The Key is the Response to Community

February 27, 2010 · faith, love, society · Comments Off

Leviticus 12 (ESV) seems to paint a pretty gender-biased view from our overly sensitive gender aware lives. In fact, it seems pretty anti-female. However, even the ESV Study Bible doesn’t say this, but actually aserts that since the text does not mention why, that it is too much inference. So, where does that leave us?

The mother is unclean (stated specifically) because of the blood that was a result of the birth. It is the sex of the baby that is crucial. Back a few generations, God commanded that a male baby be circumcised. That circumcision was to happen on the eighth day. For the sake of the continued adherence to the commandment of circumcision, the mother is not as unclean on the eighth day.

God did not command that girls be circumcised (a horrible and unjustifiable, in my Western opinion, mutilation of young girls that occurs today), but that boys must be. Therefore, it is my thought that the entire difference of the uncleanness of the mother due to gender is based not on gender per se, but on circumcision.

Circumcision was an outward sign of one’s membership in the nation set apart by God. Circumcision was a physical representation of one’s place in community. Circumcision was a testimony by the parents, family, and larger community, that the child was part of the family and their declaration that they were still followers of God.

It is the larger picture of community, and the vital role that circumcision played in it, that changes the unclean durations based upon the gender of the child. Community was survival, and still is today.

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.

Natural Disasters and Hell

January 13, 2010 · faith, history, love, society · Comments Off

No, I’m not talking about Pat Robertson’s latest “wisdom”.

What I am talking about is human nature. Specifically, I am talking about the all too human nature of Christians, especially “Western” “Civilization” Christians. I do not decry anyone that seeks to give to help that nation. We did. In fact, I believe it is part of the imago dei to want—and maybe even need—to help people. Often times, however, we are very selfish in that regard. We don’t want to help people if it is inconvenient, or if it might cost us something. That would be the Fall.

The Fall and imago dei are not really what I’m talking about. I’m talking about me, and maybe you. Do you have friends that don’t know Jesus Christ as their savior? Why are we tweeting and blogging and what have you about Haiti, but not about the peril of the souls of our friends and/or family?

It’s easy to say and perform acts of Christian love when helping others like those in Haiti, or those who suffer such natural disasters. It’s a lot harder to talk about our friends and family going to Hell. It’s a lot harder to live an everyday Christian life, and have it be a testimony to our faith in Him.

I know that I, at least, suffer with the fact that I am not a very good person. I am certainly not the kind of person that exemplifies the stereotyped “goody two-shoes” Christian. I’ve got issues. I get mad. I say stupid and hurtful things. I make mistakes.

Just like everyone else, I know I am not the best testimony for Jesus Christ, because I am a fallen person. Yet through the continuing and constant working of Jesus Christ (through the person of the Holy Spirit) in me, I am slowly being changed (sometimes the old and new self are in an all out war) to be more like Him.

Yet, the church has propagated the impossible view of the Christian, and even aided and abetted the media in that (in other words, it’s not just the media’s fault). Now before we can even talk about Heaven or Hell, we have to teach theology, because so few (including Christians) really understand. We are stumbling and falling, trying the bear the  weight of “Cultural Christian” and “lazy” Christian baggage.

My own denomination (Church of the Nazarene) has contributed to the confusion with Entire Sanctification, which was partially built upon John Wesley’s Christian Perfection. We don’t even use words such as propitiation, expiation or justification any more, or at least we don’t use them in a way even “church” people understand. Thus these vital concepts are not part of their lives, and cannot be part of our testimonies.

The church itself has weakened the will of its people to share  Jesus. It is not, and never will be, just about the crisis of the day. It is, and always will be, about the crisis of eternity.

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?

Prosperity Gospel Hyperbole

April 21, 2009 · faith · Comments Off

I know Christianity today was just trying to get a rise with this, The Real Prosperity Gospel, but Christianity has enough problems with the prosperity gospel, that for them to do this strikes me as irresponsible. Just my $0.02 (worth even less now than is used to be)

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.

All Mixed: Culture and Religion

January 24, 2009 · faith, history, love, society · Comments Off
Critics have variously argued that Hebrew language charter schools impermissibly erode church-state boundaries, potentially balkanize Jews from the rest of society, and create a false dichotomy between Jewish religion and culture.  

“The idea here is to strengthen Jewish identity, but you can’t do it in an open way because you run afoul of the law,” said Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism and a critic of Hebrew charter schools. “So you end up having rabbis and Jewish educators involved, and in all probability promoting Jewish commitment is exactly what they are looking to do, but they can’t do it openly. It simply will not work.”

Yoffie said the idea would not even work on its own terms to promote Jewish identity. “There’s absolutely nothing in 4,000 years of experience to suggest you can separate out religion and culture and simply teach culture to the exclusion of religion,” he said. “Those two pillars are inextricably intertwined.”

via Forward.com: N.Y. Okays Public School With Hebrew Focus. (hattip: GetReligion.org)

In our current University Ministry study, Engaging the Culture, we are discussing the interaction of culture and faith. in lesson one, this study discusses the five models of church/culture interaction. None of models exclude one. Rabbi Yoffie obviously feels the same way, that one is not without the other.

The Shrinking Great Divide

December 15, 2008 · faith, history, love · Comments Off

I believe it is time to go beyond the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation. What is at stake at the start of the third millennium is no longer the same as at the beginning of the second millennium, when at the heart of Western Christianity the separation took place between Catholics and Protestants.

To give but one example, the problem is no longer that of Luther and of how to liberate man from the sense of guilt that oppresses him, but how to give again to man the true meaning of sin which has been totally lost. What sense does it make to continue to discuss how “justification of the godless comes about,” when man is convinced of not having need of any justification and says with pride: “I accuse myself today and I alone can absolve myself, I the man”?

I believe that all the age-old discussions between Catholics and Protestants about faith and works have ended up by making us lose sight of the main point of the Pauline message, often shifting attention from Christ to doctrines on Christ, in practice, from Christ to men. That which the Apostle is anxious above all to affirm in Romans 3 is not that we are justified by faith, but that we are justified by faith in Christ; it is not so much that we are justified by grace, but that we are justified by the grace of Christ. The accent is on Christ, more than on faith and grace.

via ZENIT – Father Cantalamessa’s 2nd Advent Sermon.
hattip: iMonk

It is amazing how in the last few years, the Protestants and Roman Catholics have begun to recognize their similarities, including their shared failings. The Pope is now even quoting Martin Luther in his homilies.

← Older entries