuff is supported by the president and the more popular pro-abortion culture, so that's boring. Nothing to see here. Move along. This Jodi Arias case ... now that is high drama. That and what Justin Beiber is writing at the Anne Frank House. Lots of coverage.
I was interested the other day when I heard that Jodi's attorneys have filed a new petition. They want to let the jury consider a lesser charge. Manslaughter. Let the jury consider the possibility that she killed her boyfriend without malice aforethought. She just happened to shoot him, stab him repeatedly, and cut his throat. It just ... happened. All the planning, all the effort, all the work that went into it was just an illusion. You know, like when you see design in the world around you and think, "What makes the most sense is that there is some intelligence behind it." Yeah, like that. If the jury found her guilty of manslaughter, it would be, at most, a 7 year sentence, they said. And, they followed up, she has already been in prison for nearly 5 years awaiting trial.
Wait ... what? Five years ... awaiting trial??
William E. Gladstone said, "Justice delayed is justice denied." True. Solomon wrote, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil" (Ecc 8:11). Solomon was right, but his is more ominous.
And, as a side note, I find it interesting that Solomon did not say, "Because the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil, the best thing to do is gather the implements of crime ... you know, such as guns and such ... and get rid of them because that will fix the problem -- the heard of man."
I was interested the other day when I heard that Jodi's attorneys have filed a new petition. They want to let the jury consider a lesser charge. Manslaughter. Let the jury consider the possibility that she killed her boyfriend without malice aforethought. She just happened to shoot him, stab him repeatedly, and cut his throat. It just ... happened. All the planning, all the effort, all the work that went into it was just an illusion. You know, like when you see design in the world around you and think, "What makes the most sense is that there is some intelligence behind it." Yeah, like that. If the jury found her guilty of manslaughter, it would be, at most, a 7 year sentence, they said. And, they followed up, she has already been in prison for nearly 5 years awaiting trial.
Wait ... what? Five years ... awaiting trial??
William E. Gladstone said, "Justice delayed is justice denied." True. Solomon wrote, "Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil" (Ecc 8:11). Solomon was right, but his is more ominous.
And, as a side note, I find it interesting that Solomon did not say, "Because the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil, the best thing to do is gather the implements of crime ... you know, such as guns and such ... and get rid of them because that will fix the problem -- the heard of man."
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Well Played
In the clamor over the debate about what marriage is and what it should be and whether or not it's time to redefine it or even whether or not we are seeking to redefine it (because it would appear that no one before the court is arguing that we are; they're just arguing that everyone should have "it"), I've noticed the absence of a line of discussion. Have you?
In my examination of the alternate view of 1 Cor 6:9, I was comparing translations for the phrase, "homosexuals" (or the like). I came across one from the Weymouth New Testament which said, "any who are guilty of unnatural crime." The Weymouth New Testament was published back in 1903 to be "a succint and compressed running commentary". And Richard Weymouth, the translator, classified "homosexual behavior" as "unnatural".
Now, now, Richard, tut, tut! We are not going there. We are not to discuss this! The question is not whether it is "unnatural". Indeed, the question is not even if it is immoral. The question is can we have it?
Have you noticed? No one is appealing to the Supreme Court regarding Natural Law and the immorality of homosexual behavior, let alone the biblical morality of it. Indeed, everyone knows that the Bible is opposed to the behavior. We're just not allowed to talk about it. Well, sure, we can talk about it, but it is not permitted in the public square. "Moral" is not a question we're allowed to discuss, and never in terms of Christianity.
I suppose it's to be expected, but I suspect that most people won't like the outcome. The collateral damage could very easily be extensive. The law of unintended consequences is sure to come into play here. Consider this.
At the top of the Supreme Court of the United States there is an image carved dead center. It is Moses holding the Ten Commandments. The obvious message? Moses and the Ten Commandments are at the center of our legal system. Indeed, the premise upon which our rights are based is a "Creator" who has given all humans inalienable rights. We all assume humans are valuable, but that isn't based on the god of the public square -- Science -- but on the biblical argument that humans are made in the image of God. Science alone would tell us that humans are another animal species that deserves neither more nor less value than your average everyday squirrel. Property rights, laws against theft, assumptions about "good" and "evil", so very much of our society is constructed on the back of Judeo-Christian values. But today they're not allowed out in public to determine values that will hold our society together.
Morality is dead; long live ... what? What are we allowed to replace it with? I'm pretty sure that those who would prevent us from discussing the question in terms of morality would not be willing to fail to discuss the morality of stealing their wallets or shooting their children. Those are immoral! Don't touch those! So we're required to drop morality and explicitly biblical morality when it offends them but retain it with a vengeance when they like it. I'm not so sure it's a position that can remain very long. Are they willing to give up Thanksgiving and Christmas? Will we do away with weekends since those were primarily established for Jews and Christians to have their day of worship? Will society acquiesce to allowing polygamy, polyamory, or other relationships, agreeing that a ban was just a carryover from Christianity? How far will we go?
Still, here we are, me included, debating the definition of marriage from a purely rational and historical position without any reference to "natural relationships" or "immoral behavior" because that has been banned. The courts won't hear it. The public won't hear it. We're not going there. I don't know how the courts will rule on the question, but I can say that the "gay rights" crowd have made a victory here that most of us haven't noticed. We're no longer discussing what's right and now discussing what we can tolerate. Well played, gay rights advocates, well played.
In my examination of the alternate view of 1 Cor 6:9, I was comparing translations for the phrase, "homosexuals" (or the like). I came across one from the Weymouth New Testament which said, "any who are guilty of unnatural crime." The Weymouth New Testament was published back in 1903 to be "a succint and compressed running commentary". And Richard Weymouth, the translator, classified "homosexual behavior" as "unnatural".
Now, now, Richard, tut, tut! We are not going there. We are not to discuss this! The question is not whether it is "unnatural". Indeed, the question is not even if it is immoral. The question is can we have it?
Have you noticed? No one is appealing to the Supreme Court regarding Natural Law and the immorality of homosexual behavior, let alone the biblical morality of it. Indeed, everyone knows that the Bible is opposed to the behavior. We're just not allowed to talk about it. Well, sure, we can talk about it, but it is not permitted in the public square. "Moral" is not a question we're allowed to discuss, and never in terms of Christianity.
I suppose it's to be expected, but I suspect that most people won't like the outcome. The collateral damage could very easily be extensive. The law of unintended consequences is sure to come into play here. Consider this. At the top of the Supreme Court of the United States there is an image carved dead center. It is Moses holding the Ten Commandments. The obvious message? Moses and the Ten Commandments are at the center of our legal system. Indeed, the premise upon which our rights are based is a "Creator" who has given all humans inalienable rights. We all assume humans are valuable, but that isn't based on the god of the public square -- Science -- but on the biblical argument that humans are made in the image of God. Science alone would tell us that humans are another animal species that deserves neither more nor less value than your average everyday squirrel. Property rights, laws against theft, assumptions about "good" and "evil", so very much of our society is constructed on the back of Judeo-Christian values. But today they're not allowed out in public to determine values that will hold our society together.
Morality is dead; long live ... what? What are we allowed to replace it with? I'm pretty sure that those who would prevent us from discussing the question in terms of morality would not be willing to fail to discuss the morality of stealing their wallets or shooting their children. Those are immoral! Don't touch those! So we're required to drop morality and explicitly biblical morality when it offends them but retain it with a vengeance when they like it. I'm not so sure it's a position that can remain very long. Are they willing to give up Thanksgiving and Christmas? Will we do away with weekends since those were primarily established for Jews and Christians to have their day of worship? Will society acquiesce to allowing polygamy, polyamory, or other relationships, agreeing that a ban was just a carryover from Christianity? How far will we go?
Still, here we are, me included, debating the definition of marriage from a purely rational and historical position without any reference to "natural relationships" or "immoral behavior" because that has been banned. The courts won't hear it. The public won't hear it. We're not going there. I don't know how the courts will rule on the question, but I can say that the "gay rights" crowd have made a victory here that most of us haven't noticed. We're no longer discussing what's right and now discussing what we can tolerate. Well played, gay rights advocates, well played.
Monday, April 22, 2013
An updated paraphrase of Luke 18:11
The modern liberal Christian, standing by himself, prayed thus: "God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like those Pharisaical Evangelicals ..."
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Sing to the LORD
"1 Sing to the LORD a new song;
Sing to the LORD, all the earth.
2 Sing to the LORD, bless His name;
Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.
3 Tell of His glory among the nations,
His wonderful deeds among all the peoples.
4 For great is the LORD and greatly to be praised;
He is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the peoples are idols,
But the LORD made the heavens.
6 Splendor and majesty are before Him,
Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.
7 Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the peoples,
Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
8 Ascribe to the LORD the glory of His name;
Bring an offering and come into His courts.
9 Worship the LORD in holy attire;
Tremble before Him, all the earth.
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity."
11 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
Let the sea roar, and all it contains;
12 Let the field exult, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy
13 Before the LORD, for He is coming,
For He is coming to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
And the peoples in His faithfulness" (Psa 96).
Now, if your first thought was "TL/DR" -- too long/didn't read -- you might want to rethink that ...
Sing to the LORD, all the earth.
2 Sing to the LORD, bless His name;
Proclaim good tidings of His salvation from day to day.
3 Tell of His glory among the nations,
His wonderful deeds among all the peoples.
4 For great is the LORD and greatly to be praised;
He is to be feared above all gods.
5 For all the gods of the peoples are idols,
But the LORD made the heavens.
6 Splendor and majesty are before Him,
Strength and beauty are in His sanctuary.
7 Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the peoples,
Ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.
8 Ascribe to the LORD the glory of His name;
Bring an offering and come into His courts.
9 Worship the LORD in holy attire;
Tremble before Him, all the earth.
10 Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns;
Indeed, the world is firmly established, it will not be moved;
He will judge the peoples with equity."
11 Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
Let the sea roar, and all it contains;
12 Let the field exult, and all that is in it.
Then all the trees of the forest will sing for joy
13 Before the LORD, for He is coming,
For He is coming to judge the earth.
He will judge the world in righteousness
And the peoples in His faithfulness" (Psa 96).
Now, if your first thought was "TL/DR" -- too long/didn't read -- you might want to rethink that ...
Saturday, April 20, 2013
That'll Fix It!
In view of the atrocities at Sandy Hook, Tucson, Columbine, the Colorado theater, and all, we need to seriously consider gun control. According to the Washington Post, the United States has 20 times the gun-related murder rates as other developed countries. A CDC study puts us at about 33,000 gun-related deaths (murders, accidents, suicides, etc.) per year.
According to the CDC, in 2010 the leading cause of death in the U.S. was heart disease, accounting for 597,689 fatalities. Oh, wait, that's about 18 times the gun-related deaths.
According to the Washington Post the abortion rate has hit an "all-time low" (which seems really weird since I'm pretty sure it was a lot lower when abortion was illegal1) at only about 784,507 dead babies in 2009 (the latest data). Oh, hold on! That's a third again higher than the heart disease problem.
Clearly we need to focus on better gun control.
I think I better think it out again.
"Well," some might suggest, "you fix what you can." Maybe.
The leading causes of heart disease are the use of tobacco and alcohol and then poor diet and exercise. Really strange. Nothing in the constitution guarantees my right to tobacco and alcohol or fatty foods and laziness. On the other hand, the Constitution (well, the Bill of Rights) does guarantee our right to bear arms. And the right to life is part of the basic fundamental human rights upon which this country was founded.
So, let's see, thinking rationally, in order to solve the problem of too many deaths the best option would be to stop the largest number of deaths by outlawing the murder of unborn babies because life is a human right and killing babies is the leading cause of death in the United States. The next option would be to outlaw those things that have the greatest impact on heart disease such as tobacco, alcohol, and bad foods because these are the second leading cause of death and there is no Constitutional guarantee to be able to smoke and drink and eat what you want.
So, tell me again, how did we get down to "gun control", a dubious fix at best, being the big issue?
________
1 While it is impossible to get a real number of abortions per year prior to Roe v. Wade (because they were primarily illegal and, therefore, not reported), the best estimates put them at somewhere between 60,000 and 200,000. No matter how you do the math, at the most 200,000 is significantly less than 800,000 and dramatically less than the 1.2 million that was the number prior to the last few years.
According to the CDC, in 2010 the leading cause of death in the U.S. was heart disease, accounting for 597,689 fatalities. Oh, wait, that's about 18 times the gun-related deaths.
According to the Washington Post the abortion rate has hit an "all-time low" (which seems really weird since I'm pretty sure it was a lot lower when abortion was illegal1) at only about 784,507 dead babies in 2009 (the latest data). Oh, hold on! That's a third again higher than the heart disease problem.
Clearly we need to focus on better gun control.
I think I better think it out again.
"Well," some might suggest, "you fix what you can." Maybe.
The leading causes of heart disease are the use of tobacco and alcohol and then poor diet and exercise. Really strange. Nothing in the constitution guarantees my right to tobacco and alcohol or fatty foods and laziness. On the other hand, the Constitution (well, the Bill of Rights) does guarantee our right to bear arms. And the right to life is part of the basic fundamental human rights upon which this country was founded.
So, let's see, thinking rationally, in order to solve the problem of too many deaths the best option would be to stop the largest number of deaths by outlawing the murder of unborn babies because life is a human right and killing babies is the leading cause of death in the United States. The next option would be to outlaw those things that have the greatest impact on heart disease such as tobacco, alcohol, and bad foods because these are the second leading cause of death and there is no Constitutional guarantee to be able to smoke and drink and eat what you want.
So, tell me again, how did we get down to "gun control", a dubious fix at best, being the big issue?
________
1 While it is impossible to get a real number of abortions per year prior to Roe v. Wade (because they were primarily illegal and, therefore, not reported), the best estimates put them at somewhere between 60,000 and 200,000. No matter how you do the math, at the most 200,000 is significantly less than 800,000 and dramatically less than the 1.2 million that was the number prior to the last few years.
Friday, April 19, 2013
Learning from History
I've mentioned before that I'm reading Edward Gibbon's The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a book as long as the lengthy title suggests. Still, it is in interesting book for a variety of reasons. One, obviously, is the parallels of the decline of the Roman Empire and the conditions of the United States. It is interesting, though, to see what Gibbon has to say about Christianity in those early years.
In Chapter 15 Gibbon examines the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire and in Chapter 16 he looks at the treatment of Christians by emperors from Nero to Constantine, two interesting angles on an historical event. His observations are enlightening. One eye opener is that Gibbon is unwilling to invest much reliability in the accounts of vast numbers of Christians put to death by emperors. Yes, there were indeed some who hated the Christians and sought to harm them. Nero was quite obviously not a fan of Christians when he used them as fire lamps in his garden. But Gibbon prefers the more conservative estimates when calculating both the numbers of Christians that were in the empire as well as the numbers who were killed for their faith. Interesting approach.
In his examination of the growth of Christianity, he makes an interesting statement.
The two chapters, 15 and 16, are interesting, side by side. They present two parallel considerations on what caused the Church to grow ... or decline. And they are not what today's concepts would find acceptable. I suppose that's because they didn't have all the marketing plans and experts available, but who is to say? The two key components in the growth of Christianity were rigid rules and persecution.
Now, given the modern perspective, we can leap ahead and determine what Gibbon found on these two points. First, as we all know, a narrow-minded, ultra-conservative, rules-oriented church is going to repel rather than gather members. If you want to encourage growth and encompass more people, you need to be more inclusive, less narrow. What is it the political machines say today? You need a "bigger tent". I mean, isn't it obvious? And when it comes to persecution, clearly it's easier to make converts and encourage more inclusiveness if you're not fighting off pain and suffering. I mean, who wants to be part of a movement that is outlawed and due to be executed if caught? Clearly that would produce a minority effect, not growth. And, to be sure, the early Christian church under Rome enjoyed periods both of less narrow views and greater acceptability in the community as well as more narrow views and much persecution.
As it turns out, however, the Church appears not to have known what our modern perspective teaches us. According to Gibbon, history tells us that when the Church was the most rigid in its views, it grew the most, and when the Church was most persecuted, it grew the most.
The early Church was known for two things. First, it was known for the high integrity and character of its members. These people were law-abiding citizens working hard to be honest and diligent members of their communities. Second, they were adamantly opposed to the slightest hint of idolatry. They disconnected themselves from anything remotely linked to anything idolatrous. So when everyone else was wearing garlands for a festival, they would not because the garlands had been blessed by the gods. And when a family member died, they couldn't go to the funeral because there was always some prayer to the gods or the like. They were cut out of much of daily life because they refused to compromise on this point, so much so that they were eventually classified as "atheists" because they didn't believe in the gods and would have nothing to do with them. The result was that these hard-working, law-abiding, respectable citizens were at once loved and hated. And the persecutions they received for this narrow view were far reaching and sometimes fatal. All that was asked of them was that they would put a little incense on a deity's altar and they could go free. What did it matter? They didn't believe in that deity. Why not just do it and get away safely? But they couldn't and it cost them dearly.
We're told today that Christianity is not about rules. Maybe. We're told that if the Church is to survive the 21st century we're going to have to be less narrow and more inclusive. Perhaps. We're told that Christianity is not about doing the right thing, but about grace, so embrace the grace. Stop being "pharasaical". It's not about that! It's about love and mercy and grace. Yes, that's what we're told. But the principles of Scripture disagree, and so does history. Even today, while the more liberal churches seek the more "big tent" approach, they are in decline because according to those who leave, frankly, "If all behavior is acceptable and we're including everyone, why should I bother sticking around? What are you offering that's any different than the rest of the world?" While we are warned and threatened that our "narrow views" and "rigid rules" will cause disaster for the Church or, at least, for our own part of it, Gibbon and history seem to say the opposite -- that it is in the wide embrace of the world that the Church finds itself absorbed rather than distinct.
America could learn a lot from the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. They descended into luxury and licentiousness and killed themselves off. So are we. Today's church could learn a lot from the Christians of the Roman Empire. Strict adherence to Scripture and the embracing rather than shunning of persecution seem to be growth media rather than negative conditions for the Church. I've said before that I think there is a real persecution coming to American Christians. Based on the history of the Church and on the pages of Scripture, I would also have to say that, if it brings the advancement of the cause of Christ, "Bring it on!"
In Chapter 15 Gibbon examines the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire and in Chapter 16 he looks at the treatment of Christians by emperors from Nero to Constantine, two interesting angles on an historical event. His observations are enlightening. One eye opener is that Gibbon is unwilling to invest much reliability in the accounts of vast numbers of Christians put to death by emperors. Yes, there were indeed some who hated the Christians and sought to harm them. Nero was quite obviously not a fan of Christians when he used them as fire lamps in his garden. But Gibbon prefers the more conservative estimates when calculating both the numbers of Christians that were in the empire as well as the numbers who were killed for their faith. Interesting approach.
In his examination of the growth of Christianity, he makes an interesting statement.
Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth. To this inquiry, an obvious but satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But as truth and reason seldom find so favorable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently condescends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as instruments to execute its purpose, we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church. (Chapter XV Part I)Get that? (It may not be easy, since Gibbon wrote back in the 1700's and is more eloquent than I.) To the question of how Christianity had such remarkable growth, he answers that the quite obvious answer is the "convincing evidence of the doctrine" and the fact that God, as the Author, would cause it to be so. That is "an obvious but satisfactory" answer. He goes on to say that it would, however, not likely be well received, so he goes on after this to examine "what were the secondary causes" of the growth of the Christian church. God, then, and His truth, were the First Cause. The rest are "Secondary Causes".
The two chapters, 15 and 16, are interesting, side by side. They present two parallel considerations on what caused the Church to grow ... or decline. And they are not what today's concepts would find acceptable. I suppose that's because they didn't have all the marketing plans and experts available, but who is to say? The two key components in the growth of Christianity were rigid rules and persecution.
Now, given the modern perspective, we can leap ahead and determine what Gibbon found on these two points. First, as we all know, a narrow-minded, ultra-conservative, rules-oriented church is going to repel rather than gather members. If you want to encourage growth and encompass more people, you need to be more inclusive, less narrow. What is it the political machines say today? You need a "bigger tent". I mean, isn't it obvious? And when it comes to persecution, clearly it's easier to make converts and encourage more inclusiveness if you're not fighting off pain and suffering. I mean, who wants to be part of a movement that is outlawed and due to be executed if caught? Clearly that would produce a minority effect, not growth. And, to be sure, the early Christian church under Rome enjoyed periods both of less narrow views and greater acceptability in the community as well as more narrow views and much persecution.
As it turns out, however, the Church appears not to have known what our modern perspective teaches us. According to Gibbon, history tells us that when the Church was the most rigid in its views, it grew the most, and when the Church was most persecuted, it grew the most.
The early Church was known for two things. First, it was known for the high integrity and character of its members. These people were law-abiding citizens working hard to be honest and diligent members of their communities. Second, they were adamantly opposed to the slightest hint of idolatry. They disconnected themselves from anything remotely linked to anything idolatrous. So when everyone else was wearing garlands for a festival, they would not because the garlands had been blessed by the gods. And when a family member died, they couldn't go to the funeral because there was always some prayer to the gods or the like. They were cut out of much of daily life because they refused to compromise on this point, so much so that they were eventually classified as "atheists" because they didn't believe in the gods and would have nothing to do with them. The result was that these hard-working, law-abiding, respectable citizens were at once loved and hated. And the persecutions they received for this narrow view were far reaching and sometimes fatal. All that was asked of them was that they would put a little incense on a deity's altar and they could go free. What did it matter? They didn't believe in that deity. Why not just do it and get away safely? But they couldn't and it cost them dearly.
We're told today that Christianity is not about rules. Maybe. We're told that if the Church is to survive the 21st century we're going to have to be less narrow and more inclusive. Perhaps. We're told that Christianity is not about doing the right thing, but about grace, so embrace the grace. Stop being "pharasaical". It's not about that! It's about love and mercy and grace. Yes, that's what we're told. But the principles of Scripture disagree, and so does history. Even today, while the more liberal churches seek the more "big tent" approach, they are in decline because according to those who leave, frankly, "If all behavior is acceptable and we're including everyone, why should I bother sticking around? What are you offering that's any different than the rest of the world?" While we are warned and threatened that our "narrow views" and "rigid rules" will cause disaster for the Church or, at least, for our own part of it, Gibbon and history seem to say the opposite -- that it is in the wide embrace of the world that the Church finds itself absorbed rather than distinct.
America could learn a lot from the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. They descended into luxury and licentiousness and killed themselves off. So are we. Today's church could learn a lot from the Christians of the Roman Empire. Strict adherence to Scripture and the embracing rather than shunning of persecution seem to be growth media rather than negative conditions for the Church. I've said before that I think there is a real persecution coming to American Christians. Based on the history of the Church and on the pages of Scripture, I would also have to say that, if it brings the advancement of the cause of Christ, "Bring it on!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)