Skip navigation

Category Archives: ethics and morals

Slandering & Evangelism

And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky? Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another

Acts 19:35-18 (ESV)
I find it very interesting that the city manager had heard of Paul–if not heard Paul speak–and thus had either an opinion or a lot of information. Yet despite Paul preaching and teaching about Jesus, the city manager did not believe the goddess had been slandered. Of course, it could be that the city manager was trying to keep the peace (or regain it), but from what we know of Paul, it would seem that he somehow managed to speak the truth about Jesus the Christ without slandering other religions. Can we say the same?

I ask this with nothing in particular in mind, nor anyone. Even Paul’s famous speech on Mars Hill was respectful towards those with whom Paul disagreed. What makes this respectful stance of Paul very interesting (to me at least), is that he was the central villainous character earlier in Acts. He persecuted (quite violently) followers of  ”The Way” (the initial name for Christians). However, after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, his entire methodology changed.

It would seem that there are some lessons there.

The Pursuit of Happiness

I’ve been annoyed lately (not always a good thing before writing a post). Probably centered around the Fourth of July (the formal U.S.A. Independence Day), there is always a spate of articles about the U.S.A. being founded on Christian principles, which is somewhat true. Then there is the argument over whether Thomas Jefferson was a Christian or Deist, and the new one was John Adams. Since John Adams berated his son John Quincy Adams for being a devout Christian (perhaps it’s an Adams thing, especially when one reads the letters between John and Abigail Adams), one could question how much Christianity was in John Adams’ faith.

The issue that has brought this to the forefront for me is homosexual marriage. Nope this is not a post on homosexual marriage itself, but the conservative/traditional/orthodox (and add fanatical/hateful/hurtful to many of those who have responded) response. Oddly, for me, this is not a theological post. The question that is asked by many, what right of happiness is there? Now, this question can be applied to homosexual marriage, polygamy, marijuana, and so on equally. Including (drumroll, please) religion.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, 4 July 1776

Note the “pursuit of happiness”. Wikipedia notes that some call this the best known English language sentence in the world. The school systems, secular institutions, and faith institutions have trumpeted this sentence for years. Thus we have declared that happiness is the most important thing/pursuit. Of course, Americans will pursue that which they think will make them happy. Currently, certain groups believe that having the right to “marriage” will make them happy. In truth, it might make certain things easier to obtain (like health care), but that won’t necessarily make any of them happier. Then there are those that believe that it is their obligation to support those who are pursuing happiness, which, in many ways, should be celebrated as concern for their fellow citizen.

Again, please don’t take any of this post as support for homosexual marriage, or even opposition to it. That is not the point of this post.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fruit of the harvest. The seeds that have been sown for generations is the “right” to “the pursuit of happiness”. Why is everyone so surprised at the result?

Did You Know (Version 4.0)

This was released in Fall 2009, and if feels out of date already! Since I posted Version 3.0 in December 2008, I figured that getting this out there wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Breaching Faith With God, By Breaching Faith With Others

In Leviticus 5:17-19 (ESV) & Leviticus 6:2 (ESV), we see that God is ever present (i.e., omnipresent) in our lives. This includes, according to these two passages, when one fails to fulfill one’s obligations to others. This includes when one “finds” things that were “lost”.

When one’s obligations to others are not fulfilled, according to these two passages, one’s obligations (or relationship) to God is also unfulfilled. I’ve heard people say that as long as they keep their promises to God (really easy if none are made), everyone else does not matter. These two passages from Leviticus make the point that everyone else does matter. It is not just a one way relationship between the individual and God, but between the individual and other individuals. Deuteronomy 6:5, Mark 12:30 & Luke 10:27, emphasize this in another way.

Just as God is present when the obligations between individuals are broken, God is present when love is spread between individuals:

35For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

Matthew 25:35-40 (ESV)

While love is displayed here in a certain way (and, I believe, taken out of the context of scripture by too many advocates of social justice), and doesn’t cover the entire scope of the “social contract” (including discipline), it shows that God is present between the interaction of all of His people. Thad does not mean that all are saved, or that all are doing the will of God, but that God is present no matter what.

What Do You See When You Look At…

With the celebration of the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr,  we see where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is used to bolster movements and causes that he did not specifically speak on. For example, in Raleigh-Durham, NC, a gay rights activist is torqued that a pastor who preaches a historical understanding of the bible’s view on homosexuality will be speaking at a tribute to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (see the article in question here).

Regardless of what either person in question believes is right or wrong, both are imposing their beliefs onto Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for very different reasons. Honestly, with what we have been told (the King family is very careful with their messaging in this regards), both views could be considered as being compatible with what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed (again, as far as we, or at least I, know).

I see this argument every year, and while I do suspect that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would not view gay rights as compatible with scripture, that really isn’t the issue at hand. Let’s go back in time to 2008.

Sen. Barack Obama was the Democrat Party’s nominee for President of the United States. While I freely admit that I was, and am still, not a fan of his, his passion and charisma were undeniable. His speeches were also quite good. However, what was amazing (in that he did it as well as he did, but not that he did it, as all politicians do) was  how two different political views saw a completely different person. What was even more amazing, was how supporters viewed him differently. While he was pushing for health care reform of some sort, I heard different supporters come away with different meanings of his statements and words. In other words, they put on him what they wanted to see.

It is the same, but more so, with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Or, should I say Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Both Rev. and Dr. are correct, but for each person who reads this, Rev. and Dr. will probably provide different starting points, and it doesn’t matter that his doctorate was theological.

Famous people, especially dead ones, are easy to put one’s own beliefs onto. We will often look at them, and interpret everything they did or said through the lenses of our beliefs. Christians (not all, but far too many) have done the same thing. We take our beliefs (communism, capitalism, race, nationality, culture) and shape Jesus. However, if we read the scriptures and the views of other Christian people (especially from other cultures or theologies), it has a tendency to shake our lenses a bit. Sometimes more than we like.

We like our Jesus just like we like our politicians and celebrities: safe for us, but not for them. Sometimes I’ve been guilty of that, too. However, with Jesus, at least, if is safe for everyone, then we can be sure that that’s a false view of Him.

4 Feb 2010: This was cross-posted to Wrecked.org, a Christian blog. I am honored. I have been blessed and challenged by the posters and commenters that I have experienced there. You can see it here, and see the challenging posts that others have written.

Even Religious People Have Different Views?

Shocking! (sarcasm)

Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation1. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?

1We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments,given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith. (see Article IV in our Manual)

Do Christians Believe in Redemption (i.e., a new creation) or Not?

I saw this headline, Ky. Church Ordains Registered Sex Offender, a few days ago, and was finally able to read it. And, I finally decided to actually post something on my blog, rather than twitter.

I have to say this brief article causes me no small amount of anguish. I cannot imagine what both the man in question, the ordaining officiant, the congregation, the denomination (if any), and the surrounding community are feeling. Yes, the article provides some quips, but depth is required with such a report, not quips.

First and foremost, do all the “Christians” affiliated with the situation (including the surrounding community) truly believe:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV)

I am not saying this to be snarky. I have to admit, I say I believe it, and I experienced it. However, when it comes to my children, will I need something more? What would ever satisfy most parents that their child is safe? How does a church prevent a minister from being with children? It can’t, I think, and expect to be effective.

How does the church be redemptive in such a situation? Is it a no-win situation? Who will gamble their children?

I cannot question the guy and his faith. I can certainly question the wisdom of the elders of the church, the denomination, and the ordaining officiant. Were they oblivious?

A Manifesto for the Christian Life?

I was listening this morning to the latest Accidental Creative Podcast, AC #149: Manifesto, and I was struck by how much the manifesto strikes me as a healthy Christian way of life. Todd Henry (the owner/creator of Accidental Creative) created A Manifesto For Accidental Creative. This is my “Christian” take on it.

  1. We witness and disciple everyday—no matter what we do, we are witnessing and discipling. It is just a matter of how well.
  2. No matter how good we are at what we do, what we do does not define us.
  3. Our vocation (messengers for Jesus)is bigger than what we do.
  4. Our life in Christ must be one of grown—the dead branches of the vine are trimmed.
  5. We must have a healthy life in Christ—it must be intentional, our choice, and it must be one of discipline.
  6. We must make decisions that value our faith, not that value culture, pride, money, etc. over it.
  7. We must always being looking at the evidence of the Lord’s hand, and taking joy in it.
  8. We are responsible for our spiritual health—while we can be bolstered, supported, and loved by others, ultimately our spiritual health is our responsibility.
  9. We are generous because we are free—we are to be generous in love, as Christ has set us free.
  10. We are committed to relationships—relationships are the key to a healthy church, a healthy body, and a healthy heart.

What do you think? Listen to the podcast, too.

Did You Know? (Version 3.0)

hattip: Douglas Karr

The Ten Commandments Re-Framed

In a discussion, I heard, “the Ten Commandments aren’t really commandments.  They’re just suggestions.” That is probably not a direct quote, but the general message is right (as in it agrees with the intent of the speaker, I think).  I do not agree with the speaker’s words, however.  Despite that, it did cause me to think about the 10 Commandments, and how we view them, or, more particularly, how we don’t view them in their entirety.

I’ve been thinking about writing this for a while, but, frankly, it is a rather large undertaking for such a theologically-challenged person as myself, and I don’t want to speak out of turn.  However, in the midst of my MIT studies, I read a paraphrase of John Wesley’s “Means of Grace”.  As John Wesley is, in most regards, the theological father of the Church of the Nazarene, such statements by him must be taken seriously by Nazarenes.  One of John Wesley’s “general” Means of Grace is: keeping the commandments.

I took it as a challenge to actually attempt this.  This is no theological treatise, so don’t take it as such.