Breaching Faith With God, By Breaching Faith With Others

February 24, 2010 · ethics and morals, faith, love, society · Comments Off

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…

January 16, 2010 · ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society · 1 comment

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?

September 16, 2009 · business, economics, education, environment, ethics and morals, faith, history, love, politics, society, war · 2 comments

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?

September 15, 2009 · ethics and morals, faith, love, politics, society · 2 comments

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?

March 2, 2009 · ethics and morals, faith, love · 2 comments

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)

December 6, 2008 · Technological Enervation, business, economics, education, environment, ethics and morals, faith, fun, history, science, society, technology · 1 comment

hattip: Douglas Karr

The Ten Commandments Re-Framed

November 4, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, love, society · 1 comment

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.

A Quip On A Manufactured Collapse

September 18, 2008 · economics, ethics and morals, faith, history, politics, society · Comments Off

Michael Novak’s theory regarding Western democratic capitalism can be summerized as a three-legged stool with the legs being, political freedom, economic freedom, and moral restraint.

We are witnessing the after effects of the complete removal of moral restraint.  Political and economic freedoms have been curtailed for the last 20 years or so, but they are still, in basic form, there.  The politicians (on both sides) are calling for new regulations, however, as crass as this sounds, there is a similarity between the current panic seeking to create new regulations…and abortion—morality cannot be legislated.

Here are a couple of good articles.

This Too Will Pass (i.e., DON’T PANIC)

AIG: A Study in the Difference Between Campaigning and Governing (i.e., ignore both political campaigns in regards to their rhetoric on the issue)

Camille Paglia and Sarah Palin: Need I Say More?

September 16, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, politics · Comments Off

Camille Paglia, on Salon.com, wrote an interesting opinion column regarding Sarah Palin. I’ve been doing my best to avoid the silly season of an election year, but this column had too much good stuff to ignore just because it included Sarah Palin (which was actually a detraction, because I really don’t want to talk politics).

Feminism, which should be about equal rights and equal opportunity, should not be a closed club requiring an ideological litmus test for membership.

This goes for environmentalism, “poverty”, and health care programs as well. There seems to be a significant agreement that there is something seriously wrong in this country in regards to these issues, just no agreement of methodology to fix them. In other words, just because I don’t agree with a person’s proposed solution to an issue, does not mean that I don’t think that there is one.

Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today’s pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else.

Yeah, well, a lot of men (including myself, probably) would fit into that description as well. Ouch.

Like Los Angeles and San Francisco, Manhattan and Washington occupy their own mental zones — nice to visit but not a place to stay if you value independent thought these days.

Ouch!

A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn’t worth a warm bucket of spit.

I give Ms. Paglia kudos. At least in regards to feminism, she is consistent.

But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.

Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.

On the other hand, I support the death penalty for atrocious crimes (such as rape-murder or the murder of children). I have never understood the standard Democratic combo of support for abortion and yet opposition to the death penalty. Surely it is the guilty rather than the innocent who deserve execution?

I’m torn by her reaction. Her opinion is, “it’s all about me,” whether it’s choosing not to be “inconvenienced” by a baby, or “inconvenienced” by a murderer. On the other hand, it has a form of consistency, forthrightness, and forethought, which makes it easier to discuss.

If Sarah Palin tries to intrude her conservative Christian values into secular government, then she must be opposed and stopped. But she has every right to express her views and to argue for society’s acceptance of the high principle of the sanctity of human life.

Here, of course, I do have a problem. At what point does it cross the line? especially when she says:

…Democratic ideology itself seems to have become a secular substitute religion.

If that is the case (which I believe it is for many on the left, but also “Republican” ideology on the right), than they, according to her logic, should be stopped as well. Then, you are left with politicians sticking their wet fingers in the wind. Leadership of any sort cannot exist in such an environment.

Thinking/Posing/Contemplating, Not Just Reacting

September 2, 2008 · ethics and morals, faith, life hack, love, politics, quickpost, society, war · Comments Off

In this election cycle, talk about an emerging evangelical political center abounds. Much of the discussion is about how conservative and liberal Christians can work together to realize Christ-commanded essentials and their corollaries: care for the poor, for example, and its extensions regarding access, justice, and health care.

THEOOZE – Articles: Viewing Article

← Older entries