We have already celebrated New Years. Not the January 1st New Years mind you, but the Christian New Year. With the beginning of Advent (11/29/2009) the Christian New Year began. We have passed from Advent to Christmastide now. Christmas will end after 12 days with the celebration of Epiphany on January 6th. Epiphany will give way to Lent and Lent will give way to Easter. Easter will culminate in the celebration of Pentecost.What follows is called Ordinary Time or Kingdomtide.
Why do I tell you all of this? If you are like the majority of Protestants, you celebrate Christmas and Easter with some vague awareness that Lent falls in there somewhere. However, the celebration of the traditional church calendar year takes the season from Advent to Pentecost to celebrate the entire life of Christ, to once again center ourselves on the greatest of great stories, the whole story of Jesus our Lord. It seems tragic to me that in a misguided attempt to be un-Roman-Catholic, many protestants miss the delight of walking with Christ through his time here with us.
The fear of being too Catholic has driven us away from many wonderful and rich Christian traditions. Instead of shying away from all things Catholic, we ought to reclaim them as Evangelicals and drink deeply of the great tradition in which we all stand!
Merry Christmas!
12.28.2009
12.21.2009
Drunk Preacher
I hate it when I get lumped into a "we" that I want nothing to do with. Christians are especially bad about this. For whatever reason, believers are under the delusion that true faith in Christ necessarily leads to their position on all sorts of things. It is not uncommon to here things like, "Of course, we're all Republican here..." or "We believe the world was created in 6 days about 10,000 years ago..." or "Of course we all know that miraculous gifts have ceased..."
The "we" that concerns me now is "We as Christians don't drink." I cannot tell you how many times someone has said that and looked at me as if they were stating obvious blatant fact. Many Christians were raised to believe that the Bible flatly condemns the consumption of alcohol. I know I was.
However, as I grew into my faith, and read the scripture for myself, I discovered that the case against alcohol consumption is as flimsy as a wet Kleenex. I don't want to sound dismissive, but I cannot fathom how someone could read the NT and think that there was something innately wrong with drinking alcohol. If so, Jesus is a sinner, and Paul actually suggested that Timothy sin to cure his stomach ache.
Having said that, I understand the need for caution here. I understand why some people scared by the abuse of alcohol, or by the appearance of approving the abuse of alcohol abstain from it altogether.
So where are you on this issue? Those of you who know me know my position (and for those who don't, I am a bit of a beer connoisseur). What issues are important for you as you think about this?
The "we" that concerns me now is "We as Christians don't drink." I cannot tell you how many times someone has said that and looked at me as if they were stating obvious blatant fact. Many Christians were raised to believe that the Bible flatly condemns the consumption of alcohol. I know I was.
However, as I grew into my faith, and read the scripture for myself, I discovered that the case against alcohol consumption is as flimsy as a wet Kleenex. I don't want to sound dismissive, but I cannot fathom how someone could read the NT and think that there was something innately wrong with drinking alcohol. If so, Jesus is a sinner, and Paul actually suggested that Timothy sin to cure his stomach ache.
Having said that, I understand the need for caution here. I understand why some people scared by the abuse of alcohol, or by the appearance of approving the abuse of alcohol abstain from it altogether.
So where are you on this issue? Those of you who know me know my position (and for those who don't, I am a bit of a beer connoisseur). What issues are important for you as you think about this?
12.14.2009
Somebody Help Me!
In a course I was teaching, the topic of baptism came up. We discussed various passages dealing with baptism. Prominent among these in our discussion was the story of the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8.26-40). During our discussion, it was noted that some of our Bibles contained v.37, "And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.' And he replied, 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God,'" while other Bibles omitted it. One student promptly raised her hand and told us how the evil modern versions were "taking verses out of the Bible because they don't want us to know the truth." I proceeded to give a brief explanation of textual criticism and how that sentence was probably not original, but added later. Her response was, "Well you can't just skip a verse! You have to have verse 37!" I then proceeded to explain how editors of printed Bibles had added verse numbers in the 1500's and how they weren't actually original. Her eyes were as wide as if I had told her Jesus is just some guy who doesn't really matter.
In fact, verse numbers are one among many innovative helps that have been added to the Biblical text for our benefit. The original text contained no verse numbers, no chapter numbers, no system of capital/lowercase letters, no punctuation, no paragraphing, and no spaces between words. The OT did not even have a system of vowels.
THENTWOULDHAVELOOKEDSOMETHINGLIKETHIS
THOTWLDLKLKTHSEXCPTBCKWRDS
In addition to these innovations, modern Bibles contain section heading, red lettering for the words of Christ, cross-reference systems, footnotes, study notes, chain reference systems, maps, concordance, etc...
All of this raises the question for me, how many of these "helps" are really helpful? The anecdote above shows how verse numbering can cause difficulty. Similar arguments could be made about red lettering causing readers to value those words above other words, the insertion of letters in the text for a footnote or cross reference system making it difficult to enjoy reading, and others. Once, I actually had a teen say something like, "The Lord is our shepherd, I shall not F want." She read the letter pointing her to footnote F as if it were part of the text.
For me, I like a minimal number of helps. I am not going to try to argue against verse and chapter numbering, although I think offering editions of the Bible without these would be awesome. I do however, prefer a simple, unadorned paragraphed black letter text edition. I understand the need for study and reference Bibles, and I appreciate them. But for daily use, I prefer to simplicity of a text edition.
What kind of helps do you like in a Bible? Which ones do you think should be taken out?
In fact, verse numbers are one among many innovative helps that have been added to the Biblical text for our benefit. The original text contained no verse numbers, no chapter numbers, no system of capital/lowercase letters, no punctuation, no paragraphing, and no spaces between words. The OT did not even have a system of vowels.
THENTWOULDHAVELOOKEDSOMETHINGLIKETHIS
THOTWLDLKLKTHSEXCPTBCKWRDS
In addition to these innovations, modern Bibles contain section heading, red lettering for the words of Christ, cross-reference systems, footnotes, study notes, chain reference systems, maps, concordance, etc...
All of this raises the question for me, how many of these "helps" are really helpful? The anecdote above shows how verse numbering can cause difficulty. Similar arguments could be made about red lettering causing readers to value those words above other words, the insertion of letters in the text for a footnote or cross reference system making it difficult to enjoy reading, and others. Once, I actually had a teen say something like, "The Lord is our shepherd, I shall not F want." She read the letter pointing her to footnote F as if it were part of the text.
For me, I like a minimal number of helps. I am not going to try to argue against verse and chapter numbering, although I think offering editions of the Bible without these would be awesome. I do however, prefer a simple, unadorned paragraphed black letter text edition. I understand the need for study and reference Bibles, and I appreciate them. But for daily use, I prefer to simplicity of a text edition.
What kind of helps do you like in a Bible? Which ones do you think should be taken out?
12.07.2009
Must Read Now!
When I became a Christian, I hated to read. I actually got by in high school having only ever read one book all the way through (Catcher in the Rye). When I got to college, I met several Christians who were extremely dedicated to growing in the Lord. Every one of them read constantly. Not only this, but every one of them had a short list of books (besides the Bible) that "every believer ought to read." Common titles were Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, or Desiring God by John Piper.
Since that time, I have become a reader. I love to read. I love books. I love used book stores (that's more of an addiction than a love, but whatever). Those who know me now, know me as a guy with a lot of books. In my reading, I have developed some opinions about a 'must reads for every believer' list.
Here is my list in no particular order:
1) The Ragamuffin Gospel or Ruthless Trust by Brennan Manning (they overlap a lot, but they are both excellent)
2) The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (my first "deep" read, a classic that still has bite)
3) A good survey of church history (because if you don't know where you came from, you don't know who you are)
The IVP Pocket History of the Church by Jeff Bingham, and Pocket History of Theology by Roger Olson and Adam English are quite good as short surveys. For a more in depth look, I recommend The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez.
4) How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth by Fee and Stuart (actually lives up to the title)
5) The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the OT (Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc... Some of or brothers and sisters read these as scripture, we ought at least to know what they say)
6) My most recent addition, Life With God by Richard Foster (to my mind, Foster's most complete and helpful work)
I am sure you think I have either included something that should be left off, or left something off that should be included. What say you?
Since that time, I have become a reader. I love to read. I love books. I love used book stores (that's more of an addiction than a love, but whatever). Those who know me now, know me as a guy with a lot of books. In my reading, I have developed some opinions about a 'must reads for every believer' list.
Here is my list in no particular order:
1) The Ragamuffin Gospel or Ruthless Trust by Brennan Manning (they overlap a lot, but they are both excellent)
2) The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer (my first "deep" read, a classic that still has bite)
3) A good survey of church history (because if you don't know where you came from, you don't know who you are)
The IVP Pocket History of the Church by Jeff Bingham, and Pocket History of Theology by Roger Olson and Adam English are quite good as short surveys. For a more in depth look, I recommend The Story of Christianity by Justo Gonzalez.
4) How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth by Fee and Stuart (actually lives up to the title)
5) The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the OT (Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, etc... Some of or brothers and sisters read these as scripture, we ought at least to know what they say)
6) My most recent addition, Life With God by Richard Foster (to my mind, Foster's most complete and helpful work)
I am sure you think I have either included something that should be left off, or left something off that should be included. What say you?
11.30.2009
Creed and Councils, They're Not Just for Catholics!
Growing up, it was common to hear that our only creed was "We have no creed but the Bible."Of course that was not true. We believed in all kinds of things that the Bible does not describe, the Trinity and the divine and human natures of Christ most prominently. These things come to us from the great tradition of the church, of which we were largely ignorant. In my opinion this is sad. In an attempt to be un-Catholic many evangelical protestants cut themselves off from the riches of the great tradition.
On the other hand, members of many liturgical churches could recite the creeds much easier than they could recite any biblical passage.This is also sad. in an effort to stay true to the traditions of the church, they have lost the most sacred and most fundamental of all traditions, the scripture itself!
I think many of us feel forced to make a choice. You can have either the traditions of the church, or you can have the Bible, but not both.
So where is the nice middle ground? Is it possible to be both anchored in scripture and to draw from the riches of the great tradition? Can we actually be evangelical and recite the Nicene Creed every week in church
What do you think?
On the other hand, members of many liturgical churches could recite the creeds much easier than they could recite any biblical passage.This is also sad. in an effort to stay true to the traditions of the church, they have lost the most sacred and most fundamental of all traditions, the scripture itself!
I think many of us feel forced to make a choice. You can have either the traditions of the church, or you can have the Bible, but not both.
So where is the nice middle ground? Is it possible to be both anchored in scripture and to draw from the riches of the great tradition? Can we actually be evangelical and recite the Nicene Creed every week in church
What do you think?
11.16.2009
"If One Thing in There Isn't True..."
"...Then we can't trust anything it says." "Every word is true, or its all garbage." I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard that statement made about the Bible.
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
11.09.2009
Lost in Translation(s)
Another year, another new Bible translation. The Common English Bible is causing quite a stir in Christian community right now.There are roughly 15 standard translations in relatively common use among Christians: KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NLT, HCSB, NASB, NJB, NET, NAB, & CEV. In my experience, most people have strong opinions about one or more of these translations whether positive or negative.
But what is the difference between all of these versions, really?
As I see it, 5 issues really seem to differentiate translations.
1) Theological Perspective of the Translators - Is it a Roman Catholic translation (NAB)? Protestant (Most)? Evangelical (ESV, NLT)? Or was it translated by a good mixture of people (NRSV, REB)?
2) OT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Masoretic Text faithfully (Most), or is it more willing to consider readings from the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and other sources (RSV, NRSV, REB)?
3) NT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV), or a more modern Greek NT (All Others)?
4) Literal vs. Dynamic Philosophy - Are the translators attempting to be as literal as they can be (KJV, NASB, ESV), or to make the text as readable as it can be (NIV, NLT, CEV)?
5) Gender Translation - Do the translators use man/men when the passage clearly includes women (NIV, ESV), or do they try to make it more neutral (NRSV, NLT, TNIV)?
I am an NRSV guy. On these 5 issues the NRSV is as follows: ecumenical team of translators, eclectic textual criticism in the OT and NT, literal translation philosophy, and more gender neutral.
If I had to pick one that I would not personally want to use, it would be the NKJV. I understand the spirit of the NKJV, but if I wanted a translation that followed the Textus Receptus, the original KJV is just so beautiful.
What about you? Which translation(s) do you like and why? Which translation(s) do you think should not be used and why?
But what is the difference between all of these versions, really?
As I see it, 5 issues really seem to differentiate translations.
1) Theological Perspective of the Translators - Is it a Roman Catholic translation (NAB)? Protestant (Most)? Evangelical (ESV, NLT)? Or was it translated by a good mixture of people (NRSV, REB)?
2) OT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Masoretic Text faithfully (Most), or is it more willing to consider readings from the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Peshitta, and other sources (RSV, NRSV, REB)?
3) NT Textual Criticism - Does the text follow the Textus Receptus (KJV, NKJV), or a more modern Greek NT (All Others)?
4) Literal vs. Dynamic Philosophy - Are the translators attempting to be as literal as they can be (KJV, NASB, ESV), or to make the text as readable as it can be (NIV, NLT, CEV)?
5) Gender Translation - Do the translators use man/men when the passage clearly includes women (NIV, ESV), or do they try to make it more neutral (NRSV, NLT, TNIV)?
I am an NRSV guy. On these 5 issues the NRSV is as follows: ecumenical team of translators, eclectic textual criticism in the OT and NT, literal translation philosophy, and more gender neutral.
If I had to pick one that I would not personally want to use, it would be the NKJV. I understand the spirit of the NKJV, but if I wanted a translation that followed the Textus Receptus, the original KJV is just so beautiful.
What about you? Which translation(s) do you like and why? Which translation(s) do you think should not be used and why?
11.02.2009
Creation...Literally?
No one actually reads the Bible literally. Some people think they do. When it comes to the issue of creation, the 'literalists' insist that a six day creation and a young earth are the only truly biblical position. But six-day-ers and young-earth-ers do not actually read the Bible literally. Disagree? Let me show you what I mean.
The creation debate usually centers on Genesis 1-2. However, these are but two chapters among several that speak about creation. Let us look a couple of the other places where creation is addressed.
Job 38:4-11: Apparently the earth is a building full with a foundation, bases/footings, and a cornerstone. "That is obviously a metaphor," someone would say. Really? It comes directly from the mouth of God. Not only that, but at the time, the earth was actually conceived of as a flat place with a foundation set on pillars (footings).
Psalm 74.12-17: When God created, he broke open the waters (separated the waters above from the waters below), and crushed the heads of the sea monster Leviathan. Again, that is obviously not literal, right? Well, if we are going to read Leviathan as literal in Job 41 (and most do), is he not literal here? Well, this is a Psalm, we cannot take anything in the Psalms literally, because it is poetry. Really? Genesis 1 is clearly poetic as well.
The point with citing these two passages is not to say that they are to be read literally. Rather, I mean to point out that Genesis 1-2 are not the only creation texts. I also mean to point out that none of us read everything the Bible says about creation literally. All of us should agree that the Bible talks about creation in non-literal ways.
To take this a step further, I do not think that 'literalists' actually read Genesis 1-2 literally. Disagree? Let me show you.
In 1.7 God creates a firmament. What is a firmament? Literally, the Hebrew term (raqia) refers to what you and I would call a dome, a firm (thus the firmament) spherical ceiling that holds up the waters above. As Genesis 7.11 suggests, the dome has windows so that rain can come from the waters above. Furthermore, 1.14 says the sun, moon, and stars are all underneath that dome. Literally speaking that is.
Genesis 2.4 refers to "the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The NIV and ESV fudge and put "When." But literally it says 'the day.' The day?! I thought there were 7, 'the days'. If we are being literal, how can God create on 7 days, and 1 day? Some will say, "Well if we look at Genesis 1.1, the day is the first day." Well then, literally speaking, God created the man on the first day, according to 2.7.
In Genesis 2, the creation order goes, the man, the animal, the woman. In Genesis 1, it goes, the animals, the people. Sure, the NIV and ESV again fudge the translation in 2.19 to say "had formed" instead of simply "formed." But make no mistake, the verb here is simply sequential, not a flashback. Literally speaking, how could this be true. How could God form many animals on day 5 before people, and form all the animals after the man?
What am I saying? No one reads the Bible literally. The 'literalists' only read two of the dozen or so creation texts literally, and then they even read those less literally than they claim. The point is simply this: literality is a quality that no position on creation truly has cornered.
Just some thoughts. I would love to hear yours...
The creation debate usually centers on Genesis 1-2. However, these are but two chapters among several that speak about creation. Let us look a couple of the other places where creation is addressed.
Job 38:4-11: Apparently the earth is a building full with a foundation, bases/footings, and a cornerstone. "That is obviously a metaphor," someone would say. Really? It comes directly from the mouth of God. Not only that, but at the time, the earth was actually conceived of as a flat place with a foundation set on pillars (footings).
Psalm 74.12-17: When God created, he broke open the waters (separated the waters above from the waters below), and crushed the heads of the sea monster Leviathan. Again, that is obviously not literal, right? Well, if we are going to read Leviathan as literal in Job 41 (and most do), is he not literal here? Well, this is a Psalm, we cannot take anything in the Psalms literally, because it is poetry. Really? Genesis 1 is clearly poetic as well.
The point with citing these two passages is not to say that they are to be read literally. Rather, I mean to point out that Genesis 1-2 are not the only creation texts. I also mean to point out that none of us read everything the Bible says about creation literally. All of us should agree that the Bible talks about creation in non-literal ways.
To take this a step further, I do not think that 'literalists' actually read Genesis 1-2 literally. Disagree? Let me show you.
In 1.7 God creates a firmament. What is a firmament? Literally, the Hebrew term (raqia) refers to what you and I would call a dome, a firm (thus the firmament) spherical ceiling that holds up the waters above. As Genesis 7.11 suggests, the dome has windows so that rain can come from the waters above. Furthermore, 1.14 says the sun, moon, and stars are all underneath that dome. Literally speaking that is.
Genesis 2.4 refers to "the day when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens." The NIV and ESV fudge and put "When." But literally it says 'the day.' The day?! I thought there were 7, 'the days'. If we are being literal, how can God create on 7 days, and 1 day? Some will say, "Well if we look at Genesis 1.1, the day is the first day." Well then, literally speaking, God created the man on the first day, according to 2.7.
In Genesis 2, the creation order goes, the man, the animal, the woman. In Genesis 1, it goes, the animals, the people. Sure, the NIV and ESV again fudge the translation in 2.19 to say "had formed" instead of simply "formed." But make no mistake, the verb here is simply sequential, not a flashback. Literally speaking, how could this be true. How could God form many animals on day 5 before people, and form all the animals after the man?
What am I saying? No one reads the Bible literally. The 'literalists' only read two of the dozen or so creation texts literally, and then they even read those less literally than they claim. The point is simply this: literality is a quality that no position on creation truly has cornered.
Just some thoughts. I would love to hear yours...
10.26.2009
Of God, People, and Primates
You want to see a fundamentalist get red in the face? Ask him his opinion about evolution. Worse yet, tell him you don't the conflict between the Bible and modern science, you think they should peacefully co-exist. Then get ready for some fireworks!
What is it about the issue of creation and evolution that brings out such emotional combativeness? Is it righteous anger? Passion? Insecurity? Fear? Doubt?
The Nicene Creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible." In my view, the belief that God is the creator of all things is essential Christian doctrine. It is one of the core affirmations of our faith.
However, within Christian circles the debate is not so much about whether God created all things but how. The three prevailing opinions are as follows:
1) Young Earth Creationism: the belief that earth was created in 6 literal days about 5,000-10,000 years ago. Many who hold this view regard it as the only legitimate Christian view because all other views distort the plain truth of scripture.
2) Old Earth Creationism: the belief that the 6 days either stand for 6 eras, or are figurative. So then the earth was created billions of years ago as scientists suggest. However, the basic outline and means of Genesis 1-2 are true.
3) Theistic Evolution: the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create. Genesis 1-2 then are taken as literary polemics or poems answering questions more applicable to Moses and the Israelites than to modern science.
Many hold variations of these views, but these are the basic categories.
I believe that so long as we maintain that the Lord is truly creator of all things, we can hold any one of these views.
What do you think?
Which is your view? Do you think there is room for all of these views or not?
What issues are most important to you as you think about this debate?
What is it about the issue of creation and evolution that brings out such emotional combativeness? Is it righteous anger? Passion? Insecurity? Fear? Doubt?
The Nicene Creed begins "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, of everything visible and invisible." In my view, the belief that God is the creator of all things is essential Christian doctrine. It is one of the core affirmations of our faith.
However, within Christian circles the debate is not so much about whether God created all things but how. The three prevailing opinions are as follows:
1) Young Earth Creationism: the belief that earth was created in 6 literal days about 5,000-10,000 years ago. Many who hold this view regard it as the only legitimate Christian view because all other views distort the plain truth of scripture.
2) Old Earth Creationism: the belief that the 6 days either stand for 6 eras, or are figurative. So then the earth was created billions of years ago as scientists suggest. However, the basic outline and means of Genesis 1-2 are true.
3) Theistic Evolution: the belief that God used evolutionary processes to create. Genesis 1-2 then are taken as literary polemics or poems answering questions more applicable to Moses and the Israelites than to modern science.
Many hold variations of these views, but these are the basic categories.
I believe that so long as we maintain that the Lord is truly creator of all things, we can hold any one of these views.
What do you think?
Which is your view? Do you think there is room for all of these views or not?
What issues are most important to you as you think about this debate?
10.19.2009
H, E, Double Hockey Sticks
HELL, that is.
Hell is a disturbing concept. Eternal punishment, where pain never ceases, no one ever dies, and there is no hope of improvement...forever. When I really pause and think about it, hell is downright terrifying. But then again, I guess that is the point. Preachers have been scaring people with hell for generations. "Turn or Burn," they say. I wonder how many people find their way to heaven out of the fear of hell.
In recent years, the concept of hell has come under fire. Two main objections are frequently raised: 1) the unbalanced scale of finite sin vs. infinite punishment, and 2) an all loving God would not do that to people. Objections like this have many to believe that instead of eternal punishment, unbelievers will simply cease to exist (a position called annihilationism). They argue that instead of eternal punishment, "hell" is missing out on an eternal paradise with the Lord. Others object that this takes the teeth out of the gospel. Concepts like the wrath and justice of God become rather mundane and docile.
What do you think? Is it ok for a Christian not to believe in hell?
What is gained by eliminating hell? What is lost?
Hell is a disturbing concept. Eternal punishment, where pain never ceases, no one ever dies, and there is no hope of improvement...forever. When I really pause and think about it, hell is downright terrifying. But then again, I guess that is the point. Preachers have been scaring people with hell for generations. "Turn or Burn," they say. I wonder how many people find their way to heaven out of the fear of hell.
In recent years, the concept of hell has come under fire. Two main objections are frequently raised: 1) the unbalanced scale of finite sin vs. infinite punishment, and 2) an all loving God would not do that to people. Objections like this have many to believe that instead of eternal punishment, unbelievers will simply cease to exist (a position called annihilationism). They argue that instead of eternal punishment, "hell" is missing out on an eternal paradise with the Lord. Others object that this takes the teeth out of the gospel. Concepts like the wrath and justice of God become rather mundane and docile.
What do you think? Is it ok for a Christian not to believe in hell?
What is gained by eliminating hell? What is lost?
10.12.2009
Holy-Ween, Fall Festival, Trunk-or-Treat, or Just Halloween?
Every year around the end of October children everywhere dress up as ghosts, witches, skeletons, soldiers, and a million other things. They band together and go knocking on the doors of total strangers. What are they seeking? CANDY! Candy of all kinds: Tootsie Rolls and Snickers, Gummi Bears and Suckers, Milky Ways and Airheads, Butterfingers and Reese's.
Around this same time Christian children everywhere don their Apostle Paul or Heavenly Angel costumes and head for the church parking lot! There they will find carnival games and open trunks. What are they seeking? The same CANDY, of course!
I have had the opportunity to celebrate Halloween in several different ways. When I was young, I went trick-or-treating, both in my neighborhood and in others. I distinctly remember one year when I was a soldier, I had a toy grenade that banged loudly if you threw it on the ground. I thought it would be funny to throw it at the feet of the people who opened the their doors to pass out candy. Not so much. While serving at a small church in Houston, I put on a church parking lot carnival. Of course, the games only started after my sermon on the evils of Halloween and subsequent gospel presentation. While in Dallas, my wife and I had the opportunity to take dozens of children to the biggest baddest fall festival I have ever seen. This thing would rival some state fairs. A wealthy church in north Dallas shuttled all of our kids up for the evening. It was a blast!
Because of its history, many Christians feel that celebrating Halloween is tantamount to participation in pagan religion.(Here is a quick look at the history of Halloween.) Others see no problem with it. Still others think it is fine to celebrate, but that it should be done in the safe confines of the church grounds.
Should Christians celebrate Halloween? Or should we celebrate Halloween, but call it something else? Or should we celebrate All Saints Day? Or should we let the end of October pass without acknowledging anything?
Around this same time Christian children everywhere don their Apostle Paul or Heavenly Angel costumes and head for the church parking lot! There they will find carnival games and open trunks. What are they seeking? The same CANDY, of course!
I have had the opportunity to celebrate Halloween in several different ways. When I was young, I went trick-or-treating, both in my neighborhood and in others. I distinctly remember one year when I was a soldier, I had a toy grenade that banged loudly if you threw it on the ground. I thought it would be funny to throw it at the feet of the people who opened the their doors to pass out candy. Not so much. While serving at a small church in Houston, I put on a church parking lot carnival. Of course, the games only started after my sermon on the evils of Halloween and subsequent gospel presentation. While in Dallas, my wife and I had the opportunity to take dozens of children to the biggest baddest fall festival I have ever seen. This thing would rival some state fairs. A wealthy church in north Dallas shuttled all of our kids up for the evening. It was a blast!
Because of its history, many Christians feel that celebrating Halloween is tantamount to participation in pagan religion.(Here is a quick look at the history of Halloween.) Others see no problem with it. Still others think it is fine to celebrate, but that it should be done in the safe confines of the church grounds.
Should Christians celebrate Halloween? Or should we celebrate Halloween, but call it something else? Or should we celebrate All Saints Day? Or should we let the end of October pass without acknowledging anything?
10.05.2009
My Dream Bible...
Over the past few months, I have become a fan of The Bible Design and Binding blog. The blog is not so much about the content of the Bible as it is the physical aspects of the Bibles we purchase. The author posts reviews of various Bibles in his quest to find his perfect Bible.
If I lived in an alternate universe, where publisher allowed people to design their own perfect Bible (instead of mass producing them in cookie-cutter fashion) here are some things I would request in my perfect Bible:
NRSV translation (my fav, yes we will discuss translation in a later post).
It would have a soft, flexible, but durable black leather cover with the words Holy Bible stamped on the spine, and no other words anywhere.
The dimensions would be roughly 5x7x1.5, small enough to carry, but big enough to read.
When you open the Bible there would be a real leather lining inside the cover.
It would have nice thick paper so you cannot see the words on the next page.
The text would be single column like a novel, black letter, and paragraphed but without section headings.
It would have a nice classic font at a readable 9pts.
The end of the Bible would contain the NET Bible maps (holy cow those are cool), and a handy concordance.
It would all be topped off with three thick dark red ribbons.
Perfect.
I actually had an NRSV Bible rebound by Leonard's Book Restortation. I attempted to incorporate many of the my 'dream' features. Here are a couple of pictures.
What would your dream Bible look like? If you have a Bible you love, what do you love about it?
Do you think the physical aspects of a Bible are worth discussing? Or do you think this is a frivolous discussion?
If I lived in an alternate universe, where publisher allowed people to design their own perfect Bible (instead of mass producing them in cookie-cutter fashion) here are some things I would request in my perfect Bible:
NRSV translation (my fav, yes we will discuss translation in a later post).
It would have a soft, flexible, but durable black leather cover with the words Holy Bible stamped on the spine, and no other words anywhere.
The dimensions would be roughly 5x7x1.5, small enough to carry, but big enough to read.
When you open the Bible there would be a real leather lining inside the cover.
It would have nice thick paper so you cannot see the words on the next page.
The text would be single column like a novel, black letter, and paragraphed but without section headings.
It would have a nice classic font at a readable 9pts.
The end of the Bible would contain the NET Bible maps (holy cow those are cool), and a handy concordance.
It would all be topped off with three thick dark red ribbons.
Perfect.
I actually had an NRSV Bible rebound by Leonard's Book Restortation. I attempted to incorporate many of the my 'dream' features. Here are a couple of pictures.
What would your dream Bible look like? If you have a Bible you love, what do you love about it?
Do you think the physical aspects of a Bible are worth discussing? Or do you think this is a frivolous discussion?
9.28.2009
One Lord, One Faith, One Nation?
By Bern Velasco
If you’ve spent any time in a conservative church in America around the 4th of July you’ve probably noticed the sacred connection between our faith and our body politic. Perhaps you've felt the uproar over the United States’ progressive removal of faith symbols from public life or our president's declaration that the U.S. is not a Christian Nation and Congressman Forbes' response.
But before we rush to defend our Christian nation against the pressing forces of secularism we should first define Christian nation. Do we simply mean "A lot of Christians live here"? Do we mean "The US symbolically uses the Bible and other Christian forms on a regular basis"? Or do we mean, "The United States of America has a particular relationship with God similar to Israel in the Old Testament"? I must reject the third, the US has no covenant with God. The second is inevitably reduced to lip-service since the majority of our leaders and nation do not appear to follow Christ. The first is an ever weakening proposition as our younger generations become more secular. Furthermore, is self-identification as a Christian nation even sufficient to warrant that designation?
While we could explore each of these definitions further, it would be more helpful to consider our founding documents themselves and determine if the ideas that constitute our nation are truly Christian. If you examine the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution you will find the official US position is that governments (not the notion of government) are established by men, derive their authority from men, and are man's instrument for order and justice. Contrast this to Romans 13.1-7 where governments (again, governments, not the notion of government) are established by God, derive their authority from God and are God's instrument for order and justice.
While stimulating, the more pressing question pertains to the true Christian Nation. Notice the language of 1 Peter 2.9: "But you [Gentile believers scattered throughout Asia Minor] are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION. According to BDAG, Race [γενος genos] refers to large and small groups with common ancestry and traits. Nation [εθνος ethnos] refers to a body of people united by kinship, culture, and traditions. People [λαος laos] refers to a body of people with a common, specific territory and traditions. Should we not conclude the true Christian nation is the Body of Christ?
Discussion Question: What would we lose if the U.S. were no longer considered a Christian nation? What might be gained?
Bern Velasco is Ryan's buddy from Seminary and the College and Young Adults Pastor of Hessel Church in Sebastopol, CA. On his blog (Everything's Hebel) you can listen to a message delivered on this subject.
If you’ve spent any time in a conservative church in America around the 4th of July you’ve probably noticed the sacred connection between our faith and our body politic. Perhaps you've felt the uproar over the United States’ progressive removal of faith symbols from public life or our president's declaration that the U.S. is not a Christian Nation and Congressman Forbes' response.
But before we rush to defend our Christian nation against the pressing forces of secularism we should first define Christian nation. Do we simply mean "A lot of Christians live here"? Do we mean "The US symbolically uses the Bible and other Christian forms on a regular basis"? Or do we mean, "The United States of America has a particular relationship with God similar to Israel in the Old Testament"? I must reject the third, the US has no covenant with God. The second is inevitably reduced to lip-service since the majority of our leaders and nation do not appear to follow Christ. The first is an ever weakening proposition as our younger generations become more secular. Furthermore, is self-identification as a Christian nation even sufficient to warrant that designation?
While we could explore each of these definitions further, it would be more helpful to consider our founding documents themselves and determine if the ideas that constitute our nation are truly Christian. If you examine the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble to the Constitution you will find the official US position is that governments (not the notion of government) are established by men, derive their authority from men, and are man's instrument for order and justice. Contrast this to Romans 13.1-7 where governments (again, governments, not the notion of government) are established by God, derive their authority from God and are God's instrument for order and justice.
While stimulating, the more pressing question pertains to the true Christian Nation. Notice the language of 1 Peter 2.9: "But you [Gentile believers scattered throughout Asia Minor] are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION. According to BDAG, Race [γενος genos] refers to large and small groups with common ancestry and traits. Nation [εθνος ethnos] refers to a body of people united by kinship, culture, and traditions. People [λαος laos] refers to a body of people with a common, specific territory and traditions. Should we not conclude the true Christian nation is the Body of Christ?
Discussion Question: What would we lose if the U.S. were no longer considered a Christian nation? What might be gained?
Bern Velasco is Ryan's buddy from Seminary and the College and Young Adults Pastor of Hessel Church in Sebastopol, CA. On his blog (Everything's Hebel) you can listen to a message delivered on this subject.
9.21.2009
'Pro-Choice Christian' an Oxymoron?
Our current president is a pro-choice Democrat. One day, after President Obama was elected, I was in a prayer meeting. As we were sharing requests, one friend suggested that we "pray for the salvation of our president." I mentioned that our president claims Christianity as his religion. "Why don't you think President Obama is a Christian?" I asked. "He is pro-choice. He is obviously not a believer."
Following the logic here, these things seem to be suggested in that comment: 1) Pro-life-ism is the only legitimate Christian position. 2) Therefore every true Christian must be pro-life. 3) So then, a pro-choice person is not Christian, because being both pro-choice and Christian would be an oxymoron.
Here are my questions: Is it incompatible to be both pro-choice and Christian? Or is it possible to be both? Is a pro-life stance on abortion one of the "essentials" upon which we must have unity?
Preemptive Notice: I do not want to hear about whether you think President Obama is a Christian or not. That is not for us to debate or decide. Second, I do not want to hear your argument for or against either the pro-life or the pro-choice position. Finally, yes, I am pro-life. You don't need to try to persuade me.
Following the logic here, these things seem to be suggested in that comment: 1) Pro-life-ism is the only legitimate Christian position. 2) Therefore every true Christian must be pro-life. 3) So then, a pro-choice person is not Christian, because being both pro-choice and Christian would be an oxymoron.
Here are my questions: Is it incompatible to be both pro-choice and Christian? Or is it possible to be both? Is a pro-life stance on abortion one of the "essentials" upon which we must have unity?
Preemptive Notice: I do not want to hear about whether you think President Obama is a Christian or not. That is not for us to debate or decide. Second, I do not want to hear your argument for or against either the pro-life or the pro-choice position. Finally, yes, I am pro-life. You don't need to try to persuade me.
9.14.2009
The Christian Alternative
College and seminary professors are often in the habit of posting interesting or funny items related to their areas of study on their office doors. Of course, the funny posts are often only funny to those with PhD's; the rest of us just scratch our heads and try to pretend like we get it. I remember one professor in particular had a fascinating chart posted on his door. It had two columns, one labeled "If you like..." the other labeled "Then try..." The "If you like..." column contained the names of at least 200 mainstream music bands. The "Then try..." column contained the names of Christian bands that, I guess, sound comparable. The chart, of course, was meant to offer a Christian alternative to the mainstream music.
The Christian Alternative is present not only in the music world, but in several arenas. A few notable alternatives are bookstores, coffee houses, movies, TV channels, action heroes (Go Bible Man!), schools, and phone directories. Undoubtedly, others could be added here. The idea of the Christian alternative seems to be that believers are better off if they have less input from the world and more input from Christian sources.
But...Is that true? Does using the Christian alternative produce godlier, more Christ-like believers?
As I think about this issue, I can see two opposing realities colliding. On the one hand, the Christian alternative seems to feed an impulse toward separatist fundamentalism. On the other hand, as a parent, I really do not want my son to grow up and be more American than Christian. As a friend of mine puts it, "When my kid leaves my house, I want him to love Christ more than he loves the world" (Daren Busenitz).
My instinct is to lean away from using the Christian alternative in most areas. I am all for Christians using their gifts in art, music, business, or any other arena. I am not for Christians creating an alternative by intentionally imitating successful 'secular' ventures.
How about you?
The Christian Alternative is present not only in the music world, but in several arenas. A few notable alternatives are bookstores, coffee houses, movies, TV channels, action heroes (Go Bible Man!), schools, and phone directories. Undoubtedly, others could be added here. The idea of the Christian alternative seems to be that believers are better off if they have less input from the world and more input from Christian sources.
But...Is that true? Does using the Christian alternative produce godlier, more Christ-like believers?
As I think about this issue, I can see two opposing realities colliding. On the one hand, the Christian alternative seems to feed an impulse toward separatist fundamentalism. On the other hand, as a parent, I really do not want my son to grow up and be more American than Christian. As a friend of mine puts it, "When my kid leaves my house, I want him to love Christ more than he loves the world" (Daren Busenitz).
My instinct is to lean away from using the Christian alternative in most areas. I am all for Christians using their gifts in art, music, business, or any other arena. I am not for Christians creating an alternative by intentionally imitating successful 'secular' ventures.
How about you?
9.13.2009
Welcome!
Welcome to my new blog.
An oft quoted dictum in theology states, "In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in everything charity." This blog is about enjoying the liberty of the non-essentials, matters of taste I call them.
For many Christians, it is difficult to get a sense of what is essential and what is not. I certainly include myself in this. As an urban church-planter, I am constantly thinking about contextualizing the gospel. My hope is that together we can both understand the essential core that is the gospel, and discuss legitimate differences in the non-essentials.
Each week I will post some reflections on a non-essential Christian issue. These issues will range from the seemingly trivial to the extremely serious. I will ask readers to engage the issue from their point of view. My hope is that several different viewpoints will be expressed. Through this sort of discussion perhaps we can all come to clearer understanding of the beautiful variety within the church and fulfill the final phrase of the famous dictum, in everything charity.
In order for this to be helpful two things need to happen: 1) I need to come up with quality topics for discussion. 2) People with differing ideas need to respond and interact. I will try to fulfill my end. I am asking those of you out there who have opinions, please respond!
I will be posting every Monday afternoon. I am looking for responses not only from those with seminary degrees, but from anyone with a thought, idea, or opinion. I am looking forward to hearing your ideas!
An oft quoted dictum in theology states, "In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials liberty, in everything charity." This blog is about enjoying the liberty of the non-essentials, matters of taste I call them.
For many Christians, it is difficult to get a sense of what is essential and what is not. I certainly include myself in this. As an urban church-planter, I am constantly thinking about contextualizing the gospel. My hope is that together we can both understand the essential core that is the gospel, and discuss legitimate differences in the non-essentials.
Each week I will post some reflections on a non-essential Christian issue. These issues will range from the seemingly trivial to the extremely serious. I will ask readers to engage the issue from their point of view. My hope is that several different viewpoints will be expressed. Through this sort of discussion perhaps we can all come to clearer understanding of the beautiful variety within the church and fulfill the final phrase of the famous dictum, in everything charity.
In order for this to be helpful two things need to happen: 1) I need to come up with quality topics for discussion. 2) People with differing ideas need to respond and interact. I will try to fulfill my end. I am asking those of you out there who have opinions, please respond!
I will be posting every Monday afternoon. I am looking for responses not only from those with seminary degrees, but from anyone with a thought, idea, or opinion. I am looking forward to hearing your ideas!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
