And now for something completely different-
http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1913069
Monday, July 27, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Knowing Your Election
I wish I'd read this a long time ago. But then, God does seem to put just the right words into our lives at just the right times. This devotional illustrates one of the themes of my spiritual life lately: "Randy, stop trying to be saved, and let Jesus be your Savior."
For we know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you.
For we know, brothers loved by God, that He has chosen you.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Will preborn lives be endangered by healthcare reform?
The following letter is from Focus on the Family:
Dear Friends,
Have you seen the recent media coverage of the healthcare reform legislation Congress is currently considering? You may have many concerns about such a sweeping reform plan from our government, but you may not have heard about the most dangerous part of the plan in terms of the sanctity of life.
The plan currently before Congress will mandate taxpayer-funded abortion coverage. Our analysts here at Focus on the Family® are convinced that the healthcare reform plan--as currently written--would result in the largest expansion of abortion since Roe v. Wade.
This healthcare reform plan would dramatically increase the number of taxpayer-funded abortions and even mandate abortion coverage by private insurance plans. Even though two recent polls have found that between 63 and 71 percent of Americans support laws that protect tax dollars from being used to fund abortion, so far, Congress has defeated all efforts to ensure abortion coverage is not included in the reform plan. Sadly, we know that increased availability and funding will lead to an increase in the number of abortions.
In addition, the plan does not protect the rights of conscience for medical professionals who would choose not to participate in or perform abortions.
We have prepared a special online video that explains how this legislation effectively reverses more than 30 years of pro-life efforts at the federal and state levels. Will you join us in prayer that legislators will specifically exclude abortion coverage from the plan, as well as include protection for healthcare workers' rights of conscience? Thank you for your prayers in support of preborn babies.
In defense of life,
Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President, Government & Public Policy
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Cultural Context
It greatly disturbs me that some people in our Bible study refuse to allow the cultural context of certain passages of scripture to inform their modern day application. This seems to primarily stem from a fear that making allowances for cultural context is a slippery slope that can be used to justify almost anything. In this post I hope to alleviate those fears and explain why cultural context is essential to the understanding of scripture.
First to address the fear that homosexuality can be justified by claiming “cultural differences”: I say, “Baloney.” The problem with virtually all arguments either for or against homosexuality, that I have encountered, is that they rely solely on verses that: 1—are in lists of Old Testament laws that are clearly inapplicable today, 2—are lists of many other sins in addition to “homosexuality,” or 3—use the word “homosexuality” which may or may not be a good translation of the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic word in any given context. All these arguments miss the point entirely.
The reason homosexuality is bad is because sex outside of marriage is bad. The reason sex outside of marriage is bad is because sex inside marriage is holy and wonderful and good. So why can’t Christians support laws that would enable homosexuals to get married so their relations can be good? Because in the Bible marriage is implicitly defined as between one man and one woman. And, frankly, here is where centuries of culture, Judeo-Christian and otherwise, are on our side: marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. Why is that? An interesting subject for someone to explore in another post at another time.
Now on to the necessity of considering culture. As Drs. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart express in the introduction to their book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth,
“…we are convinced that the single most serious problem people have with the Bible is not with a lack of understanding, but with the fact that they understand most things too well! The problem with such a text as ‘Do everything without complaining or arguing’ (Phil. 2:14), for example is not with understanding it, but with disobeying it—putting it into practice.”
No orthodox Christian would argue against the ideas that
That said, however, none of us read New Testament Greek, (or Hebrew or Aramaic); nor are we archeologists/anthropologists familiar with the cultures of biblical times. So, in our discussions of any lesser details, for any of us to insist that the text is “obviously” saying anything based on the words in any of the translations we have is ignorant at best, arrogant at worst. As the man who made the “Faithful Bible” translation discovered, the ONLY way to speak with any amount of authority on what this or that word “really means” is to learn the original language in which the text was written.
Until then, I don’t see any choice but to trust scholars who have done that work and commented accordingly. Yes, those who did the translations we read fall into this category. But the very nature of translation means there is not an easy, one-to-one correspondence between words, grammar, sentence structure, etc. “Translators are regularly called upon to make choices regarding meanings,” Fee and Stuart remind us, “and their choices are going to affect how you understand.” (Italics theirs.) This is where multiple translations, “potentially useful footnotes” and commentaries like Randy read from during the 1 Cor. 11 discussion can help clarify what the texts meant/mean. One needs to know what the text meant to the original hearers before one can know what it means today. It often does not appear members of our group respect those scholars nearly as much as they should.
If you disagree with the above, please explain to me why
The Bible was written for us but not to us. Thus, the only way to know what it means today is first to know what it meant back then. It frustrates me that we spend so much time ignorantly/arrogantly debating the “letter of the law” at Bible study instead of brainstorming how the spirit of the text informs how we each can live a life of Christian love in 2009 in Upstate New York.
First to address the fear that homosexuality can be justified by claiming “cultural differences”: I say, “Baloney.” The problem with virtually all arguments either for or against homosexuality, that I have encountered, is that they rely solely on verses that: 1—are in lists of Old Testament laws that are clearly inapplicable today, 2—are lists of many other sins in addition to “homosexuality,” or 3—use the word “homosexuality” which may or may not be a good translation of the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic word in any given context. All these arguments miss the point entirely.
The reason homosexuality is bad is because sex outside of marriage is bad. The reason sex outside of marriage is bad is because sex inside marriage is holy and wonderful and good. So why can’t Christians support laws that would enable homosexuals to get married so their relations can be good? Because in the Bible marriage is implicitly defined as between one man and one woman. And, frankly, here is where centuries of culture, Judeo-Christian and otherwise, are on our side: marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman. Why is that? An interesting subject for someone to explore in another post at another time.
Now on to the necessity of considering culture. As Drs. Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart express in the introduction to their book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth,
“…we are convinced that the single most serious problem people have with the Bible is not with a lack of understanding, but with the fact that they understand most things too well! The problem with such a text as ‘Do everything without complaining or arguing’ (Phil. 2:14), for example is not with understanding it, but with disobeying it—putting it into practice.”
No orthodox Christian would argue against the ideas that
- God is the creator of everything
- humans are created in His image and all fall short of His standard
- we are all in need of a savior
- Jesus Christ of Nazareth is that Savior
- the Holy Spirit is with us to help, guide and comfort us
- the Christian is called to love God and his neighbor, etc. etc.
That said, however, none of us read New Testament Greek, (or Hebrew or Aramaic); nor are we archeologists/anthropologists familiar with the cultures of biblical times. So, in our discussions of any lesser details, for any of us to insist that the text is “obviously” saying anything based on the words in any of the translations we have is ignorant at best, arrogant at worst. As the man who made the “Faithful Bible” translation discovered, the ONLY way to speak with any amount of authority on what this or that word “really means” is to learn the original language in which the text was written.
Until then, I don’t see any choice but to trust scholars who have done that work and commented accordingly. Yes, those who did the translations we read fall into this category. But the very nature of translation means there is not an easy, one-to-one correspondence between words, grammar, sentence structure, etc. “Translators are regularly called upon to make choices regarding meanings,” Fee and Stuart remind us, “and their choices are going to affect how you understand.” (Italics theirs.) This is where multiple translations, “potentially useful footnotes” and commentaries like Randy read from during the 1 Cor. 11 discussion can help clarify what the texts meant/mean. One needs to know what the text meant to the original hearers before one can know what it means today. It often does not appear members of our group respect those scholars nearly as much as they should.
If you disagree with the above, please explain to me why
- we need not greet each other with holy kisses (Rom. 16:16, 1 Cor. 16:20, 2 Cor. 13:12, 1 Thess. 5:26)
- we need not use wine and unleavened bread at communion (even though that is what Christ and the first Christians used, also see 1 Tim. 5:23)
- women need not wear head coverings at church (1 Cor. 11:3-16)
- women may wear gold jewelry, pearls and nice/expensive clothes (1 Tim. 2:9 and 1 Pet. 3:3)
- women may read scriptures during worship services or be on the worship team or teach high-school or adult Sunday school classes or lead adult Bible studies (1 Cor. 14:34, 1 Tim. 2:12)
The Bible was written for us but not to us. Thus, the only way to know what it means today is first to know what it meant back then. It frustrates me that we spend so much time ignorantly/arrogantly debating the “letter of the law” at Bible study instead of brainstorming how the spirit of the text informs how we each can live a life of Christian love in 2009 in Upstate New York.
The Other Side of Something Completely Different
For the sake of balance.
Whenever I agree with something or think my viewpoint is obviously the correct one, I like to see what the other side says. I'd be curious to know if there have been any "scientific studies" of what Canadians really do think of their health care system. Because they obviously don't all view it the same way.
Whenever I agree with something or think my viewpoint is obviously the correct one, I like to see what the other side says. I'd be curious to know if there have been any "scientific studies" of what Canadians really do think of their health care system. Because they obviously don't all view it the same way.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Another Post on Prayer
I must say Josh's post back in June with links to two articles on the Pyro site really messed with me. I forget when I read them exactly but they shook me up so much I decided "What is the point praying if I don't understand what it is/is not and I don't know what to pray about?" Thus it has been at least 2-3 weeks since I have prayed on my own. (I have prayed with Randy, Katy, and ya'll, albeit confusedly and half-heartedly.) The biggest thing is that I am still so tired all the time that to even think about thinking about it all stresses me out so I avoid the topic and the act entirely. Deep down I know that's not good.
So finally today I read a post that was listed in the comments of this article Josh posted previously. It was very refreshing and can be found here. I still haven't prayed because I've been too busy (which I know is a totally lame excuse). But I am encouraged that the times I have heard God speak in a still, small voice have not, in fact, been negated, nor that I am some freak for having these experiences.
I am curious--have any of you heard from God in ways other than scripture? I will say most of the time it IS in scripture that He speaks to me with a still, small voice bringing this or that scripture to mind in response to a plea, question, etc. But when I was debating whether to stop breastfeeding God distinctly said, “Do what you need to to enjoy your daughter.” Not audibly per se. But clear as I’m sitting here. ¿Y tú?
So finally today I read a post that was listed in the comments of this article Josh posted previously. It was very refreshing and can be found here. I still haven't prayed because I've been too busy (which I know is a totally lame excuse). But I am encouraged that the times I have heard God speak in a still, small voice have not, in fact, been negated, nor that I am some freak for having these experiences.
I am curious--have any of you heard from God in ways other than scripture? I will say most of the time it IS in scripture that He speaks to me with a still, small voice bringing this or that scripture to mind in response to a plea, question, etc. But when I was debating whether to stop breastfeeding God distinctly said, “Do what you need to to enjoy your daughter.” Not audibly per se. But clear as I’m sitting here. ¿Y tú?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)