In the evolutionary mindset, tooth decay due to bacterial action is a normal part of the "survival of the fittest" mentality.
In the creationist mindset however, it is recognized that in the beginning, there was no tooth decay nor plaque nor gum-rot, and the question is raised, "Why not? What prevented these things? Can we restore that state?"
I suspect that in the beginning, bacteria in human mouths functioned as a cleaner of teeth and restorer of tooth enamel. When the Fall occurred, that bacteria "devolved" to become a producer of plaque and tooth-rot.
If we were to put resources into researching how to turn bacteria back to their original purpose, we might just put Crest and dentists out of business. Just think, no more fighting with your kids to get them to brush their teeth; no more need to floss.
I suspect it's possible. But as long as the research dollars are being poured into the labs of scientists who don't believe bacteria ever had such a role and never will, then this suspicion will not likely ever be confirmed.
Philosophical foundations matter when doing science. I believe the wrong philosophical foundation has had a stranglehold on research for the past 50 years, and as a result, I'm still having to floss.
And wear glasses.
Pfft.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Culture or Scripture?
I was walking across campus today when a thought caused me to question a doctrine I've held for a long time. I got to wondering if I had learned this doctrine from "church", or from the Scriptures.
And I realized that we often hold to doctrines because we've sung these doctrines in our church songs since we were two years old, not because the doctrines are actually taught in the Bible.
Just another good reason to question everything, even dearly-held doctrines.
And I realized that we often hold to doctrines because we've sung these doctrines in our church songs since we were two years old, not because the doctrines are actually taught in the Bible.
Just another good reason to question everything, even dearly-held doctrines.
Friday, January 08, 2010
Arg!
Being curious how visible my blog is to Google, I searched for "westing peacefully". About four or five hits down, I saw a link that looked odd, so I clicked on it.
Arg.
Apparently someone has set up a screen-scraper bot that just goes and collects random text from random sites and pastes them together on a page that at first glance looks like a real web page.
I was bothered that searching for my blog resulted in a first paragraph that was quite pornographic textually.
What's wrong with people?!
Oh yeah, I forgot; we people are corrupt from conception. (Note, conservative church of Christ preachers: I didn't say we're guilty from conception; I said we're corrupt; there's a difference. See here and here for more.)
As long as we people remain in our corruption, we will do things like create/run this screen-scraper bot (and much worse things as well), which serves no purpose I ken except to tarnish other people's work.
May the Ruach Kadesh* move in the hearts of all persons everywhere, particularly right now the creator of this bot, to draw them unto God. May there be peace on Earth, and good will to all persons.
*Englicized Hebrew for "The Holy Spirit", variously rendered as Ruach Ha'kodesh, Kadesh Ruach, Ruach Ha Kodesh, etc, depending on the writer.
Arg.
Apparently someone has set up a screen-scraper bot that just goes and collects random text from random sites and pastes them together on a page that at first glance looks like a real web page.
I was bothered that searching for my blog resulted in a first paragraph that was quite pornographic textually.
What's wrong with people?!
Oh yeah, I forgot; we people are corrupt from conception. (Note, conservative church of Christ preachers: I didn't say we're guilty from conception; I said we're corrupt; there's a difference. See here and here for more.)
As long as we people remain in our corruption, we will do things like create/run this screen-scraper bot (and much worse things as well), which serves no purpose I ken except to tarnish other people's work.
May the Ruach Kadesh* move in the hearts of all persons everywhere, particularly right now the creator of this bot, to draw them unto God. May there be peace on Earth, and good will to all persons.
*Englicized Hebrew for "The Holy Spirit", variously rendered as Ruach Ha'kodesh, Kadesh Ruach, Ruach Ha Kodesh, etc, depending on the writer.
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Rethinking the Way We "Do" Church
Recently I've been challenged to rethink the way we "do" church.
Because this rethink challenges the way I've always done things, it was easy at first to just ignore it, but it's starting to wear down my passive defense. Since I'm supposedly committed to doing things in a Biblical manner rather than in the comfortable traditional manner, I have to consider that perhaps we do need to rethink our practice.
The practice to which I refer is basically the lecture-sermon format, in which one man spends half an hour lecturing to an audience of passive (and often sleeping/bored) listeners. We have thought this to be a Biblical model, because after all, Paul and Peter and Timothy "preached".
But here's another look at this format, from basically two sides of the same coin:
Side 1:
- much of the early preaching was not "lecturing", but rather "dialoging".
For example, when Paul went to Corinth, he did not preach in the synagogue, but rather "reasoned" (Acts 18:4 NKJV).
And when he went on to Ephesus, "he himself entered entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews" rather than "preached" to them (Acts 18:19 NKJV).
"reasoned" - Acts 17:2
"sat and spoke" - Acts 16:13
This does not mean there was not lecturing, but it does mean that perhaps the "lecture format" with which we're familiar is unBiblically skewed in favor of passive listening on the part of the assemblers.
Side 2:
- the assemblers' participation was not just "listening", but also "sharing".
When Yahshua visited the synagogue in his home town, he stood up, apparently signifying his desire to speak/read, and he was allowed to do so (Luke 4:16).
We see this same pattern later in the synagogue when the leaders ask the visitors if they have any words of encouragement for the people (Acts 13:15).
Even in the first gospel sermon (Acts 2), there was give-and-take between the speaker and the listeners (see esp. v 37).
Paul, when writing to the Corinthians (14:26), seems to point out a pattern with which we're unfamiliar: "Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, [another] language, or an interpretation. All things must be done for edification." And he goes on to fill this chapter with specific instructions to keep this organized chaos "decent and in order" (v. 40).
Putting this all together, I'm starting to get the distinct impression that the early church meetings were often more of a "sit down and everyone contribute" type of meeting than rather than the lecture format of our modern-day Sunday meetings.
Accordingly, I'd like to suggest the following idea:
Rather than have one man stand up and give a 5-7 minute "sermonette", or a 25 minute "sermon", how about instead having 5 men come to the mic and give a[n] (absolute maximum no exceptions allowed ever!) 2-minute "here's what I learned this week via God's grace that I'd like to share with you" message. (If it can't be said in two minutes, it needs to wait for a different occasion, and if the speaker can't limit himself to two minutes, the speaker needs to not speak at all.)
For example, the other night I learned that "matzoth" is the Hebrew word behind "unleavened bread" (such as in Exodus 12:15). Gives me a better handle on seeing the word "Matzah" on the box of crackers on the store shelf.
See, that example took maybe 30 seconds, and edifies people like me who feed on tidbits of information like this. It won't edify people who need emotional-laden messages, or people who need deeply meaningful messages, but those types of people will be edified perhaps by one of the other four speakers who have a different style of message.
Another example might be someone saying that Proverbs 10a ("A righteous man cares about his animal's health") helped him decide to take his sick cat to the vet, an application of scripture to everyday life via God's Spirit.
A third example might be my previous blog entry about the Sabbath; takes 2 minutes to explain, but can challenge our thinking about our attitude toward "Sabbath-keeping".
There might even be time between each speaker for questions/dialogue.
This format would help to train the men to speak boldly in front of people, without putting pressure on them to work up a whole sermon (or even sermonette). It relieves the regular preacher of always having to come up with a sermon. It presents different information/styles to the people which one man can't provide. It involves people more.
It seems to me to be an idea worth considering.
Because this rethink challenges the way I've always done things, it was easy at first to just ignore it, but it's starting to wear down my passive defense. Since I'm supposedly committed to doing things in a Biblical manner rather than in the comfortable traditional manner, I have to consider that perhaps we do need to rethink our practice.
The practice to which I refer is basically the lecture-sermon format, in which one man spends half an hour lecturing to an audience of passive (and often sleeping/bored) listeners. We have thought this to be a Biblical model, because after all, Paul and Peter and Timothy "preached".
But here's another look at this format, from basically two sides of the same coin:
Side 1:
- much of the early preaching was not "lecturing", but rather "dialoging".
For example, when Paul went to Corinth, he did not preach in the synagogue, but rather "reasoned" (Acts 18:4 NKJV).
And when he went on to Ephesus, "he himself entered entered the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews" rather than "preached" to them (Acts 18:19 NKJV).
"reasoned" - Acts 17:2
"sat and spoke" - Acts 16:13
This does not mean there was not lecturing, but it does mean that perhaps the "lecture format" with which we're familiar is unBiblically skewed in favor of passive listening on the part of the assemblers.
Side 2:
- the assemblers' participation was not just "listening", but also "sharing".
When Yahshua visited the synagogue in his home town, he stood up, apparently signifying his desire to speak/read, and he was allowed to do so (Luke 4:16).
We see this same pattern later in the synagogue when the leaders ask the visitors if they have any words of encouragement for the people (Acts 13:15).
Even in the first gospel sermon (Acts 2), there was give-and-take between the speaker and the listeners (see esp. v 37).
Paul, when writing to the Corinthians (14:26), seems to point out a pattern with which we're unfamiliar: "Whenever you come together, each one has a psalm, a teaching, a revelation, [another] language, or an interpretation. All things must be done for edification." And he goes on to fill this chapter with specific instructions to keep this organized chaos "decent and in order" (v. 40).
Putting this all together, I'm starting to get the distinct impression that the early church meetings were often more of a "sit down and everyone contribute" type of meeting than rather than the lecture format of our modern-day Sunday meetings.
Accordingly, I'd like to suggest the following idea:
Rather than have one man stand up and give a 5-7 minute "sermonette", or a 25 minute "sermon", how about instead having 5 men come to the mic and give a[n] (absolute maximum no exceptions allowed ever!) 2-minute "here's what I learned this week via God's grace that I'd like to share with you" message. (If it can't be said in two minutes, it needs to wait for a different occasion, and if the speaker can't limit himself to two minutes, the speaker needs to not speak at all.)
For example, the other night I learned that "matzoth" is the Hebrew word behind "unleavened bread" (such as in Exodus 12:15). Gives me a better handle on seeing the word "Matzah" on the box of crackers on the store shelf.
See, that example took maybe 30 seconds, and edifies people like me who feed on tidbits of information like this. It won't edify people who need emotional-laden messages, or people who need deeply meaningful messages, but those types of people will be edified perhaps by one of the other four speakers who have a different style of message.
Another example might be someone saying that Proverbs 10a ("A righteous man cares about his animal's health") helped him decide to take his sick cat to the vet, an application of scripture to everyday life via God's Spirit.
A third example might be my previous blog entry about the Sabbath; takes 2 minutes to explain, but can challenge our thinking about our attitude toward "Sabbath-keeping".
There might even be time between each speaker for questions/dialogue.
This format would help to train the men to speak boldly in front of people, without putting pressure on them to work up a whole sermon (or even sermonette). It relieves the regular preacher of always having to come up with a sermon. It presents different information/styles to the people which one man can't provide. It involves people more.
It seems to me to be an idea worth considering.
The Sabbath
From the very beginning, God made the Sabbath "special" ("hallowed", "sanctified"); note that it's not "special" because of the Ten Commandments/Law of Moses, but because God made it so from the very beginning.
Yahshua, on the different issue of marriage (Mark 10:6), refers to the way things were established by God at the beginning. His example leads me to conclude that the same principle applies to the issue of the Sabbath. Therefore, I must conclude that the Sabbath (seventh day, not first) is still "special", not because it was part of the Mosaic Law, but because God made it so from the beginning.
I'm not real sure what to do with this information, but there it is: the Sabbath is still special.
Yahshua, on the different issue of marriage (Mark 10:6), refers to the way things were established by God at the beginning. His example leads me to conclude that the same principle applies to the issue of the Sabbath. Therefore, I must conclude that the Sabbath (seventh day, not first) is still "special", not because it was part of the Mosaic Law, but because God made it so from the beginning.
I'm not real sure what to do with this information, but there it is: the Sabbath is still special.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
We ARE the Government
Someone wrote:
You, and me, and the guy across the street, and the girl at the check-out counter at Wal-Mart, are the ones who are supposed to be in control. It's called "Freedom". This idea that "the government" is in control is a dangerous and false idea, and it's this idea that has caused us to lose our freedoms over your lifetime.
When I was a kid, and someone asked, "Hey, can I do such-and-such" , the stock answer was, "It's a free country".
Nowadays, the stock answer is, "Do you have a government-issued permit to do that?"
Want to put a storage building on your property? Get a permit. Want to cut down a tree? Get a permit. Want to put in a pool? Get a permit. Want to carry a pistol for self-protection? Get a permit. Want to drive to the store? Get a permit. Want to sell your excess garden vegetables? Get a permit.
Pfft.
Granted, there needs to be some level of governmental cooperation between citizens (I want to know that someone is responsible for assuring that the meal I buy in the restaurant is safe), but the pendulum has swung too far.
One of the best things you can do to help spread freedom in this country is to learn about jury nullification, get on a few juries, and do the right thing. As a juror, you have more power (in an individual case) than all the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and both houses of Congress and the President combined; if a guy ran a red light, but did so safely and for a good reason (to get his son with a half-cut-off foot to the hospital, etc), no matter what the law says, you as a jurist can declare the guy not guilty, and nullify that law in this instance. Laws are for the good of humans, not for the sake of keeping the rules. If a guy is arrested for carrying a Bible into a school, or a pistol into a sporting event (with no malice/harm intended or executed), you as a jurist can declare the guy not guilty if you so believe he should not go to jail for what you believe should be a basic human right - to carry inanimate objects on your person.
But we've gotten lax, and have let "the government" tell us what we can do, when we can do it, where we can do it. Folks, you ARE the government! Quit trusting those "in power", and start exercising the power.
The rule for good living in a world with such a "weak government" as this idea suggests is this: Love your neighbor as yourself; pray for your enemies; turn the other cheek; love the unlovable; treat others as you want to be treated.
With this basic "law" in the hearts of people, there is very little need for official government. This is the ideal government as I understand the Jewish Bible. Judges 17:6 says, "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." And later, when the Israelites clamored for a king, this is what YHWH (God) told them (1 Samuel 8:11ff):
Our government, which has a nature of wanting to grow stronger and stronger at the expense of the governed, has duped us into choosing the latter, and now no one is even allowed to teach the former; "that's mixing church and state".
Pfft.
I love my country; I don't trust my government. I suggest you don't either.
I am 50 and I can remember in my child hood my parents talking about the government and saying they all were not trust worthy even back then. So it has been that way many years.And thus it should be.
You, and me, and the guy across the street, and the girl at the check-out counter at Wal-Mart, are the ones who are supposed to be in control. It's called "Freedom". This idea that "the government" is in control is a dangerous and false idea, and it's this idea that has caused us to lose our freedoms over your lifetime.
When I was a kid, and someone asked, "Hey, can I do such-and-such" , the stock answer was, "It's a free country".
Nowadays, the stock answer is, "Do you have a government-issued permit to do that?"
Want to put a storage building on your property? Get a permit. Want to cut down a tree? Get a permit. Want to put in a pool? Get a permit. Want to carry a pistol for self-protection? Get a permit. Want to drive to the store? Get a permit. Want to sell your excess garden vegetables? Get a permit.
Pfft.
Granted, there needs to be some level of governmental cooperation between citizens (I want to know that someone is responsible for assuring that the meal I buy in the restaurant is safe), but the pendulum has swung too far.
One of the best things you can do to help spread freedom in this country is to learn about jury nullification, get on a few juries, and do the right thing. As a juror, you have more power (in an individual case) than all the members of the U.S. Supreme Court and both houses of Congress and the President combined; if a guy ran a red light, but did so safely and for a good reason (to get his son with a half-cut-off foot to the hospital, etc), no matter what the law says, you as a jurist can declare the guy not guilty, and nullify that law in this instance. Laws are for the good of humans, not for the sake of keeping the rules. If a guy is arrested for carrying a Bible into a school, or a pistol into a sporting event (with no malice/harm intended or executed), you as a jurist can declare the guy not guilty if you so believe he should not go to jail for what you believe should be a basic human right - to carry inanimate objects on your person.
But we've gotten lax, and have let "the government" tell us what we can do, when we can do it, where we can do it. Folks, you ARE the government! Quit trusting those "in power", and start exercising the power.
The rule for good living in a world with such a "weak government" as this idea suggests is this: Love your neighbor as yourself; pray for your enemies; turn the other cheek; love the unlovable; treat others as you want to be treated.
With this basic "law" in the hearts of people, there is very little need for official government. This is the ideal government as I understand the Jewish Bible. Judges 17:6 says, "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." And later, when the Israelites clamored for a king, this is what YHWH (God) told them (1 Samuel 8:11ff):
These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but YHWH will not answer you in that day.In other words, there are two possibilities presented here: 1) We can enforce right-and-wrong from our own hearts, by knowing in our own hearts what is the right thing (the Golden Rule way) and doing it, and not be oppressed by a tax-and-spend-and-make-war-and-confiscate-property government, or 2) we can let "the government" enforce right-and-wrong, and gradually lose our freedoms.
Our government, which has a nature of wanting to grow stronger and stronger at the expense of the governed, has duped us into choosing the latter, and now no one is even allowed to teach the former; "that's mixing church and state".
Pfft.
I love my country; I don't trust my government. I suggest you don't either.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Rethinking Binding and Loosing as it Pertains to the Synagogue
In an earlier post, I mentioned the first-century Jewish synagogue as a man-made institution of worship, developed without scriptural authority during the Babylonian Captivity, when the Jews no longer had access to their Temple. Since then, a reader has opened my eyes to what should have been obvious: the synagogue was not a place of worship, as was the Temple, but was rather more akin to a school than a church.
As such, it's not quite as "unscriptural" as I first deemed it.
Deuteronomy 6 makes it clear that parents are to teach their children in the ways of God. Whereas the primary responsibility for teaching the children was given to the parents, the synagogue developed as a more community-oriented method of teaching the children. So a case could be made that the scriptures say "teach your children" and not "build schools to teach your children", but Yahshua himself appears to have been comfortable with the notion of a community synagogue, taking advantage often of teaching in them everywhere he went.
So, to reiterate: my former understanding that the synagogue was a "replacement" for Temple worship was an incorrect understanding; rather, the synagogue was primarily a place of religious learning, not of worship. Accordingly, this does not really serve as an example of an unscriptural, man-made worship format which was later accepted by God, as I had earlier deemed it.
The synagogue appears to have become more of a place of worship after the destruction of Jerusalem (and the second Temple) in A.D. 70, but during Yahshua's ministry, it was a school of religion, not a church. This can be seen by a simple perusal of the hits returned by a search for the word "synagogue" at Biblegateway.com, using the Holman Christian Standard Bible version. Below are some examples from that search; note that it's primarily a place of teaching, discussion, disputing, and reasoning (although prayer, healing, and perhaps worship also take place in it):
As such, it's not quite as "unscriptural" as I first deemed it.
Deuteronomy 6 makes it clear that parents are to teach their children in the ways of God. Whereas the primary responsibility for teaching the children was given to the parents, the synagogue developed as a more community-oriented method of teaching the children. So a case could be made that the scriptures say "teach your children" and not "build schools to teach your children", but Yahshua himself appears to have been comfortable with the notion of a community synagogue, taking advantage often of teaching in them everywhere he went.
So, to reiterate: my former understanding that the synagogue was a "replacement" for Temple worship was an incorrect understanding; rather, the synagogue was primarily a place of religious learning, not of worship. Accordingly, this does not really serve as an example of an unscriptural, man-made worship format which was later accepted by God, as I had earlier deemed it.
The synagogue appears to have become more of a place of worship after the destruction of Jerusalem (and the second Temple) in A.D. 70, but during Yahshua's ministry, it was a school of religion, not a church. This can be seen by a simple perusal of the hits returned by a search for the word "synagogue" at Biblegateway.com, using the Holman Christian Standard Bible version. Below are some examples from that search; note that it's primarily a place of teaching, discussion, disputing, and reasoning (although prayer, healing, and perhaps worship also take place in it):
- Matthew 4:23
[ Teaching, Preaching, and Healing ] Jesus was going all over Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness among the people.
Matthew 4:22-24 (in Context) Matthew 4 (Whole Chapter) - Matthew 13:54
[ Rejection at Nazareth ] He went to His hometown and began to teach them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "How did this wisdom and these miracles come to Him?
Matthew 13:53-55 (in Context) Matthew 13 (Whole Chapter) - Mark 1:21
[ Driving Out an Unclean Spirit ] Then they went into Capernaum, and right away He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath and began to teach.
Mark 1:20-22 (in Context) Mark 1 (Whole Chapter) - Mark 6:2
When the Sabbath came, He began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard Him were astonished. "Where did this man get these things?" they said. "What is this wisdom given to Him, and how are these miracles performed by His hands?
Mark 6:1-3 (in Context) Mark 6 (Whole Chapter) - Luke 4:15
He was teaching in their synagogues, being acclaimed by everyone.
Luke 4:14-16 (in Context) Luke 4 (Whole Chapter) - Luke 4:16
[ Rejection at Nazareth ] He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. As usual, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath day and stood up to read.
Luke 4:15-17 (in Context) Luke 4 (Whole Chapter) - Luke 6:6
[ The Man with the Paralyzed Hand ] On another Sabbath He entered the synagogue and was teaching. A man was there whose right hand was paralyzed.
Luke 6:5-7 (in Context) Luke 6 (Whole Chapter) - Luke 13:10
[ Healing a Daughter of Abraham ] As He was teaching in one of the synagogues on the Sabbath,
Luke 13:9-11 (in Context) Luke 13 (Whole Chapter) - John 6:59
He said these things while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
John 6:58-60 (in Context) John 6 (Whole Chapter) - John 18:20
"I have spoken openly to the world," Jesus answered him. "I have always taught in the synagogue and in the temple complex, where all the Jews congregate, and I haven't spoken anything in secret.
John 18:19-21 (in Context) John 18 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 13:5
Arriving in Salamis, they proclaimed God's message in the Jewish synagogues. They also had John as their assistant.
Acts 13:4-6 (in Context) Acts 13 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 13:15
After the reading of the Law and the Prophets, the leaders of the synagogue sent [word] to them, saying, "Brothers, if you have any message of encouragement for the people, you can speak."
Acts 13:14-16 (in Context) Acts 13 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 17:17
So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and with those who worshiped God, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there.
Acts 17:16-18 (in Context) Acts 17 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 18:4
He reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath and tried to persuade both Jews and Greeks.
Acts 18:3-5 (in Context) Acts 18 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 18:19
When they reached Ephesus he left them there, but he himself entered the synagogue and engaged in discussion with the Jews.
Acts 18:18-20 (in Context) Acts 18 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 18:26
He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. After Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him home and explained the way of God to him more accurately.
Acts 18:25-27 (in Context) Acts 18 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 19:8
[ In the Lecture Hall of Tyrannus ] Then he entered the synagogue and spoke boldly over a period of three months, engaging in discussion and trying to persuade them about the things related to the kingdom of God.
Acts 19:7-9 (in Context) Acts 19 (Whole Chapter) - Acts 24:12
And they didn't find me disputing with anyone or causing a disturbance among the crowd, either in the temple complex or in the synagogues, or anywhere in the city.
Acts 24:11-13 (in Context) Acts 24 (Whole Chapter)
Monday, December 14, 2009
Why Use "Yahshua"?
Manly Luscombe wrote:
1) I'm not consistent about it.
2) I don't believe it makes any great difference.
3) But, to answer your question:
Primarily for six reasons:
A) To spur people to think. You never think about what the room looks like from a different angle until you stand on your desk and take a look-see. Therefore, you never see the nuances that have been right there before your eyes the whole time.
B) To remind myself and others that this Gentile, anti-Jew mentality most of us in the United States church have grown up with is a wrong mindset to have. ("The Jews were God's people, but not any more." "The Jews killed Jesus." "God doesn't care about Jerusalem or the Jewish race any more." etc.) The fact is, we, the Gentiles, have not replaced the Jewish nation, but have been grafted into it, into the covenant of Abraham, which has not been replaced by the New Covenant, but still stands as the foundation of the New Covenant (Gal 3, esp v. 29).
C) Jesus was not a New Testament person for about 99% of his earthly life. He was born a Hebrew, under the Old Testament, in a very Jewish town, in a very Jewish culture, and lived a very Jewish life. But we've subconsciously whitewashed that out of his life, and have made him, in our own minds, to be a good-looking middle-American white guy wearing a robe and sandals, forgetting that he wore tassels on his garment (Mark 6:56), the way good Jews did, and probably recited the Shema every morning (Mark 12:29-30), the way good Jews did, and cited the Ten Commandments as being the way to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:17ff), which good Jews knew.
D) That was his name. It was the name his mama used to call him to supper. If you moved to a country that mis-learned your name as "Mertinly", you'd eventually shrug your shoulders and quit trying to correct everyone who mispronounced your name, and learn to live with it. But you'd likely feel better when someone actually got it right and called you "Manly". I figure Jesus/Yahshua can handle our mangling of his name, but still, it's a small bit of at least lip-service I can offer. I'm quite inconsistent with this when it comes to other New Testament names, as you've pointed out - Peter, Luke, etc - mostly that's due to lack of consistency on my part, but it also has to do with the fact that many of them lived in either the Greek world, or in a mixed Hebrew-Grecian world. Take Peter for example; at his Jewish home, he was known as Cephas; but in the Greek world in which he spent much time, he was known as Peter (or more accurately, Petros). I would probably be more amenable to calling Yahshua "Yaesu" (or "Yaesus", depending on grammatical considerations), because that's at least Biblical (New Testament), but "Jesus" is that extra consonantal sound-step farther yet.
E) Because we don't know the Hebrew names, we don't see the nuances. Yahshua is Joshua is Hosea (more or less). The first Yahshua (Joshua) was reported in Jewish lore (not Biblical record) to have married Rahab the Harlot; the second Yahshua (Hosea) also married a harlot; the third Yahshua (Jesus), also is marrying a harlot, but one who has been washed clean due to his efforts, not our own. There's a lot of symbolism, etc, that we simply miss, by not knowing the words behind the text.
F) It means something (as most Biblical names do). As you're probably aware, Bible translators have, for centuries, corrupted God's written word intentionally, changing the God-inspired name of YHWH (Yod - Hey - Wah - Hey; the "Tetragrammaton"; the "Four Letters"), which God said would be the name by which he would be remembered throughout the generations (Exodus 3:15) into the man-made alteration of "the LORD" (turn to almost any page in the Old Testament in a main-line version and you'll see this phrase). The name was likely pronounced "Yahweh". The short form of "Yah" is familiar to us in the phrase "Hallelujah", which means "Praise Yah". (The "j" for the "y" sound is a relic of Elizabethan English, and has since morphed into the "j" sound in most modern words.) The name "Jehovah" is a man-made mixing of the vowels from the Hebrew word for "Lord" and these four consonants (in Elizabethan English where "j" = "y" and "v" = "w") - JeHoVaH. Because we don't know this, we don't realize that "Yahshua" means "Yah saves", just as the angel predicted his name to mean (Matt 1:21). Because we don't know this, we don't realize why the Jewish political machinery was so upset about the sign which Pilate hung over Yahshua's head as he hung on the cross. Written in three languages, the sign included the Hebrew form of "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews", written as "Yahshua Hanatzoi, Wehemelech Hayuhadim". There it was in plain sight to those who noticed the first letters of the description, announced by the governing authority - YHWH. Pilate had just declared Jesus to be YHWH God, King of the Jews (John 19:19ff). I can just imagine Pilate smirking as he answered the trouble-makers' request for a different sign with, "What I have written, I have written". Because we don't know his name, we miss the pun he uses when he announces that Salvation ('Shua) has come to the house of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:9). (Zacchaeus' Hebrew name, Zakkai, also has meaning, which also colors the story, if you understand some of the background.)
Don't take any of this to mean that I hold the usage of "Yahshua" to be superior to the usage of "Jesus"; what's superior is to know the Man-God behind the name, and there are many who have a better relationship to him than do I, who have never even heard this Hebrew form of the name. But I offer these as my reasons for often using this form.
Kent West,
I read your recent post and was just curious why you refer to Jesus as Yashua. (I assume that Jesus is who you refer to when you say Yahshua.) I am not a scholar in Hebrew but I believe that Yahshua is Hebrew. Why do you refer to a NT person by their Hebrew name?
If you believe we should use the Hebrew names for Jews - Why not do the same with Peter, Matthew, Luke, and others you mention in your email?
Just curious - not fussing - just wondering the reason for this usage.
Thanks, Manly
1) I'm not consistent about it.
2) I don't believe it makes any great difference.
3) But, to answer your question:
Primarily for six reasons:
A) To spur people to think. You never think about what the room looks like from a different angle until you stand on your desk and take a look-see. Therefore, you never see the nuances that have been right there before your eyes the whole time.
B) To remind myself and others that this Gentile, anti-Jew mentality most of us in the United States church have grown up with is a wrong mindset to have. ("The Jews were God's people, but not any more." "The Jews killed Jesus." "God doesn't care about Jerusalem or the Jewish race any more." etc.) The fact is, we, the Gentiles, have not replaced the Jewish nation, but have been grafted into it, into the covenant of Abraham, which has not been replaced by the New Covenant, but still stands as the foundation of the New Covenant (Gal 3, esp v. 29).
C) Jesus was not a New Testament person for about 99% of his earthly life. He was born a Hebrew, under the Old Testament, in a very Jewish town, in a very Jewish culture, and lived a very Jewish life. But we've subconsciously whitewashed that out of his life, and have made him, in our own minds, to be a good-looking middle-American white guy wearing a robe and sandals, forgetting that he wore tassels on his garment (Mark 6:56), the way good Jews did, and probably recited the Shema every morning (Mark 12:29-30), the way good Jews did, and cited the Ten Commandments as being the way to inherit eternal life (Mark 10:17ff), which good Jews knew.
D) That was his name. It was the name his mama used to call him to supper. If you moved to a country that mis-learned your name as "Mertinly", you'd eventually shrug your shoulders and quit trying to correct everyone who mispronounced your name, and learn to live with it. But you'd likely feel better when someone actually got it right and called you "Manly". I figure Jesus/Yahshua can handle our mangling of his name, but still, it's a small bit of at least lip-service I can offer. I'm quite inconsistent with this when it comes to other New Testament names, as you've pointed out - Peter, Luke, etc - mostly that's due to lack of consistency on my part, but it also has to do with the fact that many of them lived in either the Greek world, or in a mixed Hebrew-Grecian world. Take Peter for example; at his Jewish home, he was known as Cephas; but in the Greek world in which he spent much time, he was known as Peter (or more accurately, Petros). I would probably be more amenable to calling Yahshua "Yaesu" (or "Yaesus", depending on grammatical considerations), because that's at least Biblical (New Testament), but "Jesus" is that extra consonantal sound-step farther yet.
E) Because we don't know the Hebrew names, we don't see the nuances. Yahshua is Joshua is Hosea (more or less). The first Yahshua (Joshua) was reported in Jewish lore (not Biblical record) to have married Rahab the Harlot; the second Yahshua (Hosea) also married a harlot; the third Yahshua (Jesus), also is marrying a harlot, but one who has been washed clean due to his efforts, not our own. There's a lot of symbolism, etc, that we simply miss, by not knowing the words behind the text.
F) It means something (as most Biblical names do). As you're probably aware, Bible translators have, for centuries, corrupted God's written word intentionally, changing the God-inspired name of YHWH (Yod - Hey - Wah - Hey; the "Tetragrammaton"; the "Four Letters"), which God said would be the name by which he would be remembered throughout the generations (Exodus 3:15) into the man-made alteration of "the LORD" (turn to almost any page in the Old Testament in a main-line version and you'll see this phrase). The name was likely pronounced "Yahweh". The short form of "Yah" is familiar to us in the phrase "Hallelujah", which means "Praise Yah". (The "j" for the "y" sound is a relic of Elizabethan English, and has since morphed into the "j" sound in most modern words.) The name "Jehovah" is a man-made mixing of the vowels from the Hebrew word for "Lord" and these four consonants (in Elizabethan English where "j" = "y" and "v" = "w") - JeHoVaH. Because we don't know this, we don't realize that "Yahshua" means "Yah saves", just as the angel predicted his name to mean (Matt 1:21). Because we don't know this, we don't realize why the Jewish political machinery was so upset about the sign which Pilate hung over Yahshua's head as he hung on the cross. Written in three languages, the sign included the Hebrew form of "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews", written as "Yahshua Hanatzoi, Wehemelech Hayuhadim". There it was in plain sight to those who noticed the first letters of the description, announced by the governing authority - YHWH. Pilate had just declared Jesus to be YHWH God, King of the Jews (John 19:19ff). I can just imagine Pilate smirking as he answered the trouble-makers' request for a different sign with, "What I have written, I have written". Because we don't know his name, we miss the pun he uses when he announces that Salvation ('Shua) has come to the house of Zacchaeus (Luke 19:9). (Zacchaeus' Hebrew name, Zakkai, also has meaning, which also colors the story, if you understand some of the background.)
Don't take any of this to mean that I hold the usage of "Yahshua" to be superior to the usage of "Jesus"; what's superior is to know the Man-God behind the name, and there are many who have a better relationship to him than do I, who have never even heard this Hebrew form of the name. But I offer these as my reasons for often using this form.
Binding and Loosing
Scott Wiley wrote:
This ties in with the terms "binding" and "loosing", which we, not being part of the Rabbinical culture in which Yahshua lived and taught, don't quite "get".
In Yahshua's day, there were two main schools of Rabbinical thought, as founded by two great rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, who had been born just a generation or two before Yahshua. Much of the testing of Yahshua made by the religious authorities was not so much a challenge against Jesus as a simple inquiry into which school of thought his teachings fell (for example, see this entry on divorce, where we find that Jesus sides with Shammai rather than with Hillel).
Not just any Rabbi could "make the rules" as Shammai, and Hillel, and Yahshua himself, did. Only those who had "authority" could do so. So when Yahshua comes along and "teaches as one having authority" (Luke 4:32), he's challenged by the religious leaders who ask him where he got this authority. They understood that not just anyone could claim to be a Rabbi with authority, but that he must be given that authority by two other such authority-bearing Rabbis. Yahshua essentially said, "I got mine from John the Immerser, and God Himself when I was immersed. Do you accept their authority?" (although he does it in a Rabbinical questioning method which most of us Westerners don't quite comprehend - Luke 20:1-8))
Normal Rabbis could teach from the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, but only those things which had been handed down from more authoritative Rabbis through the years. But authority-bearing Rabbis could interpret the scriptures afresh: we see Yahshua doing this in the Sermon on the Mount - "You have heard it said ..., but I say ...".
When a Rabbi enforces a particular teaching on a student, he is essentially binding that teaching, and when a Rabbis releases a student from a teaching, he is essentially loosing that teaching. The collection of bindings and loosings that a Rabbi teaches is called his "yoke". After fussing about the harsh religiosity of his culture, Yahshua said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. All of you, take up My yoke and learn from Me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Matt 11:28-30).
Yahshua gave to the church this authority to bind and loose, the first time apparently to Peter:
Now, having laid all that background, I'm drawn back to Scott's question, or more accurately, to the underlying issue of authority for what we do as the church. Can we "invent" a synagogue if we can't make it to Temple? Can we bind a law on the believers that "Christians don't drink"? Can we loose a law on women that says they can't speak in 21st century Western mixed assemblies? Do we have that authority to "tie up heavy loads that are hard to carry and put them on people's shoulders", and to "lift a finger to move them"?
I honestly don't know. I've believed all my life that church doctrine was established in the first century, and anyone who teaches a different doctrine is accursed (as per Gal. 1:6-9). But looking at all this background, I'm left wondering if the church does have the right to modify the specifics of how that doctrine is implemented.
I think it would be a stretch to say the church can loose something that is fundamental to first century doctrine (such as the physical, bodily resurrection of Yahshua); but perhaps it can ease up on other issues, such as women remaining silent in a mixed assembly.
I really hate to even bring this up, because of its incredible potential for abuse, and because it's so far outside the boundaries of orthodoxy for most of us, but it's a question that nags at me.
Did Yahshua give us, the church, the authority to mold our own form/practices, or are we limited to restoring the first century church in all its particulars (except for those we deem not applicable - *cough*) as those of us raised in the Restoration Movement have been trained to believe?
I don't know, but I find it an interesting and uncomfortable question.
was this during a temple worship? An equivalent of the synogogue?This question asked by Scott draws my attention. If you think about it, you'll find there is no scriptural authority for the Synagogue (having developed probably during the Babylonian Captivity when observant Jews had no access to the Temple), but by the time the New Testament opens, the Son of God seems to accept it as a God-inspired worship format, even though he was unable to produce a Book/Chapter/Verse for its existence.
This ties in with the terms "binding" and "loosing", which we, not being part of the Rabbinical culture in which Yahshua lived and taught, don't quite "get".
In Yahshua's day, there were two main schools of Rabbinical thought, as founded by two great rabbis, Shammai and Hillel, who had been born just a generation or two before Yahshua. Much of the testing of Yahshua made by the religious authorities was not so much a challenge against Jesus as a simple inquiry into which school of thought his teachings fell (for example, see this entry on divorce, where we find that Jesus sides with Shammai rather than with Hillel).
Not just any Rabbi could "make the rules" as Shammai, and Hillel, and Yahshua himself, did. Only those who had "authority" could do so. So when Yahshua comes along and "teaches as one having authority" (Luke 4:32), he's challenged by the religious leaders who ask him where he got this authority. They understood that not just anyone could claim to be a Rabbi with authority, but that he must be given that authority by two other such authority-bearing Rabbis. Yahshua essentially said, "I got mine from John the Immerser, and God Himself when I was immersed. Do you accept their authority?" (although he does it in a Rabbinical questioning method which most of us Westerners don't quite comprehend - Luke 20:1-8))
Normal Rabbis could teach from the Torah and the Prophets and the Writings, but only those things which had been handed down from more authoritative Rabbis through the years. But authority-bearing Rabbis could interpret the scriptures afresh: we see Yahshua doing this in the Sermon on the Mount - "You have heard it said ..., but I say ...".
When a Rabbi enforces a particular teaching on a student, he is essentially binding that teaching, and when a Rabbis releases a student from a teaching, he is essentially loosing that teaching. The collection of bindings and loosings that a Rabbi teaches is called his "yoke". After fussing about the harsh religiosity of his culture, Yahshua said, "Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. All of you, take up My yoke and learn from Me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for yourselves. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light." (Matt 11:28-30).
Yahshua gave to the church this authority to bind and loose, the first time apparently to Peter:
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. (Matt 16:18-19)
... but the second time more generally to his followers:
If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. ... I assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them. (Matt. 18:15a; 18-20).We see this authority being exercised in the church about 14 years after its inauguration, when the previously Jew-only church starts being opened to non-Jews. Many staunch Pharisees and other "conservative" Jewish believers insisted that these new Gentile converts be converted to Judaism in order to participate fully in the Jewish church. But a council was called at Jerusalem, and it was decided, via the Holy Spirit, that they would heed Peter's voice, which stated:
And from that time on, a new term arose, "Christian", which seemed to better fit this new school of thought that followed Rabbi Yahshua but which included decidedly unJewish Gentiles as full disciples.Why, then, are you now testing God by putting on the disciples' necks a yoke that neither our forefathers nor we have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10)
Now, having laid all that background, I'm drawn back to Scott's question, or more accurately, to the underlying issue of authority for what we do as the church. Can we "invent" a synagogue if we can't make it to Temple? Can we bind a law on the believers that "Christians don't drink"? Can we loose a law on women that says they can't speak in 21st century Western mixed assemblies? Do we have that authority to "tie up heavy loads that are hard to carry and put them on people's shoulders", and to "lift a finger to move them"?
I honestly don't know. I've believed all my life that church doctrine was established in the first century, and anyone who teaches a different doctrine is accursed (as per Gal. 1:6-9). But looking at all this background, I'm left wondering if the church does have the right to modify the specifics of how that doctrine is implemented.
I think it would be a stretch to say the church can loose something that is fundamental to first century doctrine (such as the physical, bodily resurrection of Yahshua); but perhaps it can ease up on other issues, such as women remaining silent in a mixed assembly.
I really hate to even bring this up, because of its incredible potential for abuse, and because it's so far outside the boundaries of orthodoxy for most of us, but it's a question that nags at me.
Did Yahshua give us, the church, the authority to mold our own form/practices, or are we limited to restoring the first century church in all its particulars (except for those we deem not applicable - *cough*) as those of us raised in the Restoration Movement have been trained to believe?
I don't know, but I find it an interesting and uncomfortable question.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
The Earliest (Jewish) Church
I've written elsewhere about the first century church really being two churches: in the early years, the church was exclusively Jewish, strictly observing the Law of Moses, and only later accepting Gentiles, who did not observe the Law of Moses, as Christian brothers. For a few decades, it appears that these two groups existed side-by-side, having a very different look-and-feel, such that were we to find these two groups on opposite street corners today on Main Street, USA, we'd refer to at least one of them as a "denomination".
I was just made aware of another piece of evidence that demonstrates that the earliest church was Jewish to the core.
We generally consider the apostle Paul to be the author of 1 Corinthians, and whereas that is partly true, we tend to forget that this book was co-authored by another Christian brother, Sosthenes.
I was just made aware of another piece of evidence that demonstrates that the earliest church was Jewish to the core.
We generally consider the apostle Paul to be the author of 1 Corinthians, and whereas that is partly true, we tend to forget that this book was co-authored by another Christian brother, Sosthenes.
Paul, called as an apostle of Christ Jesus by God's will, and our brother Sosthenes: To God's church at Corinth.... (1 Cor 1:1-2a)What makes this significant to the discussion is that Sosthenes was not only a Christian, he was the ruler of a synagogue, beaten by the anti-Christian mob at Corinth:
Then they all seized Sosthenes, the leader of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the judge's bench. (Acts 18:17)It's also interesting to note that the apparently previous ruler of the Corinthian synagogue, Crispus, also became a Christian:
Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed the Lord, along with his whole household; and many of the Corinthians, when they heard, believed and were baptized. (Acts 18:8)Our modern day Gentile-ized church often condemns any hint of Jewish worship as being anti-Christian; this view is unBiblical. Being a leader of an exclusively Jewish synagogue, participating in exclusively Jewish worship, was not at all incompatible with being a Christian. It was just such a leader of Jewish worship who gave us part of our New Testament under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Anointing With Oil
James 5:14ff
We tend to see the anointing with oil as integral to the healing. I don't believe that is in the text.
What we miss is that the anointing with oil is a consecrating of the individual to God.
The first time the Bible mentions an anointing with oil is when Jacob sleeps and dreams at Beth-El ("House of God"), and anoints the rock with oil, consecrating the place as God's House. Note that the rock was not sick, and the anointing with oil did not make the rock well. The place was God's.
Later, the utensils in the Temple are anointed with oil. Note that the utensils were not sick and made well by this anointing, but that they were consecrated as being special, chosen, belonging to God. They were God's utensils.
Still later, young shepherd David was anointed with oil by Samuel. David was not sick, and this anointing did not make him well. What it did was consecrate David as being chosen, special, belonging to God. David was God's friend.
The terms "messiah" and "christ" mean "anointed one". Jesus the Messiah was not made well by his anointing; he was made the chosen one by his anointing. His anointing made him consecrated to God. The Messiah was God's presence on Earth.
When someone in the church is sick, he should call for the elders, who will consecrate him to God by the anointing with oil, and who will pray for him, that he might get well. The sick person belongs to God.
Anointing with oil has nothing to do with miraculous gifts, and everything to do with consecrating the anointed one for God's possession.
Accordingly, it might still serve a purpose in the post-miraculous age of Christianity.
Is anyone among you sick? He should call for the elders of the church, and they should pray over him after anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. The prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.It seems to me that our cultural baggage has caused us to see something in this text that is not in it, and to miss something that is.
We tend to see the anointing with oil as integral to the healing. I don't believe that is in the text.
What we miss is that the anointing with oil is a consecrating of the individual to God.
The first time the Bible mentions an anointing with oil is when Jacob sleeps and dreams at Beth-El ("House of God"), and anoints the rock with oil, consecrating the place as God's House. Note that the rock was not sick, and the anointing with oil did not make the rock well. The place was God's.
Later, the utensils in the Temple are anointed with oil. Note that the utensils were not sick and made well by this anointing, but that they were consecrated as being special, chosen, belonging to God. They were God's utensils.
Still later, young shepherd David was anointed with oil by Samuel. David was not sick, and this anointing did not make him well. What it did was consecrate David as being chosen, special, belonging to God. David was God's friend.
The terms "messiah" and "christ" mean "anointed one". Jesus the Messiah was not made well by his anointing; he was made the chosen one by his anointing. His anointing made him consecrated to God. The Messiah was God's presence on Earth.
When someone in the church is sick, he should call for the elders, who will consecrate him to God by the anointing with oil, and who will pray for him, that he might get well. The sick person belongs to God.
Anointing with oil has nothing to do with miraculous gifts, and everything to do with consecrating the anointed one for God's possession.
Accordingly, it might still serve a purpose in the post-miraculous age of Christianity.
Monday, November 23, 2009
The Church's Finances
Every week, the plate is passed around the congregation.
Every week, the funds so collected are doled out according to the budget plan, paying salaries, electric bills, mortgages, TV show expenses, and if anything is left over, maybe an orphan's home or a few dollars into a local person's overdue medical bills.
That's the modern way of handling the church's money.
What was it like in the first century church?
The very first time a collection of money is mentioned in the church is Acts 2:44-45, which says:
And what of the very next example? It's in Acts 4:23ff:
What about other examples?
The next example is in Acts 6, where we find that the distribution to the needy has become such a pressing matter that a special group of ministers ("deacons") are appointed to handle the day-to-day details, freeing the apostles (who had previously been responsible for the task) to do their job of preaching. The apostles were doing the preaching; the deacons were distributing the incoming funds to the needy, not to paying the church's bills.
1 Timothy 5 lays out some guidelines for this distributive effort, and in the process makes it clear that paying the bills of your own family takes precedence over other expenditures, but if you can't, then the church should kick in. Someone who doesn't provide for his own family is worse than an infidel according to this passage. And those who receive funds from the church should be known for good works.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 reiterates this last point:
Now, let me make it clear that the church does have a responsibility to pay its bills, including the salaries of its staff. But I believe we've turned the pyramid upside down; the base of the pyramid, the bulk of church finances, should be going toward helping Christians meet their financial needs, with the tip, the small portion, going toward church bills. We've inverted that pyramid, and have done so at the risk of hearing these words from Jesus (Matt 25):
Every week, the funds so collected are doled out according to the budget plan, paying salaries, electric bills, mortgages, TV show expenses, and if anything is left over, maybe an orphan's home or a few dollars into a local person's overdue medical bills.
That's the modern way of handling the church's money.
What was it like in the first century church?
The very first time a collection of money is mentioned in the church is Acts 2:44-45, which says:
And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.Notice what is done with the money: it is shared with anyone having need. (I believe the context limits that "anyone" to "anyone within the group", but I could be wrong.)
And what of the very next example? It's in Acts 4:23ff:
Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet. This was then distributed to each person as anyone had a need.Notice again what the Scriptures teach: money given to the church is to be distributed to those who have a need.
What about other examples?
The next example is in Acts 6, where we find that the distribution to the needy has become such a pressing matter that a special group of ministers ("deacons") are appointed to handle the day-to-day details, freeing the apostles (who had previously been responsible for the task) to do their job of preaching. The apostles were doing the preaching; the deacons were distributing the incoming funds to the needy, not to paying the church's bills.
1 Timothy 5 lays out some guidelines for this distributive effort, and in the process makes it clear that paying the bills of your own family takes precedence over other expenditures, but if you can't, then the church should kick in. Someone who doesn't provide for his own family is worse than an infidel according to this passage. And those who receive funds from the church should be known for good works.
2 Thessalonians 3:10 reiterates this last point:
If anyone isn't willing to work, he should not eat.Titus 3:14 indicates that a main thrust of our efforts is to meet the cases of urgent need. As The Message puts it:
Our people have to learn to be diligent in their work so that all necessities are met (especially among the needy) and they don't end up with nothing to show for their lives.The very purpose of having a job is not to give to the church to build a nicer building, but to give something to the needy, according to Ephesians 4:28:
... [H]e must do honest work with his own hands, so that he has something to share with anyone in need.And again, Paul reminds the church in Romans 12:13:
Share with God's people who are in need.Even that well-known passage from 1 Corinthians 16, read so often from the pulpit to persuade Christians to give to the work of the church, is ALL about giving to the needy, and not at all about paying church bills. This is clear from verse 1:
Now about the collection for God's people ....Any other use of this passage for justification of doing anything except collecting for God's people, no matter how good those tasks may be, is a twisting of the scripture.
Now, let me make it clear that the church does have a responsibility to pay its bills, including the salaries of its staff. But I believe we've turned the pyramid upside down; the base of the pyramid, the bulk of church finances, should be going toward helping Christians meet their financial needs, with the tip, the small portion, going toward church bills. We've inverted that pyramid, and have done so at the risk of hearing these words from Jesus (Matt 25):
Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me."
They also will answer, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?"
He will reply, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."
Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Birds Not Evolved From Dinos
From EvolutionNews.org:
Archaeopteryx isn’t the only evolutionary icon losing its claim as the ancestor of birds. In recent months we’ve seen paleontologists increasingly arguing that the entire clade of dinosaurs should no longer be considered ancestral to birds. As the WSJ article states:There are lingering doubts that birds today are descendants of dinosaurs. Researchers at Oregon State University recently argued that the distinctive anatomy that gives birds the lung capacity needed for flight means it is unlikely that birds descended from dinosaurs like archaeopteryx and its kin. Their findings were published in June in the Journal of Morphology.As paleontologist John Ruben of Oregon State was quoted saying when his article was published:But old theories die hard, Ruben said, especially when it comes to some of the most distinctive and romanticized animal species in world history."Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Why Live Through Suffering?
JOHN_A_DESIGNER writes at Telic Thoughts:
The idea of heaven is actually a later development in Jewish and Christian theology. Read the book of Job. The closest that Job gets to the idea of an after life is the question: “If a man dies, will he live again?” So then, what is the book of Job really about? It is about a man confronted with severe suffering who is struggling to find the meaning in the midst of his suffering. It is a struggle between two choices: “curse God and die” or “though He slay me I will trust him.” Faith is not about the after life. Faith is about this world. What faith will I need in heaven where there is no suffering or challenges?
On the other hand, heaven is always presented in the Bible as a reward. How can it be a reward if it is not preceded by challenges?
Interesting thoughts....
Saturday, October 03, 2009
Should Christians Sneak Candy Into Movie Theaters?
The following was written by Sam Stinson on the Church_Of_Christ Yahoo!Groups list.
"You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another."
(Leviticus, 19:11, NASB)
Long before I became a Christian, I remember my family taking me to movies when I was a young child. We hardly ever bought popcorn, soft drinks, or candy at the movie theater--in fact I can't remember a single time when we did. When I became a teenager I remedied this by going to dollars stores and purchasing cheap boxes of candy and hiding them in the pockets of my pants, my coat, or on one of my friends. I justified this behavior to myself by saying, "I have a right to eat whatever I want and to buy it from whomever I choose." I also remember thinking, "The cost of food in movie theaters is six times what it is in other stores! Why should I not try to save money?"
Years later, after becoming a Christian, I realized that this behavior was not in keeping for a Christian. Here are thoughts along this line for your consideration.
1. Sneaking candy into movie theaters is a violation of a posted theater policy. I've never encountered a movie theater which permitted its patrons to bring in food or drinks from home. Most of us would never knowingly bring a video camera into a theater and tape the movie we're watching in order to distribute it illegally on the Internet. But sneaking candy into the movies is equally dishonest. Why is that? Because knowingly acting in violation of any business's policy and pretending that I'm not is intentionally dealing falsely with others, a clear violation of scripture as noted above.
2. Sneaking candy into movie theaters destroys the theater's ability to make a profit. Have you ever heard someone say, "The concessions is where theaters make their money!" In many cases this is true. If I am truly eating something I am not authorized to bring, based on my acceptance of the agreement to not bring outside food into a theater, I have deprived the theater of its profit. If this is indeed stealing, Christians should cease from this practice. (Eph. 4:28)
3. Sneaking candy into movie theaters creates a bad example for others. Christians and non-Christians, especially children, can be influenced by the behavior of others. If others see us doing this practice, they will likely imitate it. If it is something that causes us to sin, it may cause them to sin when they do as we do.
4. It is often the "little things" that make Christians look like hypocrites to the world. A Christian might say, "I've never murdered, or committed adultery, or cheated on my taxes." Very well indeed. But one who stumbles in one point of honesty has violated the truth. "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." (Luk. 16:10)
"You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another."
(Leviticus, 19:11, NASB)
Long before I became a Christian, I remember my family taking me to movies when I was a young child. We hardly ever bought popcorn, soft drinks, or candy at the movie theater--in fact I can't remember a single time when we did. When I became a teenager I remedied this by going to dollars stores and purchasing cheap boxes of candy and hiding them in the pockets of my pants, my coat, or on one of my friends. I justified this behavior to myself by saying, "I have a right to eat whatever I want and to buy it from whomever I choose." I also remember thinking, "The cost of food in movie theaters is six times what it is in other stores! Why should I not try to save money?"
Years later, after becoming a Christian, I realized that this behavior was not in keeping for a Christian. Here are thoughts along this line for your consideration.
1. Sneaking candy into movie theaters is a violation of a posted theater policy. I've never encountered a movie theater which permitted its patrons to bring in food or drinks from home. Most of us would never knowingly bring a video camera into a theater and tape the movie we're watching in order to distribute it illegally on the Internet. But sneaking candy into the movies is equally dishonest. Why is that? Because knowingly acting in violation of any business's policy and pretending that I'm not is intentionally dealing falsely with others, a clear violation of scripture as noted above.
2. Sneaking candy into movie theaters destroys the theater's ability to make a profit. Have you ever heard someone say, "The concessions is where theaters make their money!" In many cases this is true. If I am truly eating something I am not authorized to bring, based on my acceptance of the agreement to not bring outside food into a theater, I have deprived the theater of its profit. If this is indeed stealing, Christians should cease from this practice. (Eph. 4:28)
3. Sneaking candy into movie theaters creates a bad example for others. Christians and non-Christians, especially children, can be influenced by the behavior of others. If others see us doing this practice, they will likely imitate it. If it is something that causes us to sin, it may cause them to sin when they do as we do.
4. It is often the "little things" that make Christians look like hypocrites to the world. A Christian might say, "I've never murdered, or committed adultery, or cheated on my taxes." Very well indeed. But one who stumbles in one point of honesty has violated the truth. "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." (Luk. 16:10)
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Biblical Profanity
Over the past few years, I've begun to come to the conclusion that the translators who bring the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into English have skewed their results sometimes according to their own sensibilities rather than accurately portraying what the text says.
One such case is in Philipians 3:8, wherein Paul is claiming that in contrast to the value of knowing Christ Jesus, all other things are "rubbish".
This word "rubbish" (skuvbalon) seems to be a sanitized version of what the actual word means. Here's a summary from Daniel B. Wallace:
Offends our sensibilities, doesn't it? But if it's true (and it seems to be), it is what it is.
One such case is in Philipians 3:8, wherein Paul is claiming that in contrast to the value of knowing Christ Jesus, all other things are "rubbish".
This word "rubbish" (skuvbalon) seems to be a sanitized version of what the actual word means. Here's a summary from Daniel B. Wallace:
That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang in TDNT 7:445); (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov and the medical term perivsswma); (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well. Nevertheless, that its shock value was not fully what “s**t” would be is suggested in the fact that in the Hellenistic period (c. 330 BCE-330 CE) the word was also used on occasion for “gleanings” or “table scraps.”In other words, it appears that the word which God inspired is somewhere between "crap" and "sh*t".
(From http://bible.org/article/brief-word-study-skuvbalon - Go read the entire article for a fuller treatment)
Offends our sensibilities, doesn't it? But if it's true (and it seems to be), it is what it is.
The Church's Educational Responsibility
A year or so I came across this passage:
1) not be a burden on other people,
and
2) to help relieve the burdens other people have.
I think it may be time for the church to start providing its members with the resources to do these two things. That means encouraging young people to finish school and get a college education, and to avoid derailments of those plans (like getting pregnant or dropping out), and to finance education of those who missed their first opportunity while young, and perhaps to even provide career counseling.
Many of my church peers would scoff at such a notion, believing that the business of the church is to "spread the Gospel", and not to get wrapped up in "social issues". But if I'm reading those passages above correctly, I think it may be time to at least start thinking in these directions.
He ... must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.More recently I came across this one:
-- Ephesians 4:28
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.It seems to me that a fundamental goal of Christian maturity is to have the necessary resources to:
-- 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12
1) not be a burden on other people,
and
2) to help relieve the burdens other people have.
I think it may be time for the church to start providing its members with the resources to do these two things. That means encouraging young people to finish school and get a college education, and to avoid derailments of those plans (like getting pregnant or dropping out), and to finance education of those who missed their first opportunity while young, and perhaps to even provide career counseling.
Many of my church peers would scoff at such a notion, believing that the business of the church is to "spread the Gospel", and not to get wrapped up in "social issues". But if I'm reading those passages above correctly, I think it may be time to at least start thinking in these directions.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
One nation! Under God! Indivisible?!
There's a lot of discussion about the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. I have no qualm with that phrase. I would, however, be disturbed for it to be removed, for no matter how often the claim is made that "God is dead", I'm convinced He is alive and well and in control, and the nation that acknowledges Him will be blessed above the one that does not.
But I can't recite the Pledge as it is commonly known. I have a problem with the phrase "indivisible".
The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which is the basis for the very existence of the United States of America, emphasizes this right to separate. It says:
In this war, the South was doing the exact same thing the original 13 Colonies had done almost a hundred years earlier, and the North was doing the exact same thing the English had done. The only difference was that in the latter war, the captors won and Freedom, Independence, was lost.
History is written by the victors, and so are cultural bindings such as the Pledge of Allegiance; thus we have the phrase. But I'm standing on the founding principles of the United States of America. Thus I recite:
But I can't recite the Pledge as it is commonly known. I have a problem with the phrase "indivisible".
The very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence, which is the basis for the very existence of the United States of America, emphasizes this right to separate. It says:
When ... it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them ... and to assume ... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, [it's only respectful to say why].And then the next paragraph states that when government gets too big for its britches,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government....The War of Northern Aggression (aka The War Between the States, aka The Civil War) was fought over this very principle (the issue of slavery was just the trigger). The South had had enough, and had dissolved the political bands with their Northern brethren, but the North illegally forced, at gunpoint, the South to remain.
In this war, the South was doing the exact same thing the original 13 Colonies had done almost a hundred years earlier, and the North was doing the exact same thing the English had done. The only difference was that in the latter war, the captors won and Freedom, Independence, was lost.
History is written by the victors, and so are cultural bindings such as the Pledge of Allegiance; thus we have the phrase. But I'm standing on the founding principles of the United States of America. Thus I recite:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.We're still one nation; that's how I prefer it. But the nation is legally not "indivisible".
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Be One
All Paul is saying is to meet each others' needs. He's not saying no one can ever say "no", or even that your husband has control of your body. He's saying that your body is his, and his is yours, and that you are "one". The Hebrew word behind this concept is "echad"; it's the same word used in the Shema, which observant Jews recite every day: "Hear, Oh Israel! YHWH is God; YHWH is one!" (although they substitute "Lord", Adonai, for the actual God-given textual rendering of YHWH). The first time this word is used, it is used to join the evening and the morning into a complete whole, Day Echad. The next time it is used, it is used to join a man and a woman into an Echad flesh. Yahshua declared himself and YHWH to be Echad.Notes in a private message concerning 1 Corinthians 7.
The ideal is that a husband and wife are Echad, One, and that what pleases one should please the other. If you don't have that with your husband, sex ain't gonna fix it, and the lack of sex ain't gonna hurt it.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Confess Your Sins One to Another
James 5:16 says:
1) It does not say, "Confess your sins to the whole church", although I believe that when the sin is public, the confession should be public. Rather it says confess your sins "to one another"; perhaps the implication is that we should have one-on-one relationships in which we feel comfortable opening up to each other totally; you can't do that with a large group; you can do that with one, maybe two or three, intimate friends. I think there may be an important psychologically-healthy injunction here.
2) It does not say, "Confess that you have sinned" to one another. Rather, it says, "Confess your sins". It seems to me that we are short-circuiting the Biblical healing process when we go before the church and say, "I've sinned, please pray for me", when what we should say is, "I've sinned by X, please pray for me".
For example, let's say I cussed out the check-out girl at the store as I bought condoms in preparation for a night with a prostitute. The next Sunday morning I go forward and confess, "I've sinned, please pray for me". Should the church assume I'm repenting of abusing the check-out girl, or for fornicating, or both, or neither? For the forgiveness of which sin(s) should the church pray?
Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, so that you may be healed.Two things:
1) It does not say, "Confess your sins to the whole church", although I believe that when the sin is public, the confession should be public. Rather it says confess your sins "to one another"; perhaps the implication is that we should have one-on-one relationships in which we feel comfortable opening up to each other totally; you can't do that with a large group; you can do that with one, maybe two or three, intimate friends. I think there may be an important psychologically-healthy injunction here.
2) It does not say, "Confess that you have sinned" to one another. Rather, it says, "Confess your sins". It seems to me that we are short-circuiting the Biblical healing process when we go before the church and say, "I've sinned, please pray for me", when what we should say is, "I've sinned by X, please pray for me".
For example, let's say I cussed out the check-out girl at the store as I bought condoms in preparation for a night with a prostitute. The next Sunday morning I go forward and confess, "I've sinned, please pray for me". Should the church assume I'm repenting of abusing the check-out girl, or for fornicating, or both, or neither? For the forgiveness of which sin(s) should the church pray?
Maybe I'm wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)