Enjoying Life
What gain has the worker from his toil? [10] I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. [11] He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. [12] I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; [13] also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil—this is God's gift to man. (Eccles. 3:9-13 (ESV)
In the last article I wrote on Ecclesiastes we saw that life is a gift of God to be enjoyed. We also saw that sin and death have robbed life of much of its meaning and purpose, but that Christ has overcome death and secured eternal life for all who believe in his death and resurrection. Christ has conquered death that life once again might be enjoyed. So why don’t we enjoy it?
Even if we do for the most part enjoy life, we don’t always enjoy it. Sin and death make their attacks on our souls. I don’t know that I have ever met a person who has not had a depressing day. Often times, there is a depression of sort that looms behind even the cheeriest personalities.
Perhaps people are able to ignore death for the most part. But death strikes close to home for all of us at some point. Aunts, uncles, cousins, brothers and sister, parents and children, we have all lost a relative or two we loved. It seems today that there is a push to have a party rather than a funeral. I can’t help but to think this is nothing more than an attempt to continue ignoring the pink elephant in the room. Not that the funeral has to be all depressing. The problem is, as I see it, people aren’t allowing themselves time to grieve. And the joy and celebration is not really joyous. It is a façade, a cheery personality hiding depression. Never dealing with death and grief properly, we prolong it. It sours our life, we never do learn to truly enjoy it again.
There are people it seems who spend their whole lives and don’t enjoy a bit of it. Ecclesiasties talks about them. They are busy collecting everything. They have the big house, the best toys, perhaps even the most, a great job etc. But they don’t enjoy it. Their life is a living heck. (A place for those who don’t believe in gosh.) Solomon says that they are busy collecting and others enjoy. They themselves are never satisfied with the toys they have amassed, and need to go back to the job they hate to buy a new one.
Others it seems check out completely. They try to find joy in sin. Oh sin can be fun. I know. But it isn’t worth the hangover that follows. And by that I don’t mean to imply that drinking is sinful, or drunkenness the only sin. It is just that for every action there is a reaction. We can’t really avoid sin or sinning. But living a life of fornication, drunkenness, adultery, illicit drug use etc, doesn’t normally, read ever, turn out well, or very enjoyable in the end. Just empty.
This is the predicament. How is life to be enjoyed? Two extremes are proposed by the world and neither really works out. There isn’t much joy in asceticism, or libertinism. Though, my personality admittedly leans toward the libertine. (Asceticism actually offends me.)
Well, Solomon gives some advice. There is nothing better than to be joyful, and do good as long as you live. Also you should eat, drink, and take pleasure in your toil. Quit chasing after the wind. That is as frustrating as a busted deer hunt. Except that hunt can be a lifelong busted hunt. You will never catch the wind. The point is to stop worrying about the worldly things. A few words from jesus may be helpful here:
"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? [26] Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? [27] And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? [28] And why are you anxious about clothing? Con sider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, [29] yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. [30] But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? [31] Therefore do not be anxious, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' [32] For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. [33] But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. (Matthew 6:25-33 (ESV)
God having given us the Kingdom, gives everything else we need too. So in the end we don’t need to distract ourselves in work and chase after the wind, or drown ourselves in sinful excess. No, we can trust in God, who loves us so much he gave his son to die for us, and find joy in doing good for the sake of doing good, and finding enjoyment in that which God has given for us to eat and drink, taking pleasure in the toil that he has given us too– This is God’s gift to man.
Showing posts with label Good News Article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Good News Article. Show all posts
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
All is Vanity?
The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. [2] Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. [3] What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? ( Eccles. 1:1-3 (ESV)
Ecclesiastes is a unique book among those of the Bible. Solomon sees that death has robbed life of meaning and purpose, all is vanity, the same event happens to the wise as it does the fool, death. (Eccl. 2:14) Death looms over all of life, mocking the people of this world with the question “what is the point?” In Ecclesiastes Solomon seeks to find the answer to that question. Unique among the philosophers and religions of the world he answers “vanity.” Solomon admits that life is vanity, there is no point.
Of course, if death didn’t loom over life with this mocking question, we wouldn’t care about meaning or purpose. We would be too busy enjoying life. This was God’s purpose for creating us in the first place, that we would enjoy life, enjoy His creation. He set our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the garden where they were to be his gardeners, join in the activity of creating, gardening, and caring for his creation, and the creations in his creation. In my heart of hearts I do believe that this is still God’s will for our lives, that we enjoy life, and be stewards of his creation. But death has robbed life of much meaning and purpose. IF death happens, as it does for all of us, then life is far from purpose driven, but pointless. Solomon is even so blunt as to answer that it may be better not to have lived at all, and this long before Queen penned the lyrics to ”Bohemian Rhapsody.” But God has a much better answer to death in his son Jesus Christ who died that we would have eternal life.
God’s answer to death is the death of his son Jesus Christ on the cross, as a satisfaction for our sins, the wages of which is death. In Jesus Christ we have eternal life in the forgiveness of sins. Death no longer holds any victory over the Christian to mockingly ask “what is the point?” “When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Cor. 15:54-58 (ESV) So the Christian can answer quite bluntly in the face of death, ”you’re right there is not point. there is only life, and that to be enjoyed.” For we know that we do not have to answer death, but only God, who has forgiven our sins, and secured our life in Christ.
Other philosophers and religions have tried to give other answers to this question. They try to find reason to live, a purpose for life in something other than Christ. It is telling that one of the most popular books of the last decade was a “Purpose Driven Life.” To this day I have found no one who has read the book that could honestly answer the question as to what the purpose for their life was. Many though like to think of this earthly life as a test in preparation for a life to come. Perhaps this is the primary assumption behind all religions of the world. Inevitably law in some way shape or form becomes the answer guide to this test. It is assumed that since life ends, there must be some purpose to living it, and perhaps if we live it right we will be able to attain some form of eternal life. On the flip side of this is cosmic torture for those who fail the test. The test may vary from philosophy to philosophy, and religion to religion, but the idea that life is a test seems to be all but universal. In one way or another the test reflects the challenge of the law, God’s law written on our heart, to live a perfect life and achieve holiness, sometimes through working on our conduct, at others through philosophical speculation, or to achieve a mystical experience. Most religions carve out a path that incorporates all three of these to some extent. The problem is that perfection is always out of reach. We are sinners, and remain so, and death claims us all one way or another. Solomon is adamant, we achieve nothing. All is vanity. “The wise die the same as a fool.” (Eccles. 2:17) If life is a test we all failed, for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
A careful reading of God’s word in the Bible will spell out though, that life is not a test. It was never meant to be a test, nor is it now. Life is. Life is an end in itself. This is what God created it to be, and that is what he redeemed it to be through the death of his son who lived a perfect life for us, when we could not. The law may pose a challenge to us, but we fail the moment we take up the challenge. We fail by taking the challenge. In a sense, it is only by refusing the challenge that the challenge can be conquered, not by our own efforts, but only in Christ who is victorious over death. In Christ alone, do we have eternal life through the forgiveness of sins. Christ who sacrificed himself for us on the cross, is our life returned to what it was supposed to be and made whole.
Ecclesiastes is a unique book among those of the Bible. Solomon sees that death has robbed life of meaning and purpose, all is vanity, the same event happens to the wise as it does the fool, death. (Eccl. 2:14) Death looms over all of life, mocking the people of this world with the question “what is the point?” In Ecclesiastes Solomon seeks to find the answer to that question. Unique among the philosophers and religions of the world he answers “vanity.” Solomon admits that life is vanity, there is no point.
Of course, if death didn’t loom over life with this mocking question, we wouldn’t care about meaning or purpose. We would be too busy enjoying life. This was God’s purpose for creating us in the first place, that we would enjoy life, enjoy His creation. He set our first parents, Adam and Eve, in the garden where they were to be his gardeners, join in the activity of creating, gardening, and caring for his creation, and the creations in his creation. In my heart of hearts I do believe that this is still God’s will for our lives, that we enjoy life, and be stewards of his creation. But death has robbed life of much meaning and purpose. IF death happens, as it does for all of us, then life is far from purpose driven, but pointless. Solomon is even so blunt as to answer that it may be better not to have lived at all, and this long before Queen penned the lyrics to ”Bohemian Rhapsody.” But God has a much better answer to death in his son Jesus Christ who died that we would have eternal life.
God’s answer to death is the death of his son Jesus Christ on the cross, as a satisfaction for our sins, the wages of which is death. In Jesus Christ we have eternal life in the forgiveness of sins. Death no longer holds any victory over the Christian to mockingly ask “what is the point?” “When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. (1 Cor. 15:54-58 (ESV) So the Christian can answer quite bluntly in the face of death, ”you’re right there is not point. there is only life, and that to be enjoyed.” For we know that we do not have to answer death, but only God, who has forgiven our sins, and secured our life in Christ.
Other philosophers and religions have tried to give other answers to this question. They try to find reason to live, a purpose for life in something other than Christ. It is telling that one of the most popular books of the last decade was a “Purpose Driven Life.” To this day I have found no one who has read the book that could honestly answer the question as to what the purpose for their life was. Many though like to think of this earthly life as a test in preparation for a life to come. Perhaps this is the primary assumption behind all religions of the world. Inevitably law in some way shape or form becomes the answer guide to this test. It is assumed that since life ends, there must be some purpose to living it, and perhaps if we live it right we will be able to attain some form of eternal life. On the flip side of this is cosmic torture for those who fail the test. The test may vary from philosophy to philosophy, and religion to religion, but the idea that life is a test seems to be all but universal. In one way or another the test reflects the challenge of the law, God’s law written on our heart, to live a perfect life and achieve holiness, sometimes through working on our conduct, at others through philosophical speculation, or to achieve a mystical experience. Most religions carve out a path that incorporates all three of these to some extent. The problem is that perfection is always out of reach. We are sinners, and remain so, and death claims us all one way or another. Solomon is adamant, we achieve nothing. All is vanity. “The wise die the same as a fool.” (Eccles. 2:17) If life is a test we all failed, for all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
A careful reading of God’s word in the Bible will spell out though, that life is not a test. It was never meant to be a test, nor is it now. Life is. Life is an end in itself. This is what God created it to be, and that is what he redeemed it to be through the death of his son who lived a perfect life for us, when we could not. The law may pose a challenge to us, but we fail the moment we take up the challenge. We fail by taking the challenge. In a sense, it is only by refusing the challenge that the challenge can be conquered, not by our own efforts, but only in Christ who is victorious over death. In Christ alone, do we have eternal life through the forgiveness of sins. Christ who sacrificed himself for us on the cross, is our life returned to what it was supposed to be and made whole.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Galileo and Christianity
In 1610 Galileo published his defense of Heliocentrism, his discoveries are celebrating their 400 year anniversary this year, with the thought that it took him at least a year to document and write down his discoveries before they could be published. His discoveries and defense of Heliocentrism were quite controversial at the time, and he ended up under house arrest for his pains at the hand of the inquisition.
Christianity and science are often pitted against each other in popular discourse. One of the most common examples cited is that of Galileo Galilei’s fight with Pope Urban VIII, and subsequent trial and condemnation for heresy, concerning his heliocentric sympathies. Heliocentric meaning the idea that the solar system revolves around the sun. However this theory was not new to Galileo, Copernicus had put it forward some sixty years before at the encouragement of the professors of the Lutheran Wittenberg University. In fact, Philip Melanchthon, a theological father of Lutheranism, was instrumental in getting Copernicus’s theory published in the Lutheran city of Nuremburg. As Lutheranism is Christian it would be wrong to say Christianity had a problem with Copernicus or Galileo. (Luther himself, it should be said, did not put much stock in Copernicus’s theory, but never claimed to be a scientist either.) However, certain Christians did have a problem with the theory, and did not act very Christ like in this controversy.
Christianity, strictly speaking, is belief in the Gospel, and really doesn’t have to concern itself in questions of science. It is concerned first and foremost with the death and resurrection of Christ, which has won salvation for all mankind by reconciling the world to God. This is an historical event that cannot be examined by telescopes, or microscopes. If one wants to investigate Christianity they have to subject that event to historical investigation. The death and resurrection of Christ though have many implications for us living today. Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa is not one of those implications.
However, the Bible was drawn into the debate by a Pope who acted in a very unwise and unlearned fundamentalist manner concerning its interpretation. This was not really necessary as St. Augustine had already set the precedent some 1300 years earlier for Biblical interpretation that would be kinder to Galileo. In fact, Galileo, a very learned Christian who was not a theological dunce, used Augustinian principles of biblical interpretation in defense of his heliocentric position. Galileo, himself was a Christian, and would not have thought of himself as anything but a Christian. He saw no need to abandon the Bible as the word of God based on his discoveries. He was smart enough not to quote poetical phrases of the Bible as gospel truth concerning the nature of the world.
The truth is that both sides in the controversy were Christian, yet they held two different philosophical views, and the one side uncharitably used the Bible to defend its views. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun had its origins with Aristotle, who did not have a telescope with which to correct his theories. Aristotle’s philosophy found dogmatic acceptance in the church through the work of Thomas Aquinas, who used Aristotle extensively in his theological writings, and his intellectual defense of the Christian faith over and against philosophical attacks on the Christian faith by the Muslim philosophers Avicenna, and Averroes. Thomas Aquinas was not a dumb man, and neither was Aristotle, but it should be admitted that without great investigation, and barring any pressing reason to investigate, it would seem natural to think that the sun revolves around the earth.
It is distressing that today being Christian and being a scientist are considered to be contradictory, and Galileo, who was a Christian, is cited as one example of how the two are not compatible. Many of the controversies of science (including that of evolution) do not really have their roots in a fundamentalist approach to the Bible, but in competing philosophies. It is even admitted by atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel that current theories of evolution fail to answer crucial questions concerning the development of life, and that the theory of Intelligent Design, which many Christians and non-Christians alike hold to, is in fact intelligent and reasonable. He not only being a Professor of Philosophy, but also a Professor of Law at the prestigious New York University, sees no reason that Intelligent Design could not be taught in public schools. In fact, in the case of Gregory Mendel it was a dogmatic adherence to the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin that was to blame for impeding scientific progress. Gregory Mendel, and Augustinian Monk and father of modern genetics, was ignored because his theory was not compatible with Darwin’s.
Christianity and science are not opposed to each other. To say they are shows a great deal of ignorance as to the history of science, and for that matter the history of philosophy not to mention Christianity. Christianity and science operate are different subjects, the way history and biology are separate subjects. Though at times these subjects find themselves interrelated, by and large they operate in different spheres altogether. But Christianity has been a great patron of the sciences in general. Not only have many great Christian men such as Galileo and Copernicus made great contributions to the development of scientific thought. The Christian church has also been responsible for establishing many of the universities where the research has taken place. But dogma, Christian or secular, never serves science well.
Christianity and science are often pitted against each other in popular discourse. One of the most common examples cited is that of Galileo Galilei’s fight with Pope Urban VIII, and subsequent trial and condemnation for heresy, concerning his heliocentric sympathies. Heliocentric meaning the idea that the solar system revolves around the sun. However this theory was not new to Galileo, Copernicus had put it forward some sixty years before at the encouragement of the professors of the Lutheran Wittenberg University. In fact, Philip Melanchthon, a theological father of Lutheranism, was instrumental in getting Copernicus’s theory published in the Lutheran city of Nuremburg. As Lutheranism is Christian it would be wrong to say Christianity had a problem with Copernicus or Galileo. (Luther himself, it should be said, did not put much stock in Copernicus’s theory, but never claimed to be a scientist either.) However, certain Christians did have a problem with the theory, and did not act very Christ like in this controversy.
Christianity, strictly speaking, is belief in the Gospel, and really doesn’t have to concern itself in questions of science. It is concerned first and foremost with the death and resurrection of Christ, which has won salvation for all mankind by reconciling the world to God. This is an historical event that cannot be examined by telescopes, or microscopes. If one wants to investigate Christianity they have to subject that event to historical investigation. The death and resurrection of Christ though have many implications for us living today. Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun or vice versa is not one of those implications.
However, the Bible was drawn into the debate by a Pope who acted in a very unwise and unlearned fundamentalist manner concerning its interpretation. This was not really necessary as St. Augustine had already set the precedent some 1300 years earlier for Biblical interpretation that would be kinder to Galileo. In fact, Galileo, a very learned Christian who was not a theological dunce, used Augustinian principles of biblical interpretation in defense of his heliocentric position. Galileo, himself was a Christian, and would not have thought of himself as anything but a Christian. He saw no need to abandon the Bible as the word of God based on his discoveries. He was smart enough not to quote poetical phrases of the Bible as gospel truth concerning the nature of the world.
The truth is that both sides in the controversy were Christian, yet they held two different philosophical views, and the one side uncharitably used the Bible to defend its views. The idea that the earth revolves around the sun had its origins with Aristotle, who did not have a telescope with which to correct his theories. Aristotle’s philosophy found dogmatic acceptance in the church through the work of Thomas Aquinas, who used Aristotle extensively in his theological writings, and his intellectual defense of the Christian faith over and against philosophical attacks on the Christian faith by the Muslim philosophers Avicenna, and Averroes. Thomas Aquinas was not a dumb man, and neither was Aristotle, but it should be admitted that without great investigation, and barring any pressing reason to investigate, it would seem natural to think that the sun revolves around the earth.
It is distressing that today being Christian and being a scientist are considered to be contradictory, and Galileo, who was a Christian, is cited as one example of how the two are not compatible. Many of the controversies of science (including that of evolution) do not really have their roots in a fundamentalist approach to the Bible, but in competing philosophies. It is even admitted by atheist philosophers like Thomas Nagel that current theories of evolution fail to answer crucial questions concerning the development of life, and that the theory of Intelligent Design, which many Christians and non-Christians alike hold to, is in fact intelligent and reasonable. He not only being a Professor of Philosophy, but also a Professor of Law at the prestigious New York University, sees no reason that Intelligent Design could not be taught in public schools. In fact, in the case of Gregory Mendel it was a dogmatic adherence to the evolutionary theory of Charles Darwin that was to blame for impeding scientific progress. Gregory Mendel, and Augustinian Monk and father of modern genetics, was ignored because his theory was not compatible with Darwin’s.
Christianity and science are not opposed to each other. To say they are shows a great deal of ignorance as to the history of science, and for that matter the history of philosophy not to mention Christianity. Christianity and science operate are different subjects, the way history and biology are separate subjects. Though at times these subjects find themselves interrelated, by and large they operate in different spheres altogether. But Christianity has been a great patron of the sciences in general. Not only have many great Christian men such as Galileo and Copernicus made great contributions to the development of scientific thought. The Christian church has also been responsible for establishing many of the universities where the research has taken place. But dogma, Christian or secular, never serves science well.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Is Gay Marriage a Good Idea?
Is Gay Marriage a Good Idea?
“A recent Salt Lake Tribune poll found 56 percent of Utahns support extending legal protections, short of marriage, to same-sex couples. But 70 percent oppose tweaking the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage to permit civil unions.” (Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday, Jan.27)
There doesn’t seem to be a more sensitive issue in the news today than the topic of Gay Marriage. I tend to sit on the fence with this one. I am morally opposed to gay marriage as I am to homosexual activity. The problem for me is I have a live and let live attitude in life. I don’t think that just because something is morally wrong it should be illegal. I need to see how it hurts or harms other law abiding citizens, or even non citizens, before I see a reason for making it criminal. So I used to not be all that opposed to gay marriage being recognized by the state, as long as the state did not tell me that I had to perform the weddings. What do I care if a gay man gets to visit his lover in a hospital and take out insurance on him? And I do consider this to be primarily a state issue. But I have to say the aftermath of Prop. 8 in California has got me reconsidering the issue.
You see I believe very much in the separation of Church and state. I would love for everyone to be Christian and believe in the death and resurrection of Christ as the sole source of their salvation. “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."( Acts 4:12 (ESV) I would also like it if everyone shared the same morality that Jesus espoused and recognized that things like pornography, premarital sex, shacking up, homosexual activity, gossip, believing in any God other than the triune God, and skipping church on Sunday (even if it is to watch the biggest game of the year) were wrong. (It should be noted here, that while the activity is condemned as sinful in the Bible, nowhere is anyone actually condemned for being what we call a homosexual. Plenty of people in Paul’s Corinthian congregation were evidently tempted by the activity; Paul addresses these same people as saints. Paul doesn’t shun them for their sinful temptations, but he does warn against falling prey to and giving into those temptations. The same as he warns those with heterosexual temptations against falling prey to their particular struggles in life. No one is condemned for “being” anything but guilty of sin.) But I hardly think we do anyone any great service by locking them up for those morally wrong activities. I don’t want to force these ideas on anyone. Partly because I don’t think keeping them from these activities is going to save them, only Christ can do that. Secondly, I don’t think making these activities illegal helps or protects anyone. I see a reason for drunk driving laws, laws against murder including abortion, rape, theft, and perjury. These laws protect me and other innocent people, or at least insure that justice is possible to some degree after the crime has been committed. I don’t see how a law against people skipping church is going to protect me from anyone. I tend not to think a law or proposition not permitting two men or two women to call themselves married is going to protect me or traditional marriage.
I like “traditional marriage,” as it has been defined, one man and one woman. I happen to think that the current laws governing no fault divorce have done more to destroy this than anything though. (Being divorced I’m a little bitter on that issue.) The way the laws are currently written I have come to the conclusion that as long as the milk is free, a man has nothing to gain and everything to lose by getting married. A woman can step out at anytime for any reason and take half of everything a guy owns, and if they have children together clean out his bank account for a good long time. I still like traditional marriage though. I think it is the honorable thing for a man to do, even if legally speaking it is a losing proposition. If we are serious about protecting traditional marriage we would do well to revisit those laws, I think they are more corrosive to traditional marriage than allowing homosexual couples to visit each other in the hospital.
However, I have been aghast at the back lash many churches and private citizens have been dealt in the wake of proposition 8. It has not endeared me at all to the gay community or their cause. Windows being broke, and harassing people at their places of work and business for expressing their political opinion and supporting it monetarily is not endearing behavior. Furthermore, when I hear of churches being sued because they refuse to marry homosexual couples in a state that does allow it I begin to think that my previous understanding of tolerance is misguided. I’m all for tolerance, but tolerance should not mean mandatory acceptance. I have my reasons for considering gay marriage immoral. It is not in line with my religious beliefs. I would like to think I could tolerate it though without condoning it. If I can’t do that, then I will oppose it. It makes me think that at the very least as the current propositions are being brought before the attention of state legislators that they might also consider writing in protection for institutions that remain morally opposed to the gay lifestyle, and do not wish to condone such behavior.
“A recent Salt Lake Tribune poll found 56 percent of Utahns support extending legal protections, short of marriage, to same-sex couples. But 70 percent oppose tweaking the state's constitutional ban on gay marriage to permit civil unions.” (Salt Lake Tribune, Tuesday, Jan.27)
There doesn’t seem to be a more sensitive issue in the news today than the topic of Gay Marriage. I tend to sit on the fence with this one. I am morally opposed to gay marriage as I am to homosexual activity. The problem for me is I have a live and let live attitude in life. I don’t think that just because something is morally wrong it should be illegal. I need to see how it hurts or harms other law abiding citizens, or even non citizens, before I see a reason for making it criminal. So I used to not be all that opposed to gay marriage being recognized by the state, as long as the state did not tell me that I had to perform the weddings. What do I care if a gay man gets to visit his lover in a hospital and take out insurance on him? And I do consider this to be primarily a state issue. But I have to say the aftermath of Prop. 8 in California has got me reconsidering the issue.
You see I believe very much in the separation of Church and state. I would love for everyone to be Christian and believe in the death and resurrection of Christ as the sole source of their salvation. “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."( Acts 4:12 (ESV) I would also like it if everyone shared the same morality that Jesus espoused and recognized that things like pornography, premarital sex, shacking up, homosexual activity, gossip, believing in any God other than the triune God, and skipping church on Sunday (even if it is to watch the biggest game of the year) were wrong. (It should be noted here, that while the activity is condemned as sinful in the Bible, nowhere is anyone actually condemned for being what we call a homosexual. Plenty of people in Paul’s Corinthian congregation were evidently tempted by the activity; Paul addresses these same people as saints. Paul doesn’t shun them for their sinful temptations, but he does warn against falling prey to and giving into those temptations. The same as he warns those with heterosexual temptations against falling prey to their particular struggles in life. No one is condemned for “being” anything but guilty of sin.) But I hardly think we do anyone any great service by locking them up for those morally wrong activities. I don’t want to force these ideas on anyone. Partly because I don’t think keeping them from these activities is going to save them, only Christ can do that. Secondly, I don’t think making these activities illegal helps or protects anyone. I see a reason for drunk driving laws, laws against murder including abortion, rape, theft, and perjury. These laws protect me and other innocent people, or at least insure that justice is possible to some degree after the crime has been committed. I don’t see how a law against people skipping church is going to protect me from anyone. I tend not to think a law or proposition not permitting two men or two women to call themselves married is going to protect me or traditional marriage.
I like “traditional marriage,” as it has been defined, one man and one woman. I happen to think that the current laws governing no fault divorce have done more to destroy this than anything though. (Being divorced I’m a little bitter on that issue.) The way the laws are currently written I have come to the conclusion that as long as the milk is free, a man has nothing to gain and everything to lose by getting married. A woman can step out at anytime for any reason and take half of everything a guy owns, and if they have children together clean out his bank account for a good long time. I still like traditional marriage though. I think it is the honorable thing for a man to do, even if legally speaking it is a losing proposition. If we are serious about protecting traditional marriage we would do well to revisit those laws, I think they are more corrosive to traditional marriage than allowing homosexual couples to visit each other in the hospital.
However, I have been aghast at the back lash many churches and private citizens have been dealt in the wake of proposition 8. It has not endeared me at all to the gay community or their cause. Windows being broke, and harassing people at their places of work and business for expressing their political opinion and supporting it monetarily is not endearing behavior. Furthermore, when I hear of churches being sued because they refuse to marry homosexual couples in a state that does allow it I begin to think that my previous understanding of tolerance is misguided. I’m all for tolerance, but tolerance should not mean mandatory acceptance. I have my reasons for considering gay marriage immoral. It is not in line with my religious beliefs. I would like to think I could tolerate it though without condoning it. If I can’t do that, then I will oppose it. It makes me think that at the very least as the current propositions are being brought before the attention of state legislators that they might also consider writing in protection for institutions that remain morally opposed to the gay lifestyle, and do not wish to condone such behavior.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Celebrating Halloween
Let’s celebrate Halloween.
Col. 2:16 (ESV)
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. (Col. 2:16 (ESV)
Seems these days holidays are under attack. People seem to have a gripe about them all. I have heard people argue against Christmas as Christianized pagan celebration. I have heard the same about Easter. Last year I hear complaints that good Friday was celebrated a good month after the Jewish Passover. But no holiday seems to get as bad a rap as Halloween. The other holidays are tolerated. But Halloween, which once was actually a Christian holiday, has been handed over to the heathens, and hedonists. Somehow parading around in a batman costume and asking for candy is considered satanic by too many. It’s not, it possibly can be, but it doesn’t have to be. Much of it depends on how you celebrate it. Black Masses are satanic, dressing up like a pumpkin and trick or treating is just fun.
Last week I had the pleasure of carving a pumpkin for the first time with my son. It brought back memories I had growing up. I lived in quite a few places growing up: Alberta, Africa, Venice Beach, and Minnesota. Halloween wasn’t big in Africa. But We celebrated it every where else, even Venice Beach! It was a great time. My brother and I would dress up like Casper, or maybe one of the CHiPs, that show was big at the time. This was a day that the community got together to give the kids some fun. It was about the kids. Teenagers played pranks to be sure. Some adults would possibly have too much fun. But for us kids it was a time to go collect candy and have fun with friends, trying to guess who was who. Masters of disguise we were not. It was a time when people in a neighborhood would meet. Strangers would ring the doorbell of another stranger. It was fun.
I remember the first time I heard that I shouldn’t celebrate Halloween. I had just moved to California. I met a kid at the park and started talking. Halloween was coming up so I asked him what he was going as. He said he wasn’t celebrating Halloween, because it was a satanic holiday and he was Christian. Well I was Christian too, my dad was a pastor, and my family always celebrated Halloween. I couldn’t see how trick or treating was satanic. Maybe if I was holding a black mass on that night I could see his point. But that would be bad any day of the year. Ringing my neighbor’s doorbell and asking for candy, just doesn’t seem to me to be the same as pledging my soul to the dark armies. That is because it isn’t.
Its time we all woke up from our fears. The day makes no difference. It is what you do on that day. There is nothing wrong with a haunted house, or a parade of kids walking down the sidewalk and ringing your bell. I prefer that. I buy candy every year, very few come. Seems everyone is in the parking lot of the local ward. That’s fine. But some of us aren’t LDS. The thing is don’t worry that you are introducing your kids to Satanism if you let them have a little fun on that night. Go have fun yourself. If you find yourself at a black mass, leave. But don’t torture your kids in the name of Christ, by not allowing them to dress up like Captain Jack Sparrow, and ask his neighbor for some candy. That is just sadistic, if not satanic. Christ didn’t die on the cross for you to walk in fear of the devil. Christ didn’t forgive you all your sins so that you would be afraid to have fun. If Christ wanted us to feel guilty and weighed down by the law all the time, He would have spared Himself the cross. He died so you could live, so live, and take joy in the life he gave us. It’s O.K to have fun and even mock the devil. Paul tells us not to let people pass judgment on us concerning New Moons or Sabbaths, in short that means holidays (Holy Days). This goes for Halloween too. We are free to celebrate it if we want, and we don’t have to change its name either. It already has a Christian name. Here in America we celebrate Halloween, not Samain or whatever celtic satanic witches Sabbath supposedly preceded it. Quite frankly, I don’t care if one did or not. Halloween is just another way of saying All Hallows Eve, or the Eve of All Saints, a day us Christians take to thank God for all the saints he has blessed our lives with, past, present, and future. “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, [celebrate Halloween or not] do all to the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:31 (ESV) And don’t judge others for celebrating a holiday they cherish, it is unchristian to do so.
Col. 2:16 (ESV)
Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. (Col. 2:16 (ESV)
Seems these days holidays are under attack. People seem to have a gripe about them all. I have heard people argue against Christmas as Christianized pagan celebration. I have heard the same about Easter. Last year I hear complaints that good Friday was celebrated a good month after the Jewish Passover. But no holiday seems to get as bad a rap as Halloween. The other holidays are tolerated. But Halloween, which once was actually a Christian holiday, has been handed over to the heathens, and hedonists. Somehow parading around in a batman costume and asking for candy is considered satanic by too many. It’s not, it possibly can be, but it doesn’t have to be. Much of it depends on how you celebrate it. Black Masses are satanic, dressing up like a pumpkin and trick or treating is just fun.
Last week I had the pleasure of carving a pumpkin for the first time with my son. It brought back memories I had growing up. I lived in quite a few places growing up: Alberta, Africa, Venice Beach, and Minnesota. Halloween wasn’t big in Africa. But We celebrated it every where else, even Venice Beach! It was a great time. My brother and I would dress up like Casper, or maybe one of the CHiPs, that show was big at the time. This was a day that the community got together to give the kids some fun. It was about the kids. Teenagers played pranks to be sure. Some adults would possibly have too much fun. But for us kids it was a time to go collect candy and have fun with friends, trying to guess who was who. Masters of disguise we were not. It was a time when people in a neighborhood would meet. Strangers would ring the doorbell of another stranger. It was fun.
I remember the first time I heard that I shouldn’t celebrate Halloween. I had just moved to California. I met a kid at the park and started talking. Halloween was coming up so I asked him what he was going as. He said he wasn’t celebrating Halloween, because it was a satanic holiday and he was Christian. Well I was Christian too, my dad was a pastor, and my family always celebrated Halloween. I couldn’t see how trick or treating was satanic. Maybe if I was holding a black mass on that night I could see his point. But that would be bad any day of the year. Ringing my neighbor’s doorbell and asking for candy, just doesn’t seem to me to be the same as pledging my soul to the dark armies. That is because it isn’t.
Its time we all woke up from our fears. The day makes no difference. It is what you do on that day. There is nothing wrong with a haunted house, or a parade of kids walking down the sidewalk and ringing your bell. I prefer that. I buy candy every year, very few come. Seems everyone is in the parking lot of the local ward. That’s fine. But some of us aren’t LDS. The thing is don’t worry that you are introducing your kids to Satanism if you let them have a little fun on that night. Go have fun yourself. If you find yourself at a black mass, leave. But don’t torture your kids in the name of Christ, by not allowing them to dress up like Captain Jack Sparrow, and ask his neighbor for some candy. That is just sadistic, if not satanic. Christ didn’t die on the cross for you to walk in fear of the devil. Christ didn’t forgive you all your sins so that you would be afraid to have fun. If Christ wanted us to feel guilty and weighed down by the law all the time, He would have spared Himself the cross. He died so you could live, so live, and take joy in the life he gave us. It’s O.K to have fun and even mock the devil. Paul tells us not to let people pass judgment on us concerning New Moons or Sabbaths, in short that means holidays (Holy Days). This goes for Halloween too. We are free to celebrate it if we want, and we don’t have to change its name either. It already has a Christian name. Here in America we celebrate Halloween, not Samain or whatever celtic satanic witches Sabbath supposedly preceded it. Quite frankly, I don’t care if one did or not. Halloween is just another way of saying All Hallows Eve, or the Eve of All Saints, a day us Christians take to thank God for all the saints he has blessed our lives with, past, present, and future. “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, [celebrate Halloween or not] do all to the glory of God.” (1 Cor. 10:31 (ESV) And don’t judge others for celebrating a holiday they cherish, it is unchristian to do so.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Luther Decade
The Twenty First of September kicked of a celebration in honor of the Reformation in Germany. This celebration is called the “Luther Decade.” One might surmise that the focus will be on Martin Luther, the famous reformer who kicked off the reformation by posting the “Ninety Five Theses” to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church, and the man for whom my church body is named. So I thought I would write a little about the man and the reformation in honor of this celebration.
It should be noted that there is debate as to whether he really nailed the Ninety Five Theses to the door of that church. Though there is really very little reason for this debate. At the time Church doors often served as bulletin boards for the community. It should be also noted that at first Lutherans called themselves Evangelicals in accord with Luther’s wish that a church not be named after him. He did not think himself worthy of this, and often referred to himself as a sack of worms, and other such demeaning terms. Luther rejoiced in the gospel of Christ, who forgives sinners. He always saw himself as a sinner in need of that forgiveness. It was this gospel that gave him strength and purpose in the reformation. The term Lutheran was at first a pejorative term used to describe people who agreed with Luther as to what the Bible was about. Eventually, Evangelicals adopted the term Lutheran for themselves to say “Yes, where Luther spoke about the Gospel he was right.” Lutherans, to this day, do not feel bound to everything that Luther ever said or wrote. We are sometimes embarrassed by things he said. We still recognize that Luther was a sinner in need of forgiveness. But we agree with him in his exposition of the Gospel, that one is justified by faith alone, especially as he explained this in Luther’s Small Catechism.
Luther was a giant in his day, both loved and despised. But love him or hate him he occupies a huge place in the history of western civilization. However, many today know nothing about the man; fewer have read anything he ever wrote. Often times when I talk about him, people confuse him with Martin Luther King, Jr. I did that once in elementary school, (I thought it was great I was getting a day off in honor of the man my church cherished). There could be worse men to confuse Martin Luther with, but Martin Luther King Jr. was, in fact, named after Martin Luther. I like to think that Martin Luther King Jr. drew some of his strength and courage from the memory of the man for which he was named.
Luther was actually an Augustinian Monk born in the 15th century, though he did all his work in the 16th century. He nailed the theses on “All Saints Eve” (which is what Halloween means) in 1517. At first he went to law school, but later joined a monastery after nearly losing his life in a terrible thunderstorm. As a monk he began to study God’s word. Bibles were not as prevalent in his day as they are now, so it was unusual even for monks to read the Bible. He was later hired by Elector Frederick the Wise to teach at a university in Wittenberg, a small hamlet in the Saxony region of what is today Germany. (It is still a small hamlet today, but a famous one.) As he read the word of God he learned that man was justified, that is made righteous by faith in Christ, and not by works of penance, or for that matter, works of any kind. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28 (ESV)
With this knowledge he began to see many problems with the church of his day, and this gave birth to the “Ninety Five Theses” that made him famous. However, the church hierarchy did not appreciate his attacks on many of the church practices of the day. He soon found himself in real trouble with Pope Leo X. Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, but was eventually excommunicated for holding to the gospel rather than obeying the pope. For Luther the Bible was the word of God that had to be followed over and above the rulings of any man. The Bible holds supreme authority in the life of a Christian. Far from being a straight jacket though, the Bible freed man from the tyranny of sin as the word of God gave life to people dead in their sins. “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— [6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,.” (Ephes. 2:4-6 (ESV)
Today there are still many disagreements between Catholics and Lutherans, yet we still sense a feel of unity with one another. Many who visit Lutheran Churches are often surprised to see many similarities in our doctrine and practice. Some even confuse us as being Roman Catholic. We are not ashamed of this, but rejoice in those areas where we have agreement. So I find great joy in Cardinal Kasper’s comment regarding his wishes for this Luther decade. He is quoted in an ENI article “Catholics can learn from Luther too, says Cardinal Kasper” as saying: “In his interview, Cardinal Kasper said he hoped Catholics would "get to know Luther better and not just interpret him from his polemical writings, still less from a few sentences taken out of context". The cardinal said he also hoped Protestantism would return to the faith of Martin Luther, "who would have been deeply averse to all of today's liberal tendencies".
It is a breath of fresh air to find unity like this with a fellow believer in Christ, even amidst some persisting disagreement. One, who would like to know more about Luther, might rent the recent movie “Luther” from the video store. Or stop by First Lutheran at 349 North Seventh Street. I’d love the visit.
It should be noted that there is debate as to whether he really nailed the Ninety Five Theses to the door of that church. Though there is really very little reason for this debate. At the time Church doors often served as bulletin boards for the community. It should be also noted that at first Lutherans called themselves Evangelicals in accord with Luther’s wish that a church not be named after him. He did not think himself worthy of this, and often referred to himself as a sack of worms, and other such demeaning terms. Luther rejoiced in the gospel of Christ, who forgives sinners. He always saw himself as a sinner in need of that forgiveness. It was this gospel that gave him strength and purpose in the reformation. The term Lutheran was at first a pejorative term used to describe people who agreed with Luther as to what the Bible was about. Eventually, Evangelicals adopted the term Lutheran for themselves to say “Yes, where Luther spoke about the Gospel he was right.” Lutherans, to this day, do not feel bound to everything that Luther ever said or wrote. We are sometimes embarrassed by things he said. We still recognize that Luther was a sinner in need of forgiveness. But we agree with him in his exposition of the Gospel, that one is justified by faith alone, especially as he explained this in Luther’s Small Catechism.
Luther was a giant in his day, both loved and despised. But love him or hate him he occupies a huge place in the history of western civilization. However, many today know nothing about the man; fewer have read anything he ever wrote. Often times when I talk about him, people confuse him with Martin Luther King, Jr. I did that once in elementary school, (I thought it was great I was getting a day off in honor of the man my church cherished). There could be worse men to confuse Martin Luther with, but Martin Luther King Jr. was, in fact, named after Martin Luther. I like to think that Martin Luther King Jr. drew some of his strength and courage from the memory of the man for which he was named.
Luther was actually an Augustinian Monk born in the 15th century, though he did all his work in the 16th century. He nailed the theses on “All Saints Eve” (which is what Halloween means) in 1517. At first he went to law school, but later joined a monastery after nearly losing his life in a terrible thunderstorm. As a monk he began to study God’s word. Bibles were not as prevalent in his day as they are now, so it was unusual even for monks to read the Bible. He was later hired by Elector Frederick the Wise to teach at a university in Wittenberg, a small hamlet in the Saxony region of what is today Germany. (It is still a small hamlet today, but a famous one.) As he read the word of God he learned that man was justified, that is made righteous by faith in Christ, and not by works of penance, or for that matter, works of any kind. “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” (Romans 3:28 (ESV)
With this knowledge he began to see many problems with the church of his day, and this gave birth to the “Ninety Five Theses” that made him famous. However, the church hierarchy did not appreciate his attacks on many of the church practices of the day. He soon found himself in real trouble with Pope Leo X. Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church, but was eventually excommunicated for holding to the gospel rather than obeying the pope. For Luther the Bible was the word of God that had to be followed over and above the rulings of any man. The Bible holds supreme authority in the life of a Christian. Far from being a straight jacket though, the Bible freed man from the tyranny of sin as the word of God gave life to people dead in their sins. “But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, [5] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— [6] and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,.” (Ephes. 2:4-6 (ESV)
Today there are still many disagreements between Catholics and Lutherans, yet we still sense a feel of unity with one another. Many who visit Lutheran Churches are often surprised to see many similarities in our doctrine and practice. Some even confuse us as being Roman Catholic. We are not ashamed of this, but rejoice in those areas where we have agreement. So I find great joy in Cardinal Kasper’s comment regarding his wishes for this Luther decade. He is quoted in an ENI article “Catholics can learn from Luther too, says Cardinal Kasper” as saying: “In his interview, Cardinal Kasper said he hoped Catholics would "get to know Luther better and not just interpret him from his polemical writings, still less from a few sentences taken out of context". The cardinal said he also hoped Protestantism would return to the faith of Martin Luther, "who would have been deeply averse to all of today's liberal tendencies".
It is a breath of fresh air to find unity like this with a fellow believer in Christ, even amidst some persisting disagreement. One, who would like to know more about Luther, might rent the recent movie “Luther” from the video store. Or stop by First Lutheran at 349 North Seventh Street. I’d love the visit.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
The Gospel of Judas
A couple years ago, the whole world gasped as National Geographic introduced them to the intriguing world of the Gnostic Gospels. The Gospel of Judas commanded center stage in the annual pre-Easter media frenzy trying to discredit and sow seeds of doubt among Christians concerning the atoning death and resurrection of Christ. Of course this hostility to apostolic Christianity is nothing new. It was precisely this hostility that inspired the Gnostic sect known as Sethians, who supposedly had a favorable view of Judas, to write this supposed gospel. Gnostic is a term used for many different religious movements, some of which even predate Christianity. These religious movements held in common a disdain for the physical world, and were heavily influenced by the philosophy of Plato. Because of their disdain for “material” they denied the resurrection of the body, and were at fundamental odds with Christianity. However, Christ became somewhat of a spiritual superstar toward the end of the first century, and many different religions tried to incorporate Him into their belief systems, often corrupting the teaching of Christ in the process. This was the goal of the Gospel of Judas, to incorporate Jesus to their overall belief system, by distorting his teachings.
Today it isn’t so much the Gospel of Judas that is making the news, but the very terrible scholarship that went into the National Geographic documentary. Scholars like April Deconick, author of “The Thirteenth Apostle” immediately noticed serious errors in the translation of the Gospel of Judas. National Geographic in its rush for publicity wanted to make Judas the hero of the gospel. However, when DeConick sat down to do a cursory translation of the text she found that far from being the hero of the Sethian sect, Judas was actually considered to be a demon. It would be a nice thought to think that such unsound scholarship was the exception when it comes to sensationalist television documentaries concerning the Christian faith. It would be a nice thought. Unfortunately, it would also be wrong. Sound scholarship tends to uphold the Christian Faith, and makes for very lousy television.
Television, though, normally gets away with a poor quality of scholarship, because most Christians, even those who have read the Bible, know almost nothing of how the books from Genesis to Revelation were selected to fill the pages of the Old and New Testament. One myth says the Council of Nicea arbitrarily decided the matter. Actually, though the topic came up, no official Canon was ever decided on there, or at any other of the early ecumenical Councils that convened to hash out the differences among the sects. Canon is Greek for list or rule. It is a word often used in discussion of scripture to discuss which books are proper and which ones are not. Eusebius, a fourth century Christian historian, who attended the council, records that in his day books were classified into one of three categories: Those that are certain, those that are less certain, and those that are entirely rejected. There is no doubt that the Gospel of Judas fell into the third category. The books of the New Testament are often divided into two categories to this very day. Though there are more technical terms for the division the often-used “books of the first rank” and “books of the second rank” will do for our purposes.
Books of the first rank are the most authoritative in the New Testament because there is no doubt that they were written or approved of by the apostles who knew, and saw Jesus Christ, and were witnesses to His resurrection. These books include the four gospels, the thirteen epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, 1 Peter, and 1 John. These books make the first rank, because no one ever contested their authorship. They were known beyond a doubt to have been written by the apostles for the benefit of the Church. Peter’s grocery list, even if it were known, would not have been considered Scripture. The pedigrees of these letters were confirmed also by their use in Churches and citations by other first and second century theologians and church leaders. These letters were by men such as Polycarp, who knew and studied under John in Ephesus, Ignatious of Antioch, and Clement of Rome. These men are also known as the apostolic Fathers, because of their close proximity and relationships to the Apostles themselves. These were men who were able as no others to ascertain the validity of the letters. If they had cited or as often was the case, quoted the books, then if nothing else it was known that the book predated them and was written at the time of the apostles.
The books of the second rank are books whose contents were not at odds with what the books of the first rank had written, but whose authorship was less certain for various reasons. These books include, Hebrews, James, Second Peter, second and third John, Jude and Revelation. It was decided that these books were beneficial for Christians, but could not be used to establish doctrine such as the short terse statements of dogma recorded in the Nicene Creed. They could be quoted though as secondary support for doctrines established by the books of the first rank. Some have tried to do away with these distinctions, but the fact is without being able to prove who the author was books of the second rank will never have the authority as those of the first rank.
However, because reasonable men using logic and historical evidence were able to ascertain the apostolic validity of the books of the first rank, they were also able to dismiss many other spurious books, such as the Gospel of Judas. They could do this by analyzing what had been written to see if it was in agreement or at odds with those books of which they were certain. Of prime importance here, was whether or not the book spoke of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, and the forgiveness of sins that accomplished for the world. If it did not teach that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ’s death and resurrection then, like Peter’s grocery list, it didn’t need to be read by Christians, at least not for their spiritual benefit. A Christian may find a car manual beneficial, but not spiritually. However, many books, such as the Gospel of Judas, not only did not teach of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, but were actually written to deny the benefit of Christ’s death on the cross for us. Often times the bishops of Nicea and others were able to determine not only that the book was of recent authorship, but the Gnostic Sect that it originated from. For this reason they were not even considered for inclusion in the Christian canon.
Today it isn’t so much the Gospel of Judas that is making the news, but the very terrible scholarship that went into the National Geographic documentary. Scholars like April Deconick, author of “The Thirteenth Apostle” immediately noticed serious errors in the translation of the Gospel of Judas. National Geographic in its rush for publicity wanted to make Judas the hero of the gospel. However, when DeConick sat down to do a cursory translation of the text she found that far from being the hero of the Sethian sect, Judas was actually considered to be a demon. It would be a nice thought to think that such unsound scholarship was the exception when it comes to sensationalist television documentaries concerning the Christian faith. It would be a nice thought. Unfortunately, it would also be wrong. Sound scholarship tends to uphold the Christian Faith, and makes for very lousy television.
Television, though, normally gets away with a poor quality of scholarship, because most Christians, even those who have read the Bible, know almost nothing of how the books from Genesis to Revelation were selected to fill the pages of the Old and New Testament. One myth says the Council of Nicea arbitrarily decided the matter. Actually, though the topic came up, no official Canon was ever decided on there, or at any other of the early ecumenical Councils that convened to hash out the differences among the sects. Canon is Greek for list or rule. It is a word often used in discussion of scripture to discuss which books are proper and which ones are not. Eusebius, a fourth century Christian historian, who attended the council, records that in his day books were classified into one of three categories: Those that are certain, those that are less certain, and those that are entirely rejected. There is no doubt that the Gospel of Judas fell into the third category. The books of the New Testament are often divided into two categories to this very day. Though there are more technical terms for the division the often-used “books of the first rank” and “books of the second rank” will do for our purposes.
Books of the first rank are the most authoritative in the New Testament because there is no doubt that they were written or approved of by the apostles who knew, and saw Jesus Christ, and were witnesses to His resurrection. These books include the four gospels, the thirteen epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, 1 Peter, and 1 John. These books make the first rank, because no one ever contested their authorship. They were known beyond a doubt to have been written by the apostles for the benefit of the Church. Peter’s grocery list, even if it were known, would not have been considered Scripture. The pedigrees of these letters were confirmed also by their use in Churches and citations by other first and second century theologians and church leaders. These letters were by men such as Polycarp, who knew and studied under John in Ephesus, Ignatious of Antioch, and Clement of Rome. These men are also known as the apostolic Fathers, because of their close proximity and relationships to the Apostles themselves. These were men who were able as no others to ascertain the validity of the letters. If they had cited or as often was the case, quoted the books, then if nothing else it was known that the book predated them and was written at the time of the apostles.
The books of the second rank are books whose contents were not at odds with what the books of the first rank had written, but whose authorship was less certain for various reasons. These books include, Hebrews, James, Second Peter, second and third John, Jude and Revelation. It was decided that these books were beneficial for Christians, but could not be used to establish doctrine such as the short terse statements of dogma recorded in the Nicene Creed. They could be quoted though as secondary support for doctrines established by the books of the first rank. Some have tried to do away with these distinctions, but the fact is without being able to prove who the author was books of the second rank will never have the authority as those of the first rank.
However, because reasonable men using logic and historical evidence were able to ascertain the apostolic validity of the books of the first rank, they were also able to dismiss many other spurious books, such as the Gospel of Judas. They could do this by analyzing what had been written to see if it was in agreement or at odds with those books of which they were certain. Of prime importance here, was whether or not the book spoke of Christ’s atoning sacrifice on the cross, and the forgiveness of sins that accomplished for the world. If it did not teach that our sins are forgiven on account of Christ’s death and resurrection then, like Peter’s grocery list, it didn’t need to be read by Christians, at least not for their spiritual benefit. A Christian may find a car manual beneficial, but not spiritually. However, many books, such as the Gospel of Judas, not only did not teach of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, but were actually written to deny the benefit of Christ’s death on the cross for us. Often times the bishops of Nicea and others were able to determine not only that the book was of recent authorship, but the Gnostic Sect that it originated from. For this reason they were not even considered for inclusion in the Christian canon.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Help Reading the Bible.
It is often the case that one doesn’t know where to begin with the grand gift of God in the Bible. The Bible is that it is a gift from God, and it isn’t quite the white elephant it seems to be at first glance. The bible can seem like a white elephant, a burden on one’s soul. A friend may have given you a copy once long ago. You know you should read it, you feel guilty for the dust that covers it. It sits there on the nightstand big and intimidating. You would like to read it, but you don’t know where to begin. You are afraid to touch it. It might trample you. And it very well could! The word of God is heavy. His law can come down on you like a ton of bricks, and lead you to despair. Or worse yet, it could lead you into a life of smug self-righteousness. If the yoke isn’t fitted properly it becomes a heavy burden. But Jesus assures us: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:29-30 (ESV) So pick up the Bible, but get the yoke properly fitted. Often times a good devotional book that helps explain the concepts and context in modern terms is helpful in getting that yoke properly fitted. You will find the yoke to be much easier than the current monkey on your back.
God spends a lot of time training some of us to be his under-shepherds, Christ, the good shepherd, is the true shepherd. He is the shepherd that laid down His life for the sheep. That is He laid down His life on the cross to save YOU from the ravenous wolves of sin, death, and the devil. Christ, however, uses under-shepherds to feed us, even to feed us under-shepherds. As He told Peter “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:17) In saying this he set his disciples apart to be pastors, or shepherds of his sheep. They in turn appointed others to follow and be shepherds after them. “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:1-5 (ESV)
“Shepherd the flock of God,” that is feed them with the green grass of grace in the word of God. For man does not “live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” This is the task of a pastor, to feed the sheep their proper portion, so they don’t bloat, or choke, or become malnourished. So us pastors spend a lot of time sorting through the food God has given us with which to feed the sheep, the word of God the Bible. We break it down into manageable chunks. We cut the twine from the hay bail. We understand when the sheep want or need help reading the word of God. We take time to explain it, to expound on it, and to guide the sheep through God’s pasture. That is our job. We know the law is needed, but to much will cause one to die in despair, and that the Gospel the forgiveness of sins is even more needed, but is even sweeter and healthier when contrasted with the law’s bitterness. God doesn’t want the blind leading the blind, so he trains pastors to guide.
Us pastors do that in many different ways. Sometimes we stop by and visit. Sometimes we have a Bible study. We answer a question when someone asks. We preach from the pulpit, and we write, or recommend devotionals. In my case I translate devotionals. Devotions are great because they can be there when we can’t. There like a map of the pasture we can give someone that they can take with them. I recommend that if you want to read the Bible but don’t know where to begin, get a devotional. I might add though that not all devotionals are the same. Some are better than others. Stay away from the ones on sale next to the “National Enquire” as a rule. If you will allow me a shameless plug, I will recommend “To Live with Christ” by Bo Giertz, a book I helped translate that has just come off the press. This is a book that has served me well, and I know it will do the same for you. You can order it here! (another way to distribute God’s green grass to the sheep) by clicking here .
God spends a lot of time training some of us to be his under-shepherds, Christ, the good shepherd, is the true shepherd. He is the shepherd that laid down His life for the sheep. That is He laid down His life on the cross to save YOU from the ravenous wolves of sin, death, and the devil. Christ, however, uses under-shepherds to feed us, even to feed us under-shepherds. As He told Peter “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:17) In saying this he set his disciples apart to be pastors, or shepherds of his sheep. They in turn appointed others to follow and be shepherds after them. “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." (1 Peter 5:1-5 (ESV)
“Shepherd the flock of God,” that is feed them with the green grass of grace in the word of God. For man does not “live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.” This is the task of a pastor, to feed the sheep their proper portion, so they don’t bloat, or choke, or become malnourished. So us pastors spend a lot of time sorting through the food God has given us with which to feed the sheep, the word of God the Bible. We break it down into manageable chunks. We cut the twine from the hay bail. We understand when the sheep want or need help reading the word of God. We take time to explain it, to expound on it, and to guide the sheep through God’s pasture. That is our job. We know the law is needed, but to much will cause one to die in despair, and that the Gospel the forgiveness of sins is even more needed, but is even sweeter and healthier when contrasted with the law’s bitterness. God doesn’t want the blind leading the blind, so he trains pastors to guide.
Us pastors do that in many different ways. Sometimes we stop by and visit. Sometimes we have a Bible study. We answer a question when someone asks. We preach from the pulpit, and we write, or recommend devotionals. In my case I translate devotionals. Devotions are great because they can be there when we can’t. There like a map of the pasture we can give someone that they can take with them. I recommend that if you want to read the Bible but don’t know where to begin, get a devotional. I might add though that not all devotionals are the same. Some are better than others. Stay away from the ones on sale next to the “National Enquire” as a rule. If you will allow me a shameless plug, I will recommend “To Live with Christ” by Bo Giertz, a book I helped translate that has just come off the press. This is a book that has served me well, and I know it will do the same for you. You can order it here! (another way to distribute God’s green grass to the sheep) by clicking here .
Friday, May 16, 2008
What is the Bible?
What is the Bible?
The Bible ends up on the best seller lists year after year. There has probably been no book that has ever had as many runs on the printing press. But it also seems to be the least read book on the library shelves. I think I understand that. It is big. It is intimidating. And people don’t often know where to start. I hope I can help at least a few of you open it up and begin reading with my next few articles. My plan is to do a series explaining what the Bible is, why it is important, and how to read it. I think I’m somewhat qualified for this because I have read it a few times now, and spend hours every day reading and rereading it in English, and the original Greek, and Hebrew.
But it is not always the easiest book to read. It isn’t necessarily hard to understand. It can just be tough to read. When I was 16 I decided I ought to read the Bible from cover to cover. I was investigating other religions, but hadn’t yet even read the cornerstone of my faith. I decided to put the other literature down, and pick it up when I was done reading the Bible. It took me two years. In that time I probably read fifty other books. But the Bible, it sat there on my desk when I hit Leviticus. Genesis and Exodus were great, but Leviticus that was hard. But I took Luther’s advice after about a year and a half. I just plowed through it. Boy, am I glad I did. I learned a lot. It changed my whole outlook on life. To tell you the truth it opened my mind, and made me a bit more understanding of people. But it made me even more appreciative of the faith I grew up with, a faith in Jesus Christ as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Yet to fully understand that phrase of John the Baptist, I had to read Leviticus. Over the years I have learned to love Leviticus, but I still pick on it. The Monty Python skit about the “Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch” comes to mind every time I think of Leviticus.
The Bible, contrary to the name it gets from Greek, meaning book, is actually not a book, but a collection of books. In actuality it is a library of books that all have one thing in common, Jesus Christ. The many books of the Bible, 66 in all, were written over the course of 2000 years and cover a history of about 4000 years. It had many human authors, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John, Matthew etc. but these authors all received their inspiration from the one same source, the Holy Spirit. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21 (ESV) And they all have the same focus, Jesus Christ. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.” John 5:39 (ESV)
Of course, Jesus was only speaking about the Old Testament books when he said that, but it is pretty self evident that the books of the New Testament, written after his death and resurrection, are also about Christ. This is the most important thing to keep in mind as you are reading the Bible. The whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. He is the key to understanding all of scripture. He is the promised savior of Genesis 3, the seed of the woman who will crush the head of the serpent. He is also the alpha and omega of Revelation.
The Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking when He said that, read the Bible as a guide for life. They looked to it for special rules to follow in order to gain God’s favor. People it seems are always looking for new rules, in life. If you want those, go get Dr. Phil’s newest book. Don’t read the Bible. The Bible has rules for living, most of them pretty self explanatory. You don’t need the Bible to tell you murder is wrong, plenty of atheists have figured that out. The Bible has rules for living, but that isn’t what it is about. It is about the forgiveness of sins, we have in Christ who died for us on the Cross, when we broke those rules.
With this in mind, the best book to begin the journey through the Bible with is the Gospel of John, from there read at will, go to Genesis, or go to Romans, read Leviticus and find out what it means to be the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
The Bible ends up on the best seller lists year after year. There has probably been no book that has ever had as many runs on the printing press. But it also seems to be the least read book on the library shelves. I think I understand that. It is big. It is intimidating. And people don’t often know where to start. I hope I can help at least a few of you open it up and begin reading with my next few articles. My plan is to do a series explaining what the Bible is, why it is important, and how to read it. I think I’m somewhat qualified for this because I have read it a few times now, and spend hours every day reading and rereading it in English, and the original Greek, and Hebrew.
But it is not always the easiest book to read. It isn’t necessarily hard to understand. It can just be tough to read. When I was 16 I decided I ought to read the Bible from cover to cover. I was investigating other religions, but hadn’t yet even read the cornerstone of my faith. I decided to put the other literature down, and pick it up when I was done reading the Bible. It took me two years. In that time I probably read fifty other books. But the Bible, it sat there on my desk when I hit Leviticus. Genesis and Exodus were great, but Leviticus that was hard. But I took Luther’s advice after about a year and a half. I just plowed through it. Boy, am I glad I did. I learned a lot. It changed my whole outlook on life. To tell you the truth it opened my mind, and made me a bit more understanding of people. But it made me even more appreciative of the faith I grew up with, a faith in Jesus Christ as the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Yet to fully understand that phrase of John the Baptist, I had to read Leviticus. Over the years I have learned to love Leviticus, but I still pick on it. The Monty Python skit about the “Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch” comes to mind every time I think of Leviticus.
The Bible, contrary to the name it gets from Greek, meaning book, is actually not a book, but a collection of books. In actuality it is a library of books that all have one thing in common, Jesus Christ. The many books of the Bible, 66 in all, were written over the course of 2000 years and cover a history of about 4000 years. It had many human authors, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, John, Matthew etc. but these authors all received their inspiration from the one same source, the Holy Spirit. “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21 (ESV) And they all have the same focus, Jesus Christ. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me.” John 5:39 (ESV)
Of course, Jesus was only speaking about the Old Testament books when he said that, but it is pretty self evident that the books of the New Testament, written after his death and resurrection, are also about Christ. This is the most important thing to keep in mind as you are reading the Bible. The whole Bible is about Jesus Christ. He is the key to understanding all of scripture. He is the promised savior of Genesis 3, the seed of the woman who will crush the head of the serpent. He is also the alpha and omega of Revelation.
The Pharisees to whom Jesus was speaking when He said that, read the Bible as a guide for life. They looked to it for special rules to follow in order to gain God’s favor. People it seems are always looking for new rules, in life. If you want those, go get Dr. Phil’s newest book. Don’t read the Bible. The Bible has rules for living, most of them pretty self explanatory. You don’t need the Bible to tell you murder is wrong, plenty of atheists have figured that out. The Bible has rules for living, but that isn’t what it is about. It is about the forgiveness of sins, we have in Christ who died for us on the Cross, when we broke those rules.
With this in mind, the best book to begin the journey through the Bible with is the Gospel of John, from there read at will, go to Genesis, or go to Romans, read Leviticus and find out what it means to be the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)