The Cruelty of the Prosperity Gospel

I ran across this post while I was surfing around on Trevin Wax's blog titled Joel Osteen's Negative Message. The essential message of the post (which you can tell from the title) is that Joel Osteen's message is actually not positive but is rather very negative. Osteen preaches that you can have health and wealth and if you don't have it then something is wrong in your life. Most people see this as a very positive message. In fact, saying Osteen is not a positive preacher seems a bit strange. After all, he seems very positive. He is always smiling while he is preaching and his books are titled Become a Better You, and Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. Those seem like positive messages. Here is a quote that sure seems positive:

"I want you to get a bigger vision. There are exciting things in your future. Your future is filled with marked moments of blessing, increase, promotion. God has already ordained before the foundation of the world, the right people, the right opportunity. Time and chance are coming together for you. Why don’t you get your hopes up?" Osteen tells his audience. "Why don't you start believing that no matter what you have or haven't done, that your best days are still out in front of you."

And here is some more:

"If you’re not making as much progress as you would like, here's the key: don't lose any ground. Keep a good attitude and do the right thing even when it's hard. When you do that you are passing the test. And God promises you your marked moments are on their way," Osteen says.

But is that really a positive message? If you are having pain and suffering and are poor then you aren't trying hard enough. You need a better attitude and your life will be better. This is, of course, what is called the prosperity gospel and I appreciated Wax's approach to it because I hadn't really realized it before, but telling people that they just aren't trying hard enough really isn't a positive message and in fact it is an incredibly cruel message. Furthermore it isn't a biblical message regarding those who are poor in this world:

Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? (James 2:5)

What does this passage say about those who are poor in this world? Does it say that they aren't trying hard enough? Does it say that God is showing his disfavor with them? Does it say that if they hope in riches in this world that God will relent and give them this? No, it says that they are chosen to be "rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom" which is, of course, the kingdom "not of this world" which Christ referred to in John 18:36.

A kinder and more positive message is one that gives all men hope for the future in the life that lies beyond this one. This life ends in death for all of us. Looking for permanent health and wealth here ourselves is a vain search. Encouraging others to look for it is downright cruel.

Is Brutality Civility?

Tim Challies recently posted a blog about the book The Case for Civility by Os Guinness wherein the case is made that we need more civility in this world and that America is where it should start. This is the section from the blog that talks about why it should start in America:

It is a call for the United States to take the lead in restoring civility. “The place at which we must begin to search for answers is the United States. Not because the problem is worse here than elsewhere—on the contrary—but because America has the best cultural resources, and therefore the greatest responsibility to point the way forward in answering the deepest questions.” America is uniquely equipped to take the lead and Guinness urges her on

I'm not sure why anyone would think this about America (and I'm an American). I'm disturbed about the fact that it seems almost impossible to actually have civil discourse in America and if we are better off here than elsewhere then you must get spit on in the streets in other countries just for walking around. Look at the comment lists of blog posts and you'll see what I mean. It is appalling. The number of people that post comments in the name of kindness that are simply exercises in verbal bullying and brutality is astonishing. Most civil discourse that I have seen in blog threads and boards is terminated by the loud boorish shouting of people maintaining that somebody else is being "rude" or "insulting." This problem with civil discourse on the web is well known and has been a problem for a long time. There was a reason why all of the worthwhile Usenet groups on religion were heavily moderated and comment lists like Slashdot and Digg have (where you can vote down the worst offenders so that the rest of the comment list actually looks civil to later readers) were attempts to solve this problem, but in the end the root of the issue is that there are just too many people who believe that they are "kind" and "loving" and who are, in fact, the exact opposite. Anyone who is reading some thread or comment list and feels the urge from reading what some other commenter said that they merely disagree with to post an attack on the other person has the problem, not the original poster.

Listen, when you are reading something and you suddenly want to post a reply ask yourself in your reply if you are posting something substantive regarding what the actual discussion is or if you are posting a personal insult. Now, I have seen many people who post insults and then maintain that they are substantive so clearly the word "insult" is poorly understood, so here is another way to put it: does your comment have anything to do with the other person (as a person) at all? If it does, then maybe it is out of place. You see this demonstrated a lot in religious discussions where somebody makes some statement about a particular issue only to be replied to by some variation on, "Your constant attacks are sickening and only prove you are arrogant and unloving" and so forth. This response is not civil, it adds nothing to the discussion and furthermore it, itself, fails the test of a loving and gentle response called for in the Bible:

Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person. (Colossians 4:5-6)

The person who hurls the insults may think that they are given such a right by the actions of the person they are insulting. But this, too, is completely unchristian:

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. (Luke 6:27-28)

Even if the original commenter was your enemy your insulting response would not be acceptable. In many cases, if you read something that makes you angry you are better off doing what James says to do:

Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger (James 1:19)

In terms of posting things on the Net, we could read it like this, "Let every person be quick to read, slow to post." We are better off posting nothing than posting some insulting response. These passages from Proverbs are apropos:

Whoever belittles his neighbor lacks sense,but a man of understanding remains silent. (Proverbs 11:12)

Whoever restrains his words has knowledge,and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. (Proverbs 17:27) Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise;when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent. (Proverbs 17:28)

Wrestling with Biblical Relevance

I put "wrestling" in the title of this blog because this is me "wrestling" with the concept and not preaching to anybody.  I want to lay all of these thoughts out on a subject that I find difficult and see where it gets me.

It seems that there are several schools of thought on the relevance of the Bible to our time and culture.  There are those who feel that the Bible is relevant in itself and those who feel that it is not relevant unless it is changed to become relevant.  Well, as I write that last sentence I don't know that it really says what I want it to say so I'll come at it from a different direction.  There is a passage in the Bible that says this:

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.
(1 Corinthians 14:33-34)

Assuming we are talking about a person who considers themselves a Christian, there are several possible responses to this:

1. Assimilate the Passage - The passage's relevance is not culturally-based.  It bluntly means that women cannot speak in church and have to be quiet.  Following the passage then means doing this as best you know how.
2. Eliminate the Passage - The passage is not relevant to today's culture and hinders evangelism opportunities.  The passage should not be considered binding.
3. Modify the Passage - The passage is relevant to some degree but doesn't bluntly mean that women should keep absolute silence in church.  Interpreting the passage in this way is incorrect.  Therefore, it is possible to follow the passage without forcing all of the women in church to keep quiet.

I picked 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 since it seems to be such a blunt passage.  To me the different approaches are different ways of viewing Biblical authority in general.  I think discussions among the three groups are always problematic because the presuppositions that each have gets in the way.  The discussion really isn't about whether women can speak in church but rather about how you view the Bible (and I think also about how you view God, but more on that later).  Each group views the Bible like so:

1. Assimilators - The Bible is the work of God and therefore is the supreme authority under all cultural conditions.
2. Eliminators - The Bible is the work of men in different cultural contexts and is authoritative only when the cultural context is taken into account.
3. Modifiers - The Bible is authoritative but is interpreted in a cultural context and therefore the interpretation becomes a function of the culture.

It is worth pointing out that Modifiers I have known would quickly state that Assimilators are doing the same thing that they are but they just don't realize it.  That is, all interpretation is within a cultural context and claims of discovering the actual meaning of the text should always be viewed with skepticism.

All of these views end up saying something about a person's belief in God and how the Bible came to be created:

1. Assimilators - God inspired the Bible and is therefore its ultimate author.  Since God transcends culture the Bible also transcends culture.  When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" it isn't really Paul speaking but rather God speaking through Paul and since God is an infinite being that exists outside of the world his words are not a function of Paul or Paul's environment.
2. Eliminators - Men wrote the Bible and although they may have had something called "inspiration" this did not overcome their dependence on their environment.  Therefore God did not control the writing of the Bible and the Bible does not transcend culture.  When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" this is just Paul speaking what he thinks God would want him to say but what he thinks God would want him to say cannot be separated from his cultural context.
3. Modifiers - God may have inspired the Bible but our finite interpretive capabilities will always play a role in how we hear what it is saying.  Even if God controlled the writing of the Bible and the Bible itself transcends culture we cannot transcend our own culture and therefore our interpretation is always a function of our own environment.  When Paul says, "Women should keep silent in the churches" we have to interpret that within our own cultural context as we can do nothing else.

Eliminators seem to be more modernist and Modifiers more postmodernist.  Both Eliminators and Modifiers see Assimilators as arrogant and naive and Assimilators see the other two groups as heretics.  There doesn't seem to be a middle ground here that can be found because of the depth of the difference in each view.  If the three groups were to have a conversation on "making the Bible relevant to the modern age" they would each be saying those words but meaning completely different things.  An Assimilator believes that to make the Bible relevant is simply to preach the word.  An Eliminator believes that parts of the Bible that are relevant can be used and other parts can be ignored since the book is a work of man.  Modifiers believe that the interpretation can bend as far as needed to meet the application to culture and therefore the interpretation itself is what becomes relevant.  In some ways the Assimilator and the Modifier would seem to agree in theory (preaching involves interpretation) but in practice (as with the interpretation and application of 1 Corinthians 14:33-34) this doesn't happen because the Assimilator attacks the culturally difficult meaning directly and the Modifier changes it to something palatable to the culture which it clearly is not in its immediate form.

I admit that I'm an Assimilator.  Maybe I am naive and arrogant to believe this way although I try hard not to be arrogant, at least, but I want to think that when I read the Bible maybe I can understand it and maybe I can bend my life to meet it and maybe that will make me a better person.  Am I wrong to do this?

Bombastic!

I just read a post on another blog where a raging argument is taking place.  One of those commenting made this statement, which I thought was funny:

It is irresponsible as an historian, theologian, and Christian to use sophistry. And then to manipulate people under false pretenses with bombastic language.

This statement is even funnier in context since he has previously made an argument that if we read "MAL and HL" we will clearly see...  well, we'll clearly see something anyway.  At the end of this first post he says this:

(Yes, I study Cuneiform at UPenn and am not speaking ignorantly about this literature. I’ve read it.)

So he is apparently one of the most pretentious and bombastic folks in the entire comment chain and he chides others for these traits.  I was this way when I was in college, too.

Wisdom Lit.

When I was in high school they had a class called English Lit. and a class called Modern Lit.  I think they should have had a class called "Wisdom Lit."

When a man's folly brings his way to ruin, his heart rages against the LORD.
(Proverbs 19:3)

We read about "meat" and "milk" in the Bible.  I think Proverbs is like chewing gum.  I can stick that verse above in my mind and chew on it for hours and it never loses its flavor.

In Search of Peace

I'm so tired of my pride.  There is no peace in it.  In The Imitation of Christ Thomas À Kempis truthfully wrote:

A proud and avaricious man never rests, whereas he who is poor and humble of heart lives in a world of peace.

To have pride is completely without sense.  We live for so short a time and we are so frail.  Furthermore, no matter how good we are at what we do, there is always someone better, either at that, or at something else that we take pride in.  As Christians it makes even less sense.  Believing in an infinite God who spoke a universe into existence should lead us to consider our own "accomplishments" as nothing, but still I preen and strut and hope to be better than the other fish in my tiny aquarium.

In the end, even the complete lack of logic behind the feeling is nothing compared to the stress I feel to keep on attempting establishment of my own greatness.  I could find peace if I could find humility.  If I could attain to the attitude described in Philippians 2:3

Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.

then I wouldn't be in this wretched race to prove myself all the time.  And I would have peace.

Music

According to a recent article the Quail Springs Church of Christ is going to introduce a separate "Instrumental" service where they have instrumental music, in addition to a service offering the usual a cappella music you find at Churches of Christ.  In the article the "teaching and preaching minister" Mark Henderson, in answer to the question, "What do you hope to accomplish with this worship service?" says:

We want to keep more of our people that were leaving to go to instrumental churches. One of the ways I would describe it is the way we handled it doctrinally. We essentially said you are free to worship with instruments and you are free to worship without them. From just a doctrinal biblical standpoint, we, for a number of years, have treated this as a nonissue. And so to me it seems like we were giving our people freedom to leave. We were saying you're free to worship with instruments — just not here. So one of things we're trying to do is for those people who really connect more with instrumental music, even of our own people, we're trying to give them a greater opportunity to stay and to worship and to serve and be a part of the church here.

So to the Quail Springs Church of Christ the decision whether or not to have a cappella music or instrumental accompaniment is one in which we are free.  It is a matter of opinion and preference.  Just after the quote above Mark gives another goal that Quail Springs has with this change.  He says, "The other thing we're trying to do is to reach some people that we've been missing."  So the goals for this change were to give those "who really connect more with instrumental music" a "greater opportunity to stay and to worship and be a part of the church" at Quail Springs and reach people that they had been missing.  These goals sound admirable.  However, just a few paragraphs later in the article, Mark says this:

We went through a painful process to make this decision. You know when we started this process, our average attendance was in the 900-950 arrange and by the time we finished, we were in the 600-650 range. And those numbers represent people and friends and family members, so we don't take it lightly, and others shouldn't either.

This is interesting.  So they lost around 300 members so that they could give their members who "really connect more with instrumental music" a "greater opportunity to stay and worship and be a part of the church" and so that they could reach out to those they had been missing because of only having an a cappella service.  Presumably, since Mark states that he believes this to be an area of freedom and opinion he believes that the stronger view is one that believes you can either sing with instruments or without.  This means that the 300 members that left the church were the weak ones and he sacrificed the weaker members of the church so that the stronger ones would feel more comfortable and could now "really connect" with the worship service.

Let us assume that brother Mark is correct and that musical instruments will not commend us to God.  That we are no worse off if we have musical instruments and no better off if we do.  Is there a reason, then, why this passage does not apply?

Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this right of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol's temple, will he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? And so by your knowledge this weak person is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. Thus, sinning against your brothers and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.
(1 Corinthians 8:8-13)

More on Music

It seems that whatever tradition you are in, there is a certain coolness to breaking with that tradition, even if others outside the tradition may be going in the opposite direction.  Given the recent article regarding the Quail Springs Church of Christ introducing a service with instrumental music, isn't it strange that there are those outside the Churches of Christ discussing the usefulness of instrumental music in the corporate service?

Daniel

From The Desert Fathers:

A brother asked [Poemen], "How ought we to live?"  Poemen replied, "We have seen the example of Daniel.  They accused him of nothing except that he served his God."

The Bible Through the Lens of the Apocalypse

Some nice ladies who are members of the Jehovah's Witnesses came by my house today and dropped off a copy of The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom.  (I always thought of it as just The Watchtower but according to this, the January 2008 issue, we are supposed to be mindful of the fact that its full title is, indeed, The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom so I'll call it that to be perfectly fair.)

This particular issue is focused on the Kingdom of God.  One particular article titled What Is God's Kingdom provides some tidbits of information about the Kingdom of God like:

God's Kingdom has 144,000 corulers with the Christ.  Jesus said that others, including his apostles, would rule in heaven with him.  He called this group the "little flock."  (Luke 12:32)  Later, the apostle John was told that this little flock would total 144,000 in number.  They would have a thrilling work assignment in heaven, ruling as kings and serving as priests along with Christ - Revelation 5:9, 10; 14:1, 3.

This is one of those well-known beliefs of the Witnesses, although I admit that I thought they considered the 144,000 to be the whole number of the saved and the way that this is written seems to indicate that they actually believe that the 144,000 are simply special leaders among the saved.  Of course, maybe they are just spinning it that way so that I feel better about it, too, since according to the book Revelation - Its Grand Climax at Hand! which was published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:

Interestingly, the first president of the Watch Tower Society, Charles T. Russell, recognized the 144,000 to be a literal number of individuals making up a spiritual Israel.  In The New Creation, Volume VI of his Studies in the Scriptures, published in 1904, he wrote: "We have every reason to believe that the definite, fixed number of the elect [chosen anointed ones] is that several times stated in Revelation (7:4; 14:1); namely, 144,000 'redeemed from amongst men.'"  [Emphasis Original]

Of course, from a scriptural perspective tying Revelation 5:9 to the 144,000 would mean that the 144,000 would have to consist of the entire body of the saved:

And they sing a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and open its seals, because you were slaughtered and with your blood you bought persons for God out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation, and you made them to be a kingdom and priests to our God, and they are to rule as kings over the earth."  (Revelation 5:9)

The body of the saved are the body of those who have been bought with the blood of Christ.  It is clear that outside of Christ there is no salvation from sin and the church consists of those bought with the blood of the lamb:

Furthermore, if you are calling upon the Father who judges impartially according to each one's work, conduct yourselves with fear during the time of your alien residence.  For you know that it was not with corruptible things, with silver or gold, that you were delivered from your fruitless form of conduct received by tradition from your forefathers.  But it was with precious blood, like that of an unblemished and spotless lamb, even Christ's.  (1 Peter 5:17-19)

Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, among with the holy spirit has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own.  (Acts 20:28)

The problems with all of this are the same ones that we find whenever we use the book of Revelation to interpret other parts of the Bible and most especially when we decide that some portion of the book of Revelation is literal and then try to use that as a foundation for other interpretation.  The identification of a literal 144,000 with the saved is a key belief for the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Even if we assume that the stance is being softened on that being the total number of the saved (and instead represents some sort of "ruling class among the saved) the approach of taking the number literally causes all sorts of problems with passages having to do with the 144,000:

And I saw, and, look, the Lamb standing upon the Mount Zion, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.  And I heard a sound out of heaven as the sound of many waters and as the sound of loud thunder; and the sound that I heard was as of singers who accompany themselves on the harp playing on their harps.  And they are singing as if a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the older persons; and no one was able to master that song but the hundred and forty-four thousand, who have been bought from the earth.  These are the ones that did not defile themselves with women; in fact, they are virgins.  These are the ones that keep following the Lamb no matter where he goes.  These were bought from among mankind as first fruits to God and to the Lamb, and no falsehood was found in their mouths; they are without blemish.  (Revelation 14:1-5)

And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand, sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel:  Out of the tribe of Judah twelve thousand sealed; out of the tribe of Reuben twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Gad twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Asher twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Simeon twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Levi twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Issachar twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Zebulun twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Joseph twelve thousand; out of the tribe of Benjamin twelve thousand sealed.  (Revelation 7:4-8)

So if we take the 144,000 literally then the following must also be true about the people that make up this number:

• They are male (Revelation 14:4)
• They are virgins (Revelation 14:4)
• They are physical descendents of Israel (Revelation 7:4-8)

Regarding the fact that they are male virgins the book Revelation - Its Great Climax at Hand! says:

The fact that the 144,000 "are virgins" does not mean that members of this class are necessarily unmarried in the flesh.  The apostle Paul wrote to Christians who had a heavenly calling that, whereas there are advantages to Christian singleness, marriage is preferable under certain circumstances. (1 Corinthians 7:1, 2, 36, 37)  What characterizes this class is a spiritual virginity.  They have avoided spiritual adultery with worldly politics and with false religion. [Emphasis Original]

And concerning the fact that they would have to be physical descendents of Israel the same book says:

Could this not be a reference to literal, fleshly Israel?  No, for Revelation 7:4-8 diverges from the usual tribal listing.  (Numbers 1:17, 47)  Obviously, the listing here is not for the purpose of identifying fleshly Jews by their tribes but to show a similar organizational structure for spiritual Israel.  This is balanced.  There are to be exactly 144,000 members of this new nation - 12,000 from each of 12 tribes.

Ah, yes, and here is what we always see with such an approach to Revelation.  At some point there has to be a symbolic interpretation.  If you find the greatest literalist there is with regard to the book of Revelation you can always find the breakdown into symbolic interpretation at some point.  It will undoubtedly show up, for example, in the interpretation of the trumpets in Revelation 8 and 9 and most especially when the star Wormwood falls to the earth.  Regarding this passage, for example, Revelation - Its Great Climax at Hand! says this:

We have already met the symbolism of a star in Jesus' messages to the seven congregations, in which the seven stars symbolize the elders in the congregations.  (Revelation 1:20)  Anointed "stars," along with all others of the anointed, inhabit heavenly places in a spiritual sense from the time that they are sealed with the holy spirit as a token of their heavenly inheritance.  (Ephesians 2:6, 7)  However, the apostle Paul warned that from among such starlike ones would come apostates, sectarians, who would mislead the flock.  (Acts 20:29, 30) ... When the clergy of Christendom apostatized from true Christianity, they fell from the lofty "heavenly" position described by Paul at Ephesians 2:6, 7.  Instead of offering fresh waters of truth, they served up "wormwood," bitter lies such as hellfire, purgatory, the Trinity, and predestination; also, they led the nations into war, failing to build them up as moral servants of God.

You've simply got to resort to symbolism at some point when you interpret Revelation.  The problem is that the book makes it so easy, once you start mixing literal and symbolic interpretation, to twist it into almost any point you want to.  Once you have done this with Revelation, you can then use the "obvious" (notice the use of that word in previous quotes from the literature above) interpretation you have created from Revelation to interpret away truly clear passages from the rest of the Bible.  I always get frustrated when people (usually those who don't believe in God and want good reasons not to read the Bible) say, "You can make the Bible say whatever you want to."  This really isn't true.  The Bible is quite clear on a great many points.  However, it is possible to twist the Bible into saying what it does not by using methods such as interpreting the rest of the Bible through the lens of Revelation.

The obvious difficulties in interpreting the book of Revelation if you are going to cling to a literal interpretation of parts of the vision can be seen with how the Jehovah's Witnesses interpret Revelation 7:4.  Here is just that verse and I have tagged the parts that the Jehovah's Witnesses read as literal and symbolic:

And I heard the number of those who were sealed, a hundred and forty-four thousand [literal], sealed out of every tribe of the sons of Israel [symbolic]

Thus in the space of part of a single sentence in a single verse we are told to interpret part of it literally and part of it symbolically.  How are we to know which parts we need to take literally and which parts symbolically when the two types of reading are mixed within the same sentence like this?  The answer to that question gives us the second reason why it is so convenient to interpret the Bible from the foundation of the book of Revelation - Doing so creates a dependency on someone else's interpretation.  The Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a separated clergy and laity (and rightly so) but they have created a system that achieves the same effect by creating an interpretive dependency on The Watchtower Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom.  Revelation is the premier book for this effect as it is so difficult to understand and therefore if you can claim that you understand it so well you should be heeded as a source of authority by those less able.  Combining this with the first effect of interpreting the Bible through the lens of the book of Revelation (that being the ability to easily twist easier to understand passages by more difficult ones) you can both make the Bible say whatever you want it to and also create a system of authority such that everyone who is a member of your church must listen and do whatever you say as though you were the voice of God himself.  Of course, turning the Bible into a tool for establishing human authority like this is nothing new and the Jehovah's Witnesses did not invent this procedure but it is something that we have to be on guard against all the same.

Titles

I came across the following as a footnote on page 133 of The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware:

In Orthodoxy the title 'Pope' is not limited to the Bishop of Rome, but is also borne by the Patriarch of Alexandria. Among his other honorary titles are 'Shepherd of Shepherds', 'Thirteenth Apostle', and 'Judge of the Universe'.

And in The Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry for Pope, I found the following:

[The Pope] is addressed as His Holiness the Pope. By title and right he is: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of St. Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, and Sovereign of the State of Vatican City.

Also, according to the Wikipedia page on the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople the official title of the Patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople is, "His Most Godly All-Holiness the Archbishop of Constantinople New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch."

It seems strange to me that men who are supposed to be extremely spiritual (as is made clear in the title of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Most Godly All-Holiness) would take such titles for themselves. I find that the closer I get to God the more ashamed I am of my inadequacies and the smaller I want to make myself. I would not want to stand before God on the Day of Judgment and have myself declared Judge of the Universe or Prince of the Apostles. Would you want to have yourself declared Prince of the Apostles with any of the actual Apostles in the room? How remarkably embarrassing that would be! And what if you were asked by Paul, "Were you really the Thirteenth Apostle?" What would you say?

It seems even worse when looked at, for example, where Paul says:

For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. (1 Corinthians 15:9)

These are not the words of a man who is seeking to be Judge of the Universe or to call himself "Most Godly All-Holiness." These things bring up the question of what Jesus was talking about when he said:

And Jesus called them to him and said to them, "You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. (Mark 10:42-44)

Given that when this passage occurs in Matthew and Mark it is after the request by the mother of John and James for them to sit at Jesus' right and left hands in his glory it seems that Jesus is trying to teach us something about the thirst for power and what power means in the Kingdom of God. The pattern of Jesus' preaching about humility and the inversion of authority occurring directly after arguments among his disciples about who was the greatest does not seem to be accidental:

An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side and said to them, "Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great." (Luke 9:46-48)

And they came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house he asked them, "What were you discussing on the way?" But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. And he sat down and called the twelve. And he said to them, "If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all." (Mark 9:33-35)

A dispute also arose among them, as to which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves. (Luke 22:24-27)

Notice how in the last passage Jesus points out that he is "among you as the one who serves." If the Son of God who is God came among us as "the one who serves" then how is it possible for any mere human to decide that he is among us as the "one who reclines at table"?

The Eastern Orthodox Church

I started reading The Orthodox Church by Timothy Ware in an effort to get a better understanding of the Eastern Orthodox Church before setting off into the second volume in Jaroslav Pelikan's The Christian Tradition. The book is both interesting and disturbing.

My fascination with the Eastern Orthodox goes back to a church camp I went to over a long weekend. At the camp we were informed that another camp a short distance away would be sharing our mess hall and that we should be polite and not stare. This didn't make a lot of sense until the other camp showed up and turned out to be an Eastern Orthodox camp that chanted prayers before each meal and whose leaders wore outfits like nothing I had ever seen. I am sad to say that I remember very little regarding our camp, but I remember almost every time that we came in contact with the the Eastern Orthodox. Late in the weekend several of us managed to sneak off and check out the other camp and when we got there nobody else was around and the door to their church was open so we went in. I don't remember anything special about the building, but I do remember the icons on the walls and I especially remember that all of the pictures of the saints and Christ and Mary all bore the distinctive marks of being repeatedly kissed.

Timothy Ware says this about icons:

One of the distinctive features of Orthodoxy is the place which it assigns to icons. An Orthodox church today is filled with them... An Orthodox prostrates himself before these icons, he kisses them and burns candles in front of them; they are censed by the priest and carried in procession.

Now to me this smacks of idolatry, but Bishop Ware disagrees:

When an Orthodox kisses an icon or prostrates himself before it, he is not guilty of idolatry. The icon is not an idol but a symbol; the veneration shown to images is directed, not towards stone, wood and paint, but towards the person depicted... Because icons are only symbols, Orthodox do not worship them, but reverence or venerate them. [emphasis original]

So, I can make an image of Christ or of a saint and I can bow down to it and I can kiss it and burn incense to it, but because I have redefined the word "worship" I can say that I am not an idolater. The second commandment seems to imply differently:

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments. (Exodus 20:4-6)

It is interesting that the second commandment almost seems to anticipate that we might redefine the word "worship" and so it doesn't use that word. It says, "You shall not bow down to them." An Eastern Orthodox might respond with this passage:

"Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air, the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth. (Deuteronomy 4:15-18)

And they might point out that Christ was the incarnation of God and therefore, as opposed to the Old Testament, we have a God which can be seen and touched with our hands, as mentioned in John 1 and 1 John 1:

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life-- the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us-- that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:1-3)

And Eastern Orthodox would say that because of this fact, that God has made himself manifest in the form of a man, to make an icon of Christ is not incorrect because, just as Christ was worshipped here on earth, when he had been incarnated into the form of a man, he can be worshipped through a man-made image of him (because we, as mankind, have beheld him).

Given my limited understanding of the Eastern Orthodox I think that is a fair assessment of their teaching on icons. After all of that, I have to say that I think it is also an example of humans twisting the word of God to say what they want it to say. It is not a new thing to spin words like this and it is not at all difficult to do (for example, it isn't "murder" it is "choice" or "euthanasia"). In fact, we humans do it all the time to justify ourselves. Christ was worshipped here on earth, not because he was a man, but because he is God. He was due worship because there was, within his nature, that which was worthy of worship. Bowing down to an icon of him because he had a human nature misconstrues the object of worship into the human aspect and breaks the fine balance of the incarnation into an overemphasis on the human side. Adding the saints and Mary into the mix further emphasizes the human (although I'm guessing an Eastern Orthodox would say that it is acceptable to worship them as well due to theosis) and degenerates the object of worship into the creation rather than the creator, which is the real source of idolatry:

"Men, why are you doing these things? We also are men, of like nature with you, and we bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. (Acts 14:15)

When Peter entered, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am a man." (Acts 10:25-26)

Then I fell down at his feet to worship him, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God." For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy. (Revelation 19:10)

I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me, but he said to me, "You must not do that! I am a fellow servant with you and your brothers the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God." (Revelation 22:8-9)

Romans 1 makes clear that the worship due the invisible God is not changed as it regards idolatry (spinning "worship" into "reverence" and "veneration" aside):

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (Romans 1:19-25)

This draws the clear distinction between "what has been made" and "created" and who is the maker or the "creator." If I bow before, burn incense to, and kiss an image, even of Christ, I am an idolater because I have made an image before which to bow down. I may redefine this as "veneration" but in the end, the action is the same.

Such a Worm as I

There is a song by Isaac Watts titled Alas! and did my Saviour bleed in which the first verse goes like this:

Alas! and did my Saviour bleed, and did my Sovereign die? Would he devote that sacred head for such a worm as I?

In many songbooks today the "worm" in that verse is replaced by some other term, such as "sinner" or even, "one" so that the verse goes like this:

Alas! and did my Savious bleed, and did my Sovereign die?  Would he devote that sacred head for such a one as I?

In fact, I wasn't certain that the first quote above was actually what Isaac Watts wrote so I looked it up at Christian Classics Ethereal Library and also at Project Gutenberg and the original verse is as I wrote it above saying, "Would he devote that sacred head for such a worm as I?"

The reasons for modifying the song in this way are not the subject of some conspiracy theory.  The theology behind the change is outlined in the Wikipedia page on "Worm Theology."  I said that the theology behind the change is outlined in the page on Worm Theology because although the page purports to be about the theology in the Isaac Watts hymn, it really has very little to do with the hymn and very much to do with the theology in a culture of self-promotion like we live in now.  Removing the "worm" from the song is supposed to be because we are worth so much to God that he gave his son for us and therefore we can pat ourselves on the back.  The first part of the statement is true.  God loved us so much that he gave his son for us, but the back patting is where we go wrong.  When Christ bled and died and devoted "that sacred head" we were worms.  We've got to get it through our thick heads that without the blood of Christ we are not acceptable to God.  Furthermore, removing the "worm" from our songs does not help the sinners of this world appreciate their sinful state.  Not that they would hear the "worm" in the song itself, but the entire idea of removing the "worm" is rampant in the way that we think so that in our preaching we are so often now trying to convince people they are okay at the same time as we are asking them to come to Jesus!  What nonsense!  Why do they need to come to Jesus in the first place?  You see those people carrying John 3:16 signs and many people who do such a thing have whittled down the Bible to just that verse, but now we've gone even farther and whittled down the Bible to half of that verse.  We've managed to get that verse down to "For God so loved the world."  And that is it!  We at least ought to finish the verse:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

And why can't we have eternal life without God giving his Son?  Why were we going to "perish" if God didn't help us?  Because of our sin, that's why!

For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.  (Romans 5:10)

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ--by grace you have been saved
(Ephesians 2:4-5)

This is so simple, in fact it is the very gospel itself:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures
(1 Corinthians 15:1-4)

The basics of our sin problem and the remedy for it which is the very gospel itself are undermined by our "I'm okay, you're okay" philosophy.  We do the lost and ourselves no favors by removing the "worm."

Writer's Block

I'm not really a writer, but I play on one this blog so I found this particular Lifehacker post about beating writer's block very helpful.  I never thought about the fact that I am completely uninspired to post something here as "writer's block" but I suppose that is what it is.

Comparing Ourselves to Others

"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted." (Luke 18:10-14)

Have you ever noticed the points of comparison in this parable? The Pharisee compares himself with "other men" and even with the tax collecter also standing in the temple to make the point to God that, relatively speaking, he is a good man. He is looking around at the world and knows that he is "not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers" and he is justified in his heart by this, in fact he was justified to himself before he even started to pray (this is why he thanks God for his good standing), but he is not justified before God so his justification means nothing. The tax collector also makes a point of comparison, but he compares himself to God and so he prays, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" He is unwilling even "to lift up his eyes to heaven" because he is painfully aware of his own unworthiness. Clearly since Jesus himself says regarding the tax collector, "This man went down to his house justified" then the tax collector's attitude is the one worthy of emulation. Like him, we should remember to compare ourselves with God and go out into the world ashamed of our own imperfections, but understanding that "It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?" (Rom. 8:33-34)

Science and God

I've always found it fascinating how many people there are who want to prove that miracles in the Bible could have been true because of some such naturally occurring event. An example of this are those people who choose to believe the book of Jonah because there are fish that exist that actually could swallow a man. That isn't a belief in God at all. That is a belief in the natural world. I like the way that A.W. Tozer puts it in the book The Mystery of the Holy Spirit. He says,

And the poor preachers, God help them, have tried over the last few years to prove miracles. They want to believe the miracles. I believe them all, but I do not believe them because science permits me; I believe them because God wrote them in the Bible and they are there. But some fellow finds a fish washed up on the shore and he measures its gullet. Gets himself a tape measure and crawls inside the bony skeleton and measures its gullet and finds out it is as broad as the shoulders of a man and he goes out and says see, a great fish could swallow Jonah. See, the unbeliever is wrong; God did make a fish big enough to swallow Jonah. Why go to tape measures and fish to find out whether what God says is true or not? If God did the thing, I could believe that.

The problem with telling the unbeliever they are wrong about God because a fish is proven to exist that could swallow a man is that such a thing may prove to the unbeliever that the Bible has some historical and scientific accuracy, but it doesn't help the unbeliever with what his real problem is and that is his unbelief in God. A miracle is a miracle precisely because it is scientifically impossible not because it happens daily somewhere in the world, and if we believe in a God who could create a universe then we should not have a problem believing that such a God could make a fish that could swallow a man.

On Conscience and Modernism

I picked up the book On Conscience by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (that would be the Pope) and I am finding it very thought provoking. The book consists of two essays given by the Pope (though when he gave them he was not the Pope) as lectures at workshops of the National Catholic Bioethics Center (one in 1984 and the other in 1991).

I should tell you at this point that I'm not at all Catholic. Not in the slightest. However, when I was perusing the little bookstore in the airport on my last trip I just flipped through this book and I found some of it interesting. The primary thesis in the first essay (Conscience and Truth) is that the conscience is more complex than simply the subjective certainty of man regarding his own actions and is answerable to more than simply itself; and further, that if this is not properly understood then it leads to a system of ethical relativity in the culture where confidence in actions by the powerful render them morally acceptable. The Pope puts it like so:

It will not do to identify man's conscience with the self-consciousness of the "I," with its subjective certainty about itself and its moral behavior. One the one hand, this consciousness may be a mere reflection of the social surroundings and the opinions in circulation. On the other hand, it might also derive from a lack of self-criticism, a deficiency in listening to the depths of one's own soul.

or again:

The identification of conscience with superficial consciousness, the reduction of man to his subjectivity, does not liberate but enslaves. It makes us totally dependent on the prevailing opinions, and debases these with every passing day. Whoever equates conscience with superficial conviction identifies conscience with a pseudo-rational certainty, a certainty that in fact has been woven from self-righteousness, conformity, and lethargy.

I agree with what he is saying here and I think we can easily see this proven in Western culture. Look at what has been "right" and "wrong" in the past 100 years in America, for example. For that matter, consider what has been "right" and "wrong" in simply the past 20 years in America. Is what was "wrong" 20 years ago that is considered "right" today "right" or is it "wrong?" Many would read that question and say that the question itself is a problem since what is "right" and "wrong" today or yesterday has no meaning and that proves the point precisely, of course.

The Pope points this out like so (and attaches it to the concept of progress):

The individual may not achieve his advancement or well-being at the cost of betraying what he recognizes to be true; nor may humanity. Here we come in contact with the really critical issue of the modern age. The concept of truth has been virtually given up, and replaced by the concept of progress. Progress itself "is" the truth. But through this seeming exaltation, progress loses its direction and becomes nullified. For if no direction exists everything can just as well be regress as progress.

To get a bearing and progress you have to have a fixed point. The Pope is here saying that there exists no fixed point to take a bearing from and actually progress so we may just as well go in a circle instead.

This goes along with some thoughts I've been having lately. Modernist thinking believes that there is a science to everything and application of scientific principles to every aspect of culture and society lead to advancement in all fields. It seems fairly obvious from a cursory look at the history of biblical interpretation (and especially since it has been "modernized" by the application of the historical-critical method) to see that such a notion is, in fact, nonsense when applied to a field where a fixed point cannot be established outside of the material under study. You have to have something to put a mark on so that when you move forward you can look back and understand that you have moved forward. This is very simple with the hard sciences since the body of applicable knowledge is expanding and can be tested by experimental means, but this is much more difficult with other areas we have tried to apply science to and in many cases all we have succeeded in doing, it seems, is creating systems of scholarly jargon so that a particular field sounds scientific when it is, in fact, not. Postmodern thinking is chipping away at the roots of scientific knowledge and it is starting with the fields of endeavor that are merely myth decorated with jargon since they are clearly the most vulnerable. The job is more difficult with the hard sciences but their truth can also be undermined because too often they have allied themselves with the other systems and are unwilling to give them up therefore their hypocrisy can be pointed out and this can be used to place doubt in the mind of the culture as it regards all of the truth being propagated by all of the sciences. I wonder what will come of this. Poor folks like Richard Dawkins still believe that logic and rational debate can clear the air and find the truth but the ax of the current cultural shift that is taking place is at the roots of his tree and although it seems likely that rational atheism will suffer greatly from this its impact on Christianity will probably be an increase in the emphasis on mysticism. It is happening slowly but it seems that this shift is already taking place. People probably like all of their technological conveniences too much to allow it to progress all the way to another Dark Ages but what will swing the pendulum back in the other direction?

There Is a Way That Seems Right

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death. (Proverbs 14:12)

This passage from Proverbs frightens me. The part that I find so disturbing is most specifically the part about a way that "seems right to a man." I find it frightening because it doesn't say, "There is a wrong way that a man decides to do even when he knows what the right way is" but rather that the way "seems right" meaning that when I am on it, then it seems like the correct thing to do. I'd like to think that the ways I am choosing are either obviously right or obviously wrong and when I'm on the wrong path then I am only on it because I want to be. That is, I'm being willful and rebellious and I know it. But this passage indicates that this isn't always the case and rather there is a way that I think is right but which is not. What is twisting my judgment like this? In the book of James we find:

But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. (James 1:14-15)

I read this passage and I'm inclined to believe that this is the type of temptation that I know about, acknowledge as such, fight, and end up yielding to. We know what kind of temptations those are and we live with them all of the time. But it seems to me that there are more dangerous temptations and they are the ones that we find a way to justify. So we are still led astray by our own desires, but in the latter case we decide that those desires are acceptable, that is, they are "right" and then when "desire is conceived" and "gives birth to sin" we are now more likely than ever to allow that sin to become fully grown and "bring forth death" because our guard is completely down. Thomas à Kempis writes about this like so:

We frequently judge that things are as we wish them to be, for through personal feeling true perspective is easily lost.

and again:

Many, unawares, seek themselves in the things they do.

Our own emotions and desires cloud our judgment and "through personal feeling true perspective is easily lost." It is this kind of temptation that is the more dangerous kind and it is this kind that the writer in Proverbs discusses when he says, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death." The person being discussed cannot see that the end is the way to death because they so long for it to be the way to life and, though unawares, "Seek themselves in the things they do." We are all like this to some degree. We judge a great many things around us in a relative sense to the things we care about and desire. Our judgment is not absolute and we are unwilling to submit to God in all that we do. We determine that passages we read in the Bible don't apply to us for some reason or another or we decide they mean something other than what they clearly state because what they clearly state is against our own desires. So, "hearing we do not hear, and seeing we do not see, or understand."

Worse than Death

A common mindset of the current era is that our physical well-being is somehow more important than anything else. You can see this if you look at all of the people exercising and eating so that they can "live longer." How long is it possible to live, anyway, and how much longer can your life get if you exercise like a maniac and eat only the very best things? It seems clear that no matter what we do, we all still die. Because of this, we have to get into a mindset for what comes after death. Obviously if you are an atheist then nothing comes after death for you so the point is moot, but if you are a Christian then you believe that there is something else and you believe that this something else will last forever. Therefore, the life we have after death is what matters and this life is of importance only as far as it has an impact on that life after death. This concept is entirely biblical. In fact, the idea that this life matters at all for its own sake is just utter nonsense from the Bible's point of view.

For what is the hope of the godless when God cuts him off, when God takes away his life? Will God hear his cry when distress comes upon him? (Job 27:8-9) If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Matthew 5:29-30) For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)

Jesus turns on its head the idea that our peace and safety here means anything at all by pointing out that it is better for us to have no peace and no safety here (plucked out eyes and chopped off hands) as long as we can follow him to heaven. This thought for our life after death should permeate our lives here. It should form how we treat our jobs, our things, and most especially how we bring up our children. Too often our thinking for them is of their physical and material safety. As long as they have a roof over their heads and enough to eat we determine that they must be fine and we must be good parents. Such thinking is nonsense in the context of an afterlife. It is strange that many Christians have such a materialistic mindset for their children even if they do not have it for themselves. Their own peace and safety here on earth is, like ours, secondary to the safety of their eternal souls. If we understand Christ's lesson and do not forfeit our own souls but we forfeit theirs in a warped reading of the Word then how much mercy can we as children expect from our own Father in heaven who has chosen never to abandon us, even when we were worth abandonment?

Inferiority Complex

DISCLAIMER: There are some fairly graphic descriptions of torture below so don't read on if that will be an issue for you. I am almost finished reading Eusebius' The History of the Church and although it has been hard going in some ways (off-hand references to all sorts of people, no dates from which to get a point of reference, and jarring context switches) it has still been very educational. One of the most notable things about the book has been the history as it regards the persecutions of the church during its first three centuries of existence. It is difficult for me to read about the martyrs and what they faced because I find it makes me feel so deficient. These people who preceded us went through unimaginable horrors and the worst thing that happens in my life is when I botch some home improvement project. This sense of inferiority I get is very strong because when you are reading Eusebius you realize that you are interacting with a culture for whom torture is a way of life. Consider, for example, this passage which is an excerpt from a letter written during the persecution of Diocletian in the early 300s:

Some, with their hands tied behind them, were hung from the gibbet and all their limbs were pulled apart by machines; then the torturers were ordered to get to work on every part of their helpless bodies, not as with murderers applying their instruments of correction to sides alone, but even to belly, legs and cheeks.

The worst thing about this statement is what is assumed in it. Torture was state sanctioned for murderers, but the torturers were limited by only being able to apply their "instruments of correction" (it seems that political spin by renaming things has always been common) to the "sides alone." In the case of the Christians, however, they could apply it to "every part of their helpless bodies." And what was it that they were being tortured for? Well, according to the edicts issued by the Romans they were supposed to offer incense to the Emperors. As it turns out, this wasn't a huge deal. You weren't expected to like the Emperors, you just had to offer your incense and be done with it. For most in the pagan Roman world the Christian response to this seemed unpatriotic and rebellious. Consider what the recantation prompted by Emperor Galerius at the end of the main period of persecution says:

Among the other steps that we are taking for the advantage and benefit of the nation, we have desired hitherto that every deficiency should be made good, in accordance with the established law and public order of Rome; and we made provision for this - that the Christians who had abandoned the convictions of their own forefathers should return to sound ideas. For through some perverse reasoning such arrogance and folly had seized and possessed them that they refused to follow the path trodden by earlier generations (and perhaps blazed long ago by their own ancestors), and made their own laws to suit their own ideas and individual tastes and observed these; and held meetings in various places.

So when you read the following understand that the Romans are asking for a censer of incense to be offered to a statue of the Emperor and in that particular culture it was quite an insignificant thing and certainly not something that any normal pagan would even bat an eye at, and then ask yourself if you could also do the right thing in face of something like this:

In the city [of Nicomedia], the rulers in question brought a certain man into a public place and commanded him to sacrifice. When he refused, he was ordered to be stripped, hoisted up naked, and his whole body torn with loaded whips till he gave in and carried out the command, however unwillingly. When in spite of these torments he remained as obstinate as ever, they next mixed vinegar with salt and poured it over the lacerated parts of his body, where the bones were already exposed. When he treated these agonies too with scorn a lighted brazier was then brought forward, and as if it were edible meat for the table, what was left of his body was consumed by the fire, not all at once, for fear his release should come too soon, but a little at a time; and those who placed him on the pyre were not permitted to stop till after such treatment he should signify his readiness to obey. But he stuck immovably to his determination, and victorious in the midst of his tortures, breathed his last. Such was the martyrdom of one of the imperial servants, a martyrdom worthy of the name he bore - it was Peter.

I have to confess that this makes my troubles seem so insignificant. I hear a lot of whining all around me all the time. We are a great society of whiners and this is so strongly contrasted to me in Eusebius where there is very little whining although there is a lot of torture and death and "fulfillment" (which is what the early church called it if you were martyred). We'd have a hard time dying for our Lord in America so maybe we should just do what we can and stop whining about anything in our life that falls short of the previous quote.