There was a concern once, probably founded, that we were holding to a form of godliness but denying its power with our rituals and our traditions.
So we minimized the role of Rite in our lives. We divested our faith from our religion because religion, we knew, would not get us into heaven. It's all about a relationship now.
But it's a relationship without context a relationship without action as if you could be in a relationship with someone and never do anything together.
Tonight is 12th night or Epiphany. A totally meaningless day, since we've stripped it of all meaning.
Once we celebrated the coming of the Magi and the gifts they gave to Jesus. Once we said that there were 12 Days of Christmas this being the last. There's even a song which survives so from that time. Most people don't even know what it means, the exact opposite of what we were attempting to do when we divested our faith from our rites.
Once we saw it as the end of the Christmas season. I think if any end of the Christmas season exists now probably most people see it as New Year's. It's close enough I suppose.
Biblically the coming of the Magi is likely the end of the story of Jesus infancy. And so it's fitting to have that be the end of the Christmas season. But I guess Christmas and the Bible have nothing to do with each other; the Supreme Court has ruled on this.
Yeah it's important to end the Christmas season and it's important to end the time when we think of Christ as a baby. The Incarnation is probably the most important part of Christianity. However the Incarnation does not end with the nativity. The most important parts of the Incarnation occur after the Nativity.
It matters that God himself became a man, not just became a baby, and that he lived a perfect life as a man and died a sacrificial death that freed us from our sins. When Martyrs died and when Saints spoke it wasn't for a baby in a Manger as amazing as that was. It was for a man who was God and the amazing new way he taught us to live and the amazing sacrifice he gave.
So if we're no longer going to celebrate Jesus becoming a man, not just a baby, through Rite, then we should at least acknowledge the moment in words.
Or perhaps it is okay to go ahead and do it in rite.
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Faith. Show all posts
Saturday, January 6, 2018
Monday, October 2, 2017
Stronghold
Coming to terms with the reality of a stronghold
So, because of the loose scriptural basis, I think it's probably not a good idea to hold too tightly to the concept of a stronghold. Like a lot of things, it is a useful concept as long as it is a useful concept and can easily become a stumbling block (another barely Biblical concept), when it stops being useful. So, lets not take it too far.
Like I said, however, they are useful to them. I'm sure that if they can figure out how to make a stronghold in our lives, they will. They don't like us and these strongholds are bad. Still, people who deal a lot in deliverance will tell you that they can drive out a demon, but if the stronghold is still there, it doesn't always solve the problem.
And that's important because in a real, literal, stronghold, the stronghold is good or bad depending on who's living there. If the bad guys are there, it's bad. If the good guys are there, it's good. But strongholds here are bad no matter who's "living" there and, like I said, I don't think anyone has to be.
And arguments are not simple assertions. Arguments are complex things composed of premises (in deductive cases) and inferences (in inductive cases) and conclusions. It is that complexity that makes strongholds strong. These premises and inferences are often intimately tied to our ontological perceptions and our sense of being in the world. What is real? Who are we? What are people like? What is the nature and essence of various things? The answers to those questions come together as premises leading us to conclusions about the nature of other things, ultimately leading us to act in the world in a certain way.
Then when we see or hear that these actions are sins, it can be overwhelming. Perhaps we will try to change the behavior, but that is difficult in the long-term because the behavior is behavior that makes sense. Or perhaps we will intensify the complexity of the logical argument in such a way as to say that it is not sin in this or that circumstance. The concept that our perception of reality is so flawed as to result in bad behavior is hard to take.
They are also made out of "high things" or "lofty opinions." I am not entirely sure what this means, but I get a sense of "pride" coming out of it. Basically, elevating of the self one's own thoughts beyond where they should be. I think it might have something to do with the idea that we can take it. We can deal with it. We are strong enough. We are smart enough. Therefore, our opinions are good enough.
Then there are these thoughts that run around our mind not "captive." Failing to think about what you're thinking about. It is pretty easy to live an unexamined life from time to time. This leads to "mindlessly" doing things.
Now, don't get me wrong. Being a certain weight is not a stronghold, it is evidence of one for me. I have a recurring sin in my life, the sin of gluttony. I like to eat foods high in fat and carbs and eat a lot of them. I "like" to do so. There is my "lofty opinion."
Furthermore it seems "natural" for me to engage in this sinful behavior. I have altered the behavior many times. My guess is that in the past 10 years I have probably lost 500 lbs (which is significantly more than I weigh). Still, it is always easy to fall into "bad habits" which is a euphemism I like to use for my sins, whereas yours I will just call "sins." Cookies taste good and it is easy to eat six or seven of them. I don't like many cold foods, on the other hand, so salads are generally out.
It's not a sin to eat one doughnut, but how about two? Probably not. What about three? What if I only eat one, but then have a cheeseburger later and with that I have fries, well at that point I might as well have a soft-drink, right? Where is the line for gluttony? My entire ontological structure blocks me from knowing when I've crossed that line into sin.
And I generally don't even care (how's that for spitting on Jesus), until the sin reveals itself in my body. Then I have consequences. Then I alter the behavior, but the stronghold is still there. The arguments still make sense to me.
The thing is that I've lost weight this way before. I've changed the behavior before by "taking thoughts captive" in exactly this way. It's a start.
Submitting myself to the Holy Spirit is important.
Lifting it up in prayer is important.
Of course, merely looking at pictures is not a sin, but looking in order to sin is a sin, and financing sin is a sin. It was when I realized the type of sins I was financing that really pulled me away from that stronghold. After I'd met and talked with women (my own students) trafficked into that industry and realized what was done to them and how their "consent" was obtained I realized that I was causing these awful things to happen by gleefully clicking my mouse. I didn't need special software or accountability partners after that. I was not going to go near the stuff.
David Hume (whom I would not say one should consult on theological matters generally) said that the will is "the slave of the passions." What he meant by this is that there needs to be some intense impression made that moves a person emotionally in order to bring arguments in line. I can point to several things that have tied intense emotions to food for me. Those produce the arguments.
Equal passion needs to arise in order to bring down the arguments. I don't know how to get that, but I think it's true. Somehow, overeating, gluttony, needs to become "exceedingly sinful." I need to really, really, see that it's wrong, not just that I don't want to be fat. I think when that happens, the stronghold will come tumbling down.
Until then, I am going to keep fighting, keep taking every thought captive. I pray the rest will come and come before this kills me.
What is a stronghold?
Admittedly, the concept of a "stronghold" is barely Biblical. The word usually translated "stronghold" in the New Testament, ὀχύρωμα, only occurs once in the Bible, in 1 Corinthians 10:4.For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ, being ready to punish every disobedience, when your obedience is complete (1 Cor 10:3-6 emphasis added).It is possible to find thousands of blogs and websites devoted to the concept (including this one). Googling "demonic strongholds" returns almost a million hits and googling "spiritual strongholds" produces over one million hits. That's a lot of hits based on one word that only occurs once in the Bible and rarely (if ever) in other Greek documents of antiquity. Without more context than this, I could never really even be comfortable with the translation, not that there are any alternatives I know about.
So, because of the loose scriptural basis, I think it's probably not a good idea to hold too tightly to the concept of a stronghold. Like a lot of things, it is a useful concept as long as it is a useful concept and can easily become a stumbling block (another barely Biblical concept), when it stops being useful. So, lets not take it too far.
First off, it's a metaphor.
Demons or the Devil don't really build houses in our minds or bodies. That is silly. I am not even convinced that Demons or the Devil have corporeal forms under normal circumstances that could live in houses. Furthermore, while these strongholds might be really useful to the broad class of spiritual beings who wish our downfall, I'm not even sure that they are necessarily always involved in creating them, maintaining them, or inhabiting them even in a metaphorical sense. So, let's not get too hung up on the metaphor either.Like I said, however, they are useful to them. I'm sure that if they can figure out how to make a stronghold in our lives, they will. They don't like us and these strongholds are bad. Still, people who deal a lot in deliverance will tell you that they can drive out a demon, but if the stronghold is still there, it doesn't always solve the problem.
And that's important because in a real, literal, stronghold, the stronghold is good or bad depending on who's living there. If the bad guys are there, it's bad. If the good guys are there, it's good. But strongholds here are bad no matter who's "living" there and, like I said, I don't think anyone has to be.
They are made out of "arguments" and "high things" that are not "captive."
The reason that they're so bad is that they're made out of bad things. One thing that they're made out of is arguments. Some translations say "imaginings" or "speculations" and I don't get that. The Greek word here is λογισμός, and while I don't always feel confident enough in my Greek to argue over translation with the professional, credentialed, translators of most of the translations, λογισμός is a word with which I am intimately familiar as a rhetorician. λογισμός is logical argument.And arguments are not simple assertions. Arguments are complex things composed of premises (in deductive cases) and inferences (in inductive cases) and conclusions. It is that complexity that makes strongholds strong. These premises and inferences are often intimately tied to our ontological perceptions and our sense of being in the world. What is real? Who are we? What are people like? What is the nature and essence of various things? The answers to those questions come together as premises leading us to conclusions about the nature of other things, ultimately leading us to act in the world in a certain way.
Then when we see or hear that these actions are sins, it can be overwhelming. Perhaps we will try to change the behavior, but that is difficult in the long-term because the behavior is behavior that makes sense. Or perhaps we will intensify the complexity of the logical argument in such a way as to say that it is not sin in this or that circumstance. The concept that our perception of reality is so flawed as to result in bad behavior is hard to take.
They are also made out of "high things" or "lofty opinions." I am not entirely sure what this means, but I get a sense of "pride" coming out of it. Basically, elevating of the self one's own thoughts beyond where they should be. I think it might have something to do with the idea that we can take it. We can deal with it. We are strong enough. We are smart enough. Therefore, our opinions are good enough.
Then there are these thoughts that run around our mind not "captive." Failing to think about what you're thinking about. It is pretty easy to live an unexamined life from time to time. This leads to "mindlessly" doing things.
Do I have a stronghold?
I don't know if you do, but I do. I just hit my top weight, again.Now, don't get me wrong. Being a certain weight is not a stronghold, it is evidence of one for me. I have a recurring sin in my life, the sin of gluttony. I like to eat foods high in fat and carbs and eat a lot of them. I "like" to do so. There is my "lofty opinion."
Furthermore it seems "natural" for me to engage in this sinful behavior. I have altered the behavior many times. My guess is that in the past 10 years I have probably lost 500 lbs (which is significantly more than I weigh). Still, it is always easy to fall into "bad habits" which is a euphemism I like to use for my sins, whereas yours I will just call "sins." Cookies taste good and it is easy to eat six or seven of them. I don't like many cold foods, on the other hand, so salads are generally out.
It's not a sin to eat one doughnut, but how about two? Probably not. What about three? What if I only eat one, but then have a cheeseburger later and with that I have fries, well at that point I might as well have a soft-drink, right? Where is the line for gluttony? My entire ontological structure blocks me from knowing when I've crossed that line into sin.
And I generally don't even care (how's that for spitting on Jesus), until the sin reveals itself in my body. Then I have consequences. Then I alter the behavior, but the stronghold is still there. The arguments still make sense to me.
So what do I do about it?
I am not sure (this is why I'm a teacher, not a preacher. I don't have the answers to declare; I have the questions about which we can think). I think I've come close to getting this one before. The beginning is taking thoughts captive. Specifically, for my stronghold, that has to be thoughts around food. I've noticed that when I carefully keep track of calories and pay attention to macro-nutrients, I do better. So, I've spent the past week doing that and Monday-to-Monday lost three pounds.The thing is that I've lost weight this way before. I've changed the behavior before by "taking thoughts captive" in exactly this way. It's a start.
Submitting myself to the Holy Spirit is important.
Lifting it up in prayer is important.
But there's something else.
I think I've gotten them down in other areas. I don't smoke at all or get drunk anymore and haven't for a very long time. Those were once areas of my life I had to fight. Even the notion of looking at pornography on my computer frightens me now, whereas at one time I had no compunction at all against it and rolled my eyes at people who seemed to imply that merely looking at pictures was a sin.Of course, merely looking at pictures is not a sin, but looking in order to sin is a sin, and financing sin is a sin. It was when I realized the type of sins I was financing that really pulled me away from that stronghold. After I'd met and talked with women (my own students) trafficked into that industry and realized what was done to them and how their "consent" was obtained I realized that I was causing these awful things to happen by gleefully clicking my mouse. I didn't need special software or accountability partners after that. I was not going to go near the stuff.
David Hume (whom I would not say one should consult on theological matters generally) said that the will is "the slave of the passions." What he meant by this is that there needs to be some intense impression made that moves a person emotionally in order to bring arguments in line. I can point to several things that have tied intense emotions to food for me. Those produce the arguments.
Equal passion needs to arise in order to bring down the arguments. I don't know how to get that, but I think it's true. Somehow, overeating, gluttony, needs to become "exceedingly sinful." I need to really, really, see that it's wrong, not just that I don't want to be fat. I think when that happens, the stronghold will come tumbling down.
Until then, I am going to keep fighting, keep taking every thought captive. I pray the rest will come and come before this kills me.
Friday, September 1, 2017
The problem of Consent
Coming to terms with an even smaller relativism.
Still, since that time, we've been trying to figure out good and evil. I'd like to think that the main project of moral philosophy or ethics is to try to find the best way to know and communicate the good, but sometimes I wonder if the reason we spend so much time wondering what good and evil are is because we already know what they are, but want to find a way to justify the particular kind of evil we enjoy.
I hope that's not the case though. There are a lot of ways that people have thought about how to decide what's right and wrong. I kind of like Aristotle's notion that what is right is what allows people to flourish and what is wrong is what inhibits human flourishing. Of course, it is possible to take this in some weird directions including eugenics. I also kind of like the Platonic/Stoic injunction that what is right is what reason dictates is right whereas what is wrong is what reason dictates is wrong. On the other hand, reason depends heavily on the premises on which it is based and as computer programmers used to say "Garbage in, garbage out.
Hume basically thought that we know what's right and wrong based on feelings, or moral sentiments. It disgusts us to see evil and so we don't like evil. Still, I'd say that we often really like things that are really bad.
I think that Kant's categorical imperative, that we basically know what is right and wrong the same way we know that a triangle has three sides even if we don't count them because that's what a triangle is, has some traction. Still, it is a struggle to find out what these moral axioms are and, in my opinion, leaves us with having to go with one of the other systems. It's not so easy.
Some people like, Mill and Bentham, have argued that whatever does the most good for the most people is what is ethical. That makes sense, except for how do you know if it's really good? You're back to using another system to find that.
But I feel like there's an ethical system that is just giving up and that's social relativism. The social relativists say whatever a given society says is okay is okay and whatever a given society says is not okay is not okay. It's not okay for people in the US to eat each other, but it we shouldn't go imposing those values on New Guinea. We can't really figure out what's right and wrong but we can go with what works for a given society in a given time and place.
Such a value system, or the lack thereof, works well for doing anthropology. It's not a terribly useful exercise to go to a far away country and write back home about all the things the other country is doing wrong. If you want to study them, you should try and figure out why they think those things they're doing wrong are right.
However, it doesn't provide much guidance on how to live one's life, especially in a diverse society. It's pretty easy to find people who will tell you what you're doing is okay. Then that becomes your society. Since that is your society and since you know good from evil based on your society, everything is okay, which it's not.
You knew when you saw me that I was a hand swinger. I had a shirt on that said so, but you still came in swinging distance, so you agreed.
Some of the pro-consent crowd have altered their verbiage based on this to "affirmative consent." Maybe that makes it a little better, but if I "affirmatively consent" to have you pour chemicals in my eyes so I can be blind, that is still wrong. Why is it wrong. It inhibits human flourishing. It is unreasonable. It is repugnant. It violates directives. . . all those ethical reasons I put above. It is just plain wrong, even if I consent.
Yet, I do believe in our rights to life, liberty and property. That's why I'm libertarian, but I don't believe that these rights exist from the consent of the governed. I have to say that I think that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that those are among them. That same creator is the source of goodness. And then, it is up to us to find what is good. And it's not just what we can find someone to consent to.
Good and Evil are interesting things.
The Snake said that if we ate of the fruit, we would be like God and we would know the difference between good and evil. This seems like a funny thing to tell us, given that we must have already had some idea about the difference between good and evil because we'd been told not to eat from the tree.Still, since that time, we've been trying to figure out good and evil. I'd like to think that the main project of moral philosophy or ethics is to try to find the best way to know and communicate the good, but sometimes I wonder if the reason we spend so much time wondering what good and evil are is because we already know what they are, but want to find a way to justify the particular kind of evil we enjoy.
I hope that's not the case though. There are a lot of ways that people have thought about how to decide what's right and wrong. I kind of like Aristotle's notion that what is right is what allows people to flourish and what is wrong is what inhibits human flourishing. Of course, it is possible to take this in some weird directions including eugenics. I also kind of like the Platonic/Stoic injunction that what is right is what reason dictates is right whereas what is wrong is what reason dictates is wrong. On the other hand, reason depends heavily on the premises on which it is based and as computer programmers used to say "Garbage in, garbage out.
Hume basically thought that we know what's right and wrong based on feelings, or moral sentiments. It disgusts us to see evil and so we don't like evil. Still, I'd say that we often really like things that are really bad.
I think that Kant's categorical imperative, that we basically know what is right and wrong the same way we know that a triangle has three sides even if we don't count them because that's what a triangle is, has some traction. Still, it is a struggle to find out what these moral axioms are and, in my opinion, leaves us with having to go with one of the other systems. It's not so easy.
Some people like, Mill and Bentham, have argued that whatever does the most good for the most people is what is ethical. That makes sense, except for how do you know if it's really good? You're back to using another system to find that.
So, I'm not saying it's easy.
All of the men listed above have had a pretty profound impact on how I have formulated my ethical system and so while I just "wrote them off" above in a few terse sentences, that was more to show how slippery the subject is, not to say the thinking wasn't formidable.But I feel like there's an ethical system that is just giving up and that's social relativism. The social relativists say whatever a given society says is okay is okay and whatever a given society says is not okay is not okay. It's not okay for people in the US to eat each other, but it we shouldn't go imposing those values on New Guinea. We can't really figure out what's right and wrong but we can go with what works for a given society in a given time and place.
Such a value system, or the lack thereof, works well for doing anthropology. It's not a terribly useful exercise to go to a far away country and write back home about all the things the other country is doing wrong. If you want to study them, you should try and figure out why they think those things they're doing wrong are right.
However, it doesn't provide much guidance on how to live one's life, especially in a diverse society. It's pretty easy to find people who will tell you what you're doing is okay. Then that becomes your society. Since that is your society and since you know good from evil based on your society, everything is okay, which it's not.
But it's gotten worse
As problematic as social relativism is, it has gotten worse. Lately, I've been hearing about an even smaller form of relativism: consent. This has been going on for a while. Basically, since you can find a group who is small enough to condone whatever you're doing and that is your society, if you can find them, it is okay. As long as what you're doing doesn't directly effect other groups ability to do what they want you should be able to do whatever you want. As long as everyone involved is consenting, everything is okay.But where do these rights come from?
I admit that I was taken in by this tiny relativism for quite a while. As a principled Western libertarian, I often said "my right to swing my hand ends at your face" and I still see that as true. But at some point I have to ask "why?" And if the answer is "because you didn't give consent to hit me." I can pretty quickly go from there into all the ways that you DID give consent.You knew when you saw me that I was a hand swinger. I had a shirt on that said so, but you still came in swinging distance, so you agreed.
Some of the pro-consent crowd have altered their verbiage based on this to "affirmative consent." Maybe that makes it a little better, but if I "affirmatively consent" to have you pour chemicals in my eyes so I can be blind, that is still wrong. Why is it wrong. It inhibits human flourishing. It is unreasonable. It is repugnant. It violates directives. . . all those ethical reasons I put above. It is just plain wrong, even if I consent.
Yet, I do believe in our rights to life, liberty and property. That's why I'm libertarian, but I don't believe that these rights exist from the consent of the governed. I have to say that I think that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that those are among them. That same creator is the source of goodness. And then, it is up to us to find what is good. And it's not just what we can find someone to consent to.
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Peterson, double-minded flip-flopper or just a plain old Calvinist
Coming to terms with Patterson on Same-Sex marriage.
That is the exact opposite of what he said in the other article isn't it?
James says that we ask God for wisdom if we lack it. Sometimes, we don't lack it.
We're coming up on a new semester here. I don't really need to ask God if it would be wise to start doing some lesson planning. I've been teaching for 17 years. I know that if I don't go into next week with every class period planned for every class between the first class of the semester and the last, it is going to catch up with me. I also know that by midterm my plans will be adjusted many times. I don't need to ask God for wisdom about whether or not I should plan. I do need wisdom and ask for it (In Jesus' Name) for how to plan each day. And even though God will give me that wisdom, it might be within His sovereign will for me to plan classes I don't get to teach or to be met with obstacles that He wants me to deal with at the time, not in advance. He's totally God and I am totally happy with that.
The areas where I need wisdom are these: should I do a class on the classical rhetorical canon of memory in my public speaking class? If I don't it will be the only canon I neglect. If I do, I will have to take something else out that I also want to teach. Should I talk about the narrative paradigm in my Persuasion class? If I do, I'm going to have to get some outside readings. What are some that 200 level students can handle? Maybe it is too complicated for that level who are just now learning about the syllogism.
In other words, the only areas where we should ask for wisdom is in areas where we are double-minded. Those are the areas in which we lack wisdom. When we do, we shouldn't be double-minded about whether or not we're getting it.
It seems strange to me that any person within Christendom in the 21st century hasn't reflected on the issues of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, but maybe Peterson legitimately had not asked himself these questions. How could he get away with not asking them?
Calvinists espouse what they call the TULIP doctrine. TULIP is an acrostic for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Preservation of the Saints. A good explanation for these can be found by googling TULIP and Calvinism, which is what I did to get this site.
Although there are many different branches of Calvinism and some of them might be as surprised by Peterson's confused position as those of us who don't consider ourselves Calvinist, I think by looking at this basic doctrine we can understand. All human behavior is totally depraved, so people living in homosexual sin are depraved but so is everyone else. This sinful behavior is irrelevant because God's election is unconditional and irresistible. People who have faith, which comes as an arbitrarily assigned gift have it regardless of how they live their lives.
Some Calvinists I know would call this a perversion of the doctrine and they might be right. I am not qualified to argue. Still, I can see how you can get from point A to point C through point B.
But to arrive from that to the point of view that behavior doesn't matter is crossing all kinds of lines. Behavior does matter. God will forgive us, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to forgive us for. And words matter; words like "marriage" have a religious context that either does or doesn't make sense. Either it means a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman with God or it means something else.
Our culture says it means something else, and I gotta be honest, there are a lot of times when I question the religious meaning of even heterosexual marriage. I question whether it's something I can continue to live up to. I question whether or not it's worth fighting for. I question whether or not I should even try. And if I do ever give up, what does it mean? The people who point out that those whose heterosexual marriages fail have done more to disrupt the sanctity of marriage than any gay person getting married are dead right.
Opinion One:
Two articles have come out regarding Eugene Peterson in the past two days that are getting a lot of social-media traction, so I might as well give them a little myself and put in my two cents. The first was an article by Jonathan Merritt and published by the Religion News Service entitled "Eugene Peterson on changing his mind about same-sex issues and marriage." In it, it seems that, as the title would imply, that Eugene Peterson changed his mind about same sex marriage, would perform a same sex marriage and quoted him saying:I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.You can think what you want to about Rev. Peterson's's opinion, but it seems to be pretty clear. Homosexuality and the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman are outside the realm of argument. It's "not a right or wrong thing" as far as he's concerned. So, that's that. If you disagree with him you should just "go to another church." It's all pretty cut and dry.
Opinion Two:
Except it isn't. Today another article came out that completely contradicted the first one. That article was written by Kate Shelllnut, was published in Christianity Today and was titled "Actually, Eugene Peterson Does Not Support Same-Sex Marriage." In it, it seems that, as the title would imply, Eugene Peterson does not support same-sex marriage. When it comes to marriage between two people of the same sex, Peterson is quoted in the article as saying "That’s not something I would do out of respect to the congregation, the larger church body, and the historic Biblical Christian view and teaching on marriage." He claims that he affirms "a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything."That is the exact opposite of what he said in the other article isn't it?
Double-Minded
James, who most of protestants believe is Jesus' flesh and blood little brother, had some negative things to say about being double-minded. He said"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways" (James 1:5-8).That doesn't seem to be a good thing and I sense a lot of double-mindedness regarding this issue in the two interviews with Peterson. The man seems to be of two opinions. However, I am not sure that means that he "is unstable in all his ways" or that "he will not receive anything from God."
James says that we ask God for wisdom if we lack it. Sometimes, we don't lack it.
We're coming up on a new semester here. I don't really need to ask God if it would be wise to start doing some lesson planning. I've been teaching for 17 years. I know that if I don't go into next week with every class period planned for every class between the first class of the semester and the last, it is going to catch up with me. I also know that by midterm my plans will be adjusted many times. I don't need to ask God for wisdom about whether or not I should plan. I do need wisdom and ask for it (In Jesus' Name) for how to plan each day. And even though God will give me that wisdom, it might be within His sovereign will for me to plan classes I don't get to teach or to be met with obstacles that He wants me to deal with at the time, not in advance. He's totally God and I am totally happy with that.
The areas where I need wisdom are these: should I do a class on the classical rhetorical canon of memory in my public speaking class? If I don't it will be the only canon I neglect. If I do, I will have to take something else out that I also want to teach. Should I talk about the narrative paradigm in my Persuasion class? If I do, I'm going to have to get some outside readings. What are some that 200 level students can handle? Maybe it is too complicated for that level who are just now learning about the syllogism.
In other words, the only areas where we should ask for wisdom is in areas where we are double-minded. Those are the areas in which we lack wisdom. When we do, we shouldn't be double-minded about whether or not we're getting it.
Maybe he should have asked for wisdom first.
The second article says that he came to this conclusion that Peterson would not do a same-sex wedding after praying for wisdom: "When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that." Maybe he should have reflected and prayed before the interview, but maybe he had no idea that this kind of question would be asked.It seems strange to me that any person within Christendom in the 21st century hasn't reflected on the issues of same-sex marriage and homosexuality, but maybe Peterson legitimately had not asked himself these questions. How could he get away with not asking them?
Calvinism
In the Christianity Today article there is a really interesting statement:“When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who ‘seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,’ I meant it,” he [Peterson] stated. “But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
“We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior,” he stated. “It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth.”If we look at this statement, we can see why Peterson could have lived his entire Christian life not really thinking much about one of the biggest clashes between traditional Christianity and our culture.
Calvinists espouse what they call the TULIP doctrine. TULIP is an acrostic for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Preservation of the Saints. A good explanation for these can be found by googling TULIP and Calvinism, which is what I did to get this site.
Although there are many different branches of Calvinism and some of them might be as surprised by Peterson's confused position as those of us who don't consider ourselves Calvinist, I think by looking at this basic doctrine we can understand. All human behavior is totally depraved, so people living in homosexual sin are depraved but so is everyone else. This sinful behavior is irrelevant because God's election is unconditional and irresistible. People who have faith, which comes as an arbitrarily assigned gift have it regardless of how they live their lives.
Some Calvinists I know would call this a perversion of the doctrine and they might be right. I am not qualified to argue. Still, I can see how you can get from point A to point C through point B.
And it's kind of right.
We have grace. We have grace to fall back on over and over. Thank God for His grace, his unmerited favor, his everlasting love, because you know what, I sin every single day. I am 100% sure that there will be people in Heaven that struggled with their homosexual desires every single day of their Christian lives. Some days they did better than others, but maybe, on the day they died, it was a bad day.But to arrive from that to the point of view that behavior doesn't matter is crossing all kinds of lines. Behavior does matter. God will forgive us, but that doesn't mean there's nothing to forgive us for. And words matter; words like "marriage" have a religious context that either does or doesn't make sense. Either it means a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman with God or it means something else.
Our culture says it means something else, and I gotta be honest, there are a lot of times when I question the religious meaning of even heterosexual marriage. I question whether it's something I can continue to live up to. I question whether or not it's worth fighting for. I question whether or not I should even try. And if I do ever give up, what does it mean? The people who point out that those whose heterosexual marriages fail have done more to disrupt the sanctity of marriage than any gay person getting married are dead right.
And so he answered the wrong question.
The question isn't really about gay people or gay marriage. The question is: is sex between two people of the same sex a sin? He hasn't been pegged down on this one in either of the two articles. He seems to say, "It doesn't matter because God can forgive sin." But it does matter, even if God can forgive sin because we need to know what is forgiven and we need to struggle against behavior that does not live up to the high calling to which we are called. If gay sex is a sin, there are consequences, even if God forgives sin. If gay sex is not a sin, there are consequences, even if God forgives sin.
Friday, February 17, 2017
To my liberal friends from a conservative.
Coming to terms with working with liberalls
What I mean by that is that I espouse most traditional Judeo-Christian values regarding individual morality and family roles. I usually think free markets work better than regulation for most people. I espouse virtue in an Aristotelian and Aquinian sense. I value the Western Tradition. I believe in American exceptionalism, but don't believe it is inherent or something up to which our country has lived, rather that it is put forth as an ideal in our founding documents. I see the government as untrustworthy, yet I still try to follow the laws in most cases mostly because I don't see much value in making waves. I try to be extravagant in my respect to people who serve this country in the military or police. I think that the tried and tested generally functions better than the latest fad. I wear a button down shirt and a tie to work usually. I like "everything at the right time –dinner at dinner time, lunch at lunch time, breakfast in time for breakfast, and sunrise at sunrise, and sunset at sunset," the description of a conservative in the classic work of political philosophy, Mister Dog: The Dog Who Belonged To Himself. I hesitate to say this, since if I do I will undoubtedly make grammatical mistakes in this blog, but I generally try to use standard grammar and proper verbiage. I make errors in all these ideals, but I try.
I'm a conservative
I generally see myself as a "conservative" although that term has become so contested, so controversial, and so tribalized that I don't know if the fact that I consider myself that means that any other person who uses the same appellation would ascribe the label to me. That's okay.What I mean by that is that I espouse most traditional Judeo-Christian values regarding individual morality and family roles. I usually think free markets work better than regulation for most people. I espouse virtue in an Aristotelian and Aquinian sense. I value the Western Tradition. I believe in American exceptionalism, but don't believe it is inherent or something up to which our country has lived, rather that it is put forth as an ideal in our founding documents. I see the government as untrustworthy, yet I still try to follow the laws in most cases mostly because I don't see much value in making waves. I try to be extravagant in my respect to people who serve this country in the military or police. I think that the tried and tested generally functions better than the latest fad. I wear a button down shirt and a tie to work usually. I like "everything at the right time –dinner at dinner time, lunch at lunch time, breakfast in time for breakfast, and sunrise at sunrise, and sunset at sunset," the description of a conservative in the classic work of political philosophy, Mister Dog: The Dog Who Belonged To Himself. I hesitate to say this, since if I do I will undoubtedly make grammatical mistakes in this blog, but I generally try to use standard grammar and proper verbiage. I make errors in all these ideals, but I try.
I don't particularly like President Trump. I did not vote for him. I have liked some of his decisions, even controversial ones. I liked the choice of Betsy Devos for secretary of education because I believe in the very conservative idea that parents should raise their children, not the state. While an education is essential in that rearing, I don't think that the government, especially the national government, should have much say in how that education is accomplished. I have liked Neil Gorsuch as a pick for Supreme Court Justice because I think that the Constitution is supposed to be a document that constitutes our government and guides our politics rather than our politics being used to constitute the document.
I have strong disagreements with the President Trump, however. First of all, the man has shown himself to be a cad, which is a word we need to bring back to the English language as a means of policing men's improper foibles rather than decrying "misogyny" or "rape culture" both of which exist, primarily because we don't keep our cads in check by calling them cads. Secondly, his blustery language and apparent lack of self control in tempering his responses are not conservative virtues. His populism flies in the face of conservatism catering to certain people through demagoguery rather than appealing to them philosophically. His foreign policies seem to smack of the idiocy of Smoot-Hawley and a fear that Western culture cannot stand up against the barbarism of contemporary west Asia and the militant forms of Islam that have established themselves there. Much like the identity-politics of the left, he has rejected the melting pot and thinks that people who come cannot be Americanized within a few generations. I hate that kind of thinking. It is not "conservative," at least not by my definition.
So it is from this point of view that I offer my recommendations to my left-leaning friends (which I think would describe most of my friends). I am a conservative, so I have a different point of view than you. Still, I think in my disapproval of President Trump might mean people like me are someone with whom you can work, if you are willing to work. You don't like Trump because he's not a liberal. I don't like him because he's not a conservative. Here's a list of things you have to do, however, so we can join forces to limit the damage he can do.
First of all, you have to accept that Trump is President.
I am well aware that he did not win the "popular vote." I don't care. The popular vote is not a measure of legitimacy. The Constitution wisely developed a system of Representatives and Senators which correspond in numbers to an electoral college that would create a balance between the desires of the majority of the country and the majority of the people in the country. The former being spread out throughout the nation, the latter being clustered in a few geographically small urban areas. The majority of the people is taken into account, but Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota (the least populace states) do not have to accede to the will of California, Texas, and New York (the most populace). This is a good and fair system. If you don't shut up about the popular vote, your open anti-rural bigotry is going to push people into Trump's flailing arms. Acting like the popular vote matters is insulting to anyone who lives in a rural state.
Furthermore, he is likely to stay President for the next several years. Feel free to look for 2020 candidates, but more and more of my liberal friends are calling for President Trump's impeachment. That hope is foolishness just as it was for many of my right leaning friends who wanted President Obama impeached. It is simply not going to happen.
While many elected conservatives feel much the same way I do about President Trump, there are partisan constraints. Furthermore, none of the disagreements about which I have are actionable. They are personal. From what I have seen from my liberal friends their disagreements are political or personal but not law breaking. Those few cases where there may be legal issues don't rise to the level to which they would need to rise to overcome partisan loyalty. In other words, there is nothing being alleged about President that, if true, would make a Republican want to impeach him. Conflicts of interest, if proven, could be divested before any impeachment proceedings. Ties to foreign governments can be mitigated in a variety of ways. Even allegations of fraud are not adequate to make a person vote against a member of his or her own party.
While many elected conservatives feel much the same way I do about President Trump, there are partisan constraints. Furthermore, none of the disagreements about which I have are actionable. They are personal. From what I have seen from my liberal friends their disagreements are political or personal but not law breaking. Those few cases where there may be legal issues don't rise to the level to which they would need to rise to overcome partisan loyalty. In other words, there is nothing being alleged about President that, if true, would make a Republican want to impeach him. Conflicts of interest, if proven, could be divested before any impeachment proceedings. Ties to foreign governments can be mitigated in a variety of ways. Even allegations of fraud are not adequate to make a person vote against a member of his or her own party.
Right now you are simply not going to get the Republican-led House of Representatives to file articles of impeachment. That could change in 2018. It is possible that the Democratic party could capture the House. There are more than the necessary 14 seats in play. Traditionally the party of the President loses seats during midterms. You might get enough people to file articles. Okay, then what?
Then it goes to the Senate where 2/3 of the Senators are going to have to vote to remove him from office. It is not going to happen. Right now Republicans control 51 seats and are barely hanging on to a simple majority. The mid-term elections, as I said earlier, normally go against the President, but the 2018 elections will not. There are only eight Republican Senators coming up for reelection, none of which are listed as "toss-ups" by any of the three major raking agencies (Cook, Roth, Sabato). Whereas there are Democratic seats that are. This means that unless something unforeseen happens, Republicans will control the Senate and unless he's done something that will cause felony charges to come against him, they aren't going to remove a President of their own party from office. Give up on that dream. Party loyalty is not what it is in some countries, but there is enough that you'll never hit a 2/3 majority in the opposition with this President in four years. So, give up. As long as you're working against him you are not working for anything and there are things for which we can work.
Still there is a line I'm going set. If you condemn me for eating hot-dogs, it won't make a good camping trip for me. If you think being out in nature means that you need to be au naturel, I am going to be pretty uncomfortable. If you decide to bring along a partner and make love while sharing a tent with me, I'd have to excuse myself. If you decided this space away from the auspices of law enforcement was a great opportunity to enjoy some recreational pharmaceuticals, well, look, I'm not at that place in my life socially anymore nor do I wish to go camping with those who are right now.
Most of you would say, well, Dr. Cline, Rhetorical Questioner, I would never do those things if I went camping with you. Those are cruel liberal stereotypes. Of course they are! That's why I invited any liberal who happens to be reading my page to go camping with me two paragraphs ago. We'll have fun.
But the thing is, political action is a lot like camping. Conservatives can protest President Trump's inappropriate comments about women that point to actions even more inappropriate. However, for me to join with you, wearing a knitted hat designed to look like a vagina is just not going to fly. Good for you for having one, I guess, but you're not going to bring any conservatives to your cause. You are going to look like a nut (or, I suppose, the female equivalent). Many conservatives feel that legal immigration should be expanded and that immigrants who came here illegally as small children unable to make their own decisions and who have grown up basically Americanized should hardly be "deported" to a country they never knew. That's silly, which is why there's never been Republican consensus (or Democratic consensus for that matter) for or against the D.R.E.A.M. act. The act was sponsored by fricken' Orin Hatch and you don't get better conservative credentials than Orin Flippin' Hatch. This is an area where we can work together, like camping. If you're carrying an "amnesta para todos" sign, well, that's a sign we can't sign on to. Of course we believe that Black Lives Matter and want reform of the criminal justice system. Rioting and burning, however, makes us distance ourselves from your cause. Do you get this? My mom in rural Nebraska is not swayed to any political action in favor of people wearing vagina hats.
Lots of liberals I know, however, are led to a liberal position by their faith. The idea of setting the captives free, caring for the poor and sick, aiding widows and orphans in their affliction, and standing up for the foreigner and the alien seem to fit better with the Democratic party than with Republicans. That makes sense. Most conservative Christians see these as personal commandments and not something we accomplish through the government, but we get where liberal Christians are coming from.
Abraham Lincoln is quoted by sources whose veracity I cannot gauge as having said "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right." So, let's pray we are on God's side. So, let's pray for our leaders. Let's pray they be filled with temperance and wisdom. Let's pray they make the right decisions. Let's ask that our own lives be made beacons of light to a world, we both agree, needs it badly. Let's pray for God's will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Let's pray for a growth of love and truth in our country. We can do that, can't we? I am not a fan of President Trump, but I'd rather he experience repentance than that he be impeached. Honestly, wouldn't that be your preference too?
And we can be kind to each other. We have disagreements. But let's generally assume that those disagreements both come from a place of goodness and if we can't accept that, that it comes from a place of pain. We need to care about each other's pain.
Don't be too freaky to be someone with whom I can work.
I certainly admit that "liberal" and "conservative" are as much lifestyle choices as political boundaries. I don't expect you to be like me. Liberals and conservatives both like camping, for instance. I'd love to invite you to go camping with me. I'm probably going to be roasting 89¢ per pack hot-dogs over my fire and you'll be eating organically grown kale mixed with non GMO nuts. We can offer each other some and accept or decline. I don't care. Actually, 10 years ago I would have been like you. I would say I've grown up. You might say I've sold out. I don't care. I can still go camping with you. You can even beat your Djembe and sing songs that express Hindu principles in a Native American style at the fire. Afterwards, you can talk about how uncomfortable you are with the juxtaposition of needing to experience authentic spirituality while not wanting to appropriate. I don't mind. There are a lot of things like that. We can do them together and as long as you let me be me, you can be you. You might be surprised just how "liberal" I am in these areas. I'm a bit of a crunchy con, but even conservatives who are not won't mind you. We have actually a lot in common.Still there is a line I'm going set. If you condemn me for eating hot-dogs, it won't make a good camping trip for me. If you think being out in nature means that you need to be au naturel, I am going to be pretty uncomfortable. If you decide to bring along a partner and make love while sharing a tent with me, I'd have to excuse myself. If you decided this space away from the auspices of law enforcement was a great opportunity to enjoy some recreational pharmaceuticals, well, look, I'm not at that place in my life socially anymore nor do I wish to go camping with those who are right now.
Most of you would say, well, Dr. Cline, Rhetorical Questioner, I would never do those things if I went camping with you. Those are cruel liberal stereotypes. Of course they are! That's why I invited any liberal who happens to be reading my page to go camping with me two paragraphs ago. We'll have fun.
But the thing is, political action is a lot like camping. Conservatives can protest President Trump's inappropriate comments about women that point to actions even more inappropriate. However, for me to join with you, wearing a knitted hat designed to look like a vagina is just not going to fly. Good for you for having one, I guess, but you're not going to bring any conservatives to your cause. You are going to look like a nut (or, I suppose, the female equivalent). Many conservatives feel that legal immigration should be expanded and that immigrants who came here illegally as small children unable to make their own decisions and who have grown up basically Americanized should hardly be "deported" to a country they never knew. That's silly, which is why there's never been Republican consensus (or Democratic consensus for that matter) for or against the D.R.E.A.M. act. The act was sponsored by fricken' Orin Hatch and you don't get better conservative credentials than Orin Flippin' Hatch. This is an area where we can work together, like camping. If you're carrying an "amnesta para todos" sign, well, that's a sign we can't sign on to. Of course we believe that Black Lives Matter and want reform of the criminal justice system. Rioting and burning, however, makes us distance ourselves from your cause. Do you get this? My mom in rural Nebraska is not swayed to any political action in favor of people wearing vagina hats.
Pray with me. Love one another with me.
If you're an atheist liberal, probably you won't pray with me. Atheist conservatives like Austin Petersen, George Will, or the various followers of Ayn Rand's objectivism won't pray with me either. I won't say then "let me pray" because while I've heard of atheists who won't let theists pray around them, I've never met them. They're generally like, "knock yourself out, and wish on a star while you're at it." So, how about this? Agree with my prayers.Lots of liberals I know, however, are led to a liberal position by their faith. The idea of setting the captives free, caring for the poor and sick, aiding widows and orphans in their affliction, and standing up for the foreigner and the alien seem to fit better with the Democratic party than with Republicans. That makes sense. Most conservative Christians see these as personal commandments and not something we accomplish through the government, but we get where liberal Christians are coming from.
Abraham Lincoln is quoted by sources whose veracity I cannot gauge as having said "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right." So, let's pray we are on God's side. So, let's pray for our leaders. Let's pray they be filled with temperance and wisdom. Let's pray they make the right decisions. Let's ask that our own lives be made beacons of light to a world, we both agree, needs it badly. Let's pray for God's will to be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Let's pray for a growth of love and truth in our country. We can do that, can't we? I am not a fan of President Trump, but I'd rather he experience repentance than that he be impeached. Honestly, wouldn't that be your preference too?
And we can be kind to each other. We have disagreements. But let's generally assume that those disagreements both come from a place of goodness and if we can't accept that, that it comes from a place of pain. We need to care about each other's pain.
Thursday, February 2, 2017
Candlemas
Coming to terms with Candlemas, tradition, syncretism, and purification
Traditionally, this has been a big thing for Christians. According to Wikipedia, many Christians take down their Christmas decorations on this date. The lights of the home are blessed. Christians focus on their own purification and "bringing light into the world."
This is a Christian tradition. I would say I was raised Christian. Still, for at least the first two decades of my life I had no idea about this holiday, it's importance, or even that it existed. It was groundhog day. Some years we may have had biscuits and sausage gravy (ground hog), but every year we joked about it. We'd guess in school if the groundhog had seen his shadow. I had no idea the day had more important symbolism. I knew nothing of the tradition.
So, it is no wonder that many of the (ahem) traditions which have heavily influenced the development of my theology have shown a distrust of tradition. The Reformers are concerned about Roman "superstition" and that in the attempt to follow Christian tradition, many are aiming at a "salvation by works" rather than "by grace throug faith" (Eph 2:8-9). The Restorationists want to "call Bible things by Bible names," and restoring "New Testament Christianity." If a tradition was not specifically named in the New Testament, therefore, it is treated with distrust if not contempt. The Pentecostals are often concerned with what they call "a religious spirit," which to them represents abject legalism and a faith which 'holds to a form of Godliness, but denies it's power" (II Tim. 3:5).
Because these three have been the primary influences on my theology, I never much thought about the various traditions and where they come from and what they represent. In my family, we celebrated Christmas and Easter as holy days and every Sunday we went to church (my Dad is a preacher, so it really isn''t an option). We took "the Lord's supper" and I and all my siblings were "baptized by immersion" when we were at a proper age. Still, the thousands of other traditions which historically supported Christianity were not really discussed. I was in my teens when I found out that "the Day of Pentecost," for instance, happened every year, not just one time, in Acts.
Still, I saw other traditions develop that were insidious even without the --- traditional traditions. I remember the tussle around having guitars in the church. I have seen open anger at those who would sing "off the wall" rather than from a hymnal. And if the veterans who attended church were not acknowledged on the Sunday before Independence Day, and Memorial Day, and Veteran's day, there would be much grumbling and complaining. I've been told I'm going to Hell for going to "so-called 'Christian' rock and roll shows." I've seen downright superstitious fears of fantasy novels, He-Man toys, and Dungeons and Dragons. I've watched with a combination of amusement, disgust, and a chilling fear of expressing either as people ritualistically burned Harry Potter books, Mötley Crüe albums, and stuffed plush Smurfs.
I saw exactly what Jesus, Paul, and the more contemporary influences on my theology warned about as arguments surface over whether or not there should be coffee in the sanctuary, about how much and where girls should be allowed to show skin on their bathing suits, or if Bob Dylan was "really saved." Doing justly, loving mercy, walking humbly (Micah 6:8), loving God with all your hear and soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself, (Matt. 23:37), all these take a backseat to the important things like making sure the pastor doesn't eat at a cheeseburger restaurant that serves beer. "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27) but the former takes a back seat to the latter which means "not wearing baggy clothing."
So, even though there was an abhorrence of tradition, traditions developed nonetheless and put their strange stranglehold on faith.
The worries were not without basis. Most Christian rituals and holidays have their counterparts in pagan culture. There is a cycle to the year and any agrarian culture is going to notice that certain things happen in certain parts of the year and engage in activities that notice it. Thus, any religion of the northern hemisphere is going to have a holiday at this time where the days begin to noticeably lengthen and the promise of spring hesitates in the air. Spring is coming, but when is a real question for people who didn't arbitrarily mark a day on a calendar as the "first day of spring."
So, there are rituals about animals breaking their hibernation, briefly, to check the weather. There are rituals about light. There are rituals about preparing the ground to be fertile. These are going to exist in any culture that pays attention to the weather and the changing of seasons.
So, the pagans had them. So, the Christians who came later copied them. Does that make them evil?
Certainly, there are traditions associated with this holiday that no Christian could condone. Pagan acts such as ritual drunkenness and rape really couldn't be tolerated by a people defined by temperance and chastity. Still, does that mean that "light coming into the world" cannot be appreciated by Christians?
I'd make another argument. That argument is that God's "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:20). Part of God's story was clearly shown to the pagan, pre-Christian people and they recognized it and marked it. Certainly, Satan perverted it (and ritual rape is definitely a perversion) but it was God's to start with and it is God's now.
To me, the concept of redemption is an important one when dealing with things that have pagan aspects. Is this a perversion, or is this part of what was holy and there from the beginning?
Also, maybe we'll have biscuits and sausage gravy tonight.
Today is Candlemas
Traditionally, this is the day, 40 days after Christmas, when we celebrate the time of purification for Mary and Jesus' presentation at the Temple.
The Old Testament clearly outlines why Mary did this:
Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If a woman conceives and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days. As at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying. She shall not touch anything holy, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her menstruation. And she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days.Since we pretend Jesus was born on December 25th (no one really knows), we would then pretend that forty days later, February 2nd is the day Mary would have been purified and she and Joseph would have brought Jesus to the temple where Simeon and Anna prophesied over him (Luke 2).
“And when the days of her purifying are completed, whether for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the tent of meeting a lamb a year old for a burnt offering, and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering, and he shall offer it before the LORD and make atonement for her. Then she shall be clean from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, either male or female. And if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two pigeons,a one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for her, and she shall be clean.”
Traditionally, this has been a big thing for Christians. According to Wikipedia, many Christians take down their Christmas decorations on this date. The lights of the home are blessed. Christians focus on their own purification and "bringing light into the world."
This is a Christian tradition. I would say I was raised Christian. Still, for at least the first two decades of my life I had no idea about this holiday, it's importance, or even that it existed. It was groundhog day. Some years we may have had biscuits and sausage gravy (ground hog), but every year we joked about it. We'd guess in school if the groundhog had seen his shadow. I had no idea the day had more important symbolism. I knew nothing of the tradition.
The Dangers of Tradition
The New Testament is pretty clear about the dangers of tradition. Jesus warns that by focusing on tradition we can "break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition," (Matt. 15:3), it can cause us to neglect "the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness" (Matt 23:23), that you can "leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8). The entire book of Galatians is a written by the Apostle, Paul, basically as a warning against people who try to force traditions on the believer. He is concerned that by following traditions, one can be trying to be "perfected in the flesh" where we can only be perfected in the Spirit. Paul is mostly concerned about circumcision but also mentions that the believer should "let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ" (Col 2:16-17).So, it is no wonder that many of the (ahem) traditions which have heavily influenced the development of my theology have shown a distrust of tradition. The Reformers are concerned about Roman "superstition" and that in the attempt to follow Christian tradition, many are aiming at a "salvation by works" rather than "by grace throug faith" (Eph 2:8-9). The Restorationists want to "call Bible things by Bible names," and restoring "New Testament Christianity." If a tradition was not specifically named in the New Testament, therefore, it is treated with distrust if not contempt. The Pentecostals are often concerned with what they call "a religious spirit," which to them represents abject legalism and a faith which 'holds to a form of Godliness, but denies it's power" (II Tim. 3:5).
Because these three have been the primary influences on my theology, I never much thought about the various traditions and where they come from and what they represent. In my family, we celebrated Christmas and Easter as holy days and every Sunday we went to church (my Dad is a preacher, so it really isn''t an option). We took "the Lord's supper" and I and all my siblings were "baptized by immersion" when we were at a proper age. Still, the thousands of other traditions which historically supported Christianity were not really discussed. I was in my teens when I found out that "the Day of Pentecost," for instance, happened every year, not just one time, in Acts.
Still, I saw other traditions develop that were insidious even without the --- traditional traditions. I remember the tussle around having guitars in the church. I have seen open anger at those who would sing "off the wall" rather than from a hymnal. And if the veterans who attended church were not acknowledged on the Sunday before Independence Day, and Memorial Day, and Veteran's day, there would be much grumbling and complaining. I've been told I'm going to Hell for going to "so-called 'Christian' rock and roll shows." I've seen downright superstitious fears of fantasy novels, He-Man toys, and Dungeons and Dragons. I've watched with a combination of amusement, disgust, and a chilling fear of expressing either as people ritualistically burned Harry Potter books, Mötley Crüe albums, and stuffed plush Smurfs.
I saw exactly what Jesus, Paul, and the more contemporary influences on my theology warned about as arguments surface over whether or not there should be coffee in the sanctuary, about how much and where girls should be allowed to show skin on their bathing suits, or if Bob Dylan was "really saved." Doing justly, loving mercy, walking humbly (Micah 6:8), loving God with all your hear and soul and mind and loving your neighbor as yourself, (Matt. 23:37), all these take a backseat to the important things like making sure the pastor doesn't eat at a cheeseburger restaurant that serves beer. "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world" (James 1:27) but the former takes a back seat to the latter which means "not wearing baggy clothing."
So, even though there was an abhorrence of tradition, traditions developed nonetheless and put their strange stranglehold on faith.
Worries over Syncretism
Traditions such as Candlemas were seen by many influential people in my life as being especially problematic as they seemed to place a Christian veneer over archaic pagan rituals. Greek, Roman, and Celtic religious practices seemed to poke their scaly heads from beneath the rocks of these traditions. Many people objected to Christmas trees and Easter eggs because of their pre-Christian symbolism. Still, it was hard to fight those as cultural phenomena. Those traditions that were Christian but were not part of the culture at large, were even easier to disdain for people already nervous about a mistletoe over a threshold. They weren't even discussed except perhaps as mockery of Catholics or Lutherans who still practiced these "demonically inspired" holidays.The worries were not without basis. Most Christian rituals and holidays have their counterparts in pagan culture. There is a cycle to the year and any agrarian culture is going to notice that certain things happen in certain parts of the year and engage in activities that notice it. Thus, any religion of the northern hemisphere is going to have a holiday at this time where the days begin to noticeably lengthen and the promise of spring hesitates in the air. Spring is coming, but when is a real question for people who didn't arbitrarily mark a day on a calendar as the "first day of spring."
So, there are rituals about animals breaking their hibernation, briefly, to check the weather. There are rituals about light. There are rituals about preparing the ground to be fertile. These are going to exist in any culture that pays attention to the weather and the changing of seasons.
So, the pagans had them. So, the Christians who came later copied them. Does that make them evil?
Certainly, there are traditions associated with this holiday that no Christian could condone. Pagan acts such as ritual drunkenness and rape really couldn't be tolerated by a people defined by temperance and chastity. Still, does that mean that "light coming into the world" cannot be appreciated by Christians?
I'd make another argument. That argument is that God's "invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made" (Romans 1:20). Part of God's story was clearly shown to the pagan, pre-Christian people and they recognized it and marked it. Certainly, Satan perverted it (and ritual rape is definitely a perversion) but it was God's to start with and it is God's now.
To me, the concept of redemption is an important one when dealing with things that have pagan aspects. Is this a perversion, or is this part of what was holy and there from the beginning?
Purification
And that is the entire point of Candlemas. Mary had to be purified, even after giving birth to the perfectly pure Son of God. We also need to be purified. Light needs to be brought into our homes. By celebrating the holy day of Candlemas we recognize that need for redemption. We recognize that in our impurity, we needed to be bought at a price of God's purity. That "for our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21). We can be purified. Light can be brought into our lives.Also, maybe we'll have biscuits and sausage gravy tonight.
Monday, November 14, 2016
It is something else . . .
Coming to terms with my false perception.
So, if you are dealing with someone, and you know that person is a Christian, but that person is acting malicious instead of loving, angry instead of joyful, frantic instead of peaceful, demanding instead of patient, spiteful instead of kind, bad instead of good, rough instead of gentle, flighty instead of faithful, OR excessive instead of self-controlled, YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH THAT PERSON. THAT IS NOT WHO THAT PERSON IS. THAT IS NOT HOW GOD PERCEIVES THAT PERSON.
Also, if you are a Christian, and you suddenly find yourself acting that way, IT IS NOT YOU. THAT IS NOT WHO YOU ARE. THAT IS NOT HOW GOD PERCEIVES YOU.
From my own point of view, this woman may have just been disrespectful and cussed me out. But I know her. She's a Christian. So, she is joyful, not angry. She's kind, not spiteful. She's self-controlled, not lashing out. My perception is wrong. That is not her. That is something else.
I can perceive that I have been failing in my struggle and overwhelmed by that failure. But I know that I am filled with the Spirit. So, that's not me. That is something else.
I think this is what Paul was saying in Romans where he wrote "it is not I who sin, but sin living in me" (7:several verses). It is also what is meant by our battle not being against flesh and blood (Eph 6:12). Our war isn't against this other person or even against ourselves.
It might not be a demon though. It might just be the person's ignorance, which can be educated. It might be the person's pain, which can be healed. It might be the person's fear, which can be cast out.
Christians are always loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, gentle, faithful, and self-controlled.
It sounds crazy, right? If you've met many Christians you might think this is demonstrably false. It's not.So, if you are dealing with someone, and you know that person is a Christian, but that person is acting malicious instead of loving, angry instead of joyful, frantic instead of peaceful, demanding instead of patient, spiteful instead of kind, bad instead of good, rough instead of gentle, flighty instead of faithful, OR excessive instead of self-controlled, YOU ARE NOT DEALING WITH THAT PERSON. THAT IS NOT WHO THAT PERSON IS. THAT IS NOT HOW GOD PERCEIVES THAT PERSON.
Also, if you are a Christian, and you suddenly find yourself acting that way, IT IS NOT YOU. THAT IS NOT WHO YOU ARE. THAT IS NOT HOW GOD PERCEIVES YOU.
And God's perception is the TRUTH. Ours is not.
From my own point of view, I can perceive that this guy from Church, whose faith I know, just posted a kind-of-racist meme. I know that's not him. He wouldn't do that. It is something else. He is loving. He is kind. My perception is wrong. It is not him. It is something else.From my own point of view, this woman may have just been disrespectful and cussed me out. But I know her. She's a Christian. So, she is joyful, not angry. She's kind, not spiteful. She's self-controlled, not lashing out. My perception is wrong. That is not her. That is something else.
I can perceive that I have been failing in my struggle and overwhelmed by that failure. But I know that I am filled with the Spirit. So, that's not me. That is something else.
I think this is what Paul was saying in Romans where he wrote "it is not I who sin, but sin living in me" (7:several verses). It is also what is meant by our battle not being against flesh and blood (Eph 6:12). Our war isn't against this other person or even against ourselves.
It is something else.
Now when I say that it is something else I don't necessarily mean it is a demon. I firmly believe demons work on and in Christians and that whenever we see someone who is not acting like God perceives them, it might be worth taking your authority in Christ rebuking whatever might be there because it might be a demon. I wouldn't do so loudly or in the person's face unless you've received a pretty clear word from the Lord that you're dealing with a demon and that this is the time and way where it is strategically appropriate to fight it.It might not be a demon though. It might just be the person's ignorance, which can be educated. It might be the person's pain, which can be healed. It might be the person's fear, which can be cast out.
Whatever it is, it is not the person. It is something else.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Doing better than the best I can.
Coming to terms with the best I can do.
Sometimes other people get frustrated with me.
Sometimes I get frustrated with other people because those other people got frustrated with me.
Because
Sometimes I can't do it all.
So, sometimes it doesn't get done.
But the fact of the matter is that
I am not just doing the best I can.
But
So I need to forgive myself.
I hope others can forgive me
I need to forgive the others who can't forgive me,
for not forgiving me.
Because
Sometimes I can't do it all.
So, sometimes it doesn't get done.
But
I am doing better than the best I can.
Sometimes I get frustrated with myself.Sometimes other people get frustrated with me.
Sometimes I get frustrated with other people because those other people got frustrated with me.
Because
Sometimes I can't do it all.
So, sometimes it doesn't get done.
But the fact of the matter is that
I am doing better than the best I can.
Emotionally,
Spiritually,
Physically,
With my family.
In my work,
With the chores I do,
With the pain I endure,
Spiritually,
Physically,
With my family.
In my work,
With the chores I do,
With the pain I endure,
With the overwhelming sea that is life,
I am not just doing the best I can.
I am doing better than the best I can.
Lie not in wait as a wicked man against the dwelling of the righteous;I keep getting back up. But not on my own.
do no violence to his home;
for the righteous falls seven times and rises again,
but the wicked stumble in times of calamity (Prov. 24:15-16).
We have all become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away (Isaiah 64:6).That's all I am. On my own I can't get up seven times. I probably couldn't even get up once. Doing my best is junk. I am the wicked who just stumbles, not the guy who gets up.
But
I am doing better than the best I can.
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21).And that's the only way I get done what I get done, which is always way more than I can possibly do.
So I need to forgive myself.
I hope others can forgive me
I need to forgive the others who can't forgive me,
for not forgiving me.
Because
Sometimes I can't do it all.
So, sometimes it doesn't get done.
But
I am doing better than the best I can.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
Suffering
Coming to terms with current suffering
I deserve every bad thing that has happened in my life, and worse.
Contemporary psychology tries to assuage guilt. It tells people that they "deserve to be happy." You don't. I don't. I think we all know this on some level. Happiness is undeserved. We are bad people who do bad things and deserve the bad done to us.
There are good reasons that they most psychologists teach this. Because we don't think we deserve to be happy (because we don't), we sometimes punish ourselves. As a Psychology Today article puts it "For many of us, the deep-rooted belief that we don’t deserve good things makes us resistant to taking care of ourselves as fully as we can." So they say we should realize we deserve good and we can have good.
Except, that's not really what the article, or probably any philosophically honest psychologist, says. That same article goes on to state that:
Feeling undeserving creates resistance to positive change. Here’s the thing: Once you understand what makes you feel undeserving, it's a process, and a messy one at that to become more self-assured and view your future more positively. What actually happens as you work on forgiving yourself [emphasis added] for the deep-rooted feelings that hold you back, is that you start to feel better, lighter, more relieved, and more understood in your own experience.
But here's the thing, "forgiving yourself" actually means accepting that you've done something that needs forgiveness. You don't deserve a thing. It means recognizing that happiness is not what you deserve. You deserve bad things. But you are going to take the happiness anyway, because it's being offered.
Happiness, then, is a gift.
That's what makes it so delicious. Most of us know that a meal with have prepared and worked hard to put on the table as a result of a job well done makes us happy. Realizing that we could never have done enough to really deserve the food on the table, despite how hard we worked, makes us happier. We get more than we deserve. That's part of how we know there is a God; we know we haven't done enough to have what we have. The poorest pauper in Malawi (the poorest country in the world, according to google) knows this. We in the Western world get so used to abundance, we forget it sometimes on a surface level. We know it's still true, deep down.
Footnote: [Of course, there are some logical assumptions here that, like most things when considered philosophically ultimately hinge on theology. The need to forgive yourself assumes some kind of objective morality with some source outside ourselves or our social constructions that say that there are actually some things that require forgiveness. It also implies that any happiness we receive can only be given by someone. Reasonably, it would have to be by the same source as the objective morality. That basically proves there's a God, if you need that. But I wasn't doing apologetics here. I'm actually whining in long blog form.]
Then, sometimes, we don't get it.
Sometimes we are not given the gift of happiness. Sometimes, we get some of the suffering we deserve, which is made many times worse because we've somehow convinced ourselves that we deserve happiness. We don't. We can and should claim it when it is available, but we don't deserve it.
Sometimes, we get the suffering we deserve despite the fact that we are actually doing good, moral, things in the moment:
"Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler. Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name" (I Peter 4:12-16).
The admonition in verse 15 that "none of you suffer as a murderer or a thief or an evildoer or as a meddler" sometimes hangs us up. The reason for that is that almost every bad thing that happens to us can be traced to some stupidity:
- I didn't take my prescribed pills properly
- I wasn't paying enough attention while driving
- I went to have coffee with my friend even though I knew he had a cold.
- I shouldn't have been at a place where stuff like that happens.
- I should have known the investment was shady.
- I knew I should not have had that doughnut.
- I let myself get angry and I shouldn't have.
Personally, I hardly ever really suffer for being a Christian.
Sometimes I can't be at certain events for my job because they are things a Christian just can't be a part of, but honestly, no one cares that I'm not there. Sometimes I get a bad student evaluation because I don't keep my faith a secret in the classroom, but both Academic Freedom and the Constitution of the United States pretty much protect me from retaliation or punishment based on that. It's been fine. Sometimes, rarely, someone makes fun of me, but I honestly don't care.
No, my suffering almost always comes directly from some mistake I've made.
And let's face it, mistakes are sin.
But there's a path to deal with sin (and suffering is a part of it).
First of all: God saves us from sin:
God often allows this suffering to shock us out of our humdrum. It is easy to let sin in not as an act of disobedience, but as an act of carelessness or ignorance. When these cause us to suffer, it is a wake-up call that God allows so that we can get away from these sins.
As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. For see what earnestness this godly grief has produced in you, but also what eagerness to clear yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what punishment! At every point you have proved yourselves innocent in the matter (II Cor. 7:9-11).
The suffering produces repentance that gets us away from our sin. That's awesome. Once we repent, we also get the Holy Spirit's power to actually be free from the sin. "But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:17-18)
Second of all, God saves us from sin.
So much of the New Testament, and an awful lot of the Old, talks about God forgiving our sins that I could fill up a page that talks about nothing else. Most people have their favorites, John 3:16-17, Ephesians 2:8-9, Etc. Etc. God forgives sin. If you need more scriptures, contact me, because I can get them: hundreds and hundreds of them. It's kind of a basic thing.
So, let's get this done: confession time.
I'm not going to into too much detail on a public blog, but I made some mistakes. My biggest mistake was that I became, as Tony Stark says in the 2008 Iron Man "And I saw that I had become part of a system that is comfortable with zero-accountability." I was not holding other people accountable. I was not being held accountable (because I didn't look for anyone to do so). So, some things were done in my name that I should have put a stop to, and didn't, because it was more comfortable not to. Now these things are my responsibility and I have to live with the fact that I was simply not proactive and the consequences of this are going to be far reaching and painful to me and my family.
So, I'm repenting. I am not just saying I'm sorry, I am actively changing my behavior. From now on I am holding that person accountable. In fact, I am no longer offering them the trust that the person once had. This is not vengeance or anger. It is simply the fact that I cannot and never should have had a zero-accountability relationship. This person may well see me as "throwing them under the bus" because I am taking away the trust, but that's just too bad. It hurts me to do it, but I have to.
Secondly, I am going to talk to a couple of people I trust about more of the details. I've got people I can trust with whom I can talk far away, but I am going to talk to a couple local men who are filled with the Holy Spirit and to whom I am going to give full permission to speak into my life. I will specifically charge them with guiding me and mentoring me to be a better leader so these things won't happen.
I have confessed. I am repenting. God forgave me. But there is STILL suffering.
Here's the thing, the suffering from this point on, while I definitely deserve it, is not coming as punishment. Rather, because of the continued suffering after repentance and forgiveness, the suffering is not in vane. I am suffering, badly. But, this is so that God can bring even greater triumph into my life and show his power.
"I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.” (John 16:33)
"strengthening the souls of the disciples and encouraging them to continue in the faith. 'We must endure many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,' they said." (Acts 14:22)
"and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him" (Romans 8:17).
"For just as the sufferings of Christ overflow to us, so also through Christ our comfort overflows" (II Cor. 1:5).
"And our hope for you is sure, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you will share in our comfort." (II Cor. 1:8).
"I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to Him in His death," (Phil 3:10).
"Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church" (Col. 1:24).
"if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us;" (II Tim. 2:12).
Sunday, May 22, 2016
Grace for a Miracle
Your grace is sufficient for me, and yet,
I was not sent into that wilderness
to die, but that You could show strength and let
me know my weakness and to see You bless.
I was not sent into that wilderness
to die, but that You could show strength and let
me know my weakness and to see You bless.
Your grace is enough but by Your design,
it was not might, nor power, but Your Spirit
that brought down the walls of cities, now mine,
and steered the sling at giants that jeered It.
it was not might, nor power, but Your Spirit
that brought down the walls of cities, now mine,
and steered the sling at giants that jeered It.
Your grace is all I need, but still I ask
to muster faith the size of mustard seed
to see You work an impossible task
and save me, again, in this time of need.
It is by Your grace my soul moves
and lives.
Your grace is all, because it’s all there is.
Your grace is all, because it’s all there is.
5/22/20
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)