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.