Saturday, August 28th
The Bible and Abortion
Now that I am suddenly rubbing elbows with conservative Christians I am thinking more seriously about what the Bible says about abortion. In this age of the internet, it isn't nearly as hard to do this anymore. All you have to do is do a couple simple google searches and you can find that somebody else has done all the thinking for you!
There seem to be two main lines of reasoning. Unfortunately they lead to vastly different conclusions. One line of reasoning is based mainly on 3 scriptures- what I think of as the "mother's womb" argument. These 3 scriptures are Isaiah, Jeremiah, and David describing God's attitude towards them when they are in their mother's womb.
The contradictory reasoning is what I think of as the "breath of life" argument. This argument is based on Genesis 1 and the Ezekiel scripture when the dry bones are not alive until they have the breath of life in them.
People who put forth either of these arguments seriously argue that the opposite side is taking scriptures that are meant to be metaphorical and taking them literally. This seems to always be the sticking point in scriptural arguing back and forth- which scriptures are literal and which are metaphorical?
I think the "breath of life" people win out here. The main problem with the "mother's womb" scriptures are that they are contradictory. Although God knew Isaiah and David when they were in their mother's womb, He knew Jeremiah before he was in his mother's womb.
If the story ended here, I would have to vote for the "breath of life" option.
The "mother's womb" folks have a couple of other cards to play though. There is the fact that the same word is used to describe a baby in the womb and out of the womb. Therefore (goes the argument) they must be the same. This argument is nothing more than a restating of the fallacy of equivocation- saying that two things are the same because they have the same name. Everybody knows that when the Bible said that Jesus "hands" were nailed to the cross, it could have actually been His wrists. The reason: in the Bible the same word was used to mean two different things. The "same word" argument falls flat.
The other card is the scientific argument. The more we find out about the process of developing human life, the more we realize that the phrase "life begins and conception" is scientifically accurate.
Is there a way of reconciling the scientific fact with the apparent Biblical evidence that life begins at first breath?
Not really. We could just give up and say that maybe the breath of life scriptures are metaphorical after all. It's a politically attractive option for those looking for a way to oppose legalized abortion.
But, since Christians make a distinction between body, soul, and spirit- is it a stretch to say that bodily life begins at conception, but spiritual life begins at first breath? I don't think so- although it is an explanation that is likely to satisfy nobody. :mario:
Friday, August 27th
Dreaming of the poor
I had an interesting dream last night. I was playing the piano at a church that I practice at. I had been playing classical stuff and then I started playing some jazz. An elderly but distinguished gentlemen walked into the church at that point and said, "I'm glad you're playing that. The stuff you were playing before was boring!" I was a little put off by that, but wanting to please him I asked him if he had a request. At this point a younger woman came up to me and asked me if I knew "this one" and started singing "Summer Wind." I was happy that I knew the song and started playing along with her. At this point a woman walked up to me that lives within walking distance of me. She is anorexic and has other psychological issues as well. In my dream she was sweating profusely like she had been overexercising and looked terrible. My immediate reaction was one of annoyance that she had interrupted my "concert."
I think God was trying to tell me something in the dream. We imagine that there are no poor people in our neighborhood or our church. Sometimes we're just ignoring them.
Last time I was in my church a gentleman struck up a conversation with me after the service. I felt annoyed. He has a different ethnicity than me and I find hard to talk to him because of his accent and because we don't have a lot in common culturally. I started to walk off looking for someone more "interesting" to talk to. Then I realized what I was doing and sat back down and talked some more. My wife told me later that when she saw us talking she made an effort not to go over and get dragged into the conversation. Such is our attitudes! Paul asks, "Are there poor among you?" (or whas it James?) We would tend to answer, "No!" but that's not honest. If we are so stingy with something as trivial as who we pay attention to, how can we possibly be generous with our money? :cry2:
Monday, August 23rd
Authority in the book of Revelation
I was raised in a church that preached a premillenial interpretation of Revelation with pretrib rapture. This theory was wildly popular at the time due to the book "The Late Great Planet Earth." I never did read this book, but I did read a few scholarly works- all by premillenialists but advocating different times for the rapture. The more I read and the more I cross-referenced these texts with Revelation, the more confused I became. I decided not to make a decision about the timing of the rapure, but to continue to read Revelation occasionally and glean what I could out of it. One thing that I decided "on my own" was that the various 7's in Revelation (the 7 trumpets, the 7 seals, and the 7 bowls) all referred to the same period of time rather than following one another sequentially. I thought I was being quite original in my interpretation! Then as I studied the apparently antiauthoritarian and anarchical teachings of Jesus, I returned to Revelation chapters 14-16 and tried to interpret them "on my own." One thing I noticed were certain parallels to events in the Gospels that contradicted the idea that these events were future. I noticed that the dragon (Satan) was defeated and fell to earth. This parallels Jesus' statement "I (just) saw Satan fall like lightning from the sky." Satan having been given authority over the nations and then in turn giving his authority to the beast reminded me of Satan's offer to Jesus, "All this has been given to me and I can give it to whomever I choose."
I thought that all of these ideas were very original on my part. Then I found out that there's been a theory of Revelation around for years called amillennialism. This theory proposes that Revelation, rather than being one fantastically big vision, is actually 7 visions which all cover the same chronological period; the period referred to elsewhere in the Bible as "the last days." According to this theory, the last days are the time between the first and second comings of Christ. If this were true, it would have great significance for how one views authority, particularly political or "national" authority. Most premillenialists hold to the gap theory, which postulates a gap between Daniel's 4 beasts and the emergence of the beast from the sea in Revelation 13. If this were the case, we would be pretty much left in the dark as to how God views national governments prophetically in our time. However, if there is no gap, if Revelation begins where Daniel leaves off, the view is clear: God views national governments as being unbrokenly beastly in nature. John's beast that arises from the sea has the characteristics of Daniel's first 3 beasts (lion, bear, leopard). It also has 7 heads and 10 crowns- both numbers signifying completeness. My belief is that the many-natured beast that arises from the sea represents the totality of all human civil government from the time of the first coming of Christ until His second coming. The mark of the beast is simply Caesar's mark- the mark he puts on his coin (money). Thus the mark is not some future money system, but all money systems of the last days.
There is a second beast (that arises from the land) in Revelation 13. This beast looks like a lamb (looks like Jesus) but has the voice of a dragon. It performs miracles and calls down fire from the sky. It makes everybody worship the first beast. I believe that this second beast represents the total picture of religious government in the last days. This beast creates an image of the first beast and makes people worship this image. In other words, religious authority takes on the same authority structure as civil authority and makes people bow to it. Again, I thought I was being quite original in my thinking. Then as I read the notes to my NIV version, I saw that this theory had also been around for years!
I have a theory as to what the "man of sin" in Thessalonians 1 is. Premillenialists identify him as "the antichrist" (a phrase that appears nowhere in the Bible). The antichrist is supposed to be a man who appears in the final seven years before the second coming. Although this idea is popular now, at the time of the Reformation, the "man of sin" was identified by the reformers as the pope! The idea was so prevalent that it found its way into the preface of the original KJV. To counter this idea, the Roman Catholics popularized an alternate version of a personal man of sin that is so prevalent today. I personally believe the Reformers theory, although in a more general way. I believe that the "man of sin" is equal to the second beast of Revelation 13- he is all religious authority in the last days. He is equivalent to the Biblical meaning of "antichrist." The Bible makes two mentions of antichrist. It mentions the "spirit of antichrist" and "already many antichrists have appeared." I believe that "the restrainer" which holds back antichrist (Thessalonians 1) is the existance of the 12 apostles on the earth. Again, I feel that my idea is quite original, but I'm sure if I look hard enough I will find that somebody thought of it long ago! :laugh2:
Saturday, August 21st
Like a little child
As I've been considering authority questions, Jesus' example of the little child keeps coming back to me. Children want to come to Jesus but the disciples rebuke them. Jesus says, "Let the children come to me, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these." In what way do the "owners" of the kingdom of God resemble children?
The common answer is that children are intellectually simpler, and therefore can believe stuff more easily without being plagued by a bunch of silly questions. (For example, like the questions that seem to plague me constantly!) But I don't see any scriptural basis for this. On the other hand, there seems to be strong scriptural basis for the fact that children will "own" the kingdom because of their lack of worldly authority. When the disciples ask, "who is the greatest in the kingdom," Jesus brings them a child and says "one who is like this." In this instance, the disciples are asking a question linked at least indirectly to authority. "Greatest" implies authority, because that is how we (and the heathen) judge "great ones."
The other scriptural example which tends to support this view is more directly linked to authority. When Jesus makes His famous statement about heathen exercising authority, He says that His disciples are not to be like that. He says that instead they should be like servants. This has led to the picture of the servant/leader- the one who leads by serving. But Jesus also compares our attitude towards taking authority to children- "the youngest among you will be the greatest."
No one talks about childlike/leaders. This is because children are universally recognized as without authority. I think that this was the point Jesus was trying to make with the servants also. The servant metaphor is supposed to be based on the powerless state of a servant, not a "servant's heart" or any other such thing.
Wednesday, August 18th
The mark of Cain
In the discussion of capital punishment, the scripture where God tells Noah that if anyone sheds a man's blood, his blood will be shed by man often comes up. To me, this seems like an accurate, though unfortunate, description of human justice. Of course, this scripture is also tied to Romans 13 where Paul tells us that the authorities have the power of the sword.
But it is interesting to see how God Himself dealt with the first murderer: Cain. Cain complains to God that his punishment is "too harsh" (sic)! He then goes on to complain that anyone who finds him will kill him. You might expect that because of God's statement to Noah, that God would respond, "Yes! And that's the way it should be!" But He doesn't! Instead, He says, "No!" He tells Cain that if anyone kills Cain, that Cain will be avenged sevenfold.
I find the number seven interesting in this context because in Revelation, we see God taking vengeance on the authority structures of the earth by pouring out seven bowls of wrath.
God didn't say that if someone sheds innocent man's blood, his blood shall be shed. He only mentions the fact that bloodshedders will have their blood shed by man. That leads us to a circular method of justice, doesn't it?
I wonder what the mark of Cain really was. Perhaps it was meant not as a warning to other men, but to spiritual forces (such as Satan). Perhaps we all still bear the mark of Cain. If the mark were a physical mark, this seems unlikely- the bloodline of Cain died out in the flood. But perhaps it is a spiritual mark we are talking about here. Cain was in one sense the father of murderers, such as others in his bloodline were the father of all musicians, or the father of all metalworkers.
Tuesday, August 17th
The mark of the beast
Everyone it seems has a theory about what the mark of the beast is, or will be. I just left a website that stated with great assurance that the mark of the beast is the cross. This evil mark has been around ever since Yahweh Himself put it on Cain. In the last days, the evil beast (the Roman Catholic Church) will require everyone to think about and act upon the sign of the cross.
I don't see a lot of evidence that this has even a remote possibility of happening. Unless, of course, Mel Gibson puts out an even more convincing movie than his last one. :wink2:
I have my own theory about the mark of the beast which is perhaps even more fantastic than the one I just read. To me, it seems obvious that the mark of the beast is the same mark that Jesus referred to when discussing the question of taxes with the Pharisees. It is Caesar's inscription that he puts on his money. Think about it: no one can buy or sell without money! What could be more obvious?
The beast in this interpretation is a government- or possibly all government. All governments issue money- that is one of their main purposes. They all stamp their money with an image and an inscription.
Jesus warns us about the unrighteous properties of mammon. I believe that the reason all mammon is unrighteous is because it is inextricably tied to the human authority that issued it. And Jesus rejected all human authority.
Hmmm... if there were such a thing as a "Christian Nation," whose image and inscription would they put on their money? :huh2:
Monday, August 16th
Living in fear of The Man
All of my meditation on Romans 13 has actually brought some good fruit, believe it or not! I've finally realized that I've lived all of my life in fear of the man mentioned in that chapter: the man in authority. I kinda understand now how people used the phrase "the man" in the sixties to refer to the authorities. Not that I understand it personally, mind you. I'm much too young for that :laugh2:!)
I first came to Jesus in a music store rather than a church, and I think this has shaped a lot of my understanding of The Man. After I came to Jesus and started reading the New Testament, He really became my hero. I saw Him as a profoundly anti-authoritarian figure, standing up to both the religious authorities and the political authorities in a profoundly holy way.
It was when I came into the church that people taught me that I really wasn't seeing Jesus' teaching correctly and how wonderful authority was. Most of this teaching came from Paul, specifically Romans 13.
Paul had a darn tough task, because Jesus left no instructions about how to build the authority structure of His church. (Careless of Him, huh? :tongue2:. )This is why the pro-authority statements of Paul seem so strong. Jesus' early followers were so anti-authority that they probably took it too far. Thus Paul has to remind them that anyone who desires to be an overseer desires a good work, not a bad one! The early Christians had a tendency to look down on even their own when they wielded the sword of authority.
I, unfortunately, have this tendency, too. Lord Jesus, please help me to respect your servants who choose to serve your church by overseeing.
Fred on 08.16.04 @ 11:58 AM EST [more..]
Saturday, August 14th
Jesus and Satan on the very high mountain
Jaques Ellul offers an interesting insight into the "very high mountain" on which Satan tempted Jesus. He pointed out that what Satan showed Jesus were the "kingdoms of the world and their glory." The word "kingdoms" speaks to the authority systems which are in place on the earth.
Interesting. I remember a movie made a while back where Satan and Jesus zoom out to outer space to the point where the earth is visible as a globe. This is the image that I used to have when I thought of this passage of scripture. But the scripture doesn't say that Satan zoomed Jesus out into space. It speaks of a "very high mountain."
Need I say that such a mountain does not exist? Nor could such a mountain ever exist, if the earth is in fact a globe. Because no matter how high the mountain was, Jesus could not have seen the other side of the globe!
Many have used this fact to ridicule the gospel writers. They point to this story as proof that the gospel writers believed that the earth was flat. If the earth were in fact flat, such a mountain could theoretically exist. I suppose it might be possible to solve the problem by saying that in Jesus' time the earth was flat, and at a later date the earth became spherical!
I don't think it is necessary to make such a radical hypothesis. Because the scripture does not say that Satan showed Jesus all of the land of the world, or even all of the people of the world. Instead, he showed Him the authority structures (kingdoms).
Then Satan makes the very interesting statement: "This has been given to me, and I can give it to whomever I wish." Could Satan have been lying? Certainly, but Jesus does not bother to contradict him! So I have to wonder if what Satan said were true.
There is another fact that makes it plausible that Satan was telling the truth here. Mountains are metaphors for power. In Jesus' time (and even in ours) controlling the high ground gives one military superiority. Thus height is a metaphor for power. Since Satan had the power to take Jesus to a very high mountain (which, it seems, was not a physical mountain overlooking physical kingdoms) he was in a position of authority over that which was below that mountain.
This has fascinating implications. What does it mean if in fact Satan has the power to hand any and all earthly authority to whomever he pleases?
Friday, August 13th
The greatest moral problem of our time
I have a few friends who tell me that they will always vote Republican solely because of the abortion issue. Certainly it seems immoral to vote for someone who countenances abortion! But is abortion really the greatest moral problem of our time?
Why is it that people get abortions? I don't know for certain, but I suspect that if you asked 100 women why they thought it was OK to get an abortion that well over 50 would answer, "I'm just not ready to have a baby yet." What they really mean is that if they had and kept the baby they wouldn't have enough money to live the lifestyle that they want to live. Even if they had the baby and gave it up for adoption; this would put a severe cramp in their lifestyle.
In short, sitting behind the abortion issue is the love of money issue. The apostle Paul tells us that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil- abortion for one.
Which raises an interesting question. What is the Republican party doing about the pressing moral issue of the mass of people in our country who are in love with money? Not much that I can see.
The Democrats might have a slightly better record in this regard, but certainly I don't see many of them preaching against the love of money in any serious way.
Republican/Democrat= Pharisee/Saducee. Certainly the Pharisees looked like the more moral party of the two. But the Gospels record that they were- lovers of money!
Thursday, August 12th
Jaques Ellul on Romans 13
I read Jacques Ellul's work on Christianity and Anarchy the other day which raised several interesting questions for me. He sees the Bible as primarily an anti-authoritarian (perhaps non-authoritarian is a better word) book with just a handful of scriptures that appear authoritarian. I found this outlook interesting because it seems to me that most of the rabid arguments that Christians get into are centered in apparent contradictions in the scripture- individual verses that, when put side by side, seem to be contradictory. If we are to resolve these contradictions, we must find a larger context to put them into.
Which is what Jaques Ellul did with Romans 13 (among other scriptures). He made some points that I found interesting- particularly that since all present authority exists because it overthrew a previous existing authority- all present authority is illegitimate. (He borrowed this point from Karl Barth, I believe.) Hmmm... how far can we go back before we find a legitimate authority? Was the Roman Empire legit? How about the Babylonians? God said that He brought them against Israel. Was Israel legit? They were are monarchy- which God said was a rejection of Him.
The other point made was that Romans 13 was an extension of the immediately previous scripture in Romans 12: "Do not return evil for evil, but overcome evil with good." Ellul postulates that this implies that the "All authority" that immediately follows is therefore considered evil. To do this he has to add a word: "(Therefore) obey the existing authorities." This weakens the argument.
But the traditional alternative is worse. Those who argue in the essential goodness of all authority are embarrased by having to explain why Adolph Hitler's or Saddam Hussein's authority is from God. Thus they don't really believe that all authority is from God. They believe all (legitimate) authority is from God.
So far, I like Ellul's view of Romans 13 best. Anybody care to try to persuade me differently?
Wednesday, August 11th
My alternate lifestyle
More and more I realize how society in the United States is based on the unwritten and unspoken assumption that things are run on money and power. And I realize more and more how so many Christians buy into this assumption. We don't say it out loud, but our words and actions betray us. There was a man "giving testimony" in my church last Sunday. He spoke of how he used to only live for himself. He had a moment when he realized how far he was from God when he was sitting on the steps of a donut store waiting for a friend to give him a ride because he didn't have a car. And, probably unwittingly, he was reinforcing the idea that those who are poor are cursed by God, while those who are rich are blessed.
My sister is bisexual and a Christian and there are countless who are willing to come against her lifestyle. Yet as I think about it, I realize that I have lived a lifestyle all my life that is just as sinful by glorifying money and power. But there is no monolithic group that will stand against such a lifestyle!
Perhaps because it takes money and power to form such a group. Both those who live a lifestyle of sexual immorality and those who depend on wealth and power are departing from the lifestyle approved by Jesus. Why is one sinful and the other one OK?
We were having a discussion on the postmodern theology list about money. Someone said that love of a lifestyle with big homes and cars is more a sign of immaturity than sin. I don't know if I buy into the "it's not sin, it's immaturity" argument. Does that apply to homosexuality and other "alternate"
sexual lifestyles as well? Or only to those who glorify money? :embarassed2:
Monday, August 9th
Christian Anarchy
mood: introspective
I spent some time yesterday on some anarchist sites. I don't "get" anarchy entirely. I don't understand who will run the police force and the prisons in an anarchist society. Perhaps the theory is that we won't need them? I don't really buy that.
I do like anarchy as a political theory for Christians in the sense that Christians should remain unimpressed with authority. I believe that this is what Jesus taught:
"Among the heathen those who exercise authority are considered great. It shall not be so among you. Instead, the person who exercises no authority over anyone shall be considered great in the Kingdom of Heaven."
Yeah, I know that this is my paraphrase, but I think it's closer to what Jesus meant than the usual interpretation.
The churches that I've been going to for the past 25 years at least all teach that those that lead should have a "servant's heart" or a "servant's attitude." This is a spiritualizing of what Jesus really meant, isn't it? Such people still exercise authority. They demand and expect that others will follow their commands. How is this being the "servant of all"? We have invented a new phrase for such leaders- we call them "public servants." People who serve by commanding the people below them in the hierarchy. Does anyone really buy that?
I don't think the early Christians did. I'll bet that they looked more like anarchists than conservatives. And I bet it caused some problems. Paul told them, "He who desires the office of an overseer desires a good work," and "Respect those who have charge over you." Funny he should have to say that. If these early Christians were good conservatives, you would think that these directives would have been unneccesary.
Saturday, August 7th
An old "vision"
I had some images and thoughts a while back that I compiled into a "vision." Vision of course is a rather presumptuous word- implying "from God." I do believe that God had something to do with these images, although not in the sense that they are more divine than images other people imagine :smiley2:
-----
"God is dead"- Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead"- God
-----
Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher of the late 19th century who challenged the foundations of traditional morality and Christianity. He is best known for his quote, "God is dead". Nietzsche defined truth as: "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms." He could certainly be called The Father of Moral Relativity.
And, in a sense, he has fathered much of my own soulish parts: my thoughts and emotions. I was raised in the 1960's, the era of the blossoming of moral relativity. Interestingly, Nietzsche and I share the same first name. I am Frederick and he was Friedrich. He was a lover of music, and so am I! I am thoroughly German in heritage and upbringing. And so was he! Thus my vision begins:
I am at the funeral of my dead father, Friedrich Nietzsche. He's not the father of my physical body. But he is the father of my soulish parts: my thoughts and my emotions. I didn't know his name back when I was born. As fathers sometimes do, he physically died before my birth. But, as dead fathers usually do, he left me a huge legacy in his philosophy and teachings. He taught me that conscience was an invention of the religious, and that if I thought I had a conscience; that was my own invention. I found a lot of comfort in his instruction. I loved the father of my evil soul, Friedrich Nietzsche. But I worried that if there was a Holy Judge, I would be the only one thrown in the furnace. All my brothers and sisters in Nietzsche would make it in, for they had no conscience. They would hear, "You didn't know right from wrong, so you are absolved". And I would hear, "You KNEW right from wrong, and are condemned". I spent a lot of time worrying about this. But then Jesus found me and saved me. I read in the Bible, "God's goodness is plainly seen". I also finally understood that everyone has a conscience. I knew in that instant that Friedrich Nietzsche, the father of my evil soul, was a liar. I was so PROUD of myself for discovering that truth. And I hated the father of my evil soul!
Friedrich died years ago. And, in my vision, his funeral is going on forever! The funeral is a strange mixture of an eastern and a western funeral: a rationalistic and mystic funeral. It is western, because there is little mourning or weeping; just endless eulogizing. But it is eastern, because it is going on for years and years. The body hasn't been enbalmed properly, and, after all these years, the stink is getting worse and worse.
All of dad's faithful kids are lined up at the funeral, waiting to eulogize. As I sit in the pews reserved for Friedrich's sons and daughters (and these pews seem endless), I think about what I will say. I need to make it clear that I have the right to "eulogize", of course. I need to make it clear that I am Nietzsche's son. Frederick, son of Friedrich. Or, to be Jewish about it, Frederick ben Friedrich. I chuckle to myself inwardly at my cleverness as I sit at the funeral. But I dare not refer to Friedrich as "Dad", nor refer to myself as a "son". These terms are too affectionate. And even my last cryptic phrase, "Frederick ben Friedrich", has too much affection in it.
Then I remember that when I was in junior high school, I sometimes called Harold Kohn, the father of my physical body, "my old man". You know, like, "my old man works for the state, what does your old man do?" I decide that if I refer to the father of my soul as "my old man", I will clarify things for everybody. I'll begin my speech by saying, "Nietzsche was my 'old man'." I won't eulogize of course. I disinherited myself from "dad" years ago. But I finally have my perfect chance to demonize him, and I can hardly wait!! But before I have my turn, Jesus calls me and I follow his voice. He has clearly said "let the dead bury their own." I am so PROUD that I have heard His voice. I have no feelings about Friedrich Nietzsche anymore. He's not my Dad, and he's not my Old Man. He's become just an old, dead "one who has no name" to me. And as I follow Jesus' voice, I look around for Jesus' body; the called out ones. But I see no one. I'm starting to feel so lonely, so terribly lonely.
In my vision of my lonesome sojourn, I stop at so many different places. I'm so PROUD of the fact that I've left the funeral, and I'm looking for those who are exactly like me. I see myself as a sheep with its ears perked straight up, straining to make some meaning out of the bleating voices of a vast herd of sheep and goats. It is very important that I separate them. I discover lots of goats and a few sheep. Finally I stop at a church, and my ears are really attentive then! I bet I can find some "called out ones" there. I carefully filter all the words that the people in the church say, to see if they really have no feelings about Friedrich Nietzche, my dead old man. If their words seem sympathetic to the old man, that is my clue that Jesus hasn't yet called them from the funeral. If their words seem hateful of the old man, that is my clue that they haven't yet left the funeral, even though they have been called out.
But something suddenly makes me stop my confident "walk with the Lord". I finally open my eyes. I only now realize I've been walking around with them tightly shut. No wonder I couldn't see the called out ones! Now, at last, I'll finally see them! But before me is nothing but a towering mass of stone which fills my horizon. It is an idol! It is so high, I cannot see the top of it. It is completely black and massive, dead and featureless, except for one thing. The only feature is two spindly arms held tightly to the black mass... handless and useless. And I am terrified! I know in a flash what that useless thing is. It is my own PRIDE blocking my way to Jesus. I am powerless... and utterly terrified. I no longer hear His voice. Maybe I was never a true believer after all? But then I realize that the reason I can't hear His voice is because I'm screaming loudly in fear. I manage to shut up for a moment, and I hear the Shepherd's Voice again...
I wish I could tell you the rest of my vision now. I won't for two reasons. First, it is not pertinent to this article. But second, and perhaps more importantly, there are still times I find myself screaming in fear as I consider the massiveness of my pride.
This article is not about my pride. It is about following Jesus. But, no one can truly follow Jesus unless she is called first. There are a few occasions in scripture when somebody volunteers to follow before they are called. Once a man came up to Jesus uninvited and said, "I will follow you wherever you go!" Jesus replied, "Foxes have their holes, and birds have their nests... but the Son of man has no place to lay His head". This response was completely cryptic to me until God gave me the vision I just shared.
We've all heard of the WWJD movement. The initials stand for "what would Jesus do". I've made this an overriding rule for my life. Doing so has borne much good fruit. But, in the midst of following this rule, I've forgotten that it is NOT scripture. And I've missed some important things. First of all, Jesus was in no way a fox, nor a bird. Both foxes and birds are used frequently in scripture as symbols of evil. For me, the evil birds in this scripture are symbolic of my pride. Birds can fly higher than any other animal. They can see the farthest. They make their nests way up in trees; higher than the mightiest lion. The evil foxes, on the other hand, are symbolic of my false humility. Foxes hide away in holes in the ground so that the light will not reveal their presence. False humility, of course, is just the flip side of pride. Regardless of appearances, pride and false humility both reside on the same coin.
At first, I applied WWJD only to the big decisions. It worked great! But, as those big decisions became more "automatic", my pride increased. I began applying the WWJD principle to increasingly small decisions. Read the Bible right now, or watch TV? Call in sick today, or not? Decaf or non-decaf coffee? Regular or premium gasoline? Every decision had to be exactly right; the decision that Jesus would make. I was literally driving myself crazy. And as I continued down that ever-narrowing path, I began to see the end of it. I would have no place to lay my head. I would be just like Jesus in this regard. But there would be a problem. Because… I am NOT Jesus. Unlike Jesus, I carry inside of me that two-sided coin called pride. Sometimes I am a fox, and sometimes I am a bird. And, like all common beasts, I sometimes need a place to lay my head and rest a bit. When I am feeling proud, I want to build a nest way up high so that people will notice me. I'll fall asleep and rest a bit until it's time to fly around again, seeing things so much more clearly than the common folk. When I feel falsely humble, I want to dig a hole. I'll fall asleep and rest awhile until it's time to raid other people's vineyards again, spoiling their perfectly good fruit.
There is a better place to lay my head, and, when I need to rest, I must lay it there. I must put my head on the breast of Jesus. I must not lay my head on his head, or on his feet, but squarely in the middle of his chest. Smack in the middle of His Body, which is the Church. Because His Heart resides in the middle of His Body. Whenever I am weary, I must rest on His Breast, so that I can continually hear His Heart beat. Gently but surely it pumps pure blood through His entire Body. And as we rest together, Jesus and I, with my head just below His, he gently breathes, in and out, in and out. His nostrils take in the unclean air of the world, the air which is ruled by Satanic powers. But His Nostrils also breathe out His Pure Breath. And I receive the Holy Spirit anew.
:) :) :)
Friday, August 6th
Can the foundations be destroyed?
When I get in discussions with politicized Christians, there are two scriptures that pop up regularly. On is Proverbs 29:2: "When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn." This is always said as though it were a prescription for action- usually voting. But I don't see it as such. To me, it looks like a simple statement of fact, like "Birds of a feather flock together" or "Red sky at night- sailor's delight." Honestly, if this is the strongest scriptural argument for Christian political involvement, there is no argument at all!
The other scripture that pops up regularly (thanks to Jerry Falwell) is from Psalm 11: "If the foundations be destroyed, what will the righteous then do?" And what no one seems to realize is that this was said by David's faithless friends, not by David! David's answer is something of a rebuke: "How can you say (such a thing)?"
David's situation in Psalm 11 is very instructive to us Christians who are considering how to act politically. Saul is seeking David's life. David's faithless friends look on and declare that the foundations (of law and order) have been destroyed. There is only one thing left for a righteous man to do: flee to the hills! David rebukes such thinking. He declares that there is a God who sees and judges the wicked. But (and this is the important point) he refuses to lift his hand against the Lord's anointed.
Romans 13 teaches us that "All authority" is the servant of God for our good. In other words, all government is the Lord's anointed. We are not to pick and choose which authorities are "righteous" and which are "wicked." We are to pray for them all, respect them all, and pay taxes and tribute to them all. What a stretch!
Lord, I pray today that I would have more faith than David's faithless friends.
Thursday, August 5th
The lost art of talking
My wife and I had agreed earlier that last night we would keep the TV off and go to bed early. So, after we got done working out at about 8:30, my wife turned on some quiet music and I headed to the computer to surf the internet. After I had done this for 2 minutes, Nancy said, "If you're just going to be on the computer, I'm going to turn on the TV!" It was in the nature of a threat, I think! :wink3:
So I did turn off the computer. (Actually, I just walked away from it and let the screen saver take over.) I sat down in the recliner, and we began to- talk. Nancy asked me the quintessential feminine question, "What are you thinking about?" And I resisted the temptation to answer with the typical male rebuff: "Nothing!" We talked about work, home, family, music, church, spirituality, exercise, and some other stuff too that I can't remember right now.
After we were all talked out we looked at the clock and it was after 10. We had talked for nearly 2 hours with no problem! She had had coffee with an old friend that used to go to our church, and so we talked about that. We are scheduled to have coffee with the pastor tomorrow, and so we talked about that. There is just so much to talk about!
Lord, I pray today that You would instill in me the desire to be a better talker, especially to my wife; and to You! Let me not worry so much about perfecting my other artistic endeavors.
Wednesday, August 4th
The personality of the church
I ran across a web page recently that suggested that the vast majority of churches are attractive to certain Meyer-Briggs personality types, and not to others. It focused on the intuitive/sensing and perceiving/judging aspects of personalities. I found this more and more interesting the more I thought about it, because these aspects of personality are not even talked about very much in our churches. Instead, churches tend to focus on the introvert/extrovert and thinking/feeling aspects of our personalities. The church has always made room for both of these types, although I think that the extroverted and feeling personality types are perceived as a bit more spiritual than those who are introverted and thinking. Extroverts make better evangelists, and feelers better worshippers, after all. :tongue3:
Only very recently has the church been interested in artists- probably because of the rise of the praise and worship movement. So intuitive people have started to become valued, although with certain reservations.
My own personality type is ENFP, with the N and P components being almost all the way to the extreme! (OTOH my E and F components are much more towards the middle). I think it is my extreme perceiving component of my personality that gets me into trouble with the church, particularly when combined with my extreme intuitive component. It seems to me that the church has virtually no use for people who are not in love with order (the Judging component). So artists are welcome, as long as they remain faithful to the system.
I've not been able to do this, I guess. I find the boomer concept of stage-focused worship just annoying. It doesn't bother me that most people enjoy it, of course. It's just the idea that this and this only is the way to worship God. If you would rather read or write during "the worship," or if you happen to like classical or jazz music better than the top-pop 40 feel of "worship songs," this is a strong sign that you haven't yet learned how to worship correcty, in boomer thinking. And heaven help you if you would rather just hang out with Christian friends in a casual atmosphere rather than go to the highly structured performances that we call church.
Lord, I thank You that You still consider me just as much a part of the church as my ESFJ and ISTJ counterparts!
Monday, August 2nd
The Man of Sin in Thessalonians 2
I sent a friend of mine who is a George Bush fan a link to bushisantichrist.com. This page has "compelling" evidence that Bush is the Antichrist, complete with extensive numeric calculations based on George's name. My friend sent me back some calculations of his own, based on my own name:
F=6
R=18 6 + 1+ 8 + 5 + 4 = 24 2 + 4 = 6
E=5
D=4
--------
33 3 + 3 = 6
K==11
O=15
H=8
N=14
--------
48 4 x 8 = 32 2 x 3 =6
Well, at least now I know my destiny!
As I was searching on the Antichrist and the Man of Sin from Thessalonians 2, it surprised me to find out how many people believe that the Man of Sin is not a literal man, but a religious system. Of course, they all spoke of the Roman Catholic Church and the Papacy. Interestingly the word "Roman" in various languages all total 666. This view was so popular in the 16th century that apparently a branch of the Roman Catholic Church called the Jesuits came up with their own version of the "Man of Sin," that he is a future man who has not yet appeared on the scene. This is the view that is so popular today.
But the argument that Antichrist is a religious system seems compelling to me. Of course, since in the 16th century the Roman church was the biggest and baddest of religious systems, it was only natural that they would take the heat. But it seems to me that any and all religious systems that claim to be God's special system qualify as Antichrist.
Take the tithe teaching for example. It seems to me to be a good principle that 10% of what the field produces belongs to God. But it is a bit of a twist to say that 10% belongs to "the local church." In this way the local church puts itself in the place of God, saying that what belongs to God belongs to it. In this way organized religion sits "in the most holy place" (the Church Universal) and declares itself to be God. Seems like a quality of Antichrist to me!
Another interesting view of "The Man of Sin" is that He is any and every man that imbodies the characteristics of the Antichrist. This also seems compelling to me. It is very easy to point the finger at someone or something else. It is harder to point the finger at one's own heart.
Lord, I pray today that I would embody the principles of Christ in my life and not of Antichrist.
Fred on 08.02.04 @ 09:13 AM EST [more..]
|
