Monday, September 27th
The Religious Right and Abortion
Not all Christians think that the scriptures are as cut and dried about abortion as the Religious Right seems to think. Scripturally "first breath" seems to me to be the most valid starting point for life.
God breathed into the man's nostrils the breath of life, and he became a living being.
We see this confirmed in the valley of the dry bones, when the men are not living until they have the breath of life in them.
As attractive as "life begins at conception" sounds, it downgrades the birth of a child into having no spiritual significance, which does violence to the scriptures. Jesus said that to see the Kingdom one must be born of water and spirit. Now, of course, there are those that say that being born of water means water baptism. They make water baptism necessary for salvation.
It seems a more natural reading to me to say that one must experience the natural birth as well as the spiritual birth to see the Kingdom. Thus zygotes and aborted babies/fetuses will never see the Kingdom because they did not experience a natural birth. Jesus seems to equate birth with the start of life. Being "born again" is the phrase He used to describe the beginning of spiritual life- not being "conceived again."
While the scriptural argument for life beginning at conception is weak, there is a very strong biological argument for life beginning at conception. I believe that biologically life begins at conception, but that life does not begin spiritually until first breath. Thus I believe that government has a right and an obligation to protect preborn human life, but that this right and obligation is not the same as the right and obligation to protect postborn human life.
The scriptural argument for life at conception is much weaker than the biological argument. It centers on the "in the womb" scriptures. This argument says that David and Isaiah must have been fully people in the womb, because God "knew" them there. However, God "knew" Jeremiah before he was in his mother's womb. So this must mean that if God can only know humans at a chronological point when they fully human, then life must begin sometime before conception. Although this is what the Mormons teach, it seems absurd to me.
I do agree that the government has not done a very good job of protecting preborn human life, but much of the blame for this must be laid at the feet of the Religious Right. Anyone can open their Bibles and see the weakness of their argument that abortion is the exact same as murder. By hyping up their absurd argument, the Religious Right gave a great deal of ammunition to the equally fanatical women's rights groups. :cry2:
Wednesday, September 22nd
Spiritual Addiction
Yesterday was a pivotal day for me. In the afternoon, I had my first gig with Jeff Westerman in an assisted living home. Jeff is a Rat Pack singer, and the gig went well although one of our speaker cables didn't work. As it turned out, we only needed one speaker.
More importantly, Nancy and I met with pastor Steve and talked about our moving all facets of our lives to Clintonville. Nancy has got a job at the Clintonville Caribou coffee house, and I just learned today that I got a bid to a Clintonville route. We plan to move to Clintonville as soon as practical. But, of course, what is important for pastor Steve and Zion is that we will be moving our "church life" to Clintonville also.
I've got a new metaphor for what is happening in my life right now. It comes from working out at the health center. Of course, one of the slogans of working out is that you need to shock your body now and then for it to grow.
Could the same be true of our spirits? If so: shock your spirit!
---
I was able to talk about spiritual abuse to pastor Steve in such a way as it was totally non-threatening- which went really well. Closely allied with spiritual abuse is religious addiction- addiction to what I think of as "acts of righteousness." Such acts, like food, are not evil- in fact they are necessary for life. But just as some people use eating inappropriately to deal with problems, people can also use prayer, evangelism, giving alms, and/or worship to deal inappropriately with problems. It was necessary for me to quit public worship completely before my problems of lust and pride could be dealt with. In fact, the very fact of my public worship was a problem, not something that was bringing me health.
I believe that public acts of righteousness are a major problem for people trying to follow Jesus, as well as the resisting of evil people. Jesus gives us an interesting outline for both:
1. Do not do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them
a. Do not pray in public
b. Do not fast in public
c. Do not give alms in public
2. Do not resist one who is evil
a. Turn your other cheek
b. Give your coat as well
c. Go an extra mile
Jesus teaches both of these points in similar fashion. First He makes the general statement, then He gives 3 examples. 3, because it is a number of completeness.
People like to resist evil people and do public acts of righteousness. So instead of seeing the 3 examples for what they are (a few examples in an inexhaustable list), they would rather believe that "do not resist an evil man" is limited narrowly to these 3 examples. They like to limit even these examples further- for example by saying that "turn the other cheek" means only verbal insults. If we accept this argument, then if someone were to use actual physical violence, we can and should strike back. :cry2:
Wednesday, September 15th
The fiery furnace
I've been thinking today about Daniel's 3 friends and the fiery furnace. There seems to be a fine line between submitting to authority structures (as taught in Romans 13) and bowing down to them. In Daniel, the king builds a huge idol which is symbolic of all civil authority. He commands that everybody should bow down at the sound of the music, but 3 don't! The king is enraged and commands that they be thrown into a furnace.
What is interesting is that this is a political punishment for the crime of failing to worship the authority structures that are in place. This means that this is a prototype for Jesus' cross. Jesus also failed to worship the existing authority structures by failing to worship Satan- and also failing to succumb to his temptations to grab power and thereby failing to submit. So the "formula" is: submit to, but don't worship, the existing authority structures.
After the 3 are thrown into the furnace, a 4th figure appears who is different. I see these 4 people in the furnace as an antitype of the 4 beasts that appear later in Daniel. The 4th beast is the antitype of Christ, and the 3 previous beasts are antitypes of Daniel's 3 friends.
:smiley2:
Tuesday, September 14th
Revisiting Daniel
Of course, I pray for all our leaders on occasion and especially GWB and JK as they are particularly busy right now. In so doing, I am guided in part by the prayer of Jesus who prayed similarly to this:
Father, I thank you that you have hidden the truth from men such as GWB and JK and instead revealed it to infants. For this is Your good pleasure!
Since my exodus from the music department I have been studying authority in general since there are a couple of people who have implied (without saying to my face) that I have a problem with authority. In my study I have looked more specifically at governmental and religious authority Of course, I have a bias in my study- everybody does. But the impression I get is that God is very unimpressed with authority structures of any kind, civil or religious. Daniel is given 2 complementary visions of the entirety of civil goverment (from the viewpoint of his people) from Daniel's time until the end of history. One vision is that civil government is a huge idol. The other vision is that government is 4 beasts.
In considering these visions (and John's expansion of them in Revelation) I have had to revisit all of my old end-time studies that I made years ago. Back then I came at Revelation from a dispensationalist premillenial stance (this was and is the most popular stance- actually the only one I knew about). I read a few books that mostly were concerned about when the rapture would occur. The more I tried to reconcile what these authors said with the texts that were actually in the Bible, the more confused I became. Therefore I decided just to set all those stupid books aside and just revisit Revelation from time to time and try to form my own opinions. One conclusion that I came to was that Revelation 12-14 was a picture of the entire time from the birth of Christ until the very end (rather than a future 7 year period). I believe that John's beast that rises from the sea is the exact same beast as Daniel's 4th beast.
I believe that the 4 beasts that Daniel saw represent the totality of human government. They specifically represent 4 historic kingdoms (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome) but also represent all forms of government generally. The first three are of a similar type, ruled over by a single monarch. Rome (which is represented by a beast which Daniel says is different than all the rest) is a type of antikingdom. Rome powerfully rejected monarchy- Julius Caesar was assasinated on the mere rumor that he was about to declare himself king. Instead of monarchy Rome was built on the model of Empire/Republic/Democracy (the exact term is of course not as important as the system itself). Gabriel doesn't bother to explain all this to Daniel (Daniel wouldn't have understood it anyway) but simply says that the 4th beast is different than the prior 3.
John's beast rises out of the sea and is given authority by the dragon. I believe that this is predicted in Daniel, when the text says that the prince of the people who are to come (the "people who are to come" are the Romans) will make a covenant with many. This prince of the romans (or roman system of government) is satan, or the dragon of Revelation 12-14. This is keeping with the idea in Daniel that the princes of the nations are supernatural beings. Michael (a supernatural being) is the prince of Israel, and he does battle with the prince of Persia (also a supernatural being).
This prince initiates the covenant with the beast because Jesus rejected entering into a similar covenant with satan in the desert (after satan says, "all this I will give you if you worship me"). Jesus rejection of satan's covenant and satan's giving all his authority to the roman system initiates the final "seven." After a literal 3 1/2 years satan makes an end to sacrifices by using his people (the Romans) to crucify Jesus. This leaves an additional 3 1/2 years until the end of time, which I believe is a figurative 3 1/2 years. (John says that the beast which is the Roman system will reign for 42 months). The prince (satan) also brings the abomination which brings desolation into Jerusalem in the form of the Roman army, which destroys the temple in 70 A. D.
In reading Daniel's text, I get the impression that the 4 beasts came out of the sea simultaneously, or at least quickly after each other. Interestingly, the first 3 beasts (monarchies) are allowed to live a while longer after the 4th beast is slain. I've never actually heard anybody explain why this would be so. But I do believe that it speaks to one of the least clear end time scriptures. This would be the head of John's beast which appears slain but then recovers. I believe that the slain head represents the "slaying" of the Roman system by its fall in the 6th century. At the time, there appears to be a revival of monarchy (the first 3 beasts are allowed to live for a while longer). But the wound recovers (a system of empire/republic/democracy is reestablished- generally in the world in the 18th century- specifically in the U. S. with our system of democracy).
I believe that the little horn of Daniel's beast in general represents modern democracy- perhaps specifically the United States herself. This horn cannot stand any previous god (religion) and honors a brand new god that nobody has heard of before (this is from Daniel's text.) The horn uproots 3 previous horns. I believe that the numbers 10 (horns) and 3 (horns) are symbolic. 10 represents a totality of power- 3 also represents a totality of power. The U. S. is in the process of uprooting all forms of government that are based on religion. Previously, we saw the U. S. destroy the Japanese Shintoist system in WWII, replacing it by treaty with a democratic system of government. Currently, we see the U. S. destroying all forms of government based on Islam.
Although it is popular to say that nobody knows for sure what all this end time stuff means and maybe we'll find out someday, it doesn't seem to me that it can be written off as unimportant. Dispensational premillenialism has severe political overtones- specifically the glorification of government in the present time as the Lord's anointed (as in Romans 13) and the importance of the "nation" of Israel. Premillenialism proposes a gap between Daniel's 69th and 70th week. During this supposed gap, somehow the nature of civil government has changed so that God really likes it now; He no longer considering it an idol or a beast. However, if dispensationalist premillenialism is wrong, then pop-Christianity is heading down a pretty bad political path.
I believe that the new god that nobody has heard of before in Daniel can be described generally as nationalism, specifically as "God and country." Nationalism essentially redefines the term "nation" from its original Biblical meaning as a people group (the Greek word is "ethnos," from which we get our English word ethnic) into the current meaning of a military/governmental/economic system. Thus "blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord" becomes "blessed is the U. S. when God is her Lord" which is a complete distortion of the original meaning. Of Israel, "I will bless those who bless you" gets turned from the original meaning of blessing the "ethnos" (people) of God to "if you don't support the military/governmental/economic system of the nation/state of Israel, God is going to curse you!
Saturday, September 11th
at Babylon
this is my rewrite of the psalm to commemorate my exodus from church music
at Babylon i have been sitting on the banks of the river
as i have every day for the 24 months of my captivity
i have been watching the beautiful cool waters
deep and wide, majestic and proud
then i remembered the former days at zion
and i wept bitterly
14 days ago i searched and searched for the exact right tree
the biggest, widest willow tree on the banks of the river
when I found it, i hung my lyre in its deepest part
never to be played again
for my captors kept requiring of me songs
and my tormenters kept requiring of me hymns of joy
they were always telling me, "sing, sing, sing a song of zion!"
god help me, i cannot!
how can anyone sing the song of the lord in a Foreign Land?
Friday, September 3rd
Original Sin
Some people have suggested that the original sin represented by the forbidden fruit is sex. Is it more likely that it is authority?
Jesus apparently was celibate- He never took a wife. The conventional wisdom is that this is because sex is dirty. I think that the real explanation is that in a fallen world if Jesus had married He would have necessarily taken authority over His wife- and this He refused to do! In other words, it is not sex that is dirty, but authority.
God is a jealous God apparently. What exactly is He jealous of? Well, He says that He is jealous of idols. Is He jealous of an idol's appearance? Of an idol's ability? No- He is jealous of the worship which an idol receives. And why is He jealous of it? Because those who worship idols acknowledge the authority of the idol over their lives. God is jealous of the authority that an idol has.
Imagine: God wants all authority to be given to Him. That makes Him jealous of all the authority which is exercised in the earth.
I wonder what our churches would look like if we looked on authority as dirty rather than sex, and if we looked upon the authority which we wield as something that God is really jealous of?
:huh3:
Thursday, September 2nd
"The Politics of Jesus" by John Howard Yoder
This is some thoughts from "The Politics of Jesus" by John Howard Yoder, a book I'm in the process of reading. I know I've left a lot of gaps, but I'm typing some of this stuff from memory. :sad2:
Yoder develops a political ethics from the life and teachings of Jesus. Interestingly enough, this is a subject that thas been virtually ignored by just about everybody, other than to say that Jesus isn't particularly relevant to politics. JHY starts with a different assumption, that virtually everything that Jesus taught had political implications. In other words, it is not that His disciples completely misunderstood Him when they said, "We thought He would be the one to redeem Israel." It was not that Pilate totally misunderstood Jesus as a political threat. The disciples and Pilate saw that picture clearly.
We are told that Jesus was tempted in every way. And yet, we aren't told how He was tempted sexually or by alcohol or any of these ways that we are so interested in. We are only told of His temptations to power. JHY shows the 3 temptations of Jesus in the desert as temptations to 3 different kinds of power- economic, religious, and civil. The last is obvious, the other two less so. The temptation to turn stones into bread according to JHY was not a temptation to break Jesus' fast, because no one breaks a fast of 40 days with a crusty loaf of bread. It did however prefigure a crucial event in Jesus life- the feeding of the 5000. It was at this point Jesus could have grabbed power economically.
The explanation of the temple scene in the desert was harder for me to follow. Jesus could have thrown himself off either on the outside of the temple, or the inside. Either of these would have had significant implications. As I recall, being thrown off on the outside was the punishment for blasphemy (making one's self equal with God.) This temptation prefigured Jesus' cleansing of the temple and His temptation at that point to seize religious power.
The third event in Jesus' life was of course the Gethsemane scene where Jesus had the real opportunity to seize civil power by calling legions of angels. It is worth asking what alternative Jesus was considering to "the cup." Yoder rejects the idea that Jesus was considering slinking off into the desert or moving to Bethsaida and setting up shop there. Instead, the only real option was one of force. This Jesus rejected. "Put that sword away! Shall I not drink the cup..."
The usual explanation of this radical rejection by Jesus of all these forms of power is that it was necessary for Him to reject them because it was necessary for Him to go to the cross. It is not valid to develop a politics from this because now that this work is "finished", the church's task is now different. Thus, traditionally the church has looked elsewhere (like natural philosophy) to develop an ethics of power and authority. Yoder rejects this.
We are told to be imitators of Christ. Yet there is only one way in which we are told to imitate Him- in His cross. We are not told to imitate His celibacy- although Paul certainly could have pointed out that he was celibate "like Jesus," he did not. We are not told to all be artisans or craftsmen, because Jesus was. Only in the cross are we called to be like Him.
There are 3 possible political courses which Jesus rejected
Retreat into the desert
Saducean alignment with the established powers
Using power against the established powers
The political course that Yoder sees Jesus establishing is living a radical life embodying kindom principals which will eventually result in the world's rejection (a cross).
Wednesday, September 1st
Authority in Genesis 3
We see the very first human authority structure set up in the scriptures in Genesis 3. It is here that God hands authority over Eve to Adam. I wonder how Adam felt. Was he thinking, "All right! This is what I wanted all along!" Or was he thinking, "Oh, man, I really blew it!"
At any rate it seems obvious that it was necessary to set up the first human authority structure because of sin. God, knowing that the human race must be banished out of the garden (and out of God's presence and authority) it was now necessary to establish authority structures. This doesn't paint a very glowing picture of authority structures. Of course "all authority is ordered by God," but not because it is a part of God's perfect plan, but because we are sinful.
How did we get into this mess? By eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Some people have identified the forbidden fruit as sex. This seems absurd to me. How could we fulfill God's command to fill the earth without sex?
It seems to me that the forbidden fruit was man's desire for authority. I'm thinking of Jesus' rather well know saying of "do not judge." Does Jesus really mean that I shouldn't decide what are the good and what are the evil choices in my life. That I shouldn't act on making judgements about good and evil? I don't think so! I think that instead He meant not to put yourself in a position of authority over others to make judgements about whether they are good or evil people- and then handing out condemnation or blessing. Jesus is not saying "don't condemn anybody, instead bless everybody." Instead, He is saying don't put yourself in a position (of authority) where you even have to make such a decision.
This is what Adam and Eve wanted. Before the fall, God was the sole authority on goodness and evilness. We as a race don't like that- we want to be able to make the call. So we attempted to essentially kick God out of His position as judge. Of course, it backfired and we ourselves were the ones to get kicked out.
Lucky me- I get to exercise authority :cry2:
|
