If you're like me, you said something like, "Oh, a celebrity with weird theology, how novel," and went on about your day. However, one response caught my eye as such a good example of what not to do, I thought a closer look would be useful.
Showing posts with label My Two Cents. Show all posts
Showing posts with label My Two Cents. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
How Not to Refute Someone
If you're like me, you said something like, "Oh, a celebrity with weird theology, how novel," and went on about your day. However, one response caught my eye as such a good example of what not to do, I thought a closer look would be useful.
Wednesday, July 13, 2022
Marriage is a Three-Legged Race
Boiling it down to one thing is hard. It assumes they know there is no more “your money” and “my money”, only “our money”. You hope they know marriage means you stop dating. Surely they can figure out the answer to “Does this make my butt look big?” is an emphatic “No!”
Now, everyone who’s married could give a dozen tips to the newly married, but no one wants to listen to all that. Is there just one thing that trumps all the rest? Looking back over 22 years of love and laughter and hurt feelings and I’m sorry’s, a common theme does seem to emerge:
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Is Homosexuality a Birth Defect?
It's time we change the way we think and talk about homosexuality.
The other side says homosexuals are "born that way." Even if they're not entirely right, it's unlikely they're entirely wrong. Living the lifestyle certainly requires a choice, but I don't think many would choose the burden of same-sex attraction (SSA) if they had a choice.
So let's just give the other side the "born that way." What then?
In biology, what do you call a genetic trait (or congenital condition) that makes a person less likely to successfully pass on their genes? A negative mutation. In layman's terms, a birth defect.
Whether SSA turns out to be the result of a gene that people inherit, of a faulty genetic process, or of hormones/chemicals gone wrong the result is a person with tendencies that deviate from the biological (never mind the social) norm.
What would it mean if we chose to think of SSA as a birth defect? I think there are two potential benefits. First, it changes the debate from "how do we stop these people from doing these things" (however you may feel about the things — the right and left have very different views) to "what should we do about this condition these people have." It makes the conversation less confrontational and also less about "rights" and more about healthy and normal.
Second, it could make us change how we approach these people and the whole topic. If homosexuals are simply people who make (to the rest of us) completely inexplicable choices, they are treated the same way we would treat a compulsive liar. They choose to do wrong, and they need to stop it right now.
If they are the victim of their circumstances, they are to be pitied and helped and understood. It makes us realize that being "normal" is impossible for them and acting normal is a huge uphill battle. Even those who, by the grace of God, find an opposite sex mate and build a normal life will always be plagued by this bug in their programming.
The obvious objection from the right is "Wouldn't this make homosexuality OK?" No, I don't think it would. Think about some of the other problems people can have. People with Tourette syndrome are still expected to learn to control their impulses. Kids with various mental problems are still expected to learn to sit quietly and not hit or bite. We don't decide something is fine because their birth defect causes it. But we are more patient with them.
The obvious objection from the left is "It's mean." But it's neither unkind nor small minded. It's accurate. It may not seem nice, but it's the best explanation for their situation. It's also a way to make the right more understanding which you have to agree is a good thing.
-------
Related:
One Among Many
The other side says homosexuals are "born that way." Even if they're not entirely right, it's unlikely they're entirely wrong. Living the lifestyle certainly requires a choice, but I don't think many would choose the burden of same-sex attraction (SSA) if they had a choice.
So let's just give the other side the "born that way." What then?
In biology, what do you call a genetic trait (or congenital condition) that makes a person less likely to successfully pass on their genes? A negative mutation. In layman's terms, a birth defect.
Whether SSA turns out to be the result of a gene that people inherit, of a faulty genetic process, or of hormones/chemicals gone wrong the result is a person with tendencies that deviate from the biological (never mind the social) norm.
What would it mean if we chose to think of SSA as a birth defect? I think there are two potential benefits. First, it changes the debate from "how do we stop these people from doing these things" (however you may feel about the things — the right and left have very different views) to "what should we do about this condition these people have." It makes the conversation less confrontational and also less about "rights" and more about healthy and normal.
Second, it could make us change how we approach these people and the whole topic. If homosexuals are simply people who make (to the rest of us) completely inexplicable choices, they are treated the same way we would treat a compulsive liar. They choose to do wrong, and they need to stop it right now.
If they are the victim of their circumstances, they are to be pitied and helped and understood. It makes us realize that being "normal" is impossible for them and acting normal is a huge uphill battle. Even those who, by the grace of God, find an opposite sex mate and build a normal life will always be plagued by this bug in their programming.
The obvious objection from the right is "Wouldn't this make homosexuality OK?" No, I don't think it would. Think about some of the other problems people can have. People with Tourette syndrome are still expected to learn to control their impulses. Kids with various mental problems are still expected to learn to sit quietly and not hit or bite. We don't decide something is fine because their birth defect causes it. But we are more patient with them.
The obvious objection from the left is "It's mean." But it's neither unkind nor small minded. It's accurate. It may not seem nice, but it's the best explanation for their situation. It's also a way to make the right more understanding which you have to agree is a good thing.
-------
Related:
One Among Many
Thursday, July 19, 2012
How to Have a Lasting Marriage
Don't get divorced.
We recently celebrated our twelfth anniversary. It's sad that it's almost a big deal these days.
Why is that getting so rare when forty-year marriages were the norm not even a hundred years ago? What changed? It wasn't men. It wasn't women. We don't get along any worse than we did then. We haven't invented new problems for marriages, even if we have put our particular spin on them.
I think our attitude toward marriage changed. People get divorced more because divorce became an option.
Oh, we've always had divorce, but in the past it was a shameful thing. Everyone assumed (or knew) at least one of the broken couple had been sleeping around.
But now it's ok. You "don't have anything in common" anymore? Get a divorce. "Irreconcilable differences?" Get a divorce. Unhappy? Bored? Leave.
Our ancestors' marriages lasted because of a commitment to one particular philosophy: 'Til death do us part.
If divorce is off the table, you have to fix things. 'Til death do us part means when you have money problems, you soldier on through, together. It means when you seem to be growing apart, you do something about it. It means if your husband snores too loud, you get a new bedroom — in the same house.
These days we have so many more options than we have ever had before. We have second honeymoons, marriage counseling, and Dave Ramsey. If divorce is not an option, we'll be committed to making our marriages work and do whatever it takes.
This isn't a magic pill. It won't make all our problems go away. But it will make us face our problems and work on them together — or else the next thirty years are going to be mighty uncomfortable.
We recently celebrated our twelfth anniversary. It's sad that it's almost a big deal these days.
Why is that getting so rare when forty-year marriages were the norm not even a hundred years ago? What changed? It wasn't men. It wasn't women. We don't get along any worse than we did then. We haven't invented new problems for marriages, even if we have put our particular spin on them.
I think our attitude toward marriage changed. People get divorced more because divorce became an option.
Oh, we've always had divorce, but in the past it was a shameful thing. Everyone assumed (or knew) at least one of the broken couple had been sleeping around.
But now it's ok. You "don't have anything in common" anymore? Get a divorce. "Irreconcilable differences?" Get a divorce. Unhappy? Bored? Leave.
Our ancestors' marriages lasted because of a commitment to one particular philosophy: 'Til death do us part.
If divorce is off the table, you have to fix things. 'Til death do us part means when you have money problems, you soldier on through, together. It means when you seem to be growing apart, you do something about it. It means if your husband snores too loud, you get a new bedroom — in the same house.
These days we have so many more options than we have ever had before. We have second honeymoons, marriage counseling, and Dave Ramsey. If divorce is not an option, we'll be committed to making our marriages work and do whatever it takes.
This isn't a magic pill. It won't make all our problems go away. But it will make us face our problems and work on them together — or else the next thirty years are going to be mighty uncomfortable.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Christians and Violent Media
Should Christians watch violent movies?
The question has been raised before, but it gets my attention now because it's directed toward a movie I really want to see: The Hunger Games.
The premise of the story is that each year twelve subjugated "districts" are required to send one boy and one girl (12-18 years old) to fight to the death for the amusement of their rulers. Twenty-four enter; one leaves. The battles in the arena, as well as many other things that befall these children, are quite brutal. Given the movie's PG-13 rating, I expect a lot of the violence to be off-screen or at least toned-down, but it's impossible to take all of the edge off of children killing children.
Should we let ourselves (much less our kids) see things like this?
I find myself wanting to ask a few follow up questions:
1. What in the Bible specifically forbids our watching violent movies? I think you can make an indirect case from passages such as Phil 4:8, but without someone more direct, I don't think we can make an absolute rule.
2. How much and what kind of violence is OK? Why is football acceptable (if it is)?
3. Why is the violence in the Bible OK? It is the most violent book you'll probably ever read. Judges alone is probably the most violent thing you'll ever read.
4. Does is matter how the violence is handled? In some works violence is fun or funny and made to look attractive. In others, such as The Hunger Games, the reader/viewer is supposed to be horrified. You're supposed to look at the people in the story who enjoy the games and wonder what is wrong with them. And you're supposed to ask if you make any questionable entertainment choices yourself (Saw anyone?). Does that matter? I think it does.
For myself, I'm going to choose to see this movie. I am not going to allow my kids to see it until they are much older. When they do read and/or see The Hunger Games, we will talk about man's inhumanity to man, the importance of protecting those you love, kindness to enemies, desensitization, and the corrupting nature of power. It will be a wonderful family time, and I don't think there will be anything wrong with that.
The question has been raised before, but it gets my attention now because it's directed toward a movie I really want to see: The Hunger Games.
The premise of the story is that each year twelve subjugated "districts" are required to send one boy and one girl (12-18 years old) to fight to the death for the amusement of their rulers. Twenty-four enter; one leaves. The battles in the arena, as well as many other things that befall these children, are quite brutal. Given the movie's PG-13 rating, I expect a lot of the violence to be off-screen or at least toned-down, but it's impossible to take all of the edge off of children killing children.
Should we let ourselves (much less our kids) see things like this?
I find myself wanting to ask a few follow up questions:
1. What in the Bible specifically forbids our watching violent movies? I think you can make an indirect case from passages such as Phil 4:8, but without someone more direct, I don't think we can make an absolute rule.
2. How much and what kind of violence is OK? Why is football acceptable (if it is)?
3. Why is the violence in the Bible OK? It is the most violent book you'll probably ever read. Judges alone is probably the most violent thing you'll ever read.
4. Does is matter how the violence is handled? In some works violence is fun or funny and made to look attractive. In others, such as The Hunger Games, the reader/viewer is supposed to be horrified. You're supposed to look at the people in the story who enjoy the games and wonder what is wrong with them. And you're supposed to ask if you make any questionable entertainment choices yourself (Saw anyone?). Does that matter? I think it does.
For myself, I'm going to choose to see this movie. I am not going to allow my kids to see it until they are much older. When they do read and/or see The Hunger Games, we will talk about man's inhumanity to man, the importance of protecting those you love, kindness to enemies, desensitization, and the corrupting nature of power. It will be a wonderful family time, and I don't think there will be anything wrong with that.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Freedom of Worship
Is "freedom of worship" a synonym for freedom of religion or a booby trap?
The term first got attention when the Obama administration started using it, seemingly in lieu of "freedom of religion," after the Fort Hood shooting in late 2009. People complained, there was a bit of noise, and then the furor died down.
But it leapt back to the minds of many conservatives during the "Catholic contraception" flap.
"Freedom of worship" is different from the traditional term because of the popular definition of "worship." In general usage, worship is what you do at "church" (whether the religion is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or something else entirely). Freedom of worship, then, would seem to mean your right to do "church" your way — be it liturgical or casual, with incense or without pianos.
Reading about the contraception rule, I saw many articles or comments with this idea: "What's the problem? We're not telling them they have to hand pills out in church?" That is the essence of the freedom of worship.
Freedom of religion, on the other hand, extends beyond what happens on Sunday. It's tithing and evangelism and caring for orphans. It's also pacifism, infant baptism, and opposing abortion (for, respectively, Quakers; Roman Catholics and some protestants; and a great many Christians, Jews, and Muslims).
If we only have a right to "freedom of worship," there is nothing to stop the government from conscripting Quakers or forcing evangelical churches to perform same-sex marriages. (I'm not saying either of those things is on the horizon, but there's nothing to stop it.)
But there is something. Read the entire text of the First Amendment:
It's natural that non- and cultural-Christians should be opposed to our ideals. The world opposes us reflexively because of Christ. And our attempts to live up to a higher standard makes people feel bad about their lower standards. And the wisdom of this age is that personal liberty and a right to "privacy" (that is, doing whatever you want in private) trumps all other rights.
However, this being expected doesn't mean we should just sit back and watch it happen. We can and should watch our politicians like hawks and push back where we can.
Remember the words of the Master: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
The term first got attention when the Obama administration started using it, seemingly in lieu of "freedom of religion," after the Fort Hood shooting in late 2009. People complained, there was a bit of noise, and then the furor died down.
But it leapt back to the minds of many conservatives during the "Catholic contraception" flap.
"Freedom of worship" is different from the traditional term because of the popular definition of "worship." In general usage, worship is what you do at "church" (whether the religion is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or something else entirely). Freedom of worship, then, would seem to mean your right to do "church" your way — be it liturgical or casual, with incense or without pianos.
Reading about the contraception rule, I saw many articles or comments with this idea: "What's the problem? We're not telling them they have to hand pills out in church?" That is the essence of the freedom of worship.
Freedom of religion, on the other hand, extends beyond what happens on Sunday. It's tithing and evangelism and caring for orphans. It's also pacifism, infant baptism, and opposing abortion (for, respectively, Quakers; Roman Catholics and some protestants; and a great many Christians, Jews, and Muslims).
If we only have a right to "freedom of worship," there is nothing to stop the government from conscripting Quakers or forcing evangelical churches to perform same-sex marriages. (I'm not saying either of those things is on the horizon, but there's nothing to stop it.)
But there is something. Read the entire text of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The first freedom enumerated was the freedom of religion, and "free exercise" is explicitly stated. This nation was settled by people who were fleeing pressed military service or laws about baptism just as much as those who wanted the right to wear certain robes (or not) in church.
It's natural that non- and cultural-Christians should be opposed to our ideals. The world opposes us reflexively because of Christ. And our attempts to live up to a higher standard makes people feel bad about their lower standards. And the wisdom of this age is that personal liberty and a right to "privacy" (that is, doing whatever you want in private) trumps all other rights.
However, this being expected doesn't mean we should just sit back and watch it happen. We can and should watch our politicians like hawks and push back where we can.
Remember the words of the Master: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
More useful generosity
A meditation for the Christmas shopping season
It's hard to buy Christmas presents for your parents. One year, in complete desperation, I bought my mom an electric ice scraper that plugged into the car's cigarette lighter. Did she ever use it? Did she know where it was two months later? No.
So I wasted my money. And my mom felt less than appreciated. ("It's the thought that counts" means "this stinks but I love you anyway".) Who won?
Why buy people stuff they don't need? And I do mean need.
Instead of buying junk no one needs or getting a TV a few inches bigger, what if we give gifts that help everyone involved? This year give your loved ones gift certificates for things they use — for example, hair cuts, oil changes, or meals at local businesses. Lets give people something useful that also helps our neighbors rather than clutter our lives with one more trinket.
It's hard to buy Christmas presents for your parents. One year, in complete desperation, I bought my mom an electric ice scraper that plugged into the car's cigarette lighter. Did she ever use it? Did she know where it was two months later? No.
So I wasted my money. And my mom felt less than appreciated. ("It's the thought that counts" means "this stinks but I love you anyway".) Who won?
Why buy people stuff they don't need? And I do mean need.
Instead of buying junk no one needs or getting a TV a few inches bigger, what if we give gifts that help everyone involved? This year give your loved ones gift certificates for things they use — for example, hair cuts, oil changes, or meals at local businesses. Lets give people something useful that also helps our neighbors rather than clutter our lives with one more trinket.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Illegal Aliens and Blind Justice
Where does "love your neighbor" end?
We feel sorry for poor people who are just trying to get by. We want to give them a break, and we want to see others do the same. If we're honestly trying to love our neighbor, we'll probably help them out — with money, food, or an odd job if we can.
But we don't help them jack someone's car.
The comments on the previous post, "Loving Your Illegal Neighbor," called to mind a very hard-nosed Proverb:
"Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house" (6:30-31).
Loving your neighbor has its limits. Those limits are the law, and the law is supposed to be "one size fits all:"
"Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Lev 19:15).
In the illegal immigration debates, poverty cannot be an excuse to violate the law. If it's treated as an excuse to violate immigration law, we shouldn't be surprised if some think it's an excuse to violate other laws.
We can change our laws, and I think we should, but we can't ignore those who broke the law. If a reasonable price isn't paid, the law loses respect required to make our society function.
What's a reasonable price? That's a question for another time.
We feel sorry for poor people who are just trying to get by. We want to give them a break, and we want to see others do the same. If we're honestly trying to love our neighbor, we'll probably help them out — with money, food, or an odd job if we can.
But we don't help them jack someone's car.
The comments on the previous post, "Loving Your Illegal Neighbor," called to mind a very hard-nosed Proverb:
"Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold, though it costs him all the wealth of his house" (6:30-31).
Loving your neighbor has its limits. Those limits are the law, and the law is supposed to be "one size fits all:"
"Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Lev 19:15).
In the illegal immigration debates, poverty cannot be an excuse to violate the law. If it's treated as an excuse to violate immigration law, we shouldn't be surprised if some think it's an excuse to violate other laws.
We can change our laws, and I think we should, but we can't ignore those who broke the law. If a reasonable price isn't paid, the law loses respect required to make our society function.
What's a reasonable price? That's a question for another time.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The Normative Argument
A lot of modern evangelicals are pretty old-fashioned — especially where gender roles are concerned. Being the contrarian I am, I always have to ask why.
It's not unusual to get a response that appeals to what was "normative" during the time when the Bible was being written.
While I don't think that's completely invalid, we need to be able to base our answers on more than that simply because there are a lot of things that were normal during ancient times that aren't now.
During Jesus' lifetime, it was normal for extended families to live close together. The men worked while the women kept the home and raised the kids. They honored the aged, disciplined the young, worshipped together, and took care of their neighbors.
That all sounds great. This doesn't:
The men performed back-breaking labor from sun up to sun down hoping desperately to scratch a living out of the earth. The women stayed home because there was little else they could do, and someone had to watch the kids. They tended to have lots of them because ... well, there wasn't much else for a married couple to do for entertainment once the sun went down. Plus, the mortality rate made it necessary to have lots of children so that a few would reach adulthood.
"Aged" was fifty. A man answered to his father for as long as his father lived. In some parts of the ancient world, a father could kill his children at any point for any reason, even into adulthood (though that was rare).
Disease was rampant, there wasn't enough food, and what food they had couldn't be stored for long. Sanitation was non-existent. People bathed infrequently, and they went to the bathroom in a hole dug in the ground.
This was normative.
You think it's best that women stay home and raise the kids? You think large families, homeschooling, and careful religious instruction of your children is healthy? Great, so do I. You think it's required? Why?
We can't just appeal to what was normal during Jesus' day without explaining why we no longer poop in a hole.
It's not unusual to get a response that appeals to what was "normative" during the time when the Bible was being written.
While I don't think that's completely invalid, we need to be able to base our answers on more than that simply because there are a lot of things that were normal during ancient times that aren't now.
During Jesus' lifetime, it was normal for extended families to live close together. The men worked while the women kept the home and raised the kids. They honored the aged, disciplined the young, worshipped together, and took care of their neighbors.
That all sounds great. This doesn't:
The men performed back-breaking labor from sun up to sun down hoping desperately to scratch a living out of the earth. The women stayed home because there was little else they could do, and someone had to watch the kids. They tended to have lots of them because ... well, there wasn't much else for a married couple to do for entertainment once the sun went down. Plus, the mortality rate made it necessary to have lots of children so that a few would reach adulthood.
"Aged" was fifty. A man answered to his father for as long as his father lived. In some parts of the ancient world, a father could kill his children at any point for any reason, even into adulthood (though that was rare).
Disease was rampant, there wasn't enough food, and what food they had couldn't be stored for long. Sanitation was non-existent. People bathed infrequently, and they went to the bathroom in a hole dug in the ground.
This was normative.
You think it's best that women stay home and raise the kids? You think large families, homeschooling, and careful religious instruction of your children is healthy? Great, so do I. You think it's required? Why?
We can't just appeal to what was normal during Jesus' day without explaining why we no longer poop in a hole.
Friday, March 5, 2010
How Much Depth?
How deep do our worship songs need to be?
On one end of the spectrum are songs that are pretty but have no theological content whatsoever — they may not be about God, they may not even be true. Example: Breathe.
On the other end are songs where every phrase is packed with meaning, that are nearly a theological treatise. Example: Amazing Grace.
There are a whole lot of songs in the middle.
Some people really don't care. Some think every song sung in church needs to be on the deep end.
Of the latter, one said his church sings "music that is rich in theology, melody and lyric. As a result, most of our music consists of hymns written in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries."
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm asking if it's necessary.
Actually, I'm saying it's not. Take this beautiful song:
If you didn't recognize it, that song is Psalm 150.
Now for a more modern song:
I love deep songs. But I don't think every song has to be one. As long as it's true, well-written, and preferably God-focused, I can live with some theologically shallow music in church.
What do you think?
On one end of the spectrum are songs that are pretty but have no theological content whatsoever — they may not be about God, they may not even be true. Example: Breathe.
On the other end are songs where every phrase is packed with meaning, that are nearly a theological treatise. Example: Amazing Grace.
There are a whole lot of songs in the middle.
Some people really don't care. Some think every song sung in church needs to be on the deep end.
Of the latter, one said his church sings "music that is rich in theology, melody and lyric. As a result, most of our music consists of hymns written in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries."
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. I'm asking if it's necessary.
Actually, I'm saying it's not. Take this beautiful song:
Praise the LORD.This short and to-the-point song praises God without going into any real theological detail. It just magnifies God. Is there anything wrong with that?
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.
Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.
Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD.
If you didn't recognize it, that song is Psalm 150.
Now for a more modern song:
Lord of all creationThis song doesn't have a lot of theological depth. But it magnifies God for who He is. I'm cool with that.
Of water earth and sky
The heavens are your Tabernacle
Glory to the Lord on high
God of wonders beyond our galaxy
You are holy, holy
The universe declares your Majesty
And you are holy, holy
I love deep songs. But I don't think every song has to be one. As long as it's true, well-written, and preferably God-focused, I can live with some theologically shallow music in church.
What do you think?
Thursday, January 7, 2010
A Wealthy Jesus and Other Errors
A friend sent me an article where some teachers of the "prosperity gospel" claim Jesus was not poor. I shouldn't be surprised — this is natural considering what they teach — but I am; the picture painted in the Gospels has been understood for almost 2000 years to mean Jesus was poor.
I can't believe Jesus was rich when He was described as living off others' charity (Luke 8:3).
But the bigger issue here is one that anyone can fall victim to.
These folks are torturing the scriptures to make them conform to a pre-determined theology. I'm sure they'd say their theology is based in the scriptures (everyone does), but the problem comes when, after getting your system down, you start to judge the scriptures by your theology rather than your theology by the scriptures.
Don't get me wrong — there are difficult passages in the Bible that only make sense when interpreted in light of other, understood passages. That's normal and necessary.
But we must always be willing to re-evaluate our theology in light of scriptures we haven't considered before (or recently).
Mary and Joseph offered the sacrifice of a poor person (Luke 2:24, c.f., Lev 12:8) after the birth of Jesus. They were then given valuable gifts (though we're not told how valuable) that certainly made the flight to Egypt easier. But how long did that last? We don't know.
But we do know that the adult Jesus is described as homeless (Matt 8:20) and dependent on the charity of some of His disciples. He died a slave's death and was placed in a borrowed tomb. He had to ask someone to take care of His mother, and His apostles all lived off charity.
Is this the description of a rich man? Only if your theology requires it to be.
---------
Just Eisegesis
Debt Relief and the Jubilee
All for Good?
I can't believe Jesus was rich when He was described as living off others' charity (Luke 8:3).
But the bigger issue here is one that anyone can fall victim to.
These folks are torturing the scriptures to make them conform to a pre-determined theology. I'm sure they'd say their theology is based in the scriptures (everyone does), but the problem comes when, after getting your system down, you start to judge the scriptures by your theology rather than your theology by the scriptures.
Don't get me wrong — there are difficult passages in the Bible that only make sense when interpreted in light of other, understood passages. That's normal and necessary.
But we must always be willing to re-evaluate our theology in light of scriptures we haven't considered before (or recently).
Mary and Joseph offered the sacrifice of a poor person (Luke 2:24, c.f., Lev 12:8) after the birth of Jesus. They were then given valuable gifts (though we're not told how valuable) that certainly made the flight to Egypt easier. But how long did that last? We don't know.
But we do know that the adult Jesus is described as homeless (Matt 8:20) and dependent on the charity of some of His disciples. He died a slave's death and was placed in a borrowed tomb. He had to ask someone to take care of His mother, and His apostles all lived off charity.
Is this the description of a rich man? Only if your theology requires it to be.
---------
Just Eisegesis
Debt Relief and the Jubilee
All for Good?
Monday, November 16, 2009
On the Question of Torture
Would you torture a man to save him?
Little Jashon was missing after his mother's body was discovered. The suspect in his mother's murder is a multiple felon who has killed a child before.
At 17-months-old, even if unharmed, this little boy wouldn't survive long without care. As John at Verum Serum points out, this is basically the ticking time bomb from torture debates.
Any torture debate usually turns into a disjointed mess because people start talking past each other. There are three questions that must be asked, and they must be dealt with independently and thoroughly.
1) Is torture ever acceptable?
2) Is torture ever effective?
3) Is [a given act] torture?
The first question must be answered before the second is discussed because if it is never morally acceptable, it doesn't matter if it's effective.
The third question is essential because we have to decide if a procedure is torture before we try to apply the other two questions to it. For instance, if waterboarding is not torture, it's pointless to bring it into arguments about whether torture is wrong. Both questions need to be resolved separately.
In any debate — whether the topic is politics, religion, a new pet, or updating procedures at work — we need to make sure we pay attention to what the questions really are and whether they're being addressed properly. We serve our Master better with a reputation for clear thinking and honest discussion. And the debate may even prove fruitful.
As to the matter at hand, I'd love to know how you would answer the above questions, but the real, and heart-rending, question is, would you torture a man to save that little boy?
I'm afraid I probably would, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a bit sick to my stomach afterward either way.
[Oh, and they've found a body that's probably the boy's.]
Little Jashon was missing after his mother's body was discovered. The suspect in his mother's murder is a multiple felon who has killed a child before.
At 17-months-old, even if unharmed, this little boy wouldn't survive long without care. As John at Verum Serum points out, this is basically the ticking time bomb from torture debates.
Any torture debate usually turns into a disjointed mess because people start talking past each other. There are three questions that must be asked, and they must be dealt with independently and thoroughly.
1) Is torture ever acceptable?
2) Is torture ever effective?
3) Is [a given act] torture?
The first question must be answered before the second is discussed because if it is never morally acceptable, it doesn't matter if it's effective.
The third question is essential because we have to decide if a procedure is torture before we try to apply the other two questions to it. For instance, if waterboarding is not torture, it's pointless to bring it into arguments about whether torture is wrong. Both questions need to be resolved separately.
In any debate — whether the topic is politics, religion, a new pet, or updating procedures at work — we need to make sure we pay attention to what the questions really are and whether they're being addressed properly. We serve our Master better with a reputation for clear thinking and honest discussion. And the debate may even prove fruitful.
As to the matter at hand, I'd love to know how you would answer the above questions, but the real, and heart-rending, question is, would you torture a man to save that little boy?
I'm afraid I probably would, but I'm pretty sure I'd be a bit sick to my stomach afterward either way.
[Oh, and they've found a body that's probably the boy's.]
Friday, November 13, 2009
Just Eisegesis
A new(-ish) specialty Bible is about to hit the market. "The Poverty and Justice Bible is your guide to explore God’s messages and challenges regarding the poor," according to Bibles.com. "It highlights more than 2,000 verses that spell out God's attitude to poverty and justice."
And when they say "justice," they mean "social justice," by which they mean helping poor people — a good thing as long as it's properly done.
But I have my doubts about this product. The sample on their website shows a highlighted scripture on justice:
They also have a section of essays on poverty related topics including ... military spending?!
This is not the only essay reflecting such shoddy thought. I don't think I'd want to put this thing in the hands of an impressionable young person.
I'm glad these folks want to remind Christians of our duty to the poor. I'm glad they're trying to help folks understand the Bible. I just don't think they're very good at it. I don't hold out much hope for this product which is looking like the same old Christian Left eisegesis.
(HT: Tim Challies)
----------
Related:
Debt Relief and the Jubilee
Helping the Poor Biblically
Loving Neighbors 7000 Miles Away
And when they say "justice," they mean "social justice," by which they mean helping poor people — a good thing as long as it's properly done.
But I have my doubts about this product. The sample on their website shows a highlighted scripture on justice:
"The Spirit will come and show the people of this world the truth about sin and God's justice and the judgment. The Spirit will show them that they are wrong about sin, because they didn't have faith in me. They are wrong about God's justice, because I am going to the Father, and you won't see me again. And they are wrong about the judgment, because God has already judged the ruler of this world" (John 16:8-11 CEV).Is Jesus talking about poverty and "social justice" here? No, clearly not. But it's got the word "justice" in it, so they highlight it. This is hardly a representative sample (they claim the Bible has over 2000 verses on poverty), but given this and all the other scriptures I've seen these kinds of folks abuse, I fear many verses will be misrepresented as refering to charity and welfare.
They also have a section of essays on poverty related topics including ... military spending?!
"Since 1945, the United States has spent more than $19 trillion on defense. If you were to spend $26 million per day since the birth of Christ, you still would not have spent as much as the United States has spent on defense since the end of World War II."Um, how much more poverty and suffering would there be in the world if we'd lost the Cold War?
This is not the only essay reflecting such shoddy thought. I don't think I'd want to put this thing in the hands of an impressionable young person.
I'm glad these folks want to remind Christians of our duty to the poor. I'm glad they're trying to help folks understand the Bible. I just don't think they're very good at it. I don't hold out much hope for this product which is looking like the same old Christian Left eisegesis.
(HT: Tim Challies)
----------
Related:
Debt Relief and the Jubilee
Helping the Poor Biblically
Loving Neighbors 7000 Miles Away
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Should Christians Marry Young?
What’s a good age to marry?
Everyone has an opinion, but over the years that opinion has trended upward.
I surprised myself on this a few years ago when a friend was talking about getting married. I said 23 seemed a little young to be getting married, and it was the better part of a day before I remembered my wife was 23 when we got married.
At the same time that Americans are marrying older and older, we’re reaching sexual maturity younger and younger.
Biblical commands to remain celibate until marriage have probably never been easy, but it was almost certainly more obtainable when getting married at 18 was the norm.
Perhaps this is a topic where the church should part ways with the culture, not because of explicit morality but because of wisdom. If our young marry, they have a healthy outlet for impulses that otherwise can lead to not just sin but also pregnancy, disease, and emotional hang-ups, among other problems.
Among the side benefits to be reaped are that married students tend to do better in college and stay out of trouble better, marrying young leads to kids younger which leads to grandkids when you’re young enough to enjoy them, and married couples can live off less money than two singles (important in college and after).
Wouldn’t that lead to more divorces? Since the divorce rate was lower in days when the marrying age was younger, youth alone must not be the problem.
Marrying younger is hardly a cure-all for the problems of the country or the American church, but it has the potential to positively shape the lives of the next generation.
Everyone has an opinion, but over the years that opinion has trended upward.
I surprised myself on this a few years ago when a friend was talking about getting married. I said 23 seemed a little young to be getting married, and it was the better part of a day before I remembered my wife was 23 when we got married.
At the same time that Americans are marrying older and older, we’re reaching sexual maturity younger and younger.
Biblical commands to remain celibate until marriage have probably never been easy, but it was almost certainly more obtainable when getting married at 18 was the norm.
Perhaps this is a topic where the church should part ways with the culture, not because of explicit morality but because of wisdom. If our young marry, they have a healthy outlet for impulses that otherwise can lead to not just sin but also pregnancy, disease, and emotional hang-ups, among other problems.
Among the side benefits to be reaped are that married students tend to do better in college and stay out of trouble better, marrying young leads to kids younger which leads to grandkids when you’re young enough to enjoy them, and married couples can live off less money than two singles (important in college and after).
Wouldn’t that lead to more divorces? Since the divorce rate was lower in days when the marrying age was younger, youth alone must not be the problem.
Marrying younger is hardly a cure-all for the problems of the country or the American church, but it has the potential to positively shape the lives of the next generation.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Militant Pacifists
If a pacifist is someone who will not use violence, even to defend himself, a militant pacifist is someone who won’t let you, either.
Recently a group of Christian pacifists calling themselves the Bonhoeffer Four hid in a military training facility to prevent joint exercises between the US and Australian militaries. Their leader pointed out that Jesus calls us to be peace makers.
I have a hard time understanding how this makes peace. It’s far more likely to get someone killed.
More than that, though, I’m not sure how I feel about militant pacifism. Now, Christians are well known for thinking everyone should follow our moral code, but I think this is different.
When the issue is a universal moral – e.g., murder, stealing – I’m ok with saying you shouldn’t do it at all, ever. But pacifism is not like that.
Christian pacifists will generally explain their stance as one that honors Christ, that imitates His peacefulness, and that points toward His kingdom. It’s not a universal moral rule. Asking the unwilling, especially non-Christians, to become pacifists to honor Christ makes no sense.
That said, kudos to them for being willing to put it all on the line to make peace.
On the same day I ran across this story, I rented a movie that, surprisingly, reinforced some of those ideas.
**spoiler alert**
By now most people who are interested have probably already seen the latest Clint Eastwood movie Gran Torino. If not, you can stop reading now, though the movie’s worth seeing even if the twist at the end has been spoiled.
Short version: After bad people do bad things to someone he cares about, Clint Eastwood’s character decides to take matters into his own hands to make sure they are brought to justice.
Does he kill everyone within sight? That’s what I expected. No, he martyrs himself. He lays down his life to protect those he loves.
Justice is served, the innocent are protected, and the only person who dies is one who was willing to do it.
[end spoilers]
Though I question the actions of the “Bonhoeffer Four,” I appreciate their willingness to live out what they believe. It’s not easy to do. We all fail to do it every day in ways that wouldn’t really cost us that much. These guys are going to go to jail.
May we all be as committed to our Master’s commands. May we all be as be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves and, much like Eastwood’s character, be creative in finding ways to do the right thing no matter the cost.
Recently a group of Christian pacifists calling themselves the Bonhoeffer Four hid in a military training facility to prevent joint exercises between the US and Australian militaries. Their leader pointed out that Jesus calls us to be peace makers.
I have a hard time understanding how this makes peace. It’s far more likely to get someone killed.
More than that, though, I’m not sure how I feel about militant pacifism. Now, Christians are well known for thinking everyone should follow our moral code, but I think this is different.
When the issue is a universal moral – e.g., murder, stealing – I’m ok with saying you shouldn’t do it at all, ever. But pacifism is not like that.
Christian pacifists will generally explain their stance as one that honors Christ, that imitates His peacefulness, and that points toward His kingdom. It’s not a universal moral rule. Asking the unwilling, especially non-Christians, to become pacifists to honor Christ makes no sense.
That said, kudos to them for being willing to put it all on the line to make peace.
On the same day I ran across this story, I rented a movie that, surprisingly, reinforced some of those ideas.
**spoiler alert**
By now most people who are interested have probably already seen the latest Clint Eastwood movie Gran Torino. If not, you can stop reading now, though the movie’s worth seeing even if the twist at the end has been spoiled.
Short version: After bad people do bad things to someone he cares about, Clint Eastwood’s character decides to take matters into his own hands to make sure they are brought to justice.
Does he kill everyone within sight? That’s what I expected. No, he martyrs himself. He lays down his life to protect those he loves.
Justice is served, the innocent are protected, and the only person who dies is one who was willing to do it.
[end spoilers]
Though I question the actions of the “Bonhoeffer Four,” I appreciate their willingness to live out what they believe. It’s not easy to do. We all fail to do it every day in ways that wouldn’t really cost us that much. These guys are going to go to jail.
May we all be as committed to our Master’s commands. May we all be as be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves and, much like Eastwood’s character, be creative in finding ways to do the right thing no matter the cost.
Friday, May 8, 2009
The Controversies Over Large Families
My wife’s sister just gave birth to a cute little boy named Caleb. He’s her seventh child.
The reaction to such a feat is usually a mix of awe and horror. To most folks it’s amazing that someone could keep up with that many children. And to many it’s somehow unseemly to have so many.
I must admit that I was once in both of those camps. Ok, I’m still in the first one.
After having my own kids, the notion of having that many is no longer quite so amazing. Even though I don’t want seven, I can see how someone could.
Now I’m more astounded by those who are offended by large families.
I’d like to address a few of the objections I’ve heard.
“You can’t love that many children properly.” Baloney! Love is not a pie that has to be sliced smaller for each new child. I didn’t love my first child less when my second came along, and – having seen them up close – my in-laws don’t love theirs less with each passing child. We should remember that only a few generations ago large families were the norm, and our grandparents seemed to be reasonably well-loved.
“That many children are a burden on society.” Ok, in some cases (I’m thinking the “octomom”) this may be true. You shouldn’t have more kids than you can feed. But if you can feed your kids, if society is not paying for them, then the end result will be more taxpayers – hardly a burden on society. This is especially true given that most western countries have declining populations.
“So many children are bad for the environment.” Another load of hooey. I don’t believe we’re anywhere near the planet’s sustainable population, and as our population has grown, so have our farming techniques and water purification ability. And large families learn to be more efficient in their use of resources simply because of costs.
“You don’t need that many children.” And you don’t need an HD TV. Butt out.
(Have you heard any more? Would you leave them in the comments?)
Large families – specifically large numbers of children – divert resources away from mom and dad and toward the kids. People today cannot imagine having more than a couple of kids largely because they can’t imagine not being able to afford nice vacations, good restaurants, and boats. If our society learned to see children as a treasure rather than a burden, we’d all be better off.
But there is another side in this debate that goes too far. The first thinks it unconscionable that someone should have so many children; the other thinks it unconscionable that you don’t.
“Why do you tell God how many kids you’re going to have?” Um, are you talking about the God described in the Bible? The all-powerful, sovereign Lord of the universe? God’s ability to send children is not hampered by barrenness or virginity. Birth control poses no problem for Him.
I’ve known people who struggled for years to have children and people who had children in spite of their birth control attempts. God is sovereign over both situations.
I think of it much like wearing a seatbelt. I get in my car and strap myself in, letting God know I’d like to make it to my destination alive. Whether I do or not is up to Him. Birth control is the same kind of thing.
In my case, God seems to have decided two is all we can handle. He’s probably right. Some He has seen fit to bless with seventeen, and some have been moved to adopt. In all cases God is in control and He is pleased by our attempts to raise our children – however many they may be, and whoever may have given birth to them – in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
The reaction to such a feat is usually a mix of awe and horror. To most folks it’s amazing that someone could keep up with that many children. And to many it’s somehow unseemly to have so many.
I must admit that I was once in both of those camps. Ok, I’m still in the first one.
After having my own kids, the notion of having that many is no longer quite so amazing. Even though I don’t want seven, I can see how someone could.
Now I’m more astounded by those who are offended by large families.
I’d like to address a few of the objections I’ve heard.
“You can’t love that many children properly.” Baloney! Love is not a pie that has to be sliced smaller for each new child. I didn’t love my first child less when my second came along, and – having seen them up close – my in-laws don’t love theirs less with each passing child. We should remember that only a few generations ago large families were the norm, and our grandparents seemed to be reasonably well-loved.
“That many children are a burden on society.” Ok, in some cases (I’m thinking the “octomom”) this may be true. You shouldn’t have more kids than you can feed. But if you can feed your kids, if society is not paying for them, then the end result will be more taxpayers – hardly a burden on society. This is especially true given that most western countries have declining populations.
“So many children are bad for the environment.” Another load of hooey. I don’t believe we’re anywhere near the planet’s sustainable population, and as our population has grown, so have our farming techniques and water purification ability. And large families learn to be more efficient in their use of resources simply because of costs.
“You don’t need that many children.” And you don’t need an HD TV. Butt out.
(Have you heard any more? Would you leave them in the comments?)
Large families – specifically large numbers of children – divert resources away from mom and dad and toward the kids. People today cannot imagine having more than a couple of kids largely because they can’t imagine not being able to afford nice vacations, good restaurants, and boats. If our society learned to see children as a treasure rather than a burden, we’d all be better off.
But there is another side in this debate that goes too far. The first thinks it unconscionable that someone should have so many children; the other thinks it unconscionable that you don’t.
“Why do you tell God how many kids you’re going to have?” Um, are you talking about the God described in the Bible? The all-powerful, sovereign Lord of the universe? God’s ability to send children is not hampered by barrenness or virginity. Birth control poses no problem for Him.
I’ve known people who struggled for years to have children and people who had children in spite of their birth control attempts. God is sovereign over both situations.
I think of it much like wearing a seatbelt. I get in my car and strap myself in, letting God know I’d like to make it to my destination alive. Whether I do or not is up to Him. Birth control is the same kind of thing.
In my case, God seems to have decided two is all we can handle. He’s probably right. Some He has seen fit to bless with seventeen, and some have been moved to adopt. In all cases God is in control and He is pleased by our attempts to raise our children – however many they may be, and whoever may have given birth to them – in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
May the LORD make you increase, both you and your children.
May you be blessed by the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth. (Psalm 115:14-15)
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Worshipful Lies
Recently in church we sang a song that included the line "You can have all my hands can hold."
My hands were holding my 4-year-old.
Now, I'm willing to say that to God about my kids -- in fact, I already had -- but it certainly gets your attention. Suddenly I wasn't just singing the words on the screen; I was thinking carefully about what I was saying. And some of what we were saying probably wasn't true.
Have you paid attention to some of the songs we sing in church? Some of them are ... inaccurate. Some are bold faced lies. Look at some lines from a few praise choruses:
*Jesus, I am so in love with you.
*In all I do I honor you.
*We will give ourselves no rest 'til your Kingdom comes earth.
(All songs I like, by the way.)
I think the worst example may be the song Breathe:
Do you see a pattern there? Whenever our songs start talking about us, it's easy to mess up. It's easy to declare that we love more, want more, or do more than we actually do -- to say we are more than we are.
When we simply sing about how great God is, it's hard to screw it up.
Hopefully God won't treat us quite as harshly as some who lied to the Lord in the past, but do you think He is pleased by our mindlessly singing lies? Isn't it better to stick to songs we can honestly sing? Think about this in church next Sunday.
I'm not opposed to carefully written songs about our needs, feelings, or experiences, but an easy way to write a great song is to focus on who God is and what He's done.
My hands were holding my 4-year-old.
Now, I'm willing to say that to God about my kids -- in fact, I already had -- but it certainly gets your attention. Suddenly I wasn't just singing the words on the screen; I was thinking carefully about what I was saying. And some of what we were saying probably wasn't true.
Have you paid attention to some of the songs we sing in church? Some of them are ... inaccurate. Some are bold faced lies. Look at some lines from a few praise choruses:
*Jesus, I am so in love with you.
*In all I do I honor you.
*We will give ourselves no rest 'til your Kingdom comes earth.
(All songs I like, by the way.)
I think the worst example may be the song Breathe:
This is the air I breathe Your holy presence living in meWonderful sentiments all. It would be nice if they were true. But they're not.
This is my daily bread Your very word spoken to me
And I'm desperate for you
And I'm lost without you
Do you see a pattern there? Whenever our songs start talking about us, it's easy to mess up. It's easy to declare that we love more, want more, or do more than we actually do -- to say we are more than we are.
When we simply sing about how great God is, it's hard to screw it up.
Hopefully God won't treat us quite as harshly as some who lied to the Lord in the past, but do you think He is pleased by our mindlessly singing lies? Isn't it better to stick to songs we can honestly sing? Think about this in church next Sunday.
I'm not opposed to carefully written songs about our needs, feelings, or experiences, but an easy way to write a great song is to focus on who God is and what He's done.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
A Composite Gospel
Sometimes history can shed a little light on the present.
If I understand it correctly, the philosophy of Gnosticism can be summed up as “spirit is good, matter is bad.” They viewed the material world as a prison from which we should seek release. Gnostic Christianity was an attempt to blend this view with Christian teachings.
The result was a variety of views that contradicted mainstream Christian teaching. One taught that Christ did not have a physical body, another that Jesus was just a man infused with the Christ-spirit. Still another said Jesus’ physical body died to release his spirit from the material realm.
Of course, if matter was bad, a physical resurrection – for either Jesus or us – was not a desirable thing, so they spiritualized the gospel to be enlightenment and freedom from the physical world.
Though they had access to the Jewish and Christian writings, they rejected most of these and created their own. After all, if the physical world was bad, anything that suggested that Jesus, or the Father, had a hand in creating it wouldn’t work. Some even taught that the God in Genesis was a different god from the Father of Jesus.
How did this lunacy come about? People took the philosophy of their day, Gnosticism, to Christianity rather than getting their philosophy from it. Despite what Christian texts said, their philosophy said matter was bad, so they had to reinterpret the gospels and the gospel to get a religion than made sense to their philosophy. And wackiness ensued.
If I understand it correctly, the philosophy of postmodernism in a nutshell is a radical skepticism about our ability to discern what is true. As people take this philosophy to Christianity, perhaps the Gnostics can serve as a warning. Not all human philosophies are fatally flawed, but we should be more skeptical about the tenets of the philosophy du jour and how it can relate to a religion that has been ironed out over the course of two millennia.
Already there is a great deal of concern over the church that is emerging from the fusion of postmodernism and Christianity. This task requires caution and a great deal of humility about more than just epistemology.
If I understand it correctly, the philosophy of Gnosticism can be summed up as “spirit is good, matter is bad.” They viewed the material world as a prison from which we should seek release. Gnostic Christianity was an attempt to blend this view with Christian teachings.
The result was a variety of views that contradicted mainstream Christian teaching. One taught that Christ did not have a physical body, another that Jesus was just a man infused with the Christ-spirit. Still another said Jesus’ physical body died to release his spirit from the material realm.
Of course, if matter was bad, a physical resurrection – for either Jesus or us – was not a desirable thing, so they spiritualized the gospel to be enlightenment and freedom from the physical world.
Though they had access to the Jewish and Christian writings, they rejected most of these and created their own. After all, if the physical world was bad, anything that suggested that Jesus, or the Father, had a hand in creating it wouldn’t work. Some even taught that the God in Genesis was a different god from the Father of Jesus.
How did this lunacy come about? People took the philosophy of their day, Gnosticism, to Christianity rather than getting their philosophy from it. Despite what Christian texts said, their philosophy said matter was bad, so they had to reinterpret the gospels and the gospel to get a religion than made sense to their philosophy. And wackiness ensued.
If I understand it correctly, the philosophy of postmodernism in a nutshell is a radical skepticism about our ability to discern what is true. As people take this philosophy to Christianity, perhaps the Gnostics can serve as a warning. Not all human philosophies are fatally flawed, but we should be more skeptical about the tenets of the philosophy du jour and how it can relate to a religion that has been ironed out over the course of two millennia.
Already there is a great deal of concern over the church that is emerging from the fusion of postmodernism and Christianity. This task requires caution and a great deal of humility about more than just epistemology.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Those Red Letters
Printing the words of Jesus in red is considered by some to be foolish. It’s certainly not without it’s dangers.
Today there are a host of people who desire to make the red letters a canon within the canon – that is, they believe the red letters, as the words of Jesus, carry special weight. That goes against the idea of the inspiration of all scripture, and it ignores the fact that the words of Jesus are filtered through the gospel authors.
There is also some debate about which letters should be red. The first time I read my Bible’s footnote on John 3:15, I was taken aback – how could John 3:16 not be the words of Jesus?! But when I compare other passages, I can see how some might think John, not Jesus, first uttered those words.
After all of that, I still don’t care. I like the red letters. No, I love the red letters.
I truly believe that the words of the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it is not the Spirit-filled Paul I long to meet.
If my wife had her mother send me a letter, the information sent to me would be from my wife, but it would be in her mother’s words and in her mother’s hand. Wouldn’t a letter in her own hand be a bit more precious to me?
In the same way, the words of Jesus, though filtered through the gospel writers, are closer to Jesus than the words Peter, Paul, or Isaiah wrote under the Spirit’s influence. Even though there should be no theological difference, there is still a qualitative, emotional difference to me.
I would give anything to be able to sit at the feet of Jesus. If I could, I’d go back then. If I could, I’d get Him to come here now. Since I have to wait, I’ll settle for the only bit of His presence I can get. I’m going to hold on to those red letters.
Today there are a host of people who desire to make the red letters a canon within the canon – that is, they believe the red letters, as the words of Jesus, carry special weight. That goes against the idea of the inspiration of all scripture, and it ignores the fact that the words of Jesus are filtered through the gospel authors.
There is also some debate about which letters should be red. The first time I read my Bible’s footnote on John 3:15, I was taken aback – how could John 3:16 not be the words of Jesus?! But when I compare other passages, I can see how some might think John, not Jesus, first uttered those words.
After all of that, I still don’t care. I like the red letters. No, I love the red letters.
I truly believe that the words of the apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit. But it is not the Spirit-filled Paul I long to meet.
If my wife had her mother send me a letter, the information sent to me would be from my wife, but it would be in her mother’s words and in her mother’s hand. Wouldn’t a letter in her own hand be a bit more precious to me?
In the same way, the words of Jesus, though filtered through the gospel writers, are closer to Jesus than the words Peter, Paul, or Isaiah wrote under the Spirit’s influence. Even though there should be no theological difference, there is still a qualitative, emotional difference to me.
I would give anything to be able to sit at the feet of Jesus. If I could, I’d go back then. If I could, I’d get Him to come here now. Since I have to wait, I’ll settle for the only bit of His presence I can get. I’m going to hold on to those red letters.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Can’t We All Get Along? 3
Civility with different religions
My wife and I recently spent a few days in Las Vegas. In the hotel I opened a drawer and found a Gideon Bible. And a Book of Mormon.
I was sorely tempted to put it where it could do no damage – such my bag or the fireplace. I stared at it and thought about it; I flipped through it; I put it down and stared at it some more. Then I closed the drawer.
I may have made the wrong decision, but my reasoning is two-fold. First, if Christianity can’t play fair and win, it’s not what we say it is.
Second, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Would I want a Mormon taking the Bible out of there? Of course not.
Loving your neighbor, in our pluralistic society, requires treating each other’s beliefs with respect – especially when you think they’re wrong. It’s what “tolerance” used to mean.
Here are a few thoughts on ways we can love our neighbors from different religions.
Don’t ridicule their beliefs
Other religions do things that strike me as quite silly. There are things other Christians do that strike me the same way. There are things I do that seem silly to other people. I really don’t want to hear about it, and neither does anyone else.
If their god is a six-headed elephant that appears in Norway every third Thursday in June, that’s their business. They don’t want our opinion about how silly it is.
Does Ramadan or reincarnation strike you as odd? Keep it to yourself. Think about how “take, eat, this is my body” sounds to outsiders.
Respect their desire to be faithful
You’ve probably known someone who got grief at work because they didn’t want to take a customer to a strip club. Or maybe it was a teen who got teased for not drinking. It’s not a fun place to be, and no one should have to put up with it.
A few months ago one of our Muslim students was furious at her classmates for giving her something to eat and later telling her it was pork. Not nice.
This probably starts in the same place as the ridiculing. I see no need for Muslims to avoid pork or Hindus to avoid beef or Mormons to avoid caffeine because I think their religions are wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that they desire to be faithful to their upbringing, and we, who often struggle with the same thing, should respect that.
Be sensitive about issues they’re sensitive about
If you’ve got Roman Catholic friends, you probably tread lightly discussing the priest abuse scandal. If you’ve got Presbyterian friends, you might be careful bringing up homosexual bishops.
I’ve had a number of Muslim coworkers. We can talk about family, movies, sports, religion, and the madness we deal with at work. We don’t talk about Jerusalem.
At work you don’t want to start a fight that can get you in trouble, but more than that, we just need to be sensitive to the feelings of people around us. We don’t want to offend unnecessarily.
Don’t evangelize them to death
I will never suggest that you shouldn’t witness to anybody. However, when the people in your life know where you stand and what you believe, you don’t need to keep pestering them.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t discuss your faith or theirs. I’m not saying don’t invite them to church or any other activity. I’m not advocating letting the great commission down. I’m saying let’s don’t be jerks.
As the saying goes, the gospel is offensive enough without our help.
Don’t pretend your beliefs don’t matter
People aren’t stupid. If they know you’re a Christian, they have at least some idea what you believe. We don’t need to become milk sops who don’t stand up for our beliefs.
Believe me, when coworkers want to make an issue out of Christian exclusivity, or want to evangelize for vegetarianism, or starting spouting some new age mumbo jumbo, I’m ready to rumble. But there is a time and a place for everything and a manner in which it should be done.
It’s all about love
Here in the West, especially in America, we’re in a multi-religious environment unlike anything that has existed for over a thousand years. We have the two-fold duty of representing Christ well and getting along with our neighbors in this pluralistic society. I am convinced that we have the truth. We also need to have love.
P.S. I closed the drawer, but I continue to pray that whoever opens it will ignore the Book of Mormon or, better yet, see through it. You might too.
My wife and I recently spent a few days in Las Vegas. In the hotel I opened a drawer and found a Gideon Bible. And a Book of Mormon.
I was sorely tempted to put it where it could do no damage – such my bag or the fireplace. I stared at it and thought about it; I flipped through it; I put it down and stared at it some more. Then I closed the drawer.
I may have made the wrong decision, but my reasoning is two-fold. First, if Christianity can’t play fair and win, it’s not what we say it is.
Second, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Would I want a Mormon taking the Bible out of there? Of course not.
Loving your neighbor, in our pluralistic society, requires treating each other’s beliefs with respect – especially when you think they’re wrong. It’s what “tolerance” used to mean.
Here are a few thoughts on ways we can love our neighbors from different religions.
Don’t ridicule their beliefs
Other religions do things that strike me as quite silly. There are things other Christians do that strike me the same way. There are things I do that seem silly to other people. I really don’t want to hear about it, and neither does anyone else.
If their god is a six-headed elephant that appears in Norway every third Thursday in June, that’s their business. They don’t want our opinion about how silly it is.
Does Ramadan or reincarnation strike you as odd? Keep it to yourself. Think about how “take, eat, this is my body” sounds to outsiders.
Respect their desire to be faithful
You’ve probably known someone who got grief at work because they didn’t want to take a customer to a strip club. Or maybe it was a teen who got teased for not drinking. It’s not a fun place to be, and no one should have to put up with it.
A few months ago one of our Muslim students was furious at her classmates for giving her something to eat and later telling her it was pork. Not nice.
This probably starts in the same place as the ridiculing. I see no need for Muslims to avoid pork or Hindus to avoid beef or Mormons to avoid caffeine because I think their religions are wrong. That doesn’t change the fact that they desire to be faithful to their upbringing, and we, who often struggle with the same thing, should respect that.
Be sensitive about issues they’re sensitive about
If you’ve got Roman Catholic friends, you probably tread lightly discussing the priest abuse scandal. If you’ve got Presbyterian friends, you might be careful bringing up homosexual bishops.
I’ve had a number of Muslim coworkers. We can talk about family, movies, sports, religion, and the madness we deal with at work. We don’t talk about Jerusalem.
At work you don’t want to start a fight that can get you in trouble, but more than that, we just need to be sensitive to the feelings of people around us. We don’t want to offend unnecessarily.
Don’t evangelize them to death
I will never suggest that you shouldn’t witness to anybody. However, when the people in your life know where you stand and what you believe, you don’t need to keep pestering them.
I’m not saying that you shouldn’t discuss your faith or theirs. I’m not saying don’t invite them to church or any other activity. I’m not advocating letting the great commission down. I’m saying let’s don’t be jerks.
As the saying goes, the gospel is offensive enough without our help.
Don’t pretend your beliefs don’t matter
People aren’t stupid. If they know you’re a Christian, they have at least some idea what you believe. We don’t need to become milk sops who don’t stand up for our beliefs.
Believe me, when coworkers want to make an issue out of Christian exclusivity, or want to evangelize for vegetarianism, or starting spouting some new age mumbo jumbo, I’m ready to rumble. But there is a time and a place for everything and a manner in which it should be done.
It’s all about love
Here in the West, especially in America, we’re in a multi-religious environment unlike anything that has existed for over a thousand years. We have the two-fold duty of representing Christ well and getting along with our neighbors in this pluralistic society. I am convinced that we have the truth. We also need to have love.
P.S. I closed the drawer, but I continue to pray that whoever opens it will ignore the Book of Mormon or, better yet, see through it. You might too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)