Thorny Christianity

What God Has Joined

2007-10-16T21:12:00.000-05:00

I've had a long interest in really understanding Biblical teaching about divorce. I had a dear friend in an abusive relationship and I had to counsel her, and have always read up on other views to see if my advice was right. Christianity Today has a really good article on the subject.

Movie Review: The Passion of the Christ

2006-03-19T20:38:00.000-06:00

[I found this unsent email from a couple of years ago and thought I would post it.]

I have finally seen The Passion of the Christ. It is a truly powerful film. As a believer, I can't say there is anything truly new here. It's a story we all know pretty well. To me it's more about how Gibson tells the story than in the familiar details. I think this is a highly personal film.

Some have questioned why he would make a film only about Good Friday's events, with a quick reference to Easter. I found it very effective. Any Jesus story that focusses on His whole life, most of the time will be spent on Jesus' teachings, for example the Sermon on the Mount. The danger there is that we end up making those events the focus of the story. Isn't that what so many so-called "liberal" Christians do: focus on Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness, and forget all that annoying sin stuff, including His tragic death. Gibson's film is focussed squarely on the suffering and death of Jesus. When he flashes back to, say, the Sermon on the Mount, it is still framed in the context of the crucifixion. We never lose our focus on Good Friday, which is where I think our focus should be (and Jesus' was during His life).

Two things really touched me as I watched the film. The whole sequence of Simon carrying the cross with Jesus reminded me of the classic poem Footprints, but with a totally new spin. As they progress on the road to Calvary, we see the sinner and the savior walking side by side, two sets of footprints. But at Calvary, where God's judgement will be meted out, the sinner walks away free and the savior climbs on His cross, one set of footprints during the most difficult time.

The other is Jesus' strength. I don't mean physical strength. My pastor likes to say that meekness is not weakness, it is strength under control. This is what we see played out in the events of the film. Early on, there are displays of quiet defiance by Jesus. In the garden, being tempted by Satan, he crushes the snake and looks at Satan with an eye of defiance. The first wave of scourging has the Roman guards beating Jesus to a pulp with canes and gloating about their accomplishment. Without a word, Jesus simply stands up. Later, as His physical strength fades under the unrelenting brutality, defiance gives way to resolve. When He falls carrying the cross, He stumbles back to His feet to pick it up again. Look at His face. The one eye that is still open is unwavering, focussed straight ahead to Calvary. Calvary is His goal. It is what He came for, and no amount of pain will stand in His way. At the end, after He has collapsed in total physical exhaustion, every fiber of His body screaming out in agony, He can no longer walk. But He isn't quite there yet. A few more feet to His cross. Unable to walk, he struggles to His knees and crawls the last steps.

That is meekness! That is strength under control. This is not a Jesus beaten beyond the point of lucidity, quiet and unprotesting simply because He is unable to form a coherent thought. This is a man with a strong and powerful heart who is quiet and unprotesting by choice, who will endure all to achieve His goal. Many reviewers have described the film's Jesus as super-human in his ability to withstand pain. I think that misses the point. What we see is not simple endurance of pain. It is a total commitment by Jesus to fulfill His mission.

As a film buff, let me say that I think this film is a masterful work. It's perhaps the only time since the silent movie era where a filmmaker of Mel Gibson's talent has taken on the life of Jesus, or some part of it, with reverence for the Scriptural accounts. (Scorcese made a Jesus film too, but rejected the Scriptural accounts and turned out a work of blasphemy.) The film opens with a breathtaking shot of the Garden engulfed in fog. Visually, the whole film is breathtaking. The acting is superb by everyone. In a fair world, where art was judged purely on its merits, not on politics, this film would be an early front-runner for Oscar nominations, with Gibson being a favorite for Best Director. In the real world, this is doubtful.

I appreciated the human-ness of Jesus as portrayed in the film. One of my biggest complaints about all the Jesus films I've seen--including the only one I actually like, Jesus of Nazereth--is that Jesus comes off as this stereotypical holy man, staring off into some other world and only partially here. Gibson's Jesus smiles, laughs, horses around with His mother, and even stumbles and skins His knee as a child.

When I first heard about the film, I heard that it was done in Latin and Aramaic without subtitles. My first reaction was, "what a stupid idea." (I also felt this was historically inaccurate. Greek should have been used rather than Latin.) Having seen the film, I understand it. Much of the dialog is actually still without subtitles (for example, Jesus' prayers in the garden at the beginning of the film), and personally I didn't feel they were needed there.

Complaints

I have to say I have a few complaints about the film. Given all the controversy surrounding the film, I was fairly sensitive to how Pilate would be portrayed. I don't find the Biblical account to present a Pilate at odds with the Pilate found in secular history. I think Gibson goes beyond the Biblical account and his Pilate does seem at odds. I thought the actor did a wonderful job, but the script paints what I see as an erroneous picture of the man. The historical figure was a brutal tyrant who executed thousands without blinking an eye. Innocence or guilt was irrelevant. If they were trouble makers, they were executed. I don't see the Biblical account being inconsistent with this. But the film's Pilate truly wants to free Jesus and is clearly bothered by the Jewish leadership's insistence that Jesus be executed.

This is an incredibly brutal film. It is so brutal that I think unnecessary brutality should have been kept out. Did we really need to see the taunting thief's eye pecked out by a bird? This is the kind of thing that should have been left out as a sign of mercy to the audience.

Anti-Semitism

The big one. This is what all the fuss has been about all along. Having seen the film, I have to ask how many hoops does Mel have to jump through to make it clear what's going on? Gibson includes flashbacks at crucial moments to Jesus declaring that no one takes His life, but that He lays it down freely. He has Jesus repeatedly forgive those who are executing Him. And, just to make sure no one missed the point, he has the good thief tell the High Priest that Jesus is asking forgiveness for him. The very first image of the film is a quotation from Isaiah 53 showing that it is our sin that put Jesus on the cross.

Don't misunderstand me. I fully understand the historical background to the Jewish complaints and concerns. There's no question that Christians over the centuries have used the events of the Passion as fodder for violent anti-Semitism. But I think Gibson has made it abundantly and unambiguously clear in his film what he is trying to say. Artistically he made his point by being the actor playing the hand who held the nail as it was driven into Jesus' hand. I read somewhere that people allow the past to cloud the present. Because things have been misused in the past, they are bad today. To me, this is like what we saw in the former Yugoslavia where ethnic hatreds spilled over into brutal war because of events well in the past.

As to the idea that the film, while not the intention, might inspire anti-Semitism anyway, well I imagine there were plenty of neo-Nazi's around the world who viewed Schindler's List as an inspiration, a view of what could be accomplished with enough will power. That was clearly not the intention of Steven Spielberg, but nonetheless a likely consequence. Should we therefore ban Spielberg's masterpiece because somebody somewhere might have taken it the wrong way?

Newsweek & The Passion of the Christ

2006-02-09T14:56:00.000-06:00

[Another old article, about the Passion of the Christ controversy. That's really what got me started blogging, I guess. Again, spelling and other minor errors corrected from the original.]

As I have previously written, Mel Gibson's new film The Passion of the Christ is the most controversial new film to come along in quite some time. It has been hailed by evangelical Christians as a masterpiece, and vilified by Jewish groups as anti-Semitic. Newsweek magazine recently ran an article by Jon Meacham examining the film. I think Newsweek makes some good points, but in the end misses the boat.

One of the first points the article makes is that the phrase "the Jews" used in the gospel accounts does not "mean all Jewish people then alive, much less those then unborn." No kidding. When historians talk about the Second World War and say that the Germans did something, they are not referring to all Germans, past, present, and future. They are talking about a general group of Germans whose precise identity is understood from context. To say "the Germans invaded France" is a reference to the German army and the soldiers therein. To say "the Germans moved the Jews onto trains" is a reference to the German police and soldiers who did the moving (and a reference to the Jews who were moved; Jews who lived hundreds of years ago are understood to not be included among those who were moved). So a reference to the generic "Jews" in a context referencing Jewish religious leaders should be taken as a reference to the Jewish leadership only. This is simple linguistics, not exactly earth-shattering.

The crux of the article analyzes the relationship between the Jewish religious leadership and the Roman governor Pilate. Pilate was a ruthless and brutal historical figure, yet he is often portrayed in crucifixion stories as being hesitant and uncertain, unwilling to execute an innocent man. Newsweek's article repeatedly dismisses such a portrayal as inconsistent with the historical figure. Perhaps some or many portrayals are, but are the two views really inconsistent? I don't think so. Even ruthless dictators are subject to the mob, something key to the fictional story of the film Gladiator. We see this fact in history as well. In the late 1930's, Hitler's regime began a program of forced euthanasia on mentally ill Germans. This program evoked widespread objection and opposition, which ultimately forced Hitler to back down and end the program, at least publicly. So we see from history that brutal, bloodthirsty dictators like Pilate can be pressured into doing things they do not particularly want to do. There is no inconsistency there.

Then why would he hesitate to execute Jesus? Because there are two mobs in this story. There is the mob we see on what we now call Good Friday, the mob calling for Jesus' execution. But there is also the mob from a few days prior, who hailed Jesus on His arrival in Jerusalem. We cannot forget about that mob. According to the article, there is a scene in the film between Pilate and his wife where Pilate laments his position, caught between the two mobs. This is a scene of fiction, not included in the gospels, and one may freely question Gibson for including it. But it does present the sticky situation Pilate was in. There were two passionate crowds with contradictory points of view, and Pilate was forced to try to find a way to assuage both. For this reason, he may come across as uncertain and hesitant.

Now, Meacham says that "Caiaphas was in no position to start a rebellion over Jesus". True enough. Caiaphas had nothing to gain from a rebellion. But the issue is not Caiaphas. Rather it is the crowd. As I pointed out elsewhere, the most divisive element of Jesus' ministry was He claims to divinity. From a Jewish point of view, this was a very high crime, and, left unpunished, could lead to God's wrath being poured out on them. In their minds, they had an obligation to put Jesus down for such blasphemy. Would Roman authority standing in the way of their service to God represent a motivation for rebellion and resistance? Absolutely. Isn't this one of major the causes of unrest in occupied Iraq, the perception that the US forces are getting between the Muslims and Allah? So, we would expect a very agitated and passionate crowd screaming for Jesus' death, which is what the gospel accounts and Gibson's film give us.

The article also points out that Jesus was executed by the Romans, for sedition. Again, no kidding. Jesus had large following who were hailing Him as the king of the Jews, a claim that would undermine Roman authority. The contemporary expectation was that Messiah would be a warrior leader like David who would throw off the Roman oppression, and Jesus claimed to be Messiah. Therefore, He could have been seen as a revolutionary by the civil (Roman) authorities, whether He wanted to be a revolutionary or not. So, we readily understand that the Romans (not a reference to all men and women from Rome who have ever or will ever live) ultimately executed Him for this reason.

Meacham appears to believe this is a contradiction to the idea that the Jewish leaders wanted Him dead. Jesus was a threat to both the Jewish and Roman authorities. To the Romans, he was a potential claimant to the Davidic throne and a leader who could martial mass support to rebel against Rome. To the Jews (a reference restricted in scope to the Jewish religious leadership at the time), He was a teacher who undermined their authority and their teachings, a man who accused exceedingly religious men of being vipers and of not being in God's good graces, something on which their very personal identities were based. So both groups had an interest in seeing Jesus executed. That the Romans had the actual authority to carry it out is obvious and in accord with Scriptural accounts. So why is this a big issue and how are is the Biblical account so wrong?

Meacham asks the question, "So why was the Gospel story--the story Gibson has drawn on--told in a way that makes 'the Jews' look worse than the Romans?". It is a good question. Meacham's answer is that the writers, who were Jewish, wanted to make their story as broadly accessible as possible, so the world conquerors are portrayed better. I think this answer misses the whole point of the Biblical accounts. The writers were Jewish themselves, and the church to which their gospels were originally written was predominantly Jewish at the time, as acknowledged in the article. So, a desire to make the Romans look better does not appear to follow. To the writers, the whole sequence of events was a matter, not of politics, but of religion. Religious elements take center stage throughout the gospels. Therefore, it is logical that the religious dimension of the betrayal and crucifixion would be the paramount concern for the writers, not the political dimension. From this point of view, the Romans, who knew little about the Jewish faith and the Jewish God, would not be expected to understand the magnitude of what they were doing. But the Jewish leaders were rejecting the very Messiah they claimed to be longing for. From a Christian point of view, they were rejecting God Himself, the very God they claimed to love and worship. From this religious point of view, then, the crime of the Jewish leadership was far greater than the crime of the Roman leadership who acted in ignorance. For this reason, Jesus says in John 19:11 that the Jewish leadership has the greater sin. The purpose of this is not "to take a gibe at the Temple elite", at least not for public relations purposes. It is to accentuate the magnitude of what the Jewish leaders were done.

Now, does any of this have any bearing on anti-Semitism. No. Jesus made it clear throughout the gospels that the purpose of His life was to die. He knew what was happening and willingly took it on Himself. Before Pilate, just before saying that His betrayers had a greater sin, He tells Pilate that the only reason He has authority to execute Jesus is because God has given it to him. To worry about who is responsible is to completely miss the point of what was happening. Jesus was executed because He wanted to be. He chose that path. He chose it out of love for you and I, to pay for our sins. Why was He on that cross? Because of the political ambitions of the Jewish and Roman leadership? They may have been the instruments by which God's plan was carried out, but Jesus was on that cross because of you and because of me.

The Historical Jesus

2006-02-09T14:33:00.000-06:00

[This was originally published in March, 2004. But I like it, and I think it makes an important point about so-called scholarly research into Jesus' life. So I will reproduce it on this blog, with some spelling corrections.]

With the recent blockbuster release of and controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ, there has been a renewed interest in examining the gospel accounts of Jesus' life and searching for the "historical" Jesus. As a result of the film, both Newsweek and US News & World Report have recently published articles describing the "real" Jesus and addressing problems presented in the gospel accounts. While these articles are interesting and insightful, I have realized there is a basic flaw in the reasoning at least in regards their analysis of the events of the Passion. The authors essentially ignore parts of the gospel account then find confusion in understanding the events surrounding the death of Jesus, confusion which is taken to indicate errors in the gospel accounts. I believe the problem is the rejection of certain parts of the text. Taken in its entirety, I suggest the gospel accounts present a reasonable, understandable version of events.

The Scholarly View

Let us start by summarizing what the scholars in both articles are telling us. (Both articles present similar stories, and for the purposes of this analysis can be treated identically.)

Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over. Therefore, we would not expect the Jewish religious establishment to have a big problem with Jesus. In fact, Jesus is recorded as agreeing with the Pharisees on multiple issues. They may not believe in Jesus, but there is nothing to get excited about. Without such confrontation, there would be no reason for the Pharisees to actively seek Jesus' death. The gospel writers exaggerated the Jewish role in the Passion for political reasons.

The Romans, on the other hand, had much to fear from Jesus. He was building a following who hailed him as King of the Jews, a Messiah around whom the Jews could rally against Roman occupation. They had every reason in the world to desire Jesus' death. Pilate, his actions as presented in the gospel narratives being one of the major sticking points for the historical view, was a brutal man even by Roman standards. He executes thousands of Jews, with little regard to guilt or innocence, without hesitation, so he would not have hesitated to have Jesus killed as a political statement and assertion of Roman authority.

So the picture that emerges is of a Jesus that is no real threat to the Jewish establishment, but a significant threat to the Roman government of Judea. The Jewish leadership played little or no role in Jesus' execution; it was a purely Roman affair. Pilate ordered the execution with no reservations or hesitation. The gospel narratives diverge from this history because of political reasons by the authors who wanted to distinguish themselves from the Jews (in light of the Jewish revolt around 70 AD, according to the US News article) and/or to diminish the Roman role in the process as a means of making the message more presentable to a Roman audience (Newsweek article).

The Full Context

If one accepts the context, the view presented above makes some sense. The actions of the Jewish religious leadership indeed do not make sense, nor does the Pilate presented by the texts appear to agree with the figure we know from history. The problem is, however, the context the scholars are basing their analysis on is not the context given in the narrative. The problem is in the first two sentences of my summary: "Jesus was a Jew who claimed to be Messiah. Such a claim is not blasphemous, or really anything to get really worked up over."

Jesus indeed claimed to be Messiah. It may well be true that such a claim is not blasphemy. But it is highly incendiary in that environment. The Jewish religion had developed an extensive set of expectations of what Messiah would mean, what his arrival would bring about. They expected a warrior king in the line of David who would throw off the Roman occupation, reestablish Israel as an independent kingdom, strong and secure. Jesus preached no such thing. He, on occasion, consorted with Romans. He preached submission to Roman authority. He talked about sin, not about the evils of Rome. He was a very different Messiah than the Jewish religious leaders had led them to expect. Therefore, for Jesus to be Messiah is to say that the religious beliefs of the Jews were wrong, that they didn't understand God. This is quite inflammatory, and would enrage many people.

But Jesus went beyond claiming to be Messiah. He frequently confronted the Jewish religious leaders and accused them of standing in God's way, of deceiving the misleading the Jewish people. These were men who lived lives of status, influence, power, comfort, and possibly wealth. All of that came from the perception that they were learned in the Scriptures, that they understood the ways of God and could lead them. Jesus was undermining all that by repeatedly telling them they did not understand God. He was basically challenging their social and political standing. It is little different that what the Catholic Church faced during the Protestant Reformation. The church leadership had great standing in society, political influence and power, all stemming from their supposed holiness and righteousness. When Martin Luther and later Reformers challenged the doctrines of the Church, he was challenging the foundation of their place in society. If the church was wrong, then they weren't so holy, so they would not be worthy of the exalted position and power they enjoyed. People in positions of power do not usually stand for having that position challenged or undermined.

Finally Jesus' claim to be Messiah was not his only claim. He was also claiming to be God incarnate. This is blasphemous (unless, of course, it was true). For those who rejected Jesus, this is the ultimate blasphemy, and the religious among them would have demanded his death for such blasphemy. For those who accepted Jesus, this would increase their enthusiasm for Jesus. The end result would be a highly divided population, with some enthusiastically embracing Jesus and others enthusiastically rejecting Jesus and calling for his death. For the religious Jews, there could be little middle ground.

Furthermore, a claim to be God would accentuate even more the confrontational elements of Jesus' ministry described above. It is one thing for a man to tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong and misguided. It is something much more when God tells you this.

In making the scholarly analysis above, these elements of Jesus' ministry have been edited out. Jesus has been transformed from the man presented in the gospel narratives to an inoffensive teacher of love and brotherhood. This may our modern perception of Jesus, that he was a good man who taught us to love one another and who asked, in the words of Rodney King, "can't we all just get along?" It is not, however, the Jesus described in the gospel texts.

The Gospel View

Now that we have a more comprehensive context to work from, let us consider how things might have gone.

Jesus' highly divisive ministry reaches Jerusalem on Palm Sunday where he is hailed by large, enthusiastic crowds as Messiah. The Jewish leadership sees this crowd and recognizes they are losing their grip on the people. If Jesus continues to grow in popularity, they stand to lose their elite status in society. Also keep in mind that the Romans have put these men into positions of leadership because of the supposed respect they command from the people, respect that is now eroding because of Jesus.

The more religious among them (and among the people) also see in Jesus' popularity a growing acceptance of blasphemy that risks God's wrath on the Jews as had happened previously in Jewish history. Because of this, the Jewish leadership decides Jesus must go.

The Romans see the crowd and, understanding the Jewish concept of Messiah, recognize the threat to peace that Jesus represents, and arrive at the same conclusion. But there is a problem. Jesus already has a large following. Previously, they have executed scores of insignificant men with small followings. Executing them was not risky and served a political purpose. Now they have a man with a large following who believe he is God incarnate, or at least a prophet of God. To execute him is risky because those followers would not take too kindly to having their God executed. All the Romans cared about was peace, and these followers in their anger could rise up against Rome.

Events proceed as described in the gospel narrative. The Jewish leaders have Jesus arrested and he is brought in for a show trial which concludes he should be executed for blasphemy. Not being able to legally carry out the execution themselves, they turn Jesus over to the Romans to do it for them. While this is happening, Jesus' opponents in the regular population have congregated and begin to call for his death.

Now we get back to Pilate and the indecision indicated in the gospel texts. We can now understand the indecision. It is not contradictory to his brutal nature. After all, in the end, he declares Jesus innocent and then indifferently hands him over to the soldiers for beating and execution anyway. (Many critics of the gospel account, and Gibson's film, say that Pilate is portrayed as a benign, benevolent soul. A ruler who has a man he himself has declared innocent brutally beaten and then sadistically executed is benign? This is gibberish. Do these writers actually think about what they are writing, or do they simply parrot what someone else has said?) His brutality is not in question. As we have already seen, Jesus' ministry sharply divided the Jewish population, some enthusiastically embracing Jesus as God, others vehemently rejecting him as a blasphemer, with little room in the middle. Pilate, whose overriding concern as we have seen is keeping the peace, is caught in a position between these two crowds of people. Execute Jesus and he enrages his followers who might rise up. Free Jesus and his opponents might rise up out of fear of God's wrath for allowing such a blasphemer to go unpunished. (For the Jewish opponents to take matters in their own hand and kill Jesus themselves would be murder; his death must come legally.) Pilate, being a politician (and politicians have not changed too much over the millennia), tries to find a middle ground. On the one hand, he declares Jesus innocent and distances himself and his government from the execution by washing his hands. Then he turns Jesus over to be executed to appease that crowd. Again, this is not a contradiction of the brutal tyrant we see in history. Pilate's behavior is actually consistent with the historical picture. It is just that he is caught in a unique situation and hesitates while he tries to find a way out of it.

Conclusion

This is, of course, the version of events presented in the gospel texts. I believe there is no contradiction here. The actions of all the principal actors (Jewish leaders, Jewish crowd, Roman governor) all appear understandable if we accept the full teaching of Jesus as revealed in the gospel text as the backdrop against which they occur. Inconsistencies and perplexing actions only arise if we edit Jesus' ministry to something the texts tell us it was not. The scholars who have presented the scholarly view described in the first section have skewed their analysis of the history by editing the context as they have. It verges on intellectual dishonesty to not acknowledge at the outset that they are making such assumptions which will so cloud their conclusions.

The Eagle and Child: Narnia under assault

2005-12-09T09:38:00.000-06:00

Russell Smith writes a very good Christian response to Polly Toynbee's criticism of the new Narnia movie. I haven't seen the movie, and I am, I must say, skeptical of it as I don't see the book translating well to film, especially if it gets the Lord of the Rings treatment. (I still want to see it, though.) But Smith's comments on the theology and imagery of the story is right on the money.

Be Careful Who You Follow

2005-11-02T08:57:00.000-06:00

Jay Sekulow has become quite a figure in evangelical circles as the head of the legal organization American Center for Law & Justice, which is "dedicated to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms." Yet Mr. Sekulow may not be all he appears. Legal Times reports

But there is another side to Jay Sekulow, one that, until now, has been obscured from the public. It is the Jay Sekulow who, through the ACLJ and a string of interconnected nonprofit and for-profit entities, has built a financial empire that generates millions of dollars a year and supports a lavish lifestyle — complete with multiple homes, chauffeur-driven cars, and a private jet that he once used to ferry Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

That less-known side of Sekulow was revealed in several interviews with former associates of his and in hundreds of pages of court and tax documents reviewed by Legal Times. Critics say Sekulow’s lifestyle is at odds with his role as the head of a charitable organization that solicits small donations for legal work in God’s name.

Using donations from Christians, nominally to fight legal battles, to buy multi-million dollar homes? Using the organizations supported by these donations as a piggy bank for family members? Be discerning in who you give money to and who you follow.

Notes on Colossians 2:1-7

2005-10-19T06:04:00.000-05:00

I will lead a study tonight on Colossians 2:1-7 and thought I would share my notes on the passage.

Verses 1-3
V1 Paul reminds his readers of how much he struggles on behalf of the churches in the area.

The word "struggle", agonia, refers to an assembly of people to see the games, or the place where the games take place. (Strong) It is the word from which we get the word agony.

Henry: "He was in a sort of agony, and had a constant fear respecting what would become of them."

Paul reminds his readers that these churches for which he struggles are churches he has never seen, and whose people have never seen him.

V2 Paul reminds the reader of his struggles to form a bond with those whom he has never met. He wants the reader to find encouragement in this.

The word "comfort", parakaleo, is a similar word to that used in reference to the Holy Spirit at times when he is called the Comforter, parakletos (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7). One is verb, the other noun? The word, it seems to me, evokes the idea of standing side by side (para prefix).
Attaining to wealth: the theme again of growing into mature faith (cf 1:6,9).

The result of this knitting together and Christian maturity is true knowledge of God. Knowledge is one of the keys to the letter since he is combating the heresy of gnosticism.

V3 In God is hidden all the treasures. Reference this back to V2 where Paul talks about attaining the wealth that comes from understanding.

Hidden treasures: Gnosticism held to the idea that hidden knowledge is what leads to salvation. Paul says God and His plan for salvation is not hidden, it is the true wisdom that comes for the saved. So it is not hidden knowledge that leads to salvation, but salvation that leads to hidden knowledge.

Gnosticism:

Man's body is matter is evil. God is spirit so He is good.
Salvation is the escape from the body. It is not achieved by faith in Christ, but by special knowledge. Combating this point is the primary motivation for this letter.
Christ's humanity is denied. He only seemed to have a body, or the God part joined the man part at Jesus' baptism and left just before Jesus' death. One of the primary purposes of 1 John is to address this.
Since the body is evil, it is to be treated harshly.
Since the body is evil, it is to be submitted to much sin and to licentiousness.

Verses 4-7
V4 Paul's purpose in pointing out his "agony" for the church is to gain their respect so they will listen to him and not be led astray by someone else's argument. Paul's actions and commitment to the church should outweigh the intellectual arguments put forth by the Gnostics who suffer nothing for their cause. It also reinforces his authority to teach and admonish his listeners.

Paul's opponents are trying to lead the church astray by way of convincing, intellectual arguments. They use fancy, enticing words to draw the listener away from the truth. KJV expresses it "enticing words." Enticing evokes the image of a seductress coyly tempting the innocent into her lair. That is what the deceivers in the Colossian church are like.

Persuasive argument: Rom 16:17-18: "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting."

From Gospelcom:

In our day, as in the ancient world, people often measure the value of what others say by how well they say it. Even within the church we put great stress on a person's academic credentials, as if a Ph.D. granted one a corner on heavenly wisdom. The result is that we learn to value elegant systems of church dogma that are held together by sophisticated and learned arguments. In the life of many congregations, faith has become so intellectualized that its relational, experiential dimension has been bleached out. Certainly it is important to think through carefully what one believes and why. Yet many of my students come to university with strongly held convictions about Christ but without the experience of a vital relationship with him. Knowing what to believe has replaced knowing whom to believe.

Cf Acts 17:11, 1 John 4:1.

Now begins the main part of the letter, the teaching.

V5 "Absent in body..." is similar to what Paul said in 1 Cor 5:3. In that context, Paul is asserting his authority over the Corinthian church to exercise discipline, even from a distance. Here, he is asserting his authority to teach the Colossian church, even at a distance.

V6 To begin his teaching, Paul turns their attention and focus to Christ. The union of Jesus and the believer is repeated often throughout the letter (2:7, 2:10-13, 1:2, 1:27-28, 3:1,3).

V7 Paul invokes the theme of growing from baby Christian ("having been firmly rooted") to mature Christian ("and now being built up and established in your faith"). (cf 1:6,9)

Paul exhorts the reader to live and develop their faith "just as [they] were instructed" by Epaphras. In other words, turn away from the fancy words of the Gnostics and return to the teachings of those who founded the church and indeed of the Bible. The Bible is the answer to and the defense against deception. Cf 2 Tim 3:16.

Faith and Politics

2005-08-31T09:23:00.000-05:00

Cal Thomas writes

Too many Christians think if they shout loud enough and gain political strength the world will be improved. That is a false doctrine. I have never seen anyone 'converted' to a Christian's point of view (and those views are not uniform) through political power. I have frequently seen someone's views changed after they have experienced true conversion and then live by different standards and live for goals beyond which political party controls the government.

Absolutely right. The world will not be changed by Christians gaining political power. The world will be changed by Christians preaching the gospel and people coming to a saving faith in Jesus Christ.

Mohler on Robertson

2005-08-28T07:35:00.000-05:00

Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, says of Pat Robertson's advocacy of assassination,

More importantly, he brought shame to the cause of Christ. This is the kind of outrageous statement that makes evangelism all the more difficult. Missing from the entire context is the Christian understanding that violence can never be blessed as a good, but may only be employed under circumstances that would justify the limited use of lethal force in order to prevent even greater violence. Our witness to the Gospel is inevitably and deeply harmed when a recognized Christian leader casually recommends the assassination of a world leader.

It's good that other Christian leaders recognize this. Mohler concludes, "He has brought embarrassment upon us all."

Pat Robertson Needs To Update His Website

2005-08-24T09:46:00.000-05:00

Still not convinced that politics has corrupted the faith of the evangelical Christian church in the US? Pat Robertson now advocates the assassination of a democratically elected president of a foreign land. As Think Progress points out, this political view contradicts his Christian views about life, particularly God's dislike of murder. God had this crazy view that whoever murders someone ought to be put to death. So when his Robertson's political views come into conflict with the Bible, which does he choose? Why, his political views of course.

Robertson writes,

God says thou shalt not murder. Jesus Christ expanded that a little bit to have said, 'Anybody that says to your brother, "You fool" is in danger of hell fire.' So, go further and you begin to get angry with someone without cause. You begin to curse other people. That is a curse sending somebody to hell. That's the equivalent of murder. So what comes out of our mouth is so often a breaking of the Ten Commandments, because God Almighty wants to protect life and have everyone walk the streets without fear of being murdered.

Apparently Robertson believes that God didn't consider the political ramifications of His commandment. Thankfully we have Pat to fill in what God missed, to set God right in his naive ideas. What would God do without Robertson to set him straight?

Justice Sunday II

2005-08-15T12:58:00.000-05:00

Don't really have much to say on the subject beyond what I said for Justice Sunday I. In what way do the political activities of our national courts have any place or business in a house of worship? These people claim to be Christians. Do they follow Christ, as their title indicates, or do they follow some political movement in the US? It's time for Christians in this country to get their act together and remember who their Lord is and who their Lord is not. Disgusting.

And God is going to punish the nation because of the unbelievers? Come on. Christians do more than enough to warrant God's judgement by perverting the gospel. Jesus didn't die on a cross so that only opponents of Roe v. Wade and gay marriage would be appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The gospel isn't about politics!

Jude wrote about the gnostics and other heretics of his day, but his words apply to those who would pervert the gospel into a political rallying cry:

Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.

For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

(Jude 1:3-4) We must always be vigilant against those who would mislead and misdirect the church. They are always there. They were there in Jude's day, and they are here today. As in Jude's day, we must keep watch. But instead, we let them in and blindly follow their lead as they bring disgrace on the name of the Lord. These are men and women interested in their own political power and glorifying themselves and their pocketbooks.

To the American evangelical church, I say repent! As Jude wrote, let us contend earnestly for the faith and repent of the deception of politics. The people need Jesus, not some conservative judge annointed by Dobson. We are not Dobsonites, we are Christians! If he will not turn back to the gospel, let us turn away from him and get ourselves back to the faith! Let our churches be houses of worship, not houses of political rallies.

REPENT!

Turning Faith Into Elevator Music

2005-07-01T12:57:00.000-05:00

Here's a very insightful and important statement from Professor William J. Stuntz:

Symbols like the ones the Supreme Court haggled about give the impression that Christianity and the government are somehow in cahoots with each other. That's a dangerous impression, and a false one. It's a small step from the idea that the government endorses Christianity to an idea that is much worse: that Christianity endorses the government. Christians are the big losers in that transaction. Western Europe is filled with Christian symbols -- Christian Democrats are a leading political party in several countries -- but almost entirely devoid of Christians. Christianity does not thrive when political parties take its name and capitol lawns showcase its precepts. On the contrary, it thrives when it stays as far from those things as possible.

So many evangelicals today blur that line between faith and politics to the point where our faith is filtered through the politics. This is how churches come to define acceptable membership according to political views, and how church pulpits which should be used to teach the Word of God get co-opted by politicians trying to advance their political cause. Yet history is clear: blending faith and politics ultimately destroys the value of that faith. Why do you think Satan dangles that carrot of power and influence in front of pastors and other church leaders? What better way to stifle Christian revivial in the nation than to offer political power to the Christians?

American Christians need to wake up!

The Money Changers

2005-06-20T10:06:00.000-05:00

The sermon in my church yesterday was on Jesus casting the moneychangers out of the temple (Mark 11:15-19). This story is important in address what I have been calling the corruption of American evangelicalism.

My understanding of the history behind this is that these people initially were doing a service for God, but that service got corrupted and became an abomination. As we know, the Jewish temple worship system required a lot of animal sacrifice. For pilgrims coming perhaps long distances to visit the temple, this presented a hardship. How could they bring the lambs, rams, etc. required for the sacrifice? To address this, Jerusalem entrepreneurs setup shop on the Mount of Olives, selling animals to the pilgrims for use in the temple. Thus were they providing a needed service to traveling Jews. But, of course, money was involved. The sellers started raising prices. After all, what's wrong with making a little profit off this service? Eventually, the operations moved to the court of the Gentiles in the temple, to be closer to the action. Doing so, of course, drives the Gentile worshippers away. Thus, for the sake of profit, these entrepreneurs had perverted the purpose of the temple, corrupting the worship that took place there. It became an enterprise to manage rather than communion with God.

What can we learn from this? How often do we see the same type of corruption taking place in our own churches? Look at the Christian music business. Christian artists, gifted by God to create songs of worship, control their work so as to maximize profit. Churches cannot use their songs unless they pay a fee. These musicians then tour churches to play their songs during church services to promote their latest CDs, available for sale in the narthex. How often does worship become an infomercial to get the listener to buy a CD? How often do Christian authors grab the pulpit on Sunday morning to deliver a sermon which is really just a sales pitch for their latest book, also available at a discount in the narthex? How is any of this any different than what the moneychangers in the temple were doing?

We can also look outside the church operations. How often do we see Christian leaders get involved in some issue for all the right reasons, only to see their involvement devolve into a struggle for personal power? It's no longer service for God, it is a vehicle for their own advancement.

And, of course, my personal favorite. How often do companies mass-produce Bibles with initially good intentions, only to see business interests take over so that they end up trying to milk believers out of as much money as possible as they buy their copies of the Word of God? How many different ways can Zondervan package the NIV? They do everything they can to get you to buy as many copies of the NIV as possible. Their specialty is the custom bible. The Sports Devotional Bible. The Student Bible. The Bible for Teen Girls. The Bible for Teen Guys. The Bible for Women. If you don't fall into at least one of those categories, don't worry, there are plenty of others. All these are is the NIV text with additional materials that would, separately, constitute a short pamphlet or manual. But rather than sell that short pamphlet for a few bucks, they package it with the full NIV so they can justify selling it for $25. And, if you are a teenage boy who is a student and plays sports, you may just have to have three of their specialties. They may call it the Word of God, but it's a cash bonanza for Zondervan. (I pick on Zondervan, but I don't know if any of the other publishers are any better.)

The English language is flooded with quality translations of the Bible. Yet every few years, it seems like someone comes up with another. Meanwhile there are groups in the world for which no translation even exists into their native language. Why? Well, there's not a lot of profit to be made coming up with a translation of the Bible into some language spoken by a jungle tribe deep in the South American wilderness.

All these problems, be they the temptations of money, fame, or power, reflect our culture's influence on our church. We must recognize the money changers in our own personal temples and the ways in which they corrupt our worship. We must repent and restore God to His rightful place as the center of our worship and activities.

Loving the Sinner

2005-06-15T11:23:00.000-05:00

Don Fischer reflects on the responsibility we Christians have to love the sinner

We have to be persons who are there for giving life to others. For giving means we are not holding back the gift of life, the gift of the Spirit. We are there for the purpose for giving the Spirit to everyone. That doesn’t mean we are there approving everyone for where they are. It just means that we are giving others life. We want to do something for them that brings them into life. We are not interested in punishing others. We are not interested in condemning or criticizing others. We may use harsh words to point out something they are doing wrong, and that may not be easy for them to receive. But it’s our disposition toward them that is so crucial. If judgment toward our brothers and sisters is condemnation, hatred, loathing or disgust—that isn’t Spirit. That is something else. That is the opposite of what Christ came to do. When he said, "You will free people when you are there for giving life," that is the mightiest work of God. God’s mighty act is to love every single human being exactly as they are, in this moment, with the hope and the desire that they move in the direction of the truth.

(emphasis mine) Too often, I fear we get so caught up in declaring sin sin that we forget that Jesus loved, both in concept and deed, all sinners, even you and I. The world often says that to love someone, we would never tell them they are in sin. Fischer has it right that while we may use strong language to express the truth of sin, it is how we act toward those people that is important.

The Purpose Driven Life

2005-05-17T10:03:00.000-05:00

My small group has been studying Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. I've often heard there is criticism of the book in evangelical circles, but have never seen much substance around these claims. Preachrblog has a list of links to different criticisms. These documents are from a specifically Lutheran point of view. It is certainly worth considering the value of any book we would study, especially if there are concerns about its validity. I've read through a few of the documents Preachrblog has linked to. The criticism seems to fall into two broad categories: use of Scripture and distortion of the gospel.

The first category, use of Scripture, covers concerns about how Scripture is used by Warren. The critics complain that he uses obscure translations of verses whose wording does not necessarily line up with what mainline translations give. They also complain that he takes verses out of context or only considers the portion of the verse that addresses his point. Here I have to agree. From the beginning, I've been bothered by his quotations. Warren has no consistency in the version he uses. He seems to pick and choose whatever rendering gives the wording he wants, whether it is accurate or not. This undermines the confidence that Warren is giving sound, Scriptural teaching. (It is sound and Scriptural, but the confidence in that does not come from his references to Scripture.)

As to the second category, distortion of the gospel, I'm not so convinced. The critics seem to proceed from a false assumption. For example, Scott Diekmann's critique starts, "Part of Rick Warren's audience is non-Christians." He then goes on to document ways in which Warren's teachings go against some basic doctrines of the gospel, or fails to properly explain the gospel. (Remember these critiques are from a Lutheran point of view, so Diekmann's conception of basic doctrines of salvation, including emphasis on Sacraments for example, reflect that.)

As such, there should be in the book a clear message of both Law and Gospel so that those who are unbelievers might come to know Jesus as their Savior, but there is no such clear message. While the Gospel can be found in the book, its message may be lost due to a focus on us and a lack of the Law. Some would argue that since the purpose of the book is to help people see God's purposes for their lives, it doesn't need to present Law and Gospel. But without Law and Gospel there can be no conversion (the moment we believe Jesus is our Savior and are thus saved), and without conversion, unbelievers won't understand God's purposes or their purposes.
...

Pastor Warren says my real problem is "a lack of focus and purpose," something I should be able to work on and correct. My real problem is that I am a sinner. Fortunately, someone came to solve my problem, and that is where my focus lies[.]

Certainly, Diekmann is correct that someone who has not been saved, who does not understand the impact of sin and the meaning of the cross, "unbelievers won't understand God's purposes or their purposes."

But I think it is pretty clear from reading the book that his audience is Christians, not unbelievers. This is not a book designed to bring the lost to salvation, but rather to teach Christians to get more out of their lives. Certainly some non-believers may read it, but that is not Warren's target audience. Not every book needs to present the gospel. An author writing to Christians can safely assume the audience understands the basic tenets of the gospel, and move on to meatier subjects. One of the points Warren makes is that salvation is a starting point, not an end point. To expect that all authors would only focus on the gospel and bringing people to salvation is to view that salvation as the end point or culmination of something. But it is the point at which we start living our Christian lives, lives that God intended for us to live, with sin and the separation that entails taken away. It is the starting point in the process by which we become the men and women God intended us to be.

Doc's Home: More on Evolution in Kansas

2005-05-16T08:57:00.000-05:00

On my other blog, I have been commenting on the debate in Kansas over teaching evolution in schools. It has relevance to this blog's subject matter as well, since it deals with Christian thinking. Of particular interest is the last paragraph:

Fundamentally, we're comparing apples and oranges. On the question of the origins of the universe of or life on Earth, science looks at the "how" and religion looks at the "who" and the "why." As a Christian, I say God created the universe and created all life on Earth. That statement does not address the question of how He created the universe. Science attempts to provide an explanation of the how. Rather than fight against scientific discovery, Christians should be embracing science as a means of further understanding the mind and ways of God. The Bible tells us that God is understood through creation (Rom 1:20). So why do they want to quash that understanding of creation so much?

Democrats Voted Out of N.C. Church

2005-05-08T07:29:00.000-05:00

As politics has corrupted the message of the gospel in some evangelical circles, it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. MSNBC reports on events at East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina:

Members of the congregation said [head pastor] Chandler told them during last year’s presidential campaign that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry needed to leave the church.

Longtime member Selma Morris, who was treasurer at the church, said Chandler’s sermons remained political after Bush won re-election. This past week, his comments turned to politics again at a church gathering that ended with nine members voted out.

Many other members, including a deacon, of the church have left in protest of this move, and Robert Prince, another local Bapist pastor, calls it "disturbing." Prince is also quoted saying,

he noticed during the presidential campaign that more pastors made endorsements — although not from the pulpit — than in past years.

“It used to be that pastors would speak about the issues and not specific candidates,” he said. “I think that line is being crossed.”

Absolutely, a line has been crossed. The lure of politics and of power and influence is distorting the gospel for many Christian brothers and sisters. Ours is not a message of salvation through politics or values, but of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus did not make political views a part of the salvation equation. When our churches degrade themselves to be merely a forum to host political advocacy preaching, as in the case of Justice Sunday, or to rejecting members who may not pass the political litmus test, it is safe to say the gospel has been perverted in those churches. And this happens far more often that we read about in the news. Most churches just don't go as far as this church did.

We believers must not stand by passively and watch this corruption grow. It's time to take the evangelical church back for Jesus.

Update (5/9/2005): WLOS News quotes the pastor in question saying last October

the question then comes in the Baptist Church how do I vote, let me just say this right now if you vote for John Kerry this year you need to repent or resign you have been holding back God's church way too long and I know I may get in trouble for saying that but just pour it on.

Hmm. I thought repentance was for sin. Now it's for who you vote for too? Is a vote for the Constitution party also something for which one needs repentance? For what political parties does a vote not require repentance?

As to the comment that Kerry voters have been "holding back God's church," I that pretty neatly illustrates the point about confusing the gospel with politics.

Tithing

2005-05-03T10:07:00.000-05:00

L. Ray Smith has a very interesting article on the Scriptural validity of tithing for the modern Christian. I am not endorsing (nor rejecting) his article. I point it out as interesting and challenging. Smith's summary:

ONLY LANDOWNERS TITHED
ONLY PRODUCTS OF THE LAND WERE TITHED
ONLY LEVITES COULD RECEIVE THE TITHES
TITHING WAS A LAW OF MOSES
CHRISTIANS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES!

Basically, Smith asserts that tithing was only applied to farmers, who gave out of their surplus the last tenth of their harvest. The purpose of the tithe was to support the temple priests, who were devoted full time to their ministry and therefore had no opportunity to support themselves.

I said I don't endorse Smith's article. That's because there are things in there that I disagree with, e.g. his analysis of the "curse" passage in Malachi, in particular his conclusion about who is cursing who. But, at this point, I tend to agree with most of what he writes. I remember several years ago sitting down with my son to try to explain the tithe, and for the first time actually studying the Bible on the subject. I discovered what Smith did, namely that every verse I could find on the subject dealt exclusively with farmers bringing 10% of their crop to the temple. It was a very specific process applied to a specific segment of the community for a specific purpose, not some universal requirement.

The pro-tithe talk often comes across as vaguely "health and wealth" talk. It isn't the health and wealth gospel most of the time, but it hints in that general direction. Give 10% to the church and God will do wonderful things for you and bless you, give only 8% and God will not bless you. God's blessing is not something one earns or buys.

Most importantly, the tithe focuses one on a specific number, namely the 10% you are required to give. (Is that 10% of gross or 10% of net?) If you are poor and only giving 5%, then you are not meeting God's requirements. If you are wealthy and can easily give 20% of what you have, don't worry about it and just give 10% because that's all God wants. How much did Jesus indicate the rich young rule should give? A mere 10%? No. His target percentage was 100%. Focusing on the 10% target is legalism, pure and simple.

Does God want compulsory giving? No. "Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. " (2 Cor 9:7) The amount each person gives is between him- or her-self and God, and is to be given cheerfully and willingly.

Certainly we should be generous givers, and we are promised that God will provide such that we will "have an abundance for every good deed." (2 Cor 9:8) But we are to give from our hearts whatever God leads us to give. Knowing what God would have us give does not require a calculator.

Darfur

2005-04-28T09:01:00.000-05:00

I haven't talked about it on this blog, but my other blog is a member of the Coalition for Darfur. In the Sudanese region of Darfur, the world is again faced with the specter of genocide in Africa, and as happened in Rwanda ten years ago, the world is paying little attention. Christianity Today has an editorial on Darfur.

In Sudan, a fragile peace is vanishing at the rate of more than 10,000 corpses per month. Murder, disease, and starvation in Sudan's western Darfur region have taken between 210,000 and 350,000 lives, according to a recent U.N. estimate.

Starting in 2003, Janjaweed Arabs, a Sudan-backed militia, have driven 2 million villagers from their homes in ethnic-cleansing attacks designed to suppress local rebels. Satellite imaging has documented hundreds of burned-out villages. In remote border camps, displaced families live under plastic sheeting with grossly inadequate food and water. They have just enough food to starve—slowly. Already 20 children a day may die in these camps, where 70 people sometimes share one pit latrine.

Eyewitness accounts detailing the militia attacks are horrifying. "They killed my 3-year-old son right in front of my eyes," one father from West Darfur said. Since last fall, women have reported more than 500 rapes. Three women said five militiamen beat and raped them last August. The women said, "After they abused us, they told us that now we would have Arab babies. And, if they would find any [more] women, they would rape them again to change the color of their children."

...

Western Christians can play a vital role in helping to stop violence and start peace on the ground throughout Sudan.

While the president, supported unanimously by both houses of Congress, has done the right thing in openly declaring the slaughter in Darfur genocide, much more needs to be done to raise awareness about the horrors taking place over there and to better support efforts at peacemaking. In addition to the politics, much aid will be needed for the victims. The coalition blog has links to relief organizations.

Justice Sunday

2005-04-25T08:52:00.000-05:00

In my last few posts, I have been talking about the corruption that is creeping into so many facets of American evangelical Christianity because of wealth and politics. A demonstration of the corruption from politics could be found this past Sunday. The nation saw the "Justice Sunday, Stopping the Filibuster Against People of Faith" broadcast from Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky on Christian TV and radio. This was a political operation designed to get evangelical Christians to support a move by conservatives in the Senate to abolish the filibuster as a tactic against judicial nominees.

Now maybe you support this endeavor politically. I won't argue for or against it here. But what business does this political showboating have in a church? A church is for worshipping God and raising up men, women, and children in the Word of God. Politics have no business whatsoever inside the walls of the church! Our faith is not defined by our politics! When we mix politics and faith, we corrupt our faith! We inevitably make politics a part of the faith, redefining Christianity to be, not faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, but faith in certain political views. Witness the bumper sticker I wrote about before that equated being a Christian with holding a certain political view on abortion. One's faith in Jesus is not defined by politics. Our faith is not to be filtered through our politics!

This church in Louisville, what are they saying to people in their city desperate to find God but who are perhaps Democrats? What is the church leadership saying to members who may not agree with the politics demonstrated in that broadcast. By associating their church with a certain political point of view, they are telling those inside and outside the church that those who disagree are not welcome. Is this really the message of the Gospel? You're not welcome unless you support the Christian right politically?

Paul wrote, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). In the context of the chapter, Paul is removing the distinctions among the believers within the Galatian church that brought division, emphasizing instead the union and equality of all believers. Politics are intrinsically divisive, and therefore has absolutely no business in the church, and absolutely no business being connected to worship. Pastors across the country must take the lead in keeping these forces of division out of the walls of their church. The pastor of my church did this last year during the election by forbidding members from discussing the different candidates while they were in the building.

I am not against politics, or Christian involvement in politics. My other blog is primarily political in nature (except during the NFL playoffs). But we must be ever vigilant that the division of politics be kept out of the church and away from our faith. Otherwise that faith will become corrupted and worthless.

Bible Translations

2005-04-21T15:37:00.000-05:00

Just for kicks, I decided to check out the copyright statements on many of the major English translations of the Bible. Here are some interesting excerpts regarding how much a reader can legally quote from the Bible.

NIV:

The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted.

New American Standard:

The text of the New American Standard Bible® may be quoted and/or reprinted up to and inclusive of two hundred (200) verses without express written permission of The Lockman Foundation, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for more than 25% of the total work in which they are quoted.

English Standard Version:

Publication of any commentary or other Bible reference work produced for commercial sale that uses the English Standard Version must include written permission for use of the ESV text.

New King James:

The text of the New King James Version® (NKJV®) may be quoted or reprinted without prior written permission with the following qualifications:
Up to and including 1,000 verses may be quoted in printed form as long as the verses quoted amount to less than 50% of a complete book of the Bible and make up less than 50% of the total work in which they are quoted;
all NKJV quotations must conform accurately to the NKJV text.

Hmm. Isn't the Bible the Word of God? Isn't this what we're told constantly? Yes, I'm pretty sure that's right. God's Word. Then how do these publishers have the audacity to place a copyright statement of any kind on their texts? Not only do they have a copyright statement, which controls who can reprint the texts, they have the absolute gall to place restrictions on how much someone can quote from it! Appalling! "Yes, read the Bible, be saved and all that, but don't quote it too much unless you are paying us a fee for the right! And make sure you credit the source of your quotations. No, I mean us, not God." These companies should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Don't even get me started on the idea of selling God's Word for profit, like a radio or a CD.

I recently wrote that the evangelical community "ha[s] been corrupted by wealth." If even the Bible is little more than a product to be marketed and sold for profit, I think the case is pretty much proved.

The Evangelical Scandal

2005-04-21T15:30:00.000-05:00

Christianity Today has published a very interesting and challenging interview with Ron Sider, who says the evangelical "movement is riddled with hypocrisy, and that it's time for serious change." The first part deals with how the evangelical community is, in many ways, indistinguishable from the world. I could quote any number of paragraphs, but any one demonstrates his point:

Take the issue of racism. A Gallup study discovered that when they asked the question, "Do you object if a black neighbor moves in next door?" the least prejudiced were Catholics and non-evangelicals. The next group, in terms of prejudice, was mainline Protestants. Evangelicals and Southern Baptists were the worst.

He touches on statistics about sexual immorality, sex abuse, divorce, materialism, and others.

Dick Staub, commenting on the big business that evangelical Christianity has become, describes the problems in the church by writing,

Evangelicals, unencumbered by a radical gospel about sacrifically serving and loving others, [have] replaced it with a gospel of personal, familial and professional success.

How do we turn the ship around?

We need to rethink our theology. We need to ask, "Are we really biblical?" Cheap grace is right at the core of the problem. Cheap grace results when we reduce the gospel to forgiveness of sins only; when we limit salvation to personal fire insurance against hell; when we misunderstand persons as primarily souls; when we at best grasp only half of what the Bible says about sin; when we embrace the individualism and materialism and relativism of our current culture. We also lack a biblical understanding and practice of the church.

I have long believed that there are serious problems in the evangelical community. We have been corrupted by wealth and political power. I could go on and on with examples, but will save that for another post. I believe it is time for a revival within the evangelical community.

Papal History

2005-04-11T10:20:00.000-05:00

Bob Waters gives a lengthy and detailed account of the history of the papacy and the dubious claim that Peter was the first pope, and that the earliest "popes" were actually popes, as we understand them, at all.

The papacy did not spring full-grown from Matthew 16. It evolved and developed- and it is very far from being self-evident that the "popes" of the first century and a half were popes at all in any sense we would recognize today- that is, unless we have an ecclesiastical axe to grind!

It has always seemed to me that Peter was primarily an evangelist, whereas the office of pope is more of an admistrative, pastoral office. Peter wasn't even the head pastor, to use modern designations, of the Jerusalem church! James was. So it seems strange to peg Peter as the undisputed, authoritative leader of the early church.

The Evangelical Pope?

2005-04-11T09:56:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe has a very interesting article on the role of John Paul II in transforming evangelical Christian attitudes toward the Catholic church.

Nevertheless, while no one would mistake John Paul II for an evangelical, he was responsible for a great deal of the normalization of relations that has occurred between the two Christian communities. Evangelicals greatly respected his resistance to Communist tyranny and his efforts on behalf of a ''culture of life.'' They could appreciate the Christ-centered elements of his personal piety, as illustrated by words he prepared for a homily the first Sunday after Easter: ''Lord, who with your death and Resurrection revealed the love of the Father, we believe in you and with faith we repeat to you today: Jesus, I trust in you, have pity on us and on the entire world.''' Evangelicals who have taken time to read the ''Catholic Catechism,'' which the pope shepherded into print, have found a bracing statement of orthodox Christian faith, though of course in a distinctly Catholic dress. Those who have read even some of the pope's many encyclicals recognized one of the 20th century's most astute Christian intellects at work.

I know from personal experience that there is still considerable resistance in the evangelical world to the Catholic church. But part of the late pope's legacy will be a closing of the gap between the two worlds.

Evangelical Civic Responsibility

2005-03-11T09:07:00.000-06:00

The National Association of Evangelicals has published a very interesting document detailing its vision of Christian political involvement. The New York Times has written an article on the document. The politics of the Evangelical movement often focus on a very narrow slate of issues, from abortion to same sex marriage. As this document makes clear, our responsibilities as the "salt of the Earth" go far beyond those issues. The NAE recognizes that, as the Times writes, "racial injustice, religious freedom, poverty in the United States and abroad, human rights, environmentalism and advancing peace through nonviolent conflict resolution" are all in the scope of Biblical involvement in the world.