tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48424751860566453082024-03-21T20:40:25.026-04:00The clanOtto Soapboxkeohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-81096782968422606522014-02-17T07:00:00.000-05:002014-02-18T09:59:27.970-05:00 Sin, Love, & Association (Valentine's Day 2014)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Probably_Valentin_de_Boulogne_-_Saint_Paul_Writing_His_Epistles_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg" target="_blank"><img alt="Apostle Paul?" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimGoXQO5gkQaHmrox_zj4wICXIfDAbOLz-VDtZEiMzRFWW872sNphISbILNMGSozibadWaEkc_JM8I7l07SOdfmcJTip6BsV3biwn-8MuYRvDy_fpz2BbFqxMjygvYyk-7jjfXB7rf1maJ/s1600/paul.jpg" height="293" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Most Christians of most denominations know the answer to the question of whether we should continue sinning. We quote the Apostle Paul:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">"Of course not! Since we have died to sin, how can we continue to live in it?" <span class="p">(<a href="http://biblehub.com/romans/6-2.htm" target="_blank">Romans 6:2</a>, NLT)</span></span> </span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The rub, however, is how to actually pull this off. I have yet to meet a sin-free Christian, and I don't expect I ever will. In saying this, I reveal my own bias about our born-again nature, about how I view us. Others, preachers I've heard, for example, more optimistically say we can achieve mastery over time, getting to the point where we no longer sin. </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">Cleverly playing Switzerland, Lutheran theology says we're 100% saint and sinner at the same time, but this probably doesn't clarify what Paul means in Romans 6. </span> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">My purpose is not exegetical; my purpose is to consider what "not continuing in our sin" already means to most of us in our own normal experience. We who, on a good day, might say that we are getting there or have even arrived. The alternatives being to admit that we have no idea what Paul is talking about, to concede that we are inferior to real Christians, or to conclude that <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-if-we-are-wrong.html" target="_blank">we aren't really saved</a>. So what do we mean if we think of ourselves as generally successful Christians? That we are no
longer sinners? Or that we are advancing to the next levels
of sin, from the obvious "biggies" to more subtle, more debatable "sins"? Like spending too much of the family budget on tracts last month, or listening to <a href="http://www.npr.org/" target="_blank">NPR</a>. Perhaps we think we should get credit for graduating to the private sins, ones easier
to hide, ones easier for our churches to overlook? Do we get to a point where we stop thinking that sin is a problem, once we're no longer smoking, going to movies, reading the <a href="http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Living%20Bible/lb_exposed.htm" target="_blank">Living Bible</a>, and wishing we were married? Even worse, when we practice denominational carbon trading, offsetting our sins with being more right in political or doctrinal debates. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">These are more disturbing possibilities than
just blatantly sinning, knowing we're wrong, and confessing it. There is real danger for spiritual blindness when we become proficient at camouflaging our sin from others' notice and are smugly relieved to have a higher holiness score. <b>This is sin, based on hypocrisy, compounded by deception and pride, and used as justification for avoiding other Christians</b> -- even entire other churches deemed too "unbiblical," perhaps, for our tastes and standards. By contrast if we
humble ourselves and admit that we never overcome much of our own sin, then what
really is the difference between someone with many and
someone with a few less than many sins, or someone else's 27% obedience to Christ and my 34%? What cause for boasting or comparison is there? <br />
<br />The root problem may well be that we use sin rather than love as the Christian lens when we look at ourselves, the church, and the world. What is wrong is the first thing we think about and look for, distorting our view of God's creation and scarring our hearts. Moreover sin scoring helps me perpetuate the myth that I'm better than you -- or at least that we're better than them. Your sin helps me sleep better, knowing that I won't be the first one Jesus kicks out of heaven. <b>We need a theology that doesn't assume or require
sinlessness as a condition -- not only before conversion but
always.</b> If I know I'm always a sinner, in the lifelong process
of being fully saved by grace, then I should not embrace my sin
or justify it. BUT I might spend
more time thinking through what real Christianity looks like in
the context of my ongoing sin instead of in the context of my
amazingly whitewashed life. I might stop all the pretending that
my smaller list of sins is better than someone else's longer
list. Or that sinful I, with my sins of pride, sloth, gluttony,
and secret lust, am surely more pleasing to God, secure in my
salvation, and deserving of God's blessing and answers to all my
prayers than those other, less righteous Christians who listen to rock music, think homosexuality might be natural, are divorced, struggle with addictions, or vote wrong. </span><br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfVSiQP_dmqVa_I7BttD_X_k8Nfwbo9FL29AvkkJjVM2M_CwNpzeVO49vX7x7Ol3mdceU9Alet9wTDIQRLqAHNyu3muWmLtWnBXEN804L7vf7Zu2TmvKREqgFjVyQYwCTGQw_a75MJvDEp/s1600/Soup.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjfVSiQP_dmqVa_I7BttD_X_k8Nfwbo9FL29AvkkJjVM2M_CwNpzeVO49vX7x7Ol3mdceU9Alet9wTDIQRLqAHNyu3muWmLtWnBXEN804L7vf7Zu2TmvKREqgFjVyQYwCTGQw_a75MJvDEp/s1600/Soup.jpg" height="190" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Mmmmm. <a href="http://www.thehomespun.com/trolley-museum/pot-of-soup/" target="_blank">Soup!</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The truth is that I and probably most Christians who have been at this awhile still
think a lot about sin and sin-tidying. It is still too much of the focus of our
spiritual lives instead of loving the unlovely or even the simple task of setting tables at a soup kitchen. Instead of actually doing something that God wants us to, actually being God's hands and feet in a dying world. I doubt we're really living
in the kingdom of God when most of the time we're praying for
ourselves, singing songs we enjoy, calculating our 10% tithes, and solidifying
our opposition to the rest of the church. We spend a lot
of time and energy arguing about and critiquing the sins (</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">personal, political, or doctrinal)</span> of other Christians
when it doesn't change anything, does the needy no good,
and establishes a terrible model for how our children should
live out their own faith. <br />
<br />
What if we gave ourselves one entire day per year to publicly proclaim
the fact of our opposition to other Christians' cherished or
unacknowledged sins and then agreed to live out lives of grace and love
and forgiveness and service with those liberal / fundamentalist / other Christians for
the rest of the year? </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">The churches that care could get credit for saying they're not "being
tolerant" of sin in the camp -- but without completely abandoning the great commandment. How different from </span>what the world usually sees us doing! How will "They will know
we are Christians by our love" ever happen when what we actually
show the world most of the time is our hostility to each other's religious scorecards, styles of worship, and politics? If we can't stand the Body of Christ, why should anyone else listen to its "good news"?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">We have to learn to
show love in the midst of disagreement or we're no better than
<a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-46.htm" target="_blank"> the pagans and tax collectors</a>. <b>And love means association, as Jesus' incarnation and social calendar demonstrated. </b>We never get close to the point of showing love to the rest of the church as long
as we stay separate, content to lob stones over our walls. We keep insisting on the
condition of conformity with our view, our interpretation, our
conviction, while refusing to worship or work together until they become like us. We need to start with love and hope for more-perfect agreement later, not the other way around. That's what
"unconditional" requires. We can always wrestle with the details
(what is immorality that precludes association, for example), but
most of us still resist the very idea that agreement doesn't precede all else. <br />
<br />
How about this: All parties agree that they are saved by Jesus, are still not free from all sin, are willing to be changed by God, and are
willing to give up their own doctrinal idols if
God should convince them. Shouldn't that be a good enough starting
point for dishing up soup together? And you never know: <a href="http://biblehub.com/matthew/25-35.htm" target="_blank">Serve Jesus</a> together today, maybe worship together someday.</span></div>
keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-22170308175950771522013-01-31T06:00:00.000-05:002013-01-31T06:00:02.258-05:00"Reputation"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://bgospelm.tumblr.com/image/38715674575" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisQ1OhdtmAdXP1jjpu6aufonh-SF0Uz2wWJ9T3gEjS3heTi8yWYJU08GYpCQXWHVZQ-O7lzAVg4noxgG3qlv7K1Jq50vbRud0-NX5ODraUpXkogeG1iUMZib7-rJXFy4oMvCNUOUvKDk9P/s640/reputation.png" width="504" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(<a href="http://bgospelm.tumblr.com/image/38715674575">Photo Link</a> HT: <a href="http://beardedgospelmen.com/">Bearded Gospel Men)</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-81703364794343411982013-01-29T06:30:00.000-05:002013-01-29T15:28:21.221-05:00Worship Signals<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivvdXnML5bsD8Ay7EtOfKMRlWbIR25KtFmdT4jLfTNL0Y4x_JNSTJpPylb4IeLg8xHkzBCM9LGKK5tMmTlzUttNCDOsCNmtKCqSBQUD1uGCh5-gAcugc5piUTy7OF2u0nK4Lopla7emuxt/s1600/signals.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivvdXnML5bsD8Ay7EtOfKMRlWbIR25KtFmdT4jLfTNL0Y4x_JNSTJpPylb4IeLg8xHkzBCM9LGKK5tMmTlzUttNCDOsCNmtKCqSBQUD1uGCh5-gAcugc5piUTy7OF2u0nK4Lopla7emuxt/s1600/signals.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">(HT: <a href="http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/">Theological Scribbles</a>)</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /></div>
keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-890574258684373032013-01-25T01:09:00.000-05:002013-02-05T10:06:48.655-05:00Follow the Dinosaur<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3xu9hPkZ5AqTEOayDqxVl_4vdcXhKBi_C2_BEKGBy5C7jI-KtJymORC9YTUapdb_wDS2KGpMiCfMleRyrQJfgFvEIOjCrcpZM07lr7smU57IcYvSzq2U0l_djBh-FENcmNID1yc1k0baR/s1600/creationistpostermed.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="331" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3xu9hPkZ5AqTEOayDqxVl_4vdcXhKBi_C2_BEKGBy5C7jI-KtJymORC9YTUapdb_wDS2KGpMiCfMleRyrQJfgFvEIOjCrcpZM07lr7smU57IcYvSzq2U0l_djBh-FENcmNID1yc1k0baR/s400/creationistpostermed.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sad when true. <a href="http://sexyarchaeology.wordpress.com/category/archaeological-thought/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">(HT)</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">A common claim is that kids raised in church tend to fall away from their faith in college, and the inference for some is that most of the blame should fall on the hostile public school system in which the kids were educated. Despite the best efforts of the church and the parents, this argument goes, the impact of the sheer number of hours in which the little minds are being molded at school is too large to be overcome. While this is surely true in some cases, my guess is that most students reject their faith in college even when raised in Bible Belt communities whose public school teachers attend the same churches as their parents. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Here are three key and interrelated reasons why church kids would walk away from religion after high school:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">1) Because much of their "faith" through high school was little more than herd behavior or emotionalism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">I
don't fault churches for trying to provide activities that will <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-88O5dyU08">hold the attention of their kids</a>. I don't fault them for wanting youth group
to be a safe place to relax and have fun. I'm sure most of them are doing the best they know how.
I just don't think that lock-ins, bowling, concerts, or Kumbaya around a
campfire do much to prepare kids to take a stand for something
controversial or to keep going against the flow when emotions run dry. Christianity is more than social events, but this is often the focus.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">2) Because much of what kids hear<span style="font-size: small;">d</span> in Sunday School and church about why they should agree with their religious elders <span style="font-size: small;">wa</span>s anti-intellectual groupthink if not downright error. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">College professors have their own blind spots and emotional weaknesses, of course, but they generally are much sharper when it comes to critical thinking. And, in the cases of religion, philosophy, science, history, and Bible-as-literature classes, these professors are far more educated then most people our kids ever meet in church. As a result, kids in college are, for the first time, maybe not <i>exposed </i>to but required to <i>respond </i>to philosophical, historical, scientific, religious, and textual ideas that are common knowledge in academia. These include arguments for non-literal interpretations of Jonah, the Flood, and Creation; the challenge of the problem of evil; debates about Biblical authorship; the <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/search/label/America">non-Christian heritage</a> of the United States and its Founding Fathers; support from multiple academic disciplines for evolution; blatant inconsistencies in how the Bible is interpreted by its adherents; and the fact that most beliefs held by one Christian denomination are disputed by other denominations—on topics as varied as heaven and hell, speaking in tongues, the role of women, the nature of baptism, the nature of Communion, whether or not we even have free will, what Old Testament sins are still sins today, what happens to people of other faiths when they die, <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-must-i-do-to-be-saved.html">how we are saved</a>, etc. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">If our kids are sheltered from or uneducated about almost <i>any </i>of these facts and intellectual debates, and taught to parrot their church's party line instead, it is almost child's play to send them into a mental and emotional tailspin. A couple brief arguments by someone with a little more knowledge, and suddenly the kids' parents and churches look ignorant or even foolish. Nice people, sure, but unqualified to speak authoritatively to these kids about what they should believe in the <i>real</i> world. Why would anyone believe someone who only understands—or even is aware of—one side of debates that have gone on for centuries if not millennia? As highly as <a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclanottosoapbox.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F02%2Fecumenical-catechism-doa.html&ei=DXzkUKKiMOro0gG6joC4DQ&usg=AFQjCNFtQjYWxeFbLDXoXBH9P5H9LOtwcg&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.dmQ">I value catechism</a>, being presented with a simple answer to a complex question rarely acknowledges the real worth of the question. And, too often, most of what passes for "Bible study" in a church class is on roughly this level. C</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">hurches and
religious parents don't teach more than one side, typically, and that one
side is often a lot weaker than it could be. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">In contrast critical thinking demands an understanding of opposing points of view. This is a huge difference between the church and the university—or even many schools <i>before </i>a kid goes off to college. I suspect the battle is already over before most kids finish high school; they don't need the university to put the final nail in the coffin.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">When many churches do try to enter the intellectual arena, they often choose to champion topics like Creationism or a literal Noah's ark. As if this is the real battleground where our kids will struggle in their adult lives.... The arguments for these points of view might sound OK in Sunday School, but they don't fare well against educated critics. I fear giving our kids weak support, something that only sounds intellectual, more than providing them with no answers. When they think they have been given a strong defense, and then it gets blown out of the water at a university, they are likely to crumble. Few college students are going to stand alone and fly the Christian banner in front of their professors and classmates when the image on the banner is a dinosaur instead of a cross. It's just not worth dying for.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">3) Because they didn't have an actual, Spirit-powered relationship with Jesus.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">This
is the primary reason, really. If you actually know God, you won't be thrown by
atheist professors or classmates who say that they don't. It would be
like visiting Plato's cave and listening to ravings about how there
is no such thing as light. Not so convincing. I remember talking with
someone like this once. His intellect and knowledge were quite
intimidating, but when his arguments turned to "There can't be a god
because I've never experienced him," I couldn't help but feel bad for
him. I've never experienced skydiving, but that doesn't mean that other
people are lying, crazy, or mistaken when they talk about jumping out of
airplanes. If you know God, the worst an atheist can do is cause you to
question your grip on reality ("Hmmm.... I <i>thought </i>I felt love, peace, and joy; I <i>thought </i>I was enjoying a relationship with God; I <i>thought </i>I was gaining wisdom and guidance from prayer</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">—but maybe I'm just making it all up!").</span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">In my own college experience, I was introduced to tons of new ideas and new challenges to my Christian faith, but I wasn't completely thrown by it because I actually <i>knew </i>God. This bought me some time while I worked to educate myself on the new views I was hearing in my classes and from my new friends. Some of these new views I quickly rejected as flawed once I understood them. Others I have gradually come to accept, enriching my faith and life even if requiring me to replace simpler answers to big questions with more nuanced or complicated ones. And a few I expect to wrestle with until the day I die. Through it all, I have known Jesus, however. And, for me, relationship trumps argument every time.</span></div>
</div>
keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-8241143238087906762011-12-01T04:33:00.068-05:002011-12-01T16:25:48.063-05:00Heretics<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Great pair of quotes here at <a href="http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-heretics-disagreement.html">Richard Beck's site</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>We muzzle dogs; shall we leave men free to open their mouths and say what they please?...God makes it plain that the false prophet is to be stoned without mercy. We are to crush beneath our heels all natural affections when his honour is at stake. The father should not spare his child, nor the husband his wife, nor the friend that friend who is dearer to him than life.<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">--John Calvin, Protestant Reformer and Father of Calvinism (1509-1564) </div></blockquote><blockquote>Calvin says that he is certain, and [other sects] say that they are; Calvin says that they are wrong and wishes to judge them, and so do they. Who shall be judge? What made Calvin the arbiter of all the sects, that he alone should kill? He has the Word of God and so have they. If the matter is certain, to who is it so? To Calvin? But then why does he write so many books about manifest truth?...In view of the uncertainty we must define the heretic simply as one with whom we disagree. And if then we are going to kill heretics, the logical outcome will be a war of extermination, since each is sure of himself.<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">--Sebastian Castellio, French theologian (1515-1563)</div></blockquote><br />
Obviously, the Bible doesn't encourage relativism. <a href="http://www.radiofreebabylon.com/RFB%20Images/CoffeeWithJesus/coffeewithjesus118.jpg">Coffee with Jesus</a> cuts to the chase:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBKRAf7NcvV6qtqnUM3BC0V_8XADTD0c6JZfqcX_NTHiYW7-cnGbVPNQC-lrHYDDX2W8kckoWDmpMYBdcuY4sq8fcTUf3WdJCYTxhCWPnjd78F4SqjGMpVXaUqYkjJCSPzLdb9bq0stu_P/s1600/coffeewithjesus118.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="141" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiBKRAf7NcvV6qtqnUM3BC0V_8XADTD0c6JZfqcX_NTHiYW7-cnGbVPNQC-lrHYDDX2W8kckoWDmpMYBdcuY4sq8fcTUf3WdJCYTxhCWPnjd78F4SqjGMpVXaUqYkjJCSPzLdb9bq0stu_P/s400/coffeewithjesus118.jpg" width="400" /></a></div></blockquote>However, we do need to figure out what is really worth dying for ... or killing for. I don't want to hear Jesus tell me someday that I, like Saul, was really persecuting him. That those I thought were so wrong and treated so badly were actually closest to getting it right. So, humility in our disagreements is crucial. And a weighing of the consequences of being wrong before I say or do something "discerning," as they say. And the development of genuine respect for those with whom I disagree. Not a "respect" that pretends to agree with everyone, but one which says that everyone is valuable, and loved by God, and worthy of grace and kindness. No matter how badly we disagree. Something that won't have burned the bridges if one of us changes our mind later. Tough to do, but much better that than making enemies of those who may prove to be our own family.</div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-81160234105663940962011-10-26T06:25:00.013-04:002011-10-26T11:49:05.148-04:00Perspicuity?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><a href="http://www.stufffundieslike.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/confusion.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipPHzLsqmvBxAkowe7EyxQVT6oxJnYdKtRHly7xSkyOSV9UCtK-Md5qVvAUIkDILJXp3F8T1A7SuTU2-At-lBCkDdTOknhPyEaIhyphenhyphenFXx3mD_yOla0MozjtCHPo_nS7_zUd40ymtmTRjnQS/s400/confusion.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
HT: <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/exploringourmatrix/">Exploring Our Matrix</a></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-69735798446159926522011-10-21T06:49:00.183-04:002011-10-21T17:19:42.063-04:00Nostalgia for White Protestant America<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://our.homewithgod.com/mkcathy/530_cross_flag.jpg" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgV7-LRuhSr8IDkHRJa7wtSEAYcXCq2jB-4b-Jprc9Wvg8qu-METTo4eXvYXI4V6fmptes6xqvtK9bicAVamEv97nf0dc6SxN2YgSaAkA7E5nToXWbRG3RRKBQ0AJ04qpekY142fh7H05K7/s320/530_cross_flag.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-size: small;">What is our American religious foundation, and do we really want to go back? I have been thinking about this again recently, and share these reflections after reading <a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/">John Armstrong</a>'s recent series [<a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2011/10/tri-faith-america.html">one</a>, <a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2011/10/putting-americas-religious-change-into-perspective.html">two</a>, <a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2011/10/how-shall-we-deal-with-our-religious-identity-crisis.html">three</a>] about religion in American public life.<br />
</span> </div><ol style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">America wasn't Judeo-Christian, historically. When it was religious, it was white Protestant, and anti- most everybody else. And this is what we see, for example, all the way back in the original state constitutions </span><span style="font-size: small;">that required office holders to be (white Protestant male) Christians. </span><span style="font-size: small;">These, and not the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution, are </span><span style="font-size: small;">the actually-religious political documents from our early years. </span><span style="font-size: small;">The huddled masses, Catholic, Jewish, or otherwise, were welcome to come and assimilate, or come and help build the economy, but not to share power or change the culture.<br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">This was the same white Protestant heritage that allowed centuries of slavery, denied </span><span style="font-size: small;">women </span><span style="font-size: small;">equal rights </span><span style="font-size: small;">(the vote, property ownership, college education, political office, equal wages, etc.)</span><span style="font-size: small;">, and </span><span style="font-size: small;">nurtured the Ku Klux Klan</span><span style="font-size: small;">. This was the reality if not totality of America's religious culture, though it was more obvious in the South, where political power wasn't shared with non-white-Protestants. <br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Increases in Catholic and Jewish immigration (mostly in the North) in the early 20th century led eventually to a shift away from total dominance by white Protestants and forced us to take seriously our unrealized constitutional promises about religious freedom, equality, and fair treatment under the law</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">first for Jews and Catholics, and then for racial minorities. </span><span style="font-size: small;">More recent rights movements for other minorities, such as homosexuals, the handicapped, and the mentally ill, are the legacy of the earlier movements. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">The Civil Rights movement, thus, was a revolution against </span><span style="font-size: small;">white Protestant </span><span style="font-size: small;">America's lock on power</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;">though white Protestants did take part on both sides of the movement, of course. Perhaps more of them on the anti-Rights side, sadly, considering where the Bible Belt is located.</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-size: small;">Nostalgia for or a return to our actual religious past, then, would be problematic,</span><span style="font-size: small;"> to say the least.</span> </span><br />
</span></li>
</ol><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">What I think we should want instead is the establishment of what our country never had</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">actual freedom, equality, and fair treatment for people of all religions, something only hinted at in some of the documents of the 1700s but never realized in American history. This, ultimately, will not only benefit people of other faiths, but also be for Christians' own protection and good. If our country becomes less and less moral, or Christian values become less and less popular, then we may need safeguards against "the tyranny of the majority" who disagree with us. Democracy could result in unpopular Christian decisions of conscience being declared illegal unless minority religious rights are guarded. While I agree that many or most people believe in God or want there to be a god, I still think that we Christians should view ourselves as a minority in America instead of pretending that our ways will someday (or again) become the cultural norm. Unless revival changes our nation, we may find ourselves needing strong legal protections for our minority rights, and grateful for the work that civil rights activists have done to ensure freedom for all points of view and all ways of life, even those with which we may disagree. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">White male Protestants </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> in Thomas Jefferson's day</span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> may not have needed such protections, but all Christians should lament the fact that only that group had such privilege and opportunity. Rather than wishing to see America return to the dubious morality of that era, we should take seriously the fact that neither the church nor America either is or was white, male, and Protestant.</span></div></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-295319151998204592011-07-28T05:30:00.002-04:002011-07-28T14:20:37.279-04:00I Haven't Read The Shack, But Apparently It's Better Than a Tract<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; text-align: left;"><a href="http://livingbytheword.org/images/holygod1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://livingbytheword.org/images/holygod1.jpg" /></a><span style="font-size: small;">I still haven't read <i><a href="http://www.theshackbook.com/">The Shack</a></i> and don't plan to at any point soon. It has never piqued my interest, really. I did read <a href="http://www.challies.com/sites/all/files/files/The_Shack.pdf">a criticism of it</a> the other day, however. Which made me feel a lot more favorable about the book. </span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />
</div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">My brief response to the four problem areas of Tim Challies' "charitable but critical" critique of <i>The Shack</i>, using his own headings:<br />
</span> </div><ul style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><span style="font-size: small;"><b><u>Subversion</u></b>: Apparently this guy has no awareness of how shallow many people's experience of God and the church has been. No obvious sense of humor, either. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><b><u>Revelation</u></b>: More of the usual criticism leveled against Blackaby's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Experiencing-God-Knowing-Revised-Expanded/dp/0805447539/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311183229&sr=8-1">Experiencing God</a>: The Bible is the only way God speaks. Anything else is rank mysticism. Be suspicious of people who say that God ever replies when prayed to. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><u><b>Salvation</b></u>: It's Calvinism or the highway. And <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Reconciliation">Universal Redemption</a> is a heresy.<br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;"><b><u>Trinity</u></b>: This guy doesn't want to read a novel; he wants a mimeographed copy of his favorite Bible verses. He may also approve of some Taliban policies. They take the "no graven image" command more seriously.</span></li>
</ul><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Based on reading this critique, this Berean watchdog "exercise in discernment and critical thinking," questions that I would want answered before I started criticizing this novel would include several along these lines: <br />
</span> </div><ol style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">What was the author trying to communicate?</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Who was the author's intended audience?</span></li>
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Was the author trying to write a <a href="http://www.campuscrusade.com/fourlawseng.htm">"4 Spiritual Laws"</a> tract to evangelize his audience?</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Was the author trying to make an argument for the Bible being superior to face-to-face conversation with God?</span></li>
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></ol><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY9mUrWcElnG3HDKYXogK4DdBOo6gbLeeywHVpqOJbHUYmS2JW9Phh5-_vglayRfrTeYfwHBJy4EkIOzn0wDUqgIWXQ__7uNF3a91x4CMIsGuFJLIrcwBo3IUfhurTW4qNE11tf20lpez2/s1600/job_suffering.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY9mUrWcElnG3HDKYXogK4DdBOo6gbLeeywHVpqOJbHUYmS2JW9Phh5-_vglayRfrTeYfwHBJy4EkIOzn0wDUqgIWXQ__7uNF3a91x4CMIsGuFJLIrcwBo3IUfhurTW4qNE11tf20lpez2/s1600/job_suffering.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhY9mUrWcElnG3HDKYXogK4DdBOo6gbLeeywHVpqOJbHUYmS2JW9Phh5-_vglayRfrTeYfwHBJy4EkIOzn0wDUqgIWXQ__7uNF3a91x4CMIsGuFJLIrcwBo3IUfhurTW4qNE11tf20lpez2/s200/job_suffering.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Challies</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> acknowledges that the book is a novel, yet reacts as though he has missed this crucial point -- that <i>The Shack</i> is fiction, written to his own children and</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;"> for a specific reason</span><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">. It is not a textbook of systematic theology or a sermon for the hell-bent. It is not a seminary thesis or a litmus test of his credentials for the ministry. The choice of fiction allows the author to speculate about details on which the Bible is either silent or unclear. Details about what God might say -- in a dialog and in understandable language -- in response to honest questions and complaints. Like the book of Job, but in the context of pseudo-Christian America, and fleshing out other aspects of God's character. Fiction allows an author to wonder out loud some of the thoughts that a Christian might have when considering how to reconcile loyalty to the loving and just God with the classic problem of suffering and the natural feelings of disappointment, confusion, or anger that the problem leads to. </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOERmi86L6mhgQo2VAmlnMcxKcLY8Vn20mvezFLZykVfO3xI7D34XaVNv800nosGQa5carinRl6K7-o9F9u2tRuUbhwVxG0lk1bMHNj0gm7TWpfuB3u1amEsbW41SPS7aKCXb12tqd_U7L/s1600/lucy-aslan.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="197" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiOERmi86L6mhgQo2VAmlnMcxKcLY8Vn20mvezFLZykVfO3xI7D34XaVNv800nosGQa5carinRl6K7-o9F9u2tRuUbhwVxG0lk1bMHNj0gm7TWpfuB3u1amEsbW41SPS7aKCXb12tqd_U7L/s320/lucy-aslan.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">It would be ridiculous to criticize C.S. Lewis for using a talking animal as the savior and lord of Narnia. Or for having that lion let children stroke his mane. Because Lewis wasn't trying to suggest that the real Jesus is a talking animal. Or has fur. Or wants us to stroke it. Similarly, it is ridiculous to take a work of fiction about being invited to a face-to-face conversation with God, and the insights about evil and pain (<a href="http://onelook.com/?w=theodicy&ls=a">theodicy</a>, really) that would be possible in that context, and then criticize that book for not containing a suitable number of declarations that the character should leave God alone and go read his Bible for the answers to his questions, instead. Those answers that have generally left </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">cold the </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">people who are in real pain unless they have a loving and personal relationship with God in addition to a Bible. And maybe even then are not completely satisfying. You know, those answers about God's ways being too high to understand, for example. Or about some of us being created as objects of wrath. And what we might logically conclude about God's view of us if our miserable lives appear to be evidence that we are </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_%28Calvinism%29" style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">not among the elect</a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">.</span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">If I read it, I would not be surprised to discover that this novel was actually an <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apologia">apologia</a> on another level, arguing that belief in God's love and power is reasonable despite the reality of the fallen world we live in. </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Imagination in the service of worship. "Faith seeking understanding," even, in <a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anselm/">Anselm</a>'s words. </span><span style="font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Hmmm.... Maybe I will read it after all.</span></span> </span></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-628235079562028962011-06-28T18:14:00.000-04:002011-06-28T18:14:05.931-04:00The Evangelical Reject List<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><a href="http://www.thepangeablog.com/">The Pangea Blog</a> (HT <a href="http://www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed/">Jesus Creed</a>) has the You Might Be an Evangelical Reject If... <a href="http://www.thepangeablog.com/2011/06/06/you-might-be-an-evangelical-reject-if/">list</a>.<br />
<br />
My 10 favorites (bold and italics are in the original):<br />
<ul><li>You’re uncomfortable calling <em><strong>other branches of Christianity “apostate.”</strong></em></li>
<li>You have significant questions about controversial theological “hot button” issues of the day and are <em><strong>some-what comfortable with the subsequent cognitive dissonance</strong></em>.</li>
<li>You’ve been <em><strong>asked to leave a church leadership position</strong></em> for philosophical / theological reasons.</li>
<li>You read theologians from all across the spectrum.</li>
<li>You think that <em><strong>science and scripture both reveal God’s truth</strong></em> in complementary ways.</li>
<li>You know that living the truth is more important than defending it logically.</li>
<li>You don’t use the word inerrancy to describe biblical authority because its too rigid a definition and a modernist categorical imposition on the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.</li>
<li>You think that postmodern philosophy helps theology more than it hurts it.</li>
<li>You believe <em><strong>social justice is central</strong></em> to the gospel of the Kingdom.</li>
<li>You <em><strong>throw up a little in your mouth </strong></em>every time someone says that “the <em><strong>rapture is coming soon</strong></em>, so what’s the fuss with taking care of the planet? Lets save souls!”</li>
</ul></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-88338655392726039242011-05-06T06:06:00.012-04:002011-05-06T15:31:13.782-04:00The Low Guilt Christian Checklist<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Here's an excerpt from Chaplain Mike's <a href="http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/another-look-its-ok-to-just-be-a-christian">refreshing essay</a> in defense of Christians who are "just Christians." Thanks <a href="http://www.internetmonk.com/">InternetMonk</a>!<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">It’s OK to say, “I don’t know.” Doesn’t make you less of a Christian. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">Baptized as an infant? OK. Dunked in the creek as a young teen? OK. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">Love to receive communion because you meet Jesus there, but have no idea how to explain it? In my opinion, that’s OK. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">Because you trust in Jesus. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">You know in your heart that you’re broken and need fixing. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">[...] </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">That’s what you know, and that’s who you are. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">You’re just a Christian. </span></blockquote><blockquote> <span style="font-size: small;">And that’s OK.</span></blockquote>I have many strong opinions about the Bible and Christianity -- and shelves of theological books. I also believe that, in the end, most of our knowledge won't have mattered much, and less will matter anymore. Means to an end, merely. Lenses by which we try to make better sense of our lives. The real issue is who we know, and who knows us. </div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-83521520515567985042011-03-24T05:05:00.001-04:002011-03-24T10:04:58.013-04:00Stories from Prison<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Richard Beck shares an <a href="http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2011/03/from-prison-bible-study.html">amusing anecdote</a> from his first night attending a Bible study at a prison:<br />
<blockquote><i>One of the teachers was talking about the boyhood of Jesus and was commenting on how the bible says very little about the early years of Jesus. Reflecting on this, he asked the class "Why do you think the bible doesn't share much about the childhood of Jesus?"<br />
<br />
No one answered until one man raised his hand and said, "I think it's because in the Coptic gospels Jesus appears to be a mean little boy."<br />
<br />
Silence and a lot of confused looks followed.<br />
<br />
I just smiled to myself and thought, "I might really like this class!"</i> </blockquote><br />
</div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-17388732968729367992011-03-24T04:55:00.001-04:002011-03-25T20:20:39.103-04:00State of the Soapbox<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">Well, dear readers, I now have 65 posts in "draft" stage, and it has been several moons since my last published post. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">"What is going on?!"</span> you may be asking.<br />
<br />
Basically, I have fallen out of the pattern of sitting down to write on a regular basis. As a result, the muse still strikes, but my daily habits aren't helping me to get it down fast enough and finish -- or to begin something that I suspect may take too long to finish properly. What to do? In an effort to jump start the more serious writing again, I will attempt to start sharing with y'all more of what catches my eye in my own reading.<br />
<br />
Eventually, and sooner than later if all goes well, I will return to some topics left on the back burner, including the final installment of my <a href="http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=4842475186056645308&searchType=ALL&txtKeywords=&label=salvation">series on </a><a href="http://www.blogger.com/posts.g?blogID=4842475186056645308&searchType=ALL&txtKeywords=&label=salvation">salvation</a>, part 2 on <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2010/04/moving-hand-of-god.html">prayer</a>, and a lot more on the Bible, the church, and certainty. I've also been percolating on Christian universalism, how we know what we know, and thoughts from recent discussions at church on books by Watchman Nee, Richard Blackaby, and Andrew Murray. Finally, I may share snippets or swaths of some fun e-mail exchanges and discussion threads from recent months on topics theological. So stay tuned.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
</div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-75568908745930914222010-10-26T03:42:00.002-04:002010-10-26T12:33:38.786-04:00Killing the Postmodernism Boogeyman<a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/">John Armstrong</a> has an excellent trio of posts [<a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2010/10/what-happened-to-modernity.html">here</a> and <a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2010/10/how-shall-we-respond-to-a-postmodern-context.html">here</a> and <a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2010/10/how-does-a-postmodern-understanding-of-faith-relate-to-a-premodern-understanding.html">here</a>] on the postmodernism issue and the inappropriate reaction from Christians that the word "postmodern" often triggers. He begins by responding to the <a href="http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/23899">common misconception</a> that a postmodern Christian must be apostate or deluded, discarding the premise that such a Christian must "reject truth claims and moral absolutes and embrace relativism." The real misunderstanding, he continues, is that much of the American church has been co-opted by the <i>modernist </i>methodology for discovering and knowing truth:<br />
<blockquote>Conservative Christians . . . reasoned that if you used the Bible correctly, studying the text of Holy Writ with a proper (scientific) method, then you would get <i>the very mind of God</i> about every thing that you could discover in this treasure house of divine (inerrant) revelation. </blockquote>The problem with this approach to knowing the real truth that Christianity indeed does profess and testify to is that,<br />
<blockquote>a Christian knowledge of God rests <i>not</i> on precise understanding or biblical equations but on <i>personal knowing</i>. We come to God, by the power of the Holy Spirit, based upon a personal relationship with the risen and reigning Christ. . . . </blockquote><blockquote>Modernity gave us confidence in our method. It told us that we could have precise understanding about every mystery that we encountered in the revelation of God. <i>But the gospel calls us to place our total confidence in Christ, not in a system</i>. . . . In modernity we figure something out and get hold of it. In the gospel someone gets hold of us and reveals himself to us.</blockquote>Wrapping up <a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2010/10/how-shall-we-respond-to-a-postmodern-context.html">the second post</a>, Armstrong acknowledges the benefit that a postmodern stance can yield, and reiterates the key difference between the relationships with absolute truth that secular and Christian postmodernists can have:<br />
<blockquote>The developing postmodern critique has helped more and more Christians become aware of a simple fact: <i>God knows the truth in a way that we humans do not</i>. The right use of postmodern suspicion is to employ it to combat the notion that we have <i>easy access to the truth</i>. When conservative pastors tell their people that solid exposition and Bible study will make them into mature disciples then they get very close to this danger! (This is <i>not</i> an attack on study and Bible exposition so read the statement carefully.) </blockquote><blockquote>A secular postmodernist deduces that there is no absolute truth. The reason for this is that the person has not yet met the one who is the truth in Jesus Christ. But no postmodern Christian, who knows the one who is the truth, will ever claim that there is <i>no absolute truth</i> since they have a personal relationship with the one who incarnates the absolute truth. </blockquote>This difference is crucial. Knowing God is not the same thing as knowing about God. Our knowledge about an eternal, transcendent, and spiritual being is necessarily incomplete and likely flawed, particularly when much of it is obtained and limited by our human ability to read and interpret written text; but if this God <a href="http://bible.cc/ephesians/1-5.htm">adopts us into his family</a>, we have access to an entirely different way of knowing him: relationship!keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-13882118484468182152010-09-17T12:00:00.048-04:002013-01-02T12:10:49.816-05:00Cutting and Pasting the Gospel<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
I was at a wake recently and read through a plan of salvation tract that I found there. I was amazed<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">—</span></span>not by the standard sin/hell/Jesus presentation<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">—</span></span>but by<br />
<ol>
<li>how broadly this tract's author had to reach within the scriptures to patch together this supposedly simple gospel, and </li>
<li>how little each passage contributed to the final product, sometimes as few as two words from a particular verse. </li>
</ol>
Something like fifteen different books of the Bible were needed to craft this little 500-word tract, and the reader has to flip back and forth between the Old Testament and New Testament to follow it. Now, I guess that I could have felt reassured that the whole Bible points to the gospel message, or something like that, but what I found myself thinking was more troubling: If my students turned in a research paper that used source material the way this tract did, I would seriously doubt that they had gotten the correct sense or the intended context of the many, many quotation fragments they had stitched together.<br />
<br />
Can we really not find the gospel presented succinctly in a single passage, by a single author? Isn't it odd that we can't find the typical salvation plan in the Bible without having to cut and paste it together ourselves? Peter's speech in <a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/acts/2.htm">Acts 2</a> is the closest thing I can think of, but I have never seen that used in salvation tracts, perhaps because it doesn't warn of hell. I'm not suggesting that <a href="http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliveblog/archives/2009/10/tweeting_the_go.html">Twitter and the gospel</a> must go hand in hand. However, I would be more confident about my definition of gospel, my summary of the gospel, my interpretation of what the gospel really is if I could read it in a single passage, written by one author, and clearly in a context of summarizing the gospel. As opposed to the "I am the way" summary, which is Jesus's answer to a question NOT about what the gospel is or how the masses can be saved.<br />
<br />
What do we imply about the scriptures and ourselves when we have to do so much cutting and pasting to create the gospel we want to share? That the gospels themselves aren't clear enough? That God needs our help with packaging his good news effectively? That we really don't think most people can "handle" the Bible itself? That we don't want to take the time to develop relationships with people and present the gospel in its full context? I know I'm generally prejudiced against a lot of <a href="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp">the tracts I've encountered</a> over the years, but would it really be so bad if, instead of a tract, we just handed someone the whole gospel of John. "Here. Read this and then let's discuss it together. I don't want to do the gospel a disservice by oversimplifying it," we might say. I suspect such caution might be warranted, and maybe even welcomed.</div>
keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-54972752164380280322010-07-13T22:58:00.000-04:002013-01-02T12:14:36.701-05:00Joining the Perfect Church<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhREY6Na1Jj3mAbgjC6JjxvbO5pQyfFblVPmL5YCd1_HdWbbwuB6O_dtWC32pLy2w_rxdcCupDf5Tfr6-zYh_d3I3pEubWK9Dprg7vIAcNjkO49T7tZOMqNNrXo6-yyALpxZzoLwrqBy7Og/s1600/ChurchofOne-thumb-333x532-16196.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhREY6Na1Jj3mAbgjC6JjxvbO5pQyfFblVPmL5YCd1_HdWbbwuB6O_dtWC32pLy2w_rxdcCupDf5Tfr6-zYh_d3I3pEubWK9Dprg7vIAcNjkO49T7tZOMqNNrXo6-yyALpxZzoLwrqBy7Og/s200/ChurchofOne-thumb-333x532-16196.jpg" width="124" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/files/import/assets_c/2010/07/ChurchofOne-thumb-333x532-16196.jpg">This picture</a> at the <a href="http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/07/church-of-one-church-of-many.html">Jesus Creed blog</a> reminded me of a joke I heard from a college roommate:</span><br />
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">A man is stranded on a desert island for some time. When he is finally rescued, his rescuers tour the island and discover three small huts.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"This one is where I lived," the man replies when asked about the huts. "And that one is where I went to church."</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"What about the third hut?" the rescuers ask.</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div>
<div style="font-family: inherit;">
<span style="font-size: small;">"Oh," the man replies, shaking his head, "that's where I used to go to church."</span></div>
</div>
keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-55955715423057249762010-04-29T06:05:00.010-04:002010-04-29T16:57:03.794-04:00Moving the Hand of God?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Duerer-Prayer.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Duerer-Prayer.jpg" width="218" /></a></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">"Prayer moves the hand of God," I have often heard, but I wonder: "Really? Is that really how it works?" Now, maybe it is one thing to make this claim in the excitement of the moment while rejoicing at answered prayer, though I would hope that the tone is not self-congratulatory or even smug. It is quite another thing to seriously contemplate a cause-effect relationship between our prayers and God's actions given a view of God as all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving; and given a view of ourselves as none of the above.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What really happens when we pray? Do we think we can speed up the unfolding of God's will? Do we think we can change the cosmic calendar? If so, is his original will before we pray not quite as loving, or flawed in some other way? Or is his original timetable perfect, as befitting his character, but he lets us sway him from that plan to a less-perfect but more-accommodating one</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">—</span>perhaps because he is bound by the heavenly law about prayer moving his hand? Either way, it is disturbing to imagine that we are able to make God do what he wouldn't otherwise have done, perhaps even by means of prayers that aren't all that fervent, persevering, or even important to us. Really, if it boils down to God's judgment of what is best or my own, I'll vote for God, thank you very much.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">What else might we infer about prayer, if it moves God to act? Does God wait to heal a sick child until someone prays for her? Or until a critical mass of prayers is finally reached? God forbid. What happens when equal numbers of people pray opposite prayers</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">—</span>for victory in sports or politics, for example? Do the prayers balance and cancel? Perhaps the prayers of some people carry more weight. Does God have his favorites? Children, maybe, or the clergy? If ten people pray, is an answer twice as likely as when only five people pray? Does God not know our needs, relying on us to fill him in on the situation down here? Does he pretend to wait until we "show him that we mean it" before answering us, like a rock band quickly filing off stage to trigger the big applause before returning immediately for their obligatory "encore."</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When we frame the questions in these ways, some answers seem more clear:</span></div><ol style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><li><span style="font-size: small;">God doesn't or shouldn't show favoritism; </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">God will or should help people even if nobody, or nobody else, is praying for them; </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">God doesn't or shouldn't dole out mercy in proportion to the math; the same prayer prayed repeatedly or by more people shouldn't make God care about it more; </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">God already knows or should know what is best before anybody prays.</span></li>
</ol><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Despite such beliefs, however, both how we talk about prayer and how we pray are different stories: We ask for prayer. We take comfort in having multiple people praying for us. We thank people for their prayers, even claiming that we could really "feel" them. We make lists of prayer requests so we can pray repeatedly about the same thing, and so we don't lose track of these requests so trivial that they must be written down or else forgotten. We bring desperate prayers to God as though he hadn't been paying attention. We feel guilty if we forget to pray, assuming that our dropping the ball makes an answer nigh unto hopeless. We pray prayers of logical persuasion, as much to convince ourselves that God should want to answer them as to convince God to do so.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">All of which suggest a theology of prayer as mechanical device, or magic box, or flowchart of proper if-then conditions. I'm not sure which is worst, but all of them share both an assumption that answered prayer is within our control and a requirement that we have to do the right thing for prayer to work: push the button, say the magic words, or jump through the hoops. If so, God does what we want; if not, it's our fault. Misinterpretation of favorite verses reinforces this error. There's the one about <a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/18-19.htm">two or three gathering together</a> to loose and bind in heaven and on earth, and the "blank check" classics about <a href="http://bible.cc/john/15-7.htm">asking whatever we wish</a> and <a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/14-12.htm">asking anything in his name</a>. No wonder we are confused about how prayer really works and overestimate the extent of our power or influence to make God give us what we want.</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In his brilliant essay, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Last-Night-Other-Essays/dp/0156983605">The Efficacy of Prayer</a>, C.S. Lewis rejects such a causal relationship between who we are or what we do and God's response to our prayer. Reflecting on Jesus in the garden, where his request to his father was rejected, Lewis writes:</span></div><blockquote style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">When God becomes man, that Man, of all others, is least comforted by God, at His greatest need. There is a mystery here which, even if I had the power, I might not have the courage to explore. Meanwhile, little people like you and me, if our prayers are sometimes granted, beyond all hope and probability, had better not draw hasty conclusions to our own advantage. If we were stronger, we might be less tenderly treated. If we were braver, we might be sent, with far less help, to defend far more desperate posts in the great battle. </span></blockquote><div style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> How then might we better understand prayer? Look for Part 2.</span></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-495371080259161502010-04-18T01:53:00.002-04:002011-03-24T09:57:24.970-04:00What Jesus Never Said about Hell<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_%281850%29.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_Dante_And_Virgil_In_Hell_%281850%29.jpg" width="257" /></a></div>I grew up in the church tradition where <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/7-14.htm">"narrow is the way"</a> to heaven and "few there be that find it." To put it more accurately, I grew up in church circles dominated by a view that the vast majority of human beings, perhaps more than 99% of the world, will wind up in hell for not "responding to the gospel." This view is presented as Biblical, seen as a significant part of any sermon about the gospel, and used as a key motivation for missions and evangelism. Though Jesus <a href="http://www.av1611.org/hell.html">supposedly </a>said more about hell than about heaven, most references to hell are contained in a rather meager handful of "red letter" verses from the mouth of Jesus himself. And despite what he does say about hell, there are some very interesting statements that he does <i>not</i> make<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;">—if hell was as important to Jesus as we make it out to be today</span></span>.<br />
<br />
Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, for example, has lots of useful information about how to pray, give to the needy, and fast, along with admonitions not to worry and not to store up treasure on earth. All of which is fascinating and good, but completely irrelevant if the audience is going to wind up in hell. However, he does not couch these useful tidbits with a preface like, "Most of y'all are going to hell, but until you do, here's some advice about your personal finances for your days here on earth," or, "We both know you're going to hell, but let's talk about something else today." If this passage is one of Jesus' most significant messages, as many people believe, then why does Jesus say nothing about eternal punishment for most<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span></span>to the multitude sitting right there at his feet? Or was he only addressing the few who would wind up in heaven and ignoring the lost causes?<br />
<br />
We have no record of Jesus warning the woman at the well about hell, despite her string of relationship misadventures. We have no record of Jesus souring his friendships with tax collectors and winebibbers at all those dinner parties by insisting on changing the topic to God's dissatisfaction with their sinful lives and their pending damnation. No warnings about hell to the other thief on the cross. No intimate pleading with Mary and Martha, or with his own family members, for that matter, about their need to wait until after his death and resurrection and then to be "washed in the blood," lest they burn in eternal fire. Sinners, friends, strangers, or family members; all appear to be spared hearing from the lips of the savior himself the gospel message of salvation from hell.<br />
<br />
Now, arguments from silence are problematic. Perhaps Jesus constantly hammered people about hell but the gospel writers glossed over that fact, choosing instead to share with us Jesus' many parables of the kingdom and assorted comments on other topics. But it is curious that we find no Jesus theme of "Repent, ye sinners, or I'll throw ye into hell for rejecting me!" anywhere in the gospels. Very curious, indeed. In <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/4-17.htm">Matthew 4:17</a>, we read that Jesus began preaching "Repent," but nothing about hell. In a few other verses, he does warn about hell<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span></span>or warn about two different words that in some translations of the Bible are sometimes translated "hell" but that maybe don't mean the "hell" that we assume today, to be more technically accurate. But these warnings are sometimes in parables, where literal, factual truth may be neither required nor assumed; mainly concern punishment for sins rather than for not being born again; and are primarily directed at religious leaders and others who thought they were already saved. The fact of the unwashed masses going to hell doesn't seem to matter so much, though God so loved the world.<br />
<br />
If hell is the overriding concern, and the reason he came to die on a cross, then why didn't Jesus say that? Why substitute temporal trivia, really, for crucial warnings about the paramount disaster of eternal damnation for billions of souls? Why so many, very inclusive "<i>your </i>father in heaven" statements to the crowds he addressed, as though the audience was already in the family of God? Was Jesus just sharing facts about a precious few other somebodies with the throngs of hell bound listeners, or did he mean that <i>they </i>were the blessed, and destined for heaven?<br />
<br />
Now, maybe hell wasn't the point that the gospel writers wanted to stress in their portrayal of Jesus' message. That is possible. But maybe someone else created the "fear of hell" bandwagon, and Jesus never intended for anyone to ride on it. Maybe he never desired the gospel to be shrouded in "Turn or burn" rhetoric. Maybe, just maybe, he had other, more hopeful plans for the billions of people he came to die for, those who we preach are eternally trapped in the fires of hell.<br />
<br />
More on this later.</div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-88381095340570729362010-04-14T06:53:00.001-04:002010-04-14T15:24:34.019-04:00Gracious Disagreement<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://biologos.org/resources/greg-boyd-what-are-the-non-negotiable-truths/" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/boyd_video_thumb.jpg" /></a></div>Here's a lovely little<a href="http://biologos.org/resources/greg-boyd-what-are-the-non-negotiable-truths/"> video clip of Dr. Greg Boyd</a> on historic diversity within the church on the "negotiables." This is one of several intriguing video tidbits from <a href="http://biologos.org/">the BioLogos Foundation</a>, a site well worth exploring for a scientific Christian perspective on science, the Bib<span id="goog_209884235"></span><span id="goog_209884236"></span><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"></a>le, and Christianity.<br />
<blockquote>"Having to wrestle with diverse opinions and perspectives is hardly a new thing in the church. Unfortunately, we've lost some of that: the ability to be gracious with disagreements, especially among conservative Protestants throughout the twentieth century."</blockquote>I'm not convinced this is unique to 20th century Protestants, but I like the use of "gracious" in this context and agree that its absence makes us look "ugly." Can we disagree but remain gracious in our disagreements?keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-38231455129224363672010-03-19T06:12:00.004-04:002010-03-22T23:12:41.531-04:00Loved by God, But No Billy Graham<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvgPFPXuxjLQOOImoc4YhxuRfLS1ed1dbXpUoL-i6aE80ZzENfl1pUUvt_8JooLr9gHseXkOtjANhUiXOP6kufGwarapnT21QHgYpykLtZ_p9mHTNpZVVp7qAmEsChE-2Q7jm0Tasb2MwD/s1600-h/kangaroo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvgPFPXuxjLQOOImoc4YhxuRfLS1ed1dbXpUoL-i6aE80ZzENfl1pUUvt_8JooLr9gHseXkOtjANhUiXOP6kufGwarapnT21QHgYpykLtZ_p9mHTNpZVVp7qAmEsChE-2Q7jm0Tasb2MwD/s320/kangaroo.JPG" /></a></div>I have no problem with opinions, as a concept. No surprise, coming from someone with the word "Soapbox" in the title of their blog, eh? I believe that those with a large following, those who influence many, or those whose followers lack, shall we say, sophistication and critical thinking should be particularly careful about what opinions they express publicly, however. If you watch <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-ej7n7Nhns">this video</a>, you'll probably agree with me that some of those in the crowd appear to be easily swayed by a fancy blue suit, a little background organ, a little choral repetition, and a little bravado when criticizing their brothers and sisters in Christ. I suspect that these are some of the little sheep, dear to Jesus, whose deception and abuse will lead to some serious judgment on the wolves among us.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple quotes from this video that I found interesting and/or especially troubling:<br />
<br />
1. Criticizing seeker-sensitive pastors, Hinn declares that, "The seeker-sensitive move in America is destroying America, people. [...] Those seeker-friendly churches are not of God." I wonder: Are these churches worse than, say, the real-and-of-God <a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/1_corinthians/5.htm">church in Corinth</a>? The <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1269012242094">church in </a><a href="http://niv.scripturetext.com/revelation/3.htm">Sardis</a>? How sure should one be about making a statement like this? I thought it was the devil's job to accuse the brethren.<br />
<br />
2. Continuing with his attack, Hinn adds, "They worry more about crowds than getting souls into heaven." What I find interesting here is Hinn's likely assumption about these human pastors' ability to get souls into heaven. We can get souls into heaven? Really? More interesting, what if we mere mortals don't perform some work of evangelism, of preaching the true gospel? A gospel that Hinn actually articulates fairly well toward the end of this clip, by the way. Are we responsible for people who don't go to heaven? Is it our fault? More on this later.<br />
<br />
3. "Any pastor who is ashamed to say 'Jesus' is because [sic] he is demon-possessed, that's why. [...] If you are afraid to say 'Jesus," there's a devil inside of you." Really? Hmmmm. Can anyone say, "filter"?<br />
<br />
And is it just me, or does the blue suit remind anyone else of Captain Kangaroo?<br />
<br />
Ah, Benny, my opinionated brother.... May you grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. May we all.keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-139920812124105722010-03-01T17:45:00.015-05:002010-06-25T16:54:36.010-04:00Hearing and Teaching the Real Bible<div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Here's a great quote by Frederick Buechner, from the opening lines of "The Magnificent Defeat" in</span> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Dark-Sermons-Buechner-Frederick/dp/0060842482"><u><span style="font-family: inherit;">Secrets in the Dark: A Life in Sermons</span></u></a><span style="font-size: small;">:</span></div><blockquote><span style="font-size: small;"><i>When a minister reads out of the Bible, I am sure that at least nine times out of ten the people who happen to be listening at all hear not what is really being said but only what they expect to hear read. And I think that what most people expect to hear read from the Bible is an edifying story, an uplifting thought, a moral lesson—something elevating, obvious, and boring. So that is exactly what very often they do hear. Only that is too bad because if you really listen</i><i>—and</i><i> maybe you have to forget that it is the Bible being read and a minister who is reading it—</i><i>there is no telling what you might hear.</i></span></blockquote><span style="font-size: small;">What do we expect to hear in the Bible? Tales of moral heroes? Seven Keys to a successful spiritual life? Or passages that say only what we already think they say? More than that, I hope.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">More troubling is the question of what to do when we can't make sense of the Bible, or when a "plain reading" of the text contradicts what we expected to find. Move on to something else</span><span style="font-size: small;">? </span><span style="font-size: small;">Ignore the differences? <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/07/harmonizing-scriptures.html">Harmonize</a> everything into a nonsensical porridge? Run to the footnotes, as we would the solution to a crossword puzzle beyond our ability, and rest in the arms of whoever wrote the <strike>opinions </strike>commentary we find there?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Our experiences with the Bible from earliest childhood shape our response to both these questions. If Bible "training" in Sunday School consists of Quiz Bowl drills and fill-in-the-blank responses, then confusion when we try to read the Bible for ourselves should be a too-familiar occurrence, a sort of purgatory in which we must patiently wait until someone more spiritually gifted delivers the </span><span style="font-size: small;">unintuitive-but-correct-somehow </span><span style="font-size: small;">explanation</span><span style="font-size: small;">; and </span><span style="font-size: small;">a view of the Scriptures as an unappealing blend of Dick and Jane stories, fortune cookie wisdom, and esoteric riddles would be the natural result of our experience</span><span style="font-size: small;">. And if Bible study for adults resembles the kiddie version.... No wonder we sound like the Israelites when they insisted they would much prefer God speak only to Moses. </span><span style="font-size: small;">Why try to read the Bible when the pastor is so much better at it? </span><span style="font-size: small;">Why bother raising your hand when you're probably wrong? Spiritual pablum goes down easier when it's all we've ever had.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">At what age are children in most churches told that parts of the Bible are actually ambiguous, even to the "initiate," or that it doesn't provide satisfactory answers to some very serious questions, or that equally-saved Christians interpret some of the same passages in very different ways</span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span><span style="font-size: small;">and what those differences are, and how this could happen if we all read the same Bible and have the same Spirit? At what age are they told that the Bible has any purpose beyond "right answers" and that they are allowed to question? I suspect that the age is somewhere between "after finishing Sunday School" and "never." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">But why? What do we gain by creating the illusion of a uniform and perfect interpretation for every verse in the Bible, and suggesting that only <i>our people </i>have it figured out, and ignoring the reality of normal and even healthy diversity within the church, and treating the Bible like a magical <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2010/02/noah-webster-god.html">dictionary</a> or cookbook to be consulted from time to time? Other than a convenient script and a Quiz Bowl answer key for the harried volunteer in the classroom, that is.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">I know what we lose when we engage in this perhaps unintentional mythologizing, when the children figure out that their church is sending them off to college or the workplace "equipped" with a grab bag of Bible trivia, <a href="http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0058/0058_01.asp">Chick tract</a> theology, straw man scientific arguments, and prejudice against those who don't believe exactly as we do: </span><span style="font-size: small;">credibility. </span><span style="font-size: small;">We appear gullible and ignorant, if not dishonest and biased. We lose the right to be heard when they have real questions about faith, or when they discover the rest of the Body of Christ. </span><span style="font-size: small;">And as a result, and even <a href="http://www.conversantlife.com/theology/how-many-youth-are-leaving-the-church">if we do manage to keep them</a> until they finish high school, the church loses most of its next generation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">We need to do better. We need to be honest about the Bible, the church, and our faith. Messy and complex though they may be, that is what the Lord has given and left for us. Do we doubt that he knew what he was doing? Do we really think he needed us to tidy up his mess and package things better for the little ones? O we of little faith.... <a href="http://bible.cc/matthew/19-14.htm">Suffer the children.</a> Let them come!</span></span></span>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-67320674689769814222010-02-17T21:51:00.026-05:002010-02-17T22:45:29.576-05:00Noah Webster & God<div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">[<a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/search/label/salvation">Salvation</a></span><span style="font-size: small;"> #6] </span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1265951245152"><br />
</a></span></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; font-family: inherit; text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://www.nowpublic.com/world/websters-dictionary-new-census-edition" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFgQVWzQNZsbuAaBoBEVcnBmm7xtDZlodpLIKXsvwb2slB8bqMor9tjP34LEJUkzHmhRooOIi1NQ_oIrH56hwdfzlJzAJL5krJQwr_OKf_Xg9YxXkaZq1I53Pta3Uu_s-9N_8vaA8kRzZO/s320/3b9de39df1e72fb7b5da88a139440e27.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Having established that <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/12/explaining-our-differences.html">salvation may be knowable</a>, even when we are unable to clearly define salvation or unable to agree upon such a definition, we turn to the question of <i>why</i> we have been left to write our own definition. If our own definition writing requires that we wade in the oft-murky waters of scripture interpretation, then why has God failed to clearly provide such crucial information? Why didn't God</span><span style="font-size: small;"> just give us a dictionary if he knew the mess we would make of this? Why did he give us the Bible, filled with poetry, riddles, proverbs, songs, correspondence, <a href="http://theeidolon.livejournal.com/168720.html">code</a>, and lots and lots of stories and parables, instead? Understand that these are types of writing not normally used to dictate precise definitions, or genres from which we expect to extract them. And why use Hebrew of all languages for the majority of this, a language known for its ambiguity?</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Maybe neat, theological definitions don't exist. Maybe God isn't at all eager to spoon-feed them to us if they do. Maybe they are as nonsensical as mathematical equations written to explain color. Maybe God is less interested in developing our <a href="http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/8-1.htm">knowledge</a> than our character, our humility, or our relationship with him. Maybe God knows that definitions create the illusion of mastery, certainty, and control; and maybe he is less interested in being defined or understood than being </span><span style="font-size: small;">known</span><span style="font-size: small;">, obeyed, and loved. </span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">What definition of "God" do we find in Scripture, for that matter, and shouldn't that be even more important than understanding salvation? "God is <a href="http://bible.cc/1_john/4-8.htm">love</a>;" "God is <a href="http://bible.cc/john/4-24.htm">spirit</a>;" "God is a consuming <a href="http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/4-24.htm">fire</a>;" "God is <a href="http://bible.cc/1_john/1-5.htm">light</a>." How's that for a single and clear definition of what God is? And what about Jesus? How eager was he to </span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">give key definitions? The gospels record his question, "What shall we say the kingdom of God is like?" and multiple different answers</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">yeast, a farmer, a landlord, seeds, etc.</span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><i>—</i></span><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">but no instances of "What is the exact definition of God's kingdom?" </span><span style="font-size: small;">Really, if he wanted to communicate definitions, he picked an odd way to do it. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;"><o:p></o:p></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><div style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">The obvious answer is that God's purpose, both for his inspiration of the Scriptures and in his glorious performance on the stage of history, was not and has never been to give us definitions, or to satisfy our desire for propositional certainty. </span><span style="font-size: small;">Or, as Karl Barth reportedly said, "Jesus does not give recipes that show the way to God. [...] He is Himself the way."</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">His purpose is that we might come to know the guide himself, rather than a map. </span><span style="font-size: small;">As a result, much of our theological definition writing distracts us from God's real message and intent. And, perhaps, is as misguided and inappropriate as reading love poems for a technical understanding of how the heart works. </span><span style="font-size: small;">To put it another way, the point and priority of neither God nor the Scriptures is to give us a definition of salvation that we can memorize, recite, and stick on our bumpers. </span><span style="font-size: small;"></span></div><div style="font-family: inherit;"><br />
</div><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;">Noah Webster's contribution to the English-speaking world was a book of words and definitions. What God the Father has given to all of us instead is Jesus, the Word of God. </span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">He has </span><a href="http://bible.cc/hebrews/1-2.htm" style="font-family: inherit;">spoken to us directly</a><span style="font-family: inherit;"> through his Son, that we might know him. And </span><a href="http://bible.cc/john/17-3.htm" style="font-family: inherit;">this is eternal life</a><span style="font-family: inherit;">. This is salvation.</span></span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></span> </div></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-57019253143586518682010-02-11T17:00:00.005-05:002010-02-11T17:25:00.059-05:00Ecumenical Catechism: DOA?<a href="http://www.archons.org/news/detail.asp?id=349" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="214" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMQYrJjwsK_HW-WclFC2JGsJzC3EtlPSrTgXkgVEU5dIDqJUeiBOASh7EkiJg4mJx8q6SXVvNEF0etmeCofg41dsP_Bs7MhTHZ0a3XrK5Yd2PAUeBQ5lqT0TVFd8wBagYiw7SoQdoQkpKw/s320/113009cardinal.jpg" width="320" /></a><a href="http://johnharmstrong.typepad.com/john_h_armstrong_/2010/02/speaking-at-a-vatican-symposium-cardinal-walter-kasper-president-of-the-pontifical-council-for-promoting-christian-unity-s.html">John Armstrong's comments</a> on and quotations of conservative Catholic opposition to Cardinal Kasper's call for an ecumenical catechism should come as no surprise to anyone, and suggest a few questions for our exploration. And I had to use the same photo of Cardinal K with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew -- both to show off the patriarch's cool head covering and to work in the phrase, "Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew." Now there's a title worthy of a nameplate on the desk!<br />
<br />
In celebration of the time-honored catechism format, then, let's begin with the first question:<br />
<br />
Q.1: Why should nobody be surprised by opposition to Christian unity?<br />
A: Because ecumenism is technically defined by many as, "a Satanic compromise with those who lack our spiritual correctness and perfection" or perhaps, "proof that the Antichrist has already begun his diabolical work in the church." And, as Armstrong notes,<br />
<blockquote style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-size: small;">Sadly, this spirit is not limited to Protestants or Catholics. Only the grace of God and the fresh breeze of the Holy Spirit will alter people who fear so deeply loving and respecting those who are not in our communion. </span></blockquote>Q.2: Why would it be so difficult to accept an ecumenical <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catechism">catechism</a>? Is there really so little scriptural support for basic doctrines that all of Christiandom could agree on?<br />
A: I believe that there is sufficient support, though the very question reveals my Protestant bias in favor of the written scriptures and ignores the reality of church tradition's role in all our denominations. However, such a project could quickly become a political wrangle in which questions of "What scriptures?" and "What doctrines?" reveal the root issues of "Who has the power to force this decision upon the rest of us?" and "By what authority do you do these things?" Questions of power and authority, while critical to all of us, are threatening to many.<br />
<br />
Moreover, changes to or sacrifices from our own self-defining lists of beliefs, necessary for the creation of a shared catechism of essentials, could call into question the validity of our own "second tier" beliefs, and the validity of our self-definition, as a result. <i>Leave out dispensationalism? Baptism by immersion only? Transubstantiation? Without that, there would be no difference between us and ... that church down the road!</i> Better to draw our own lines in the sand and cherish the golden calves that pop out of the fire of our disobedience than do the hard work of love, of keeping the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace -- with our own brothers and sisters for whom Christ died, mind you.<br />
<br />
As for me and mine, our local church uses no formal creed or catechism, so we have been working our way though the <a href="http://www.cambridgepres.org.uk/cat/cat1.html">Westminster Shorter Catechism</a> at home. All of us have gained from discussing the questions, the answers, and our disagreements with some of the answers. Perhaps even more importantly, we have had the opportunity to start the broader conversation with our kids about how we know anything, why we believe what we do, and what to do with the inevitable disagreements we have with those we love.<br />
<br />
Q.3: Could an ecumenical catechism include questions about why faithful Christians disagree with each other on matters of doctrine, exactly how <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-wish-wed-all-been-ready.html">disappointed Jesus is with us</a> about that, and whether our diversity heralds the arrival of the beast? And could such a catechism help us learn to live with one another in humility and obedience as the body of Christ?<br />
A: Hmmmm.... Perhaps I'll write that catechism myself.keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-86618805067219106042010-02-10T07:00:00.022-05:002010-02-11T09:32:31.402-05:00I Wish We'd All Been Ready<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://catholic-resources.org/Students/JohnHagee/rapture.html" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh3sGwOA3C7V8S0jajcogaRD9VH3lw2Q6t26OJ79E8mwzLwhjjvLEnptfrvzgYF2lfyLpY27TngKviZVByvjIzuO8eCIMISK6wfyQAAYYo5ufo3kfrVD08Kk7dA_08CkccWqJc0_yE4pF6Q/s320/rapture.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>For those of you who missed it, <a href="http://larknews.com/april_2005/secondary.php?page=2">the rapture has already taken place</a>, <span class="infotext">and, according to the </span><a href="http://www.larknews.com/">Lark News</a> <span class="infotext">story, "took both people on the planet whose theology was exactly correct."</span><br />
<br />
<span class="infotext">What I'm looking forward to is the scene at the pearly gates -- the one where, from time to time, we'll see the arrival of those from the one denomination that actually had all their doctrines correct. I can almost hear the hearty congratulations </span>that Jesus will lavish upon them. As for the rest of us ... <a href="http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/3-15.htm">"saved, but only as one escaping through the flames,"</a> at least we'll finally know who gets the prize for being right. So, we'll have that satisfaction to soften the disappointment of our Lord.<br />
<br />
How does that saying go, the one about wishing on their deathbed that they'd invested more time in their careers? How many of us will meet Jesus and wish we'd spent more time polishing our doctrinal idols?keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-26094812848854552242010-02-05T07:15:00.001-05:002010-02-05T16:22:45.260-05:00Nanga SadhuI saw this photo today and was inspired to begin a new category of fascinating and thought-provoking content here on the Soapbox: Awesome Facial Hair! <a href="http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/india_02_05/i14_21656597.jpg">Click here</a> for the full-sized image, part of a <a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/">Big Picture</a> series called <a href="http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/02/colorful_india.html">Colorful India</a>. Enjoy.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOu-dp-fvKG4KwyMtGvctxTX8RQUF0JI4WSoqRqMZs3qa1bXZ0wglzuCVI6IaLkHyk15tPYrYlCrLm12ZVyA7ACkjmrKwkGgQlDZ-hH0gyycMHDRR3rmEvgrE3-ygzcvuMH0PUAhyphenhyphen4lIfd/s1600-h/nanga+sadhu.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOu-dp-fvKG4KwyMtGvctxTX8RQUF0JI4WSoqRqMZs3qa1bXZ0wglzuCVI6IaLkHyk15tPYrYlCrLm12ZVyA7ACkjmrKwkGgQlDZ-hH0gyycMHDRR3rmEvgrE3-ygzcvuMH0PUAhyphenhyphen4lIfd/s400/nanga+sadhu.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4842475186056645308.post-71134709888249942822010-01-30T00:19:00.004-05:002010-02-01T16:18:47.939-05:00Is My Bible Scripture?<div style="font-family: inherit;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Wulfila_bibel.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Wulfila_bibel.jpg" width="254" /></a></div><span style="font-size: small;">Someone dear to me once asked me whether I believe that the Bible I read is scripture. Thinking about this deliciously stimulating question, I realize the wide range of possible meanings these terms have, and the need to clarify and specify what is meant before I can say "Yes" or "No" and hope to be understood properly—</span><span style="font-size: small;">and avoid being branded a heretic. </span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span><br />
<ol><li><span style="font-size: small;">By "Bible" do we mean English translations of the Bible? We might, but not necessarily. </span><span style="font-size: small;"> <a href="http://kjvo.blogspot.com/2009/09/translation-error.html">As I have written elsewhere,</a> I would prefer to call them so, rather than lump together all editions of </span><span style="font-size: small;">all translations </span><span style="font-size: small;">in all languages with the original Scriptures in their original languages, for</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Are translations of anything "the same as" the original? No. By definition, they are not. No scholar of French poetry, for example, would be content to study translations, and for good reason: There is no substitute for reading the actual words in the actual language with all of its nuance, connotation, historical context, rhythms, word play, and all else that makes language what it is.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Does "Bible I read" mean "translations other than the one true translation," or "any translation"? </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">And would I call my Bible(s) "scripture," meaning</span></li>
<ol><li><span style="font-size: small;">"sacred writings"? If I understood exactly what that phrase meant, I might say so.</span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">"the specific sacred writings that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of the Bible to pen"? No, since what is available to me is impressive but translated products of <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_hcri.htm">textual criticism</a>, rather than the original thing.</span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">or "equal to those specific sacred writings"? Equal in some ways more than others, but perhaps.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">or "an equally inspired translation into a different language"? <a href="http://kjvo.blogspot.com/">Definitely not. </a></span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">or "written documents that transmit God's intended message to us"? In a sense, yes.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">or "written documents through which the Holy Spirit can speak his intended message"? Yes, I do believe this.</span> </li>
</ol>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">And what does the original question presume about <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-we-read-bible.html">how reading works</a>?</span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">And presume about how God can or does speak through text in any language or perhaps in one uniquely special language?</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">And presume about what God intends the Bible's function to be—</span><span style="font-size: small;">now or in <a href="http://www.yeshuaagapao.com/images/blog/Bible_Chart_-_Ages_And_Dispensation.png">various</a><a href="http://www.helpersofyourjoy.com/images/Chart.gif"> hypothetical</a> <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/History_of_Dispensationalism.svg/780px-History_of_Dispensationalism.svg.png">dispensations</a>?</span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">And are we presuming that there is a critical mass of "scripture" that we must have among the pages of what we hold for its function to be fulfilled? What would it be?</span></li>
<ol><li><span style="font-size: small;">100%? </span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">99%? </span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">80%?</span> </li>
</ol>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">And, if so, what do we presume about the result of reading less than that percentage of true scripture? </span> </li>
<ol><li><span style="font-size: small;">Total error? </span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Significant, life-changing error? </span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">Sin? </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">That we are now reading the words of Satan? </span> </li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">The failure of God's plans in the world? </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">The failure of God's intended purpose for the Bible?</span><span style="font-size: small;"> </span> </li>
</ol></ol><span style="font-size: small;">So, what do I believe about the Bible? </span><br />
<ol><li><span style="font-size: small;">I believe that the English translations of the Bible that I read are significantly and even divinely different from all other books, even if I am not sure that, as translations, they are fully and equally "scripture" in the way that the original Bible is. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">I believe that, at this point in history, I am blessed to have the luxury of comparing several good translations that merit not only my confidence in the text but also my awe at God's provision. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">I believe that, like copies of any original document, there are some real differences among them, and also differences between them and "the original Bible" written down in days of yore. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">I believe, however, that the differences</span><span style="font-size: small;">, or any outright errors in the human words I read, </span><span style="font-size: small;">are not sufficiently powerful to keep me from hearing the "'Yes!' of God in Christ" through these translations as the Holy Spirit aids my reading of them. </span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: small;">I believe that God is greater, and is able to overcome whatever I may lack.</span></li>
</ol><span style="font-size: small;">I believe many other things about the Bible, too, but you can read <a href="http://clanottosoapbox.blogspot.com/search/label/Bible">my other posts</a> to discover more of those.</span></div>keohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04504385481060936766noreply@blogger.com3