The Lever and the Tiger

Let us suppose that you are confronted with a wall. On the other side of that wall are two separate rooms. There is a door between these two rooms. In one room is a hungry, man-eating tiger. In the second room, there may or may not be a human being.

You are presented with a lever. If you pull the lever, the door between the two rooms will open and the hungry, man-eating tiger will be able to enter the other room. If there is no human in the other room, then no life will be terminated. If there is a human in the other room, then that human will be killed by the hungry, man-eating tiger.

Therefore, if you are uncertain as to whether or not there is a living person in the other room but are given the free choice on whether or not to pull the lever, do you, in uncertainty, choose to pull the lever?

"Hateful" Comments

When you see "hateful" comments on Youtube, Twitter, a news website, or other internet webpage and want to draw conclusions about the country, consider the following:

- 500 negative comments in a nation of 300 million.

- How many of these negative comments are international in origin?

- 500 negative comments in a world of 6 billion.

- How many of these negative comments are from adults and how many are from middle schoolers?

- What is the motive for such negative comments? Trying to joke ironically? Trying to get a row out of you? Trying to make you think that a certain segment of the population is "hateful". Trying to create controversy so they can use the controversy advertise the issue/product publicly?

The virtual anonymity of the internet creates the situation in which one is uncertain as to the location, age/maturity, or motivation of anyone who posts "hateful" comments in such a public forum. This ambiguity of intent creates a vacuum that people attempt to fill with their own speculation, usually based on their own biases, presumptions, pet peeves, and worldview. Therefore, it can be easy to misjudge a situation and be deceived.

At the very least, there is the strong possibility that people who post "hateful" comments in a public forum are attempting to manipulate your emotions for personal gain. Don't give people the power to influence you in this regard.

MY TOP ALBUMS OF 2013

"The Devil Put Dinosaurs Here", Alice in Chains

"Mala", Devendra Banhart

"The Next Day", David Bowie

"Be the Void", Dr. Dog

"Histoire de Melody Nelson", Serge Gainsbourg

"The 2nd Law", Muse

"King Animal", Soundgarden

"High Rise", Stone Temple Pilots

"The Whole Love", Wilco

"Fly from Here", Yes

What The Sign Language Interpreter Was Actually Trying to Do

Responding to Oppression II

I'm not very political. At all. My theology has developed over the past two decades to the point where I am completely immersed in the methods of Jesus and the Sermon on the Mount. I do not march, picket, boycott, protest, sue, vote, write to my congressman, or engage in any activity that I think employs the political methods of this world. Instead, I get on with the slow, steady, work of the Kingdom in full assurance of my success and the success of the Kingdom.

Therefore, I do not delve into or am bothered by the daily machinations of the current culture war. I really couldn't care less. If a nativity scene or cross or monument to the Ten Commandments is taken down from a public place, it doesn't faze me. I don't cry out for justice when someone is told not to use Jesus' name in a public prayer or if prayer is "prevented" at all.

However, I am extremely bothered when the government begins to order private citizens to go against their personal faith.

I have been closely following a number of the legal cases around the country in which businesses own by Christians are being forced to provide abortion causing drugs to employees and in which florist and cake-decorating businesses are being forced to provide their services to same-sex marriages. I find this completely unconscionable.

I read an article this morning in which a judge ordered that a Christian baker must serve gay couples for same-sex ceremonies despite his religious beliefs or face fines. Obviously, the gay couple who sued this Christian baker could have gotten a cake elsewhere (and probably did). Their interest and objective was not to get a cake but to employ the government to force the owner of this private business to deny his religious beliefs and acquiesce to how they believe all society should behave.

According to the article, the baker and his legal team are considering their next steps.

Now what if this case goes all the way to the top of the American judicial system and the final decision is that this baker and all other Christian businesses are to be forced to provide their services to same-sex marriages, what should the Christian response be?

The decision is actually very easy though the implementation is of the upmost difficulty.

Three choices:

1) Acquiesce and submit to imposed government authority and violate Christian faith

2) Close up shop and seek a business or sphere of society in which one is not confronted with challenges to Christian conscience

3) Ignore government imposition and carry on in defiance

Let's be honest: human nature being what it is (Christian or otherwise), the vast majority of believers will choose one of the first two options (probably the latter rather than the former). More's the pity. Most people have neither the guts nor the faith to actually take their religious beliefs all the way to the logical conclusion. They will voice outrage and protest if a nativity scene or cross or monument to the Ten Commandments is taken down from a public place because it's easy to do so and one risks very little by participating.

Nevertheless, the correct choice is number 3, to completely ignore what the government says in this matter and proceed as before in full knowledge that you are doing the right thing. Again, this is actually a very easy choice to make but the implementation of it is extremely difficult and requires much self-sacrifice.

Here's how it would go:

- The government states that you as a baker must violate your Christian faith and provide their services to same-sex marriages.

- You refuse.

- The government fines your business.

- You refuse to pay the fine.

- The government orders your business to close.

- You refuse to close your business.

- The government arrests you.

- You go to jail, but, as soon as you are released, you reopen your business.

- You continue to mind your business in defiance of the law and in good conscience until either the government relents or you yourself are spent to the very core of your soul.

Of course, this is easier said than done, and I do not believe that most Christians have the faith to defy society and government to this extent. However, this is really what Christians should do and it is the only way in which freedom of religious practice and expression is to be realized.

Wager of Peace?

I've been practically gagging these past few days in my attempts to stomach the celebrations given to Nelson Mandela. It's so difficult for me to hear people from across the political spectrum and from every walk of life state that Mandela was a man of peace who waged non-violent resistance on the apartheid system.

I think the kicker was this article at the Associated Baptist Press: Nelson Mandela: Wager of Peace.

Wager of peace?

Nelson Mandela founded the terrorist organization "Umkhonto we Sizwe" (MK) in 1961 that carried out hundreds and hundreds of bombings on government installations, shopping centers and restaurants. He personally ordered these bombings. He was labeled a terrorist because of it. He went to prison for 27 years because of it. He was offered release numerous times if only he would renounce violence. He refused. And believe me, these bombings killed far more blacks than whites. And he, the MK, and the African National Congress (ANC) violently terrorized and tortured their own people to squash any collaboration and compromise with the apartheid government of South Africa. As late as 1988, Mandela refused to renounce violence as a means to end apartheid. Throughout the 1980s, the government of South African was in negotiations with the ANC to end apartheid on condition that they end the violence and break off relations with the Soviet Union, Mandela refused. The bombings of civilians in the 1980s continued. It wasn't until the break up of the Soviet Union and the end of their support that Mandela and the ANC were willing to renounce violence.

I'm sorry but no matter how noble his cause, Mandela never had a problem using excessive violence to reach his goals. There is nothing Christ-like about this. This is completely foreign to the non-violent teachings of Jesus. For people to compare Mandela to Ghandi or Martin Luther King Jr. and others who actually did apply the teachings of Jesus is to do a great injustice to true non-violent resistance.

Wager of peace? Unfortunately, Mandela waged violent war.

There was nothing peaceful about what he did.

 

Responding to Oppression I

Over the past three days I have been meditating upon the manner in which one responds to societal oppression. In particular I was thinking about South Africa in the 20th Century and the more recent news coming out of the Central African Republic. How do we react to oppressive regimes and violent brutality?

Appropriately enough, the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah has just concluded, which celebrates in part the violent but nevertheless successful rebellion of 2nd century BCE Jews led by Judas Maccabeus over the brutal oppression of the Seleucid Empire. Despite the success, the methods employed had a detrimental effect upon the psyche of the majority of the nation to the point that they continually adopted a brigand's means of violent revolution to Roman occupation and oppression in the 1st century CE.

One of the main thrusts of Jesus' prophetic message to 1st century Jewish people was that their current methods of responding to Rome would lead to the destruction of the nation (see the Sicarii and Simon bar Kokhba). These were the violent methods that they had adopted since the Maccabean Revolt that to them had proved obviously effective. Instead, Jesus called on the people to abandon their current way of being God's people and follow his way -  a way so notably put forth in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7).

I don't think anyone would suggest sitting down and allowing brutality to happen, but that does not mean that one should respond with brutality. One can engage in active non-violent resistance (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.) without using the methods of the enemy. While violent resistance does lead to immediate results, the results can just as immediately be overturned by the same methods. Such methods also have a debilitating effect upon the psyche of both the wielder and the victim. Non-violent resistance is usually a far more gradual process of political change that requires both patience and maturity, but the results are far more difficult to reverse. It also has an uplifting effect upon the psyche (see Jesus, Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc.).

The best way of responding to oppression, brutality, violence, and evil, the most human way, the way that most clearly reflects the image of God in this world, is the method of love, mercy, self-denial, forgiveness, peace, and turning the other cheek.

This is not the easiest road and it is certainly not the method of immediate self-gratification, but it is by far the most effective means of establishing permanent and positive societal change.

As we proceed through the Christmas season, let us meditate upon peaceful approaches societal problems and, most importantly, evaluate the methods of the political leadership we too often tend to idolize.

ABBEY ROAD

The Young Ones

 "Oi! Up Scumbag! Up Scumbag!"

The Moon

"The Moon's current orbital distance, about thirty times the diameter of the Earth, causes it to appear almost the same size in the sky as the Sun, allowing it to cover the Sun nearly precisely in total solar eclipses. This matching of apparent visual size is a coincidence."

Really, what were the odds?

I Think It's a Copy of the Odyssey

What Hinders Baptism?

I read this line in a Baptist Press article. I've highlighted my point of interest.

"Because the seminary is not a church and does not have the authority to baptize, SBTC President Jim Richards said the baptismal pool will provide a place for churches that do not have a baptismal and a place for students to practice the ordinance before entering formal full-time pastoral ministry."

Why doesn't the seminary have the authority to baptize? Do not all believers have the authority to baptize? Did not Christ himself give all believers the authority to baptize?

Actually, HE was given the authority and then commanded us to baptize.

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matthew 28:18-20)

I wonder if only churches have the authority to make disciples and teach. If that is so, then the seminary will have to close down.

And we are baptized into Christ, not the Church.

Sure, we are often bapitzed IN a church building. And we often become members of a church when baptized (providing all the proper forms have been filled out and are accurate, though sometimes such red tape can be done retroactively depending upon the individual situation).

I am quite partial to the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. Philip teaches the Ethiopian and then he baptizes the Ethiopian. No "church" in site (Intended joke). [For another great joke, see The Humour of Deutero-Isaiah in Isaiah 56:3-5]

In fact, when wanting to be baptized, the Ethopian asked one of my favorite questions in the Bible: "What hinders me from being baptized?" (v. 36)

Really, what does hinder baptism?

The Next Pope? An Inquiry

Did you hear? Pope Benedict XVI is resigning as Bishop of Rome. Now comes the biggest steeple chase in 600 years (unless you count Adrian Roger’s retirement from Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis). Soon Cardinals from north, south, east, and west (including St. Louis) will converge on Vatican City to see who will be chosen as the next Pope.

Let me state now publicly that I am removing my name from consideration. First, I already have a lot on my plate and second, I don’t think I would like the commute to Rome each morning. Sorry, no Pope Nicolas Beck I.

But allow me to make three recommendations for the next Pope: Hans Küng, Father Guido Sarducci, and U2’s Bono. (I think Sinead O’Connor removed herself from any consideration after that 1992 incident on SNL)

Here are the positives and negatives of each candidate:

Hans Küng is probably the leading theologian of the Roman Catholic Church and a best-selling author (see “On Being Christian”). Unfortunately, he wrote a book on the Papacy (see “Infallible? An Inquiry”). Of course, he’s in 80s and has been up for this position for a while, but, so far, long time no See.

Father Guido Sarducci is the gossip columnist and rock critic for the Vatican newspaper “L'Osservatore Romano” (or the “The Vatican Enquirer”). Unfortunately, he’s a smoker. So if we see green smoke (fumata verde) issuing from the chimney of the Sistine Chapel, then we’ll know that it’s Sarducci.

Bono might be an edgy choice but I think he would dramatically improve the image of the RCC and provide a little flare to the ceremony. All papal proclamations (especially ex cathedra) could be given in a manner like that of the Zoo TV and PopMart Tours (PopeMart Tour, anyone?). Unfortunately, being Pope may not be what Bono is looking for.

Nevertheless, I’m sure that the College of Cardinals will make the correct decision. But let their work be pro bono.

“WHAT IS TRUTH?”

There is the famous passage in John 18 where Jesus is before Pilate and they are in conversation. Jesus concludes by saying, “Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” Pilate famously replies with, “What is truth?” (v.37-38) And that’s how the conversation ends.

People have always found it odd that Jesus does not appear to answer Pilate’s question. Those less inclined to the Christian Faith will often say, “Ah-ha! See? Jesus couldn’t answer that question.” Honestly, even if Jesus couldn’t answer that question or didn’t know the answer to that question, do you think that the author of a book that argues that Jesus was equivalent with the God of the universe (1:1-2; 8:58; 10:30; 14:7-11) would record a question to Jesus that didn’t have an answer?

Those more inclined to the Christian Faith will scramble for an answer, some concluding that Pilate turned away before Jesus could answer him. For a similar reason as above, this seems unlikely.

So what is the answer?

The answer is found most explicitly in 14:6. Jesus says, “I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life, and no one comes to the Father, but through me.” (See also the slightly more cryptic 5:33; 8:32; 17:17). Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus is shown to be full of truth (1:14). He tells the truth (8:40, 45, 46; 16:7; 18:37). Truth comes through him (1:17; 8:32; 17:19; 18:37). The Spirit of Truth comes through him (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). The word “truth” is used over 25 times in the Gospel of John and almost exclusively in relation to Jesus.

Interestingly, Pilate’s use of the word is the last in the entire book. I believe the author is employing some irony here. After inundating the reader with the Truth, Pilate’s question is an incident of someone just not getting it (of which there are numerous examples in this book). If he had known the Truth, he would have asked, “WHO is truth?”

So Jesus, in fact, has answered Pilate’s question and had been answering it for 18 chapters. Jesus is the Truth.

A Short Review of “Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet” by Dale Allison

Today I finished reading “Jesus of Nazareth: Millenarian Prophet” by Dale Allison. I thought this book was okay in many respects. It’s primarily a new defense of the idea that Jesus was an eschatological prophet. It is a defense in the sense that Allison critiques and challenges the methods and conclusions of scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, Stephen Patterson who reject such an idea in favor of seeing Jesus as either a Jewish Cynic or aphoristic sage. It is new in the sense that Allison qualifies Jesus’ eschatology as taking the forms of millenarianism and asceticism.


Allison’s critique of the methods of Crossan et al is both thorough and enlightening. In some places, it’s fun. I’ve never taken Crossan, Borg, and their ilk seriously, but it is amusing to see them taken to the scholarly woodshed.

While I do appreciate Allison’s defense of the eschatological nature of Jesus ministry, I am not convinced that Jesus and his fledgling pre-Easter movement can or should be categorized as millenarian. At the very least, that is too broad a term to be adequately applied to Jesus’ context.

On the other hand, Allison’s examination of Jesus asceticism was thoroughly enjoyable and highly thought-provoking. In particular, I was intrigued by the notion that Jesus ascetic practices of property, money, poverty, sex, and housing were a part of his belief in a “realized eschatology” that pointed back to a pre-Fallen Edenic world and towards a New Creation. Interesting.

The place where I find the biggest fault with Allison here is his adherence to the view that Jesus did indeed expect an imminent, catastrophic end of the world. His errors: 1) He dies not sufficiently understand the characteristics, purpose, and role of apocalyptic language and literature. 2) He underestimates Jesus’ grasp of the apocalyptic. 3) He seems to maintain that any supposed popularity of misinterpretation of a literary form during its lifetime negates an author’s intentions if holding true to that form. 4) Is a common era that would take too long to explain but involves incongruity between what some scholars think that the Gospel writers did with the predictions of Jesus and what one would have expected them to do if these same scholars are correct.

Still, a very good book.

A Short Review of “The Historical Figure of Jesus” by E. P. Sanders

Last night I finished reading “The Historical Figure of Jesus” by E. P. Sanders. I did enjoy the book – admittedly, some parts more enthusiastically than others. Some of his methodology is a little stale and he is hindered because of it. I really enjoyed his analysis of the political setting of Jesus’ life in 1st century Palestine, although I think he underestimates the Jewish perception of Roman oppression.

He’s too quick to dismiss the reliability of the confrontation scenes between Jesus and his “enemies” because of the weakness of “enemy” arguments and because of the theological arrangement of such scenes by the Gospel writers. I do think this leads Sanders to minimize the tension between Jesus and the Pharisees, which is puzzling since he ends the book with such a forceful (and, in my opinion, accurate) statement of Jesus’ self-conception of his role: Jesus regarded himself as having the right to say who would be in the Kingdom of God and he held that God was acting directly and immediately through him, bypassing the Law.

While he repeatedly states how important the Scriptures were to Jesus as a first century Jew and while he agrees that Jesus was enacting some of the Old Testament prophecies (particularly in his final week), except in a far too generalized fashion, Sanders shies away from exploring Jesus’ understanding of the Scriptures and prophetic traditions and how it influenced his conception of his ministry and mission.

This is perhaps one of the reasons Sanders makes the big mistake of rejecting the idea that Jesus understood the Kingdom of God has having a present as well as a future reality. In some places I believe he violates his own methodology in order to keep Jesus’ teachings of the Kingdom to be “at hand” and never “among you.”

Where I believe Sanders gets it very right is the reason Jesus was arrested. Namely, Jesus’ enacted parable of “cleansing the Temple” was seen and rightly understood as a prophecy predicting the Temple’s utter destruction by God.

A very well written and researched book.

Immersing Cancer Patients [Updated]

So far this month we’ve had six individuals make commitments to follow Jesus (i.e., “get saved”). Four have been youth and two have been adults.

Of these adults, one is a lady who is a former Buddhist. She is also suffering terribly from cancer.

Here is the issue:

This woman wishes to be Baptized into Christ (and this become a member of the church) but … her illness prevents her from being Baptized by immersion.

…

What shall we do?

It appears that our senior pastor is going to ask the deacons to either waive Baptism by immersion for church membership in this woman’s case OR, if she really wants to experience Baptism, allow her to be sprinkled.

Interesting scenario, huh? No unique but somewhat uncommon in Baptist circles.

[UPDATE]

I can now tell you that the woman in question was Baptized by Sprinkling, not immersion. In the tradition of Baptist pragmatism for the sake of the Gospel, this woman, lying in a hospital bed in Chapel Hill, NC, was Baptized by the sprinkling of water ... using a North Carolina Tar Heel cup.

The worst part is that both she and her husband are NC State Wolfpack fans.

Riddles With No Answers: Textual Variances in Through the Looking-glass

In Through the Looking-glass, by Lewis Carroll

In the chapter titled, “Queen Alice”, Alice is sitting with the Red and White Queens engaged in an absurd conversation. The Red Queen continues to lecture and moralize and ask silly questions of Alice. Eventually, Alice wearies of any attempts to make sense out of the Red Queen’s madness. In most common additions of the book, the text reads as follows:

Alice sighed and gave it up. 'It's exactly like a riddle with no answer!' she thought.

Note the indefinite article accompanying “riddle”.

However, my Norton Critical Edition with the supposed authoritative text reads as follows:

Alice sighed and gave it up. 'It's exactly like the riddle with no answer!' she thought.

Note the definite article accompanying “riddle”.

So we have two versions of the text. Which is correct? This is not a small matter of textual variance because there could be an important link to the previous Alice book, Alice in Wonderland.

In chapter 7 of that book, titled, “A Mad Tea-Party”, Alice is sitting with the Mad Hatter, March Hare, and Dormouse, engaged in an absurd conversation. The text reads:

The Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this; but all he said was, 'Why is a raven like a writing-desk?'

…

'No, I give it up,' Alice replied: 'what's the answer?'

'I haven't the slightest idea,' said the Hatter.

…

Alice sighed wearily. 'I think you might do something better with the time,' she said, 'than waste it in asking riddles that have no answers.'

As you can surmise, if, in Through the Looking-glass, Alice actually used the definite article then it highly indicates that she is thinking about the Mad Hatter’s Riddle at this point. If she used the indefinite article then we have her thinking of no such riddle in particular.

The annotated editions of Alice that I’ve read have all drawn the connection between Alice’s statement in Through the Looking-glass and the Mad Hatter’s Riddle, even when the text these annotated editions are using contain the indefinite article. The editions usually state that the Mad Hatter’s Riddle is an example of a riddle with no answer.

And all these annotated editions use texts lacking the definite article. In fact, I’ve only been able to find one edition of Through the Looking-glass that includes the definite article in the text: the Norton Critical Edition, both the 1971 and 1992 editions of this book.

Therefore, because I hold the Norton Critical Editions to a high standard, because I deem a scholarly and authoritative edition to be a superior reference to that of any so-called “standard” edition, and because I believe that Carroll was quite conscious of the connection he was making between his two Alice books in this section, I must conclude that most editions of Through the Looking-glass are in error at this point and only the Norton Critical Editions offer an accurate version of Lewis Carroll’s true literary intention.

“What can we do to make the actual walking and living with Jesus more significant?”

“What can we do to make the actual walking and living with Jesus more significant?”


1) We must realize that the purpose of that walk and life is the furthering of the Kingdom of God, the realization of New Creation, and the summing up of all things in Christ.

2) We must realize that God has both created us and is equipping us for this purpose, and it is in this purpose that we discover who we are and where we find our ultimate fulfillment.

3) We must pursue this purpose.

Evangelicals and Excessive Sex: Mark Driscoll and Ed Young from Augustine's Perspective

I am linking above to a blog post that I read from Wade Burleson.

I find this interesting because though I didn’t find this blog post until today, last night I gave my lesson to the youth group on Chastity: the Christian Virtue of Sexuality.

I taught the youth that:

1) Chastity isn’t the Resistance of Sexuality, but it is the Pursuit of the Highest form of Sexuality.
2) God created sexuality
3) God created sexuality for a purpose
4) It was designed to be experienced in a particular way: In a lifelong committed marriage relationship
5) It’s physical but also spiritual
6) “The Two become One” (1 Corinthians 6:16; Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5)
7) When we engage in sexual activity, something spiritual happens
8) This is why sex outside of a lifelong committed marriage relationship can be so devastating
9) Wait for that marriage relationship for the spiritual connection to take place
10) Don’t Settle for a Watered Down, Degraded, Generic form of the Most Incredibly Intimacy Two People Can Have

I’ve started positing the PP of my lesson outlines online.

I actually mentioned Ed Young’s antics on the subject. Ed Young is a performance-artist. Art is his background and he uses his God-given gifts and passions for ministry purposes. If you really want to understand him, study the performance art of the prophet Ezekiel and the enacted parables of Jesus for where Pastor Young is coming from.

Ed Young believes that the Church in America MUST address the huge and seemingly all-encompassing problem that sexual immorality is in our country. And he’s doing so by proclaiming God’s great intention for sex and how small and degraded the world’s form of sex is.

As I told the youth: God is crazy about sex! He created it. It was his idea. It was one of his best ideas. BUT he created sex for a purpose and that’s a lifelong committed marriage relationship.