It's that time of year again. The holidays are upon us again, and once again I'm marveling at the self-righteous double standard of many Christians. It begins with Halloween.
Many Christians refuse to celebrate Halloween and it's easy to see why. Halloween is a "holiday" overtly rooted in spiritual darkness. The whole tone of the festival is occultic, with it's "lighthearted" emphasis on ghosts, goblins, witches, etc. The actual origin of Halloween in Celtic paganism is the final straw for anti-Halloween believers. I understand the distate these believers feel; what I've never understood, though, is why the Christians who so sanctimoniously condemn Halloween eagerly celebrate Christmas and Easter, which are just as pagan in origin as Halloween. I've never gotten a real answer from such Christians, but I recently had the pleasure to finally meet a Christian who was honest about the holidays.
His name is E, and I work with him. He's a strong Christian and leads the prayer group at work. Right before Halloween I asked E if he was taking his kids trick or treating. I must admit that I was baiting him; I wanted to see where E stood on not only Halloween but also the larger issue of pagan "Christian" holidays. E answered my question with a question. He asked if I knew the origin of Halloween and I said I did. He then said that I should know why he didn't celebrate Halloween. Because it's pagan, I responded and E said yes. Then I asked him if he celebrated Christmas and Easter, since they're pagan in origin, too. E said he didn't, and I was surprised. That was the first time I'd heard a Christian be consistent on the holiday issue.
I told E I was surprised by his answer because most Christians I knew refused to acknowledge the paganism of Christmas and Easter. E had a response to that. He said that his duty as a Christian was to be true to Scripture, not Church tradition. E said that while he remembered Christ on Christmas and thanked God for sending His Son to earth, he didn't celebrate the holiday itself. As I said, I found that refreshing.
I admire E for his honesty. So many Christians are uninformed, inconsistent, or just plain ignorant on the issues of the holidays and whether they should celebrate them. E has taken a stand and he's letting the Bible, not cultural norms, be his guide. He is being consistent and honest on the holidays and doing it to remain true to God. E is living out holiday honesty, would that every Christian did so.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Sunday, August 02, 2009
The Connection
This blog is about my often troubled and contradictory relationship with God,the Church, and the Christian faith. I was raised in a nominally Christian home and my Christian education was rudimentary. Neither one of my parents modelled Christian living to my siblings and me. My grandmother took me and my sister to church regularly but I never felt I belonged and as soon as I could I stopped attending. Still, I managed to emerge from my largely religious deficient childhood believing in historic, orthodox Christian doctrine.
I believe in God. I believe that the Bible is His inerrant Word. I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, buried, and rose on the third day. I believe that Jesus died for our sins and that He is now the only way to God and salvation. I believe all of that yet I hesitate to call myself a Christian. Something is missing in my spiritual life, and until I find it I feel the label "Christian" is best not applied to me.
What's missing? I can't put it accurately into words but I refer to it as "the connection".
Over the past two decades I've read lots of Christian books and watched lots of Christian television. I've noticed a common theme when the topic of salvation is being addressed. In virtually every case new Christians described having what I call the conversion experience. This experience seemed to cement their commitment to the faith more than a rational understanding of Christian truths. This experience, which was invariably described with great emotion, opened up "the connection" with God. And what is "the connection"?
"The connection" is the feeling that you really do have a relationship with God. "The connection" encourages and helps sustain committment to Christian convictions. It's more than just a cerebral understanding of the reality of God; it's the heartfelt realization that God is there. I've never had that heartfelt realization.
When I was fifteen I asked Jesus to come into my heart as I'd been taught to do in church. I was serious; I really wanted Jesus in my life and in charge of my life. After praying, though, I felt nothing. I thought I must have done something wrong so I asked again and again, nothing. I tried a third time and got the same result. That was 30 years ago and I still don't understand why I didn't experience "the connection". I still ask myself, why did God reject me?
Well meaning Christians who have had that conversion experience and know the reality of God will insist that God didn't reject me when I was a kid. They'll insist that He did answer me, even if I didn't feel it, and I've been His child ever since. They'll say that faith isn't about feeling but about believing that God will do what He says He will do and then acting like you believe it. That's what well meaning Christians will say because they just don't understand what it's like to pursue God and not find Him. They don't understand because they have "the connection". So those well meaning Christians, sadly, are of little use to me.
Why does God choose to connect with some people but not others? And why would He do that if He really wants everyone to be saved? I mean, how is God encouraging people to seek Him and His salvation when He ignores them when they do? Alas, I am at a loss for any rationally and emotionally satisfying answers to such questions. One resource that was helpful to me was the book Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey. While I believe Yancey fell back on some pat answers toward the end of the book, it was so refreshing to see someone in the Christian community acknowledge that God can be disappointing. My attempt to reach God had left me feeling like a woman quoted in the book who said:
I kept hearing the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". But I found to my dismay that it is unlike any other personal relationship. I never saw God, or heard him, or felt him, or experienced the most basic ingredients of a relationship. Either there's something wrong with what I was told, or there's something wrong with me.
Boy do I understand how that woman felt! And maybe she's got a point. Maybe what's wrong isn't her, me, and others like us but, rather, what we were told Christianity would do for us. I don't know, but my pursuit of God continues albeit with a lot less intensity than when I was young. I still want God in my life. I still want "the connection". Maybe, if I keep trying and have faith, I'll one day get it.
I believe in God. I believe that the Bible is His inerrant Word. I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate. I believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, was crucified, buried, and rose on the third day. I believe that Jesus died for our sins and that He is now the only way to God and salvation. I believe all of that yet I hesitate to call myself a Christian. Something is missing in my spiritual life, and until I find it I feel the label "Christian" is best not applied to me.
What's missing? I can't put it accurately into words but I refer to it as "the connection".
Over the past two decades I've read lots of Christian books and watched lots of Christian television. I've noticed a common theme when the topic of salvation is being addressed. In virtually every case new Christians described having what I call the conversion experience. This experience seemed to cement their commitment to the faith more than a rational understanding of Christian truths. This experience, which was invariably described with great emotion, opened up "the connection" with God. And what is "the connection"?
"The connection" is the feeling that you really do have a relationship with God. "The connection" encourages and helps sustain committment to Christian convictions. It's more than just a cerebral understanding of the reality of God; it's the heartfelt realization that God is there. I've never had that heartfelt realization.
When I was fifteen I asked Jesus to come into my heart as I'd been taught to do in church. I was serious; I really wanted Jesus in my life and in charge of my life. After praying, though, I felt nothing. I thought I must have done something wrong so I asked again and again, nothing. I tried a third time and got the same result. That was 30 years ago and I still don't understand why I didn't experience "the connection". I still ask myself, why did God reject me?
Well meaning Christians who have had that conversion experience and know the reality of God will insist that God didn't reject me when I was a kid. They'll insist that He did answer me, even if I didn't feel it, and I've been His child ever since. They'll say that faith isn't about feeling but about believing that God will do what He says He will do and then acting like you believe it. That's what well meaning Christians will say because they just don't understand what it's like to pursue God and not find Him. They don't understand because they have "the connection". So those well meaning Christians, sadly, are of little use to me.
Why does God choose to connect with some people but not others? And why would He do that if He really wants everyone to be saved? I mean, how is God encouraging people to seek Him and His salvation when He ignores them when they do? Alas, I am at a loss for any rationally and emotionally satisfying answers to such questions. One resource that was helpful to me was the book Disappointment With God by Phillip Yancey. While I believe Yancey fell back on some pat answers toward the end of the book, it was so refreshing to see someone in the Christian community acknowledge that God can be disappointing. My attempt to reach God had left me feeling like a woman quoted in the book who said:
I kept hearing the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus Christ". But I found to my dismay that it is unlike any other personal relationship. I never saw God, or heard him, or felt him, or experienced the most basic ingredients of a relationship. Either there's something wrong with what I was told, or there's something wrong with me.
Boy do I understand how that woman felt! And maybe she's got a point. Maybe what's wrong isn't her, me, and others like us but, rather, what we were told Christianity would do for us. I don't know, but my pursuit of God continues albeit with a lot less intensity than when I was young. I still want God in my life. I still want "the connection". Maybe, if I keep trying and have faith, I'll one day get it.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
A Slight Problem With Carrie Prejean
Well, it's official. Carrie Prejean will keep her crown as Miss California despite the controversy over her support for traditional marriage. I'm glad for that. I support Miss Prejean in her struggle against the intolerance of gay activists; however, I do have a slight problem with Miss California.
I didn't watch the Miss USA pageant but I did see a couple of excerpts following Prejean's controversial statement. One of them was of Miss Prejean strutting across the stage in a bikini, revealing almost as much skin as a Playboy centerfold. That rubbed me the wrong way. Carrie Prejean's opposition to gay marriage was, according to her, rooted in her Christian faith. She has spoken of her reliance on God's strength during this difficult time. What I don't understand is why Miss Prejean understands God's teaching on homosexuality but doesn't seem to understand His teaching on feminine modesty.
I've written about feminine modesty on this blog once before. I complained that too many Christian women who take modesty seriously think it means they have to dress like 19th century frontier women. Carrie Prejean seems to be the opposite exreme, a Christian woman who has no concept of modesty at all. And what's more, nobody seems to have noticed that. It makes me wonder what's going on in the Christian culture.
It's great to have young people stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in public but Christians, young and old, need to stand up for ALL of those principles. The Bible commands modest dress for Godly women. It doesn't give a specific description of modest dress but I'm sure it does NOT mean a barely there swimsuit. I don't think Carrie Prejean's wardrobe faux pas means she's insincere in her faith. I think it means that she hasn't been taught all the specifics of that faith.
For years femininsts have militantly opposed beauty pageants on the grounds that they objectify women. Surprisingly enough, I think Christians can and should oppose most beauty pageants on similar grounds. Public events that require women to strip, even briefly, to near nudity violate Biblical standards. I don't think Godly women shouldn't participate in such things. But Carrie Prejean did participate in such an event and it gave her an opportunity to stand for Biblical truth. So God made a way for something quite wordly to be used for His glory. Still, that bikini prance was a disconnect from Christian values. That's the slight problem I have with Carrie Prejean.
I didn't watch the Miss USA pageant but I did see a couple of excerpts following Prejean's controversial statement. One of them was of Miss Prejean strutting across the stage in a bikini, revealing almost as much skin as a Playboy centerfold. That rubbed me the wrong way. Carrie Prejean's opposition to gay marriage was, according to her, rooted in her Christian faith. She has spoken of her reliance on God's strength during this difficult time. What I don't understand is why Miss Prejean understands God's teaching on homosexuality but doesn't seem to understand His teaching on feminine modesty.
I've written about feminine modesty on this blog once before. I complained that too many Christian women who take modesty seriously think it means they have to dress like 19th century frontier women. Carrie Prejean seems to be the opposite exreme, a Christian woman who has no concept of modesty at all. And what's more, nobody seems to have noticed that. It makes me wonder what's going on in the Christian culture.
It's great to have young people stand up for Judeo-Christian principles in public but Christians, young and old, need to stand up for ALL of those principles. The Bible commands modest dress for Godly women. It doesn't give a specific description of modest dress but I'm sure it does NOT mean a barely there swimsuit. I don't think Carrie Prejean's wardrobe faux pas means she's insincere in her faith. I think it means that she hasn't been taught all the specifics of that faith.
For years femininsts have militantly opposed beauty pageants on the grounds that they objectify women. Surprisingly enough, I think Christians can and should oppose most beauty pageants on similar grounds. Public events that require women to strip, even briefly, to near nudity violate Biblical standards. I don't think Godly women shouldn't participate in such things. But Carrie Prejean did participate in such an event and it gave her an opportunity to stand for Biblical truth. So God made a way for something quite wordly to be used for His glory. Still, that bikini prance was a disconnect from Christian values. That's the slight problem I have with Carrie Prejean.
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Jesus Defined Marriage
The issue of gay marriage is quite contentious in our country. This contentiousness was highlighted by the recent controversy involving Miss California Carrie Prejean's support for traditional marriage during the Miss USA pageant. Miss Prejean's commitment to traditional marriage is believed by some to have cost her the Miss USA title. It has also made her the object of rabid scorn. Miss Prejean's courage and grace in the face of vitriolic condemnation is an inspiration but it might leave some people wondering if she's right to base her stand on the Bible. She is.
There are secular arguments against gay marriage but to those who claim any allegiance to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, the Bible's definition of marriage is the final authority. The Old Testament is unambiguous in it's condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Gay marriage is definitely NOT in the OT's picture. Many liberal and/or gay Christians, however, say the New Testament is different, more "enlightened". They like to make much of Jesus' alleged silence on the subject of homosexuality. He didn't speak directly against it so, they reason, this is an endorsement of the lifestyle. They are wrong.
Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, that's true, but He really didn't have to. We need to remember that Jesus didn't exist in a vaccuum. He lived in a Jewish culture steeped in the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was a devout Jew who, unlike the apostle Paul, never repudiated the Mosaic Law nor its moral commandments, including the commandment against homosexuality. When Jesus was on earth the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament. That was the Bible Jesus read. That was the Bible Jesus quoted. That was the Bible Jesus believed to be the Word of God. And that was the Bible Jesus used to define marriage. Yes, Jesus defined marriage. It's written in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3-6. Here are those verses from the New King James Version of God's Word:
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.
There it is folks, Jesus' definition of marriage. In the view of our Saviour, marriage is a heterosexual covenant. When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus didn't offer some new, "inclusive" concept of matrimony. Instead, He quoted the book of Genesis--showing He regarded it as authoritative--where God instituted marriage by creating mankind male and female. It is for that reason--making humans male and female--that men should leave their parents and be one flesh with their wives. HUSBAND and WIFE, MAN and WOMAN are what God joined together, and that "one flesh" is what man has no authority or right to put asunder. This is a crushing blow to liberal Christianity's love affair with homosexuality, gay rights, and even its attempt to allegorize Genesis' creation account. This should be the end of the debate, but it won't be.
Die hard liberal believers will rush to point out that this definition of marriage came in response to a question about divorce, not homosexuality. Therefore, Matthew 19:3-6, the liberals will say, is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They are wrong. Jesus did give the above definition of marriage in response to a divorce question, but that does NOT negate the definition itself. The meaning of marriage applies to all circumstances; it is NOT situational. If the Pharisees had asked Jesus about gay marriage He would've given the SAME answer, because there is only ONE Biblical definition of marriage. There is only one union God ordained: male and female. Jesus said man must not separate what God has joined. The Saviour submitted to God's domestic structure. Who are we to object?
There are secular arguments against gay marriage but to those who claim any allegiance to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic, the Bible's definition of marriage is the final authority. The Old Testament is unambiguous in it's condemnation of homosexuality as sin. Gay marriage is definitely NOT in the OT's picture. Many liberal and/or gay Christians, however, say the New Testament is different, more "enlightened". They like to make much of Jesus' alleged silence on the subject of homosexuality. He didn't speak directly against it so, they reason, this is an endorsement of the lifestyle. They are wrong.
Jesus didn't mention homosexuality, that's true, but He really didn't have to. We need to remember that Jesus didn't exist in a vaccuum. He lived in a Jewish culture steeped in the moral teachings of the Mosaic Law. Jesus was a devout Jew who, unlike the apostle Paul, never repudiated the Mosaic Law nor its moral commandments, including the commandment against homosexuality. When Jesus was on earth the Bible consisted only of what Christians now call the Old Testament. That was the Bible Jesus read. That was the Bible Jesus quoted. That was the Bible Jesus believed to be the Word of God. And that was the Bible Jesus used to define marriage. Yes, Jesus defined marriage. It's written in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 19, verses 3-6. Here are those verses from the New King James Version of God's Word:
The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female' and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.
There it is folks, Jesus' definition of marriage. In the view of our Saviour, marriage is a heterosexual covenant. When confronted by the Pharisees, Jesus didn't offer some new, "inclusive" concept of matrimony. Instead, He quoted the book of Genesis--showing He regarded it as authoritative--where God instituted marriage by creating mankind male and female. It is for that reason--making humans male and female--that men should leave their parents and be one flesh with their wives. HUSBAND and WIFE, MAN and WOMAN are what God joined together, and that "one flesh" is what man has no authority or right to put asunder. This is a crushing blow to liberal Christianity's love affair with homosexuality, gay rights, and even its attempt to allegorize Genesis' creation account. This should be the end of the debate, but it won't be.
Die hard liberal believers will rush to point out that this definition of marriage came in response to a question about divorce, not homosexuality. Therefore, Matthew 19:3-6, the liberals will say, is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage or homosexuality in general. They are wrong. Jesus did give the above definition of marriage in response to a divorce question, but that does NOT negate the definition itself. The meaning of marriage applies to all circumstances; it is NOT situational. If the Pharisees had asked Jesus about gay marriage He would've given the SAME answer, because there is only ONE Biblical definition of marriage. There is only one union God ordained: male and female. Jesus said man must not separate what God has joined. The Saviour submitted to God's domestic structure. Who are we to object?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Do You Agree With This Guy?
I found this video while looking around on God Tube, now tangle.com. The young man, Josh, is expressing his opinion on a subject that has divided the Christian community for decades. I think a lot of believers agree with Josh; I don't. I think that the views that Josh shares in his vid are the very reason why the Christian worldview--and its secular, traditionalist counterpart--has lost the culture. I understand where Josh is coming from when he says that Christians can't and shouldn't take the things of the world to honor God. But everything we could ever use to honor God comes from the "world" in the since that it comes from sinful humans. If we can't use rock music to sing God's praises, can we use ANY music, ANY art, to do so? ALL art, after all, comes from human beings. I believe it is neutral; it will convey whatever spirit is in the people making it. I don't believe that a certain type of spirit is inherent to particular types of art. But that's just my opinion. Give a listen to Josh's view and then decide for yourself.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Real Brothers, Real Sisters
When Dan Brown's controversial book "The Da Vinci Code" was published many people were outraged over its assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were not only married but had a child. Apparently, that notion bothered people not only because it posits a sexually active Christ but also because it implies that there are descendants of Jesus alive today. While there's little or no Biblical evidence that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or anyone else, there probably ARE descendants of Jesus alive now, albeit indirect ones. Why do I say this? Because Jesus had brothers and sisters. I know; I just wrote something that a lot of Christians will vehemently disagree with. For them, the idea that Jesus had siblings is as repulsive as the idea that He was married. But if you believe the Bible you can accept no other conclusion but that Jesus was the oldest of at least seven children.
In the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth He is described as being Mary's first son, first as in other sons followed. The Gospel of Matthew provides the names of Mary's other sons: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Mary's daughters--Jesus's sisters--are not named but they are mentioned in the plural, so we know there were at least two of them. Later in the first Gospel--Matthew 12:46--Mary and Jesus's brothers are mentioned as wanting to speak with Him while He was preaching to a crowd. Jesus's brothers and sisters are also mentioned in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John and in at least two Pauline letters, clearly showing that Christ was not an only child. So, with all this Scriptural evidence attesting to the nature of Christ's family, why do many Christians reject the fact of His siblings? Answer: the unBiblical doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that Mary never had sex, but remained virginal all her life. Clearly, if Jesus had brothers and sisters that doctrine crumbles. How, then, do the Catholic and Orthodox churches explain, or explain away, the references to Christ's siblings? The most popular explanation is that the brothers mentioned in verses like that of Matthew 12:46 are spiritual brothers. But this doesn't make sense. First of all Jesus, as mentioned above, is described as Mary's first son. If He was the first, then Mary had at least one more. Secondly, Catholics and the Orthodox never take the word "mother" in Matthew 12:46 and similar verses elsewhere to mean anything but a literal mother. Why, then, should the word "brothers" in those passages be interpreted as spiritual? Here is Matthew 12:46:
While Jesus was still speaking to the crowd his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to talk to him.
Clearly, from the context of the above verse "brothers" is a literal term. The men waiting with Mary to speak to Jesus were her sons, His siblings. Some Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept that the "brothers" in this passage are Jesus's literal, not spiritual, brothers but deny that they were Mary's children. Instead, they claim that the men were the children of Joseph by a previous wife. Unfortunately, the Bible does not support this claim. NOWHERE in Scripture is Joseph described as having any wife but Mary. And Scripture says that Joseph did "know" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is false and needs to be discarded by anyone seriously committed to Biblical truth. Joseph and Mary were a normal married couple; they had sex with each other and conceived at least six children after Jesus. James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and the unnamed girls were Jesus's siblings. They were His real brothers and real sisters and, in all probability, their descendants are walking the earth today. Imagine that. Relatives of Jesus alive today. That's way more cool, and way closer to what Scripture actually says, than a specious doctrine of phoney "purity". Mary had sex; she had children. Get over it.
In the Gospel accounts of Jesus's birth He is described as being Mary's first son, first as in other sons followed. The Gospel of Matthew provides the names of Mary's other sons: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Mary's daughters--Jesus's sisters--are not named but they are mentioned in the plural, so we know there were at least two of them. Later in the first Gospel--Matthew 12:46--Mary and Jesus's brothers are mentioned as wanting to speak with Him while He was preaching to a crowd. Jesus's brothers and sisters are also mentioned in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John and in at least two Pauline letters, clearly showing that Christ was not an only child. So, with all this Scriptural evidence attesting to the nature of Christ's family, why do many Christians reject the fact of His siblings? Answer: the unBiblical doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.
Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches teach that Mary never had sex, but remained virginal all her life. Clearly, if Jesus had brothers and sisters that doctrine crumbles. How, then, do the Catholic and Orthodox churches explain, or explain away, the references to Christ's siblings? The most popular explanation is that the brothers mentioned in verses like that of Matthew 12:46 are spiritual brothers. But this doesn't make sense. First of all Jesus, as mentioned above, is described as Mary's first son. If He was the first, then Mary had at least one more. Secondly, Catholics and the Orthodox never take the word "mother" in Matthew 12:46 and similar verses elsewhere to mean anything but a literal mother. Why, then, should the word "brothers" in those passages be interpreted as spiritual? Here is Matthew 12:46:
While Jesus was still speaking to the crowd his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to talk to him.
Clearly, from the context of the above verse "brothers" is a literal term. The men waiting with Mary to speak to Jesus were her sons, His siblings. Some Catholic and Orthodox Christians accept that the "brothers" in this passage are Jesus's literal, not spiritual, brothers but deny that they were Mary's children. Instead, they claim that the men were the children of Joseph by a previous wife. Unfortunately, the Bible does not support this claim. NOWHERE in Scripture is Joseph described as having any wife but Mary. And Scripture says that Joseph did "know" Mary after she gave birth to Jesus.
The doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary is false and needs to be discarded by anyone seriously committed to Biblical truth. Joseph and Mary were a normal married couple; they had sex with each other and conceived at least six children after Jesus. James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, and the unnamed girls were Jesus's siblings. They were His real brothers and real sisters and, in all probability, their descendants are walking the earth today. Imagine that. Relatives of Jesus alive today. That's way more cool, and way closer to what Scripture actually says, than a specious doctrine of phoney "purity". Mary had sex; she had children. Get over it.
Saturday, August 02, 2008
The Trinity Explained...Sort Of
If you're like me the doctrine of the Trinity has always befuddled you. The idea that God is one Being that exists in three Persons is confusing, to say the least. It also always seemed a little contradictory to me. How can Christians be monotheists yet believe that three separate beings are God? How can three be one? I've finally hit upon a way to explain the Trinity that works; an explanation that's both spiritually and intellectually satisfying, at least to me. I've come to think of the Trinity as a set of divine identical triplets. Before you accuse me of blasphemy or stupidity, hear me out.
My main sticking point with the doctrine and concept of the Trinity has always been that three is more than one. When you have two or more of something you can't call it one, unless you're dealing with identical multiples. The doctrine of the Trinity says that the members of the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--are three beings who are one in essence. And it's that "oneness of essence" that makes them one God. But they're still three Persons, so how could they be one in any way? Answer: they're identical triplets.
Think about it. Identical multiples are called that NOT because they look exactly alike, but because their DNA is 100% the same. Thus, while identical multiples consist of two or more separate people, their genetic essence is the same making them, genetically speaking, one person. This is how you can have two, three, or four separate individuals who, beneath the skin, are actually the same person. This is how you can have the Trinity. This is how Christians can believe that three persons are God while remaining true monotheists. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God because their "genetic essence" is the same. This essence is what defines them, not their existence as separate beings.
This is how I understand the Trinity. An image of God as a set of divine, identical triplets may offend some people. I understand that. But I think it's more offensive to be unable to give a reasonable explanation of a key Christian doctrine. Pratically every church I've ever attended did a terrible job of explaining the Trinity. This contributed significantly to my divine discontents. Realizing that there are instances in the physical world where two or more beings are really one helps me to grasp this fact in the spiritual realm. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost really are one God. They are triplets. Understand?
My main sticking point with the doctrine and concept of the Trinity has always been that three is more than one. When you have two or more of something you can't call it one, unless you're dealing with identical multiples. The doctrine of the Trinity says that the members of the Godhead--Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--are three beings who are one in essence. And it's that "oneness of essence" that makes them one God. But they're still three Persons, so how could they be one in any way? Answer: they're identical triplets.
Think about it. Identical multiples are called that NOT because they look exactly alike, but because their DNA is 100% the same. Thus, while identical multiples consist of two or more separate people, their genetic essence is the same making them, genetically speaking, one person. This is how you can have two, three, or four separate individuals who, beneath the skin, are actually the same person. This is how you can have the Trinity. This is how Christians can believe that three persons are God while remaining true monotheists. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God because their "genetic essence" is the same. This essence is what defines them, not their existence as separate beings.
This is how I understand the Trinity. An image of God as a set of divine, identical triplets may offend some people. I understand that. But I think it's more offensive to be unable to give a reasonable explanation of a key Christian doctrine. Pratically every church I've ever attended did a terrible job of explaining the Trinity. This contributed significantly to my divine discontents. Realizing that there are instances in the physical world where two or more beings are really one helps me to grasp this fact in the spiritual realm. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost really are one God. They are triplets. Understand?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Isn't It Strange?
This message was sent to me by a friend. As you read it I'm sure you'll feel that little twinge of guilt just as I did. Read it anyway, and pass it on.
Isn't It Strange?
Isn't it strange how a $20 bill seems like such a large amount when you donate it to church but such a small amount when you go shopping?
Isn't it strange how two hours seem so long when you're at church and so short when you're watching a good movie?
Isn't it strange that you can't find a word to say when you're praying but you have no trouble thinking what to talk about with a friend?
Isn't it strange how difficult and boring it is to read one chapter of the Bible but how easy it is to read 100 pages of a popular novel?
Isn't it strange how everyone wants front row tickets to concerts or games but do whatever is possible to sit in the last row at church?
Isn't it strange how we need to know about an event at church 2-3 weeks in advance so we can include it in our schedule but we can adjust our schedule for other events at the last minute?
Isn't it strange how difficult it is to learn a fact about God and share it with others but how easy it is to learn and repeat gossip?
Isn't it strange how we believe everything that magazines and newspapers say but question the words of the Bible?
Isn't it strange how everyone wants a place in heaven but they don't want to believe, do, or say anything to get there?
Isn't it strange how we forward e-mail jokes right away but hesitate to forward messages about God?
IT'S STRANGE, ISN'T IT?
Now that you've read this message will you forward it to anyone you consider a friend, family, or even a foe? If you chose not to share HIS message you may deprive yourself of being blessed as well as depriving others who may need God in their lives.
Posting this message on my blog is my way of sharing it. I hope you share it, too.
Isn't It Strange?
Isn't it strange how a $20 bill seems like such a large amount when you donate it to church but such a small amount when you go shopping?
Isn't it strange how two hours seem so long when you're at church and so short when you're watching a good movie?
Isn't it strange that you can't find a word to say when you're praying but you have no trouble thinking what to talk about with a friend?
Isn't it strange how difficult and boring it is to read one chapter of the Bible but how easy it is to read 100 pages of a popular novel?
Isn't it strange how everyone wants front row tickets to concerts or games but do whatever is possible to sit in the last row at church?
Isn't it strange how we need to know about an event at church 2-3 weeks in advance so we can include it in our schedule but we can adjust our schedule for other events at the last minute?
Isn't it strange how difficult it is to learn a fact about God and share it with others but how easy it is to learn and repeat gossip?
Isn't it strange how we believe everything that magazines and newspapers say but question the words of the Bible?
Isn't it strange how everyone wants a place in heaven but they don't want to believe, do, or say anything to get there?
Isn't it strange how we forward e-mail jokes right away but hesitate to forward messages about God?
IT'S STRANGE, ISN'T IT?
Now that you've read this message will you forward it to anyone you consider a friend, family, or even a foe? If you chose not to share HIS message you may deprive yourself of being blessed as well as depriving others who may need God in their lives.
Posting this message on my blog is my way of sharing it. I hope you share it, too.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
An Irish Blessing
I know it's a little late for St. Patrick's Day, but I found this Irish, guardian angel blessing while surfing blogs and just had to post it. Enjoy!
An Irish Blessing
A sunbeam to warm you
A moonbeam to charm you
A sheltering angel, so nothing can harm you.
Short, simple, and beautiful!
An Irish Blessing
A sunbeam to warm you
A moonbeam to charm you
A sheltering angel, so nothing can harm you.
Short, simple, and beautiful!
Monday, March 03, 2008
Grace
Here is a beautiful poem written by Denna who blogs at Two Little Darlings (she's in my blogroll). I asked her if I could put it on God and Me and she said yes. I love this poem because it affirms the Biblical truth that God supports and strengthens us in the bad times rather than always keeping us out of harm's way as the phony prosperity gospel asserts. So here's "Grace"; I hope you like it as much as I do.
God has not promised skies always blue,
flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God has not promised sun without rain,
joy without sorrow, peace without pain.
But God has promised strength for the day,
rest for the labor, light for the way;
Grace for the trails, help from above,
unfailing sympathy, undying love.
Isn't that beautiful?! What a warm, gentle, and lovely way Denna chose to speak Biblical truth to a Christian community too often looking for divine quick fixes to life's problems. I just hope Christians are listening.
God has not promised skies always blue,
flower-strewn pathways all our lives through;
God has not promised sun without rain,
joy without sorrow, peace without pain.
But God has promised strength for the day,
rest for the labor, light for the way;
Grace for the trails, help from above,
unfailing sympathy, undying love.
Isn't that beautiful?! What a warm, gentle, and lovely way Denna chose to speak Biblical truth to a Christian community too often looking for divine quick fixes to life's problems. I just hope Christians are listening.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Don't Blame The Church First
A couple of days ago I came across a book titled "unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity...And Why It Matters". The book was written by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons. Actually, I didn't come across the book itself but a review of it on a blog. I was intrigued by the information about the book that was in the review. Basically, this book is an in depth report on what young people--those 30 and under--think of Christianity. And the news isn't good. How should Christians respond to the negative impression so many in the younger generation have toward the faith? Not by blaming it all on the Church, which is what I fear some Christians will do. Let's take a closer look at the problem areas to see what Christians can do about them.
In "unChristian", the young complained that Christians were judgmental, anti-gay, hypocritical, too political, and sheltered. We might first ask where the young got these views. Of course, there are and always will be Christians who behave in unChristlike ways and it's highly likely that young people got their negative views of Christians partly from them. But I suspect that other, more calculating, sources implanted anti-Christian attitudes into the young's hearts and minds.
We all know that the media is dominated by irreligious people who use their position to voice their anti-Christian prejudices. I can remember '70's sitcoms such as The Jeffersons, All in the Family, and One Day at a Time, portraying Bible-believing Christians as narrow-minded, hypocritical, dumb, and/or bigoted. This has continued to this day. It's acceptable to mock and even to hate Christianity in popular culture. The relentless barrage of anti-Christian messages in popular entertainment can't help but leave a negative impression of Christians in people's minds. Christians who are inclined to blame the Church for it's poor image need to remember that and hold Hollywood accountable for it's anti-Christian bigotry.
Christians must get more involved in the media. No one but Christians are going to portray them and their beliefs accurately and sympathetically on film, in books, and on tv. They need to realize that and stop just criticizing Hollywood and start creating art and entertainment that winsomely conveys the Christian worldview. But what about the specific charges the young levelled against Christians? Well, let's take a closer look at those.
Sheltered
This one really surprised me. Just what do the young mean when they accuse Christians of being "sheltered"? Do they mean that Christians don't share a lot of the values of secular culture? Well, that's true. Christians who take their faith seriously are going to differ from their contemporaries by definition. But it's not because they're sheltered. On the contrary, many Christians became Christian because they saw way too much of what the unChristian world offered and found it wanting. In addition, most Christians live in the same neighborhoods, attend the same schools, and work at the same jobs as non-Christians. They're not holed up in monasteries or communes. So what's this business about them being sheltered? I think it reflects a deeply engrained ignorance of and bigotry against Christians on the part of those who make the accusation. The faithful should not be intimidated by it.
Anti-Gay
This is the big one. Of all the things it's wrong to be in our modern society, anti-gay is the "wrongest". Many of the younger generation seem to think that anti-gay sentiments among Christians makes them little better than Nazis. But is that fair? Yes, Bible-believing Christians hold that homosexuality is a sin, but they believe that other sexual practices, such as adultery and prostitution, are also sin. Why are they accused of hate and Naziism for disapproving of the former but not the latter? Where's the reasoning in that? And what about diversity and tolerance, the two most touted values of secular culture? Difference and the tolerance of difference are supposed to be great. So why no tolerance for Christians who think differently from non-Christians about homosexuality? Young people who condemn Christians for opposing homosexuality should be asked these questions. They should be made to defend their accusation. In the process they may learn that they've accepted pro-gay arguments unthinkingly and have judged Christians unfairly.
Judgmental
This common accusation against Christians is repeated by the young people in the book. But what do they mean when they accuse Christians of being "judgmental"? Do they mean that Christians make a distinction between right and wrong and stick to it? If so, is that so bad? And if it is, is that practice limited to Christians? Or do they mean that Christians condemn people unfairly, show no compassion for human weakness, and/or impose their morality on others? Well, we can all agree that unfairness and lack of compassion are wrong and Christians are sometimes guilty of this. But non-Christians are guilty of these things, too. Trying to make these faults peculiar to believers in Christ is itself a form of unfairness, lack of compassion, and judgmentalism.
And as for imposing their morality on others, this is really laughable. Yes, Christians have deeply held values. Yes, they often criticize society for violating those values. And they sometimes work for laws that reflect their morals. But every other group in America does the same thing, especially militant secularists. Secularists control the transmitters of culture: the schools, the media, and Hollywood. They use these outlets to proselytize their worldview, to the young especially. In the schools secularists have instituted sex ed classes that deliberately teach children an anti-Biblical sexual ethic. In their movies they routinely portray Christians as ignorant, bigoted, and dangerous. Ditto for their news media. And to ensure that their indoctrination goes unchallenged secularists have invented speech codes, written laws, and employed social stigmatization to stop "hate", i.e. dissent from their anti-Christian propaganda. So we should ask the young accusers, who's imposing their views on whom? Who's being judgmental?
Hypocritical
This accusation against Christians is as old as the faith itself. Yes, there's hypocrisy among Christians. No, it's not peculiar to them. If you're going to look down on Christians for sometimes being hypocritical then you'll have to look down on every other religious and secular group. Hypocrisy is a human failing, not a Christian one. The young should remember that before they get too sanctimonious in their condemnation of the faithful.
Too Political
This one surprised me as much as the accusation that Christians were sheltered. Apparently, the young believe that Christians don't have the same civic rights and responsibilites as all other citizens. Gee, I wonder where they got that idea! While I do think that Christians sometimes put too much faith in politics to achieve what the Bible says only Christ can, they are totally within their right as Americans to organize politically. It would appear that the young, like many older people, object to Christian political activism because it's usually on the conservative side of the political aisle. If most Christians were voting for Democrats and their liberal policies their political involvement would be praised by most of those who now hold it in contempt. So the charge of "too political" is an expression of sour grapes not principle.
There you have it. The five big negatives the young have against Christians. And the reasons why those negatives aren't all Christians' fault. Of course, Christians should correct their unChristlike behavior where ever and when ever it arises. But they shouldn't capitulate to "blame the Church first" sentiment out of a misguided notion of love, meekness, or forgiveness. Rather, Christians should challenge their accusers to prove their accusations. They should boldly speak out against anti-Christian bigotry in the media, and they shouldn't hesitate to protect their rights through the courts. Christ told His followers to be not just gentle as doves but also wise as serpents. Fighting anti-Christian stereotypes and propaganda should bring out the serpent in them.
In "unChristian", the young complained that Christians were judgmental, anti-gay, hypocritical, too political, and sheltered. We might first ask where the young got these views. Of course, there are and always will be Christians who behave in unChristlike ways and it's highly likely that young people got their negative views of Christians partly from them. But I suspect that other, more calculating, sources implanted anti-Christian attitudes into the young's hearts and minds.
We all know that the media is dominated by irreligious people who use their position to voice their anti-Christian prejudices. I can remember '70's sitcoms such as The Jeffersons, All in the Family, and One Day at a Time, portraying Bible-believing Christians as narrow-minded, hypocritical, dumb, and/or bigoted. This has continued to this day. It's acceptable to mock and even to hate Christianity in popular culture. The relentless barrage of anti-Christian messages in popular entertainment can't help but leave a negative impression of Christians in people's minds. Christians who are inclined to blame the Church for it's poor image need to remember that and hold Hollywood accountable for it's anti-Christian bigotry.
Christians must get more involved in the media. No one but Christians are going to portray them and their beliefs accurately and sympathetically on film, in books, and on tv. They need to realize that and stop just criticizing Hollywood and start creating art and entertainment that winsomely conveys the Christian worldview. But what about the specific charges the young levelled against Christians? Well, let's take a closer look at those.
Sheltered
This one really surprised me. Just what do the young mean when they accuse Christians of being "sheltered"? Do they mean that Christians don't share a lot of the values of secular culture? Well, that's true. Christians who take their faith seriously are going to differ from their contemporaries by definition. But it's not because they're sheltered. On the contrary, many Christians became Christian because they saw way too much of what the unChristian world offered and found it wanting. In addition, most Christians live in the same neighborhoods, attend the same schools, and work at the same jobs as non-Christians. They're not holed up in monasteries or communes. So what's this business about them being sheltered? I think it reflects a deeply engrained ignorance of and bigotry against Christians on the part of those who make the accusation. The faithful should not be intimidated by it.
Anti-Gay
This is the big one. Of all the things it's wrong to be in our modern society, anti-gay is the "wrongest". Many of the younger generation seem to think that anti-gay sentiments among Christians makes them little better than Nazis. But is that fair? Yes, Bible-believing Christians hold that homosexuality is a sin, but they believe that other sexual practices, such as adultery and prostitution, are also sin. Why are they accused of hate and Naziism for disapproving of the former but not the latter? Where's the reasoning in that? And what about diversity and tolerance, the two most touted values of secular culture? Difference and the tolerance of difference are supposed to be great. So why no tolerance for Christians who think differently from non-Christians about homosexuality? Young people who condemn Christians for opposing homosexuality should be asked these questions. They should be made to defend their accusation. In the process they may learn that they've accepted pro-gay arguments unthinkingly and have judged Christians unfairly.
Judgmental
This common accusation against Christians is repeated by the young people in the book. But what do they mean when they accuse Christians of being "judgmental"? Do they mean that Christians make a distinction between right and wrong and stick to it? If so, is that so bad? And if it is, is that practice limited to Christians? Or do they mean that Christians condemn people unfairly, show no compassion for human weakness, and/or impose their morality on others? Well, we can all agree that unfairness and lack of compassion are wrong and Christians are sometimes guilty of this. But non-Christians are guilty of these things, too. Trying to make these faults peculiar to believers in Christ is itself a form of unfairness, lack of compassion, and judgmentalism.
And as for imposing their morality on others, this is really laughable. Yes, Christians have deeply held values. Yes, they often criticize society for violating those values. And they sometimes work for laws that reflect their morals. But every other group in America does the same thing, especially militant secularists. Secularists control the transmitters of culture: the schools, the media, and Hollywood. They use these outlets to proselytize their worldview, to the young especially. In the schools secularists have instituted sex ed classes that deliberately teach children an anti-Biblical sexual ethic. In their movies they routinely portray Christians as ignorant, bigoted, and dangerous. Ditto for their news media. And to ensure that their indoctrination goes unchallenged secularists have invented speech codes, written laws, and employed social stigmatization to stop "hate", i.e. dissent from their anti-Christian propaganda. So we should ask the young accusers, who's imposing their views on whom? Who's being judgmental?
Hypocritical
This accusation against Christians is as old as the faith itself. Yes, there's hypocrisy among Christians. No, it's not peculiar to them. If you're going to look down on Christians for sometimes being hypocritical then you'll have to look down on every other religious and secular group. Hypocrisy is a human failing, not a Christian one. The young should remember that before they get too sanctimonious in their condemnation of the faithful.
Too Political
This one surprised me as much as the accusation that Christians were sheltered. Apparently, the young believe that Christians don't have the same civic rights and responsibilites as all other citizens. Gee, I wonder where they got that idea! While I do think that Christians sometimes put too much faith in politics to achieve what the Bible says only Christ can, they are totally within their right as Americans to organize politically. It would appear that the young, like many older people, object to Christian political activism because it's usually on the conservative side of the political aisle. If most Christians were voting for Democrats and their liberal policies their political involvement would be praised by most of those who now hold it in contempt. So the charge of "too political" is an expression of sour grapes not principle.
There you have it. The five big negatives the young have against Christians. And the reasons why those negatives aren't all Christians' fault. Of course, Christians should correct their unChristlike behavior where ever and when ever it arises. But they shouldn't capitulate to "blame the Church first" sentiment out of a misguided notion of love, meekness, or forgiveness. Rather, Christians should challenge their accusers to prove their accusations. They should boldly speak out against anti-Christian bigotry in the media, and they shouldn't hesitate to protect their rights through the courts. Christ told His followers to be not just gentle as doves but also wise as serpents. Fighting anti-Christian stereotypes and propaganda should bring out the serpent in them.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Why Not Married Priests?
I want it known from the beginning that I'm not anti-Catholic. I believe that Catholics are Christians and I DON'T believe that the Pope is out to take over the world with the Illuminati. However, I was raised Protestant and many things about Catholicism do baffle me. One of those things is the prohibition on married priests.
Growing up Prostestant I saw many married pastors; one was even in my extended family. In fact, virtually every pastor I knew anything about or whose church I attended was married. No, they weren't all paragons of marital virtue but being married and having children didn't hinder the performance of their pastoral duties. If anything, being married seemed to make pastors more approachable, more in tune with real life where most people married and had kids.
If you are having problems in the most intimate part of your life, seeking help from someone who's been there can be far more productive than asking advice from someone who has no personal experience of your situation. Yes, Catholic priests can teach people the Bible's commandments on the duties of husbands, wives, parents, and children. But there's a big difference between reading commandments and applying them in real life. No matter how well versed priests may be in Biblical family doctrine the fact is they have no experience living it. I've never understood why the Catholic Church doesn't realize that's a weakness.
But even more important than the question of personal experience is Biblical authority. The Bible is the only authority on Christian doctrine and practice. It is the only book which God has given to reveal His instructions on how Christians should live. No church, clergyman, or denomination has the right to require of Christians anything that God Himself doesn't. And that's what the Catholic Church is doing by requiring priestly celibacy.
I'll say it without equivocation, there is NO Biblical commandment for clerical celibacy. In both the Old and New Testaments priests, elders, deacons, and bishops weren't just married but were presumed to be so. Both Testaments gave instructions on how clerics were to handle their own families. In the New Testament, for instance, having his own children under control was a key factor in determining a man's fitness to be a leader in the Church. Clearly, such a standard would've been unnecessary if priests were required to be single.
Some Catholics I'm sure will argue that Jesus and Paul are the authority for the Church's celibacy doctrine. Jesus and Paul were not married, ergo priests shouldn't be either. The problems with that argument are obvious. First, Jesus and Paul weren't priests, certainly not in the Catholic understanding of the term. Rather, they were itinerant preachers unattached to any ecclesiastical organization. Further, while we know for sure that Paul was single Jesus' marital status isn't so clear cut.
Most people assume that Jesus was single because no wife is ever mentioned for Him. But that's an argument from silence and it's weak. It's like claiming that Jesus was illiterate because no mention is made of Him going to school. The fact is the Bible is silent on 95% of Jesus' life. His birth and His adolescent encounter with the Pharisees in the Temple are mentioned only briefly. His ministry, which began when He was 30, is the part of Jesus' life that the Bible is truly concerned with. Virtually everything else is ignored as irrelevant. So it shouldn't be surprising that Christ's wife, if she existed, didn't make it into Scripture. The absense of a messianic spouse gives no church the right to demand clerical bachelorhood. So I reiterate, the Catholic Church is stepping beyond its authority by forbidding it's priests to marry.
Why not married priests? God is the reason why not. Christians are to "obey God rather than men". When manmade rules and regulations conflict with those of God, God's prevail. The Bible is God's Word. It reveals His commandments, rules, and requirements for living the Christian life. No church, priest or pastor has the right or the authority to go beyond God's commands. Requiring people to follow rules that have no basis in Scripture is a sin. The Catholic Church is sinning when it demands priestly celibacy. Married men can serve God as priests; the Bible says so. It's time the Church put aside tradition and committed itself to God's way. Let the priests marry! The blessings of obedience will be bountiful.
Growing up Prostestant I saw many married pastors; one was even in my extended family. In fact, virtually every pastor I knew anything about or whose church I attended was married. No, they weren't all paragons of marital virtue but being married and having children didn't hinder the performance of their pastoral duties. If anything, being married seemed to make pastors more approachable, more in tune with real life where most people married and had kids.
If you are having problems in the most intimate part of your life, seeking help from someone who's been there can be far more productive than asking advice from someone who has no personal experience of your situation. Yes, Catholic priests can teach people the Bible's commandments on the duties of husbands, wives, parents, and children. But there's a big difference between reading commandments and applying them in real life. No matter how well versed priests may be in Biblical family doctrine the fact is they have no experience living it. I've never understood why the Catholic Church doesn't realize that's a weakness.
But even more important than the question of personal experience is Biblical authority. The Bible is the only authority on Christian doctrine and practice. It is the only book which God has given to reveal His instructions on how Christians should live. No church, clergyman, or denomination has the right to require of Christians anything that God Himself doesn't. And that's what the Catholic Church is doing by requiring priestly celibacy.
I'll say it without equivocation, there is NO Biblical commandment for clerical celibacy. In both the Old and New Testaments priests, elders, deacons, and bishops weren't just married but were presumed to be so. Both Testaments gave instructions on how clerics were to handle their own families. In the New Testament, for instance, having his own children under control was a key factor in determining a man's fitness to be a leader in the Church. Clearly, such a standard would've been unnecessary if priests were required to be single.
Some Catholics I'm sure will argue that Jesus and Paul are the authority for the Church's celibacy doctrine. Jesus and Paul were not married, ergo priests shouldn't be either. The problems with that argument are obvious. First, Jesus and Paul weren't priests, certainly not in the Catholic understanding of the term. Rather, they were itinerant preachers unattached to any ecclesiastical organization. Further, while we know for sure that Paul was single Jesus' marital status isn't so clear cut.
Most people assume that Jesus was single because no wife is ever mentioned for Him. But that's an argument from silence and it's weak. It's like claiming that Jesus was illiterate because no mention is made of Him going to school. The fact is the Bible is silent on 95% of Jesus' life. His birth and His adolescent encounter with the Pharisees in the Temple are mentioned only briefly. His ministry, which began when He was 30, is the part of Jesus' life that the Bible is truly concerned with. Virtually everything else is ignored as irrelevant. So it shouldn't be surprising that Christ's wife, if she existed, didn't make it into Scripture. The absense of a messianic spouse gives no church the right to demand clerical bachelorhood. So I reiterate, the Catholic Church is stepping beyond its authority by forbidding it's priests to marry.
Why not married priests? God is the reason why not. Christians are to "obey God rather than men". When manmade rules and regulations conflict with those of God, God's prevail. The Bible is God's Word. It reveals His commandments, rules, and requirements for living the Christian life. No church, priest or pastor has the right or the authority to go beyond God's commands. Requiring people to follow rules that have no basis in Scripture is a sin. The Catholic Church is sinning when it demands priestly celibacy. Married men can serve God as priests; the Bible says so. It's time the Church put aside tradition and committed itself to God's way. Let the priests marry! The blessings of obedience will be bountiful.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Modern Modesty
The Bible has teachings on virtually every aspect of human life. Both the Old and New Testaments have many rules and commandments on how the faithful should live. Some of those rules deal with clothing. Biblical clothing rules range from the prohibition on cross dressing to commands for modest dress for women. It's the modest dress rules or, rather, their application that I want to discuss in this post.
I admire those Christians who take the Bible's teachings on modest dress seriously. So many of today's professed Christian women don't. Go to just about any church and you'll see women dressed in ways that are indistinguishable from non-Christian women. You won't see young ladies looking like Britney Spears in most churches but you will see young and old women alike sporting the latest, non-modest styles. This goes against the Bible's teaching that women are to dress modestly with shamefacedness and sobriety, and not dwell on being fashionistas, as we say today.
For Christian women who want to obey God current clothing styles offer few choices. Virtually everthing on the market for women today is designed to show off their sexuality. For truly modest wear Christians are forced to make their own clothes or buy from online Christian stores specializing in modest clothing. But there's a problem there, too. While looking at online modest dress stores I became painfully aware that most of them operate on the principle that modest is synonymous with old-fashioned, dowdy, and just plain ugly.
The devout Christian women and families who run most of these stores are well-intentioned, but they're fixated on 19th century pioneer wear for inspiration for the style of dresses and skirts they sale. I suspect that most pro-modesty Christian women don't really want to wear that stuff. Rather, I suspect they want to dress modestly without looking like they just walked off the set of Little House on the Prairie.
The Bible doesn't say that Laura Ingalls sets the standard for modest dress. If past clothing styles should be Christian women's inspiration for modest apparel shouldn't we look to the first century? Surely, the dress of New Testament Christians provides a more appropriate model of modesty than the dress of pioneer women who lived 1800 years later. But it's not necessary to look to the past at all to know what modesty consists of. It's possible to be both modern and modest.
An unlikely example of modern modesty for Chrisitian women is the late Princess Diana. In 1989 the princess visited the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country. For her trip Diana had modest outfits specially made for her so she wouldn't offend Islamic sensibilities. Brightly colored tunics over loose pants and long sleeved, loose fitting, ankle length dresses paired with stylish accessories allowed Diana to wow the women of the Emirates without subverting their morals. The clothes are a perfect specimen of elegant and thoroughly modern modest dress. They can and should serve as an alternative inspiration for Christian women who want to be obey God without looking frumpy or excessively different from current fashion norms.
If looking like an extra for "Little House on the Prairie" suits you then by all means dress that way. Don't let me wrench you from your conviction. Just understand that that's not the only way to live out God's clothing requirements. There are valid alternative modes of dress that let women honor God while living in the here and now. It IS possible to be both modern and modest. We just need to open our minds a little to see that.
I admire those Christians who take the Bible's teachings on modest dress seriously. So many of today's professed Christian women don't. Go to just about any church and you'll see women dressed in ways that are indistinguishable from non-Christian women. You won't see young ladies looking like Britney Spears in most churches but you will see young and old women alike sporting the latest, non-modest styles. This goes against the Bible's teaching that women are to dress modestly with shamefacedness and sobriety, and not dwell on being fashionistas, as we say today.
For Christian women who want to obey God current clothing styles offer few choices. Virtually everthing on the market for women today is designed to show off their sexuality. For truly modest wear Christians are forced to make their own clothes or buy from online Christian stores specializing in modest clothing. But there's a problem there, too. While looking at online modest dress stores I became painfully aware that most of them operate on the principle that modest is synonymous with old-fashioned, dowdy, and just plain ugly.
The devout Christian women and families who run most of these stores are well-intentioned, but they're fixated on 19th century pioneer wear for inspiration for the style of dresses and skirts they sale. I suspect that most pro-modesty Christian women don't really want to wear that stuff. Rather, I suspect they want to dress modestly without looking like they just walked off the set of Little House on the Prairie.
The Bible doesn't say that Laura Ingalls sets the standard for modest dress. If past clothing styles should be Christian women's inspiration for modest apparel shouldn't we look to the first century? Surely, the dress of New Testament Christians provides a more appropriate model of modesty than the dress of pioneer women who lived 1800 years later. But it's not necessary to look to the past at all to know what modesty consists of. It's possible to be both modern and modest.
An unlikely example of modern modesty for Chrisitian women is the late Princess Diana. In 1989 the princess visited the United Arab Emirates, a Muslim country. For her trip Diana had modest outfits specially made for her so she wouldn't offend Islamic sensibilities. Brightly colored tunics over loose pants and long sleeved, loose fitting, ankle length dresses paired with stylish accessories allowed Diana to wow the women of the Emirates without subverting their morals. The clothes are a perfect specimen of elegant and thoroughly modern modest dress. They can and should serve as an alternative inspiration for Christian women who want to be obey God without looking frumpy or excessively different from current fashion norms.
If looking like an extra for "Little House on the Prairie" suits you then by all means dress that way. Don't let me wrench you from your conviction. Just understand that that's not the only way to live out God's clothing requirements. There are valid alternative modes of dress that let women honor God while living in the here and now. It IS possible to be both modern and modest. We just need to open our minds a little to see that.
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
YOU Are The Saints!
Perhaps because it's the Christmas season I've been thinking about saints. I've been reading a little about St. Nicholas, the inspiration for Santa Claus, and while he seems to have been a genuinely good man the historical devotion paid to him, and other saints, proved disturbing to me.
This blog is about my "divine discontents" and one of my pet discontents is Christians doing or believing things that are not in the Bible. One such thing is this veneration of saints.
Through out Christian history there have been people who showed exceptional devotion to God and the life He would have us live. There is nothing wrong with holding such people in high esteem and encouraging the faithful to emulate them. But when people celebrate feast days, make pilgrimages to saints' shrines and pray to saints as if they were God something is terribly wrong.
The Bible clearly teaches that there is only ONE true God and that worshipping anything besides Him is idolatry. Yet, for hundreds of years the Catholic and Orthodox churches have promoted the virtual worship of human beings they call "saints". They've taught millions of their unsuspecting members that the veneration of saints is an integral part of the Christian faith. It's not.
Saint worship is left over, "Christianized" polytheism. It was a way for the early institutional church to deal with "converted" pagans who didn't really abandon their desire to worship multiple gods. Giving such people Godly heroes to venerate in place of their pagan deities may have seemed like a positive way to satisfy their polytheist urges but it can backfire on the church. When folks realize that practices and doctrines they've been taught all their lives are not in the Bible it can obliterate the authority of the church and discredit the entire Christian message. So this whole saints issue is serious business.
The church needs to follow the Bible's teachings on saints. According to the Good Book the saints are ALL the believers. Every person who sincerely believes in God and Jesus Christ is a saint. Look at yourselves in the mirror, Christians. YOU are the saints! That's what the Bible says. The only canonization process is believing in Christ and living life His way. Do that and you have instant sainthood. What you don't have is people praying to mortals as if they were gods.
Once Christians understand just what Biblical sainthood is they should strive to be worthy of the label. Being a saint is a lot harder than worshipping one. But once they fully realize who they are I know the believers will step up to the plate.
This blog is about my "divine discontents" and one of my pet discontents is Christians doing or believing things that are not in the Bible. One such thing is this veneration of saints.
Through out Christian history there have been people who showed exceptional devotion to God and the life He would have us live. There is nothing wrong with holding such people in high esteem and encouraging the faithful to emulate them. But when people celebrate feast days, make pilgrimages to saints' shrines and pray to saints as if they were God something is terribly wrong.
The Bible clearly teaches that there is only ONE true God and that worshipping anything besides Him is idolatry. Yet, for hundreds of years the Catholic and Orthodox churches have promoted the virtual worship of human beings they call "saints". They've taught millions of their unsuspecting members that the veneration of saints is an integral part of the Christian faith. It's not.
Saint worship is left over, "Christianized" polytheism. It was a way for the early institutional church to deal with "converted" pagans who didn't really abandon their desire to worship multiple gods. Giving such people Godly heroes to venerate in place of their pagan deities may have seemed like a positive way to satisfy their polytheist urges but it can backfire on the church. When folks realize that practices and doctrines they've been taught all their lives are not in the Bible it can obliterate the authority of the church and discredit the entire Christian message. So this whole saints issue is serious business.
The church needs to follow the Bible's teachings on saints. According to the Good Book the saints are ALL the believers. Every person who sincerely believes in God and Jesus Christ is a saint. Look at yourselves in the mirror, Christians. YOU are the saints! That's what the Bible says. The only canonization process is believing in Christ and living life His way. Do that and you have instant sainthood. What you don't have is people praying to mortals as if they were gods.
Once Christians understand just what Biblical sainthood is they should strive to be worthy of the label. Being a saint is a lot harder than worshipping one. But once they fully realize who they are I know the believers will step up to the plate.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Baby Got Book (OFFICIAL)
Another example of not-your-typical-Christian-music Christian music. Enjoy!
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Was Jesus Necessary?
In this season when we celebrate the birth of Christ, to many the Savior of the world, I thought I would write a post on a question I've had for a very long time: was Jesus necessary?
In orthodox Christian teaching, faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved, to be considered right before God. Yet the first part of the Christian Bible seems to contradict that doctrine from begining to end. In the Old Testament, as Christians call it, numerous people from Abel to Noah to Abraham to Moses and many more are called righteous, often by God Himself. They had an intimate relationship with God without "knowing the Lord". In short, they were saved. This has always perplexed me.
If Christian teaching is true, and no one is saved apart from Christ, then everyone who lived before Christ died eternally lost. But if pre-Jesus people could be and were saved, then Jesus was unnecessary. Really, what would be the point of sending Christ if salvation was already obtainable? And the Old Testament clearly reveals that it was.
Some Christians might argue that salvation by faith is the same in the Old and New Testaments and point to the NT Book of Hebrews as proof. In that epistle is the famous Roll Call of Faith where OT heroes and heroines are lauded for their unwavering commitment to God. The problem for Christians is that the people on the Roll Call of Faith had faith in God NOT Jesus, who hadn't come in their time. Yet they were righteous enough without Christ to be praised in the NT. So I ask again: was Jesus necessary?
I once posed this question to a nice pastor. I asked him how was it possible for people to be saved before the coming of Christ. His answer was that Christ's coming, death, and resurrection had already happened in God's mind so, for pre-Jesus people, believing in God was believing in Christ. I'm still disappointed at how lame that answer was. I expected more from a pastor.
So I still have the question: was Jesus necessary? If you take the OT seriously then the answer is no, Jesus wasn't necessary, at least not for salvation. He may have fulfilled other Messianic requirements, but saving souls couldn't have been on the list because righteousness was already obtainable. I realize that's a big monkey wrench in Christian doctrine. People could be righteous before Christ? That changes everything! Yes, it does. But if your heart is to follow the Bible you will happily change to align yourself with it.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. My understanding of Old Testament righteousness may be incomplete. The people of that time may have been lacking something that only Christ could give. In that case, Christ would indeed be necessary. A big part of me really hopes He was.
In orthodox Christian teaching, faith in Jesus is the only way to be saved, to be considered right before God. Yet the first part of the Christian Bible seems to contradict that doctrine from begining to end. In the Old Testament, as Christians call it, numerous people from Abel to Noah to Abraham to Moses and many more are called righteous, often by God Himself. They had an intimate relationship with God without "knowing the Lord". In short, they were saved. This has always perplexed me.
If Christian teaching is true, and no one is saved apart from Christ, then everyone who lived before Christ died eternally lost. But if pre-Jesus people could be and were saved, then Jesus was unnecessary. Really, what would be the point of sending Christ if salvation was already obtainable? And the Old Testament clearly reveals that it was.
Some Christians might argue that salvation by faith is the same in the Old and New Testaments and point to the NT Book of Hebrews as proof. In that epistle is the famous Roll Call of Faith where OT heroes and heroines are lauded for their unwavering commitment to God. The problem for Christians is that the people on the Roll Call of Faith had faith in God NOT Jesus, who hadn't come in their time. Yet they were righteous enough without Christ to be praised in the NT. So I ask again: was Jesus necessary?
I once posed this question to a nice pastor. I asked him how was it possible for people to be saved before the coming of Christ. His answer was that Christ's coming, death, and resurrection had already happened in God's mind so, for pre-Jesus people, believing in God was believing in Christ. I'm still disappointed at how lame that answer was. I expected more from a pastor.
So I still have the question: was Jesus necessary? If you take the OT seriously then the answer is no, Jesus wasn't necessary, at least not for salvation. He may have fulfilled other Messianic requirements, but saving souls couldn't have been on the list because righteousness was already obtainable. I realize that's a big monkey wrench in Christian doctrine. People could be righteous before Christ? That changes everything! Yes, it does. But if your heart is to follow the Bible you will happily change to align yourself with it.
On the other hand, I could be wrong. My understanding of Old Testament righteousness may be incomplete. The people of that time may have been lacking something that only Christ could give. In that case, Christ would indeed be necessary. A big part of me really hopes He was.
Friday, November 30, 2007
What is Love - PAX 217
This is one of my favorite Christian rock songs. I don't like the video that much--it's a fan vid, not the band's--but it'll serve to introduce people to the song.
The lyrics to "What Is Love?" aren't overtly Christian. Some might even consider them unChristian with their expressions of anger and veiled threats of revenge, but that's what I like about the song. It's not the sappy God-will-make-everything-alright-I'm-too-holy-to-get-mad junk all too typical of Christian music. This isn't typical Christian music. Hope you enjoy something refreshingly different.
Benny Hinn:
When I first saw this video on a forum I post to I nearly died with laughter. All those people looked like they'd been afflicted with the spirit of epilepsy. And Hinn appeared well schooled in the fine art of Las Vegas showmanship. But when you think about it Benny Hinn and his ilk aren't funny at all.
I know God is all-powerful. I know He can heal. But stage shows like the ones Hinn puts on are, in my opinion, an insult to God. They are an act of taking God's name in vain.
I don't see how Hinn sleeps at night. He must not really believe in God, otherwise he'd be in fear for his life. God doesn't play with people preaching and doing falsehoods in His name. And beleive me, what Hinn is doing and preaching is false.
Really, do you think God only heals at circuslike extravaganzas such as Hinn's? Do you believe you have to put on show equal to anything put on in Las Vegas to get the Lord's attention? NO!!!
God hears the prayers of His children, of hurting humanity, much better in the quiet valley of faithful persistence. A stage show isn't necessary.
God isn't a trained seal. He doesn't perform on cue, yet that's exactly what Hinn's shows depend on. Come to the stadium at 7 o'clock tonight and experience the power of God!! I don't think so. And sadly, Hinn's got a lot of company. Even respectable tv preachers sometimes act like they've got God on a string.
Pat Robertson is one of them. His show, The 700 Club, is very informative and grounded, but there's a segment called "the word of knowledge" that's always disturbed me. During this part of the show Pat and his co-host claim to receive knowledge from God about people being healed.
As I said above, I know God can heal, but at the same moment, on the same show, day after day? I mean, does Robertson have a contract with God requiring Him to show up on his show at the same time every day?
I've always felt insulted that Robertson seems to think no one in his audience knows this "word of knowledge" stuff is staged. Yes, it's much more subdued than Hinn's circus acts, but it's just as choreographed.
Why don't people stop doing this stuff? Don't they know they're only hurting the cause of Christ? Of course, if they aren't really believers the cause of Christ is meaningless to them. They just want the money and the adulation. Well, I hope they enjoy it because this is the only reward they'll get. Their souls are going to hit something far worse than the floor.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
God and Mammon
I just heard last night that six televangelists are being investigated for possible financial shenanigans. The evangelists are Kenneth Copeland, Creflo Dollar, Joyce Meyers, Benny Hinn, Eddie L. Long, and a married couple surnamed White (sorry, I can't remember their first names). I have mixed feelings about this.
Our modern society is schizophrenic about wealth. We have a love/hate relationship with money and those who have more of it than we do. Entertainers and sports figures are generally worshipped for their money. They're presumed to have done something to deserve it. Wealthy businessmen and preachers, on the other hand, are held in contempt. They're presumed to have done something unethical to get their riches. This is neither fair nor rational. I hope the above mentioned televangelists weren't targeted for investigation based on this double standard.
But it's not only society that's double minded about wealth, the Church is too and has been from the beginning. Over the centuries there've been ascestics who shunned all material comfort and Popes who lived in the lap of luxury. Mother Teresa lived her life in self-imposed poverty while nondenominational preachers invented the "name it and claim it" doctrine that supposedly ensure their followers material success. And no matter how rich or poor individual Chrisitians were the Church as an institution as always been tremendously wealthy.
So how should Christians feel about wealth? I think it's simplistic to use Jesus' famous saying about a camel, a rich man, and the eye of a needle to build a doctrine about wealth. Many Christians do this, apparently thinking that one verse is the beginning and end on what the Bible says about wealth, but it's not. We tend to forget that Jesus didn't have a New Testament. For Him, the Old Testament was the entire Bible. That means that nothing Jesus taught could contradict what was in the OT. What does that have to with doctrines about wealth? Plenty.
In the OT there were many rich people who served God. Abraham was rich. His nephew Lot was rich. Jacob started out modest but ended a wealthy man. The same was true of King David. Solomon, David's son, was incredibly wealthy. Job was given riches by God not once but twice. What all of this means is that God doesn't have a problem with people being rich. There is no teaching in the OT that wealth is intrinsically bad. Jesus' camel, rich man, and needle saying has to be seen in that light.
Jesus was actually talking about faith, not money, in His saying. He was warning His listeners against putting their trust in money instead of God. He was warning them against idolatry. Rich people are more susceptible to idolizing money for obvious reasons, but the poor can also make a god out of wealth. Poor people can spend their entire lives yearning for money rather than God. They can commit crimes to get money, just like the rich. The idea, popular among liberal Christians, that the poor are inherently saintly is erroneous.
Equally wrong is the popular conservative idea that God wants Christians to prosper. Now I believe that God always wants the best for His children, but the "best" isn't always material abundance. We all like to think that if we were rich we'd be wonderfully generous and retain our faith in the Lord. God knows us better. He withholds wealth from many of us for our own good. God will provide our necessities but there's no guarantee we'll get more than that. That's why Paul taught Christians to be content with what they had.
How Christians should view wealth can be confusing. Part of the confusion can be cleared up by simply following the Bible instead of certain preachers. There were rich people who were faithful to God and there were poor people who were faithful to Him. One group isn't more "in" with God than the other. Yes, the Scriptures treat the poor with more sympathy than the rich. But that's because poverty can make people more vulnerable to abuse and victimization. It's not because poverty makes you holy. The way to be righteous with God is the same for rich and poor alike. There is no salvation by class in the Bible. If we would accept that truth the Church would be much better off.
Our modern society is schizophrenic about wealth. We have a love/hate relationship with money and those who have more of it than we do. Entertainers and sports figures are generally worshipped for their money. They're presumed to have done something to deserve it. Wealthy businessmen and preachers, on the other hand, are held in contempt. They're presumed to have done something unethical to get their riches. This is neither fair nor rational. I hope the above mentioned televangelists weren't targeted for investigation based on this double standard.
But it's not only society that's double minded about wealth, the Church is too and has been from the beginning. Over the centuries there've been ascestics who shunned all material comfort and Popes who lived in the lap of luxury. Mother Teresa lived her life in self-imposed poverty while nondenominational preachers invented the "name it and claim it" doctrine that supposedly ensure their followers material success. And no matter how rich or poor individual Chrisitians were the Church as an institution as always been tremendously wealthy.
So how should Christians feel about wealth? I think it's simplistic to use Jesus' famous saying about a camel, a rich man, and the eye of a needle to build a doctrine about wealth. Many Christians do this, apparently thinking that one verse is the beginning and end on what the Bible says about wealth, but it's not. We tend to forget that Jesus didn't have a New Testament. For Him, the Old Testament was the entire Bible. That means that nothing Jesus taught could contradict what was in the OT. What does that have to with doctrines about wealth? Plenty.
In the OT there were many rich people who served God. Abraham was rich. His nephew Lot was rich. Jacob started out modest but ended a wealthy man. The same was true of King David. Solomon, David's son, was incredibly wealthy. Job was given riches by God not once but twice. What all of this means is that God doesn't have a problem with people being rich. There is no teaching in the OT that wealth is intrinsically bad. Jesus' camel, rich man, and needle saying has to be seen in that light.
Jesus was actually talking about faith, not money, in His saying. He was warning His listeners against putting their trust in money instead of God. He was warning them against idolatry. Rich people are more susceptible to idolizing money for obvious reasons, but the poor can also make a god out of wealth. Poor people can spend their entire lives yearning for money rather than God. They can commit crimes to get money, just like the rich. The idea, popular among liberal Christians, that the poor are inherently saintly is erroneous.
Equally wrong is the popular conservative idea that God wants Christians to prosper. Now I believe that God always wants the best for His children, but the "best" isn't always material abundance. We all like to think that if we were rich we'd be wonderfully generous and retain our faith in the Lord. God knows us better. He withholds wealth from many of us for our own good. God will provide our necessities but there's no guarantee we'll get more than that. That's why Paul taught Christians to be content with what they had.
How Christians should view wealth can be confusing. Part of the confusion can be cleared up by simply following the Bible instead of certain preachers. There were rich people who were faithful to God and there were poor people who were faithful to Him. One group isn't more "in" with God than the other. Yes, the Scriptures treat the poor with more sympathy than the rich. But that's because poverty can make people more vulnerable to abuse and victimization. It's not because poverty makes you holy. The way to be righteous with God is the same for rich and poor alike. There is no salvation by class in the Bible. If we would accept that truth the Church would be much better off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)