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