It Must Not Be Math

One of the passages used most for justifying the doctrine of Original Sin is Romans 5:12-21:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned-- for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:12-21)

A key part of this passage that is called out in, for example, Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology is verses 18-19:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. (Romans 5:18-19)

Concerning these verses, Grudem states (Systematic Theology, pgs. 494-495):

Here Paul says explicitly that through the trespass of one man "many were made [Gk. katestathesan, also an aorist indicative indicating completed past action] sinners." When Adam sinned, God thought of all who would descend from Adam as sinners. Though we did not yet exist, God, looking into the future and knowing that we would exist, began thinking of us as those who were guilty like Adam. This is also consistent with Paul's statement that "while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). Of course, some of us did not even exist when Christ died. But God nevertheless regarded us as sinners in need of salvation. The conclusion to be drawn from these verses is that all members of the human race were represented by Adam in the time of testing in the Garden of Eden. As our representative, Adam sinned, and God counted us guilty as well as Adam.

Grudem calls this "inherited guilt" rather than using the terminology for Original Sin, but he means the same thing (Systematic Theology, pg. 494, note 8). You can see from the quote above that this comes directly from the very clear statements in Romans 5:18, "Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men..." and 19, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners..." Too often we can be lulled into the sense that such statements are like math equations, where x+1=5 then x always equals 4. Sucking the verses out of context is not possible if they are like equations because the equation x+1=5 cannot be taken out of context, it stands alone. Likewise it appears that if we read "one trespass led to condemnation for all men" and "by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" then we have equations that always lead to the doctrine of Original Sin (where at the very moment we are conceived the guilt from the Sin of Adam is attached to us). The problem comes in when we take into consideration the remainder of the verses. If "one trespass led to condemnation for all men" means that the trespass of Adam is automatically conferred upon each and every one of us then the rest of that verse, which reads, "so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men" means that everyone is saved. Do you see how this works if we read these like equations, that is, as though we are reading a math book? The original equation is "one trespass equals condemnation for all men" but the follow up equation is "one act of righteousness equals justification and life for all men." They negate each other! The same is true for Romans 5:19, which if we read it like a math book states, "one man's [Adam's] disobedience equals many sinners." The second half of the verse, in math book form is, "one man's [Christ's] obedience equals many righteous." Do you see the problem here? If we proof-text Original Sin by making syllogisms out of sub-pieces of sentences in individual verses then Universalism (the idea that everyone is saved) immediately follows. You can't get Original sin out of Romans 5:18-19 without also getting Universalism and since Universalism violates so many parts of the Bible (large swaths of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament) Original Sin is not an acceptable exegesis of Romans 5:18-19.

When it comes to Romans 5, then, the interpretation must be other than Original Sin. That is, the point of the passage is not to prove Original Sin. I think the problem most people have is not understanding what Adam's sin led to. We can understand this if we go back to what God told Adam in the Garden of Eden:

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Genesis 2:16-17)

The "Surety of Death" was the punishment that came to Adam as a result of his sin. This Surety of Death is passed down through all generations and we inherit it even today, for we know that we will "surely die" unless Jesus comes before our death. Even if it were possible for us to live a perfect life then we would still "surely die" so we have inherited the punishment that Adam received for his sin. This is different from inheriting sin that we did not commit, which would violate passages like Ezekiel 18 (yeah, the whole chapter, which teaches quite clearly that we are responsible for our own actions). Humanity "surely dies" and so that punishment is still with us, even today, but we are responsible for our own actions and do not inherit some sin from our forefathers that we did not commit ourselves.

I AM

I find the choices that Bible translators make interesting sometimes. For example, in the well-known passage in John 8:58 where Jesus tells the Jews that he pre-existed Abraham almost all translations render the Greek there as "I AM" in a clear reference to Exodus 3:14

Then Moses said to God, "If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' what shall I say to them?" God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" (Exodus 3:13-14)

The Greek in John 8:58 is:

εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί.

Which says, "Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.'" The part in question here is specifically the ἐγὼ εἰμί which is an emphasized "I am" since εἰμί by itself means "I am." The Jews clearly understood what he was saying because in John 8:59 we read:

So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. (John 8:59)

They intended to stone him because they knew he was saying he was God.

John 8:58 is fairly straightforward, but what I find interesting are the other passages where Jesus uses ἐγὼ εἰμί and yet most translations don't use the "I AM." A good example (where I think the "I AM" would help) is John 18:4-6:

Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth." Jesus said to them, "I am he." Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, "I am he," they drew back and fell to the ground. (John 18:4-6)

It is not clear why those coming to arrest Jesus draw back and fall to the ground. But I think if you look at the Greek here and translate it differently, then the passage suddenly comes into a new light (I've bolded the use of ἐγὼ εἰμί in the passage):

᾿Ιησοῦς οὖν εἰδὼς πάντα τὰ ἐρχόμενα ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸν, ἐξελθὼν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· τίνα ζητεῖτε; ἀπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ· ᾿Ιησοῦν τὸν Ναζωραῖον. λέγει αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς· ἐγώ εἰμι. εἱστήκει δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν μετ᾿ αὐτῶν. ὡς οὖν εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὅτι εγώ εἰμι, ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω καὶ ἔπεσον χαμαί.

Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and saidto them, "Whom do you seek?" They answered him, "Jesus of Nazareth."Jesus said to them, "I AM." Judas, who betrayed him, was standingwith them. When Jesus said to them, "I AM," they drew back and fellto the ground.

In this case it appears that they draw back and fall to the ground because of the pronouncement of I AM on the part of Christ. (Notice how John even calls attention to this by pointing out that, "When Jesus said to them 'I AM,' they drew back and fell to the ground.")

Another interesting place that Christ uses ἐγὼ εἰμί is in Matthew 14:27 when he is walking on water and the disciples are afraid of him. To comfort them he says, "Take heart; it is I. Do not be afraid." At least, in the ESV that is what he says. The Greek here reads like so:

εὐθέως δὲ ἐλάλησεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς λέγων· θαρσεῖτε, ἐγώ εἰμί· μὴ φοβεῖσθε.

Notice that Jesus says this, "Take heart; I AM. Do not be afraid." This certainly has a different ring to it. Here is the Son of Almighty God walking on water and to calm his disciples who fear what on earth could be walking across the storm-driven sea he tells them to take courage. Why? I AM. Why be afraid? He is the I AM.

A third interesting passage, if looked at in this way, is Mark 14:61-63:

But he remained silent and made no answer. Again the high priest asked him, "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" And Jesus said, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." And the high priest tore his garments and said, "What further witnesses do we need? (Mark 14:61-63)

In the Greek, Jesus' answer looks like this:

ἐγώ εἰμι· καὶ ὄψεσθε τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκ δεξιῶν καθήμενον τῆς δυνάμεως καὶ ἐρχόμενον μετὰ τῶν νεφελῶν τοῦ οὐρανοῦ.

So imagine the High Priest asking Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed and the first words out of Christ's mouth are ἐγώ εἰμί - I AM. No wonder he tears his garments. It isn't only Jesus' later statement but the fact that he starts with his claim of divinity - blasphemy to the High Priest who does not believe his claim.

There are a few other instances of this, but these were the most interesting in my opinion since they seemed to actually change the tenor of the passage.

There are passages in the Bible that make you realize some things:

1. The Jews did not make this up, and
   
2. We know very little about the spiritual world

One such passage is at the end of Joshua chapter 5.  The children of Israel have just crossed over the Jordan and they will soon be attacking Jericho.  The land is theirs for the taking and God has said that the inhabitants there will be driven out before them (Joshua 3:10).  And it says that, "When Joshua was by Jericho, he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing before him with his drawn sword in his hand."  Joshua reacts as a leader of an army would when he is before a hostile city and sees somebody he does not recognize with a drawn weapon.  He asks, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?"  Now here is where the story takes a very interesting turn.  In one word we realize that the Jews did not make this story up (because if they did, the next word would have been different) and in one word we find out that we know so very little of what is going on behind this world, at the spiritual level.  The "man's" answer to Joshua is:

"No."

So in answer to, "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?"  He answers, "No."  His whole answer is that of immense power, of an entity who realizes he is representative of more power than the man talking to him can even imagine.  He says, "No; but I am the commander of the army of the LORD. Now I have come."  He merely announces his presence.  This is reminiscent of the answer that Gabriel gives to Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, when his word is questioned.  He says, "I am Gabriel.  I stand in the presence of God."  But the interesting thing to me about the answer given to Joshua is that if you were making stories up about your God, who favors you as a people and who is going to purge your enemies from before you then why would you have the Commander of the Army of the LORD answer the question of whether or not he is for you or against you with a "No"?  Does that make sense?  It certainly does not.  This, to me, is a great proof of the Bible.  It is one of those times when we get a glimpse into the spiritual realm and it makes little sense to us.  There are other verses in the Bible that give similar glimpses (Daniel chapter 10 has a few of them, for example) and it is clear from these that we know very little (and the Bible reveals very little) of what is really going on outside of this temporary existence.

Baby Jesus

It seems there is a possibility that I'll be preaching the Christmas Eve sermon at the church we attend.  It is, of course, a very grand Church of Christ tradition to preach about something completely unrelated to Christmas, or better yet, to preach against Christmas celebration, but I've heard some interesting things on the Incarnation lately that made me think a lot so I'm actually considering a real, no-kidding, Christmas-birth-of-baby-Jesus sermon.

The first thing I heard recently that got me into this line of thinking was listening to David Bercot's lessons on what the early Christians thought of the Atonement.  He doesn't just approach this from a single angle and one of the angles that he does approach it from is that the Incarnation was more important to the early Christians than it is to a lot of Protestant churches today.  This, of course, is a reaction to the perception on the part of Protestants that Catholics over-emphasize the Incarnation, but Bercot's point is that this is no reason to throw out the baby with the bath water (sorry, couldn't resist).  Anyway, he had an amazing point based on 1 Corinthians 15:19-22 and 41-49:

If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
(1Corinthians 15:19-22)

There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Thus it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
(1Corinthians 15:41-49)

His point is that the Incarnation is the birth of a second being to descend from.  Before Christ we only had the option of descending from Adam (obviously) and this was insufficient since Adam's sin had corrupted the world and brought death.  The second Adam (in accordance with 1 Corinthians 15:41-49) brought to us the ability to descend from spiritual perfection, which explains what Jesus was talking about in John 1:12-13 and 3:5-8:

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
(John 1:12-13)

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit."
(John 3:5-8)

So to enter the kingdom of God you must be descended from Christ, a man who was both man and God, thus making it possible for us to descend from God (to become "children of God" - John 1:12) so that we could say to the Father, "Abba, Father" in accordance with Galatians 4:4-6:

But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, "Abba! Father!"
(Galatians 4:4-6)

It is not a trivial thing to be descended from the Father.  In our era we underestimate what that means.  In Christ's era such a concept was blasphemous:

But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working." This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
(John 5:17-18)

But Christ's coming was to give us a new genealogy, a new line to trace ourselves through so that we could escape the effects of sin on this world, so that we could claim as our Father the Father of our Savior, and the Father of our Savior could claim us as sons.  The vision of the judgment that I had previously was, I'll admit, wrong.  I had in my mind (and I have heard this preached) that on the day of judgment when Satan is accusing us God will look at us and only see Jesus.  This paints God as a being who can be deceived, as though he sent Christ so that he could create an optical illusion for himself.  The truth of the matter is that when he looks at us he will see us as his sons.  We will belong to him, as we were meant to from the beginning.

Smarty Pants

I've been listening to some of David Bercot's audio CDs recently that I borrowed from my cousin-in-law and so far I'm enjoying them. Bercot has a very straightforward, almost pleading tone and a common sense way of approaching things that makes him easy to listen to and quite persuasive. I've also read a few of his books in the past that I've enjoyed (and found challenging) so I looked him up on Amazon.com and perused through the comments on some of his books (just for fun). One person made this statement regarding what we really needed to understand (in the midst of a very long review of Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?):

You must understand the world of 2nd Temple Judaism, because that's the world of Christ Jesus, His Apostles, and some of the earliest, Apostolic Fathers of the Church which Bercot writes about. Bercot does not understand this world. I very, very strongly recommend reading two simple books of N.T. Wright's, "The Challenge of Jesus" and "The Crown and the Fire."

That was an interesting assertion so I went and looked up N.T. Wright's books (the ones mentioned and others) and found that he is a much-admired bishop in the Church of England. In the course of this search I also found a web site with some of his writings and lectures posted and started reading through a PDF titled "New Perspectives on Paul." (There is actually an entire movement titled, "New Perspectives on Paul" and this paper has to do with that, but I'm not going to go into that movement now.) In the PDF I found the following statement by Wright:

For me then and now, if I had to choose between Luther and Calvin I would always take Calvin, whether on the Law or (for that matter) the Eucharist. But as I struggled this way and that with the Greek text of Romans and Galatians, it dawned on me, I think in 1976, that a different solution was possible. In Romans 10.3 Paul, writing about his fellow Jews, declares that they are ignorant of the righteousness of God, and are seeking to establish 'their own righteousness'. The wider context, not least 9.30–33, deals with the respective positions of Jews and Gentiles within God's purposes – and with a lot more besides, of course, but not least that. Supposing, I thought, Paul meant 'seeking to establish their own righteousness', not in the sense of a moral status based on the performance of Torah and the consequent accumulation of a treasury of merit, but an ethnic status based on the possession of Torah as the sign of automatic covenant membership?

He goes on to state that this, "Would make excellent sense of Romans 9 and 10" and that it has been "Deeply rewarding exegetically right across Paul." He is, therefore, very fond of the position that he found and I wondered if it might have some merit, so I went and looked up that passage he was referring to and it says this:

For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
(Rom 10:3-5)

He of course is focused on verse 3 and is pondering the meaning of the righteousness that Israel tried to establish on their own. He draws the conclusion in the paragraph above that this isn't about the Jews piling up works for salvation but rather believing that they have a permanent covenant with God because of their possession of the Law. This might be something that you could ponder for longer than a few minutes if I hadn't pasted the verses right after verse 3 in the cut above, and especially the part that says, "For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them." Yes, so this must have something to do with the "righteousness that is based on the law" (it sure seems to from the fact that it uses the same words and starts the sentence with a "for") and it says that "the person who does the commandments shall live by them." That really looks like somebody thought they could "live" by "doing commandments" if for no other reason than the fact that it is exactly what the passage says. But maybe I didn't go far enough back before the verse to really get the gist of what Wright was trying to say. After all, the "wider context" he mentions stretches back into chapter 9. So in chapter 9 we read this:

What shall we say, then? That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith; but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, as it is written, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense; and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame."
(Rom 9:30-33)

This is exactly the passage Wright mentions as being a part of the "wider context." It states that Israel pursued a righteousness but did not obtain it "Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works." Once again, the passage seems very clear. It seems to say exactly what it means. The most frustrating part about this is that there are parts of Romans that are tough to understand, but this isn't really one of them, unless you make it tough to understand, like Mr. Wright does.

This is another good example of a person over-thinking the Bible. Almost everybody who comments about Wright's books believes him to be incredibly intelligent. There are many comments about the lack of worthiness of the commenter in the face of such superior intellect (you can see how the person above who commented on Bercot's book gives a nod to Wright's superiority, which is not unique). This really brings to mind a passage in 1 Corinthians that we don't read much because it really doesn't sync very well with our idea that people who are highly educated in a particular field ought to be better at that field than people who are not. That passage says this:

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
(1Co 1:26-29)

and again later,

Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, "He catches the wise in their craftiness," and again, "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile."
(1Co 3:18-20)

It is possible to over-think the Bible and to make incredible errors in the process. Yes, whether or not all of your Amazon.com commenters believe you be the smartest human on the planet, you are still just that, human.

What Should be a Christian's Moral Guide?

There have been a lot of recent stories surrounding the launch of the PlayStation 3 and the various attempts people have made to get one before anybody else does. Today I came across a story about a dentist who hired 60 temp workers to stand in line at various places to ensure that he would get a PS3 (actually, 15 PS3s is what he was aiming for). What interests me is the comment in the story by somebody who was in line themselves trying to get a PS3:

"I only want one, but I know there's other people that are going to want them, too," said Williams, who has a 7-year-old son. "I just don't think it's right that you are paying people to stand in line for you. You're using your money and authority to pay people for what you want, and that's wrong."My question is on her last statement, the one where she says, "You're using your money and authority to pay people for what you want, and that's wrong."

I'd like to know why, and where does such a moral judgment come from, because make no mistake about it, that is exactly what such a statement is, a moral judgment. I get the feeling a lot of people would agree with her, though, which I find troublesome given the environment we live in now. Strangely enough, we now live in a society that doesn't care at all if you live together before marriage and get repeatedly divorced, but there is a big problem if you "use your money and authority to pay people for what you want." Why? Because we all know, "that's wrong."As I've stated in various other ways, people who are atheists can think this way, that is fine. They can invent moral systems out of whole cloth because they aren't trying to found their claims on anything but themselves. Christians have a harder time doing this, in my opinion, or at least they should, because the Bible should be our source for a moral compass and the Bible just doesn't have an opinion on whether or not you pay other people to stand in line for you to get a PS3. There are a lot of things like this. Take drinking a single glass of wine at home once a week as an example. The Bible clearly talks about drunkenness, but it does not address drinking in moderation. It is silent on this. I should point out here that I am a teetotaler. About 6 months ago I had a little sip of red wine at my in-laws house because I wanted to see what it tasted like. I didn't think it tasted very good. That is, literally, the only taste of any alcohol I have ever had. For me, however, it has less to do with a moral consideration than with the fact that I have never wanted alcohol and I figure that if I don't want it then why should I make myself want something which just isn't all that good for you? The way I see it, I'm a leg up on something that gives a lot of people a bunch of problems, which is a good thing. I don't need any extra temptations. When I was growing up, though, and this subject came up at home my parents would make the case that even buying alcohol to drink in moderation at home would fall under the rubric of an "appearance of evil" and violate 1 Thessalonians 5:22, which says (in the KJV), "Abstain from all appearance of evil" because the person at the checkout stand would judge that drinking was evil and therefore you would appear evil. I have to admit that at one time such reasoning made more sense to me than it does now because in the past 20 years the US has so warped its value system that if you tell somebody that you do not support homosexual marriage then there is an ever-increasing likelihood that they will judge you as evil (a "bigot" - which is one of the great evils to many Americans). Therefore the real problem, in my mind, with such an understanding is that it ties a Christian's concept of morality to that of their society and the society's concept may be completely anti-biblical (calling good, evil, and evil, good). I think a better idea is to reduce our set of moral judgments to what the Bible says is actually immoral. Things like whether or not you want to pay people to stand in line for a PS3 are exempted from this, as is drinking in moderation. How do we interpret 1 Thessalonians 5:22, then? I think we have to apply practicality to this. I believe that we know what an "appearance of evil" really is and we can make that judgment call ourselves intelligently or we can get silly about it. However, I also believe that the other translations help here in that they almost all go along the lines of, "Avoid every form of evil" which ties the judgment of what is evil back to a Biblical understanding of what evil is, rather than linking it to society's definition (which changes constantly and which can very quickly become something that the Christian cannot follow without violating the Bible, which is unacceptable).I realize, after saying all of that, that there is still subjectivity in what we decide the Bible is teaching us from a morality perspective so reducing to the Bible is not something that is a simple choice. There are things that are obviously wrong in the Bible (adultery, murder, etc.) but there are areas that are harder to discern and then we have to make some judgment calls, but there are things that are simply not in there at all and I think we should purposefully abstain from making a moral judgment on such issues because otherwise we confuse our moral compass with the subjective inputs of society and I for one don't need anything confusing me about something as complex as morals already are.

It All Depends on What You Want

I keep running into people or stories about people who want something but are unwilling to do what is necessary to get it. For example, people who want to be called "Christian" but who don't want to read the Bible or do anything it says. To me this is like sitting at home and saying that you want to go to a foreign country but you refuse to leave your house. Everything we want to do requires some effort (even changing channels on the TV) and is defined by some sequence of events. I'm always fascinated, for example, by people who do not want to be judged or live according to any standards of note but if you mention to them that they may not be going anywhere nice after death they are upset about this. I have very little respect for such a person. I respect a person more who shrugs their shoulders and says, "Fine, I don't believe in an afterlife anyway." But if you have a problem with going to hell then shouldn't you do something about that? Doesn't that "something" require making changes in your life? Imagine if I told a friend of mine who was complaining about not being able to go to a foreign country, "Well, if you just stay at home you will never get there." And their response was, "How dare you judge me!? You don't know anything about me! I don't need your judgment and I'll stay at home and get there just fine without your help, thank you very much." Well of course we have a word for such a response and it would be, "Lunacy." If you want to do something you find out what it takes and you do it. Christianity is no different. If you want to be a Christian, find out what it takes and do it. Jesus said it this way:

For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who see it begin to mock him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.(Luke 14:28-32)

Count the cost, make the plan, and execute - but enough with the whining about judgment and having to do what the Bible says. That is part of it, and nothing you or I say or do is going to change that one bit.

That's Fine if You Don't Want to Call Yourself Christian

Well, today the Episcopalians installed a woman as the leader of their entire church. This wouldn't be a problem at all if the Episcopal church didn't consider itself "Christian" as this quote shows from their web site:

The Episcopal Church strives to live by the message of Christ, in which there are no outcasts and all are welcome. Walking a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestant traditions, we are a sacramental and worship-oriented church that promotes thoughtful debate about what God is calling us to do and be, as followers of Christ.

You see, the Bible is quite clear on this point, as the following passages demonstrate:

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.(1Ti 2:11-12)

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.(1Co 14:33-35)

Okay, so this isn't pretty and nice and culturally acceptable, but it is clear. It is so clear, in fact, that to get rid of it you must undermine the basic authority of scripture (either by calling these passages culturally determined or by belittling all of the works of the apostle Paul or by canceling the passages out with less-clear ones, such as 1 Corinthians 11). Now this isn't a problem for a religion that doesn't want to call itself Christian. If the Wiccans want to have dogs and cats be the leaders of their church, that isn't my concern. However, it is a concern of mine when a church widely believed to be "Christian" (and proclaiming itself as such) decides that blunt passages of scripture can be ignored for cultural expediency. If you believe in Jesus you need to believe in the truth of the only book that tells us anything about him or your understanding is weak and useless and can be easily overturned or swayed to and fro by the slightest wind of false teaching. Just find out what the Bible says and do it, that's all, and leave the simple passages simple.

So Sick of the Lying

The whole Ted Haggard story that is breaking now just tires me out. In the story at this link we read the following:

Haggard stepped down as president of the National Association of Evangelicals Thursday after radio and TV reports featuring a male escort saying that he had frequently paid him for sex and also bought meth from him. Haggard has denied the charges but today his church's senior pastor revealed that he had privately admitted to one or more of the charges. Later today Haggard admitted buying meth but claimed he had only paid for a massage from the accuser, not sex."I bought it for myself but never used it," he said, referring to the drug. "I was tempted, but I never used it."

The part of this that I find the most frustrating is that he bluntly lied about the charges before, essentially disclaiming all of them, and now he wants to say that he bought some meth but never used it and never sold it and he had a "massage" from a male escort but "not sex." It is probably fairly safe to assume that he did much more than just buy and not use the meth and that such a massage from a male escort may bend the definition of "sex" as much as Bill Clinton did. And here is my biggest problem, the constant lying. The fact that he flatly denied it at first and then the truth had to be dug out of him and even now the "truth" he is telling us seems more than a bit ridiculous. We've become so inured to people on TV denying allegations and then being proved wrong that it is old hat. We expect it now. In fact, we would be shocked if a politician were accused during a press conference of something and he responded, "Why yes, I did do that. How ever did you find out?" When a person like Ted Haggard is proved to be a complete liar what other part of the things he is saying can you also not believe? We need to be able to believe what other people are saying about themselves. In the book I am reading (Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present) Gerald Bray makes the point that our trust in the truth of the Bible is like our trust of the self-revelation in any personal relationship. The Bible is what God tells us about himself. In any relationship we have to trust what the other person tells us about themselves. If some of what they tell us is proved wrong, the relationship breaks down. This is why we have to believe that what the Bible tells us is true. If we believe that what God tells us about himself is wrong then our relationship with God will break down. But this makes what is happening in our society even more problematic. You see, when we assume that the first words out of anybody's mouth after an allegation will be a lying denial then we also assume that much of what any authority figure tells us about themselves is also wrong. (Why, after all, should they only lie about this allegation?) We then apply the assumption of lying to other self-revelatory acts and the greatest of these is God's own self-revelatory act, The Bible. So we might assume that everybody lies in their own self-interest, therefore the Bible is probably full of lies. And you can see this assumption at work if you talk to many people about God/Jesus/The Bible. There is an assumption that the Bible must be partially lies (since everybody else does it) and therefore you can pick the parts of it that you would like to be truth. The parts that are unpalatable? Well, that might be where God is lying. The parts that go down nice and easy and don't mean much in the way of a life change? Well, that is the God we would vote for! A nice politician God with lots of mistresses and problems in the closet but a good haircut and a smooth tongue. Such a concept is absolutely unacceptable to me. I want a God I can trust. I also want human authority figures I can trust, but 1 out of 2 isn't bad.

Why Did Jesus Die?

One of the things that has struck me recently is the way that we view baptism and some of the efforts to change that in the past 10 to 20 years. For example, I remember hearing that we shouldn't be preaching baptism in the "language of fear" but rather we should be talking about it like it is the believer's wedding ceremony. In fact, F. Lagard Smith wrote a whole book titled, Baptism: The Believer's Wedding Ceremony. There is some truth in that. Baptism is where you enter the church and the church is the bride of Christ so in this way Baptism is like a marriage ceremony. Others have pointed out that baptism is like a marriage ceremony in that when you say "I do" you are married, but the work really begins after that since as marriage is the beginning of our relationship to our spouse baptism is the beginning of our relationship with God. As I mentioned before, there is truth in these views, but we have to keep focused on baptism's root meaning:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Rom 6:3-4)

So baptism is a re-enactment of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It is therefore centered on the crucifixion and it forces you to ask, "Why did Jesus have to die?" Why did Jesus die? Why did he come?

But when he heard it, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, 'I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.' For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mat 9:12-13) And Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." (Luk 19:9-10) For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8)

The last verse is really the root meaning of baptism for me. It is an admission of your own helplessness and need for the redemptive power of the death and resurrection of Christ. Baptism has to be tied back to the cross and back to the power that the events there had - the power to save us from sin. Therefore an acknowledgment of our sin is absolutely central to baptism. If you don't acknowledge you have any sin (and sin in America seems to be at an all-time low, you know, unless you actually read the Bible, of course) and you only view baptism as a wedding ceremony or as getting your entry card punched to the church rolls then you are completely missing the point. Which leads to the question: without a view of the purpose of the cross, is baptism effective for anything beyond washing the dirt off of your body?

The More You Learn From Hollywood About Sex, The Less You Will Know

It is ironic that we have so much "sex education" in America now and yet we know less than ever before.  The great "teacher" in this respect is Hollywood.  These are the lessons it speaks:

1.  Happiness comes from having sex with the hottest person available
2.  Good marriages come from great looks and lots of money

And these are the lessons it lives:

1.  Great looks and lots of money are not sufficient for good marriages
2.  Sex with the hottest person available will not satisfy you

We know this because of the magazines in the grocery aisles.  We can see that Hollywood is constantly patting itself on the back and congratulating itself for finally finding the right match.  Ben and Jennifer Lopez, no Ben and Jennifer Garner, no Brad and Jennifer, no Brad and Angelina, and on and on it goes.  The story is always the same.  The magazines have no memory, either short or long-term.  The article on Brad and Jennifer forgets everyone in their lives before, claiming that now, finally, they have found the perfect person; the person who is finally sexy enough and rich enough to satisfy; but that article will be forgotten by the one on Brad and Angelina.  Like a religion which annually predicts the end of the world and is endlessly wrong Hollywood preaches its filth and the worshipers at its altars keep showing up at the designated arrival point, never questioning why they're still here.

But quietly the Bible simply states its message, and it stands in direct opposition to the twisted rationality from High School sex-ed courses handing out condoms and spewing ignorance about consensuality between those who are barely teens, espousing the false wisdom of having sex with your chosen mate as quickly as possible and reviling the wise foolishness of thinking anyone could enjoy one person for life.  God simply holds out the truth and waits for you to listen:

Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth, a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love.
(Pro 5:18-19)

The so-called wise of our society mock this, but by their lives they prove its truth.  That's sex education.

God Knows Us Better than We Know Ourselves

The shooting of the Amish schoolchildren has set off a firestorm of opinions regarding the role that the Christianity of the Amish has played in their reaction to the killings. Many people seem shocked about the fact that the Amish have made an effort to reach out to the family of the murderer and many contrasts have been drawn between the Amish and mainstream Christianity and American culture. This discussion is further complicated by the fact that the Amish are not perfect. A Legal Affairs article in early 2005 described the problem of incest and child molestation as a "plague" in some Amish communities. Atheists line up to use this as evidence to disprove God's existence just as Christians point to the good aspects of the Amish as a proof of Christianity. The problem with this is that human behavior is not a reflection on God in any way, shape, or form. It does not prove or disprove his existence. From a biblical perspective we have got to understand a very simple fact: God sent Jesus to die because humans cannot be good enough. Therefore the behavior of humans, good or bad, is not a reflection on the existence or person of God. Are people in the church sinless? Can they be?

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (Rom 3:21-25) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (1Jo 1:8-10)

I have to confess, I get confused by people who say, "I believe in God, but I can't go to church because of all the (hypocrites, sinners, bad people, etc.)." This is a misunderstanding of Jesus' purpose:

And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, "Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?" And when Jesus heard it, he said to them, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mar 2:16-17) For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die-- but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Rom 5:6-8) The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. (1Ti 1:15)

And so the church is full of those who were hypocrites, liars, thieves, murderers, homosexuals, etc. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) Sometimes these stumble because they are human. Could it really be any other way, given the realities of humanity? I am forever thankful that God is more realistic about our shortcomings than we are.

Finally Done!

I can't believe it since sometimes it seemed like it would never be over, but I am finally done with God's Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture and although I'm relieved I'm also a little sad. I didn't buy the book so I could insult it. I bought it because I was looking forward to the lessons it had to teach me and the most pathetic part is that when it wasn't being atheistic or trying to undermine my faith it was just so mediocre. The latter half of the book was certainly better than the first and in a way it gave me a little gift. In the first chapter, on page 8, the authors write:

If the Bible has lost its place in our churches, then there are reasons. First, past experiences in classes may have immunized people from serious Bible study. Sunday School classes often fail to demonstrate the relevance of the Bible for our lives. Many people have memories of Bible study that consisted of mind-numbing, fill-in-the-blank questions. They remember the tedium of plowing through passages one verse at a time, passages that they could never connect to their lives. Biblical material was reduced to a kind of trivia, even before trivia was a game: "Which of the judges was left-handed?" "Name the kings of the Northern Kingdom - in order." "Name all of the cities of Paul's third missionary journey." Many people wondered what significance this information had for their lives.

Then, in the next-to-the-last chapter, on page 225, the authors wrote:

I'm reminded of my experience at the Broadway Church of Christ in Lubbock, Texas. Every five year old had to know the books of the Old Testament, the books of the New Testament, the names of the twelve apostles, and the entire Twenty-third Psalm before graduating to first grade Sunday School. ...

What can we do to equip our children to love Scripture and benefit from its message? This plea is not merely a call to learn a mass of facts. As the personal reflection about my experience at the Broadway congregation in Lubbock suggests, however, memorization, or at least basic literacy, forms the foundation that permits study at a greater depth.

But wait, I thought that having to memorize Bible facts "immunized people from serious Bible study" rather than forming "the foundation that permits study at a greater depth." So the book flatly contradicts itself. I say that this is a gift because it proves how amazing the Bible is. God's Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture was written by three different authors and it shows. The style changes dramatically throughout the book and the book contradicts itself more often than the one example given above. But the Bible consists of 66 books written by many authors, and although the style changes throughout there is a remarkable thread of continuity that runs from beginning to end and it does not contradict itself. The authors of God's Holy Fire could stand to give it a little more respect.

You Can't Always Get What You Want

As I'm reading along in God's Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture I have come to a section where the authors are discussing the various genres in scripture. When talking about epistles (letters) they make a point of saying (on page 146):

We can recognize [Paul's] works as ancient letters, and because they take this form we know not to read them as narratives or theological treatises or handbooks covering every imaginable eventuality that the church might face for all time. They cover specific events in the life of the congregations in which Paul ministered. (Emphasis theirs.)

Why would they say such a thing? Well, that becomes evident in a few pages (page 148):

[Paul's] precise rules on head coverings or the display of miraculous gifts or the silence of women may not have been in force in other churches (then or now).

And there you have it. How refreshing! I can be released from the odious "rules" in Paul's letters because after all, he wrote these to specific churches, which aren't us. We can have what we want! This is what you have to guard against when you read the Bible. The Bible is not concerned with what you want and in fact it tells you that many of the things you want are not good for you, but there is a great temptation to find complex theological methods so that when the Bible seems to obviously say that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their sexual sins we can decide that they were, in fact, destroyed because of a lack of hospitality. Then we can indulge in sexual sins all we want. The apostle Paul's teaching on women is embarrassing to our society:

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. (1Co 14:33-37) Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. (1Ti 2:11-12)

And it comforts many who want to be thought of as "scholars" to be able to rid themselves of such "rules." Of course the thorny problem of wording like "as in all the churches of the saints" (1 Co 14:33) and the fact that Timothy is written to an evangelist who is dealing with multiple churches is, I suppose, just irrelevant. This is also something that happens when people make such an error (finding in the Bible what they want rather than what is actually there). They typically run to it and make hasty interpretations that are often proved absurd by just a little bit of reading. And therein lies the antidote to such poison... it's a book... READ IT!!!

God's Holy Fire - Part 3 - Descending Further...

I should probably stop reading this book. However, my intent is to review it on Amazon and currently I am thinking I would like to warn people away from it. I don't want to do this without actually reading the whole thing, but finishing it is getting harder and harder. The problems I've referred to before are the primary ones in the book - namely the fact that the authors seem to have a very weak belief in God (if in fact they have any at all) and they often seem to be attempting to actively undermine Christianity. However, the book is also riddled with typos (incorrect verse reference on pg. 72, for example) and contextual errors, such as in the second paragraph on page 103, which says:

Their hopes rest on the monarchy, but once again Israel squanders the time of divine favor. Even David is deeply flawed, and his sin with Bathsheba sets in motion a disastrous history of intrigue and violence. David's successors disappoint God, their subjects, and all future readers of their stories. Consequently, the kingdom is soon divided. The kings do not heed the prophets, and both Israel and Judah ultimately go into exile. The curtain of this sad narrative goes down with the return from exile of a few of those who have gone into exile. Hopes are high for the restoration of Israel and the fulfillment of God's promise of the land. But once again, the survivors must face the reality that the Davidic monarchy will not be reestablished, and Israel is not a mighty kingdom. At the end of this narrative, Israel has returned from exile and lives in hope that God will repeat in the future the great deeds of the past. Israel looks for a new Moses, a new exodus, a new David, and a new creation.

There is nothing wrong with the assertions in this paragraph (in fact, I chuckled a bit at the statement that "David's successors disappoint God, their subjects, and all future readers of their stories"); but the authors refer to "both Israel and Judah" at one point in the paragraph and then shift to simply "Israel." I can understand what they are saying, but it is sloppy, in my opinion, since calling out the divided nation in one sense leads the reader down the path of assuming that the 10 tribes (referred to as "Israel" when you are talking about both "Israel and Judah") "returned from exile" which isn't true at all. The authors therefore shift the meaning of the term "Israel" part way through the paragraph without informing the reader. You just have to know in order to follow them properly. This would bother me less if it weren't for the sporadic off-hand references to remind us that the authors are "scholars." An example of this happens on page 106 where in the main text of the book we read:

Like the laws in the Pentateuch and like Ezekiel, both of which we will talk about a little later, the Chronicler underscores the importance of the Temple and its worship as symbols of God's abiding presence in Israel. The cult reminds us of God's abiding justice.

The last sentence seems out of place, but it is put in its place by a small gray explanation box right beside it in the book titled, "The cult..." which says:

Scholars do not often use the term "cult" in the popular sense of a religious group tightly controlled by a powerful leader. The more technical meaning refers to worship in the form of sacrifice of animals and other items, probably led by a priest, usually in a temple or other holy site. "Cult" in this book bears this second, technical definition.

This is simply a gratuitous use of "scholarly" jargon placed here in an obvious attempt to remind us of the fact that the writers of the book are, indeed, Scholars-with-a-capital-"S." I find writing like this to be a sort of intellectual bullying where you are reminding your reader not to disagree with anything in your discourse because of your advanced learning and their own ignorance. You can almost get away with such intellectual bullying if you pay very close attention to your writing and don't make obvious errors, but when you do make such errors as I mentioned before then you are like a schoolyard bully that trips on your shoelaces. It is not intimidating, just embarrassing.

God's Holy Fire - Part 2

Okay, I'm trying to like God's Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture but it isn't working out too well.  I got to page 64 where I found this:

We can learn at times from how others - Jews and Christians throughout the history of the church - have understood these texts.  In so doing, we will learn that our own perspectives on the texts do not exhaust their possible meanings.  For example, we may read Isaiah 53 in the light of Jesus' last week, as Christians usually have, or we may also appreciate Jewish readings of this text that understand the "suffering servant" to be Israel itself.  Both readings have value, and there is no reason to insist that one and only one of them can be true.  Truth can only come from consideration, over time, of many factors.  It comes by reading the many texts of Scripture again and again and never allowing any one of them to silence the others.

I'm trying to decide if this paragraph is a sort of biblical relativism or if the concept is that we can eventually arrive at truth if we study hard enough.  When the author writes: "Both readings have value, and there is no reason to insist that one and only one of them can be true" that sounds like a denial of the existence of absolute truth, but then the next sentence seems to "redeem" the passage a little bit by indicating that reading "again and again" will eventually lead to "truth" since it comes from a "consideration of many factors."  Clearly if you are a Christian and believe in the New Testament then you have to believe that Isaiah 53 is talking about Christ since the New Testament writers quote it in such a way:

Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
(Isa 53:1)

Though he had done so many signs before them, they still did not believe in him, so that the word spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "Lord, who has believed what he heard from us, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?"
(Joh 12:37-38)

Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted.
(Isa 53:4)

That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases."
(Mat 8:16-17)

Of course the clincher in this regard is when Philip finds the Ethiopian eunuch reading from Isaiah (Acts 8:28) and the passage that the Ethiopian eunuch is reading says this:

"Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth."
(Act 8:32-33)

Naturally Isaiah 53:7-8 is the passage he was reading:

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he opened not his mouth. By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
(Isa 53:7-8)

So the eunuch asks (Acts 8:34):

"About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?"

And does Philip say, "Well, we aren't really sure.  Some Jewish scholars believe that the prophet is talking about Israel, which is an interpretation that certainly has value, but I think another, equally valid, interpretation is that it might be this Jesus fellow.  But I could be wrong."  Of course not!  Acts 8:35 says:

Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.

So when the good writers of God's Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture write that, "For example, we may read Isaiah 53 in the light of Jesus' last week, as Christians usually have..." I have to feel like they are being misleading to the reader not to state it like so: "For example, we may read Isaiah 53 in the light of Jesus' last week, as Christians always have..." or better yet, "For example, we may read Isaiah 53 in the light of Jesus' last week, as the New Testament writers did..."

The question in my mind is whether this is due to malice or ignorance.  Do the writers of this book really know so little of the Bible they are supposedly writing about or are they purposely trying to lead people astray?

God is calling... who?

My wife sent me a link to a story about the fact that a recent pick for a bishop in the Episcopal Church was not a homosexual (yes, the title of the article is actually, "Gay priest not picked as N.J. bishop"). I'm going to ignore the fact that it seems funny to have an article about not picking somebody as a bishop. (I mean, what if he wasn't picked because the other person was better - or does being gay mean you should automatically get picked for the bishop spot when you apply?) What I'm interested in was a quote from the article:

"God is calling lesbian and gay persons to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call," Barlowe said.

(Barlowe is Michael Barlowe - the homosexual man who was passed over for the job as bishop. And I haven't used the "Rev" in front of his name or anybody else's for that matter - not because he is gay but because I don't think we should be putting "Reverend" in front on a human's name. I feel the same way about "Father.") That statement is, of course, completely absurd. You could put in anything you want to the formula used and it would have equal validity. Here is the formula:

God is calling X to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

Just replace X with whatever you want it to be. Let's try a few out:

God is calling pedophiles to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

Does that seem to be silly? I've gone too far? I haven't, of course. Paul Shanley (and don't go to that link if you aren't prepared for some pretty nauseating facts about Mr. Shanley) was a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. He is also a pedophile. He believed he was called by God to be a priest (just like Mr. Barlowe believes he was "called"). Why would we think that Mr. Barlowe was called and not Mr. Shanley? Why should we "deny God's call" for Mr. Shanley, but not Mr. Barlow?

Here is an even better one:

God is calling atheists to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

There we go. An atheist doesn't even believe God exists. But this one must really be silly, right? I mean, an atheist wouldn't try to be a bishop in the Episcopal church. This must be a straw man argument, a fallacy, something easy for me to refute but which isn't really relevant. Once again, of course, it isn't silly at all. In fact it is depressing how un-silly it actually is. John Shelby Spong retired in 2000 as a bishop in the Episcopal Church. He authored many books during his tenure as bishop and Wikipedia describes him as being, "the bestselling liberal theologian of recent times." Harper Collins, who published some of his books, has posted the first chapter of one of his books titled, "A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying & How a New Faith is Being Born." In this chapter, retired bishop Spong states the following:

I do not define God as a supernatural being.

Since I do not see God as a being, I cannot interpret Jesus as the earthly incarnation of this supernatural deity, nor can I with credibility assume that he possessed sufficient Godlike power to do such miraculous things as stilling the storm, banishing demons, walking on water, or expanding five loaves to provide sufficient bread to feed five thousand men, plus women and children.

I do not believe that this Jesus could or did in any literal way raise the dead, overcome a medically diagnosed paralysis, or restore sight to a person born blind or to one in whom the ability to see had been physiologically destroyed.

I do not believe that Jesus entered this world by the miracle of a virgin birth or that virgin births occur anywhere except in mythology.

Bishop Spong is, therefore, an atheist. But he is an atheist who also claims to have been called to be an Episcopalian bishop (just like the gay man, Mr. Barlow), and "we must never deny God's call."

The bottom line though, is that God does call lesbians, gays, pedophiles, and yes, even atheists to be priests (1 Peter 2:9), but he does not call them to this and expect them to remain lesbians, gays, pedophiles and atheists. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 says:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Please note the bold italicized "were" in the previous paragraph. That is what some of them were but they were washed and sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. They were not expected to be those things any longer. And if they were still those things then they would not inherit the kingdom of God. That is the key element in this, and it draws out the problem in the original quote from the article:

God is calling lesbian and gay persons to be bishops, priests, deacons and lay ministers in the Church, and we must never deny God's call

The reason why this quote is correct (but not in the way that Mr. Barlowe meant it) is the use of the word "called." In the parable of the wedding feast found in Matthew 22:1-14 Jesus talks about a king who gives a wedding feast and invites several groups of people. First he asks the original invitees to come and they don't (22:5,6 - "But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them") so after destroying them and burning their city (22:7) he widens the invite list to as many people as can be found "both bad and good" (22:10). Well, then the "wedding hall was filled with guests" but as the king goes through the guests he sees somebody there without a wedding garment and when the man can't give a good answer for why he isn't wearing a wedding garment the king has him thrown out "into the outer darkness [where there is] weeping and gnashing of teeth" (22:13). And then we come to the real crux of the matter in Matthew 22:14, where Jesus says:

For many are called, but few are chosen.

So Mr. Barlowe is right, God is calling lesbians and gays and even atheists to his wedding feast, but God will not choose them to remain unless they clothe themselves in the wedding garment, which is Christ and get rid of their sin (observe that these things go together):

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature. (Romans 13:13-14)

Why Write Christian Books if you don't Believe in God?

I started reading "God's Holy Fire: The Nature and Function of Scripture" yesterday and I'm already troubled by the content. For you to understand what is troubling me, I have to ask you a question:

Why did Israel and the early Christians survive when the powerful kingdoms of the ancient world are now merely objects of historical and archaeological interest?

This is a question quoted directly from the book. The lead-in to the question is as follows:

The remarkable fact is that, not only do our children learn the same stories that we learned as children, but people continue to tell the story of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants after more than 3,000 years. This fact is especially noteworthy when one recalls the incredible number of empires that have come and gone over the past three millennia. Indeed, Israel was only a tiny kingdom the size of Massachussetts, far smaller than the empires of the Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, or Persians. Most people today don't know much about Canaanites or Hittites, but they know of Israel, which survived despite the loss of its temple, monarchy, and land. In the same way, the early church flourished when no casual observer could have predicted that it would meet the challenge offered by the competition. Without the survival of Israel and the early church, Christians would not now be telling the ancient story.

The very next line is the question I asked above. Now, the writers of this book are three professors from the Graduate School of Theology at Abilene Christian University (http://www.acu.edu). More specifically they are (from the back of the book): "Dr. Mark Hamilton, Assistant Professor of Old Testament; Dr. James Thompson, Professor of New Testament and Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Theology; and Dr. Ken Cukrowski, Associate Professor of New Testament and Associate Dean of Academic Programs for the College of Biblical Studies."

So then, back to the question asked in the book:

Why did Israel and the early Christians survive when the powerful kingdoms of the ancient world are now merely objects of historical and archaeological interest?

And the author's answer:

Israel had a memory that no one could take away. The Israelites survived Babylonian captivity and returned to rebuild their devastated land because of a memory, which later was gathered into a book.

Amazing. One wonders if any of these distinguished professors of the New and Old Testaments have actually read the New and Old Testaments. You see, the question asked above is one that the Bible answers. When it comes to Israel surviving through Babylonian captivity, we find out many times how and why this happened in the Old Testament:

Job 12:23 - "He makes nations great, and he destroys them; he enlarges nations, and leads them away."

Jeremiah 25:11-12 - "This whole land shall become a ruin and a waste, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after seventy years are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation, the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity, declares the LORD, making the land an everlasting waste.

Daniel 9:2 - "in the first year of [Darius'] reign, I , Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years."

Jeremiah 16:14-15 - "Therefore, behold the days are coming, declares the LORD, when it shall no longer be said, 'As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt,' but 'As the LORD lives who brought up the people of Israel out of the north country and out of all the countries where he had driven them.' For I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers."

The Old Testament even answers the question of why the ancient empires fell and are no more:

Jeremiah 25:15-27 - For thus the LORD, the God of Israel, says to me, "Take this cup of the wine of wrath from My hand and cause all the nations to whom I send you to drink it. They will drink and stagger and go mad because of the sword that I will send among them." Then I took the cup from the LORD'S hand and made all the nations to whom the LORD sent me drink it: Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and its kings and its princes, to make them a ruin, a horror, a hissing and a curse, as it is this day; Pharaoh king of Egypt, his servants, his princes and all his people; and all the foreign people, all the kings of the land of Uz, all the kings of the land of the Philistines (even Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron and the remnant of Ashdod); Edom, Moab and the sons of Ammon; and all the kings of Tyre, all the kings of Sidon and the kings of the coastlands which are beyond the sea; and Dedan, Tema, Buz and all who cut the corners of their hair; and all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the foreign people who dwell in the desert; and all the kings of Zimri, all the kings of Elam and all the kings of Media; and all the kings of the north, near and far, one with another; and all the kingdoms of the earth which are upon the face of the ground, and the king of Sheshach shall drink after them. You shall say to them, "Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, "Drink, be drunk, vomit, fall and rise no more because of the sword which I will send among you."

Now, Jerusalem is mentioned in this list as well, but Jerusalem gets special treatment later in the book (note that the other nations do not):

Jeremiah 27:22 - "[The vessels of the Temple] shall be carried to Babylon and remain there until the day when I visit them, declares the LORD. Then I will bring them back and restore them to this place."

The New Testament answers the part of the question dealing with why the early church survived:

Matthew 16:18 - "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Luke 1:31-33 - "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end."

Which is according to a great deal of clear Old Testament prophecy:

Daniel 2:44 - "In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever."

1 Chronicles 17:14 - "But I will settle him in My house and in My kingdom forever, and his throne shall be established forever."

There is nothing in these verses about a "memory" on the part of Israel. There is in fact nothing lauding any action on the part of any PEOPLE in any of these verses. They all have something in common, though, that being that they very clearly point to the answer to the question:

Why did Israel and the early Christians survive when the powerful kingdoms of the ancient world are now merely objects of historical and archaeological interest?

And that answer is: Because the LORD willed it to be so.

The LORD willed for Israel to survive and the LORD willed for the ancient kingdoms to become mere "objects of historical and archaeological interest" and the LORD willed for the early church to survive (and in fact he wills for it to survive today and forever). If the answer given by the writers of God's Holy Fire were correct then man could destroy the church by merely forgetting about it; but this isn't the case because God wills for the church to live forever as the verses above clearly demonstrate. It is not action on our part or the part of the Israelites which led to the maintenance of these kingdoms throughout time but rather action on God's part.

I remain disturbed by the fact that the writers of this book claim to be Christian and teach Bible classes at a "Christian" University and yet give a fundamentally atheistic answer to one of the most central themes in all of the Bible. I intend to continue reading the book, however, and I'll post more on it as it goes.

What is Wrong with Actually READING the Bible?

I've been listening to Dr. Gerald Bray's church history class via http://www.biblicaltraining.com/ (you can download entire classes and listen to them whenever you feel like it). Today he was talking about the Reformation and the history leading up to it. I found it interesting that the Catholic Church actually made it a heresy in the early 15th century (punishable via being burned at the stake) to translate the Bible from Latin to some other language. But this was a reaction to a "problem" that the Catholic Church was already dealing with. Thus the Reformation was a reaction to a variety of converging forces that led to one very simple thing: making the Bible accessible. Now, there aren't very many people in America that don't have at least one Bible in their homes. This is even true for many atheists. We are "Bible saturated" as it were. This is frightening for me because what I see is that nobody actually reads it and when they do they understand it to say things which are simply absurd, because they had some pre-conceived notion of what it said before they ever opened it. The Bible is a book, therefore it can be read and understood. This isn't that hard, but so many people seem to make it so much more difficult than it has to be. I know why that is, of course, because the Bible tells us things that we don't want to hear and we are a society now that feels justified in ignoring truth if it happens to seem "mean spirited" (a.k.a. just telling you what is going on). This is a big problem, though, because we shouldn't deceive ourselves: We reap what we sow (Galatians 6:7-8). That isn't God saying to us that he is going to give us what-for, though, that is just him warning us that we will suffer the consequences of our actions. That is a tough one for us today. Yes, and it is "mean-spirited," too. So most of the time we just stand by and let people fall in the gaping hole in front of them because if we say, "Hey, sorry to bother you, there is a gaping hole in front of you" we get "OH, THAT WAS SO MEAN-SPIRITED. THAT WASN'T VERY CHRISTIAN OF YOU!" Which is worse, though, the wretched consequences of their actions falling on them without warning or a few "mean-spirited" words of caution?

A Place for Some Thoughts on Christianity

I just set up this blog as a way to focus my thoughts on religion and specifically, Christianity. So that you know what you are getting, I have the following attributes:

1. I believe in God - specifically the God of the Bible
2. I believe that Jesus was his Son
3. I believe that the Bible is true
4. I believe that we can read the Bible and find out what it says
5. I am a member of the churches of Christ and as such I believe that immersion baptism is an important part of the salvation process