Karma's a Bitch

Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism addresses the overlapping issues of God as a judge vs a God of love and how a "loving God" could send people to Hell. He essentially says that the notion of a wrathful, judging God who could condemn people to an eternity in Hell is a huge barrier to belief in Christianity or even in the Christian God.

I do see and hear this a lot but it has never been a hang up for me. Sure, I've wondered how God could send "nice people" to Hell, people that act kinder, gentler, more lovingly than some Christians. That's always sat a little funny with me. But I also see that most people aren't as "good" as they think they are and many are downright evil. I recognize in myself enough bad that would otherwise deserve some punishment in the absence of sort of grace or mercy. I also recognize that while I might be think myself to be more "good" thand "bad," there's no handy-dandy cosmic scale I can look at to measure how much 10 lies, 4 thefts, 13 acts of lust, etc weigh against 7 holding doors open for people, saying please and thank you anytime I'm in public, telling my wife and daughter "I love you," or doing a great job at work. What's the point system on which I can rely to measure my "good" vs my "bad"?

That brings me to the next point that is stuck in my craw. People apparently are hung up that God could judge and punish people, but they have no hangups, whatsoever, about human being extracting some amount of revenge against wrongdoers. Many might no longer believe the death penalty is a just punishment, regardless of the crime or wrong. But they would see mental and emotional, perhaps even physical, torment as fair game.

More subtley yet more pervasively, westerners these days love themselves some "karma." Of course, they don't have the first clue on what Buddhists or Hindus have to say about karma, at least not with any specificity. It's a complex and varied spiritual concept and definitions vary between eastern religions. Americans like to say, "Well, it means 'what comes around goes around.'" Not exactly. Hinduistic karma's closer to the Biblical concept of sowing and reaping. However, it has to do more broadly with cosmic cause and effect:

Karma is not punishment or retribution but simply an extended expression or consequence of natural acts. Karma means "deed" or "act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction, that governs all life. The effects experienced are also able to be mitigated by actions and are not necessarily fated. That is to say, a particular action now is not binding to some particular, pre-determined future experience or reaction; it is not a simple, one-to-one correspondence of reward or punishment.

Karma is not fate, for humans act with free will creating their own destiny. According to the Vedas, if one sows goodness, one will reap goodness; if one sows evil, one will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determines our future. The conquest of karma lies in intelligent action and dispassionate response.

If we say that post-modern Americans have gotten it partially right and that what comes around goes around -- which is a cousin belief to Christian sowing and reaping -- we must also say that they accept the idea of cosmic judgment and retribution. People in our society really love this idea. Do a google search of "karma is a bitch" (apologize if the word offends anyone) and you'll see that people revel in the idea that someone that does something bad has something coming to him/her in return, often worse than the original offense. You can get "Karma is a Bitch" bumperstickers. I have friends on Facebook that put "karma" out there whenever a villain gets what's coming to him.

Modern, supposedly rational folks have no qualms with cosmic retribution (not tied to any physical or scientifically observable force in the universe mind you, and not even clearly attributable to a someone or something who could guide it.) Yet, they can't accept the idea that God could be the agent of retribution (or reward.) Why must God only reward people (for their sins and shortcomings) but we mere mortals get to sit back and enjoy "karma" crushing our enemies' souls, destroying their lives or just plain gettin' 'em back for their bad behavior?

The truth, I believe, is that people love vengeance. They just don't want to face the fact that God could be the agent of that vengeance and such vengeance could be directed at them. Karma's for "the other guy," the one that does really bad things.

Crumbs for the Little Dogs

Matthew 15:21-28

21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon." 23But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us." 24He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25But she came and knelt before Him, saying, "Lord, help me." 26And He answered, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs." 27She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table." 28Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

In this text, we see a number of things: rebuke; rejection; modern minds may see ethnic bigotry; persistence; love; disdain; unwavering faith; miracles; reward; affirmation; prayers answered; acknowledgement of Jesus as Lord.

Verses 21-22: 21 And Jesus went away from there and withdrew to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 22And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and was crying, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely oppressed by a demon."

A Canaanite woman – Women were not, to put it mildly, highly esteemed in 1^st century Palestine. They were, at best, second class citizens. Jesus, as we have seen in other places in the Gospels, acknowledged womens' important roles in the kingdom and affirmed them as blessed and beloved of God. Ultimately, we see that pattern repeated in this story, but not in these verses. That she was a Canaanite hints at the rejection – or apparent rejection – we see in the next few verses.

The Canaanites were dispossessed of their land as far back as Abram. Genesis 15:17-21 tells us that the “Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, 'To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates...'”which included the land of the Canaanites.

Both before and after the covenant in which the land of the Canaanites is given to Abra,, God promises children to Abram – later Abraham – and promises he will be the father of many nations, with descendants numbering as the stars. See Genesis 15:5; 17:6-8. In fact, in 17:8, the land of Canaan is promised to Abraham. This “everlasting covenant,” as it relates directly to the Canaanites, is repeated in Psalm 105:10-11.

The Canaanites had a long history of struggle with God's people. The Canaanites were descendants of Canaan, son of Ham. Abraham's descendants, both through Ishmael and Isaac, were descended from Noah's son, Shem. Historically, they had been devotees of Baal and even sacrificed children to that idol. Apparently by Jesus' time, some level of enmity existed even though Israelite Jews and Canaanites lived in close proximity.

Verse 23But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and begged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying out after us."

What is the significance in Jesus not answering her plea? Some commentators suggest that pattern seen elsewhere in scripture, and born out in our own lives, is that God does not always “answer” when we call, at least not in the short term. Others suggest that the silent was actually communication. John Calvin, in one of his commentaries on this chapter, supposed that Jesus, while silent, “spoke within the mind of the woman.” He added:

In this way the Lord often acts towards those who believe in him; he speaks to them, and yet is silent. Relying on the testimonies of Scripture, where they hear him speaking, they firmly believe that he will be gracious to them; and yet he does not immediately reply to their wishes and prayers, but, on the contrary, seems as if he did not hear.

The deafening silence in response to our supplications can be one of the greatest tests of faith. Waiting for an answer also reminds us who is in charge. What is one of the first things we deal with is parents? We struggle to find the appropriate balance between promptly caring for our children's serious, immediate needs – food, changing a diaper – and being at their beckoned call. God, assuredly, does not struggle with that but there is, nevertheless, a parallel. Sometimes He, as father, makes us wait because that is best for us.

Other commentators suggest Jesus was simply steeling the resolve of the woman. Faced with his initial silence, she had to choose between pressing forward with her petition or giving up hope, maybe rejecting God altogether. Earle, Sanner and Childers, in the Beacon Bible Commentary, Vol 6, p 149 cite Carr: “Jesus, by his refusal, tries the woman's faith that He may purify and deepen it.”

Verses 24-25: 24 He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25But she came and knelt before Him, saying, "Lord, help me."

When Jesus does answer, without directly granting or denying her specific request, i.e. that her daughter be delivered from demonic possession, He explains His purpose is to minister to His own people. As the woman did in verse 22, she reaffirmed His lordship. This, to me, has several interesting facets. First, one not a member of the “house of Israel” recognizes the Messiah. “Son of David,” according to John Calvin, was (to paraphrase) a messianic marker. Thus she, a foreigner, perhaps even a pagan (as opposed to a “God fearer” Gentile), acknowledged the lordship of the Jewish Messiah. Second, she personally acknowledged His lordship over her! She gave herself over to Him, surrendering herself, calling on His saving mercy.

Remarkable in this story is the tie-back to the covenental theology of the Jews. I am certainly no scholar and know little or nothing about the intricacies of that belief structure. But it's hard to miss Jesus showing Himself to be a good Jew steeped in the Old Testament. As various commentators have noted, Jesus' ministry really never reached beyond Judea. The Apostles, of course, carried the message to the Gentiles, spreading it all over the Roman Empire. Jesus, though, really ministered primarily to His own people. Here He expressly refuses – or at least hesitates – to extend the blessings meant for God's people to Gentiles.

A fascinating parallel is Abram/Abraham's “everlasting” blessing with God at the expense, if you will, of the Canaanites and others. Jesus' blessing, tied up in His Father's covenant with Abram/Abraham, was refused to this lowly Canaanite woman...or so it first seemed.

Verses 26And He answered, "It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs."

Little disagreement is found over Jesus' meaning when He responds by telling her it is not right to cast “the children's bread” “to the dogs.” If He didn't call this poor woman a dog, a major insult in that culture, He certainly compared her to one. Earle, Sanner and Childers argue that Jesus actually might have uttered this with a nudge and a wink as something of a rebuff or rebuke to His disciples. The original Greek does not refer to a “dog” like a filthy street dweller despised by that culture, but as a “little pet dog” with which children would play. If so, there was no rebuke in His response. It was an inside joke between Him and the woman.

We tend to see Jesus in a terrifically serious light. Some of that is because we have only text, without benefit of facial expressions and body language. Any modern day American who tries to communicate by text and email knows that meanings can be completely obscured, indeed lost, when all you have to go by are words on a screen. Mark Driscoll, in his book Religion Kills, argues for a funny Jesus, a man with a great sense of humor. If some of the minority commentators are right, this might be one example of our Lord busting some chops.

Covenantal theology reappears. John Calvin explains the significance of the “children's bread” as:

To make the meaning plain to us, it must be understood that the appellation of the children’s bread is here given, not to the gifts of God of whatever description, but only to those which were bestowed in a peculiar manner on Abraham and his posterity. For since the beginning of the world, the goodness of God was everywhere diffused—nay, filled heaven and earth—so that all mortal men felt that God was their Father. But as the children of Abraham had been more highly honored than the rest of mankind, the children’s bread is a name given to everything that, relates peculiarly to the adoption by which the Jews alone were elected to be children

Thus, Jesus was not being distantly metaphorical. Children were God's chosen ones; His adopted kids.

Verse 27She said, "Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table."

This one verse is packed full of theological punch! It is heavy and rich, like spiritual cheesecake. The next verse gives this one its full weight and meaning but I will still address them separately.

Crumbs are “small fragments, especially of something baked (as bread.)” One could not live on crumbs. Usually they are discarded. Here, they are left for the dogs. Not given to but left for the dogs. They are so small as to amount to almost nothing. These crumbs have fallen to the floor. It is hard to know what importance this idea held in that culture but we, in a society of overabundance, where our poor are fat, it's hard to conceive of being pleased with crumbs on the floor.

Moreover, consider how the Canaanite woman's willingness to take the crumbs contrasts with our 21^st century conception of Christianity. Think of the so-called “Prosperity Gospel” that we hear preached on cable TV. God, we are told, wants to give you everything your heart desires because He loves you! But is that what we see in this story? No. We see a master that wants us to want and be happy with only the crumbs!

It must not be ignored whose crumbs are being lapped up; the crumbs from the master's table. His crumbs – whatever they might be – are better than abundance from other sources.

Verse 28Then Jesus answered her, "O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire." And her daughter was healed instantly.

Dovetailing nicely with the discussion on verse 27 is Jesus acknowledgment of this woman's “great faith.” She was willing to take a little – even after apparently being rejected or at least put off for the moment due to her race. She endured what may have been great personal insults. Yet she persisted in calling on Jesus to save her child.

The crumb concept is fitting in an ironic way. She and Jesus saw her as asking for very little, but what could be more important to a parent than the healing of an afflicted, suffering child? A lesson in here, maybe, is reflected in that irony. When we ask for the right types of blessings from God, He sees them as little things. God's kingdom, we see in scripture, often operates in contradictory ways: the first shall be last; the meek shall inherit the earth; he must increase, I must decrease; you must lose your life to gain it, etc. Be willing to take the crumbs and God will richly bless. Maybe a more apt way to put it is that the crumbs will satisfy your needs, another apparent contradiction; defying human logic.

There are parallels, too, between this woman's great faith and the faith necessary to move mountains. Not to make too much of the “crumbs” concept, but as Jesus said, having only faith the size of a mustard seed is necessary to move mountains. Having faith enough to accept the crumbs from the master's table is sufficient to cause you to experience in an almost inexpressible miracle.

More likely, as with the mustard seed, the issue isn't quantity but quality. What God gives us, even if we think it is not enough, is sufficient! That little mustard seed, similarly, grows into a large tree, as Jesus explained. Willingness to take the crumbs amounts to great faith because it necessitates reliance on God. Analogously, planting that mustard seed with the expectation that one day it will turn into a great tree – a hope that must battle some doubt – requires belief, nurture and, most importantly, patience!

Rush Limbaugh, M.Div.

Yesterday, I had the distinct displeasure of hearing Rush Limbaugh attempt to define the "tenets" of the Christian faith, and fail miserably in doing so. I have nothing against Mr. Limbaugh, particularly. I'm also not a huge fan and I'm certainly not a "Dittohead."

The context of Rush's remarks was that President Obama recently said, in trying to articulate why he is a Christian, that he holds to the Golden Rule (though he didn't refer to it by its moniker) and (rather oddly) that he should be his brother's keeper. Limbaugh, in suggestion that the President doesn't understand his own declared Christian faith, had this to say on yesterday's show:

RUSH: Now, ladies and gentlemen, you have to forgive me here, but -- and not disputing -- President Obama says he's a Christian, that's good enough for me. And there's a lot of people who do not know details of their own religious belief. But the Golden Rule is not a precept of Christianity. I hate to point this out, but the Golden Rule does not emanate, originate, from Christianity. And this brother's keeper business? That's not Jesus. I hate to say this, but Jesus Christ did not talk about brother's keeper. That is from the story of Cain and Abel, and even that story is misunderstood. The story of Cain and Abel -- my brother's keeper does not mean, "I'm going to take care of my brother or take care of my sister". The story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed Abel, and then he said he had no idea. He denied it. He denied killing Abel, and then said to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Meaning, "What, is he my responsibility? He's not my responsibility, I didn't kill my brother." Now, a lot of people misunderstand all this, but the Golden Rule doesn't come from Christianity, and Cain and Abel is not, "I'm going to take care of my brother and I'm going to take care of my sister," and Jesus Christ has nothing to do with either one of them

***

RUSH: The code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon. Many people's first experience to the Golden Rule is actually... like my brother, David, told me that he first heard of the Golden Rule when he opened up a fortune cookie at the Purple Crackle Club in East Cape Girardeau, Illinois, and the fortune cookie had the Golden Rule in there as a fortune. How many of you have you seen the Golden Rule as a fortune in the fortune cookie? Now, the code of Hammurabi is from ancient Babylon, which is modern Iraq. Ancient Babylon is modern Iraq. You could even find the story of Cain and Abel in the Koran -- sorry -- the Holy Koran, as Mrs. Clinton points out. And so was the Golden Rule. I'm getting a lot of e-mails that the Golden Rule is in the Old Testament, that it's in the New Testament, but it's the Code of Hammurabi, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, do unto others. But the point is, I am my brother's keeper. There is an effort -- the reason why this is important, there's an effort by the left to say that Jesus was a socialist, and they are using this to turn many evangelical people into global warming people. We are the stewards of the planet and so forth.

What Limbaugh is (quite foolishly) suggesting is that because the Golden Rule, in some other expression, predates Christian, that it's not a tenet of the Christian faith. Mr. Limbaugh simply does not understand Christianity.

If you believe that the "tenets" of the Christian faith are expressed in the New Testament, you need only look to the New Testament to see if the Golden Rule is in it. By golly, it is! Jesus said, as recorded in Matthew 7:12, " Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." As recorded in Luke 6:31, "And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise."

It is completely and utterly irrelevant that the Golden Rule might be expressed outside the New Testament or even in some form or fashion in the "holy books" of other faiths. The point that Limbaugh made was that the President, in paraphrasing the Golden Rule and pointing to it as evidence of his personal Christian faith, did not express a Christian belief.

That would be like saying that because the concept of "democracy" did not originate in the United States, valuing democracy is not valuing an American ideal or belief. If Limbaugh were correct, any expression of Christian beliefs that incorporated the Ten Commandments would not be expression of Christianity, at all, but of ancient Judaism. That, of course, would be foolishness.

Mr. Limbaugh should stick to politics and stay away from teaching the Bible.

Silversmiths of Artemis

Artemis or Diana was the chief goddess in Ephesus in the first century. She, of course, is mentioned in Acts. Chapter 19 describes how the Apostle Paul was run out of town because his proseletyzing was based for the business of the silversmiths who made little carved idols of Artemis:

²¹ When these things were accomplished, Paul purposed in the Spirit, when he had passed through Macedonia and Achaia, to go to Jerusalem, saying, “After I have been there, I must also see Rome.” ²² So he sent into Macedonia two of those who ministered to him, Timothy and Erastus, but he himself stayed in Asia for a time.
²³ And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way. ²⁴ For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Diana brought no small profit to the craftsmen. ²⁵ He called them together with the workers of similar occupation, and said: “Men, you know that we have our prosperity by this trade. ²⁶ Moreover you see and hear that not only at Ephesus, but throughout almost all Asia, this Paul has persuaded and turned away many people, saying that they are not gods which are made with hands. ²⁷ So not only is this trade of ours in danger of falling into disrepute, but also the temple of the great goddess Diana may be despised and her magnificence destroyed,whom all Asia and the world worship.”
²⁸ Now when they heard this, they were full of wrath and cried out, saying, “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!” ²⁹ So the whole city was filled with confusion, and rushed into the theater with one accord, having seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Macedonians, Paul’s travel companions. ³⁰ And when Paul wanted to go in to the people, the disciples would not allow him. ³¹ Then some of the officials of Asia, who were his friends, sent to him pleading that he would not venture into the theater.

Acts 19:21-31(New King James)

This story in particular caused me to pause and ask, "Who are today's silversmiths of Artemis?" We always hear about some person promoting this or that belief, system, self-help technique, diet, or even religion. Often, at least secondarily, they enjoy considerable monetary gain as a result. What I don't hear asked much is, "Who stands to gain (materially) by ridding this country (or even the world) of the Gospel?" Materialiasts -- which, I think include hardcore socialists and well as dedicated money-minded capitalists -- have to acknowledge much of human action (good and bad) is done for some sort of material gain.

Who stands to gain in the United States if the Christians withdraw from society as was demanded of Paul in Acts 19? I have a list:

• Pornographers. Forget all this nonsense about freedom of expression. Sex is a drug and pornographers peddle it to make money. Lots of money. They don't provide people with pleasurable experiences in the name of charity. I've checked various sources and seen a wide range of numbers. I don't think being accurate about the dollar amount of the porn industry is especially important since we are talking about billions of dollars. Consider that something like $10 to $15 Billion moves through the American economy per year for "adult entertainment." Do you think the purveyors of "adult entertainment" like Focus on the Family calling for social change in this area? As certain as I'm sitting here typing this, I know that they don't want mental health experts convincing the public at large that sex addiction is real and destructive, a view that many secular health professionals seem to hold these days.

• Public colleges and universities. I've seen first-hand how the social agendas of the members of various departments -- bureaucracies really -- are anti-Christian, anti-traditionalism. Those in academe don't want to hear opposing views, really. They want to ensure that tuition and tax dollars continue to roll in to fund them promoting their own worldviews. For such a small minority of people, those that run our public colleges and universities really act as oligarchists. A Christian society, meaning some sort of plurality of practicing Christians, is a threat to them. So they silence Christians or, worse yet, demand that their views conform to the new standards. Perhaps I am turning this around, putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Maybe they are motivated not by the money the schools rake in but by their social and political agendas; the funding just ensures they can continue to promote those agendas. But we see that they have created a society in which the need for their services ensures their continued funding and, therefore, continued existence. They've convinced us that the only way to "get ahead" or to "be successful" in life is to get a college degree. Indeed, college grads do considerably better (in many social categories, not just income) than people without degrees. I'd not quibble with that. While I would not go so far as to say that this is some sort of purposeful conspiracy or grand scheme, I do believe those in academia recognize a sea change in society's moral outlook would be bad for (their) business.

• Hollywood. An entire book could be written on this subject and I won't try to tackle it at length. I feel comfortable declaring, though, that an orthodox Christian worldview is bad for the movie-making and television industries (and the modern entertainment industry more broadly.) Remember the furor created over The Last Temptation of Christ? Who could forget all the hub-bub over The Da Vinci Code? Surely those controversies drove people -- tens, maybe hundreds of thousands -- to the theaters in those instances. But imagine if people actually decided they were not going to fill their heads with some of the stuff that Hollywood produces. Imagine millions of people refusing to set foot in theaters because the movies had objectionable themes. What would happen if hundreds of thousands of Christians stopped going to or renting movies produced by studio A or starring actors B, C and D. That was the kind of effect Paul was having in Asia by proclaiming the gospel.

Jesus said, "And you will be hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved." Matthew 10:22. Will we be hated because we, as Christians, are bad for business? Do they already hate us because they perceive a threat to their lucrative livelihoods?

Surely the 18 year old skeptic about ready to start college, who doesn't have two nickels to rub together, can afford to be philosophical about Christianity. He can dislike it because it doesn't jibe with what he has been told in school about "tolerance" or "acceptance" or "open-mindedness." But not everyone is that kid. He'll see things differently at 40 than he does now.

God's Story: A Five Act Play

I prepared this for a recent presentation at our local Church's Theology on Tap. It is a commentary on N. T. Wright's book, The Last Word. I've not corrected (the several) typographical errors in it.

****
“GOD’S STORY: A FIVE ACT PLAY”
or
“WHAT WE MEAN BY ‘AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE’”
Adopted from The Last Word, by N.T. Wright
For Theology on Tap, June 8, 2010

“God said it, I believe it and that settles it.” Some of you have heard that phrase. It’s

the sort of thing you’d see on a bumper sticker on a big old Cadillac, driven by a white haired lady.
I heard one southern preacher repeat that phrase and say, “It doesn’t matter whether I believe
it! God said it and that settles it!” For someone like my grandmother, who took everything in
our Holy Bible at face value and cared nothing for what anyone else might have thought of her for
it, that type of approach to the Bible was completely sufficient. Those of us, though, who have been
confronted by a clever skeptic or the typical post-modern American who cares little for what a book
thousands of years old might have to say, “God said it and that settles it!” doesn’t really cut it.

What does it mean to say that “God said it”? Even if I want to believe it, how am I to know
exactly what to believe? What no longer applies – like animal sacrifice – and to what must there be
strict adherence? How are we to know these things? How do debates, which end up back at the
“authority of scripture,” get resolved? The issue of scriptural authority is not settled even within the
church as a whole and certainly not amongst scholars and theologians.

We could fill libraries on the subject, but one resource I found helpful was The Last Word:
Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture. I am doing the
book an injustice to sum it up in a sentence, but I will anyway. Essentially, Bishop Wright takes
what something of a middle-of-the-road approach between Biblical literalism and liberalism. For
Bishop Wright, there is no doubt that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but he attempts to make
sense out of that, give some tips for how it be read so as to bridge the gap between competing
views of scripture. My talk focus on highlights I personally found most helpful.

“Authority of Scripture”

In the Protestant tradition, Bishop Wright urges, emphatically, that the Bible is both the
authoritative “God’s Word” and that it should be translated and understood “literally.” But, unless
you’re like my Grandma, those ideas, without explanation, don’t get you very far.

He argues, “‘Authority of scripture’ is a shorthand for God’s authority exercised
through scripture.” God, not the Bible, is our authority. While that seems simple, sometimes that
gets missed, especially on the conservative side.




The Five Act Play

I found Bishop Wright’s description of the Bible as a “five act play,” each act being distinct,
fitting in its time and place, as extremely helpful. The acts:

1. Creation
2. The Fall
3. Israel
4. Jesus
5. The Church

We are living in the Church age, not Creation, not the Fall. We cannot return to Creation.
We do not walk with Jesus through first century Palestine. We live in the age in which the Bible,
mostly the New Testament, is the foundation for our faith, the guidebook for Act 5.

An analogy demonstrates this point and helped me sort out how we might make sense out of
the debate over the validity of, say, the Old Testament in the post-modern world. Why might we
not still sacrifice animals and keep slaves or observe the Jewish food laws? He explains:

When travelers sail across a vast ocean and finally arrive on the distant shore, they leave
the ship behind and continue over land, not because the ship was no good, or because their
voyage had been misguided, but precisely because both the ship and voyage had
accomplished their purpose. During the new, dry-land stage of their journey, the
travelers remain...the people who made that voyage in that ship.

Perhaps the best example of this line of thought anywhere in the New Testament is one of
the earliest: Galatians 3:22-29, where Paul argues that God gave the Mosaic law for a
specific purpose which has now come to fruition, whereupon that law must be put aside,
in terms of its task of defining the community, not because it was a bad thing, but
because it was a good thing whose task is now accomplished. But, as the whole letter
indicates, the people of God renewed through Jesus and the Spirit can never and must never
for get the road by which they had traveled.

(Last Word, pp 57-58.)

Tradition and Reason

The modern and post-modern worldviews tend to elevate “reason” over tradition. In the
extreme, there is no place for tradition that cannot be supported by reason. Most people, though,
really don’t know what they mean when that hold to that type of view. Obviously we as Christians,
Protestant and Catholic, give varying degrees of importance to tradition but all see it as important.
It seems we fight amongst ourselves over how much weight to give each in all matters of faith,
including the scriptures.

Bishop Wright, an Anglican, makes a pretty good case for harmonizing both tradition and
reason. With regard to tradition he says:

Paying attention to tradition means listening carefully (humbly but not uncritically) to how the
church has read and lived scripture in the past. We must be constantly aware of our
responsibility in the Communion of the Saints, without giving our honored predecessors the
final say or making them an ‘alternative source,” independent of scripture itself. When they
speak with one voice we should listen very carefully. They may be wrong. They
sometimes are. But we ignore them at our peril.

(Last Word, p 117.)

Secularists, skeptics, atheists, agnostics and even theological liberals would dismiss much or
all of scripture on the grounds of reason. But the church, I believe, should embrace it as a vehicle
for revelation. The place of reason, Bishop Wright says, in applying scripture is:

Likewise, reason will mean giving up merely arbitrary or whimsical readings of texts, and
paying attention to lexical, contextual, and historical considerations. Reason provides a
check on unrestrained imaginative readings of texts (e.g. the proposal that Jesus was really
an Egyptian freemason...)

‘Reason’ will mean giving attention to, and celebrating, the many and massive discoveries in
biology, archaeology, physics, astronomy, and so on, which shed great light on God’s world
and the human condition. This does not, of course, mean giving in to the pressure which
comes from atheistic or rationalistic science. We must never forget that science, by
definition, studies the repeatable, whereas history, by definition, studies the unrepeatable.

(Last Word, pp 119-120.) Reason does not become an “independent source” of authority, over
scripture and tradition, but is a “necessary adjunct” to them.

Honoring Scripture, i.e. Making it Authoritative

He proposes five (5) ways of honoring scripture, i.e. making it authoritative.

A Totally Contextual Reading of Scripture:

Where Bishop Wright parts company with Christians on maybe the more fundamentalist end
of the spectrum is with his rejection of scripture as a compendium of “timeless truths.” He does not
say, of course, that scripture has no meaning for us in the modern age, but that it has context and is
rooted in the places and times of its writing:


We must be committed to a totally contextual reading of scripture. Each word must be
understood in its own verse, each verse in its own chapter, each chapter in its own book,
and each book within its own historical, cultural and indeed canonical setting...All scripture is
‘culturally conditioned.’ It is naive to pretend that some parts are not, and can be treated as
in some sense ‘primary’ or ‘universal,’ while other parts are, and can therefore safely be set
aside.

(Last Word, p128.)

A Liturgically Grounded Reading of Scripture:

Essentially what Bishop Wright means by reading scripture liturgically is that it should take
“central place” in our “public worship,” regardless of tradition. We shouldn’t avoid verses we don’t
like:

There is simply no excuse for leaving out verses, paragraphs or chapters, from the New
Testament in particular. We dare not try to tame the Bible. It is our foundation charter; we
are not at liberty to play fast and loose with it.

(Last Word, p 132.)

A Privately Studied Reading of Scripture:

While Bishop Wright does not express it in exactly these terms, one of the criticisms leveled
against the Reformed doctrine of sola scriptura (or even more extreme views of scripture and the
individual) is that too much of an emphasis on personal study can easily lead to heresy. You can
imagine that a group like the Branch Davidians became what they were because a mentally ill man
like David Koresh was left to figure out scripture on his own and, worse yet, teach it to others.
Charles Manson thought he was fulfilling the events described in Revelation when he ordered his
“family” to go on a murdering spree.

He does say that “western individualism” tends to make “personal reading” primary and
“liturgical reading” secondary, and posits that the order should be reversed, as he did in the book.
He treats private study as more of a function of personal devotion, but stresses it has a purpose in
the larger body:

If it is part of the privilege and duty of each Christian to study scripture, and to read it
devotionally, it is important that the wider church should be able to hear what individual
readers are discovering in the text. Of course, not all private readings will come up with
significant new insights; but many will.

(Last Word, p 134.)

A Reading of Scripture Refreshed by Appropriate Scholarship:

Bishop Wright describes “Biblical scholarship” as “a great gift of God to the church.”
Holding to the Reformation’s “emphasis on the ‘literal sense’ of scripture,” he explains that we are
not necessarily wise to “take everything literally,” but instead must, “‘discover what the writers
mean’ as opposed to engaging in free-floating speculation.” (Last Word, p 135.) So, for instance,
the literal sense of a parable is its intended meaning, not treating it as an historical anecdote.

Biblical scholarship should “explore different meanings,” not for the sake of being modern or
scholarly, but because, “Any church, not least those that pride themselves on being ‘biblical,’ needs
to be open to new understandings of the Bible itself.” This approach prevents us from “being blown
this way or that by winds of fashion,” or, “being trapped in our own partial readings and distorted
traditions...” (Last Word, p 135.) He’s careful to caution liberals about “thumbing their noses” at
“cherished points of view,” reminding them the purpose of biblical scholarship is to “serve the
church.”

A Reading of Scripture Taught by the Church’s Accredited Leaders:

By leaders, Bishop Wright is referring to not only to church hierarchy and pastoral staff, but
to Sunday School teachers and home group leaders. He reminds us that church hierarchy are often
muddled in the business of running the church and, thus, do not have the time to give the church
“careful and prayerful study of the text;” they turn to old sermons in the can. The “leader’s” role is
primarily to teach, he argues:

If, therefore, those called to office and leadership roles in the church remain content merely
to organize and manage the internal affairs of the church, they are leaving a vacuum exactly
where there ought to be vibrant, pulsating life...[H]ow much more should a Christian
minister be a serious professional when it comes to grappling with scripture and ...If we are
professional about other things, we ought to be ashamed not to be properly equipped both to
study the Bible ourselves and bring its ever-fresh word to others.

(Last Word, pp 138-139.)

I like that he, following the Reformers’ reference to the sacraments as God’s “visible
words,” says that sermons should be “audible sacraments.”

Summation

What I like about these five (5) points is that they are very organic and all fit
together nicely. We might wish to consider whether we can appreciate scripture and
allow these different approaches to it to help the word become authoritative in our church
body and in our personal lives.

Be Ye Separate Part 1: Public Prayer

The culture wars are being fought over hot button socio-religious issues and some of those issues not only seem to be further distancing (in a negative way) Christians from society, but they are even dividing the Church itself.

I would like to start flushing out what I see as a new perspective that I'm gaining. It's new to me, but I don't pretend or claim it to be a new idea. This perspective has existed, in some form or fashion, almost over the entire life of the Church. But it's new or different in the sense that I don't hear other evangelicals holding or pronouncing this perspective.

In short, I'm starting to believe that the best thing for both the Church and society is for Christianity to be removed from the public (and by that I mean governmental, not societal) sphere. I hope explain why as this series (I don't know what else to call it) continues.

II Cor. 6:14-17 says:

¹⁴ Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? ¹⁵ And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? ¹⁶ And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you^{b]" class="footnote">[b]} are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“ I will dwell in them
And walk among them.
I will be their God,
And they shall be My people.”^{c]" class="footnote">[c]}

¹⁷ Therefore

“ Come out from among them
And be separate, says the Lord.
Do not touch what is unclean,
And I will receive you.”^{d]" class="footnote">[d]}
¹⁸ “ I will be a Father to you,
And you shall be My sons and daughters,
Says the LORD Almighty.”^{e]" class="footnote">[e]}

I hope to explore and apply this commandment to the way I feel some of these societal (legal, political) issues to be unfolding and I'll start with public prayer.

The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States is well known to most politically astute Americans. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Entire books could be and have been written about the import of this most sacred amendment and how it has been changed -- I'd argue corrupted, poisoned -- over the last 60 years. I am not going to take that approach here.

Here are some cases which have applied to public prayer. Engel v Vitale (1962) stands for the proposition that required recitation of a prayer, even non-denominational prayers, are unconstitutional. Time set aside in public schools for religious education is also unconstitutional. Zorach v Clauson (1952).

More recently, in Santa Fe Ind School Dist v Jane Doe (2000) the US Supreme Court found unconstitutional student-led prayers which were to be broadcast over the public address system before high school football games.

We recognize the important role that public worship plays in many communities, as well as the sincere desire to include public prayer as a part of various occasions so as to mark those occasions' significance...But such religious activity in public schools, as elsewhere, must comport with the First Amendment." wrote Justice John Paul Stevens for the majority.

Similarly, Prayers delivered by clergy at official public school graduation ceremonies are unconstitutional. Lee v. Weisman, 505 U. S. 577 (1992).The fact that a prayer is nondenominational or voluntary does not render it constitutional. The U. S. Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on whether student-initiated nonsectarian graduation prayer is constitutional, and the lower Federal courts disagree on the issue.

School officials, employees or outsiders must not offer prayers at school assemblies. Even if attendance is voluntary, students may not deliver prayers at school assemblies either. Collins v. Chandler Unified School Dist., 644 F. 2d 759 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U. S. 863 (1981). See Santa Fe Independent School district, supra.

There's little or nothing left of school-sanctioned prayer and student-initiated prayer might only be permitted under very limited circumstances.

I notice in these cases -- and the cases involving "Under God" in the Pledge, "In God We Trust" on money, or the Ten Commandments in public buildings -- those arguing for public Christian prayer try to sell a non-sectarian prayer to get around the establishment clause of the First Amendment. The idea is that if a prayer is not exclusively Christian it cannot be offensive or coercive and, therefore, should be permitted. Federal courts haven't seemed to buy that argument, at least not broadly.

That is where I, as a Christian, think it's time to rethink this battle! What good is a non-sectarian prayer and why would we as Christians want people to say that prayer? Why would we want non-believers to say a prayer to a God which they refuse to serve? Will God bless a nation of people who say words they don't mean for the sake of tradition?

Jesus, before teaching us how to pray (the Lord's prayer), clearly and unambiguously addressed the issue of public prayer and cautioned against it. Matt 6:5-7 says:

⁵ “And when you pray, you shall not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. ⁶ But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly.^{a]" class="footnote">[a] 7} And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.

Then, of course, Jesus commanded us to pray to "Our Father, who art in Heaven..."

Does Jesus condemn all public prayer in these passages? I do not believe so. The verses suggest that the intention of one's heart is at issue. If you're praying to be seen, to be thought of as pious, you pray in vain. Any public prayer potentially runs afoul on such grounds. We should at least question the motivation for prayer "on the street corners" before doing it. Even a prayer to the One True God could be an error if done out of improper motivation.

Likewise, the Ten Commandments get at this:

³ “You shall have no other gods before Me.
⁴ “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; ⁵ you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, ⁶ but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Exodus 20:3-6.

It seems to me that a prayer to anyone but the Lord God is a prayer to another god. That, it seems patently obvious, is idolatry. For me personally, I'd rather not pray than pray to some amorphous god that is representative of that being adored by various faiths of the world. That god is not God!

President Obama is well known for his non-sectarian public invocations. People are starting to take notice and question whether or not that approach makes any kind of sense or, worse yet, does damage.

"The larger danger isn't for the Obama administration, it's that the prayer becomes so vacuous," said Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College and an editor of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today. "That, to me as a person of faith, is a larger worry."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...

See also this blogger's excellent article http://chrisberryonthe.net/2009/01/08...

Conclusion:

I think it's time to stop fighting this battle. Instead of pushing for insincere, if not idolatrous, public prayers, let's try to win souls. Let's put that energy and money into serving people in the name of the True God.

Strangely dim

There's some risk in saying what I'm about to say. One, it could be taken as preachy or holier than thou. Two, it could appear prideful or suggestive of some belief of having arrived. I present this humbly and in awe of God's power, and not my own.

As a kid one of the worship songs frequently sang in our Church was "Turn Your Eyes Upon Jesus," written by Helen H. Lemmel in 1922. The refrain goes

Turn your eyes upon Jesus,
Look full in His wonderful face,
And the things of earth will grow strangely dim,
In the light of His Glory and Grace.

If you know me well you, might be scratching your head. I tend to feel very uncomfortable with this kind of flowery expression of love for God. Maybe it's my masculinity fighting against sentimentality.

More than the specific words, though, I am struck by how true the refrain is in my life. While I wouldn't express it the way that the song does, it captures it perfectly. The more I get to know God through studying the Bible, communing with Him through prayer, and sharing my thoughts with other believers, the less important the things of "the world" are.

This type of change can happen over a short period of time. Just a few months ago, I was focused on music and writing and whatever my (secular) hobbies and interests were. But God has turned my mind both inward (looking at my spirit) and upward (looking to Him.) I find myself losing interest in things that even weeks ago captured my imagination.

I will readily admit that this type of transformation, if you want to call it that, has taken place in my life in the past. In each instance, it has "worn off," as if it were a fad or trend. I suspect that my corrupted human heart and mind tries to flee from God -- rebel against Him! Hopefully that is not the case now.

Whatever the future holds I do not know. But I am certain that the more you focus on God the less important everything else will be to you.

Tents of Shem: a new online community

I've been asked by a dear friend to help him with a website. I feel very important to have the title of "Admin." Seriously, I love what the site is all about and I'm pleased to share it here.

http://www.tentsofshem.com/

For us, this is a Christ-centered online community where we'll tackle any number of topics. We hope both Christians and non-Christians will join and participate in the community. All are welcome.

Defend the poor and fatherless...

³ Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
⁴ Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.

Psalm 82:3-4. The Bible (both the Old and New Testament) is full of this type of admonishment. This is neither the time nor space to fully expound on that topic. But if you doubt that Jews and Christians are called to live in this way -- whether they've done successfully is a different matter -- you do not have a good grasp of the Judeo-Christian morality.

What I hope most honest Christians would tell you is that to care for others isn't simply a nice thing to do. It's a commandment. In fact, in its most general form that is the "greatest" of all commandments:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" ³⁷Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' ³⁸This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Matthew 22:36-40.

One of many points of debate between observant Jews and Christians and atheistic secular humanists is the role that altruism plays in the world or, more to the point, how it got here in the first place. Christians would typically say that good put care and concern for our fellow man at the core of our being. It comes from above and did not evolve accidentally.

Humanists, looking at it from a scientific point of view, point to altruistic traits in various animals species as evidence that it can (and did) evolve through natural selection. That, of course, is something of an oversimplification of the position, but you get the point. Ultimately, atheists would say altruism, like everything else, really exists by accident. Google "altruistic bees" for more sophisticated discussions on this point.

I'm not a man of science. I know enough only to be dangerous (probably more to myself than others.) But I do grasp that evolutionistic altruism would tend to violate the principle of natural selection. A lot of scientists agree and say, for that reason, that what we see in nature is "pseudoaltruism," acts that appear to benefit others at the expense of the actor, but which ultimately benefit the actor.

To me that is all highly fascinating but, as far as human beings go, it's beside the point. If you believe a revealed, personal God exists, like the God of the Bible, you might find that altruism is something external or, perhaps, that it is a command. You might believe -- and your belief would square with the Bible -- that we should act to benefit others, even at great personal cost, and even if we do not want to do so.

The atheist has no such conviction, or at least need not have one. In the natural world, caring for the poor and infirmed is actually detrimental to a species because it either maintains an organism that should die, thus diverting resources away from healthy ones that will be replenishing the gene pool, or it causes weak organisms to create (weak) offspring. I am reminded of this by my wife when tending to the plants and flowers. She has reminded me a number of times to cut away dead flowers, leaves and stems so that resources can be divided to the healthier parts of the plant.

Of course we humans would never be so animalistic to apply that kind of thinking to human relations. We'd never starve or kill the sick, bedwetters, homosexuals, mentally disabled, Jews, or any other "undesirables." We'd never think of sterilizing humans to protect the gene pool.

Back to the point. Christians -- honest ones -- have to care for their fellow man whether they want to or not. All kinds of good, kind-hearted atheists or non-believers of other stripes might (and certainly often do) care for people, but they don't have to. Without an external moral compass, one that supersedes their own personal will or longings or desires, they would be right, based on their own view of nature, to disregard the needs of everyone else but themselves. That they often don't follow what they believe to be the way of nature suggests that they are bathed in the light of Christian morality, whether they like it or not.

"'Fellowship' is Christian-ese for 'pigging out!'"

That's an old joke from witch-turned-evangelist, Mike Warnke. It's spot on, too.

Our church home group yesterday got together to bowl, eat and play games. The only thing I excelled at was eating! I ate and ate and ate. The food was delicious, which was part of the problem. I generally lack discipline. Also I will be starting Lent soon, so I've been in the frame of mind that I should "pig out" now before the deprivation starts.

I am really paying for the overeating. I feel poisoned. It feels like an after-holidays hangover. I can't wait to be cleansed.

"I believe God made me for a purpose, but he also made me fast. And when I run, I feel His pleasure."

These are words uttered by Eric Liddell, "The Flying Scotsman," in Chariots of Fire. Mr. Liddell was a devout Christian and an Olympic gold medalist. He was incredibly gifted but put his faith in God before his own personal goals and desires. He surrendered his chance at a gold medal in his strongest event because he wouldn't run on "the Lord's day."

Our family watched Chariots of Fire last night (my third time seeing it) and it was as if those words grabbed hold of me and shook me.

My wife and I -- more her than me -- have lately been trying to feel God, to experience Him on more than an intellectual or even doctrinal level. We have both been seeking heart knowledge moreso than head knowledge. I've not wanted anything mystical or supernatural necessarily. I just want to feel God in the details of my life.

My wife has been reading lots of great stuff. Just in the last few days, we've talked about or read about worshipping God just in the doing of our daily activities.

She read and related to me something by Parker J. Palmer and since I heard it, I've been asking God to help me give Him my work; every letter I type, every phone call I take, every conversation I have. Those mundane things are our lives. I've been all but begging God to show me how those things have meaning, to show me how those things can even be worship.

I am not there. Sitting through a conference this morning, I wanted to gouge my eyes out in frustration. Nothing of that could I see as having any significance. Hopefully someday I'll be able to replace the frustration and boredom with joy.

Eric Liddell's words shook me because he voiced what I hope to someday feel: God's pleasure. He felt his reason for being. He could feel God's love.

Someday perhaps...