"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
1) Some who are advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture, are upset that they are being accused of legalism. Let me ask everyone out there this question for you to answer on your own: what is legalism?
2) “No,” some are saying. “This isn’t about complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for everyone, just complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture for SBC agency trustees and leadership in general.” In all frankness, such a distinction between laity and leadership is unscriptural (never mind the fact that this is an abstinent practice contrary to Scripture). In further frankness, to order complete abstinence of alcohol consumption means that certain NT Christian leaders could not have been SBC leaders: Paul, Timothy, the disciples and apostles, and even Jesus.
Yes, Jesus would not be able to be an SBC leader because of his own alcohol consumption. Now the Scriptures teach of a banquet in the next life where we shall drink wine with Jesus (of course, that is just what Scripture teaches and you know how iffy that can be). Perhaps when we get to heaven we should have an intervention for the Son of God.
Nevertheless, the leaders who wrote the NT books who made the necessary requirements for church leadership could not be leaders in the SBC and neither could those who they themselves chose for leadership positions. What does that say about our SBC leaders?
3) It is interesting that when the SBC leadership really really wants something that they will throw out their own hermeneutics for interpreting Scripture. Yes, the same hermeneutics which many liberals use to legitimate women as pastors, homosexual activity, various forms of sexual immorality, and religious inclusivity is now being adopted by out SBC leadership for the purposes of advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption despite the teachings of Scripture. How odd is this? The one group of people who championed inerrancy and sufficiency, warned our convention about the drifting towards liberalism, and fought so hard to expel all those who adopted a relativistic view of Scripture and its teachings, yes, they are now the ones who are advocating this particular form of interpreting Scripture for this specific purpose.
At least the liberals have an excuse: they always interpret Scripture this way. What excuse does the SBC leadership have for using such a liberal and postmodern view of Scripture just for this one issue? Or is it just this one view?
Oh, my friends! The convention, its agencies and its seminaries are drifting dangerously left! The current leadership is pushing the SBC further and further towards postmodernism and liberalism. God have mercy!
Is it not dangerous when our leaders dismiss the Scriptures and their own much touted conservative hermeneutic only when they really really want something? That is more dangerous than to have a liberal hermeneutic at the outset.
4) Apparently Jesus Christ is no longer the full revelation of God and Who He is. Apparently, we can no longer look to Jesus as our example and teacher for how we should live or what we believe. Yes, Jesus did drink alcohol but he was very much a man of his time and could not forsee how his actions and teachings would effect later generations of believers. Better just not read the Bible anymore; its far too dangerous. Better to just allow your esteemed SBC leadership tell you who God is and what He expects of you.
5) Apparently, many if not most our current SBC agency trustees are a bunch of drunks. Apparently, they were out late at night boozing around and getting quite inebriated. Thus our esteemed SBC leadership believed that it was time to put their foot down and stop all of this drunkenness on the part of our SBC agency trustees. They must be drunks; look at some of their recent decisions.
6) A recent person noted:
“John the Baptist, touted by Jesus as “the greatest born among men,” was a total abstainer. He was evidently patterning his lifestyle after that of the Nazarite Law, and thereby expressing God’s prescription for what is the best for a godly man. In fact, the angelic announcement to Zacharias prohibited John the Baptist from using any wine (Luke 1:15). Here also is noted the first specific contrast between the fullness of the Spirit and the use of wine. This contrast occurs again at Pentecost in Acts 2, and again in Ephesians 5:18.”
Yes, we need to be full of the Spirit and not full of alcohol.
Remember: when the disciples at Pentecost began to speak in tongues, the people thought they were drunk. Now that we have removed alcohol no one will think we are drunk when we speak in tongues. … Of course, we have also gotten rid of speaking in tongues. So now no one will ever think we are ever drunk or filled with the Holy Spirit. Of course, no one will ever think the latter anyway, but this makes sure.
You can see the problem can you not? When the charismatics in the convention would get filled with the Spirit but, when caught, would claim they were drunk. When the drinkers in the convention would get filled with spirits but, when caught, would claim they were charismatic.
So this year we at the SBC have removed both tongue-speaking and tongue-drinking so no one will ever be able to give a reason why they are filled with the joy of the Lord. And in the SBC, that is how it should be.
7) A friend noted: "This dereliction of Scriptural teaching is all for your benefit, PC." "How do you mean?" "Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder."
Monday, July 10, 2006
Friday, July 07, 2006
The Nazarite Vow
-- The Nazarite (one who was especially separated unto God) was prohibited from the use of wine altogether (see Numbers 6:3; Judges 13:4-7, 13-14).
Also Nazarites are prohibited from using vinegar or any grape product (including grapes, theirs seeds or skins, grape juice). Furthermore, no hair-cutting and no touching of a corpse.
Also,
JESUS THE SON OF GOD DRANK ALCOHOL!!!!!
Also Nazarites are prohibited from using vinegar or any grape product (including grapes, theirs seeds or skins, grape juice). Furthermore, no hair-cutting and no touching of a corpse.
Also,
JESUS THE SON OF GOD DRANK ALCOHOL!!!!!
Gun Control vs. Alcohol Abstinence
There are many in the SBC who are quite adamant about abstaining from alcohol consumption and making sure that everyone else is forced to abandon this God-given gift and right despite what Jesus and the rest of the Scriptures so teach.
I began to think of all those Southern Baptists that I know who are all gung-ho about enforcing complete alcohol abstinence upon every living Christian leader, etc. What many of these particular Southern Baptists have a common interest: they all really like GUNS.
So I began to think about this: what are the arguments for Southern Baptist leaders, trustees, seminary presidents and professors, pastors and seminary students abstaining from the use and ownership of guns.
1) While the Bible mention that it is okay to use alcohol, the Bible does not say that it is okay to use guns.
2) While the Bible teaches that alcohol consumption should be done in moderation, the Bible and Jesus in particular are very clear that non-violence should be life of a Christian (Matt 5:38-39).
3) Of course, if alcohol is properly used then a person enjoys this natural gift from God. If a man-made gun is properly used the something either gets hurt or dies.
4) Jesus drank alcohol, but would Jesus carry a gun? Prince of Peace, anyone? (Isaiah 9:6)
5) In fact, the whole gospel message is antithetical to using guns. But that, of course, is just what the Bible says and, as we now know since the recent SBC in Greensboro, is a relative and cultural document which has very little to say about how we should behave today.
6) In a society torn apart by violence both in reality and in Hollywood films, shouldn’t Southern Baptists make a good example by abstaining from the use and ownership of guns?
7) Of course, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a gun (and for many Southern Baptists, that is a better source than the Bible if my recent experience at the Greensboro SBC is any indication). But, of course, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a drink, so what are Southern Baptists to think?
8) Then there are the facts:
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity.
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females.
In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children. Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occurred in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms. It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in this country and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters.
9) Certainly guns are far more dangerous that alcohol. Those millions of people who died in WWI, WWII, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Desert Storm, the Cold War, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and in Rwanda did not die of one too many gin and tonics.
10) Certainly no tragic industry was supported by the selling and buying of swords. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify gun-ownership if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an industry responsible for two-thirds of the violent deaths, most crimes, and untold millions of dollars in damage to private property. Such would violate all laws in the Bible, and especially the Corinthian principle on the effect of your choices and actions on you: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23).
God has called us to be set apart, to be bringers of peace. How can we claim to be followers of the Prince of Peace in a world of gun violence when we will not even lay down our own weapons?
I submit that we Southern Baptists (who are Scripturally obliged to consume alcoholic beverages) should seek to abstain from using or even possessing guns (which we are not Scripturally obliged to use or own).
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of using or owning guns as opposed to not using or owning guns at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do.
Remember:
“A violent man enticeth his neighbour, and leadeth him into the way that is not good.” (Pro 16:29)
"You send rain on the mountains from your heavenly home, and you fill the earth with the fruit of your labor. You cause grass to grow for the cattle. You cause plants to grow for people to use. You allow them to produce food from the earth; wine to make them glad, olive oil as lotion for their skin, and bread to give them strength." (Ps 104:13-15)
I began to think of all those Southern Baptists that I know who are all gung-ho about enforcing complete alcohol abstinence upon every living Christian leader, etc. What many of these particular Southern Baptists have a common interest: they all really like GUNS.
So I began to think about this: what are the arguments for Southern Baptist leaders, trustees, seminary presidents and professors, pastors and seminary students abstaining from the use and ownership of guns.
1) While the Bible mention that it is okay to use alcohol, the Bible does not say that it is okay to use guns.
2) While the Bible teaches that alcohol consumption should be done in moderation, the Bible and Jesus in particular are very clear that non-violence should be life of a Christian (Matt 5:38-39).
3) Of course, if alcohol is properly used then a person enjoys this natural gift from God. If a man-made gun is properly used the something either gets hurt or dies.
4) Jesus drank alcohol, but would Jesus carry a gun? Prince of Peace, anyone? (Isaiah 9:6)
5) In fact, the whole gospel message is antithetical to using guns. But that, of course, is just what the Bible says and, as we now know since the recent SBC in Greensboro, is a relative and cultural document which has very little to say about how we should behave today.
6) In a society torn apart by violence both in reality and in Hollywood films, shouldn’t Southern Baptists make a good example by abstaining from the use and ownership of guns?
7) Of course, the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a gun (and for many Southern Baptists, that is a better source than the Bible if my recent experience at the Greensboro SBC is any indication). But, of course, the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to have a drink, so what are Southern Baptists to think?
8) Then there are the facts:
In the U.S. for 2001, there were 29,573 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 16,869; Homicide 11,348; Accident 802; Legal Intervention 323; Undetermined 231. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S.
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity.
The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.3 deaths per 100,000 population in 2001. The highest rate was 34.5/100,000 for African-American males, more than double the rate of 16.3/100,000 for white males and well above the rate of 2.7/100,000 for white females.
In one survey, 10% of families admitted to having unlocked and loaded firearms within easy reach of children. Another study showed that two-thirds of accidental firearms injuries occurred in the home, and one-third involved children under 15. 45% were self-inflicted, and 16% occurred when children were playing with guns. A study from 1991-2000 showed that twice as many people died from unintentional firearm injuries in states in the U.S. where firearm owners were more likely to store their firearms loaded.
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders may well be misrepresented. Of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms. It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.
Hunting accidents with firearms, despite the large gun ownership in this country and numerous game seasons in most states, remain relatively rare and do not appear to be increasing. A study in Sweden indicated a rate of 0.074/100,000 and that, when hunting big game, most accidents resulted from a mistaken target. When hunting small game, accidents occurred most frequently as a result of mishandling the gun. Hunting accidents did not increase with increasing gun ownership or numbers of hunters.
9) Certainly guns are far more dangerous that alcohol. Those millions of people who died in WWI, WWII, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, Desert Storm, the Cold War, the Killing Fields of Cambodia and in Rwanda did not die of one too many gin and tonics.
10) Certainly no tragic industry was supported by the selling and buying of swords. This latter point is crucial for the believer. A believer in no way can justify gun-ownership if thereby he is contributing to the sustenance of an industry responsible for two-thirds of the violent deaths, most crimes, and untold millions of dollars in damage to private property. Such would violate all laws in the Bible, and especially the Corinthian principle on the effect of your choices and actions on you: “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful: all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify” (1 Corinthians 10:23).
God has called us to be set apart, to be bringers of peace. How can we claim to be followers of the Prince of Peace in a world of gun violence when we will not even lay down our own weapons?
I submit that we Southern Baptists (who are Scripturally obliged to consume alcoholic beverages) should seek to abstain from using or even possessing guns (which we are not Scripturally obliged to use or own).
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of using or owning guns as opposed to not using or owning guns at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do.
Remember:
“A violent man enticeth his neighbour, and leadeth him into the way that is not good.” (Pro 16:29)
"You send rain on the mountains from your heavenly home, and you fill the earth with the fruit of your labor. You cause grass to grow for the cattle. You cause plants to grow for people to use. You allow them to produce food from the earth; wine to make them glad, olive oil as lotion for their skin, and bread to give them strength." (Ps 104:13-15)
Oinos: Yes, It Actually Means "Wine"
There are some in the evangelical world who are under the self-imposed delusion that the “wine” that was drunk in the NT by Jesus and the rest of the early Church was not really wine but either “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”. This complete false notion helps them (they believe) to harmonize the New Testament teachings on alcohol consumption with their own personal preferences.
This is a totally incorrect and completely false idea without ANY shred of evidence. Conservative evangelical scholarship is in complete agreement that the wine that was drunk by the Son of God and the early NT Church is the same as that which is made today.
While no serious NT scholar takes the “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water” claim seriously, the recent burst of “tee-total or ta-ta” expressionism in the SBC has lead many believers to swarm the conservative scholarly world in order to find some one, somewhere, and sometime who can justify their own personal preferences on how believers should behave against the revealed truth in Scripture.
In fact, much of the recent articles I have read about this issue from popular pastors makes one wonder the state of SBC leadership and its Scriptural cognizance. How can such men and women with such doctorates make such ludicrous and glaring mistakes? Now, I have met pastors with doctorates who have told me the most ludicrous explanation of why they believe there was no alcohol in the “wine” that Jesus drank, but these doctoral pastors were not writing for the general public and making a case on the pages of the BP. What excuse does a doctorate have when such a mistake is made? He or she is either ignorant or disingenuous.
So let me say this for all to read and research concerning the Greek word oinos.
1) Oinos does not mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”. It just doesn’t. Look it up in any Greek-English dictionary. It means “wine” just like the English word “wine” means oinos.
2) There is a Greek word that means “unfermented grape juice”, and that word is trux. That word does not used anywhere in the NT, nowhere. If the NT writers had meant “unfermented grape juice” they would have used trux but they did not. When we in English mean “wine”, we say “wine”. When those in the NT meant “wine”, they used oinos. When we in English mean “grape juice”, we say “grape juice”. When those in the NT meant “grape juice”, they usedtrux. There is absolutely zero evidence anywhere in reality that oinos means “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
3) The Hebrew word for “wine”, yayin, certainly doesn’t mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
4) Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “grape juice”, why would NT writers warn people not to drink too much of it? If it was only “grape juice” then there would be no fear of getting drunk. The command would be pointless. It would be like them saying do not drink to much water because you might get drunk.
5) The same is true with “wine mixed with water”. Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “wine mixed with water”, then it would still be something could be abused to drunkenness. If one could not abuse the “wine mixed with water” and could not get drunk then the NT warning would be pointless.
6) But let us assume for the moment that the God-Man and NT Church did drink “wine mixed with water”. What then is the NT teaching on alcohol? “You can drink alcohol but only if you put a lot of water in it and not drink too much so you get drunk.” Even then, one ends up back at the plain, literal, inerrant, sufficient teachings of Scripture on alcohol: “Drink alcohol but do so in moderation and do not get drunk,” which is the point that those of us who actually disagree with alcohol abstinence have been arguing all along.
No matter how one looks at this issue (if you actually believe the Scriptural teachings), the Scriptures say that a believer most certainly can drink alcohol.
So will you people who call yourselves conservative evangelical Christians please actually read the Bible and abide by its teachings instead of preferring your own version of what God wants.
This is a totally incorrect and completely false idea without ANY shred of evidence. Conservative evangelical scholarship is in complete agreement that the wine that was drunk by the Son of God and the early NT Church is the same as that which is made today.
While no serious NT scholar takes the “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water” claim seriously, the recent burst of “tee-total or ta-ta” expressionism in the SBC has lead many believers to swarm the conservative scholarly world in order to find some one, somewhere, and sometime who can justify their own personal preferences on how believers should behave against the revealed truth in Scripture.
In fact, much of the recent articles I have read about this issue from popular pastors makes one wonder the state of SBC leadership and its Scriptural cognizance. How can such men and women with such doctorates make such ludicrous and glaring mistakes? Now, I have met pastors with doctorates who have told me the most ludicrous explanation of why they believe there was no alcohol in the “wine” that Jesus drank, but these doctoral pastors were not writing for the general public and making a case on the pages of the BP. What excuse does a doctorate have when such a mistake is made? He or she is either ignorant or disingenuous.
So let me say this for all to read and research concerning the Greek word oinos.
1) Oinos does not mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”. It just doesn’t. Look it up in any Greek-English dictionary. It means “wine” just like the English word “wine” means oinos.
2) There is a Greek word that means “unfermented grape juice”, and that word is trux. That word does not used anywhere in the NT, nowhere. If the NT writers had meant “unfermented grape juice” they would have used trux but they did not. When we in English mean “wine”, we say “wine”. When those in the NT meant “wine”, they used oinos. When we in English mean “grape juice”, we say “grape juice”. When those in the NT meant “grape juice”, they usedtrux. There is absolutely zero evidence anywhere in reality that oinos means “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
3) The Hebrew word for “wine”, yayin, certainly doesn’t mean “grape juice” or “wine mixed with water”.
4) Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “grape juice”, why would NT writers warn people not to drink too much of it? If it was only “grape juice” then there would be no fear of getting drunk. The command would be pointless. It would be like them saying do not drink to much water because you might get drunk.
5) The same is true with “wine mixed with water”. Even if in some parallel universe there is a reality where oinos means “wine mixed with water”, then it would still be something could be abused to drunkenness. If one could not abuse the “wine mixed with water” and could not get drunk then the NT warning would be pointless.
6) But let us assume for the moment that the God-Man and NT Church did drink “wine mixed with water”. What then is the NT teaching on alcohol? “You can drink alcohol but only if you put a lot of water in it and not drink too much so you get drunk.” Even then, one ends up back at the plain, literal, inerrant, sufficient teachings of Scripture on alcohol: “Drink alcohol but do so in moderation and do not get drunk,” which is the point that those of us who actually disagree with alcohol abstinence have been arguing all along.
No matter how one looks at this issue (if you actually believe the Scriptural teachings), the Scriptures say that a believer most certainly can drink alcohol.
So will you people who call yourselves conservative evangelical Christians please actually read the Bible and abide by its teachings instead of preferring your own version of what God wants.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
KEEP YOUR HANDS TO YOURSELF (PART ONE): The Case For Hand-Raising Abstinence
Jun 30, 2006
By Art Ritus
Baptist Pravda
I readily confess to a personal bias when it comes to the issue of “hand-raising”.
My auntie Costal and her husband Pente have a son who was raising hands in public and was assaulted by people who thought he was a double-neo-Nazi.
-- There are more than 4 million hand-raisers in America. Many of them in public schools.
-- Hand-raising is the number one practice among charismatics.
-- One in three American families suspects that one or more family members is a charismatic.
-- Misuse of hand-raising costs our convention $100 thousand a year in court costs.
Because of these experiences and many more, I often have said that even if I were not a Christian I would have nothing to do with hand-raising. There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to it. Avoiding this devastating practice is simply the wise thing to do.
This year at our convention we again passed a resolution calling for avoidance of hand-raising. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the annual meeting. Some have accused those supporting the resolution of being pharisaical and legalistic, traditionalist and anti-biblical, that we fail to understand Christian liberty and freedom, and that we even stand against Jesus.
These are strong accusations from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, are they correct? Are those like myself who believe hand-raising to be anti-Christian actually guilty of these charges?
Let me respond as graciously and kindly as I possibly can, explaining why I hold the position I do. I share my heart with no malice or ill will toward anyone, but from a desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and to protect others from the evils hand-raising has visited on so many.
We should remember from a Baptist perspective that there are historical precedents for denouncing hand-raising.
In 1996, Southern Baptists issued their first resolution on hand-raising. Since then, at least 2 additional corporate statements have addressed the risk of hand-raising and the wisdom of avoiding charismatic tendencies. For 10 years, Southern Baptists have made clear their stand on this issue.
Individual Baptists no doubt continue to hand-raise as some had before 1996, but the Southern Baptist Convention as a consensus whole has been crystal clear on where it stands for a long time. I am confident that our forefathers understood the issue of Christian liberty as they passed these resolutions. I am grateful for this tradition. I believe we should continue it. I was the one who first proposed the resolution.
There are moral reasons for denouncing hand-raising. John Poper teaches the wisdom of abstaining from hand-raising because it can be a spirit-altering ritual, and it can be addictive; it does not help one in doing the will of God and can genuinely be a hindrance. He points to “the carnage of charismatic abuse” to support his choice to boycott churches who allow such practices. He also reasons, “Is it really so prudish, or narrow to renounce a church-killer, a home destroyer, and a worship eradicator?”
Some questions are in order and deserve an answer. Does hand-raising make me a better person? Does hand-raising draw me closer to God? Does hand-raising help me run the race faithfully to the end (Heb. 12:1-2)?
Today, we Christians are constantly confronted by the abuses of the charismatic movement who claim to have found a “holier” practice in such things as “tongue speaking” and “hand-raising”. Yet, there is nothing in the Bible that says those who practice charismatic practices are any “holier” than the next believer.
The Bible is very clear that charismatic practices are contrary to Scripture (1 Cor 14:6), being intelligible and vain (1 Cor 14:9), barbarous (1 Cor 14:11), non-edifying (1 Cor 14:17), and is a serious damage to evangelism (1 Cor 14:22-23).
We need to be holy to others and the world and abstain from such practices.
I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Hadrian Wallgers who said, “Tolerance is not the cure for the hand-raising problem. Tolerance is the cause of the hand-raising problem. Becoming a hand-raiser does not begin with the last hand-raising, it always begins with the first. Just don’t do it.”
My friend Lame Merit wisely says, “It is impossible to be bitten by a snake that you never play with.”
Hand-raising cannot strike unless given the opportunity. That potential becomes real with the first hand one raises.
There are biblical reasons for not practicing hand-raising:
Those who advocate the unbridled use of hand-raising are fond of citing 1 Timothy 2:8.
“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;”
Yet, the Bible is clear in teaching that the hand-raising practice that was practiced in the New Testament is not the same hand-raising practiced by charismatics. Indeed, this reference in 1 Timothy refers not to literal hand-lifting but is figurative of not looking weak. We can see this by reading the book of Hebrews.
"Therefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.” (Hebrews 12:12-13)
In the Bible, the raising of hands does not signify the praise and worship but anguish, suffering and lament.
“For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.” (Jer 4:31)
People in the Bible only raised hands when they were suffering, usually because of persecution.
We, however, are not suffering such persecution and it is Biblically inappropriate to do so. In worship, we acknowledge the mercy and blessings bestowed upon us.
In the Song of Songs (which everyone knows is about the proper loving relationship between God and His people) the bridegroom exhibits the proper practice God expects in a loving relationship.
“I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.” (Sgs 5:5)
Indeed, the Biblical writers are quite clear on what is the appropriate practice of worshipping God.
“Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt.” (Isa 13:7)
Furthermore, hand-raising hinders the work of the church and the labour of man.
“And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:” (1 Cor 4:12)
“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Eph 4:28)
“And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;” (1 Thess 4:11)
How can man work when his arms are raised?
Regardless, Sunday is a time of rest when man focuses not upon his own work but the work of God.
Yet still many “believers” in our convention would rather focus on their own freedom in Christ even to the point of causing another weak brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:9). In worship services, hand-raising causes others to be concerned with the hand-raiser and not God.
“And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands.” (Isa 5:12)
We are to consider the work of the hands of God, not our own hands or the hands of others in the worship service. Yet many in the charismatic movement see fit to disregard God’s commandments in this area, preferring a man-centered worship devoid of God.
Indeed, God considers “hand-raising” a form of idolatry.
“Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:” (Isa 2:8)
“Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.” (Mic 5:13)
Furthermore, when worshippers raise their hands, God is no longer present among the worshippers.
“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear” (Isa 1:15)
But God promises to punish those who hand-raise.
“Render unto them a recompence, O LORD, according to the work of their hands.” (Lam 3:64)
“Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him.” (Lam 1:17)
It is sad that so many “believers” would rather endanger themselves, their families, their church, and their convention by practicing idolatry during worship time as God excuses Himself threatening to punish such blasphemy. Obviously, these individuals think their freedom in Christ is more important than their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let me conclude with some practical considerations:
--Can we raise hands in worship? No. But even if we could raise hands in worship, should we? Again, no. What these hand-raisers will not admit is that regardless of whether or not Scripture says that we can raise hands, we still shouldn’t.
-- Should those who practice hand-raising look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no. Biblically we can but practically we should not. That is pride and therefore is sin. It is true that hand-raising has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful non-hand-raiser without Jesus is just as lost as the poor hand-raiser who is always in search of another charismatic service. Those who believe in not hand-raising should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient. Where else will hand-raisers get any sympathy?
-- As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstaining from hand-raising for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely!
The principle of Proverbs 17:18 is appropriately applied here, “A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” Hand-raising is evidence of a lack of wisdom and understanding in a person and such a person is not fit for leadership.
-- I agree with Park MacArthur. Can I say it is always a sin to hand-raise? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness.
One of America’s leading pastors is Laurel Stanley. He wrote a book titled, The Best Seller Ever. The question is this, “What is the wise thing for me to do?”
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of hand-raising, as opposed to not hand-raising at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do. Scouts honor!
We need to pursue proper doctrine which edifies. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” (Heb 6:2; see also Acts 28:8; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6)
We are called to doctrines of “laying on of hands” and not to any supposed doctrine of “lifting hands”. How can we lay hands on another when they are lifted up in the air? The laying on of hands is symbolic of the Christian love and concern for healings and blessings. What will the world think of us if they walk into our worship services and see Christians with hands lifted up? They’ll think: “They have their hands in the air like they just don’t care.”
By Art Ritus
Baptist Pravda
I readily confess to a personal bias when it comes to the issue of “hand-raising”.
My auntie Costal and her husband Pente have a son who was raising hands in public and was assaulted by people who thought he was a double-neo-Nazi.
-- There are more than 4 million hand-raisers in America. Many of them in public schools.
-- Hand-raising is the number one practice among charismatics.
-- One in three American families suspects that one or more family members is a charismatic.
-- Misuse of hand-raising costs our convention $100 thousand a year in court costs.
Because of these experiences and many more, I often have said that even if I were not a Christian I would have nothing to do with hand-raising. There is simply too much sorrow and heartache connected to it. Avoiding this devastating practice is simply the wise thing to do.
This year at our convention we again passed a resolution calling for avoidance of hand-raising. The resolution passed overwhelmingly, but it did generate significant debate both during and after the annual meeting. Some have accused those supporting the resolution of being pharisaical and legalistic, traditionalist and anti-biblical, that we fail to understand Christian liberty and freedom, and that we even stand against Jesus.
These are strong accusations from fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, are they correct? Are those like myself who believe hand-raising to be anti-Christian actually guilty of these charges?
Let me respond as graciously and kindly as I possibly can, explaining why I hold the position I do. I share my heart with no malice or ill will toward anyone, but from a desire to honor the Lord Jesus, and to protect others from the evils hand-raising has visited on so many.
We should remember from a Baptist perspective that there are historical precedents for denouncing hand-raising.
In 1996, Southern Baptists issued their first resolution on hand-raising. Since then, at least 2 additional corporate statements have addressed the risk of hand-raising and the wisdom of avoiding charismatic tendencies. For 10 years, Southern Baptists have made clear their stand on this issue.
Individual Baptists no doubt continue to hand-raise as some had before 1996, but the Southern Baptist Convention as a consensus whole has been crystal clear on where it stands for a long time. I am confident that our forefathers understood the issue of Christian liberty as they passed these resolutions. I am grateful for this tradition. I believe we should continue it. I was the one who first proposed the resolution.
There are moral reasons for denouncing hand-raising. John Poper teaches the wisdom of abstaining from hand-raising because it can be a spirit-altering ritual, and it can be addictive; it does not help one in doing the will of God and can genuinely be a hindrance. He points to “the carnage of charismatic abuse” to support his choice to boycott churches who allow such practices. He also reasons, “Is it really so prudish, or narrow to renounce a church-killer, a home destroyer, and a worship eradicator?”
Some questions are in order and deserve an answer. Does hand-raising make me a better person? Does hand-raising draw me closer to God? Does hand-raising help me run the race faithfully to the end (Heb. 12:1-2)?
Today, we Christians are constantly confronted by the abuses of the charismatic movement who claim to have found a “holier” practice in such things as “tongue speaking” and “hand-raising”. Yet, there is nothing in the Bible that says those who practice charismatic practices are any “holier” than the next believer.
The Bible is very clear that charismatic practices are contrary to Scripture (1 Cor 14:6), being intelligible and vain (1 Cor 14:9), barbarous (1 Cor 14:11), non-edifying (1 Cor 14:17), and is a serious damage to evangelism (1 Cor 14:22-23).
We need to be holy to others and the world and abstain from such practices.
I am in total agreement with my spiritual hero Hadrian Wallgers who said, “Tolerance is not the cure for the hand-raising problem. Tolerance is the cause of the hand-raising problem. Becoming a hand-raiser does not begin with the last hand-raising, it always begins with the first. Just don’t do it.”
My friend Lame Merit wisely says, “It is impossible to be bitten by a snake that you never play with.”
Hand-raising cannot strike unless given the opportunity. That potential becomes real with the first hand one raises.
There are biblical reasons for not practicing hand-raising:
Those who advocate the unbridled use of hand-raising are fond of citing 1 Timothy 2:8.
“I desire therefore that the men pray everywhere, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting;”
Yet, the Bible is clear in teaching that the hand-raising practice that was practiced in the New Testament is not the same hand-raising practiced by charismatics. Indeed, this reference in 1 Timothy refers not to literal hand-lifting but is figurative of not looking weak. We can see this by reading the book of Hebrews.
"Therefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees; And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.” (Hebrews 12:12-13)
In the Bible, the raising of hands does not signify the praise and worship but anguish, suffering and lament.
“For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.” (Jer 4:31)
People in the Bible only raised hands when they were suffering, usually because of persecution.
We, however, are not suffering such persecution and it is Biblically inappropriate to do so. In worship, we acknowledge the mercy and blessings bestowed upon us.
In the Song of Songs (which everyone knows is about the proper loving relationship between God and His people) the bridegroom exhibits the proper practice God expects in a loving relationship.
“I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.” (Sgs 5:5)
Indeed, the Biblical writers are quite clear on what is the appropriate practice of worshipping God.
“Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt.” (Isa 13:7)
Furthermore, hand-raising hinders the work of the church and the labour of man.
“And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:” (1 Cor 4:12)
“Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Eph 4:28)
“And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;” (1 Thess 4:11)
How can man work when his arms are raised?
Regardless, Sunday is a time of rest when man focuses not upon his own work but the work of God.
Yet still many “believers” in our convention would rather focus on their own freedom in Christ even to the point of causing another weak brother to stumble (1 Cor 8:9). In worship services, hand-raising causes others to be concerned with the hand-raiser and not God.
“And the harp, and the viol, the tabret, and pipe, and wine, are in their feasts: but they regard not the work of the LORD, neither consider the operation of his hands.” (Isa 5:12)
We are to consider the work of the hands of God, not our own hands or the hands of others in the worship service. Yet many in the charismatic movement see fit to disregard God’s commandments in this area, preferring a man-centered worship devoid of God.
Indeed, God considers “hand-raising” a form of idolatry.
“Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:” (Isa 2:8)
“Thy graven images also will I cut off, and thy standing images out of the midst of thee; and thou shalt no more worship the work of thine hands.” (Mic 5:13)
Furthermore, when worshippers raise their hands, God is no longer present among the worshippers.
“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear” (Isa 1:15)
But God promises to punish those who hand-raise.
“Render unto them a recompence, O LORD, according to the work of their hands.” (Lam 3:64)
“Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him.” (Lam 1:17)
It is sad that so many “believers” would rather endanger themselves, their families, their church, and their convention by practicing idolatry during worship time as God excuses Himself threatening to punish such blasphemy. Obviously, these individuals think their freedom in Christ is more important than their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.
Let me conclude with some practical considerations:
--Can we raise hands in worship? No. But even if we could raise hands in worship, should we? Again, no. What these hand-raisers will not admit is that regardless of whether or not Scripture says that we can raise hands, we still shouldn’t.
-- Should those who practice hand-raising look down on those who do not? The answer is an unqualified no. Biblically we can but practically we should not. That is pride and therefore is sin. It is true that hand-raising has contributed to many going to hell, but pride, no doubt, has done so in even greater numbers. A smug, prideful non-hand-raiser without Jesus is just as lost as the poor hand-raiser who is always in search of another charismatic service. Those who believe in not hand-raising should be gracious and humble, kind and caring, loving and patient. Where else will hand-raisers get any sympathy?
-- As a pastor or church leader, would I demand abstaining from hand-raising for church membership? No, I would not. Would I demand it for leadership? Absolutely!
The principle of Proverbs 17:18 is appropriately applied here, “A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend.” Hand-raising is evidence of a lack of wisdom and understanding in a person and such a person is not fit for leadership.
-- I agree with Park MacArthur. Can I say it is always a sin to hand-raise? No. Can I say it is almost always ill-advised? Yes, because it violates the biblical principles of wisdom and witness.
One of America’s leading pastors is Laurel Stanley. He wrote a book titled, The Best Seller Ever. The question is this, “What is the wise thing for me to do?”
I challenge anyone to show me the superior wisdom of hand-raising, as opposed to not hand-raising at all. This is not legalism but love. This is not being anti-biblical but pro-brother and sister. This is not working for evil but for good. Given the world in which we live, I believe such a lifestyle honors the Lord Jesus. I believe it pleases Him. Without question, it is the wise thing to do. Scouts honor!
We need to pursue proper doctrine which edifies. As the apostle Paul wrote, “Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.” (Heb 6:2; see also Acts 28:8; 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim 1:6)
We are called to doctrines of “laying on of hands” and not to any supposed doctrine of “lifting hands”. How can we lay hands on another when they are lifted up in the air? The laying on of hands is symbolic of the Christian love and concern for healings and blessings. What will the world think of us if they walk into our worship services and see Christians with hands lifted up? They’ll think: “They have their hands in the air like they just don’t care.”
A Quick Thought
Apparently, Jesus never carried a Bible with him where he went. The Gospels never record Him having scrolls of the Old Testament, either in Hebrew or Greek. Why is that? Apparently, if He did have a set of Scriptures to carry with Him, the Gospel writers did not think it was very important to record it.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Hubris In The Pulpits: 14 Problems With Advocating Complete Abstinence Of Alcohol Consumption
It is quite obvious that those who are advocating complete abstinence on the consumption of alcohol have absolutely no foundation for their belief in this matter and very well know it. It is becoming quite obvious that they do not care whether Scripture teaches their position or not. Thus, I am seriously considering abandoning my exposition of this issue. Why? The continuous bombardment of Scriptural teachings contrary to their position is causing many to have their hearts hardened. In order to persist with their beliefs in this matter they are forced to adopt a liberal position on the nature of the Scriptures. Those who are advocating complete abstinence on the drinking of alcohol standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and that is an unpleasant position to be in, especially for conservative Christians. One wonders to what extremes these people will go to in order to persist in this un-Scriptural position.
Some people on either side of this issue may be wondering why this issue is such a bog deal at all. Now I myself am far more concerned about the “tongues” doctrine because it is far more important than the “alcohol” doctrine. True, both doctrinal issues concern the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture and both concern the a group of believers enforcing their preference upon other believers to abstain from a practice encouraged in Scripture; but the “tongues” doctrine involves the primary issue of a believers God-given right to worship his or her Creator while the “alcohol” doctrine merely involves the rejection of the liberty of the Christian to practice his or her Faith. Both are important but the “alcohol” doctrine is mere legalism when compared to the heinous and blasphemous manner by which believers in the IMB have set themselves up as the medium by which man communes with God.
But this difference does not mean that the rejection of the “alcohol” doctrine by the SBC is a minor matter in of itself; it is very important. Unfortunately, most believers are virtually ignorant of much that is generally important about the Faith. This general ignorance appears to escalate once a person gets a seminary education and climbs into positions of leadership within an ecclesiastical body. What becomes important is positional polity and public appearance, even to the detriment of one’s faith. In the common polity of the Church, the general consensus of the majority is based upon the most common denominator which is often mere surface cognizance and the results of “the tyranny of first beliefs”. Thus, individual believers do not give serious consideration to either the bases or consequences of their ignorant and obstinate false beliefs. And, unfortunately, the leaders of these ignorant believers instead of preaching the Word to their flock and correcting such “heresy” prefer either to overlook such “heterodoxy” in order to avoid criticism or to add stoke the fires of such “heterodoxy” in order to attain praise. Regardless, these “pastors” are deficient in their calling and ignorant of the serious hubris they are inflicting upon their flock’s faith.
What is the hubris to which I am referring?
Advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption is ...
1) Contrary to Scriptural teachings. This is a point that no one has seriously denied with any credibility. In fact, the arguments being made for such abstinence are conspicuously lacking in Scriptural teachings. This should not be surprising because any argument based upon Scriptural teachings runs the risk of being overwhelmed by Scripture itself. Thus, in order to avoid such a risk, Scripture is avoided.
2) Contrary to the principle of Christ as our example. This is no small point. Prior Southern Baptist confessions of faith held that Jesus was the criterion on which Scripture should be interpreted. This meant that the believer can separate commands of the OT which conflict with commands of the NT by the example of Jesus. Thus the command to honor the Sabbath is based upon Christ’s example and His interpretation of the command and not our own. Thus the dietary commands of Leviticus are negated by Christ’s proclamations of making all animals “clean”. However, the 2000 BFM removed this hermeneutic point.
If we actually believe that Jesus Christ is the fullest presentation of God in His example of word and action, then we must agree that what Jesus did in His earthly life as recorded in Scripture is an example by which we ourselves can live. Thus, Jesus drank alcohol, Jesus created alcohol, Jesus offered alcohol to others, and Jesus drank alcohol with others. Of course, the Pharisees criticized Jesus for doing these things. By requiring believers to abstain from alcohol, one is denying that Christ is our perfect example and the Word of God and siding with the Pharisees in this matter.
3) Adding to the Scriptures. The Bible is very clear about the dangers of adding to the teachings of Scripture. Furthermore, both Jesus and Paul spend a lot of time teaching against holding up the traditions of men on the level of the teachings of God. Read Luke-Acts and Galatians, in particular; the Judaizers that Luke and Paul are denouncing were attempting to force their cultural prerogatives upon Gentile believers. The Judaizers were so determined that every believer should honor Jewish cultural distinctives that were continually breaking fellowship with those who didn’t conform. Sound familiar?
4) A denial of “our freedom in Christ”. The believer has freedom to drink and eat despite the cultural conditions of man. This is a teaching taught by Jesus, Paul, Luke, Peter and James. Despite the blithering ignorance and demagoguery of many in the SBC, no one is abusing “our freedom in Christ” by following Christian teachings. One can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in a manner contrary to Scripture or in a manner which the Scriptures are explicitly silent on, but no one can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in accordance with both Scripture and the example set by Christ. Those who make this accusation are Judaizing.
5) A misinterpretation and misapplication of the doctrine of avoiding “stumbling blocks to them that are weak”. While the Scriptures are clear about avoiding stumbling blocks for weak brothers it does not give the “weak brother” carte blanche to enforce his personal preference upon other believers, particularly with regards to that which is advocated in Scriptural teachings. If a weak brother could stumble by consuming alcohol in his presence, then do not consume alcohol in his presence (1 Cor 8:7-13). However, this doctrine does not mean that one is to abstain from drinking alcohol even when a weak brother is absent. If that was the case, then both Jesus, the disciples, Paul and Timothy sinned when they advocated and consumed alcohol.
6) An abuse of the “holiness” doctrine. Some are arguing that to drink alcohol does not make one “holy”. Neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy. If this was even remotely true, then Jesus is not “holy”.
7) Against the cultural traditions of our national culture. Some have argued that consuming alcohol is contrary to our culture. First, Scripture is above culture. Second, abstaining from alcohol is a recent addition to Christian culture which began in the early 1800s. Even then, it began as a movement to moderate drinking (which is Scriptural) and not eliminate it. Only later did Baptists (in the South) move beyond and contrary to the teachings of Scripture and advocate total abstinence. Third, it is largely the very recent traditions of fundamentalists and Baptists in the Southern part of the United States which insists upon total abstinence. The rest of Christendom only insists upon moderation and non-intoxication which, again, is Scriptural. To claim that total abstinence is the cultural tradition of our culture is not true.
8) Presenting to the world a false view of our Faith. To insist upon total abstinence is to present to the non-Christian world a false picture of the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith and the Scriptures on which it is based does not advocate total abstinence on drinking alcohol. To do so adds to the gospel message. To do so adds practices contrary to discipleship. To do so publicly dismisses and negates true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. To do so cheapens our claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.
9) Dismissing and negating true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. By advocating additional commands to the Scriptural teachings, its true teachings of moderation, non-intoxication and avoiding the stumbling of a weak brother becomes irrelevant matters of no importance.
10) Denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the Scriptures are incorrect when teaching upon this issue. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
11) Denying the sufficiency of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the teachings of Scripture is not sufficient in matters of the Faith and that extra-Biblical teachings are required to make the man of God may be perfect. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
12) Hypocritical. Many who advocate total abstinence argue that we need to present a “holy” outward appearance. This is a hypocritical stance denounced in Scripture because neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy and then present oneself as meeting that standard. This is hypocrisy.
13) Avoids the actual problem those who advocate total abstinence seek to address. All of the problems that those advocate who total abstinence seek to address (alcohol dependency, physical and sexual abuse, destroyed families, etc.) are not caused by using alcohol but by abusing alcohol. The social and spiritual problems that need to be addressed by the Church need to be addressed in the manner taught by Scripture and not by a manner of man’s own devising. It is the height of man’s arrogance to think that we can address the problems of man better than God. In His Scriptures, God has dealt with the abuse of alcohol and given His command on how its abuse should addressed by the Church. Do we believe that we know more than God? Do we believe that God has not sufficiently addressed this problem? To apply the teachings of man over and against the teachings of God is to doom both individuals and a culture to their sin while we avoid the actual problem.
14) Selfish. Those who advocate total abstinence are being selfish. How so?
a. They are elevating their own personal preference to the level of Scripture and, thus, claiming it to be the Word of God.
b. They are forcing the minority of believers to conform to their un-Scriptural prerogatives in order to maintain both fellowship and service in the Church.
In essence and to sum all of this up, this is hubris on the grandest scale possible by a sincere believer. Those who advocate total abstinence are rejecting Scripture and elevating their own cultural preferences as the Word of God. In reality, they are standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and teaching a gospel contrary to that which was proclaimed by Christ (Gal 1:6-13).
Some people on either side of this issue may be wondering why this issue is such a bog deal at all. Now I myself am far more concerned about the “tongues” doctrine because it is far more important than the “alcohol” doctrine. True, both doctrinal issues concern the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture and both concern the a group of believers enforcing their preference upon other believers to abstain from a practice encouraged in Scripture; but the “tongues” doctrine involves the primary issue of a believers God-given right to worship his or her Creator while the “alcohol” doctrine merely involves the rejection of the liberty of the Christian to practice his or her Faith. Both are important but the “alcohol” doctrine is mere legalism when compared to the heinous and blasphemous manner by which believers in the IMB have set themselves up as the medium by which man communes with God.
But this difference does not mean that the rejection of the “alcohol” doctrine by the SBC is a minor matter in of itself; it is very important. Unfortunately, most believers are virtually ignorant of much that is generally important about the Faith. This general ignorance appears to escalate once a person gets a seminary education and climbs into positions of leadership within an ecclesiastical body. What becomes important is positional polity and public appearance, even to the detriment of one’s faith. In the common polity of the Church, the general consensus of the majority is based upon the most common denominator which is often mere surface cognizance and the results of “the tyranny of first beliefs”. Thus, individual believers do not give serious consideration to either the bases or consequences of their ignorant and obstinate false beliefs. And, unfortunately, the leaders of these ignorant believers instead of preaching the Word to their flock and correcting such “heresy” prefer either to overlook such “heterodoxy” in order to avoid criticism or to add stoke the fires of such “heterodoxy” in order to attain praise. Regardless, these “pastors” are deficient in their calling and ignorant of the serious hubris they are inflicting upon their flock’s faith.
What is the hubris to which I am referring?
Advocating complete abstinence of alcohol consumption is ...
1) Contrary to Scriptural teachings. This is a point that no one has seriously denied with any credibility. In fact, the arguments being made for such abstinence are conspicuously lacking in Scriptural teachings. This should not be surprising because any argument based upon Scriptural teachings runs the risk of being overwhelmed by Scripture itself. Thus, in order to avoid such a risk, Scripture is avoided.
2) Contrary to the principle of Christ as our example. This is no small point. Prior Southern Baptist confessions of faith held that Jesus was the criterion on which Scripture should be interpreted. This meant that the believer can separate commands of the OT which conflict with commands of the NT by the example of Jesus. Thus the command to honor the Sabbath is based upon Christ’s example and His interpretation of the command and not our own. Thus the dietary commands of Leviticus are negated by Christ’s proclamations of making all animals “clean”. However, the 2000 BFM removed this hermeneutic point.
If we actually believe that Jesus Christ is the fullest presentation of God in His example of word and action, then we must agree that what Jesus did in His earthly life as recorded in Scripture is an example by which we ourselves can live. Thus, Jesus drank alcohol, Jesus created alcohol, Jesus offered alcohol to others, and Jesus drank alcohol with others. Of course, the Pharisees criticized Jesus for doing these things. By requiring believers to abstain from alcohol, one is denying that Christ is our perfect example and the Word of God and siding with the Pharisees in this matter.
3) Adding to the Scriptures. The Bible is very clear about the dangers of adding to the teachings of Scripture. Furthermore, both Jesus and Paul spend a lot of time teaching against holding up the traditions of men on the level of the teachings of God. Read Luke-Acts and Galatians, in particular; the Judaizers that Luke and Paul are denouncing were attempting to force their cultural prerogatives upon Gentile believers. The Judaizers were so determined that every believer should honor Jewish cultural distinctives that were continually breaking fellowship with those who didn’t conform. Sound familiar?
4) A denial of “our freedom in Christ”. The believer has freedom to drink and eat despite the cultural conditions of man. This is a teaching taught by Jesus, Paul, Luke, Peter and James. Despite the blithering ignorance and demagoguery of many in the SBC, no one is abusing “our freedom in Christ” by following Christian teachings. One can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in a manner contrary to Scripture or in a manner which the Scriptures are explicitly silent on, but no one can abuse “our freedom in Christ” by acting in accordance with both Scripture and the example set by Christ. Those who make this accusation are Judaizing.
5) A misinterpretation and misapplication of the doctrine of avoiding “stumbling blocks to them that are weak”. While the Scriptures are clear about avoiding stumbling blocks for weak brothers it does not give the “weak brother” carte blanche to enforce his personal preference upon other believers, particularly with regards to that which is advocated in Scriptural teachings. If a weak brother could stumble by consuming alcohol in his presence, then do not consume alcohol in his presence (1 Cor 8:7-13). However, this doctrine does not mean that one is to abstain from drinking alcohol even when a weak brother is absent. If that was the case, then both Jesus, the disciples, Paul and Timothy sinned when they advocated and consumed alcohol.
6) An abuse of the “holiness” doctrine. Some are arguing that to drink alcohol does not make one “holy”. Neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy. If this was even remotely true, then Jesus is not “holy”.
7) Against the cultural traditions of our national culture. Some have argued that consuming alcohol is contrary to our culture. First, Scripture is above culture. Second, abstaining from alcohol is a recent addition to Christian culture which began in the early 1800s. Even then, it began as a movement to moderate drinking (which is Scriptural) and not eliminate it. Only later did Baptists (in the South) move beyond and contrary to the teachings of Scripture and advocate total abstinence. Third, it is largely the very recent traditions of fundamentalists and Baptists in the Southern part of the United States which insists upon total abstinence. The rest of Christendom only insists upon moderation and non-intoxication which, again, is Scriptural. To claim that total abstinence is the cultural tradition of our culture is not true.
8) Presenting to the world a false view of our Faith. To insist upon total abstinence is to present to the non-Christian world a false picture of the Christian Faith. The Christian Faith and the Scriptures on which it is based does not advocate total abstinence on drinking alcohol. To do so adds to the gospel message. To do so adds practices contrary to discipleship. To do so publicly dismisses and negates true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. To do so cheapens our claim to follow the teachings of Christ and the Scriptures.
9) Dismissing and negating true Scriptural commands and prohibitions regarding the consumption of alcohol. By advocating additional commands to the Scriptural teachings, its true teachings of moderation, non-intoxication and avoiding the stumbling of a weak brother becomes irrelevant matters of no importance.
10) Denying the inerrancy of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the Scriptures are incorrect when teaching upon this issue. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
11) Denying the sufficiency of the Scriptures. To insist upon total abstinence is to make the practical claim that the teachings of Scripture is not sufficient in matters of the Faith and that extra-Biblical teachings are required to make the man of God may be perfect. Thus the authority of the Scripture is diminished and made irrelevant.
12) Hypocritical. Many who advocate total abstinence argue that we need to present a “holy” outward appearance. This is a hypocritical stance denounced in Scripture because neither drinking alcohol nor not drinking alcohol is considered “holy” in Scripture. To say that total abstinence makes one appear more holy is to set up a false standard of what it means to be holy and then present oneself as meeting that standard. This is hypocrisy.
13) Avoids the actual problem those who advocate total abstinence seek to address. All of the problems that those advocate who total abstinence seek to address (alcohol dependency, physical and sexual abuse, destroyed families, etc.) are not caused by using alcohol but by abusing alcohol. The social and spiritual problems that need to be addressed by the Church need to be addressed in the manner taught by Scripture and not by a manner of man’s own devising. It is the height of man’s arrogance to think that we can address the problems of man better than God. In His Scriptures, God has dealt with the abuse of alcohol and given His command on how its abuse should addressed by the Church. Do we believe that we know more than God? Do we believe that God has not sufficiently addressed this problem? To apply the teachings of man over and against the teachings of God is to doom both individuals and a culture to their sin while we avoid the actual problem.
14) Selfish. Those who advocate total abstinence are being selfish. How so?
a. They are elevating their own personal preference to the level of Scripture and, thus, claiming it to be the Word of God.
b. They are forcing the minority of believers to conform to their un-Scriptural prerogatives in order to maintain both fellowship and service in the Church.
In essence and to sum all of this up, this is hubris on the grandest scale possible by a sincere believer. Those who advocate total abstinence are rejecting Scripture and elevating their own cultural preferences as the Word of God. In reality, they are standing on the wrong side of the Word of God and teaching a gospel contrary to that which was proclaimed by Christ (Gal 1:6-13).
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Two Quick Thoughts on Moses and the Promise Land
Recently, a fellow believer and I were talking briefly about Moses and how he was never able to ever enter the Promise Land. My friend stated a common feeling of sadness that Moses did not enter. I gave two points in response:
1) During the Transfiguration and Ascension of Jesus (Mt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30, Acts 1:9), Moses was in the Promise Land.
2) To my friend who believed in the Mosaic authorship if the Pentateuch, I said, “The geographical and topographical detail which Moses exhibits in the Patriarchal narratives of Genesis without ever having been to Palestine shows that he did not need to have gone into Palestine to know every rock, ravine, river and tree, including the place names.”
1) During the Transfiguration and Ascension of Jesus (Mt 17:3; Mk 9:4; Lk 9:30, Acts 1:9), Moses was in the Promise Land.
2) To my friend who believed in the Mosaic authorship if the Pentateuch, I said, “The geographical and topographical detail which Moses exhibits in the Patriarchal narratives of Genesis without ever having been to Palestine shows that he did not need to have gone into Palestine to know every rock, ravine, river and tree, including the place names.”
The Character and Motives of Judas Iscariot
I would like to explore the character and motives of Judas, son of Simon, the Iscariot, one of the main Twelve disciples, the betrayer Jesus.
The Person of Judas
What do we know about Judas Iscariot?
We know he is Judas, the son of Simon (Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). He has the epithet, Iscariot, which probably refers to a Judaean suburb. See this note from Wikipedia:
“The first of the two main etymologies, which is the one accepted by the majority, and credited to Jerome, derives Iscariot from Hebrew איש־קריות, Κ–Qrîyôth, that is "man of Kerioth", the Judean town (or, more probably, collection of small towns) of Kerioth, not otherwise related to any person or event in the New Testament, nor mentioned in any document of the period, but referred to in the book of Jeremiah. In a similar vein, קריות may be simply the plural of קריה "small city," in which case we have something like "of the suburbs", i.e. it may be the case that Judas Iscariot is nothing more specific than the Jew from the suburbs. As Aramaic was the main language of the time, and all other New Testament characters have Aramaic surnames and nicknames, this Hebrew Judaean name could have marked out Judas as different from the Galilean disciples.”
He apparently was treasurer of Jesus’ ministry (Jn 13:29). This suggests that he had some contact with those who supported Jesus’ ministry (Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary, Martha and others).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas “betrayed” Jesus (Mat 10:4; 26:25; Mar 3:19; 14:10; Lk 16:6; 22:47-48; Jn 6:71; 12:4; 18:2; Ac 1:25).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas went to the chief priests, scribes, elders and Pharisees in order to betray Jesus (Mat 26:4, 47; 27:3; Mar 14:10; 14:43; Jn 18:3; 18:5). We are not told that these religious leaders sought Judas out; no, we are told that Judas sought them out. Judas was not like the other disciples in that he was probably not from Galilee. To some extent he may have felt some loyalty to the Jewish religious authority in Jerusalem in a way that differed from that of the Galilean disciples.
We also know that Judas was a slanderer or false-accuser (diabolos), as Jesus Himself stated (Jn 6:70).
Recent Theories For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
There have been recent theories that Judas’ betrayal was not an act of malicious intent but that he did so either on instructions by Jesus or in order to force Jesus’ hand into bringing the kingdom of God into existence. While this last theory is quite appealing I do not think that this or even the first theory holds any water.
First, the gospel writers are quick to assert that the other disciples were anxious to bring the kingdom into existence and fight by Jesus’ side with swords to the bitter end. If this was also the intention of Judas, why do the gospel writers not mention it?
Second, although it is true that Jesus did frequently predicted His handover to the Jewish religious leaders, there was nothing in His predictions that would suggest a victorious entrance of the kingdom of God as conceived by His disciples (Mk 9:31; 10:33; Mt 17:22; 20:18; 26:2; Lk 9:44; 18:32). Thus, even if Judas believed that he was forcing Jesus’ hand in bringing the kingdom of God into existence, he did not believe Jesus when he stated what result this betrayal would be.
Third, all the gospel writers state that Judas intentions were both malicious and greedy (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6). John and Luke state the Satan’s influence upon Judas (Lk 22:3; Jn 13:2). Jesus Himself states of His betrayer, “better that he hadn’t been born” (Mt 26:24; Mk 14:21).
Fourth, Judas repented from the evil which he had done:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.” (Mat 27:3)
If Judas hand done the correct thing then why would he had the need to repent, return the money and then commit suicide? Of course how he actually died (hanged, Mt 27:5 or headlong, Ac 1:18) and who purchased the potter’s field (chief priests, Mat 27:6 or Judas, Ac 1:18) is a matter of some debate.
My Theory For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
I submit that Judas’ reason was greed and greed alone.
Again, we know that Judas was the treasurer (Jn 13:29). We know that he was a thief (Jn 12:6). We know that it was the actions of the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive oil that was the final straw for Judas (Mk 14:10; Jn 12:4-6). We know that Judas himself asked how much he could get for turning Jesus over to the religious leaders (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6).
When Judas does repent of his sins he noticeably returns the money he received for the betrayal:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” (Mt 27:3-5)
Though this seems to be an insignificant reason to betray the Son of God, it is the only reason given in Scripture. Furthermore, too many people ignore and reject Christ for a lot less that what Judas received.
Judas Was Not Damned
I think the Scriptural evidence does not necessarily support the idea that Judas was damned for his betrayal of Jesus.
First, Judas was a servant, disciple and apostle of Jesus.
Second, Judas received the same authority and instruction as the other disciples (Mt 10:1-42; Mk 6:7-11; Lk 9:1-12).
Third, Judas also received the same promise as the other disciples:
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mt 19:28)
Finally, while Judas’ was neither a good person with good motives for what he did, when confronted with the truth of the matter, he did repent (Mt 27:3-5).
Thus, I submit that it is possible that Judas will be saved and spared damnation.
The Person of Judas
What do we know about Judas Iscariot?
We know he is Judas, the son of Simon (Jn 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26). He has the epithet, Iscariot, which probably refers to a Judaean suburb. See this note from Wikipedia:
“The first of the two main etymologies, which is the one accepted by the majority, and credited to Jerome, derives Iscariot from Hebrew איש־קריות, Κ–Qrîyôth, that is "man of Kerioth", the Judean town (or, more probably, collection of small towns) of Kerioth, not otherwise related to any person or event in the New Testament, nor mentioned in any document of the period, but referred to in the book of Jeremiah. In a similar vein, קריות may be simply the plural of קריה "small city," in which case we have something like "of the suburbs", i.e. it may be the case that Judas Iscariot is nothing more specific than the Jew from the suburbs. As Aramaic was the main language of the time, and all other New Testament characters have Aramaic surnames and nicknames, this Hebrew Judaean name could have marked out Judas as different from the Galilean disciples.”
He apparently was treasurer of Jesus’ ministry (Jn 13:29). This suggests that he had some contact with those who supported Jesus’ ministry (Lazarus, Joseph of Arimathaea, Mary, Martha and others).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas “betrayed” Jesus (Mat 10:4; 26:25; Mar 3:19; 14:10; Lk 16:6; 22:47-48; Jn 6:71; 12:4; 18:2; Ac 1:25).
The gospel writers are unanimous that Judas went to the chief priests, scribes, elders and Pharisees in order to betray Jesus (Mat 26:4, 47; 27:3; Mar 14:10; 14:43; Jn 18:3; 18:5). We are not told that these religious leaders sought Judas out; no, we are told that Judas sought them out. Judas was not like the other disciples in that he was probably not from Galilee. To some extent he may have felt some loyalty to the Jewish religious authority in Jerusalem in a way that differed from that of the Galilean disciples.
We also know that Judas was a slanderer or false-accuser (diabolos), as Jesus Himself stated (Jn 6:70).
Recent Theories For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
There have been recent theories that Judas’ betrayal was not an act of malicious intent but that he did so either on instructions by Jesus or in order to force Jesus’ hand into bringing the kingdom of God into existence. While this last theory is quite appealing I do not think that this or even the first theory holds any water.
First, the gospel writers are quick to assert that the other disciples were anxious to bring the kingdom into existence and fight by Jesus’ side with swords to the bitter end. If this was also the intention of Judas, why do the gospel writers not mention it?
Second, although it is true that Jesus did frequently predicted His handover to the Jewish religious leaders, there was nothing in His predictions that would suggest a victorious entrance of the kingdom of God as conceived by His disciples (Mk 9:31; 10:33; Mt 17:22; 20:18; 26:2; Lk 9:44; 18:32). Thus, even if Judas believed that he was forcing Jesus’ hand in bringing the kingdom of God into existence, he did not believe Jesus when he stated what result this betrayal would be.
Third, all the gospel writers state that Judas intentions were both malicious and greedy (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6). John and Luke state the Satan’s influence upon Judas (Lk 22:3; Jn 13:2). Jesus Himself states of His betrayer, “better that he hadn’t been born” (Mt 26:24; Mk 14:21).
Fourth, Judas repented from the evil which he had done:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders.” (Mat 27:3)
If Judas hand done the correct thing then why would he had the need to repent, return the money and then commit suicide? Of course how he actually died (hanged, Mt 27:5 or headlong, Ac 1:18) and who purchased the potter’s field (chief priests, Mat 27:6 or Judas, Ac 1:18) is a matter of some debate.
My Theory For Why Judas Betrayed Jesus
I submit that Judas’ reason was greed and greed alone.
Again, we know that Judas was the treasurer (Jn 13:29). We know that he was a thief (Jn 12:6). We know that it was the actions of the woman who anointed Jesus with expensive oil that was the final straw for Judas (Mk 14:10; Jn 12:4-6). We know that Judas himself asked how much he could get for turning Jesus over to the religious leaders (Mt 26:15-16; Mk 14:11; Lk 22:4-6).
When Judas does repent of his sins he noticeably returns the money he received for the betrayal:
“Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.” (Mt 27:3-5)
Though this seems to be an insignificant reason to betray the Son of God, it is the only reason given in Scripture. Furthermore, too many people ignore and reject Christ for a lot less that what Judas received.
Judas Was Not Damned
I think the Scriptural evidence does not necessarily support the idea that Judas was damned for his betrayal of Jesus.
First, Judas was a servant, disciple and apostle of Jesus.
Second, Judas received the same authority and instruction as the other disciples (Mt 10:1-42; Mk 6:7-11; Lk 9:1-12).
Third, Judas also received the same promise as the other disciples:
“And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Mt 19:28)
Finally, while Judas’ was neither a good person with good motives for what he did, when confronted with the truth of the matter, he did repent (Mt 27:3-5).
Thus, I submit that it is possible that Judas will be saved and spared damnation.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
What Religion Is This?
What religious group believes these practices are against their religion?
-Invoking of any saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone
-Visiting the graves of saints and asking the dead for help
-Celebrating annual feasts for saints
-Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
-Practicing magic, or involving themselves with witches or magic healings
-Innovations in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
-Invoking of any saint or angel in prayer, other than God alone
-Visiting the graves of saints and asking the dead for help
-Celebrating annual feasts for saints
-Wearing of charms, and believing in their healing power
-Practicing magic, or involving themselves with witches or magic healings
-Innovations in matters of religion (e.g. new methods of worship)
Friday, June 23, 2006
Worshipping God in Vain
Do you see "worship" as a religious ritual act? an event? By your definition, can a Christian worship someone or something other than Jesus?
All the above really. Worship is a lifestyle which one reveres and honors God. It is an ongoing act which should never cease. However, there are times when one puts a special emphasis on worship (bowing down on one’s face and such). There are also times when groups of people put a special emphasis on collective worship (i.e., worship services).
Yes, I do think that a Christian can worship some one or thing other than the Trinitarian God. It’s called idolatry and it haunts us all to one degree or another. We begin to revere things (creatures) more than God (the Creator). Items of idolatry for (contemporary) Christians typically: the self (of course), particular leaders (secular and Christian), nations and cultures (a hot one, that), traditions, the Law; those sorts of things. We all do it to some minor degree or another but there are obviously some things much worse than others, i.e., worshipping false gods, nature and ‘real’ idols and such.
There are times in the Bible where such idolatry or worship makes vain the worship of true God (Mk 7:7; Matt 15:9; Isa 29:13). Thus, even though the Jews of Jesus’ generation worshipped Yahweh, they rejected Yahweh’s Son, which made their worship of God in vain. I think the same is true of Muslims and other monotheistic religions which are off-shoots of the Abrahamic religion. Mohammed himself (a man and a flawed figure) appears to have wavered on this subject. He detested idols (‘idols’ in the classic sense of the word) and focused on the one god Allah, which was the god of the Abrahamic religion. However, he sometimes became frustrated with the idolatry of the Arabs of his generations. He once attempted to combine Allah-worship and idol-worship, basically religious syncretism (see Aaron and the golden calf of Ex. 32). He soon repented of this error and abolished idols.
Again, Mohammed’s worship of God never went through Christ and so was in vain, just like the Jews of the NT who rejected Christ.
All the above really. Worship is a lifestyle which one reveres and honors God. It is an ongoing act which should never cease. However, there are times when one puts a special emphasis on worship (bowing down on one’s face and such). There are also times when groups of people put a special emphasis on collective worship (i.e., worship services).
Yes, I do think that a Christian can worship some one or thing other than the Trinitarian God. It’s called idolatry and it haunts us all to one degree or another. We begin to revere things (creatures) more than God (the Creator). Items of idolatry for (contemporary) Christians typically: the self (of course), particular leaders (secular and Christian), nations and cultures (a hot one, that), traditions, the Law; those sorts of things. We all do it to some minor degree or another but there are obviously some things much worse than others, i.e., worshipping false gods, nature and ‘real’ idols and such.
There are times in the Bible where such idolatry or worship makes vain the worship of true God (Mk 7:7; Matt 15:9; Isa 29:13). Thus, even though the Jews of Jesus’ generation worshipped Yahweh, they rejected Yahweh’s Son, which made their worship of God in vain. I think the same is true of Muslims and other monotheistic religions which are off-shoots of the Abrahamic religion. Mohammed himself (a man and a flawed figure) appears to have wavered on this subject. He detested idols (‘idols’ in the classic sense of the word) and focused on the one god Allah, which was the god of the Abrahamic religion. However, he sometimes became frustrated with the idolatry of the Arabs of his generations. He once attempted to combine Allah-worship and idol-worship, basically religious syncretism (see Aaron and the golden calf of Ex. 32). He soon repented of this error and abolished idols.
Again, Mohammed’s worship of God never went through Christ and so was in vain, just like the Jews of the NT who rejected Christ.
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The God of Mohammed in Greensboro
A good friend of mine who attended the SBC 2006 in Greensboro told me about the incident where, during Condoleeza Rice's speech, she mentioned the killing of al-Zarqawi to the response of a standing ovation from the convention hall.
Of course, that Dr. Rice (a woman in high authority, who drinks alcohol and supports abortion) is a political figure well-followed in the press, it should have been no surprise that news media outlets would carry her speech across the globe.
How nice it was! The whole world has a chance to see the followers of the Prince of Peace and we joyously applaud that another being, created in the image of God and of equal worth with ourselves, has died and gone to hell.
How wonderful! We are against women in authority, we are against abortion, we are against consuming alcohol, we are against killing and war (according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000), but we are for spreading the Gospel to the places where our featured speaker is bombing.
Now I knew of this standing ovation by the SBC to death of al-Zarqawi a week ago. I knew but waited to see what the response would be. Now I did see a few blurbs on the blogs but little else.
A few weeks ago I understandably had a few comments about my assertion that Muslims and Christians worship the same God - a position that I continue to hold and am pursuing in my thoughts [my conclusions are interesting as well as my ideas on how to evangelize Muslims].
Again, I believe this position to be true and it is, of course, strictly orthodox.
And, of course, there are many in the past who have disagreed with my position on this. One pastor a few years ago argued [my own gist of what he said] that Yahweh and Allah could not be the same god because their personalities as expressed by their followers are different. The god of Jesus is a loving and peaceful god while the god of Mohammed is a blood thirsty war-monger.
...
So either the Yahweh and Allah are the same god or the SBC in Greensboro were worshipping the god of Allah for all the world to see.
Which is it?
Of course, that Dr. Rice (a woman in high authority, who drinks alcohol and supports abortion) is a political figure well-followed in the press, it should have been no surprise that news media outlets would carry her speech across the globe.
How nice it was! The whole world has a chance to see the followers of the Prince of Peace and we joyously applaud that another being, created in the image of God and of equal worth with ourselves, has died and gone to hell.
How wonderful! We are against women in authority, we are against abortion, we are against consuming alcohol, we are against killing and war (according to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000), but we are for spreading the Gospel to the places where our featured speaker is bombing.
Now I knew of this standing ovation by the SBC to death of al-Zarqawi a week ago. I knew but waited to see what the response would be. Now I did see a few blurbs on the blogs but little else.
A few weeks ago I understandably had a few comments about my assertion that Muslims and Christians worship the same God - a position that I continue to hold and am pursuing in my thoughts [my conclusions are interesting as well as my ideas on how to evangelize Muslims].
Again, I believe this position to be true and it is, of course, strictly orthodox.
And, of course, there are many in the past who have disagreed with my position on this. One pastor a few years ago argued [my own gist of what he said] that Yahweh and Allah could not be the same god because their personalities as expressed by their followers are different. The god of Jesus is a loving and peaceful god while the god of Mohammed is a blood thirsty war-monger.
...
So either the Yahweh and Allah are the same god or the SBC in Greensboro were worshipping the god of Allah for all the world to see.
Which is it?
Monday, June 19, 2006
There's A Slow Train A'comin': Truth and Patience Against Christian Cultural Dogmatism
The Temple and Jerusalem itself were so important to the nationalist Jewish Christians that it prevented them from honoring their commission to preach the gospel. They remained in the city and at the temple preaching to the Jews because they expected the imminent return of Jesus any day.
It actually took the persecution of the Christians at the hands of Saul (later Paul) and those of his ilk to drive the Christians out of the city and into other parts of Palestine, including Samaria and northern Galilee. Even at this point, the early Christians continued to preach only to Jews and only the occasional Samaritan and God-fearer. At this point they still considered the Jewish race and religion to be the race and religion by which God saved humanity. Thus, in order to achieve salvation, a person had to become a proselyte to Judaism and participate in the distinctly Jewish rituals.
It was by continued divine action through Jesus and the Spirit of God that the early Christians came to the conclusion that one did not have to become a Jew in order to achieve salvation (see Cornelius in Acts 10). This caused extreme anxiety among the Jewish-Christians. The idea that one could achieve salvation a part from works of the law meant that these works were not necessary. If these works were not necessary then what prevented the Jews from continuing to honor these rituals? If the Jewish-Christians ceased to honor and perform these distinctive Jewish rituals then Judaism and Jewishness would cease to be a distinctive people apart from the Gentiles.
Such an idea was horrible to the Jews. The first century Jews whose ancestors had fought for such Jewish distinctiveness during the Maccabean Revolt and withstood the will of Antiochus Epiphanes who sought to enforce Hellenism onto Jews (see the Book of Daniel) inherited a set of beliefs and values which highly honored such Jewish distinctions (particularly in a Hellenistic dominate world in which Israel was surrounded and permeated by the Greco-Roman culture). Thus the first century Jews (both Christian and not) could not imagine a world without Jewishness, the Temple and Jerusalem. These were too important to be cast aside. Thus, nationalism was their focus.
So we have the Judaizers of Galatia and Rome which Paul must suffer. Thus we have the part of the circumcision that causes such division at the Council of Jerusalem. Let us not forget: the results of the Council of Jerusalem were not overly positive. The end result was a compromise – a moderate win. The issue was not resolved and certainly was not what God was ultimately wanted (We all need to be careful when we look for our examples in the Bible, especially in the book of Acts. The disciples and apostles are not always doing the proper thing. The Jerusalem Council is one such example.).
Thus the nationalism of the Jews and Jewish Christians, the eschatological nationalism inherent in the Temple and the city of Jerusalem were hindering the mission of spreading the Gospel. The disciples and apostles themselves were hindering the Gospel. James the brother of Jesus and Peter were part of this hindrance. It maybe the case that many of the original 11 disciples were unable to overcome their intense nationalism.
Therefore, the continued existence of Jerusalem and the Temple were both sustaining two ideas:
1) The imminent Parousia and, therefore, the absence of a desire to spread the Gospel.
2) The strong nationalism and the desire to prevent non-Jews from coming to an unhindered Gospel.
Ironically enough, it is this nationalism by the Jews that furthers the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. I’ve already mentioned the persecution of the Christians by Saul and how it forced the early Jewish Christians out of Jerusalem and Palestine. Moreover, the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews specifically causes Paul and others like him to turn to the Gentiles. Even in their rebellion, the Jews are used by God to enact His will.
Furthermore, while the early Christians sought to win converts from the synagogues and convert these synagogues to the Messianic community, the rejection of many of the Jews to the Messianic community and the unwillingness of many Jewish Christians to fellowship with Gentiles led Christians to found their own Christian-Gentile synagogues (i.e., the modern church). Thus Jewish nationalism led to a severe separation between the Jews and the Church.
By the end of the Biblical story, a movement which, at its start, was originally and completely Jewish had become overwhelmingly and predominately Gentile.
-At the end of Acts, Luke is explaining how and why the Jews rejected their Messiah. Throughout Luke-Acts the writer has focused on the dismissal of both the ritual laws and the Temple, including Jerusalem.
-In the book of Revelation, John shows how and why God “divorces” His own people because of their “adultery” and takes the Gentile(-Jewish) Church instead. This book shows the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans.
-The book of Matthew also focuses on this Jewish rejection.
-We can see similar ideas in John’s Gospel.
When the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, this was a tremendous event of far-reaching proportions.
1) Jewish nationalism within the Church ceased, and the Gospel unhindered from Jewish rituals (the compromise of the Jerusalem Council was rectified).
2) It became apparent to the Church that God had given the Jews over to their own devices.
3) The idea of an imminent Parousia (which had been waning) ceased. Then the Church realized they were in it for the long ha
[Since I focus most of my scholarly work on Luke-Acts and the other narrative NT books (Matthew, Mark, John and Revelation), I finally concluded that Luke-Acts was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Here’s why:
1) The Lukan additions to the Olivet Discourse suggest that he has historical knowledge of the events.
2) Luke focuses a lot of attention against the Temple and justifying its destruction as Scriptural.]
So what can we learn from this>
-Forget dispensationalism (classical, progressive or otherwise). Ideas of the Temple, Jerusalem and the Jewish people as playing any significant part of the Parousia is a false idea. It’s nonsense. Not only is it not Scriptural, but the NT writers go out of there way to eliminate such notions from the minds of their audiences. The Temple is gone. Jerusalem is not important. The Jews are not distinctively important. To consider any of these as such is to not only contradict the teachings of Jesus and the apostles but to fall into the same trap that led to the Jews rejecting God through Christ. Just drop it all.
-Let us be careful to separate culture from Scripture. Do not hinder the Gospel by adding your culture’s requirements (secular or Christian). Thus do not make music (contemporary or traditional or classical) a matter of division of fellowship or something to be forced upon others. And certainly do not force cultural requirements upon others when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.
Thus, drinking alcohol and praying to God in tongues are both Biblically allowed. To prohibit these particular things is not only non-Biblical but the act of prohibiting them is non-Biblical. Those who do so are breaking TWO Scriptural commands. The latter command was extremely important to Jesus, the apostles and the early church. To enforce these cultural requirements is completely against the Gospel. Those who do so are hindering the Gospel. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
-To separate our selves from fellowship over these issues runs the risk of being passed by. History is like a forest with numerous institutions for trees. Some trees grow old and die. Other out live all the rest. Every so often a fire comes and wipes out the forest leaving only a few scattered trees. The rest of the forest has to grow back new trees from the ground up.
ANOTHER FIRE IS ON ITS WAY.
It could be the next year, it could be the next decade, it could be the next century, but it is coming and those that refuse to follow the direction of the Holy Spirit will be wiped out for their own good and the good of the Gospel. We may love God and God may love us, but He loves us so much that He will let us and our institution die. Remember, there were a lot of Jewish-Christians that died in 70 AD.
I say this for our own benefit and not because I doubt that any of us can stop the inevitable. Alcohol, tongues, women as pastors, aversion to evolution and other such things ... the Holy Spirit will do what He wants and no one can stop Him. We can either help and serve or hinder and die. God loves us just the same. I am not at all worried that, for example, women will be recognized as pastors by the Church. It is already happening and, apparently it is what the Holy Spirit wants. After two millennia of winking at this issue, God has decided to start enforcing it. Which is why I tell more progressively minded believers to be patient and enjoy the moment with love and submissiveness; it's going to happen regardless. If we're so convinced of the truth of which we espouse, then we should mind when others discount it as false. We should not attempt to force our views upon others; that's what the "other side" does. They do so because it is the only way they have of making their beliefs a reality - albeit a temporary one. We should not be like that. Ours is a long term and permanent reality of the unfolding kingdom.
As Bob Dylan notes concerning the kingdom of God: there's a slow train a'comin'
It actually took the persecution of the Christians at the hands of Saul (later Paul) and those of his ilk to drive the Christians out of the city and into other parts of Palestine, including Samaria and northern Galilee. Even at this point, the early Christians continued to preach only to Jews and only the occasional Samaritan and God-fearer. At this point they still considered the Jewish race and religion to be the race and religion by which God saved humanity. Thus, in order to achieve salvation, a person had to become a proselyte to Judaism and participate in the distinctly Jewish rituals.
It was by continued divine action through Jesus and the Spirit of God that the early Christians came to the conclusion that one did not have to become a Jew in order to achieve salvation (see Cornelius in Acts 10). This caused extreme anxiety among the Jewish-Christians. The idea that one could achieve salvation a part from works of the law meant that these works were not necessary. If these works were not necessary then what prevented the Jews from continuing to honor these rituals? If the Jewish-Christians ceased to honor and perform these distinctive Jewish rituals then Judaism and Jewishness would cease to be a distinctive people apart from the Gentiles.
Such an idea was horrible to the Jews. The first century Jews whose ancestors had fought for such Jewish distinctiveness during the Maccabean Revolt and withstood the will of Antiochus Epiphanes who sought to enforce Hellenism onto Jews (see the Book of Daniel) inherited a set of beliefs and values which highly honored such Jewish distinctions (particularly in a Hellenistic dominate world in which Israel was surrounded and permeated by the Greco-Roman culture). Thus the first century Jews (both Christian and not) could not imagine a world without Jewishness, the Temple and Jerusalem. These were too important to be cast aside. Thus, nationalism was their focus.
So we have the Judaizers of Galatia and Rome which Paul must suffer. Thus we have the part of the circumcision that causes such division at the Council of Jerusalem. Let us not forget: the results of the Council of Jerusalem were not overly positive. The end result was a compromise – a moderate win. The issue was not resolved and certainly was not what God was ultimately wanted (We all need to be careful when we look for our examples in the Bible, especially in the book of Acts. The disciples and apostles are not always doing the proper thing. The Jerusalem Council is one such example.).
Thus the nationalism of the Jews and Jewish Christians, the eschatological nationalism inherent in the Temple and the city of Jerusalem were hindering the mission of spreading the Gospel. The disciples and apostles themselves were hindering the Gospel. James the brother of Jesus and Peter were part of this hindrance. It maybe the case that many of the original 11 disciples were unable to overcome their intense nationalism.
Therefore, the continued existence of Jerusalem and the Temple were both sustaining two ideas:
1) The imminent Parousia and, therefore, the absence of a desire to spread the Gospel.
2) The strong nationalism and the desire to prevent non-Jews from coming to an unhindered Gospel.
Ironically enough, it is this nationalism by the Jews that furthers the spread of the Gospel to the Gentiles. I’ve already mentioned the persecution of the Christians by Saul and how it forced the early Jewish Christians out of Jerusalem and Palestine. Moreover, the rejection of the Gospel by the Jews specifically causes Paul and others like him to turn to the Gentiles. Even in their rebellion, the Jews are used by God to enact His will.
Furthermore, while the early Christians sought to win converts from the synagogues and convert these synagogues to the Messianic community, the rejection of many of the Jews to the Messianic community and the unwillingness of many Jewish Christians to fellowship with Gentiles led Christians to found their own Christian-Gentile synagogues (i.e., the modern church). Thus Jewish nationalism led to a severe separation between the Jews and the Church.
By the end of the Biblical story, a movement which, at its start, was originally and completely Jewish had become overwhelmingly and predominately Gentile.
-At the end of Acts, Luke is explaining how and why the Jews rejected their Messiah. Throughout Luke-Acts the writer has focused on the dismissal of both the ritual laws and the Temple, including Jerusalem.
-In the book of Revelation, John shows how and why God “divorces” His own people because of their “adultery” and takes the Gentile(-Jewish) Church instead. This book shows the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by the Romans.
-The book of Matthew also focuses on this Jewish rejection.
-We can see similar ideas in John’s Gospel.
When the Temple and Jerusalem were destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, this was a tremendous event of far-reaching proportions.
1) Jewish nationalism within the Church ceased, and the Gospel unhindered from Jewish rituals (the compromise of the Jerusalem Council was rectified).
2) It became apparent to the Church that God had given the Jews over to their own devices.
3) The idea of an imminent Parousia (which had been waning) ceased. Then the Church realized they were in it for the long ha
[Since I focus most of my scholarly work on Luke-Acts and the other narrative NT books (Matthew, Mark, John and Revelation), I finally concluded that Luke-Acts was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. Here’s why:
1) The Lukan additions to the Olivet Discourse suggest that he has historical knowledge of the events.
2) Luke focuses a lot of attention against the Temple and justifying its destruction as Scriptural.]
So what can we learn from this>
-Forget dispensationalism (classical, progressive or otherwise). Ideas of the Temple, Jerusalem and the Jewish people as playing any significant part of the Parousia is a false idea. It’s nonsense. Not only is it not Scriptural, but the NT writers go out of there way to eliminate such notions from the minds of their audiences. The Temple is gone. Jerusalem is not important. The Jews are not distinctively important. To consider any of these as such is to not only contradict the teachings of Jesus and the apostles but to fall into the same trap that led to the Jews rejecting God through Christ. Just drop it all.
-Let us be careful to separate culture from Scripture. Do not hinder the Gospel by adding your culture’s requirements (secular or Christian). Thus do not make music (contemporary or traditional or classical) a matter of division of fellowship or something to be forced upon others. And certainly do not force cultural requirements upon others when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise.
Thus, drinking alcohol and praying to God in tongues are both Biblically allowed. To prohibit these particular things is not only non-Biblical but the act of prohibiting them is non-Biblical. Those who do so are breaking TWO Scriptural commands. The latter command was extremely important to Jesus, the apostles and the early church. To enforce these cultural requirements is completely against the Gospel. Those who do so are hindering the Gospel. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.
-To separate our selves from fellowship over these issues runs the risk of being passed by. History is like a forest with numerous institutions for trees. Some trees grow old and die. Other out live all the rest. Every so often a fire comes and wipes out the forest leaving only a few scattered trees. The rest of the forest has to grow back new trees from the ground up.
ANOTHER FIRE IS ON ITS WAY.
It could be the next year, it could be the next decade, it could be the next century, but it is coming and those that refuse to follow the direction of the Holy Spirit will be wiped out for their own good and the good of the Gospel. We may love God and God may love us, but He loves us so much that He will let us and our institution die. Remember, there were a lot of Jewish-Christians that died in 70 AD.
I say this for our own benefit and not because I doubt that any of us can stop the inevitable. Alcohol, tongues, women as pastors, aversion to evolution and other such things ... the Holy Spirit will do what He wants and no one can stop Him. We can either help and serve or hinder and die. God loves us just the same. I am not at all worried that, for example, women will be recognized as pastors by the Church. It is already happening and, apparently it is what the Holy Spirit wants. After two millennia of winking at this issue, God has decided to start enforcing it. Which is why I tell more progressively minded believers to be patient and enjoy the moment with love and submissiveness; it's going to happen regardless. If we're so convinced of the truth of which we espouse, then we should mind when others discount it as false. We should not attempt to force our views upon others; that's what the "other side" does. They do so because it is the only way they have of making their beliefs a reality - albeit a temporary one. We should not be like that. Ours is a long term and permanent reality of the unfolding kingdom.
As Bob Dylan notes concerning the kingdom of God: there's a slow train a'comin'
Monday, June 12, 2006
Essential Children's Books
Although I have no children myself and (despite the assertion of many) I have not been a child for some time, I continue to read children’s literature with great enthusiasm. I often open the pages of Lewis, Grahame, Milne, Barrie, Carroll and Tolkien for the amusement it brings, particularly for night time reading.
Occasionally, I scan the shelves of the children’s section at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Half Price, in order to see what is currently popular among contemporary children. Most of it is complete bollocks but there are a few goodies, both new and old, to be found at the local sellers.
Books are extremely important for children. By this I mean, 1) parents really need to read to their children as early as possible so that the children pick it up before they go to school. My parents read to me at an extremely early age and pointed to every word the read so that I knew what word was what. 2) Children need access to books in the homes. Every study shows that the intellectual curiosity of a child grows with the amount of books available in the home. Take a lesson from me: I found the availability of Cervantes, Tolstoy, Shakespeare and Twain highly edifying. 3) And, please, please, please, give your children some good books to read. Don’t buy them junk; they’ll acquire enough bad books from other friends, family and neighbors. God knows they will be reading it at school! Give them books that will be edifying. Do you think children are born Mozart, Shakespeare and Kierkegaard? Well, they are but its only good parents who are able to draw it out of them. How many great concertos, novels and theology books were never created because their parents never gave an inkling to their child’s talents. You wouldn’t allow your children to watch a Rated R movie because of the negative effect, right? Why then let them read bad books?
Allow me to give you a reasonable list of good children’s books that every child should have access to if they don’t want to end up as junkies. I’ll save you from having to read my lists of music (it includes Bach and Beck), movies (it includes Casablanca and 2001) and Bible stories (it includes the Greek as well as the English).
Aesop’s Fables (One of the foundations of Western ethics.)
American Tall Tales (Casey Jones, Johnny Apple-Seed, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, etc.)
Hans Christian Anderson (These stories are staples of Western folk-lore.)
Arabian Nights (Here’s a touch of Islamic and Persian mythology. Quite good.)
J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan, philosophically wonderful and pure fantasy.)
L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz, I recommend on the first book in the series.)
Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, The Hunting of the Snark. If a child cannot recite “Jabberwocky” by age ten, then ground them.)
Miguel Cervantes (Any child who doesn’t learn of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza has no business entering the second grade. Of course, here is an example where I was given a children’s version of the book and later in life I read the original version due to my interest in the children’s book.)
Roald Dahl (James and the Giant Peach, and the 2 Charlie books)
Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) (This’ll both entertain and teach children how to think.)
English Mythology (King Arthur, Robin Hood, Beowulf, Gawain and the Green Knight) (My family is both Welsh and English, so I recommend this old world English treats.)
Mother Goose (If you have to ask then you have no business claiming to be a part of Western civilization.)
Kenneth Grahame (The Wind and the Willows, I am ashamed to state that I only began reading these late in life. Learn from my mistakes.)
Greek Mythology (Read them these books as soon as possible. Greek mythology is one of the foundations of Western Culture and permeates all of contemporary life.)
Brothers Grimm (See Hans Christian Anderson)
Joel Chandler Harris (Uncle Remus, Good stories with African roots but perhaps a version without the vernacular.)
Washington Irving (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Rip van Winkle)
Rudyard Kipling (The Jungle Books. Give them a little of India)
C.S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia. And for, crissakes, get the order right!)
A.A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh, The House on Pooh Corner. No, Disney bowdlerization until they are old enough to date.)
Norse Mythology (Perhaps this one is not necessary but this is still entertaining.)
Edgar Allen Poe (Both the poems and the short stories)
Richard Scarry (This is a pragmatic book more than anything.)
Maurice Sendak (Teach your children where the wild things are)
Dr. Seuss (Again, these are pragmatic books)
William Shakespeare (Hamlet, of course. Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Henry IV, part one and 2 and Henry V, A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew. Okay, children’s version are out there. I recommend the ones by Charles and Mary Lamb. Of course, if they are not reading the originals by Middle School then send them to therapy.)
Shel Silverstein (Where the Sidewalk Ends, A Light in the Attic, Falling Up, The Giving Tree) (I recommend the recordings along with the books)
Robert Lewis Stevenson (Treasure Island, the Disney movie with Robert Newton is good), Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hide)
Jonathan Swift (A children’s version would suffice here. The movie version with Ted Danson is recommended.)
J.R.R. Tolkien (All the middle earth stories: The Hobbit, LOTR, etc. Also, his translations of Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl and Sir Orfio are recommended.
Mark Twain (I grew up with his short stories. However, as with Uncle Remus, I suggest a version of Huckleberry Finn minus the dialect.)
Jules Verne (Duh!)
H.G. Wells (And, Duh, again)
In order to get most of these stories and many many more, I highly recommend Anthology of Children's Literature by Edna Johnson, Evelyn R Sickels, Frances Clarke Sayers. Third Revised Edition. This book has it all and should be essential to every adult library.
Occasionally, I scan the shelves of the children’s section at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Half Price, in order to see what is currently popular among contemporary children. Most of it is complete bollocks but there are a few goodies, both new and old, to be found at the local sellers.
Books are extremely important for children. By this I mean, 1) parents really need to read to their children as early as possible so that the children pick it up before they go to school. My parents read to me at an extremely early age and pointed to every word the read so that I knew what word was what. 2) Children need access to books in the homes. Every study shows that the intellectual curiosity of a child grows with the amount of books available in the home. Take a lesson from me: I found the availability of Cervantes, Tolstoy, Shakespeare and Twain highly edifying. 3) And, please, please, please, give your children some good books to read. Don’t buy them junk; they’ll acquire enough bad books from other friends, family and neighbors. God knows they will be reading it at school! Give them books that will be edifying. Do you think children are born Mozart, Shakespeare and Kierkegaard? Well, they are but its only good parents who are able to draw it out of them. How many great concertos, novels and theology books were never created because their parents never gave an inkling to their child’s talents. You wouldn’t allow your children to watch a Rated R movie because of the negative effect, right? Why then let them read bad books?
Allow me to give you a reasonable list of good children’s books that every child should have access to if they don’t want to end up as junkies. I’ll save you from having to read my lists of music (it includes Bach and Beck), movies (it includes Casablanca and 2001) and Bible stories (it includes the Greek as well as the English).
Aesop’s Fables (One of the foundations of Western ethics.)
American Tall Tales (Casey Jones, Johnny Apple-Seed, Paul Bunyan, Pecos Bill, etc.)
Hans Christian Anderson (These stories are staples of Western folk-lore.)
Arabian Nights (Here’s a touch of Islamic and Persian mythology. Quite good.)
J.M. Barrie (Peter Pan, philosophically wonderful and pure fantasy.)
L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz, I recommend on the first book in the series.)
Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass, The Hunting of the Snark. If a child cannot recite “Jabberwocky” by age ten, then ground them.)
Miguel Cervantes (Any child who doesn’t learn of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza has no business entering the second grade. Of course, here is an example where I was given a children’s version of the book and later in life I read the original version due to my interest in the children’s book.)
Roald Dahl (James and the Giant Peach, and the 2 Charlie books)
Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes) (This’ll both entertain and teach children how to think.)
English Mythology (King Arthur, Robin Hood, Beowulf, Gawain and the Green Knight) (My family is both Welsh and English, so I recommend this old world English treats.)
Mother Goose (If you have to ask then you have no business claiming to be a part of Western civilization.)
Kenneth Grahame (The Wind and the Willows, I am ashamed to state that I only began reading these late in life. Learn from my mistakes.)
Greek Mythology (Read them these books as soon as possible. Greek mythology is one of the foundations of Western Culture and permeates all of contemporary life.)
Brothers Grimm (See Hans Christian Anderson)
Joel Chandler Harris (Uncle Remus, Good stories with African roots but perhaps a version without the vernacular.)
Washington Irving (The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, Rip van Winkle)
Rudyard Kipling (The Jungle Books. Give them a little of India)
C.S. Lewis (The Chronicles of Narnia. And for, crissakes, get the order right!)
A.A. Milne (Winnie the Pooh, The House on Pooh Corner. No, Disney bowdlerization until they are old enough to date.)
Norse Mythology (Perhaps this one is not necessary but this is still entertaining.)
Edgar Allen Poe (Both the poems and the short stories)
Richard Scarry (This is a pragmatic book more than anything.)
Maurice Sendak (Teach your children where the wild things are)
Dr. Seuss (Again, these are pragmatic books)
William Shakespeare (Hamlet, of course. Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, Henry IV, part one and 2 and Henry V, A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream, Othello, The Taming of the Shrew. Okay, children’s version are out there. I recommend the ones by Charles and Mary Lamb. Of course, if they are not reading the originals by Middle School then send them to therapy.)
Shel Silverstein (Where the Sidewalk Ends, A Light in the Attic, Falling Up, The Giving Tree) (I recommend the recordings along with the books)
Robert Lewis Stevenson (Treasure Island, the Disney movie with Robert Newton is good), Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hide)
Jonathan Swift (A children’s version would suffice here. The movie version with Ted Danson is recommended.)
J.R.R. Tolkien (All the middle earth stories: The Hobbit, LOTR, etc. Also, his translations of Gawain and the Green Knight, Pearl and Sir Orfio are recommended.
Mark Twain (I grew up with his short stories. However, as with Uncle Remus, I suggest a version of Huckleberry Finn minus the dialect.)
Jules Verne (Duh!)
H.G. Wells (And, Duh, again)
In order to get most of these stories and many many more, I highly recommend Anthology of Children's Literature by Edna Johnson, Evelyn R Sickels, Frances Clarke Sayers. Third Revised Edition. This book has it all and should be essential to every adult library.
The Inheritors
There is only one basic theological problem that I have with Darwinian evolution and it is the one problem that evangelicals and fundamentalists never mention or with which they appear to ever have a problem. What is it?
The biological idea of “survival of the fittest” as coined by Herbert Spencer, which is better phrased as Darwin’s term of “natural selection” appears to be at odds with the Christian idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Matt 5:5) which Jesus appropriated from Ps 37:11.
Now this idea of inheriting the earth or land is a diverse and complex cultural idea of the Ancient Near East. Many of the promises that God gave to Abraham and his descendents are based upon this idea of land inheritance (provided they honored the covenant, that is. If they didn’t honor the covenant they would be subject to the cherem (Mal. 4:6), which God did subject them to as the Apocalypse of John so records. God’s promises are often conditional. Most dispensationalists maintain that God always keeps His promises and therefore they attempt to find fulfillment of Israel’s inheriting the land within the millennial kingdom. But one of His promises is punishment for breaking the covenant. Also, God said He would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. However, Nineveh repented and God repented from destroying them. Did God break His promise? Of course not. And God did promise that if Israel did not repent they would face the cherem. Well?)
Of course, “natural selection” and “genetic drift” are far more complex factors than simple matters of biological aggression versus biological passivism. Our earliest known biological ancestors from the Cambrian explosion (between 542 and 530 million years ago) were both relatively small and defenseless when compared to those oceanic species which did not evolve into amphibious creatures. However, these earliest proto-human ancestors did have the uncanny ability to use their relatively small construction to hide in their environment and thus to allude extinction. Therefore, natural selection is not simply a matter of physiological strength and stamina.
William Golding as a good book called The Inheritors, which is about a group of passive Neanderthals which encounter and are destroyed by a group of hostile Homo Sapiens. Yes, the ironic title of the book is directed at the sayings of the Scripture. Whether or not Golding was attacking the Gospel I have no way of knowing. However, for those believers who hold to various forms of natural selection, Golding does raise a good point.
One of the odd, apparently conflicting and foolish, and even scandalous aspects of Christianity which is at the core and one of the foundations of its ethics is the strong focus on meekness, non-violence, humility, servanthood and peace. Our movement is founded on the Cross. The Cross is foolish and scandalous to mankind. The prior ethic of the Old Testament, the ethic of the world, and the laws of nature itself are “an eye for an eye”, dog-eat-dog world, the aggressive use of force, majority rule, competitive capitalism, the perils of the animal kingdom, and the food chain. Both nature, history provide overwhelming evidence that aggressive dominance is the supreme ethic of the universe. … And yet, the Creator of this universe, of this world, and of this natural ethic has broken into history and has spoken in the full revelation of His Son who comes to the rebellious humanity who were made in the image of the Creator, and says, “The Kingdom of God is here; it’s not going to be that way anymore.” And, thus, all of history, science and the political and military methods of this world are turned on their heads and somehow the meek do indeed inherit the earth.
It is unfortunate that so few believers have adopted these particular teachings of Christ (save Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther King and those like them). Just like the rest of humanity, they look around them and see the natural world and the political world expediently accomplishing their goals. They grow impatient with the steady progress of the kingdom and would rather see goals met by swift victory than by the individual-by-individual witness of believers to the Gospel message. Instead of sharing our faith, we prefer to codify our beliefs in the culture by laws and court rulings. We rather see a culture transformed in our lifetime than individuals transformed in the same time. We would rather see our political enemies punished and defeated than saved and renewed.
The disciples of Christ are still waiting for a political messiah: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)
It is a supreme irony that so many faithful believers who accept evolution reject the “survival of the fittest” ethics while so many other faithful believers who reject evolution accept the “survival of the fittest” ethic. Of course, these are very general categories but none the less reflect a very true reality.
Regardless of differences in methodology and ethics, we all believe that God is and will win and purge the Creation from sin. We do believe that God is continual creative control and that the meek will in fact inherit the earth.
However, as the 1st century Jews and Jewish Christians discovered when they settled on nationalistic and politico-military solutions:
“He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.” (Prov 11:29)
The biological idea of “survival of the fittest” as coined by Herbert Spencer, which is better phrased as Darwin’s term of “natural selection” appears to be at odds with the Christian idea that “the meek shall inherit the earth” (Matt 5:5) which Jesus appropriated from Ps 37:11.
Now this idea of inheriting the earth or land is a diverse and complex cultural idea of the Ancient Near East. Many of the promises that God gave to Abraham and his descendents are based upon this idea of land inheritance (provided they honored the covenant, that is. If they didn’t honor the covenant they would be subject to the cherem (Mal. 4:6), which God did subject them to as the Apocalypse of John so records. God’s promises are often conditional. Most dispensationalists maintain that God always keeps His promises and therefore they attempt to find fulfillment of Israel’s inheriting the land within the millennial kingdom. But one of His promises is punishment for breaking the covenant. Also, God said He would destroy Nineveh in 40 days. However, Nineveh repented and God repented from destroying them. Did God break His promise? Of course not. And God did promise that if Israel did not repent they would face the cherem. Well?)
Of course, “natural selection” and “genetic drift” are far more complex factors than simple matters of biological aggression versus biological passivism. Our earliest known biological ancestors from the Cambrian explosion (between 542 and 530 million years ago) were both relatively small and defenseless when compared to those oceanic species which did not evolve into amphibious creatures. However, these earliest proto-human ancestors did have the uncanny ability to use their relatively small construction to hide in their environment and thus to allude extinction. Therefore, natural selection is not simply a matter of physiological strength and stamina.
William Golding as a good book called The Inheritors, which is about a group of passive Neanderthals which encounter and are destroyed by a group of hostile Homo Sapiens. Yes, the ironic title of the book is directed at the sayings of the Scripture. Whether or not Golding was attacking the Gospel I have no way of knowing. However, for those believers who hold to various forms of natural selection, Golding does raise a good point.
One of the odd, apparently conflicting and foolish, and even scandalous aspects of Christianity which is at the core and one of the foundations of its ethics is the strong focus on meekness, non-violence, humility, servanthood and peace. Our movement is founded on the Cross. The Cross is foolish and scandalous to mankind. The prior ethic of the Old Testament, the ethic of the world, and the laws of nature itself are “an eye for an eye”, dog-eat-dog world, the aggressive use of force, majority rule, competitive capitalism, the perils of the animal kingdom, and the food chain. Both nature, history provide overwhelming evidence that aggressive dominance is the supreme ethic of the universe. … And yet, the Creator of this universe, of this world, and of this natural ethic has broken into history and has spoken in the full revelation of His Son who comes to the rebellious humanity who were made in the image of the Creator, and says, “The Kingdom of God is here; it’s not going to be that way anymore.” And, thus, all of history, science and the political and military methods of this world are turned on their heads and somehow the meek do indeed inherit the earth.
It is unfortunate that so few believers have adopted these particular teachings of Christ (save Francis of Assisi and Martin Luther King and those like them). Just like the rest of humanity, they look around them and see the natural world and the political world expediently accomplishing their goals. They grow impatient with the steady progress of the kingdom and would rather see goals met by swift victory than by the individual-by-individual witness of believers to the Gospel message. Instead of sharing our faith, we prefer to codify our beliefs in the culture by laws and court rulings. We rather see a culture transformed in our lifetime than individuals transformed in the same time. We would rather see our political enemies punished and defeated than saved and renewed.
The disciples of Christ are still waiting for a political messiah: “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)
It is a supreme irony that so many faithful believers who accept evolution reject the “survival of the fittest” ethics while so many other faithful believers who reject evolution accept the “survival of the fittest” ethic. Of course, these are very general categories but none the less reflect a very true reality.
Regardless of differences in methodology and ethics, we all believe that God is and will win and purge the Creation from sin. We do believe that God is continual creative control and that the meek will in fact inherit the earth.
However, as the 1st century Jews and Jewish Christians discovered when they settled on nationalistic and politico-military solutions:
“He that troubles his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool shall be servant to the wise of heart.” (Prov 11:29)
Paradigm Shifts, Modern Psychology and Nouthetic Counseling
One great problem that faces post modern evangelicalism is the proliferation of information and the cognitive structuring of ideas. Because communication and the means by which we transfer information is growing and diversifying, more evangelicals than ever before are able to construct various models of reality by which others can shift their thinking in order to effectively preach the Gospel. While this in of itself is another example of the fantastic times in which we live as believers proclaiming the gospel, this proliferation of cognitive structuring can cause (ironically enough) severe communication problems. Too many evangelicals have biases they were born into and which they appear either unable or unwilling to negate in the effort to proclaim the gospel. Such biases typically hinge on how their childhood perception of reality was initially structured. Such perception structures may or may not be accurate to one degree or another but, regardless of anything else, it is certainly not complete. For the individual (either believer or unbeliever) to break through this preconceived structure is a Herculean task that most never attempt, let alone, successfully complete. For most, to break or transcend these structures is tantamount to castrating one’s father. This is not a casual metaphor. Most of our preconceived conceptions of reality come from our fathers, both earthly and heavenly. And honoring both fathers is essential to the Christian faith, as most of us would agree. However, the way in which we honor our fathers is subject to debate. First, our earthly fathers are humans and inherit the same flaws as every other man. To continue these flawed ways of thinking for the sake of a supposed Biblical commandment is to negate the true intention of the commandment. Secondly, our first conception of God the Father is not necessarily the correct conception of God the Father. Furthermore, we do not exhaust God the Father in our years of life. God is infinite and there are many aspects of Him that might at first seem contrary to our initial concepts but, over time, can be seen as either harmonizing or correcting such preconceived notions. Recall how the first disciples of Jesus had years of continual paradigm shifts as they continued to grow spiritually and as God reorganized their thinking and conceptions of reality. Beginning with Jesus and continuing with the Holy Spirit, God began to teach them of the Kingdom of God. Jesus in particular was able to successfully contextualize the Kingdom of God within stories, parables, allegories and mashals so that the people could understand these truths within their cultural context. Thus, just as Jesus and the apostles contextualized the Gospel within ANE and Greco-Roman cultures, so Christian missionaries of today attempt to contextualize the gospel within various foreign cultures that are devoid of “Christian” influence. What is more, with both the proliferation of religious liberty and the influx of Eastern and African cultures, Western society is becoming less and less “Christianized”. There are fewer and fewer Westerners who have a basic understanding of Christian terminology in order to comprehend the Gospel message. Therefore, we have the Emergent churches whose specific modus operandi is to create churches in America and Western Civilization as Western Christian missionaries would create churches in Africa, Asia or the Middle East. They are called “missional churches” and they are using the exact methods missionaries have successfully applied for the last hundred plus years. Of course, the usual suspects are highly critical of the Emergent Church movement as they simultaneously send out missionaries to China and Egypt to do the same thing. Why are they critical of Emergent Churches? 1) They do not understand Emergent churches just as they do not understand foreign missions and church planters. If any SNC leader knew what was taught at the average SBC seminary about how to contextualize the gospel, they would swear that liberalism had snuck back into the convention. 2) They are cultural and ethnic supremacists. They assume that American and Western Christianity is the only way of practicing the faith and every other method must be wrong. 3) They really dislike the fact that they and their Christian practice are becoming increasingly irrelevant and outdated. They themselves refuse to change in order to witness to the world; they would rather change the world instead. Thus, when they see contemporary and Emergent churches being highly successful it is like salt in their open wounds. Nevertheless, the old is fading away and those who can see the horizon because they have both the ability to and willingness to look only have to be patient to see their beliefs and methods vindicated. I mean really, who appears more confident: fundamentalists and their close evangelical kin who are falling back into defeatism because they suspect the Great Tribulation around the corner or the progressives who see abundant evidence of God’s victory as He patiently carves out the future.
All this being said, please allow me an attempt at contextualizing modern psychology in a manner which conveys the truth of the matter with the language of the plebs.
One of the current debates among evangelicals is the legitimacy of modern psychology.
Since the early eighties, many evangelical Christians have become dissatisfied with many of the excesses of modern psychology and have attempted to find alternatives to physician help.
Perhaps one of the more notorious examples of alternative medicine is the nouthetic counseling fad. I call it a fad because it is a new phenomenon that has just reached much of contemporary evangelicalism and because it resembles all the other evangelical fads of the last few decades (i.e., “everyone must get on board or you’re not right with God.”)
All behavioral disorders are caused by sin and thus can only be cured by faith (i.e., the Bible). The Scriptural basis for this umbrella idea comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
While much modern psychology believes that most behavioral disorders are psychological in nature, many modern nouthetic counselors believe that all such disorders derive from sin in the life of the individual. Thus, since sin is in the purview of the pastoral sphere, nouthetic counseling can cure behavioral disorders and modern psychology will do no good whatsoever.
Now there is so much wrong with the thinking in the nouthetic counseling movement that it is only the shear ignorance of the average evangelical that keeps this boat afloat.
Here is a short run down of some of the problems:
1) An overly broad interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What’s new here?
2) The evangelical acceptance of modern and naturalistic (some would say “atheistic”) conception of the nature of man. The irony is that while they believe they are ridding themselves of modern and naturalistic conceptions of the nature of man, they have, in fact, unknowingly adopted modern psychological views.
3) Not every behavioral problem is caused by sin. Many evangelicals read in the Scriptures about the sin of having no “self control” and assume that anyone who cannot control an aspect of themselves has some sin causing it.
4) Many evangelicals who are pastors or want to be pastors hold to a strong view pastoral authority and ministry. Thus, many believe that a church must have one supreme pastor who manages all pastoral duties. In this case, many pastors and would–be pastors dislike modern psychology because it would mean that a pastor would have to have a degree in psychology in order to council. Of course, a pastor already should. Many larger churches already have psychologically trained pastors who handle such counseling. Of course, they can afford to do so.
5) Many evangelicals have a misconception of what the Bible is. They see the Bible as not just a book concerning the relationship of God and Man but a history text book, a science text book, a dieting book, a health and wealth manual, a psychology book, and any number of other books on the subject they themselves wish it to be. In fact, the only type of book it is not it a literary book.
To sum up all these problems, many modern evangelicals are ignorant of modern psychology and, most embarrassingly, are ignorant of Scripture.
But I have made all of these points before. Here is the new point:
Let us make the statement that many of the psychological disorders that modern psychology treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. Let us make that statement and identify it as fact. Thus, a particular sin has caused a psychological disorder.
Now, flipping to the other side, let us make the statement that many physical disorders that modern medicine treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. What are some example? Drunkenness can cause cirrhosis of the liver, sexual immorality can cause diseases, anger can cause a heart attack, etc. Thus, a particular sin has caused a physical disorder.
Now a person can sin, get a physical disorder and then repent of that sin while the physical disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a medical doctor in order to treat the physical disorder long after the sin has been repented.
Think of psychological disorders similarly. A person can sin, get a psychological disorder and then repent of that sin while the psychological disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a psychologist in order to treat the psychological disorder long after the sin has been repented.
All this being said, please allow me an attempt at contextualizing modern psychology in a manner which conveys the truth of the matter with the language of the plebs.
One of the current debates among evangelicals is the legitimacy of modern psychology.
Since the early eighties, many evangelical Christians have become dissatisfied with many of the excesses of modern psychology and have attempted to find alternatives to physician help.
Perhaps one of the more notorious examples of alternative medicine is the nouthetic counseling fad. I call it a fad because it is a new phenomenon that has just reached much of contemporary evangelicalism and because it resembles all the other evangelical fads of the last few decades (i.e., “everyone must get on board or you’re not right with God.”)
All behavioral disorders are caused by sin and thus can only be cured by faith (i.e., the Bible). The Scriptural basis for this umbrella idea comes from 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”
While much modern psychology believes that most behavioral disorders are psychological in nature, many modern nouthetic counselors believe that all such disorders derive from sin in the life of the individual. Thus, since sin is in the purview of the pastoral sphere, nouthetic counseling can cure behavioral disorders and modern psychology will do no good whatsoever.
Now there is so much wrong with the thinking in the nouthetic counseling movement that it is only the shear ignorance of the average evangelical that keeps this boat afloat.
Here is a short run down of some of the problems:
1) An overly broad interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16-17. What’s new here?
2) The evangelical acceptance of modern and naturalistic (some would say “atheistic”) conception of the nature of man. The irony is that while they believe they are ridding themselves of modern and naturalistic conceptions of the nature of man, they have, in fact, unknowingly adopted modern psychological views.
3) Not every behavioral problem is caused by sin. Many evangelicals read in the Scriptures about the sin of having no “self control” and assume that anyone who cannot control an aspect of themselves has some sin causing it.
4) Many evangelicals who are pastors or want to be pastors hold to a strong view pastoral authority and ministry. Thus, many believe that a church must have one supreme pastor who manages all pastoral duties. In this case, many pastors and would–be pastors dislike modern psychology because it would mean that a pastor would have to have a degree in psychology in order to council. Of course, a pastor already should. Many larger churches already have psychologically trained pastors who handle such counseling. Of course, they can afford to do so.
5) Many evangelicals have a misconception of what the Bible is. They see the Bible as not just a book concerning the relationship of God and Man but a history text book, a science text book, a dieting book, a health and wealth manual, a psychology book, and any number of other books on the subject they themselves wish it to be. In fact, the only type of book it is not it a literary book.
To sum up all these problems, many modern evangelicals are ignorant of modern psychology and, most embarrassingly, are ignorant of Scripture.
But I have made all of these points before. Here is the new point:
Let us make the statement that many of the psychological disorders that modern psychology treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. Let us make that statement and identify it as fact. Thus, a particular sin has caused a psychological disorder.
Now, flipping to the other side, let us make the statement that many physical disorders that modern medicine treats is indeed caused by sin in the life of the individual. What are some example? Drunkenness can cause cirrhosis of the liver, sexual immorality can cause diseases, anger can cause a heart attack, etc. Thus, a particular sin has caused a physical disorder.
Now a person can sin, get a physical disorder and then repent of that sin while the physical disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a medical doctor in order to treat the physical disorder long after the sin has been repented.
Think of psychological disorders similarly. A person can sin, get a psychological disorder and then repent of that sin while the psychological disorder remains. Most times, the individual must continue to see a psychologist in order to treat the psychological disorder long after the sin has been repented.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Divine Creation
Nowhere? To me you might as well be saying that nowhere does science begin to support and give evidence for gravity.
And nowhere does the Bible teach that God did not use biological evolution to create the universe. Of course, the same can be said of gravity, photosynthesis, relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, cell-division, and a million other aspects of God’s creation. Simply because the Bible is silent on an issue it does not mean that the issue does not exist. Do the Bible writers explain the rules of Greek phonetics when want to tell a story? Must Hieronymus Bosch explain how he mixes the oil and how he paints on wood panels as well as create The Garden of Earthly Delights?
Nowhere does the Bible actually give any explanation of how God forms objects; that is not the Bible’s purpose. What is important is that “God formed Man”, all else is secondary with regards to creation. One Scripture writer states that “God formed him in his mother’s womb.” How God did so the writer doesn’t say. That it took a sperm and an egg, cell division and nine months of gestation is completely missing from his statement. Are we then to say, “No, God doesn’t create Man over nine months and by cell division because the Bible doesn’t say so; it simply says God forms man, therefore God forms man immediately.”?
Did God form Adam using any scientific principle by which all those after him are created? Did God use cell division? Did God use DNA? Did He create the skeleton first or the organs first? Did He start from the outside in or the inside out? Did He turn the dust into cells or DNA first and then construct that out of man or did He make a mud statue and then bring that to life? Was the statue wet or dry? When did man first have atoms and various subatomic particles? Did God use scientific laws for creating man or did he break all the known scientific laws of the already created universe to make man? Did God turn dust into a sperm and an egg and then allow the gestation process to do its work? At what point did the cells come alive: before or exactly at the point that man was granted conscious? If God took dust and created live cells that he then turned those live cells into a man does this contradict the Bible?
“God spoke to create all but man, and He personally formed man from the dust of the ground.” Well, what about everyone else since Adam? How can Jeremiah say that God formed him? He didn’t did he? No, a sperm from his dad and an egg from his mom formed him, not God. Is Jeremiah less than the image of God because he was not directly formed from dust as Adam? God did speak to create man; the Bible clearly says so. Everything that exists as creation was created by the Word of God, including man. Jesus Himself was created by the Word of God, that certainly doesn’t make Him less than Adam.
For as long as I have been discussing the issue of science and the Faith, I have always heard believers who disbelieve in evolution cite, as their authority, atheists. Why is this done? Why are atheists cited? Why not cite theistic evolutionists? I know why; it would defeat your argument.
Who cares what atheists and “secular” scientists think? They don’t believe in God, so why should any believer cite them as an authority about God?
Would I go to a person who only has a vague awareness of James Joyce, has never read Ulysses, does not like Joyce from the little he has heard, and then ask for his opinion on what the purpose of the "Circe" chapter is? No, I would go to someone who actually has read Ulysses and get his opinion. I wouldn’t go to a person who doesn’t know Greek and get his opinion on particular uses of the genitive? That a punk rocker or rapper doesn’t agree with or even understand baroque music does not therefore place their opinion of Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos in any high level of musical authority in my personal artistic pantheon. Furthermore, I wouldn’t go to someone who hasn’t studied biology to get their scientific opinion on evolution. Thus, I wouldn’t go to an atheist to get his opinion on evolution and God. Their ignorant of God. They don’t know. If one brings up relativity, the hydrologic cycle, quantum mechanics, and any other scientific fact and they will say it disproves the creation of God. Does it? No, and if an atheists say that one wouldn’t believe them. So why should we then believe them when they say evolution disproves God. Most of those atheists out there who do think that evolution disproves God aren’t even biologists themselves.
Why is it that so many people can believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time and not have a problem? Why do so many scientists and biologists not have a problem with these as mutually inclusive ideas?
Don’t worry. You could not have possibly known what point I was going to make because I did not tell you what my point was going to be. I’ve argued all this before. These are all inerrancy issues and science versus religion questions. These issues were settled by the Church in the latter half of the 18th century and the first half of the twentieth century. One might as well be arguing that Matthew and Luke didn’t use sources, Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch, or the book of Daniel was written during the 6th century BCE. It’s all milk to me now. One might as well be singing “Zacchaeus was a wee little man” to me.
We must dig deeper. What does the evolution mean for Man in his relation with God? If the first Man was very biologically different from contemporary Man, what does that mean about Man being created in the likeness of God?
These million and billion year old models of the universe continuing to create itself over time are sublime. Man is continuing to be molded. The earth, through storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, and the natural erosion of water and gravity, is carefully being carved and by God from eternity. It’s like a man with his bonsai tree. It’s a man tending his garden. It’s the Creator creating and continuing to create and, therefore, still enjoying His creation.
He is continuing to create us as well. The parables of Jesus are wonderful in conveying this. All the agricultural metaphors as applied to humanity.
Really, how sublime is the creation!
How like God is evolution! How like God is the slow change towards perfection! He shapes the His universe. He molds it like a potter with water and dirt over time. Just as water shapes the earth (erosion and the hydrologic cycle) so our bodies are shaped (cell-division cycle) over time until we are not biologically the same being we were when we first started. It is astounding!
In the first creation story God is seen at a distance when creating. However, in the second creation story, God is anthropomorphic and walking in and amongst His creation. He plants a garden, He forms animals from out of the ground, He forms man from the dust of the ground like a kid making mud pies, like a potter at his clay.
And God continues to create. He is continually shaping the universe. The creative process continues, both geologically, biologically and spiritually. God continues to form His world through weathering. God continues to form biological man through evolution. God continues to form spiritual man through sanctification. The creation goes on. God continues to create and God continues to be active in the forming of His world.
How could He not be?
To say that evolution or weathering or the hydrologic cycle is not evidence of God’s creative activity is nonsensical. Quite the opposite! Evolution et al is proof of God’s creative activity. That it resembles many other means of His creative process should be of no surprise to any of us.
To say that God should not have created by evolution ... well, it’s one think to tell Mozart he should not have first created Don Giovanni with the actors alternating between spoken recitatives and sung arias and then preferring the latter secco-recitatives composed by Mozart in place of the spoken text, but to tell God He shouldn’t use evolution to create because it is a method beneath His dignity as creator? Nonsense! It is not a mediocre method of creativity on the part of God; it is a method that has a quality of transcendental greatness whispers to our spirits of the majesty and glory that is God. All other animal life in the universe walks around in a condition of utter indifference to the splendor that surrounds them. But we who are made in the image of our creator can gaze up and around at it all and (like the psalmists and the author of the book of Job) appreciate with a sliver of transcendental finity that which is reflected as the creative process.
To somehow say that God did not or could not employ the method of evolution in his creative process is tantamount to saying that God did not create at all.
“See that perfectly formed pocket watch? Was it random chance that it appeared as a perfectly functioning watch? See that painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Did it randomly appear as such out of then air? Is Don Quixote the result of a million monkeys typing?”
Frank - “See that elderly man over there with all the wrinkles and laugh lines under the eyes? How much would you wager that God created him as an old man?”
Ernest - “Nonsense! He shows all the signs of the aging process. He started off one way and only changed into that person over time.”
Frank - “Are you saying that God could not create a man who is already old?”
Ernest – “Of course God could do that, but it is a matter of whether God did do that. As we look at His other work it is a better wager to suggest that God created that man over time.”
Frank – “So if God said that He Himself created this man as an elderly man –“
Ernest – “Well, that’s different. Then God created that man as elderly from the get go.”
Frank – “But God just says that He created that man.”
Ernest – “Which leaves me to maintain that God created him the way He creates everyone else.”
And to somehow say that evolution would mean a less than sublime sense of creation … well, it’s like that slight moment of embarrassment when brilliant poet T.S. Eliot referred to Hamlet as an artistic failure. A reference to which literary critic Harold Bloom responded, “Then show me an artistic success!”
And nowhere does the Bible teach that God did not use biological evolution to create the universe. Of course, the same can be said of gravity, photosynthesis, relativity, the second law of thermodynamics, cell-division, and a million other aspects of God’s creation. Simply because the Bible is silent on an issue it does not mean that the issue does not exist. Do the Bible writers explain the rules of Greek phonetics when want to tell a story? Must Hieronymus Bosch explain how he mixes the oil and how he paints on wood panels as well as create The Garden of Earthly Delights?
Nowhere does the Bible actually give any explanation of how God forms objects; that is not the Bible’s purpose. What is important is that “God formed Man”, all else is secondary with regards to creation. One Scripture writer states that “God formed him in his mother’s womb.” How God did so the writer doesn’t say. That it took a sperm and an egg, cell division and nine months of gestation is completely missing from his statement. Are we then to say, “No, God doesn’t create Man over nine months and by cell division because the Bible doesn’t say so; it simply says God forms man, therefore God forms man immediately.”?
Did God form Adam using any scientific principle by which all those after him are created? Did God use cell division? Did God use DNA? Did He create the skeleton first or the organs first? Did He start from the outside in or the inside out? Did He turn the dust into cells or DNA first and then construct that out of man or did He make a mud statue and then bring that to life? Was the statue wet or dry? When did man first have atoms and various subatomic particles? Did God use scientific laws for creating man or did he break all the known scientific laws of the already created universe to make man? Did God turn dust into a sperm and an egg and then allow the gestation process to do its work? At what point did the cells come alive: before or exactly at the point that man was granted conscious? If God took dust and created live cells that he then turned those live cells into a man does this contradict the Bible?
“God spoke to create all but man, and He personally formed man from the dust of the ground.” Well, what about everyone else since Adam? How can Jeremiah say that God formed him? He didn’t did he? No, a sperm from his dad and an egg from his mom formed him, not God. Is Jeremiah less than the image of God because he was not directly formed from dust as Adam? God did speak to create man; the Bible clearly says so. Everything that exists as creation was created by the Word of God, including man. Jesus Himself was created by the Word of God, that certainly doesn’t make Him less than Adam.
For as long as I have been discussing the issue of science and the Faith, I have always heard believers who disbelieve in evolution cite, as their authority, atheists. Why is this done? Why are atheists cited? Why not cite theistic evolutionists? I know why; it would defeat your argument.
Who cares what atheists and “secular” scientists think? They don’t believe in God, so why should any believer cite them as an authority about God?
Would I go to a person who only has a vague awareness of James Joyce, has never read Ulysses, does not like Joyce from the little he has heard, and then ask for his opinion on what the purpose of the "Circe" chapter is? No, I would go to someone who actually has read Ulysses and get his opinion. I wouldn’t go to a person who doesn’t know Greek and get his opinion on particular uses of the genitive? That a punk rocker or rapper doesn’t agree with or even understand baroque music does not therefore place their opinion of Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos in any high level of musical authority in my personal artistic pantheon. Furthermore, I wouldn’t go to someone who hasn’t studied biology to get their scientific opinion on evolution. Thus, I wouldn’t go to an atheist to get his opinion on evolution and God. Their ignorant of God. They don’t know. If one brings up relativity, the hydrologic cycle, quantum mechanics, and any other scientific fact and they will say it disproves the creation of God. Does it? No, and if an atheists say that one wouldn’t believe them. So why should we then believe them when they say evolution disproves God. Most of those atheists out there who do think that evolution disproves God aren’t even biologists themselves.
Why is it that so many people can believe in God and believe in evolution at the same time and not have a problem? Why do so many scientists and biologists not have a problem with these as mutually inclusive ideas?
Don’t worry. You could not have possibly known what point I was going to make because I did not tell you what my point was going to be. I’ve argued all this before. These are all inerrancy issues and science versus religion questions. These issues were settled by the Church in the latter half of the 18th century and the first half of the twentieth century. One might as well be arguing that Matthew and Luke didn’t use sources, Moses wrote every word of the Pentateuch, or the book of Daniel was written during the 6th century BCE. It’s all milk to me now. One might as well be singing “Zacchaeus was a wee little man” to me.
We must dig deeper. What does the evolution mean for Man in his relation with God? If the first Man was very biologically different from contemporary Man, what does that mean about Man being created in the likeness of God?
These million and billion year old models of the universe continuing to create itself over time are sublime. Man is continuing to be molded. The earth, through storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, and the natural erosion of water and gravity, is carefully being carved and by God from eternity. It’s like a man with his bonsai tree. It’s a man tending his garden. It’s the Creator creating and continuing to create and, therefore, still enjoying His creation.
He is continuing to create us as well. The parables of Jesus are wonderful in conveying this. All the agricultural metaphors as applied to humanity.
Really, how sublime is the creation!
How like God is evolution! How like God is the slow change towards perfection! He shapes the His universe. He molds it like a potter with water and dirt over time. Just as water shapes the earth (erosion and the hydrologic cycle) so our bodies are shaped (cell-division cycle) over time until we are not biologically the same being we were when we first started. It is astounding!
In the first creation story God is seen at a distance when creating. However, in the second creation story, God is anthropomorphic and walking in and amongst His creation. He plants a garden, He forms animals from out of the ground, He forms man from the dust of the ground like a kid making mud pies, like a potter at his clay.
And God continues to create. He is continually shaping the universe. The creative process continues, both geologically, biologically and spiritually. God continues to form His world through weathering. God continues to form biological man through evolution. God continues to form spiritual man through sanctification. The creation goes on. God continues to create and God continues to be active in the forming of His world.
How could He not be?
To say that evolution or weathering or the hydrologic cycle is not evidence of God’s creative activity is nonsensical. Quite the opposite! Evolution et al is proof of God’s creative activity. That it resembles many other means of His creative process should be of no surprise to any of us.
To say that God should not have created by evolution ... well, it’s one think to tell Mozart he should not have first created Don Giovanni with the actors alternating between spoken recitatives and sung arias and then preferring the latter secco-recitatives composed by Mozart in place of the spoken text, but to tell God He shouldn’t use evolution to create because it is a method beneath His dignity as creator? Nonsense! It is not a mediocre method of creativity on the part of God; it is a method that has a quality of transcendental greatness whispers to our spirits of the majesty and glory that is God. All other animal life in the universe walks around in a condition of utter indifference to the splendor that surrounds them. But we who are made in the image of our creator can gaze up and around at it all and (like the psalmists and the author of the book of Job) appreciate with a sliver of transcendental finity that which is reflected as the creative process.
To somehow say that God did not or could not employ the method of evolution in his creative process is tantamount to saying that God did not create at all.
“See that perfectly formed pocket watch? Was it random chance that it appeared as a perfectly functioning watch? See that painting on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? Did it randomly appear as such out of then air? Is Don Quixote the result of a million monkeys typing?”
Frank - “See that elderly man over there with all the wrinkles and laugh lines under the eyes? How much would you wager that God created him as an old man?”
Ernest - “Nonsense! He shows all the signs of the aging process. He started off one way and only changed into that person over time.”
Frank - “Are you saying that God could not create a man who is already old?”
Ernest – “Of course God could do that, but it is a matter of whether God did do that. As we look at His other work it is a better wager to suggest that God created that man over time.”
Frank – “So if God said that He Himself created this man as an elderly man –“
Ernest – “Well, that’s different. Then God created that man as elderly from the get go.”
Frank – “But God just says that He created that man.”
Ernest – “Which leaves me to maintain that God created him the way He creates everyone else.”
And to somehow say that evolution would mean a less than sublime sense of creation … well, it’s like that slight moment of embarrassment when brilliant poet T.S. Eliot referred to Hamlet as an artistic failure. A reference to which literary critic Harold Bloom responded, “Then show me an artistic success!”
Thursday, June 08, 2006
“One” Man And “One” Woman?
As I have been occasionally writing the book on my experiences in seminary, I have been recollecting on how my understanding of marriage, divorce and homosexuality has changed. In particular, I was trying to grasp what the definition of marriage is. We hear that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman. The man and woman aspect of this definition I am in full agreement upon. However, it is the “one” man and “one” woman aspect that has me puzzled. For instance:
If a man has two wives, is he truly married to both of them?
If he is only truly married to one and not the other, which is which?
If he is truly married to the woman he wedded first and the second is nothing but adultery, then if the first wife dies is he then married to the second wife and no longer committing adultery.
Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah by her father Laban, yet Jacob honored the marriage. However, he then turned around and married Rachel, the woman he wanted to marry in the first place. Was Jacob married to both? Was he only married to one? If so, which one? Rachel or Leah?
Polygamy was practiced in the Ancient Near East (ANE): was this marriage practice honored by God? Apparently it was. In fact, according to Scripture, God appears to honor polygamous marriages.
I think what we have here is another case of cultural relativity. I think that while God honored the polygamous marriages of the ANE, he would not do so today. This is a part of the progressive revelation we often encounter in Scripture. Just as God one honored slavery, He now no longer tolerates such behavior.
If a man has two wives, is he truly married to both of them?
If he is only truly married to one and not the other, which is which?
If he is truly married to the woman he wedded first and the second is nothing but adultery, then if the first wife dies is he then married to the second wife and no longer committing adultery.
Jacob was tricked into marrying Leah by her father Laban, yet Jacob honored the marriage. However, he then turned around and married Rachel, the woman he wanted to marry in the first place. Was Jacob married to both? Was he only married to one? If so, which one? Rachel or Leah?
Polygamy was practiced in the Ancient Near East (ANE): was this marriage practice honored by God? Apparently it was. In fact, according to Scripture, God appears to honor polygamous marriages.
I think what we have here is another case of cultural relativity. I think that while God honored the polygamous marriages of the ANE, he would not do so today. This is a part of the progressive revelation we often encounter in Scripture. Just as God one honored slavery, He now no longer tolerates such behavior.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
God Does Not Call The Rain To Fall
I think we must now admit that God does not call the rain to fall. I do not think that we can tenably state that God causes the rain to fall; such is scientifically impossible.
See the hydrologic cycle
As we can see from the above diagram representing the scientific research of hundreds of years of inquiry, the cause of rain is completely removed from the activities of God.
Now we do have Scriptural references that appear to suggest that God makes rain:
Gen 2:5; 7:4; Ex 9:18; Lev 26:4; Deut 11:14; 1Sa 12:17; Job 5:10; Ps 68:9; Jer 5:24; Joe 2:23; Amo 4:7; Mat 5:45; Act 14:17
Therefore, I suggest that we now take these passages as figurative and not literal. Because, as science has so overwhelming proven, rain has absolutely nothing to do with God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)