I just ran across this in the book of Sirach:
Do not argue about a matter that does not concern you, and do not sit with sinners when they judge a case. (Sirach 11:9)
This should be helpful when dealing with whether or not to comment on blog posts, I think.
One of the worst developments within our culture in the past fifty years must surely be the notion that we are mostly pretty good. The entire crux of the Bible is that man has a sin problem that separates him from God and he desperately needs a cure and that cure was provided on the cross by the death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. There are three basic elements to this: 1) man has a sin problem (the sickness), 2) he cannot cure it (the need), and 3) the cure was provided by the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ (the cure). Attacking these truths from any angle attacks the gospel. Disparaging the truth of the resurrection, for example, leaves mankind without a cure for his sickness. The cultural notion that we have of "I'm okay, you're okay" attacks the first element, which is man's sickness. If man does not realize he is sick, he will not seek a doctor and if he does not seek a doctor then he will not realize the desperation of his situation and he will not find the cure.
I'm sitting in a Starbucks at LAX right now and I'm watching the people ordering their drinks and pastries and they all seem so similar. In fact they are all similar, but not in the way that they appear. They appear to be so similar in that they appear to all be so good. We have the notion that if someone is normal (by our cultural standards) then they are good. We feel so sorry for the poor soul that suddenly appears abnormal. The slightly unstable person who is not as good at hiding as the rest of us are and who ends up doing something culturally unacceptable such as yelling in public. That person then becomes somebody who "Needs help." What kind of help do they need? If we are atheists then we might think that they need a visit to a psychiatrist, but if we are Christian we might believe that they need the Lord. But the problem here is that our need for the Lord is not measured in terms of our normalcy. We all require the Lord and fooling ourselves into any other belief creates an extremely perilous situation where we are deathly ill but without any knowledge of it. Consider this passage:
And as Jesus reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners? But when he heard it, he said, Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice. For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. (Matthew 9:10-13)
This is one of the greatest warnings in the Bible but it is also a little disguised so it becomes easy to pass by and therefore it is one of the most dangerous passages in the Bible. Consider what Jesus tells the Pharisees. It is apparent from other passages that everyone needs Jesus:
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
So the great warning of Matthew 9 is that those who believe they are well will not seek Jesus. The cure becomes worthless to those who believe they are well because they will not seek for it, not because they do not need it. And now we are working so hard in our culture to convince everyone that they are "okay." In other words we are working so hard to convince everyone who is culturally normal that they are well, that is, righteous. And if they are convinced that they are well then they are not called by Jesus because they will not seek for a cure for a sickness they do not realize that they have.
The victim here is evangelism. Even Jesus himself pointed out that evangelism was less effective for those who think themselves righteous (see Matthew 9 quote above). Within this thought is the answer to the problem but I confess that I think it troubles "middle class Christians." The answer is that Christians must reach out to those who are not "normal" by society's definitions. We must evangelize to the "sick" and the "sick" in a "Christian nation" such as ours are those who the society labels unacceptable. These realize their sickness much more readily and are willing to reach out to a cure so it is to them that we should go.
There was a story on the Life page of USA Today titled, "Believers OK with Many Paths" that talked about a new survey in which 70 percent of the respondents said that "Many religions can lead to eternal life."
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6
I'm struggling in my mind with the notion of the legislation of morality. It seems that the answer is that morality of some source is always legislated and that it is only the source of that morality which is the question. Doesn't any society create laws based on what it perceives to be "right" and "wrong"? For example, if we create laws because of Global Warming then are we doing that because we consider there is some "right" and "wrong" choice that we can make as regards Global Warming? If the concern between right and wrong is a concern with morality then making legislation about Global Warming is legislating morality. At some level nobody is adverse to legislating morality but everyone is adverse to legislating a morality that is not their own. Consider the recent legalization of gay marriage by the courts in California. Is such a legalization a legislation of morality? Some would argue that it is the opposite of the legislation of morality because the legislation of morality enforces the morality of the individual on society at large and the legalization of gay marriage in fact enforces the civil rights of free individuals on the society. So in this view legislation of morality decreases personal freedom and "correct" legislation (legislation not of morality) either does not affect or increases personal freedom. The problem with this is that the idea that personal freedom should be increased is, in itself, a system of morality. So the source of the legalization of gay marriage is a particular system of ethics and that legalization is in fact a legislation of morality. The problem that many would seem to have with that is that there is some notion that the legislation of morality is somehow inherently wrong. It is a little like admitting that some viewpoint is not objective. The problem is that no matter what the viewpoint is, once it is admitted that it is not an objective viewpoint it seems that it must somehow be wrong, or at least it can be relegated to being "Just your opinion" and therefore ignored. So it is with admitting that some action is a legislation of morality. If the proponents of some law admit that they are trying to legislate morality then it is simple to turn public opinion against them. The alternative is to find some political wording that implies that the goal is not the legislation of morality but some other goal. It would be possible to say some other higher goal, but that is also "moral" language. The legalization of gay marriage is the legislation of a view of "civil rights." That is, marriage is a civil right and that civil right should be extended to everyone because all civil rights must be extended to everyone. But this view of marriage as a civil right and the view that all civil rights must be extended to everyone are views of a "right" and a "wrong" and are moral views, so the enforcement of them are the enforcement of morality on society.
The disagreement then is not actually over the legislation and enforcement of morality by society but rather the source of the morality that society will choose. A secular society by definition attempts to ground its morality on some non-religious source. A few questions arise from this. First is the question of whether or not there is, in fact, a morality that exists outside of a religious source. If there is not, then the laws of a secular nation would necessarily be grounded on something that doesn't really exist. If there is a morality that exists outside of a religious source then is it a desirable morality? It seems like it is possible to come up with some sort of concept of a morality outside of a religious source. Utilitarianism is an example of just such a secularly-sourced morality. Utilitarianism is the notion that the morality of a particular action is determined by how much it maximizes the "good" of the whole. Of course "good" requires a definition in this context. The definition that utilitarianism usually chooses is happiness or pleasure. So the choices that maximize society's happiness or pleasure as a whole are moral choices. If a particular choice leads to happiness for more people and doesn't decrease the happiness of others then that choice is a moral choice. In this light it can be seen that Americans who are for gay marriage are usually taking a utilitarian view of the situation. Looking at the specific instance of gay marriage, if gay people can get married it makes them happy and this does not come at the expense of the happiness of heterosexual people (the happiness of people who are angry about the situation don't really count in this equation, they should just get over it). It is possible to see this argumentation everywhere, of course and most of the arguments for gay marriage essentially reduce to such a view (the Two Consenting Adults In Private Can Do Anything argument, for example, is extremely utilitarian, as is the Your Heterosexual Marriage Isn't Affected By What Gay People Do argument). Therefore, it is possible to create a morality based on utilitarianism (or at least it is possible to create a morality based on the perception of the utility of a particular thing). However, this leads to the second question, which is whether or not a utilitarian source for morality is a desirable thing. The problem in this context is that although the definition of "good" was given previously as "happiness or pleasure" even those two derived terms are problematic. If in any society some action X is morally approved of that causes the most people in that society happiness then couldn't X be anything at all? What would bound X? It seems quite possible to imagine an X that we would quickly find abhorrent but which for a given society would cause them the most happiness and therefore would be moral for that society. Consider a society with a large number of adults and very few children. Now consider that the reason that this society has so few children is because most of the society consists of pedophiles who are completely uninterested in anyone over the age of 6. Consider again that this society is extremely utilitarian in its outlook and understands that it has a large number of people with "special needs" so it creates a system where all the children in the society are placed into special containing institutions so that the pedophiles who constitute such a large majority can have an institutionalized way of meeting their needs. Such a situation is sickening, of course, but the only people being hurt are the children and they are so small in number that their particular concerns are not of interest to the utilitarian calculation. A case could be made that this is different than the gay marriage situation because of the issue of "consent." The children in the society cannot "consent" because they are children. "Consenting adults" can do whatever they want to but they must avoid involving those who cannot "consent" (this is used to rebut the argument that after gays marry soon people will be able to marry their pets, since pets cannot give their "consent"). So now a rule has been created to bound X (although it must be admitted that the rule seems somewhat arbitrary and created to preserve a sense of propriety which could easily change in its specifics based on questions like "What is the age of consent?" and "What constitutes consent?"). Even with this somewhat artificial bounding rule, however, the utilitarian viewpoint is stressed by actual situations like that of the German Internet Cannibal, Armin Meiwes where it was conceded that consent had been given by the victim to Meiwes for his own murder. So Meiwes was put in prison even though the victim had given consent and Germany had no law against cannibalism. Utilitarianism is no help in this situation and is in fact insufficient to establish a consistent moral basis for a secular society.
The alternative to this is to use the Bible as the baseline for a system of ethics. Of course "common knowledge" would dictate that this is a ridiculous idea, but common knowledge is often wrong.
Steve Brown (The Old White Guy Blog) posted a blog a last year that I only read last week as a part of some other person's rant. I don't want to talk about the post, but rather about this particular part of it:
That evening I talked about loving Augustine "but not for the reasons you think." I've often told the story of the incident that happened after Augustine's conversion when he met his former mistress in the streets of the town where he resided. She ran up to him and he ran from her. She shouted, "Augustine, Augustine, it is I."He shouted back over his shoulder, "Yes, but it is not I."
Cool…or at any rate, it was until I heard the rest of the story, to wit, Augustine's mistress wasn't asking for sex; she was asking for food and acknowledgment of the son who Augustine had fathered. When Augustine gave us his famous Confessions, he mentioned stealing apples when he wasn't hungry…but he never mentioned his son.
I'm not sure why he makes his point with this particular statement, "When Augustine gave us his famous Confessions, he mentioned stealing apples when he wasn't hungry…but he never mentioned his son." I believe that Augustine is speaking directly of his son, Adeodatus, in this passage from Confessions, Book 9, Chapter 6:
We joined with us the boy Adeodatus, born after the flesh, of my sin.
I suppose that there may be some other reason why Steve Brown says this. Maybe I am completely misunderstanding him. However, his intent seems obvious when he says, "Augustine never mentioned his son" and if I am misunderstanding that then it seems an easy thing to misunderstand. I can see other people who have never read the Confessions quoting Steve Brown or passing along this as a nice example of how even the great Augustine wasn't so great. Sermons get preached around neat little nuggets like this one and then the misconception gets passed to the listeners and so it grows. It is unfortunate that Steve Brown picked somebody like Augustine, though, for whom the Confessions are a complete baring of his soul to God. He covers all of his sins, from stealing apples to having a mistress and yes, bearing a son ("after the flesh" and "of [his] sin"). If he did malign Augustine out of ignorance it would have been nice for him to have done his research a little better and if he did it with some other meaning then it would have been nice for him to have written with a little more clarity.
The concept of divorce and remarriage is an extremely difficult topic and I find it so troubling. The primary problem, though, is that our culture has so much divorce and remarriage that the extremely blunt teaching of Jesus on the topic is difficult to swallow. Thus the teaching is difficult not because it is actually difficult to understand what the Bible is saying but rather because it is so difficult to actually face the clarity when surrounded by a culture that, quite frankly, completely trivializes marriage. According to a recent review of the book Divorce And Remarriage: A Redemptive Theology by Rubel Shelly:
Shelly claims that what unites Christians is a common commitment to God's plan for marriage including the warnings on divorce. These issues are inarguable. The confusion and controversy results from the nature of the penance for those in disobedience to the divine principles. Shelly asserts, "Divorce is not a sin in its own special class that requires a lifelong penance of remaining single, celibate, and companionless. Can we really bring ourselves to believe that the sinner whose offense is divorce has no spiritual option but to live with his failure forever? Can we really be persuaded that Jesus leaves no option to marry again for someone divorced against her will by a mean-spirited soul."
Shelly's primary assertion here is, "Divorce is not a sin in its own special class that requires a lifelong penance of remaining single, celibate and companionless." His remaining questions are built upon this. Unfortunately I feel misled by his assertion in the first place:
[Jesus] said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:8-9)
The problem with this passage is that it is so plain. There are so many things in the Bible that are difficult to understand on their face, but this teaching appears so simple. Is that misleading? Does Jesus not really mean what he is saying? Is it possible to divorce and remarry (without an unfaithful partner) and not commit adultery? Shelly tries to answer these thorny problems by invoking deeper theology:
He names this theological view, the "radical continuity of the Word of God" and maintains that adhering to this understanding of the continuous connection of the Old and New Testament is essential in order to effectively challenge more traditional discussions of scriptures relating to divorce and remarriage. Shelly concludes that all the scriptures lead to reveal God's redemption plan and are all unmistakably connected by the interwoven thread of Jesus Christ. Using this "continuity" view, Shelly states, "... anything that Jesus or Paul says on the subject must be consistent with the Old Testament material, for Holy Scripture is progressive revelation - from partial to full, but never from error to truth. ...The teachings in our canonical New Testament are to be interpreted with a view toward their continuity with the Old Testament."
So understanding the Old Testament in continuity with the New is the answer here? That is, I must understand Jesus' statement in Matthew 19 in light of the teaching on marriage in the Old Testament. That seems strange, especially given that the Pharisees tried to trap Jesus by invoking the Old Testament and Jesus' answer was in response to this. Look at the entire passage now:
And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause? He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to him, Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away? He said to them, Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery. (Matthew 19:3-9)
So the Pharisees invoke the teaching of Moses on this subject and Jesus responds by telling them what? He responds by violating Shelly's "radical continuity" view. Jesus tells them that Moses "allowed" them to divorce their wives because of their "hardness of heart." That is, the teaching of the Old Testament on marriage is consistent with the New, but only if you go back to the beginning and in the beginning there was only one man and one woman and no divorce, "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." How can we deal with divorce and remarriage then, without looking at the teaching of Jesus square in the face? What are we to do with this teaching but look sadly at the world around us and realize how many there are which have put themselves into a situation where they are perpetually committing adultery? Even the disciples of Jesus realized that this was something unique in his teaching because in Matthew 19:10 they said, "If such is the case of a man with his wife it is better not to marry."
It gets even worse when we go to the teachings of Paul. In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 Paul writes:
To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
This is in a passage where Paul is clearly dividing the parts of his discourse where he is giving his own opinion from those where God is speaking through him. In these verses he clearly states, "not I, but the Lord" and then goes on to say that the wife shouldn't separate from her husband but if she does she should remain unmarried. Now, it is possible to look at this passage as though it were only applicable to that time and was specifically given to the Corinthian church because of the trials they were going to undergo, but you have to work at it and a simple understanding of this passage has it working very well with the teaching of Jesus. Don't they sound awfully similar? Don't 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19 seem to teach some very similar things? If we didn't live in a culture that trivialized marriage and where we all know many people who have divorced and remarried and think nothing of it what would these passages seem to say? Wouldn't they be obvious in that case? Wouldn't we only have a problem and say that they are "difficult" if we found them hard to accept in a culture that so clearly denies what they say (as in fact we do)?
So when Shelly says, "Divorce is not a sin in its own special class that requires a lifelong penance of remaining single, celibate, and companionless" isn't he telling us that the teachings of Paul and Jesus that seem to say the exact opposite of what he wants us to believe? Why would he do this? Does it make sense to believe that Shelly has really discovered some deep and complex theological truth that makes Jesus' teaching much more difficult to understand but which allows us to condone a very obvious cultural weakness? Wouldn't we need to be on guard against the clear bias of our culture in this regard and wouldn't working uphill against quite clear passages in the Bible be an indicator that we were instead allowing that culture to warp our understanding of what God is trying to tell us?
I think humans have an unavoidable obsession with death. That may seem obvious to some people, but I'm not sure it is to everybody. Most people want to keep that in the closet. It doesn't matter, though, because the shortness of our life and the fact that we are surrounded by the dead and dying always brings itself to our attention in one way or another.
Blaise Pascal wrote:
The last act is tragic, however happy all the rest of the play is; at the last a little earth is thrown upon our head, and that is the end for ever.
That seems like a big downer, doesn't it? But that really doesn't matter, because it is the truth. In this country where youth is glorified, not only for its health and beauty but also, ridiculously, for its knowledge, we would do well to remember that there is wisdom in the contemplation of the end of this life because when it comes won't we want to have figured out what we think of it and whether or not we wasted our lives and opportunities when we had them.
In the debate over women's roles in the church the terms complementarian and egalitarian have been utilized to describe the different views. Roughly speaking, and as applied to the sphere of the church, the complementarian view is the more traditional one, with men being the only ones allowed to hold positions of leadership in the church and the egalitarian is the opposing view, that women can also hold leadership positions in the church. A recent comment on a blog post stated:
I don't know, but I think that this really misses what Christian leadership is supposed to be. Jesus tells us this about his idea of leadership:The essential difference between complementarians and egalitarians is the distribution of power. Yes, egalitarians want the same (equal) power. Yes, complementarians believe men should have more power, which is different. But that does not mean that egalitarians believe men and women are the same in every way. Maybe some do (I haven’t read any that do) but I don’t.
He demonstrated this attitude with his life: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. For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. (Mark 10:42-45)
"Servant", "obedient", "slave" - these don't sound like "power" or even "equality." This sounds like "leadership" in the church isn't about "power" at all but rather about the inversion of what a worldly culture thinks about power. I would go so far as to say that if "power" is what you seek in the church then you should never be a leader of the church, man or woman. I would go so far as to say that anyone who seeks power disqualifies themselves from Christian leadership by definition. They may hold the post of a leader if they have managed to "lord it over" the people and they may "exercise authority" over the church, but to God they are not "great" and they are not leaders.Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. (Philippians 2:5-8)
I can't wait to go to Bible Study tonight. I am feeling so tired and negative and I know I'll feel better afterwards.
Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’ For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:31-33)
Titus 3 tells us:
Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. (Titus 3:1-2)
There are so many passages like this in the New Testament, passages that draw a particular picture of the Christian. I admit that it is a picture I don't live up to. I also admit that many American churches don't teach this particular picture of the Christian.
One of the beautiful things about this passage is how, after drawing the picture of the Christian here - the submissive, obedient, ready for every good work, speaking evil of no one, non-quarreling, gentle and perfectly courteous Christian - Paul goes on to tell us why he asks us to be this way:
For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. (Titus 3:3)
We are asked to be this way because of what we once were - foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, and hating others and being hated by others. (This convicts me! Too often I'm still like this. God help me!)
And Paul pushes the point further still:
But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4-7)
We were saved when we were foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, and hating others and being hated by others. We were not saved when we were submissive, obedient, ready for every good work, speaking evil of no one, non-quarreling, gentle and perfectly courteous people.
It is encouraging to me that Paul tells Titus to "remind them" to be the right way. (Am I fooling myself to assume that this means that they, too, had not discovered how to really live this way yet?) When Jesus came to save us we were not living the way that Paul tells Titus to "remind them" to be. We are saved apart from living the right way and yet Paul encourages us to become what we should be. This encouragement does not come from the threat of punishment but rather from the thought that God saved us while we were "dead in our trespasses" (Ephesians 2:5). The fleshly part of me responds, "Why be good if I was saved when I was evil?" But the motivation here is love, not fear. I love the Lord who saved me and so I want to please him. He is pleased if I do the acts of a servant, if I become a submissive, obedient, ready for every good work, speaking evil of no one, non-quarreling, gentle and perfectly courteous Christian and so this is what I strive to become.
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.
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)
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:
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:
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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."