Different Strokes, Part II

As I was reading last night, I found Genesis 25:27 to strike me as fascinating:

When the boys grew up, Esau became an expert hunter, an outdoorsman, but Jacob was a quiet man who stayed at home.

As you may recall, these brothers were twins, born from the same womb at the same time, sired by the same father.

Yet they had totally different natures.

I'm sometimes discouraged that I'm not the outdoorsy, hard-working, energetic man my father is, so that I could be of more help to him around his house. I'm pretty confident that I disappoint him in this regard.

Reading this passage from Genesis helps to soothe my ruffled feathers about this issue though, as it's clear that God has given each of us our own nature.

I remember hearing someone once explain that the famous passage in Proverbs 22:6 actually means "train up a child according to his bent", and I see that the Amplified Version thus renders it:

Train up a child in the way he should go [and in keeping with his individual gift or bent], and when he is old he will not depart from it.

Again, the implication here is that we each have our own nature; some of us are born to be athletes; some are born to be musicians; some are born to be thinkers.

I would love to be more helpful to my dad around the house, but it's just not my nature, any more than it was Jacob's nature. (But unlike Jacob, I don't cook, nor do I swindle my siblings out of their birthright.)

One more point before leaving this passage: here's another Biblical example of "variation on a theme". Very often in discussions with evolutionists I find that they don't get the difference between "Evolution" and "variation on a theme".

"Variation on a theme" is Biblical; you can see it in this passage, and in the whole story of the earth's population in all its colors and sizes descending from Noah and his three sons, and in the passage just a bit farther in Genesis when Jacob does selective breeding.

Variation on a theme is the idea that a pair of ancestral dogs got off the ark and then "evolved" into jackals and dingoes and wolves and foxes and Chihuahas and St. Bernards, but this variation comes about by loss or rearrangement of existing genetic information.

"Evolution", as in "microbe-to-Man", requires new genetic information to come into existence.

Yet when evolutionists are asked for evidence of Evolution, they inevitably trot out examples of "variation on a theme", such as microbes becoming resistant to antibiotics (caused by a loss of the ability to process a certain protein) or light moths "evolving" into dark moths (a mere rearranging in the "popularity" of one set of genetic information over another), or fruit-flies irradiated in the lab developing a second set of wings (a mere duplication of already-existing genetic information).

What evolutionists need to demonstrate is the development of new, never-before-existing genetic information (and lots of it!); otherwise their inadequate examples of Evolution makes Evolutionists of even the staunchest Creationists, for Creationists believe in this type of "micro-evolution", or more aptly, "variation on a theme".

The Bible vs My Comfort-Zone, aka Intersections, Part IV

In previous posts I've mentioned how I prayed a prayer recently at church that turned out to be beyond the comfort-zone of some in that church, and expressed that we should welcome those things that are Biblical, even if they challenge our comfort zones.

Ever since the issue was raised by some who were not comfortable with my prayer, I've been praying that those folks would have their eyes opened to this notion that we should give preference to Biblical activities over those which are merely traditional. I've also prayed, alongside that request, that I would have my eyes opened if my blindnesses are causing me to be in error. I didn't think I was in error; didn't even see how I could possibly be in error - after all, my prayer was taken straight out of the New Testament, having been written by Paul, and having been recorded at God's direction. What could be wrong with it?

However, it seems that God has indeed, just this morning, opened my eyes to at least one aspect in which I'm in error.

One of the people I talked to earlier, who was bothered by my prayer, mentioned the possibility of someone laying prostrate in church during a prayer. Not much emphasis was put on the comment, and it didn't really register in my consciousness at the time.

However, this morning, I realized that if someone came in and was asked to lead a prayer, and commenced doing so by first lying prostrate on the ground, my gut reaction would be to think, "Wow, this guy is weird. Is he just doing that for show?"

In other words, I would react toward this guy exactly the way these other brethren of mine reacted toward me. If they have any "guilt" in their reaction, I am just as guilty as they.

Is it wrong for this guy to pray while laying prostrate because it's too weird, while I'm in the right because I'm only a little weird? Or is it wrong for this guy, but right for me, because "I'm right and he's not"? What a hypocrite I turned out to be.

So what is the solution? Should we stick to our traditions and shun those things that challenge our comfort zones, even if they are Biblical? Or should we endeavor to challenge our comfort zones on a regular basis as "exercise" in preparation for when the challenges come, as suggested in my last post? Or what?

At this point, I'm leaning toward accepting those things which are Biblical, even if they challenge our comfort zones. But I definitely need to look to my own eye-located planks before trying to clean out the speck of sawdust in the eyes of my brothers.

The Bible vs Your Comfort-Zone

We're all guilty of it; we grow up with certain traditions, and never question the Biblicality of those traditions, and we assume that traditions with which we're unfamiliar are unBiblical.

For example, in my church background, the collection (or contribution) has always been taken up after the bread and cup of the Lord's Supper was served. Sometimes it's mentioned that the collection is not part of the Lord's Supper, but since all the "servers" are in place, it's just a convenient time to pass the plate. No problem with that. But I suspect that if, at such a church, the collection was taken just before the passing of the bread and cup, quite a few folks would have a cow. (And we know beef is not authorized as part of the Lord's Supper....)

Another example, again from my church background. The singing has always been led by a man standing at the front of the auditorium (usually in front of a microphone), and there's basically been a pattern of 2 songs, a prayer, another song, the Lord's Supper, a song, the sermon, an invitation song, final announcements, and a closing song followed by a closing prayer. (There are minor variations on this pattern, but most in the churches of Christ would recognize this pattern.) What would happen if instead of following this pattern, the preacher gave his sermon first thing, and then came the singing uninterrupted by other activities, led not by a man standing at a microphone in the front of the crowd but by a man sitting with a microphone, essentially invisible to the congregrants, followed by the remainder of normal procedures to close out? I think again, people would take offense, and try to maneuver this change as unBiblical, or perhaps just disruptive and therefore wrong, or perhaps just as change for the sake of change and therefore wrong on that count.

Heaven forbid that the preacher sit while preaching his sermon, as Jesus did on at least one occasion (Luke 4:20).

My point is that it's human nature to allow our traditions to become doctrines, even to the point of shunning what would otherwise be a Biblical practice (sitting while teaching - Luke 4:20, lifting of hands in prayer - 1 Tim 2:8, women covering their heads when praying - 1 Cor 11:5ff, fasting as a church - Acts 13:2,3, etc).

Note that I'm not necessarily advocating these things; I'm just saying they're Biblical, and should therefore be acceptable in any church belonging to Christ, even if they're beyond our normal comfort zone. I also am suggesting that our failure to regularly challenge our comfort zones has made us weak, resulting in a tenacious clinging to our traditions, in essence making them commandments of men.

Would love to hear your comments.

Different Strokes ...

Over the past few months I've come to a realization: People are different.

I don't care much for art, or classical music, or sports. Other people live for those things.

I tend to enjoy relatively quiet spaces, with friends and good conversations. Other people thrive on flashing lights and deafening music and throngs of people moving and jostling.

Different strokes for different folks.

The same is true of church personalities. One church might have a "liberal" feel, while another has a "strict" feel, while another is somewhere in between.

I tend to need something in between, and have thought this is the healthy condition of a church, and therefore is the condition we should aim for. By extension, I thought that a church too liberal or too strict is unhealthy.

But people are different. The church I attend is exactly what some people need. If that church were to change its personality, those people would no longer have a place to attend.

Wanting to spur growth in a church is good. But sometimes such growth might change the personality of the church, eliminating it as a refuge for those people who needed it to have its original personality. Has the change then done more good, or more damage?

Intersections, Part III

A few entries ago I mentioned praying a prayer at church that I was afraid might disturb some folks, and was surprised that no one questioned me about it.

I have since learned that some people thought I looked like Elvis, going down on one knee, mic stand in hand, and it seems that some folks got the idea I was trying to be showy.

As mentioned in my previous blog entry:

It was definitely difficult to do, but as soon as I read that passage weeks ago, I felt compelled to do this. I'm thankful that God gave me the opportunity and the guts to carry through.

If this were a showy "Look at me" thing", I don't think it would be difficult, nor would I be needing guts to do it.

I remember being in junior high or high school years ago and an old man kneeled once while leading a public prayer. That made a big impression on me. And it's never crossed my mind that he was doing it as a "Look at me" thing. Rather, I learned that day to question my normal way of doing things (I've never been an expert at applying this lesson, but I hold it dear to my heart). Whatever educational "shock value" I may have intended was more of a "Hey. This is Biblical. Open your eyes" (figuratively about the eye opening, although a literal opening of the eyes in prayer is Biblical also).

It's regrettable that I appeared Elvis-like in my action and left the impression with some that I was trying to be showy.

Quite a few folks were bothered that I left off from my prayer the phrase "In Jesus' name". This I did because Paul left it out of his prayer. That's all it was.

Nevertheless, some got the impression that I was intentionally trying to cause a disturbance when they read this blurb from my earlier blog entry:

So I read a prayer instead of coming up with my own; I kneeled; and I did not use the formulaic "In Jesus' name, Amen".

I really expected that it might disturb some folks, but no one said anything....

That was bad wording on my part. What I intended was, "I was nervous that one or more of these 'oddities' might disturb some folks...", not that it was my intention to disturb them.

My intention was to pray a Biblical prayer and in the process to show my brethren that the New Testament allows more freedom than our traditions sometimes allow. It was not my intention to disturb people, but neither was I averse to poking them in the ribs and saying, "Pay attention; this is Biblical".

It has since been pointed out to me that although eating of meats is okay, it's not okay when it offends a brother. The implication is that I should not be poking brethren in the ribs for educational purposes. I'm not entirely sure I agree that applies here, but I'm not sure it doesn't apply either. So in deference to these brethren, I'll be using the phrase "In Jesus' name" in future public prayers at church.

Some hours later after the discussion, I think the main thought in my head is this:

A prayer written by the Apostle Paul, and recorded by God for the benefit of his church, is unacceptable to some brethren if prayed as written.

I have to admit, that bothers me a great deal.

We all parted on friendly and brotherly terms. I'm sure I'll be looked at with some suspicion, and that's okay. As long as I can be true to God and my understanding of the scriptures, even if I have to be somewhat quiet about those things (which is Biblical - Rom 14:22), being "suspect" is acceptable.

I pray that God is made to look good through all of this, and that we all grow as a result. And whatever growth and praise to God results, it's by the power of Jesus Christ.

The comment lines are open.

My New Bible

I finished reading "The Message" about a month ago, and had the hardest time finding a new Bible version to start reading. I finally settled on the Holman Illustrated Study Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Holman-Illustrated-Study-Bible-Christian/dp/1586402757).

Here's what I wrote about it to a friend:

The new Bible draws me; I haven't had as much time to read it as I'd like; I've only gotten through Gen. 11 so far. But I pretty much like it so far. I've been irritated to find three typos in the accompanying material (Introduction, captions on pictures, etc), but I haven't seen any in the Bible text itself. But those typos create in my deep psyche the idea that the workmanship on this Bible is shoddy. Another part of me thinks the workmanship on this Bible is very good. But very many more typos and that deeper psyche part may get stronger; it's a definite negative for me.

I also didn't like their "How to be saved" page, which was very, for lack of another term, "Baptist-y". I know the majority of Christians in America believe one is saved by praying the "Sinner's Prayer" (perhaps you do also), but I just don't find the "Sinner's Prayer" in the New Testament, anywhere. I believe the New Testament teaches that one is saved by God's grace through the process of a person turning to and committing to Jesus as The Way, but that it's "made official" by the "signing on the dotted line" at immersion (traditionally (and wrongly, in my estimation) rendered "baptism"). It's at that point that one is buried to the old dead life, and then raised into a newness of life, according to Romans 6:3ff. It is after immersion that the Ethiopian eunuch "went on his way rejoicing", not before (Acts 8:39). It is at the point of immersion that one's sins are forgiven, and the gift of the Holy Spirit is given (Acts 2:38). It is at the point of immersion that one is added to the church (Acts 2:41,47). As Peter puts it, "baptism ... now saves you", but it's not the physical act of getting dunked that saves; Peter continues: "[it's] not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God" (1 Peter 3:21). So as I understand it, immersion is the "signing of the contract", the pledge made official. That's not to say that God can't make exceptions as he sees fit; I think he's more interested in the heart of a person than in the technical legalities (and besides, Jesus was immersed, not because he needed it, but so that he could fulfill the technical legalities for us -- "to fulfill all right-ness" (Matt. 3:15), which right-ness he gives to us as a free gift). But I think it's a dangerous thing for humans to preach a method of salvation that can't even be found in the New Testament. I think perhaps the people who preach this doctrine have never paid attention to the conversions recorded in the book of Acts, all of which include immersion as an integral part of salvation. If the Apostles were to attend a modern day "Gospel Meeting", I think they'd be stunned that no one was getting immersed; the Apostles always immersed their converts at their "Gospel Meetings". I tend to think we should tend to do things Biblically rather than inventing our own methods.

(I realize that the differences in culture necessitate some invention on our part, and prevent the exact duplication of Biblical methods, but I think that adhering to Biblical methods should be our general course of action.)

I also realize that other people place more emphasis on "being led by the Spirit" (perhaps such as the "Charismatics"), and other people place more emphasis on tradition (perhaps such as Catholics, relying on church tradition), but I believe the black-and-white of the text indicates that we should stick with the black-and-white of the text, as indicated by Paul when he wrote, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal. 1:8)

Again, let me make it clear that I'm not saying anyone who has failed to be immersed in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins is unsaved -- I believe God can save who he wants when he wants based on his criteria, and that he seems to place greater emphasis on the heart than on the outward technicalities. But what I am saying is that we humans have no business ignoring the first century examples of conversion in favor of something that's not even found in the New Testament.

Some people claim that the thief on the cross gave us an example of the "Sinner's Prayer", but there's at least three flaws in this thinking: 1) This was before Jesus' command to make disciples, immersing them. 2) Jesus has the right to make exceptions to his rules anyway; we don't. 3) There's a good chance that the thief was immersed (Matt 3:5-6), which would invalidate the claim that he was saved before/without immersion.

All that to say, I don't like my new Bible's page on "How to be saved"; I believe it's unBiblical.

But I think this Bible as a whole has a lot of great potential. I was surprised last night to find that when it's talking about the people in Babel all having one language in Gen 11:1, the literal phrase is "one lip and the same words". Not that this is important; I just found it interesting. And as I was reading the Table of Nations in Genesis 10, it really helped to have a map on the same page that was color-coded to the three sons' families, along with many of the city names mentioned. I have a better grip on the dispersal of the human race across EuroAsia than I've ever had. There have been several little things like that.

As mentioned, I haven't really gotten into it far enough to really know for sure how well I like it, or if I'd recommend it. But so far, yeah, I think I like it pretty well.

W00t! I'm Famous!

The preacher at a local church asked the congregants to list their favorite song-writers. Someone in the group thought more highly of a family member than she did of the "professionals", and the result is that my name is now listed in the middle of some big names in the music biz at the preacher's blog: http://blog.heartlight.org/phil/2007/08/such_diversity.html

It's rather meaningless, really, but wow; it sure is an ego boost.

I Am Too a Grouch!

A friend and I were talking about our "Signature Personality Strengths" we learned several years ago from taking an online test. He stated that he couldn't remember his, and I stated, in jest, that the only ones I could remember were that I was Grouchy and Lazy.

He responded that he's never associated "grouchy" with me.

So I suggested "whiny". (I have been accused of this - see last post as an example of my whinyness.) He thought for a second, shook his head, and said, "No-o-o, not whiny either."

Wow. Cool.

But notice, he didn't dispute my "lazy" characteristic. D'oh!

Online Newspapers: Identify your Locale!

Some of the web sites I visit regularly (drudgereport.com, wind.com, fark.com, etc) often link me to pages on other sites. Sometimes these pages are on a local newspaper's site, and the story may or may not have a byline indentifying the city. But in many, many cases, there is no indication whatsoever of what state or country that city is in. What makes it worse is the ads along the side urging the readers to visit "Historic St. Augustine". Okay, okay, I'll come spend my money in your city, if you'll just tell me where it is!!

So lame. So lame.

Intersections, Part II

You may remember that in an earlier post I mentioned Paul's prayer in Ephesians 3 and how it would make a good prayer to pray at church some time when asked to lead a public prayer.

Last night was the night. We had singing instead of our normal class time, so the feel was slightly more informal than usual. When I went up to lead the closing prayer, I said that I didn't mean to disturb anyone, but instead of me leading the closing prayer, I was going to let the Apostle Paul lead it. I then grabbed the microphone and went down on one knee (I've never seen anyone kneel in prayer at this church before (but then, I've only been there two years)), and with one hand holding a New King James Version Bible and the other hand holding the microphone (which I couldn't get loose from the stand, so I just took the whole stand down with me) I prayed (changing the personal pronouns as needed):

I kneel before you, Oh Father, from whom your whole family in heaven and on earth derives its name. I pray that out of your glorious riches you may strengthen us with power through your Spirit in our inner being, so that Christ may dwell in our hearts through faith. And I pray that we, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge—that we may be filled to the measure of all your fullness.

Now to you who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to your power that is at work within us, to you be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen.

So I read a prayer instead of coming up with my own; I kneeled; and I did not use the formulaic "In Jesus' name, Amen".

I really expected that it might disturb some folks, but no one said anything, except for a friend who said, "No one could have said it better" (referring to Paul, not me, of course).

Of course, it may be that I'll hear some comments later. Or it may be that I won't ever be asked to lead prayer again. Or perhaps everyone had already closed their eyes by the time I knelt, and never focused back on me until after I was back up, so that there would only be two oddities to them rather than three.

It was definitely difficult to do, but as soon as I read that passage weeks ago, I felt compelled to do this. I'm thankful that God gave me the opportunity and the guts to carry through.

Drugs for Depression and Demon Possession

If you're on some sort of anti-depressant drug, or hear voices, or have anger issues, or just need something worth-while to read, I urge you to read this article:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57143

It's in God's Hands

I started to make a post of some of the highlights of the book of Ecclesiastes, but I wound up quoting so much of the book that instead I'll just encourage you to read this short book for yourself. You'll know in a chapter or two if it's going to speak to you in whatever stage of life you are in; if not now, save it for later, perhaps when you're wondering "What's the point?". I suggest you read it in The Message version; it'll kick at you harder in that version. Here it is online: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ecclessiastes%201;&version=65;

Plows to Swords to Plows

Joel 3:9ff --

Proclaim this among the nations:
Prepare for war!
Rouse the warriors!
Let all the fighting men draw near and attack.
Beat your plowshares into swords
and your pruning hooks into spears.

Isaiah 2:4 --

He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.

Fascinating Yin for Yang. I've never noticed that before.

Wives the foundation of Civilization

I recently read an article on Islamic polygamy, and one of the commentators to the article had this to say, which I found interesting:

Car insurance companies hire statisticians. Those statisticians have found that indeed, young men are reckless. They have also found that once those young men are married, literally, "settled down" they become less reckless as now they must be providers. In general, wives keep their husbands in line and out of trouble.

What does polygamy do? Imagine a population of 50 men and 50 women. Where each man will take 2 wives if he can. Well, you will potentially have 25 men with 2 wives apiece, and 25 single men. And those 25 single men will be society's worst nightmare: reckless, criminal, irresponsible.

Monogamy is the foundation of modern civilization. A wife to control all men, a father to control all children. Children without fathers and men without wives, will be the downfall of any civilization.

Parallels: Genesis and John

In the first two chapters of Genesis we learn that in the beginning, God created the earth with his word.

The creation took six days.

At the end of that six days, there was a marriage.

Had Adam reached over and plucked a peach from a tree, the tree would have appeared years old, but it was only three days old.

===

In the first two chapters of John we learn that in the beginning, God created the earth with his word.

And then there was a marriage.

At the marriage were six jugs of water, which were turned to wine.

When the wine was drunk, it was a fine wine, as if it were the product of months, or perhaps years, of vine growth and tending, yet it was only minutes old.

---
Adapted from Session 2 of Dr. Jobe Martin's DVD set, "The Evolution of a Creationist"

Concerning the Right to Bear Arms

Remember this ...

When in a life-threatening situation where seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

- Bud B. - Virginia Beach

Wisdom from Peter

Since Jesus went through everything you're going through and more, learn to think like him. Think of your sufferings as a weaning from that old sinful habit of always expecting to get your own way. Then you'll be able to live out your days free to pursue what God wants instead of being tyrannized by what you want.

1 Peter 4:1-3

Wow! Break the habit of expecting to get your own way, and stop being tyrannized by your wants. Just, wow!

Wisdom from James

A word out of your mouth may seem of no account, but it can accomplish nearly anything—or destroy it!

It only takes a spark, remember, to set off a forest fire. A careless or wrongly placed word out of your mouth can do that. By our speech we can ruin the world, turn harmony to chaos, throw mud on a reputation, send the whole world up in smoke and go up in smoke with it, smoke right from the pit of hell.

James 3:5ff

Intersections

While reading from The Message a few weeks ago I came across a prayer in Ephesians 3 which I thought would be a good prayer to pray sometime when asked to lead prayer publicly at church.

Then last night I was reading a site concerning Jewish holidays, and the page I was reading ended with that prayer. It struck me how that this prayer has intersected in my life from two different directions.

Also last night, I gave a letter to a young lady at church who was immersed last year. A week or two after her immersion, I wrote her a letter with the hopes that it would be an encouragement to her, and this one last night was a similarly-motivated letter, celebrating her first year birthday in the Lord. One of the points I had made was to encourage her to make her daily choices with the thought in her head of glorifying God with each choice. Another point was that she's a Princess-daughter of the King, married to the Prince, but although she's royalty, she's currently having to live among the peasants in mud shacks until the Prince returns, and while there, she needs to share her affections for her Prince with her peasant neighbors, who will then fall in love with him also, and be able to join in the celebration when he returns.

Then, after I had given her this letter, while I was doing my daily Bible reading last night, I came across two passages from 1 Peter that echoed the two points I had made to this young lady.

Concerning honoring God with daily choices:

Your life is a journey you must travel with a deep consciousness of God. -- 1 Peter 1:18

Concerning her life's example to her peasant neighbors:

Friends, this world is not your home, so don't make yourselves cozy in it. Don't indulge your ego at the expense of your soul. Live an exemplary life among the natives so that your actions will refute their prejudices. Then they'll be won over to God's side and be there to join in the celebration when he arrives. -- 1 Peter 2:11-12

Again, interesting intersections.

Mom --> Broadband

Yea! I just got Mom on broadband!

W00t!

Why Suicide Bombers are Usually Muslim

Psychology Today has an article that deals with Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature. I don't buy the evolutionary assumptions made in the article (the theory explains everything, and a theory that explains everything explains nothing), so I'm hesitant to recommend the article, but one of the "politically-incorrect truths" caught my attention. The author of the article writes:

Suicide missions are not always religiously motivated, but according to Oxford University sociologist Diego Gambetta, editor of Making Sense of Suicide Missions, when religion is involved, the attackers are always Muslim. Why? The surprising answer is that Muslim suicide bombing has nothing to do with Islam or the Quran (except for two lines). It has a lot to do with sex, or, in this case, the absence of sex.

What distinguishes Islam from other major religions is that it tolerates polygyny. By allowing some men to monopolize all women and altogether excluding many men from reproductive opportunities, polygyny creates shortages of available women. If 50 percent of men have two wives each, then the other 50 percent don't get any wives at all.

So polygyny increases competitive pressure on men, especially young men of low status. It therefore increases the likelihood that young men resort to violent means to gain access to mates. By doing so, they have little to lose and much to gain compared with men who already have wives. Across all societies, polygyny makes men violent, increasing crimes such as murder and rape, even after controlling for such obvious factors as economic development, economic inequality, population density, the level of democracy, and political factors in the region.

However, polygyny itself is not a sufficient cause of suicide bombing. Societies in sub-Saharan Africa and the Caribbean are much more polygynous than the Muslim nations in the Middle East and North Africa. And they do have very high levels of violence. Sub-Saharan Africa suffers from a long history of continuous civil wars—but not suicide bombings.

The other key ingredient is the promise of 72 virgins waiting in heaven for any martyr in Islam. The prospect of exclusive access to virgins may not be so appealing to anyone who has even one mate on earth, which strict monogamy virtually guarantees. However, the prospect is quite appealing to anyone who faces the bleak reality on earth of being a complete reproductive loser.

It is the combination of polygyny and the promise of a large harem of virgins in heaven that motivates many young Muslim men to commit suicide bombings. Consistent with this explanation, all studies of suicide bombers indicate that they are significantly younger than not only the Muslim population in general but other (nonsuicidal) members of their own extreme political organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah. And nearly all suicide bombers are single.

Being a single male wondering where the women are, and remembering the younger years especially, I can understand the motivation that 72 waiting virgins might provide to a hormone-addled young man to do whatever it takes to gain access to that prize.

“Human Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” in Romans 8:26?

(Scripture quotations from the KJV unless otherwise noted.)

In Romans 8:26 we read:

26Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

It has been argued that this “Spirit” is the human spirit rather than the holy spirit. The case is made that the context of this passage, starting at least in chapter 7 and perhaps earlier, is of the basic struggle between the fleshly part of a human and the spiritual part of a human. This can be seen by comparing 7:18 where Paul writes:

18For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing

and 7:22 where he writes:

22For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

The argument is made that the basic flesh-vs-spirit struggle is reiterated in verse 26: our flesh, being against God, has infirmities, but our spirit, being in favor of God, makes intercession for our faults.

It's a fairly strong argument, but I believe it fails on three points.

The first failure point is that Paul uses a phrase similar to verse 26 in Galatians 4:6:

6And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

As was noted in Part 1 of this essay, Paul often “recycles” his sermons as he writes to different church groups. This particular case appears to be an example of one of those recycled sermon points. In Romans, the spirit intercedes in prayer by making groanings that can not be uttered; in Galatians, the spirit, which has been sent into our hearts, prays to God as Abba (Aramaic for “Papa”).

The spirit in each passage performs a similar function of praying-crying/interceding-groaning. It seems likely that both passages are referring to the same spirit.

Since the spirit in Galatians is identified as the Spirit of God's Son, it seems likely that the spirit in Romans is also the Spirit of God's Son (aka, the Holy Spirit).

The second failure point of the argument that the spirit in Romans is the human spirit comes from the grammar of verse 26. Note that the subject of the clause, “the spirit”, as well as the verb, “maketh intercession” are in the singular form, whereas the direct object, “us”, is plural (at least in this English translation; if the underlying Greek does not support this point, it may be dispensed with without injury to the other two points). The passage thus says “the one spirit makes intercession for the many of us”. If “the spirit” in this passage were the human spirit, it would make more sense for Paul to have written something like “our spirits make intercession for us” or “a person's spirit makes intercession for that person”.

The third failure point is the structure of the immediate context. Note that Paul uses the word “likewise” in verse 26. What does he mean? Like what?

Outlining the passage makes it more clear:

1. The whole creation has been groaning – verse 22
2. Not only the creation, but we ourselves groan inwardly – verse 23
3. Likewise, the spirit groans, helping us by interceding for us – verse 26
   

Paul already covers the case of our human spirit groaning in verse 23 (we groan “inwardly”). If the spirit in verse 26 is the human spirit, Paul would essentially be saying “we groan; likewise we groan”, which doesn't make much sense.

Conclusion: The spirit referred to in Romans 8:26 is probably the “Holy Spirit” rather than the “Human Spirit”.

“Human Spirit” or “Holy Spirit” in 2 Corinthians 5:5?

(Scripture quotations from the KJV unless otherwise noted.)

In 2 Corinthians 5:4-5 we read:

4For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
5Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.

It has been argued that this “Spirit” is the human spirit, that the existence of our eternal human spirit serves as a “down-payment” (“earnest”) of immortality.

The Apostle Paul, as any preacher might do, often “recycles” his sermons as he presents them to different churches (perhaps “tweaking” the lesson over time, as any preacher might do); he even mentions this habit in 1 Corinthians 4:17:

For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church.

The idea of the “spirit being a guarantee” seems to be one of those topics that Paul presents to different church groups. He writes of it to the Corinthian church (as quoted above), and he writes of it to the Ephesian church, as here from Ephesians 1:12-14:

12That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

In the Ephesian passage however, Paul “tweaks” his sermon by adding the word “holy”.

In both passages the spirit performs the same function, serving as a down-payment (“earnest”) of “our inheritance until the redemption” (“mortality swallowed up in life”). This indicates that both passages are referring to the same spirit.

Since Paul identifies the spirit in the Ephesians passage as the “holy spirit”, it seems reasonable to conclude that the spirit in the Corinthians passage is also the “holy spirit”.

Conclusion: The spirit referred to in 2 Corinthians 5:5 is probably the “Holy Spirit” rather than the “Human Spirit”.

Why Radical Islam Breeds Murder

Here is an interesting article by a former Islamist radical.

The author, a former member of the British Jihadi Network, writes that he left the organization in February 2006 because he realized "that its members had simply become mindless killers".

In the article, he claims that the cause of Islamic violence is not poverty, or political oppression, etc, but rather because of a radical offshoot of the basic Islamic paradigm. He says the basic paradigm has been developed over the years that there are two types of nations in the world: The Land of Islam, and The Land of Unbelief.

However, Islamic radicals have gone two steps beyond that:
1) They claim there is no pure Land of Islam, and therefore the whole world must be the Land of Unbelief, and
2) since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they've declared war on the whole world.

The author goes on to write:

Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.
In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

He charges that this state of affairs, at least in Britain, is because no one is willing to discuss theology, and thus a vacuum has been created in which radicalism has flourished.

He argues that the solution is for both Muslims and non-Muslims to open up discussions about theology.

And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.

I am in agreement with this Muslim that open discussion can lead to solutions. Life is filled with examples of damage done because someone is unwilling to deal with the issues and get the issues out in the open, whether it's a secret addiction to sleeping pills, or a teenager's angst over not being accepted by the popular kids, or an entire culture's angst at discussing religious issues. As the Creator of the universe once said, "The Truth shall set you Free".

It Falls Into Place

Every once in a while it just feels like everything falls into place.

Last Saturday I was able to be productive in getting a door re-hung at Nesa's house, and installing a doorknob, and hanging a ceiling fan, and plunging her bathtub drain sufficiently for it to start slowly draining. (I've been dreading crawling under the house to solve this drainage problem.)

Then about Tuesday I was able to help put some new mower blades on Dad's tractor; it went quick and easy. What's up with that?

Friday Nesa bought some drain-clearing chemicals and poured them down her tub drain. We had tried this before, but without success. But this time, thank Jesus (no vanity intended), it worked. So unless the chemicals burned a hole in the pipes and the water is just pouring out onto the ground, that job is fixed (at least for now) Yea!!

I've been without a lawn mower this season and have been at the mercy of the neighborhood kids to mow the lawn. They've been unreliable, and with the uncommonly wet season we've had, the weeds have climbed up into the three-to-six foot range. Yikes!

I have a couple of mowers, but neither works. But last night I found a mower mechanic down the street who charges a mere $10 plus parts to repair them. W00t! So soon I'll have a mower. In the meanwhile, one of the neighborhood kids finally got around to mowing my lawn. Yea!!

And I finally got the part I needed to repair my ceiling fan in my bedroom; it's been hard doing without a fan with the summer heat. So I got that repaired, and the fan is now working. Yea!!

My truck which has been overheating severely when I drive just part way across town, suddenly stopped overheating, like a blockage cleared up or something. I know it's probably not a permanent cure, but for a 17-year old truck that's ready to be retired, it should give me a little more use without putting a lot of money into it. Yea!!

My unexplained discomfort in my gut, for which the doctors couldn't find a cause, seems to have suddenly cleared up. Yea!!

A fraudulent charge on my credit card (which I haven't used in 2 years, as I've learned to never use credit cards again and am just paying them off) was finally resolved this week. Yea!!

In about one week, I'm paying off one of my two remaining credit cards (and will be able to start applying those payments to the last remaining card). Yea!!

My checking account looks like it's going to end up in more black than usual this month. Yea!!

There's nothing major in all of this; it's just that it seems that many things are falling into place. Praise God that we sometimes get some good happenings in this fallen world!

Two Lessons Learned Today

1.
"THE AMERICAN INDIANS FOUND OUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T CONTROL IMMIGRATION." -- anonymous

2.
"[A]n extra dollar earned, because of federal, state, and Social Security taxes, is typically $0.55 to $0.65 more in your pocket. A dollar reduction in spending, however is $1 towards solving your budget problem." -- http://www.claytoncramer.com/rich/BecomeWealthy.html

The Muse is Mute

I tried to write a song last night about my co-worker Chris going fishing. Gettin' up before first light, scramblin' an egg and washin' it down with Dr. Pepper, collectin' his gear and tossin' it in the back of his old Ford truck, etc etc etc.

But the song just wouldn't come.

I've had the notion -- but don't know how seriously I believe it -- that my unrequited love came upon my heart at the same time I got a guitar for the explicit purpose that I'd turn to my guitar as comfort, and it's there and then that my song-writing ability "flourished" (anyone who has heard me sing my songs would understand why I put "flourished" in quotes).

Now that I no longer need the comfort of song-writing, that ability seems to have left me. A fair trade-off I reckon.

The Tail-End of Romans 7

The tail-end of Romans 7, from The Message:

What I don't understand about myself is that I decide one way, but then I act another, doing things I absolutely despise. So if I can't be trusted to figure out what is best for myself and then do it, it becomes obvious that God's command is necessary.

But I need something more! For if I know the law but still can't keep it, and if the power of sin within me keeps sabotaging my best intentions, I obviously need help! I realize that I don't have what it takes. I can will it, but I can't do it. I decide to do good, but I don't really do it; I decide not to do bad, but then I do it anyway. My decisions, such as they are, don't result in actions. Something has gone wrong deep within me and gets the better of me every time.

It happens so regularly that it's predictable. The moment I decide to do good, sin is there to trip me up. I truly delight in God's commands, but it's pretty obvious that not all of me joins in that delight. Parts of me covertly rebel, and just when I least expect it, they take charge.

I've tried everything and nothing helps. I'm at the end of my rope. Is there no one who can do anything for me? Isn't that the real question?

The answer, thank God, is that Jesus Christ can and does. He acted to set things right in this life of contradictions where I want to serve God with all my heart and mind, but am pulled by the influence of sin to do something totally different.

A Personal Note

I loved, and still do love, Andrea. But she's out of my life, and I've moved on.

I loved, and still do love, Christina. But she's out of my life, and I've moved on.

I loved, and still do love, Christa. But she's mostly out of my life, and I've mostly moved on. I realized this morning that I've mostly moved on. (Of course, I've thought that several times over the past few years, but this time I think it's really true. (Of course, I've thought it was really true before, but this time I think it's really, really true.)) I've known for some time it would eventually happen.

And things are copacetic.

The Folded Napkin

I don't know who originally wrote this.

WHY DID JESUS FOLD THE LINEN CLOTH AFTER HIS RESURRECTION?

The Gospel of John (20:7) tells us that the napkin, which was placed over the face of Jesus, was not just thrown aside like the grave clothes. The Bible takes an entire verse to tell us that the napkin was neatly folded, and was placed at the head of that stony coffin. Is that important? You'd better believe it! Is that significant? Absolutely! Is it really significant? Yes!

In order to understand the significance of the folded napkin, you have to understand a little bit about Hebrew tradition of that day. The folded napkin had to do with the Master and Servant, and every Jewish boy knew this tradition. When the servant set the dinner table for the master, he made sure that it was exactly the way the master wanted it. The table was furnished perfectly, and then the servant would wait, just out of sight, until the master had finished eating, and the servant would not dare touch that table, until the master was finished.

Now if the master was done eating, he would rise from the table, wipe his fingers, his mouth, and clean his beard, and would wad up that napkin and toss it onto the table. The servant would then know to clear the table.

For in those days, the wadded napkin meant, "I'm done". But if the master got up from the table, and folded his napkin, and laid it beside his plate, the servant would not dare touch the table, because the servant knew that the folded napkin meant, "I'm not finished yet."

The folded napkin meant, "I'm coming back!" He is Coming Back!

Which is It?

"more often than not"

or

"more often than naught"


Either one works, at least in some cases.

Is this Cussing?

I've mentioned before that The Message is a great version of the Bible just for reading; it twists your view ever so slightly so that you see things you've never noticed before.

Last night, I have to admit, the version shocked me. I was reading in Acts 8 about how the former pagan magician/wizard-cum-Christian Simon was enamored of all the miracles being performed by the apostles Peter and John, and how he offered them money in exchange for the ability to lay hands on others to give them the Holy Spirit.

Most of us are familiar with the traditional rendering of Peter's response: "May your money perish with you...".

Stop for a moment. Let that soak in.

Now read it from The Message: "To hell with your money! And you along with it."

Whoa!

My first response was shock. And then, as I realized that's exactly what Peter had said, laughter, not at the seriousness of the situation, but at how blind I've been to the seriousness of the situation. Once again, The Message enlivens the Word of God so that it's not just black text on a white background. This was real life, and Peter was serious about the offense made by Simon.

Praise be to God that Simon apparently cleaned up his act. I've never thought much more about Simon, except that he was sleazy. Now, after reading this text, I like to think that Simon started growing up at that point, and within a few years, was a lighthouse on a hill displaying to the world the glory of God.

First Tier Medical Helpdesk

Jonesy made an interesting observation today; he compared general practitioner doctors (the "family doctor") with front-line tech-support people. And that comparison made a lot of sense to me.

The GP's job is basically to say, "This is not a problem; this is a problem. That's not a problem; that is a problem," and then to pass the problem on up to a higher-level of tech support.

I want my doctor to be the higher level to start off with! Or failing that, at least not to charge me an arm and a leg, two weeks wait time, three days of missing work, and four days of drinking nasty chemicals, fasting, and getting poked and prodded, before getting bumped up to the higher level.

Worship With Your Body

In the church tradition in which I grew up, "worship" has been limited to a fairly narrow, rigid set of acts that have been determined to be "scriptural", with little room for variation (compared to the variation one might find in general "Christendom").

Over the past few years I've begun to question that mentality, which among other things looks askance at lifting of hands during worship, especially when I read such passages as 1 Timothy 2:8 which reads:

I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

Just now while doing some clean-up work on old email, I came across a message from a friend who made an interesting statement on an unrelated topic. She wrote:

I have often thought of how the Jews used their bodies in worship: hands, bowing down, etc.

And that clicked with me. Worship should involve the whole person, not just a portion of us. I've never understood what the value of raising hands might be, or of bowing, or of dancing (well, except for being happy), but this makes sense. Such activities involve our bodies in worship, and not just our minds, and thus draw a fuller portion of our spirits into worship.

I'm not suggesting we have a free-for-all in our assemblies; we do have a call to conduct ourselves decently and with order. I also realize that some folks just can't get past the mental block we've grown up with, and I would not want to exercise my freedom at the expense of their discomfort or offense. But it seems to me that by eliminating physical involvement in worship, we've short-changed ourselves from participating in an even closer communion with the source of true Life.

Of course, I reckon this now means I'll have to learn to kneel ....

Happy Shavu'ot!

As I understand it, today is the Jewish holiday of Shavu'ot, or "Feast of Weeks", or as it's called in the Greek of the New Testament, "Pentecost".

It celebrates the giving of the Torah on Mt Sinai to Moses and the Israelites, fifty days (hence "Pentecost") after the first day following the first Sabbath of Passover week. (My details may be slightly hazy.)

The other significant Shavu'ot for Christians occurred about 1500 years after that first one, and is detailed in Acts chapter 2. Following is a brief comparison of the two events.

SHAVUOT AT MT. SINAI	SHAVUOT ON MT. ZION (in Jerusalem)
Occurred 50 days after Firstfruits (the first day following the first Sabbath of Passover week, when the Passover lamb had been slain).	Occurred 50 days after Firstfruits (the first day following the first Sabbath of Passover week, when the true Lamb of God had been slain).
Commandments of God were written on tablets of stone	Commandments of God were written on human hearts (Jere. 31:33; 2 Cor. 3:3)
The commandments were written by the finger of God.	The commandments were written by the Spirit of God. (Heb. 8:10)
Three thousand were slain (Ex. 21:1-8, 26-28)	Three thousand were born again (Acts 2:38-41)
The letter of the Torah (Law) was given.	The Spirit of the Torah (Law) was bestowed (Rom. 2:29, 7:6).
The earth shook, fire descended, a mighty rushing wind blew, and they heard God's voice (Exodus 19)	A mighty wind blew, tongues of fire descended and many voices proclaimed God's message (Acts 2).
God took a group of slaves and made them into a nation that has survived persecutions, pograms, dispersion, and the Holocaust.	God took a group of illiterate Galileans and made them into a church that has survived and thrived for over 2,000 years.
Jewish tradition holds that when God spoke to Moses, He not only spoke in Hebrew but His voice split into 70 voices so that all the nations should understand.	All of the strangers from distant lands that were in Jerusalem during this celebration understood the message in their own language.
Two loaves of leavened barley bread (not just the grain, as at other feasts) were brought to the altar of God.	Two sinful peoples, Jews and Gentiles, were brought to the altar of God.

(Adapted from http://brenda.ratcliffs.net/weeks.htm, who credits John Hagee.)

Jesus Lives; here's a toaster

Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", writes:

I was just talking to a woman who decided to move into the roughest neighborhood in our city to try to help people get out of the cycle of poverty and despair ... Some other women in our church heard about Michelle and asked her for lists of what exactly the families in her neighborhood need. ... They then circulated the lists until they found people who could meet every one of the needs. It's like an underground mom-mafia network. Michelle told me at last count they had helped 430 families, and they are making plans to expand their network.

"Jesus lives; here's a toaster."

These are the kinds of people who change the world.

The Good News is Good News for Everyone

Rob Bell in his book, "Velvet Elvis", writes:

Imagine an average street.... Person X lives in a house on this street. Next door is a Hindu, and on the other side is a Muslim. Across the street is an atheist, next door to them an agnostic, and next door on the other side, someone from Ohio.

Imagine Person X becomes a Christian. ... Let's say she starts living out Jesus' teachings.... She is becoming more generous, more compassionate, more forgiving, more loving. Is she becoming a better or worse neighbor?

...

The good news of Jesus is good news for Person X. It's good news for Person X's neighbors. It's good news for the whole street. It's good news for people who don't believe in Jesus.

...

...the most powerful things happen when the church surrenders its desire to convert people and convince them to join. It is when the church gives itself away in radical acts of service and compassion, expecting nothing in return, that the way of Jesus is most vividly put on display. To do this, the church must stop thinking about everybody primarily in categories of in or out, saved or not, believer or unbeliever.

...

[But,] Oftentimes the Christian community has sent the message that we love people and build relationships in order to convert them to the Christian faith. So there is an agenda. And when there is an agenda, it isn't really love, is it? It's something else. We have to rediscover love, period.

The Church as a Blessing Machine

We reclaim the church as a blessing machine not only because that is what Jesus intended from the beginning but also because serving people is the only way their perceptions of church are ever going to change.

Rob Bell, "Velvet Elvis", p. 166

Renewing Creation: Jesus vs Caesar, Part 2

Rob Bell in his book, "Velvet Elvis", writes:

Not only were these first Christians subverting the dominant power structure of their world, but they were confident that the resurrected Christ was working in them and through them to reclaim God's dream for the world. ... [Luke wrote that] "God's grace was so powerfully at work in them that there were no needy persons among them."

...

Remember, the [Roman] caesars claimed they were the ones who provided for everyone and saved everyone and made the world a better place. For these first Christians, the question was, Who is Lord? Jesus or Caesar? Who orders society? Who provides for you? Who puts food on your table? Who brings peace to the world?

To be a part of the church was to join a countercultural society that was partnering with God to create a new kind of culture, right under the nose of the caesars. These Christians made sure everybody in their midst had enough to eat. They made sure everybody was able to pay their bills. They made sure there was enough to go around. The resurrection for them was not an abstract spiritual concept; it was a concrete social and economic reality. God raised Jesus from the dead to show the world that Jesus is Lord, and it is through his power and his example and his Spirit that the world is restored.

...

Everybody's god in the first century had risen from the dead. To claim a resurrection had occurred was nothing new: Julius Caesar himself was reported to have ascended to the right hand of the gods after his death. To try to prove there was an empty tomb wouldn't have gotten very far with the average citizen of the Roman Empire; they had heard it all before. This is why so many passages about the early church deal with possessions and meals and generosity. They understood that people are rarely persuaded by arguments, but more often by experiences. ... They saw it as their responsibility to put Jesus' message on display.

...

And so these first Christians passed on the faith to the next generation who passed it on to the next generation .... It is our turn to rediscover the beautiful, dangerous, compelling idea that a group of people, surrendered to God and to each other, really can change the world.

Renewing Creation: Jesus vs Caesar

Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", has this to say:

In the first century, the claim [made by early Christians] of restoration [of the originally-created paradise cosmos] had numerous social, political, and economic dimensions to it. The world was ruled by the Roman Empire, and the Roman Empire was ruled by a succession of emperors called caesars. The ceasars claimed they were sent by the gods to renew creation. Caesar Augustus believed that as the son of god, he was god incarnate on earth, the prince of peace who had come to restore all of creation. He inaugurated a twelve-day celebration called Advent to celebrate his birth. Sound familiar? His priests offered sacrifices and incense to rid people of their guilt. One of his popular slogans was "There is no other name under heaven by which men can be saved than that of Caesar." Another phrase they used often was "Caesar is Lord." Throughout the Roman Empire, the ceasars called on people to worship them as the divine saviors of humankind, and a city that acknowledged Caesar as Lord was called an ekklesia.

Christians will recognize how the early church co-opted these phrases for their own new Lord, Jesus, and even called their assemblies by the name ekklesia (church), thereby contrasting the claims of the caesars with the claims of Jesus.

Rob then goes on to point out the stratified nature of Roman society, with Roman citizens ranking higher than non-Roman citizens, men ranking higher than women, free persons ranking higher than slaves, etc. Then Rob writes:

...Paul claimed that "in Christ" ... there was "neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female". He is calling the entire culture into question, insisting that through this risen-from-the-dead Jesus, the whole world is being reorganized. And in this new reality, every person is equal. Everybody. Paul is the first person in the history of world literature to argue that all human beings are equal.

Wow. Kindda makes you appreciate the contributions of Christianity to world culture, huh?

Renewal or Annihilation of the Earth?

The church culture in which I grew up is pretty much wedded to the idea that this physical earth and universe will be annihilated when Jesus returns, and then we'll all live in a spiritual realm called Heaven. The typical passage used to support this idea is 2 Peter 3:7ff:

7But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.

9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,

12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!

13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.

But notice the new heavens and new earth; there's no mention that it's merely a spiritual realm. It might be spiritual, or it might be physical (or it may be this dichotomy doesn't even make sense once we understand better).

But I'm leaning ever more toward the idea that this earth and cosmos was originally intended to be permanent. When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, the cosmos became broken, and now can't exist forever in its current state. Death, not just for Adam and Eve, but for the entire cosmos, entered into the cosmos.

Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", highlights some interesting passages that touch on this topic.

Matt 19:28 - Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory....

Acts 3:20-21 - ... He may send Jesus Christ, ... whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began.

Col. 1:19-20 - For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

If Adam had not sinned, the Curse of death and decay would not have entered into the cosmos, and presumably the cosmos would have existed eternally.

In speaking of regeneration and restoration of all things and reconciliation of all things, not just humans, to God, these passages indicate not an erasure of the physical cosmos, but a repairing of it like it was intended to be.

When Peter writes of the heavens and earth being melted and dissolved by fire, he does so just a few verses after he had written about the pre-Flood world having perished. The first destruction of the earth did not do away with the physicality of the earth; I'm unsure that the second destruction of the earth will either. It seems clear that the current cosmos will be melted down into nothingness, but is that a true nothingness, or is it just a nothing-but-bare-framework nothingness?

Like so many doctrines I grew up with, I find that the certainty with which these doctrines were taught is not quite so clear-cut when you approach the scriptures with a more open mind.

We know that the physical body of Jesus was raised from the dead, although it was raised incorruptible. Why should the physical universe be any different? It is destined to die, thoroughly, but perhaps it too, as Paul writes in Romans 8, will be freed from the bondage of corruption, under which it is currently groaning in travail.

The Perils of Aging

An 80-year old man goes for a physical. All of his tests come back with normal results. The doctor says, "Chuck, everything looks great. But at your age tell me how are you doing mentally and emotionally? Are you at peace with God?"

Chuck replies, "God and I are tight. He knows I have poor eyesight, so he's fixed it so when I get up in the middle of the night to go to the bathroom, POOF! the light goes on. When I'm done, POOF! the light goes off."

"WOW, That's incredible" the doctor says.

A little later in the day, the doctor calls Chuck's wife. "Ethel," he says, "Chuck is doing fine! But I had to call you as I am in awe of his relationship with God. Is it true that he gets up during the night and POOF! the light goes on in the bathroom, and when he's done POOF! the light goes off?"

"Oh, bother!" Ethel exclaims. "He's peeing in the refrigerator again!"

The Gates of Hell

This next blurb is interesting enough to warrant a direct quote from Rob Bell's book, "Velvet Elvis":

One account in the book of Matthew says that Jesus was talking to his disciples at Caesarea Philippi. This is one of those details that is easy to skip, but it is significant. Ceasarea Philippi was the world center of the goat god, Pan. People came from all over the world to worship this god. There is a cliff with a giant crack in it that the followers of Pan believed was the place where the spirits from hell would come and go from the earth. The crack was called the Gates of Hell. They built a temple for Pan there and then a court next to it where people would engage in sexual acts with goats during the Pan worship festivals.

And Jesus is there with his disciples. As good Jewish boys, they never would have gone to this place before. It is twenty-six miles from Galilee, where Jesus and his disciples are from. What was that walk like? Did Jesus even tell his disciples where they were going? Can you imagine them talking to each other behind his back? "When our parents find out about this, we are so busted!" The whole experience would have been riveting. Where are we going? What are we doing? What is our rabbi going to do next?

He tells them at Caesarea Philippi that upon this rock he is going to build his new witnessing community, and the Gates of Hell won't be able to stop it. He is essentially saying that those kinds of people -- the ones with the goats -- are going to join the Jesus movement and it will be unstoppable. How would you as a disciple even begin to process this statement?

Choosing Disciples

Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", explains life for boys in the Jewish culture of Jesus' time.

Starting at age 6, every boy was educated in the books of the Torah (the Pentateuch). School was most likely held in the local synagogue and taught by the local rabbi. At the end of this four-year or so stage, the students would generally know the entire first five books of the Bible by heart.

The students who showed promise then went on to the next stage, while the other ten-year olds went home to learn the family business as an apprentice. By age thirteen or fourteen, these students would have the entire 39 books of the (Jewish) Bible memorized.

Only the best students would continue from here, applying to the rabbi to become one of his disciples. Only those the rabbi deemed capable of becoming like himself were accepted. The others typically went home to learn the family business.

As a disciple, the student would stick to his rabbi like gum to a shoe, leaving his family and friends and home.

When Jesus went and collected his disciples, he collected students who had dropped out or had been rejected and sent back home to learn the family business, like James and John, learning the fishing trade from their father Zebedee. Jesus later tells them, "You did not choose me; I chose you."

These boys may have been 14 or 20; we just don't know.

As Rob says,

Jesus took some boys who didn't make the cut and changed the course of human history.

Are We Aware of God's Presence?

Rob Bell, in his book "Velvet Elvis", points out that when Jacob woke up from his dream at Bethel he said,

Surely YHVH is in this place, and I was not aware of it.

Rob goes on to ask if God might be where we are, and we're merely unaware of it.

A Short Tutorial in Counting Hex

Apparently the AACS doesn't want their keycode for playing DVDs to be published (like they have a right to prevent someone from publishing a hexadecimal number -- hmph).

Just for the sake of being cooperative, even though I think they're in the wrong, I'll refrain from publishing that number in this tutorial.

When counting in hexadecimal, think of an odometer from an older car, which has the numbers 0-9 painted on the "wheels" of the odometer. As each wheel turns, the number increments by one, from 0 to 1, then from 1 to 2, all the way up to when 9 rolls over to become 0 again. When that wheel rolls over to zero again, the wheel just to the left increments by one.

Hexadecimal works the same way, except that the numbers on the wheel don't stop at 9, but include A to F after the 9 before rolling back around to 0. Counting in hexadecimal works like this:

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
B
C
D
E
F
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
1A
1B
1C
1D
1E
1F
20
21

... and so on. When you get to really big numbers, it's sometimes easier to break them up with hyphens to make them easier to read. Like so:

09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-BA
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-BB
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-BC
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-BD
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-BE
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-BF
xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx-xx
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C1
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C2
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C3
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C4
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C5
09-F9-11-02-9D-74-E3-5B-D8-41-56-C5-63-56-88-C6

Sorry I had to blank out that one number in my example above; as mentioned, the AACS doesn't want that number published.

I hope this little tutorial has been helpful.

Interesting Number

There's a lot of buzz on the Internet about this number:

09F9:1102:9D74:E35B:D841:56C5:6356:88C0

One guy said it's an IPv6 address on his network. Another guy used it as an encryption key in a short little program he published on Slashdot. Someone else pointed out that if anyone attempted to decrypt his program they might be in violation of the DMCA. (There's a lot of vitriol aimed at the DMCA and DRM and AACS and the RIAA and MPAA on the Slashdot site -- something about these things being anti-consumer.) There is an amazing number of references to this number in various forms all over the Internet.

I find it all rather interesting.

Jesus' Teachings on Hospitality Changed the World

Darryl Tippens, in his book "Pilgrim Heart", speaks fascinatingly of the role of hospitality in the early church.

According to social historian Rodney Stark, the revolutionary practice of hospitality helps to explain why the tiny Jesus movement became the dominant religion of the Western world by the fourth century. (p. 54)

...

The English word "hospitality" does not quite capture the meaning of the Greek word used in the New Testament. Philoxenia actually suggests loving foreigners or aliens. This is a challenging, paradoxical love: a kinship, friendship love extended to a stranger, someone not related or known to us. No one before Jesus had taken hospitality this far, but the early Christians became inflamed with the spirit of philoxenia, and this radical love of those on the margins (the sick, the hungry, the homeless, destitute widows, wayfarers) took the ancient world by storm. The evidence of its radical power is documented by the church fathers and historians of the ancient world. (p.55)

Tippens goes on to mention how Christians became known for their hospitality, even to pagans, in two catastrophic plagues that killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, in AD 165 and 260. (5000 people a day were dying in Rome at one point; two-thirds of Alexandria's population was wiped out.) During this time, Christians did something new in the world; they took care of the sick and weak and dying, often getting sick and dying themselves. This apparently made a great impression on the survivors, particularly the pagans. From this grew the Christian tradition of building hospitals and orphans' homes and Habitat for Humanity and The Salvation Army, etc.

How Big is Your God?

In the C.S. Lewis book, "Perelandra", is this interesting statement describing (in allegorical form) God:

He dwells (all of Him dwells) within the seed of the smallest flower and is not cramped; Deep Heaven is inside Him who is inside the seed and does not distend Him. (p. 214)

Is a fertilized human cell a person?

I had an heretical thought the other day (heretical from the Pro-Life standpoint). The Bible claims in Lev. 17:11ff that "the life of a creature is in the blood".

Could that imply that a fertilized human cell does not become a living being until a blood cell forms in the growing embryo?

On the one hand, I'm well aware that from the moment of conception, nothing new is added to the growing embryo except nutrition.

On the other hand, sometimes in the early stages of embryonic development, the cell mass can divide and become identical twins (or triplets, etc). So, is the single fertilized egg one individual, or several?

If what makes a person a person is a human spirit, then:

1. there were two (or more) human spirits in the original single fertilized cell,

or

2. the spirit is being divided when the cell is divided into multiples

or

3. a second (or third, etc) spirit is being added to the newly-cleaved second (or third, etc) individual(s)

or

4. the spirit does not enter the embryo until sometime after differentiation begins.

If, on the other hand, what makes a person a person is the blood, then a fertilized egg is not a person until later in the developmental process.

I see two significant conclusions in such a case:

1) Very early abortions (within hours, not days) would not be murder.

2) Embryonic stem-cell research would not be murder.

I believe we should err on the side of caution, and on the side of Life, and not jump to these conclusions; my logic might be faulty, and the data is certainly sketchy.

It's of note that the embryo ceases to be divisible into twins long before the first blood cell develops. This seems a fatal objection to my idea above, and is further reason why we should err on the side of caution and treat a fertilized human cell as a person from conception onward.

Another consideration is that a person can be clinically dead while still having blood circulated by machines. Does that circulating blood keep the body alive without a human inhabiting it? If so, then the blood is not the determining factor of a person's life. Or perhaps the human is still in the body, and we just can't perceive that person any longer.

In short, I have no answers. But I found the thought interesting.

Christians Can't Have Secular Jobs

Rob Bell, on page 85 of his book "Velvet Elvis", makes the observation that

... it is impossible for a Christian to have a secular job. If you follow Jesus and you are doing what you do in his name, then it is no longer secular work; it's sacred.

The Old Law is not the same as the Old Testament

Last night as I was leaving campus I bemoaned to myself how I didn't want to go to church, but it actually turned out to be a good thing, I think.

It seemed to me that the class instructor was confusing the Mosaic Covenant with the Old Testament in toto. I was able to speak up and point out that the collection of books we refer to as the "Old Testament" is not equivalent to the "old covenant". I had tried making this point some months earlier, but I don't think anyone "got it" then. My comment spurred some conversation, and this time I got the impression that people got it. The teacher said he was going to have to do some research on it.

So late last night I put together a few notes and sent them to him to help start his research:


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kent West


There were lots of covenants in the Old Testament; the Mosaic Covenant is merely the main focus of the OT.

Some Biblical covenants are between God and the Earth, such as when he stipulates that the Earth will never be flooded again.

Some covenants are between God and vegetation, such as when he stipulates grass to reproduce after its own kind.

There are covenants between God and nations, God and individuals, God and himself (Gen 1:26), God and Satan (Job 1), man and man, etc etc etc. A covenant that would make for a great 5-minute Wednesday evening topic, me thinks, in our porn-infested world, is the one that Job made with his eyes.

The covenant that God made with Adam and Eve, and with land-dwelling animals, to eat vegetation but not meat, was not only for them, but also for their descendants. After the Flood, when most parties to that agreement had perished, God established a new covenant with both humans and animals which morphed, modified, replaced that first covenant; the new covenant allowed eating of meat. There were also other stipulations to the covenant, including the rainbow:

And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; .... And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. -- Gen 9:9ff

Note that if God is to be believed about the rainbow, this covenant is still in effect. It has not been nailed to the Cross.

There are quite a lot of other covenants, but I'll stop with just one more, the covenant God made with Abram.

Paul, in Galatians 3:17 writes, "What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise."

Here he makes a distinction between the covenant God made with Abram, and the covenant God made 430 years later with Moses. He also makes it clear that the Mosaic covenant did not nullify the Abrahamic covenant. He continues on to make the point that we are no longer under the Mosaic "tutor" (vs 24-25), but that we have become heirs according to the Abrahamic covenant (v 29).

Just as the original vegetarian-friendly covenant was morphed into or replaced by another carnivorian-friendly covenant, the Abrahamic covenant was morphed into the New Covenant of Jesus.

The point is that the Mosaic Covenant is not equal to the Old Testament; it is only a sub-part, although a dominant sub-part. So it is not correct to say that the "Old Testament" has been done away with; it's only the Mosaic Law portion of the OT that has been done away with. Other portions still stand, either in their original form (the Rainbow covenant) or in modified form.

At least that's how I understand things. But if I've learned anything in the past few years, it's that I'm a lot more ignorant of the things of God than when I was a teenager and had all the answers.

Rob Bell's "Velvet Elvis"

There's some good discussion on Rob Bell's book , "Velvet Elvis" over at http://groups.google.com/group/smashingbrickworld/topics

I'm glad to have found this discussion; it's helping me to "cope" with Bell's writing style.

===

Another couple of interesting items from Bell's book:

He says that the first three miracles recorded in the book of John were direct swipes at the three major gods of Asia Minor: Dionysus, who turns water to wine; Asclepius, who is the god of healing; and Demeter, who is the goddess of bread.

He also says that the reference in Timothy to women being saved in childbirth was a reference to the goddess having a shrine in Timothy's home town of Ephesus, Artemis, who saved women from dying in childbirth. With half the child-bearing women dying, Artemis is essentially labeled a fraud in comparison to Jesus.

When I originally read these snippets, I found them intriguing; now after having found the discussion mentioned above, I find myself less accepting of Bell's claims. Still, they are interesting claims.

Why Gambling is Wrong

So what if I bet my friend a coffee that I can make three trash-can baskets in a roll? The price of a coffee is not going to hurt anyone.

So what if I put a dollar down for a lottery ticket? Who's it going to hurt?

In both cases, it won't really hurt anyone. But what's the motivation?

The only way I can win is for you to lose. Therefore, my motivation (assuming I want to win) is for you to lose.

Hardly the epitome of the Golden Rule, now, is it?

He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much.
-- Jesus, Luke 16:10

Armed Christians

The preacher made a good point today, I think.

Some Christians believe that we should not take up / carry weapons for self-defense, but Jesus, on the night of his betrayal, asked the group if they had any swords. They found two, and he said that was enough.

He wasn't going out to start a war, or even as an army, or he would have wanted all of them armed; but he did have enough weapons in the group to act as a deterrent to attack from ne'er-do-wells.

I don't know exactly what his intention was in asking for swords (self-defense, object-lesson of some sort, or what), but he obviously didn't have a problem with his followers walking around armed. He did however point out that an attitude anxious to use a weapon will likely lead to death.

How Are the Goats?

Dad's goats are having kids left and right; over the past month he's had two sets of triplets, and two sets of twins. The latest set of twins, born today, I'm afraid may not survive. Her mama was pretty young to be having babies, and isn't letting them nurse. Dad and I went out tonight to put Mama and the twins in the barn by themselves, out of the wind and sort of out of the cold. Babies just weren't finding Mama's milk, so Dad mixed up a milk concoction and injected a little into the babies' mouths to whet their appetite, and then sprayed the rest on the Mama's teats. I had to straddle Mama to prevent her from running off while the babies hunted down dinner; they found a working spigot (although barely; the other one seems dry), but by the time we had let Mama loose and had gotten out of the area, the oldest twin was still interested, but the youngest, spindliest, weakest, was off in a corner by itself. As are all things, their survival is in God's hands.

Jesus the Diaper-Changer

While at Easter we tend to think of the suffering and/or risen Jesus, and at Christmas of the Baby Jesus, we seldom think of him as diaper-changing Jesus. Yet he was the first of Mary's children, and he had both brothers and sisters – Matt 13:54-56 – and I'm confident that he fulfilled the role any older sibling would fill: babysitting, feeding, playing with, singing to, bathing his younger siblings, and yes, changing their diapers. While on Earth, He was one of Us.

It Snowed!

Easter weekend, it snowed all day Saturday. It didn't stick very well. Still, it's fairly rare for it to snow here, and even rarer for it to snow in April (although this is twice in the past five years or so that it's done so).

Why Modern Psychology Fails

From Matthew 12:43ff.

You can go see your psychiatriast every day for years and clean out your demons, but unless you get filled up with a good spirit, you'll just wind up worse off than before.

A non-Christian approach to psychology/psychiatry is worse than no approach at all.

Judgment to Come for the Already-Dead

In reading Matthew 12:41ff, it struck me that Jesus made it clear that the long-dead inhabitants of the long-dead city of Ninevah would one day experience a judgment.

In other words, dead people don't stay dead.

The second thing I noticed from this passage is that in the Great Day of Judgment, we are just as likely to give testimony for or against others as others are to testify for or against us.

I'd hate to be Hitler on that day.

Proof of God

In Matthew 12:38ff, the Pharisees asked Jesus for proof of God's working in him. Jesus responded by saying that the only real proof would be his death, burial, and resurrection.

I reckon that holds true for today also; if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then his teachings are irrelevant. But if he was raised from the dead, then he is who he said he is.

This seems to me to be the crux of conversion of Muslims, Hindus, Jews, atheists.

Was Jesus physically brought back to life after being executed? That is the question. (And I believe the answer to be "Yes".)

A House Divided

The middle section of Matthew chapter 12 records a discourse by Jesus when he has been accused of tossing out demons by the power of Satan.

Jesus' response is basically that a house divided against itself can not stand, implying that Satan would not undo his own work in order to make people think he's good.

In order to toss out demons, the exorcist must be more powerful than the one controlling the demons:

How in the world do you think it's possible in broad daylight to enter the house of an awake, able-bodied man and walk off with his possessions unless you tie him up first?

Many in my church culture see the "holy roller" activity, speaking in tongues, casting out of demons, etc, of some church groups and denounce it as "christian in name only but actually of the devil". However, if -- and you'll notice that "if" is italicized -- if people actually change during these exorcisms from alcoholics to former alcoholics, or from wife-beaters into wife-nurturers, or from asthmatics to free-breathers, has not the strong man been tied up?

I have seen a few indications that at least some of these "healings" actually take place. I've seen many other indications that some of these "healings" are emotionally-driven through psychosomatic mechanisms. (I've never seen evidence of a physical healing, such as the sudden eradication of cancer, or the replacement of a missing limb, or the reversal of aging, etc. I'm not saying it's never happened, but I'm highly suspicious.)

The point is, even if it's a psychosomatic healing, has not the strong man been tied up?

And if the strong man has been tied up, who are we to declare this activity to be of the devil?

That seems to me to have been Jesus' point.

It scares me that so many in my church brotherhood "know" all the answers, and judge outsiders as being stubborn or intellectually lazy or lacking a love of the Truth. "We" have the Truth because "we" love the Truth; other religious groups are lost and going to hell because they don't love the Truth enough to think and believe like "we" do.

And yet Jesus says to look at their fruit - are those groups nicer than "we" are? Are they more God-minded than "we"? Do they do more to eradicate poverty and drug-use in society than "we" do?

Suffice it to say that I would hate to be judged by my brethren on that Great Day -- I'm neither good enough nor doctrinally pure enough in their eyes to pass muster. And part of that is apparently because I don't "love the Truth" enough to have found it as they've found it. (And that's true -- I've just this past year seen a darkness in my deepest parts that I wasn't really aware of -- I'm not the Truth Seeker I thought I was; I'm the Me Seeker, selfish to the core, sinful to the point of being blind to my own sin and to my own self-deception of thinking I'm a Truth Seeker when I'm really not.)

I Don't Get It

In Matthew 12, the Pharisees accuse the disciples of Jesus of breaking the Sabbath rules. Jesus responds by pointing out times in the Tanahk (Old Testament) when people broke the "Law" and were not held guilty for it.

Yet the Pharisees could have (and maybe did, just without a record of it) responded by mentioning other cases in which people broke the "Law" and were punished severely for it, even to the point of death -- the cases of Uzziah and of Nadab and Abihu come quickly to my mind.

So, can we break the law when the situation requires, or not? Or perhaps it's only the Son of Man (Jesus, presumably) that can get away with breaking the law?

I'm clueless -- I don't get it.

Blessed are the Unsophisticated

One of Jesus' prayers, from Matthew 11:25ff:

Thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth. You've concealed your ways from sophisticates and know-it-alls, but spelled them out clearly to ordinary people. Yes, Father, that's the way you like to work.

Yikes! I had no idea I was a sophisticate, so it must be that I'm a know-it-all, because I sure don't understand the ways of God.