Oloryn's Wordshop

A few reflections on Acts 3

2011-12-03T23:46:00.001-05:00

Oh, wow, has it been a long time since I've posted(2 and a half years). I've got a couple of posts in draft stage, but they've never made it to published state. Time to rectify that.

The following dates back to shortly after my last post. A friend from church had asked me to look at the first few verses in Acts 3. The following was the result:

John:
Last week you asked me to look at the first part of Acts 3 (Peter andJohn and the healing of the man born crippled). Here's what I've comeup with.

One thing I see is that when God wants to draw attention, He certainlyknows how to do it. Anyone else (other than this cripple) who was seenin the temple walking and jumping around probably would't have drawnmuch attention. But this guy was probably something of a fixture aroundthe temple. Most of the people in the temple court had probably seenhim regularly and knew his condition. They'd probably given him money. When he shows up jumping around the temple courts, they know who heis and know how amazing the sight is, and they know that this isn't a fake.

Through the whole situation, I'm seeing Peter as a man whose eyes are on Jesus. He knows that he himself has nothing to offer except theauthority to speak in Jesus name, and faith in that name. And he doeshave faith, of a level that can only be God-given. It's one thing tospeak in Jesus name and watch what happens. It's another to speak andthen grab the cripple by the hand and haul him up.

But the thing that gets my attention is Peter's response to the crowd. He asks 2 questions:

"Why are you amazed?" I can just see someone in the crowd respond"Peter - Duh! A man crippled from birth is walking around, jumping, anddancing like a monkey. For most people, this falls pretty firmly in the'Amazing' category". But for the man whose eyes are on Jesus, and whoknows who Jesus is, this isn't amazing. In Jesus presence, these thingshappen.

"Why are you staring at us as if this man had been healed by ourpower or piety?" Peter's eyes are on Jesus, not on himself. He knowshe doesn't have the power to heal, and after denying Jesus, he knowsthat he doesn't have any piety in and of himself. He knows who Jesusis, and he knows who he is, and between the two he knows which onereally deserves attention.

I think most Christians have little problem with acknowledging that it'sGod's power, not ours, that heals and touches people. What we haveproblems with is acknowledging that our piety has nothing to do with it. If God has us involved with healing or touching someone, we wouldn'tmind a bit if it is seen as a reflection of our own spiritual growth orknowledge, our own 'piety'. But for Peter, whose eyes are on Jesus,it's actually puzzling that people might perceive this event asreflecting well on his own piety.

As a man whose eyes are on Jesus, Peter then proceeds to point to Jesus,not himself, as the author of this healing.

An additional note:

If I'm right, and this man had been a 'fixture' in the temple for an extended period (which seems likely, given that 'the people recognized him'), then it's likely that he was there during Jesus' ministry, and Jesus didn't heal him during Jesus' earthly ministry. You have to wonder if Jesus looked at him at some point and thought 'Friend, I'm not going to heal you today. But your healing is going to play a big part in the start of building my Church'. When God doesn't answer us today, sometimes He may be saving the answer for a time that will produce a bigger result than we expect.

Meekness

2009-03-22T20:13:00.002-04:00

When Jesus says in the Beattitudes, "Blessed are the meek", most of us have problems making that practical. What in the world does it mean to be meek? The typical modern use of the term tends to imply a milquetoast, shy, and weak person, and that doesn't seem to be what Jesus is getting at. So what does the meekness that is blessed mean?

My own approach to this was to use what I believe is a Brainstorming technique: if you're having trouble defining or grasping a word, ask "What is its opposite?". For me that had an immediate answer - the opposite of meekness is arrogance. And the essence of arrogance seems to me to be that it ignores legitimate boundaries. Arrogance takes what it wants, whether there are legitimate obstacles in its way or not. It assumes rights or authority it does not have, ignores legitimate authorities who would oppose it, and ignores the rights of others when those rights get in the way of what it wants.

Well, if the essence of arrogance is that it ignores legitimate boundaries, it seems likely that the essence of meekness is that it instead respects them. This is a definition (or at least description) that I can get hold of. The meek person can be strong, even bold and assertive, but it stops when it comes up to a legitimate boundary or restriction. It allows its strength to be limited by legitimate laws, rules, or authorities. I've heard meekness defined as 'strength under control', but it seems to me that that is mere self-control(to what degree self-control can really be considered 'mere'. We could use seeing lots more self-control). A meek person allows himself to be controlled by legitimate outside authorities, not just by himself.

Make no mistake, even this kind of meekness seems 'weak' to the arrogant. The failure to take what you want, regardless of rules is regarded by the arrogant as a character failure and a sign of weakness. You can expect to have some people still regard you as weak when practicing this kind of of meekess. But their disdain is not itself a legitimate restriction, and shouldn't be regarded as one.

You've probably noted the heavy usage of the term 'legitimate' in the above. The meek won't necessarily allow themselves to be limited by restrictions that aren't valid, though they are free to allow that and beyond ("if someone wants to take your coat, give him your shirt also") or to go beyond legitimate restrictions ("if someone forces you to go a mile, go with him two". But they are also free to ignore restrictions that are not legitimate or to require others to respect legitimate restrictions (see Paul in Acts 16:37)

And this type of meekness seems to me to make the Beatitude understandable. Jesus says of the meek, not that they will acquire the earth, nor that they would conquer the earth (that would be more what the arrogant aim for), but that they will inherit the earth. The earth is handed over to them by someone else. And I suspect that it's handed over to them simply because they can be trusted with it. They won't take it as an indication of authority beyond what they actually have, they won't abuse it, they won't use it selfishly. They will not go beyond proper boundaries in using it, and they therefore can be trusted with it. The arrogant may think the earth is going to be theirs, but God controls the earth, and will ultimately give it to those He knows can be trusted with it (and it will probably drive the arrogant crazy!)

Listening and Exegesis

2008-10-02T23:35:00.004-04:00

Internet Monk has a post on how even conservative, inerrancy-believing preachers often end up preaching from Song of Solomon as though it was a manual on marriage and sex. The problem isn't that what they're teaching on the latter is wrong, it's that it's not what Song of Solomon is actually getting at. It's not good exegesis. I can identify somewhat with this, having heard more than one sermon where my internal response was "what you're teaching is fine, it just doesn't say that in the passage you're preaching from".

Actually, I think he's hearing in a scenario where it's much more obvious something that goes on with a lot of scripture. Even the intent to be correct theologically can be a distraction at times. E.g. I've begun to find myself getting irritated at the way if a passage contains terms like 'elect' or 'predestination', you can almost be sure the person 'exegeting' it will end up hammering on one side or the other of the Calvinist vs Arminian argument. But sometimes what is being talked about in the passage has nothing to do with that argument, and if you insist on looking at it from the perspective of that argument, you're going to miss what's being said. For example, what Paul's trying to get across in Rom 8:28-30 is the same whether you look at it from a Calvinist or an Arminian viewpoint. I get the impression, though, that few people actually follow Paul's logic in this passage, either because they stop at verse 28 ('God works all things for good'), or because the term 'predestination' in verse 29 puts them into Calvinist vs Arminian mode. (I guess this means I need at some point to post what I think that logic is).

Part of the problem (and at this point, I'll admit that I'm possibly dropping into my own agenda, as this is an issue I've seen God make an emphasis in my life) is that the vast majority of people just don't listen very well (and exegesis is essentially (or ought to be) good listening formalized). Generally, we listen, not to accurately understand what the other person is trying to get across, but to gauge how the other person's words fit into our own mental framework. Good listening requires acknowledging that the other person may be working from a different mental framework, viewpoint, or background than ours. A good listener may very well disagree with that other framework or viewpoint, or regard it as invalid, but will agree to understand that that is where the other person is coming from. Good listening requires learning to recognize the clues that indicate that there are framework, viewpoint, background or terminological differences between the speaker and the listener, and taking it into consideration (which at times includes recognizing that you don't yet understand what the speaker is trying to get across). And Good listening is, alas, in short supply.

If you haven't picked up the above good listening skills, I wonder if you're really prepared to do good exegesis of scripture. If you can't listen to people, particularly people who have significant differences from you, how prepared are you to listen to the God who tells us "My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways". Develop these skills now with people from whom you can get feedback, so you can figure out where your listening skills tend to go wrong and correct it (and my experience is that developing good listening skills generally starts with making lots of mistakes and figuring out where you went wrong. It's also how you figure out how to detect the clues that tell you there are differences between how you and the speaker see things). When exegeting scripture, you don't have that kind of feedback available.

C. S. Lewis suggested a pre-ordination exam testing a candidate's ability to translate the theology he's learned into ordinary language. I'd suggest that in order to be able to do that, one of the earliest courses in seminary should be a class on developing good listening skills. This should be a prerequisite to theology classes, but note that these skills are also going to be very valuable for things like counseling.

Bulverism

2007-12-06T14:29:00.000-05:00

If you've noticed many of my comments in other blogs (particularly if you came here via such a comment), you've probably seen me referring to Bulverism. I thought it might be good to post something about it here.

C. S. Lewis, back in the 1940's, noticed a particular tactic of argument that was so pervasive that he felt he had to give it a name. He called it Bulverism(it is also called the genetic fallacy). Lewis defines Bulverism as "instead of trying to prove your opponent wrong, you assume he is wrong, and give an explanation of how he got that way." Bulverism essentially amounts to dismissing an opponent's arguments because you can imagine some irrational motivation for them believing as they do. As Lewis put it, "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs". Seems to me that the latter phrase comes pretty close to describing present-day politics

Don't imagine, though, that Bulverism is confined to one political party. Conservatives bulverise the liberals about as much as liberals bulverise conservatives (though I'll admit that some on the left seem to have turned Bulverism into something of an art form. E.g. 'Homophobia' is, essentially, a one-word Bulverism). That's essentially the problem - everyone ends up pointing fingers at the alleged motivations of their opposition instead of actually arguing on the merits.

It can be amusing to see those claiming to be speaking as scientists using Bulverism (and they do), as Bulverism essentially is hypothesizing a motivation for your opponents reasonings, assuming without examination that that hypothesis is true, and proceeding to dismiss your opponent's reasoning on that basis. This is about as far from the scientific method as you can get.

Bulverism is attractive because it gets around the tedious, difficult process of having to understand your opponents arguments, figure out where they're wrong, and proceed to demonstrate those errors logically (followed by your opponent doing the same to you). All that's required is a bit of imagination and the willingness to risk slandering(or libelling) your opponent.

As far as I can see, the pervasiveness of Bulverism has increased since the 1940's, to the point where it is almost taken for granted. The opposition isn't just wrong, they haven't merely made mistakes in reasoning, they must have gotten there due to some nefarious motivation. And once the imagined connection between 'wrong beliefs' and 'bad motivations' is assumed, disagreement becomes intensely personal. If being incorrect implies evil motivations, if mere disagreement with someone implies that you think their motivations are bad or wrong, people are going to resent disagreement. The end result is that, instead of arguing about "who's right?", we end up arguing about "Who's righteous?".

To me, the amusing thing about this (if such a state of affairs can be regarded as amusing) is that in my experience, the vast majority of people are actually extremely lousy at discerning other peoples motives. We regularly assume that other people's motives can always be reduced to one motive, when in fact we generally operate under the weight of multiple, often conflicting motives. We seem to ask "What would it take for me to do that/believe that?", and assume that that must be the other person's motivation, regardless of how different they are from us. We too easily assume our own ability to see into the hearts of others based on appearances, when in fact only God sees into our hearts. Not only is Bulverism intellectually lazy, it depends on an ability that only few come anywhere near having competency in. And this is what drives political discourse nowadays? You have to laugh, if only to keep from crying.

Practicality and the Second Greatest Commandment

2007-11-27T18:40:00.000-05:00

A while back I made a post on the term "Neighbor" and the Second Greatest Commandment, but lately it has struck me just how practical God's choice of words is.

He could have taken a tack more like the modern "Love your fellow man" (or, if you have to be PC, "Love your fellow person". I suppose if we were living in the time of Star Trek, it would have to be something more like "Love your fellow sentient entity"). As good as that sounds, for practical purposes, you actually have to choose some subset of the human race to love, as you can't practically love every one of them. The question is, how do you choose that subset?

You could just choose your friends and the parts of your family that you like, but, common as that is, it's rather obviously not what God has in mind.

You could ratchet things up a bit, choose one or more "oppressed" or needy people groups and love them, and consider that this gives you leave to give short shrift to loving others, particularly those you consider to be the oppressors of your chosen people groups. Common as this also is, it also falls short of what God has in mind.

God commands us to love our Neighbor as ourselves. A neighbor is simply someone who comes near to you (who is in physical proximity to you, who is close enough for your actions to affect them). This is not just those who live near your house, this is those who come near to you all through your day. If someone comes near enough to you that what you do affects them, you're commanded to love them as yourself.

Basically, God has taken the choice of what subset of the human race to love right out of our hands. If they're nearby, you're commanded to love them.

The bureaucrat who messes up your life by forgetting to give you information is someone you're commanded to love as yourself.

The policeman who gives you an undeserved ticket is someone you're commanded to love as yourself.

The person who cuts in line in front of you is someone you're commanded to love as yourself.

The political speaker who opposes your views, who you've come out to protest is someone you're commanded to love as yourself (N.B. that means you don't shout them down to prevent them being heard).

The white supremacist who disses you for being black is someone you're commanded to love as yourself.

The school principal who suspends your kid for bringing a plastic soldier holding a plastic knife to school is someone you're commanded to love as yourself.

The spammer who litters all of your posts with spam comments is someone you're commanded to love as yourself.

I think you get the idea. If I haven't managed to hit you with the equivalent of Jesus using a Samaritan as the 'good guy', please feel free to add your own examples.

Contemporary foolishness

2007-11-24T02:24:00.000-05:00

The wise man wants to act righteously, and and welcomes correction as an aid to doing it. He will defend his reputation against unfair attacks, but only after examining the criticism to see if there is anything to learn from it. For him, doing right trumps looking right.

The fool wants to look righteous and regards correction as an obstacle to that goal. Defending his reputation is the first priority, and only after he once again feels his reputation is secure will he, possibly, examine the criticism for validity. For him, looking right trumps doing right.

Starting off a post with a quote like that, I guess I should be attributing it to some wise sage, but I'm afraid it's just me. Take it as a restatement of ideas taken from Ps 15:4c, Pr 12:1,15, and 2 Cor 13:7, with a generous dose of C. S. Lewis's principle of First and Second Things. Basically, it's a result of noticing how much of modern life falls into the foolish pattern.

I've long noticed a pattern in both politics and business that I've come to characterize as "prioritizing PR over actual effectiveness". Primary effort is put into making yourself look effective, with only secondary effort put into actually doing your work effectively. This goes beyond being merely commonplace in politics; nowadays it seems like this is the primary operating tactic of the majority of political campaigns, and failing to run your campaign on this principle will actually draw criticism.

You also see it heavily when a politician or business has to deal with bad news of some kind. Too often, it seems that first priority is put on spinning it in the most positive (or at least 'least negative') sense, and only secondarily (if at all) is consideration given to fixing the problem that produced the bad news in the first place. At least as far as we can tell, that's what happens. Too often, it seems like any direct attempt by the public to actually determine if the announced fix is effective are blocked. Like Dorothy, we're told to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" - "only listen to what our PR department tells you about how we're fixing this problem".

And those of us who behind the scenes are involved in having to deal with fixing the problem can often tell you that decisions about how to fix the problem are often colored heavily by the "PR before effectiveness" principle. A 'solution' which makes a public splash about doing something about the problem will be given priority over a less public solution which has a better chance of actually being effective. Being "seen" to be trying to deal with the problem is considered more important than actually being effective at dealing with it.

Now, I'll admit that you can't totally ignore perception. As a business partner of mine is fond of saying: "If you do a technically good job of solving a customer's problem, but the customer perceives you as doing a bad job, then you've done a bad job." There is, however, a large gulf between paying attention to the effects of perception, and making control of perception your number one priority.

Contrast this attitude with Paul's in 2 Cor 13:7:

Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we should appear unapproved.

For Paul, priority is given to effectiveness as an apostle, teacher, and discipler, even if the result is a bad perception of Paul's effectiveness. It's more important that he be effective in his calling, in producing disciples that do well, that do what's right, than that he appear in men's eyes to be doing well.

How easily do we fall into the foolish pattern, particularly if we're in leadership? How easy is it to make obtaining (or, worse, enforcing) a positive view of ourselves from others a high priority? And how easy is it to self-justify by claiming that we can't be effective unless people view us positively?

Fools are fools, in part, because the things they do are eventually self-defeating, and so it is here. As Lewis puts it "every preference of a small good to a great, or partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made". Prioritize PR over what you're actually supposed to be doing eventually results in losing the good PR you were seeking. People generally eventually see through the pretense. Better to be humble, admit your limitations and faults, and put your effort into being as effective as you can than to put your effort into painting a picture of PR perfection and eventually be found to come up short.

The truth doesn't set you free

2007-04-20T03:05:00.000-04:00

Those who know me may be a bit surprised at the title of this post. "Hold on, Oloryn, it says right there in scripture:"

and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:32 NASB)

"How can you say, in the face of Jesus own words, that the truth doesn't set you free?"

There's a problem with that very popular quote. Note the first word: "and". The quote is the last part of the statement, and so only conveys part of the story.

So, what's the "rest of the story"?

Jesus therefore was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine;" (John 8:31 NASB)

This is the primary condition for what follows: you have to be abiding in His word, which makes you a true disciple. If you're not fulfilling that condition, the rest of the passage doesn't apply to you. Actually, unless you're fulfilling that condition, knowing the truth may be iffy. Note the sequence: You abide in His word, which makes you a true disciple. This results in knowing the truth, which results in being made free.

Note also that believing in Jesus by itself doesn't qualify. Let's widen the context a bit, and pay attention to that 'therefore'. As a result of Jesus words in a discussion with the Pharisees (see verses 12-29), many Jews came to believe in Him. At this point, Jesus turns to those believers and makes the statement we've studied above. Jesus wasn't satisfied with their coming to belief. He wanted them to go on into freedom (and they don't even realize they need to be made free - see the following verses). If believing was sufficient, He wouldn't have made the statement.

Note that I'm not saying that this is a prerequisite for salvation. Salvation is by grace though faith in Christ alone (Eph 2:8 et al), but Jesus isn't satisfied for us to come into salvation and just sit there - He wants to take us on into freedom, and that takes an abiding-in-His-word discipleship relationship with Him.

And I wonder if not fully understanding this is part of what produces problems among my fellow theological conservatives. We tend to focus on truth, and we're right to do so, as we live in a culture that largely denies that truth even exists. But in focusing on defending truth, we tend to forget that truth by itself doesn't set free. Truth only sets free in a context of a true discipleship relationship with Christ, and the pursuit and defense of truth doesn't by itself produce that relationship. The pursuit of a discipleship relationship with Jesus has to take priority over the pursuit of truth. This doesn't mean the two are contradictory, this means that without that priority our own pride at being truth-pursuers and truth-holders will hinder the discipleship relationship and damage our witness.

Predestined to what?

2007-02-16T23:28:00.000-05:00

Lately (when I'm not being annoyed at the way the mere presence in a passage of terms such as 'predestined', 'elect', or 'chosen' often causes people to launch into their favorite theory of Calvinism vs Arminianism, which tends to distract from the task of actually paying attention to what the passage says....ahem, anyhow....), I've been noticing how often scriptural mentions of predestination seem to 'point' predestination, not at justification per se, but at things which seem more like sanctification. The whole Calvinist vs Arminian wrangle tends to go on in terms relating predestination to salvation (by which, largely, we mean justification and forgiveness of sins, the basic 'fire insurance' aspect of the Gospel), yet it seems to me that I keep running across scriptures that seem to tie predestination to things that fall better into the general 'sanctification' side of things.

This first caught my attention in 1 Pet 1:1-2, but the passage that has been getting my attention lately is Romans 8:29-30. This is, of course, the followup to the oft-quoted Romans 8:28: "And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose." For some reason, we like to stop right there. It does make it easy to imagine that the good and the purpose referred to are our own personal comfort and prosperity (whatever happened to "in the world you have tribulation"?).

But Paul goes on to describe the good and the purpose he's talking about: "For whom He foreknew, " (just to irritate my Calvinist readers, I will pause to note that the logic of this passage does have this particular predestination dependent on foreknowledge) "He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren". This is the purpose Paul is speaking of - that God might have many sons (and daughters) conformed to the image, character, and holiness of Jesus. Predestination here is not first or primarily directed at the 'fire insurance' aspects of the gospel, but towards our being made like Jesus.

Having purposed and predestined this for us, God then followed up with the things necessary to bring it about: "and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified, and whom He justified, these He also glorified." And this brings an interesting perspective. We rejoice (and rightly so) in having been called into salvation. We rejoice in having been justified and saved from hell. We rejoice in our coming glorification. And yet, in a sense, these things are side issues; they're baggage necessary to bring about the primary goal. These things are the caboose - the engine is God making a holy people, conformed to the image of His Son.

In Ephesians 1:18, Paul prays that we might know "what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints". That's an interesting turn of phrase - not what we're getting as an inheritance from God (our typical perspective), but what God is getting as an inheritance - us. Surely this is part of it - a people made holy and like Jesus. This is the riches God has purposed. How much are we letting Him work it in us today?

Anxiety and Servanthood, Part 1

2006-11-19T00:16:00.000-05:00

As I've indicated before, I tend to look out for therefores (and therefore equivalents) when reading scripture. They give us an chance to check out if our logic and God's logic are the same. Especially, I watch out for oft-quoted verses that begin with a therefore (or the equivalent). It's unfortunately not that unusual, and the fact that we start the quote with the 'therefore' indicates that we're starting in the middle, and leaving off the reason for what follows. It's at that point likely that we're missing part of the message.

One such place is Matthew 6:25:

For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing?

'For this reason'? For what reason? For that you need to go back one verse:

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will hold to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

Now this is a little scary. If 'You cannot serve God and mammon' logically leads to "don't be anxious about even such mundane, everyday concerns as food, drink, and clothing", it would seem to follow that worrying about such things constitutes serving mammon. And serving mammon will keep you from serving God.

Note that this isn't a question of God arbitrarily deciding that if you serve mammon, He won't let you serve Him. It's not 'You may not serve both God and mammon', as though God was laying down a (hopefully waivable) entrance requirement for the Serving God Club. It's 'You cannot serve both God and mammon'. The thing jest ain't possible. If you're serving mammon, you don't have the ability to serve God, no matter how much you may want to. Which means "Don't be anxious about food, drink, and clothing" isn't some high (and, to many of us, irritating) spiritual ideal attainable only by the most advanced Christian. It's informing us of a basic practical fact: worrying about where your food, drink and clothing will come from will rob you of the ability to serve God. If you want to serve God, you will have to deal with this.

Locusts & Honey: Men and Contemporary Worship

2006-11-15T14:17:00.000-05:00

John points to an article by Dave Murrow on why "men" don't get into contemporary worship, and I found myself for the most part agreeing with John's criticisms. And yet....

It struck me that I'd have a lot less trouble with what Murrow is saying if it wasn't couched in terms that seemed to make the kind of men he's arguing on behalf of normative, and those who differed something less. Tell me there's a group of men whose spiritual needs aren't met by modern praise and worship styles and we can discuss how to meet those needs(which may be exactly what Murrow's aiming at). Tell me, implicitly, that those men should be regarded as normative and, like it or not, whether we're aware of it or not, the underlying argument is going to shift to who can claim to be a normal, "real" man.

We can attribute this somewhat to the fragile male ego. But another aspect of this, I think, is the framework we use in dealing with masculinity and femininity. We tend to regard masculinity and femininity as if they were each a single, monolithic thing. To some degree, this is understandable, as we live in a worldly culture which tends to blur the distinctions, and in asserting that there is a distinction, it's easier to do if if we regard each of them as a single monolithic characteristic. But this tends to lead to a strict conformity-based identity, with not much room for individuality.

At this point, I'm going take C. S. Lewis's tack, and say that if what follows helps you, good, but if not, ignore it. The framework I work with on masculinity and femininity is that they're distinct, but not monolithic. Each is a melange of ingredients, with each ingredient capable of existing in a stronger or weaker state in an individual. Part of what makes up a man's individual personality is the individual strength or weakness of each of the ingredients that make up masculinity. Strength of a particular ingredient doesn't mean he's 'more masculine', nor does weakness mean he's less, but the various strengths produce the particular 'flavor' of a man's masculinity.

Complicating this whole mess (and it is complex, because a person's personality is much more than that person's masculinity or femininity - there are plenty of ingredients which are separate from either, and it's possible to have a personality 'ingredient' that's typical of the opposite sex, but is part of one's personality, but not part of one's sexuality) is that we're fallen. And to me that means not only that we tend to sin, but that our humanity has been twisted. As G. K. Chesterton put it, the answer to the question 'what, then, is the meaning of the fall' is "whatever I am, I am not myself". The fall tends to twist and pervert the good things God has created in us, making them more selfish and self-centered. This means that our pursuit of holiness is going to involve not getting rid of ingredients, but finding out how they've been twisted, and untwisting them. This is partly why I tend to see restoring a Biblical sense of servant authority and leadership (something that seems to be generally lacking) as more important than dealing with gender issues, as our approach to dealing with gender issues seems to be that of removing ingredients that would actually end up 'untwisted' if the servant leadership issue was dealt with.

With that in mind, I have to wonder if the problem with the particular ingredients Murrow is emphasizing is that we normally deal with or think of them in their twisted form. If so, then in responding, we need to both seek to understand where the twist comes in, which will give us a clearer picture of what the untwisted ingredient would look like, and seek to make sure that the need represented by the untwisted ingredient is given a place to be met.

Sigh. Is that coming across as as mixed a metaphor as I think it is?

Two Ways of the Kingdom of Heaven

2006-09-18T22:06:00.000-04:00

Lately I've switched my devotional time to a straight-through reading of the Bible. I alternate Old and New Testament, but pretty much I'm just reading straight through, one or two chapters at a time. I augment it with Spurgeon's "Morning and Evening", but sometimes theres's no substitute for just plain reading the Word.

Today brought me to Matthew 25, and maybe lately I've been reading too many blogs, because my first thought while reading through the parable of the ten virgins was that in today's politically correct climate, this wouldn't fly. The prudent virgins would be roundly criticized for being unwilling to share their oil with the foolish virgins. We must have equality of results, even if that results in equal failure for all. Yet Jesus utters not a word against the prudent virgins. This is what the Kingdom of Heaven is like: the Kingdom of Heaven rewards prudence and lets the foolishness of the imprudent fall on their heads.

Then we come to the parable of the talents, with an ending sure to make the politically correct scream in rage: we take away from the servant with the least resources what little resources he has, give it to the servant with the most, and throw the poor servant out the door. The cries of "Oppression!" and "Favoring the Rich!" ring in my ears. The poor guy probably had mental problems: he had a twisted view of the master's character and a horrendous fear of failure. To be fair, the master accepts those problems, but points out that even under those conditions, there was an alternative: handling it over to the bankers who would produce a modest gaim with little risk. His weaknesses are accepted, but aren't allowed to be an excuse for doing absolutely nothing. This is what the Kingdom of Heaven is like: the Kingdom of Heaven rewards responsibility and punishes irresponsibility.

At this point, I can hear the applause rising among the conservative crowd, with assorted rumblings about "character", "responsibility" and "discipline". And that's ok.

And yet....

And yet....

The next thing we come to, in the same stream of thought, are the theme verses of the Social Gospel crowd, the judgement of the sheep and the goats. A place in the Kingdom requires reaching out and ministering to the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the naked, the sick, and those in prison.

Somehow, in our modern world, we at times make these two things opposites, contradictions even. The merest whisp of a suggestion that some of the poor and needy may have gotten that way due to imprudence or irresponsibility elicits rage and condemnation from some people. The assumption that all of the poor and needy got that way due to imprudence and irresponsibility is used as an excuse by others to avoid ministering to them. But neither of these are right. For Jesus, these two sides of the Kingdom are one. There is a place in the Kingdom to say "no" to fools who want us to save them from their imprudence. There is even a place to punish the irresponsible. But there appears to be no place for those who never help the truly needy.

Confessions of a Conservative Seminarian: Removing Tradition -- Clarity of Original Intent or an Attempt to Rewrite Christianity?

2006-09-18T02:05:00.000-04:00

This post by cseminarian rang bells with me. And I think there's another error being made by the professors he refers to: the assumption that merely by discarding preconceptions, you are automatically prepared to see the text as the ancients saw it. The perspective differences between the ancients and us make that questionable. It's difficult enough to master the art of accurately listening to someone whose background and perpective differs from your own when that person is a contemporary and can give you feedback. Doing that across the distance of history is even harder.

The best preparation I know of for this is to develop said art in the here and now. In my case, God blessed me in this by redeeming my pre-conversion addiction to Fantasy/SciFi novels. Somewhere along the line I switched from "suspension of disbelief" (an expression I find fascinating - does that imply that most of us see disbelief as normal?) to "letting the story tell its story in its own terms". I may disagree with those terms, I may even find those terms horrific, but I'll agree to understand the terms and background the story is based on, rather than insisting on shoehorning it into my own terms and background.

That attitude can be shifted to people. In listening to people you agree to hear what they're saying in terms of their own background, assumptions and goals rather than insisting on fitting their words into yours. You don't agree to find their viewpoint as valid, but you do agree to try to see what they're trying to say from their own perspective.

This isn't easy, and may require abilities that some people simply don't have(carrying multiple perspectives in your head at once and keeping them straight isn't something everyone can do). But for those of us that can acquire it, this is a remarkably useful skill, profitable in a multitude of different areas. I at times wonder if you see this reflected in the introduction to the Psalms:

for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;
for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;
for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young --
let the wise listen and add to their learning
and let the discerning get guidance --
for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise. (Pr 1:2-6 NIV)

If nothing else, this skill is invaluable if you end up involved in any way with counselling.

I can't give step-by-step instructions on learning this (because I didn't learn it that way), but Rule 1 is that miscommunication is extraordinarily easy, and can't be cured by precision of speech (as valuable as that is). You have to learn to spot the small clues that tell you that what you're hearing isn't what the speaker is trying to say, and let that alert you to check for background, assumption, perspective or terminological differences between you and the speaker, or to just plain ask for correction. Other than that, ask God to teach you and dive in. You'll make plenty of mistakes, but you'll learn from them. Along the way, you'll also get a much clearer idea of where your own particular perspective comes from (how can you contrast your perspective and the speaker's if you don't know where you're coming from?). You'll get a feel for how ordinary people communicate (which is often quite different from how scholars communicate). You'll learn to combine precision of concept with the imprecise way people often use words. And you'll figure out that sometimes you'll just have to admit you don't know, and wait for what it takes to give you clarity.

And you'll be much better prepared to read across those historical distances and actualy have a stab at getting what the ancients would have gotten out of it(not to mention following what the writer was getting at).

What's gone wrong with the Left?

2006-06-18T23:48:00.000-04:00

Ayeeee! It's been too long since I've posted. I'll admit, I started a post on the relationship between "You can't serve God and Mammon" and "Don't be anxious about you will eat and wear", and found the topic became rather large for just one post. I'm still working on it, and will post when I've got it down to non-novel length.

Meanwhile.....~~Yesterday~~ ~~Not long ago~~ A while back, I went to a Ken Medema concert. Ken is one of my favorite musicans from back in the Jesus Music era (I've still got a couple of his vinyl albums from that era). Ken's theme for the concert was heroes. One of the heroes described, Bill Campbell, was a civil rights leader. The situation was the aftermath of a clash between a civil rights group and some Klansmen, which resulted in the death of a Klansman. In this situation, though having 'every right' to be resentul, Bill Campbell was able to go to the widow of the slain Klansman and sincerely say "If there's anything I can do to help, let me know." In the midst of the civil rights conflict, he waa able to hang on to the truth of forgiveness.

As Ken was telling this it hit me that what seems to have gone wrong with the current "Left" is that they've lost touch with the truth of forgiveness. With the original civil rights leaders, there was room for forgiveness of the bigots and racists who opposed them. As I look at the actions of the current "Left" who claim to be the successors of the original civil rights movement, I don't see that insight. Whatever the pluses and minuses (and I know there are some who only see minuses) of President Bush, when you see the left in general comfortably, proudly, and aggressively proclaiming, by word and deed, their hatred of President Bush and others who they see as opponents, it's hard to believe the truth of forgiveness is much in view.

Now in some ways that might sound a little odd coming from an admittedly conservative writer. You might think I'm just making another "Look how bad the left is" argument, but it's more like I'm saying that the left has lost something that would make them more effective. While I disagree with a lot of what the left has to say nowadays, I think we need some people who fill a roughly 'leftist' position in life (perhaps more like what has been called an 'old-style liberal' than what we have now, but we still need them). As I've put it before in another context: "There are some people who think that if you're in business, you automatically must be an evil person motivated solely by greed. They're wrong, but they do make a good counterpoint to those who think that if you're in business, you automatically must be a saint whose opponents are motivated solely by envy." Those of us who (rightly) insist that there are real moral absolutes in the world that you ultimately can't get around probably need some people around who will make us remember that there is a merciful side to the God who set up those absolutes. It just seems a bit strange that the people claiming to be on the merciful side are forgetting to show mercy and forgiveness towards those with whom they disagree.

Ken has a song about Ananias being called by God to visit Saul (Acts 9:10-17), at the time when Saul was widely known as the most active persecutor of the Church. Ananias balks at first, then goes. As Ananias enters the house where Saul was staying, the first thing out of his mouth was " Brother Saul". As Ken puts it in concert: "Did you hear that? I called him brother! Do you realize the theological implications of calling my worst enemy 'Brother'?!" Later in concert he brings out that we may have Sauls waiting out there for us, enemies who we'll have to go to and call 'Brother'. Saul might be Nicaraguan, or Red Chinese, or any of a whole litany of people we might see as enemies. What the current left seems to have forgotten is that for some people, Saul might be a Republican, or work for Haliburton or even like Anne Coulter. Until they remember this, I have my doubts about what worthwhile change they might bring about.

Neighbor

2005-12-18T21:09:00.000-05:00

Lately I've been thinking about the term 'neighbor', as in the Second Greatest Commandment (Mat 22:39): "You shall love your neighbor as yourself". In English, the word at a glance is obviously derived from 'neigh', which to my ear sounds very much like an old English term for 'near'. 'Neigh' is still occasionally used in that sense - a quick Google search for "neigh you" turns up a number of hits on James Darren's "Sophisticated Lady", though even by KJV times, 'nigh' appears to be preferred. A quick look at the dictionary pretty well confirms this (though there it is the Old English term neah). The Greek word here translated neighbor has pretty much the same type of derivation, coming from a word simply meaning 'near' (the Hebrew word translated 'neighbor' in Lev 19:18 doesn't seem to have near as simple a derivation, at least as far as I can tell from the Strong's dictionary - it comes from a word meaning to tend a flock. Anyone who understands how we get the concept 'neighbor' from that is welcome to jump in). 'Neighbor', then, appears to simply mean someone who is physically near you.

With that in mind, I'd like to turn to the classic parable defining the term 'neighbor' in Luke 10:30-37, the parable of the Good Samaritan.

One of the things that now strikes me about the parable is the way the priest and the Levite pass by on the other side. It's as though they realize that just being near the injured man incurs an obligation to him, and deliberately do what they can to try and not be near him, however contrived.

My second observation is that I'm beginning to wonder if we tend to get distracted by the degree of help the Samaritan gives to the injured man. He's certainly a high example of how to treat a neighbor, but the parable isn't given as an answer to the question "How should I treat my neighbor?" It's given as an answer to the question "Who is my neighbor?" By concentrating on the Samaritan's high example, I think we easily miss the simple, plain meaning of the word 'neighbor'. The Samaritan didn't become the injured man's neighbor by treating his wounds, he became the injured man's neighbor simply by coming near to him on the road of Life. His subsequent treatment of the man shows he knew how to love his (newfound) neighbor as himself in that situation. I think Jesus' followup of 'Go and do likewise." isn't just an instruction to follow the Samaritan's example in treating the downtrodden, it's an instruction to recognize that people become your neighbor merely by coming close to you as you tread the path of life.

Or to put it back into the context of the original commandment, the primary test of whether or not you are obeying the Second Greatest commandment isn't whether you are involved in helping the downtrodden 'out there' (as good as that may be). The priest and the Levite might be said to be 'loving their neighbors' in this kind of sense, as they do provide religious services which help their 'fellow man', but Jesus obviously considers them to have fallen short. The primary test of your (or my) obedience to the Second Greatest commandment is how you treat the people you encounter in the ordinary, everyday course of life - the people you live with, the people you work with, the people you meet on the street, in the stores, in restaurants, in church, and all the other places you go in life.

Humble Talents

2005-12-11T14:44:00.000-05:00

This week's study is going to be a bit different from the usual. Typically, I'm heavily exegetical - trying to listen to exactly what scripture is saying and drawing out what is implied by the exact words. Today, I'm heading in an atypically experiential direction - starting from my own experience, and moving to scripture from there. I'm not entirely sure how to keep it from sounding self-centered and boastful, but here goes.

Way back at the beginning of college, during a period of transition, looking at the discipline required for college, and the state of my mind at the time, I uttered the prayer, "Oh, Lord, You're going to have to teach me to think". Now, understand, it's not like I was intellectually lacking. Though not per se the studious and academic type, I was somewhat noted for my intelligence. I managed to pull things like snagging 2nd place (and first place the next year) in the school in the National Math Test while pulling C's in Algebra. When called upon for answers for homework that I hadn't done in Algebra, I'll look at the question, do the quadratic equation in my head, and give the (typically correct) answer. I drove my math teachers crazy.

In looking back over the years since I uttered that prayer, it's like God said to himself: "I don't get that request from intellectual types very often. Usually the intellectual types are far too convinced that they need no help or additional learning in thinking. I'm going to answer that prayer."

Now it's not like God dropped a text entitled "The Divine Method of Thinking" on me, which I could learn and then propound to others: "This is the way you're supposed to think!" He took the particular talents He had given me and moulded them even further. He plopped me for several years into a group of people who, while not unintelligent, weren't intellectually inclined, so I could learn that the Intellectual's heart for truth won't ever be entirely satisfied unless he's willing to listen to those he considers unintellectual. He took disparate elements like my reading of C. S. Lewis, my computer programming training, even my interest in SF/Fantasy books, and shaped my thinking with them. The result isn't that I'm better than anyone else, but that I'm more fitted to the work to which God has called me.

In looking back over this, I can't help but wonder if I've accidently (well, not really. Nothing in God's Kingdom is just accidental) stumbled across something easily passed by - the value of humbling your self before God in letting Him teach you the use of the talents He's given you. We grow up as Christians hearing the parable of the talents (Matt 25:14-30, Lu 19:12-27), and though it covers more than what in English we call talents, we rightly learn from the parable the need to use our talents for the Kingdom of God. What we may erroneously assume, though, is that just because we have been given talents, we automatically know how to use them best. Some amount of expertise comes with being given talents, but it doesn't mean it can't be improved.

I once heard a college professor comment: "I don't need God to tell me how to teach." It wasn't until a bit later that I realized that the answer to that is "You mean God Himself couldn't make any improvements in your teaching technique?" I don't think it's a matter of not using your talents until God has taught you, it's a matter of countering the innate pride that easily comes to us about our abilities and acknowledging that He always knows more than we do. "Humble yourselves in the presence of the Lord, and He will exalt you" (Jas 4:10) applies here. It is, essentially, the surrender of lordship over our own talents, and letting Him be Lord over them.

What's the Excellent Wife's husband like?

2005-12-04T16:04:00.000-05:00

I enjoy it when you find scriptural teaching in unexpected places - those little bits of scripture that are easily missed because they touch on something different than the surrounding context. Such is the subject of today's study.

Proverbs 31 is widely known as the description of the Excellent Wife (or Virtuous Wife, or Wife of Noble Character, depending on translation). Yet almost hidden within it is a comment on her husband's character that we guys do well to pay attention to.

In Proverbs 31:28-29 we read

Her children rise up and bless her;
Her husband also, and he praises her, saying
"Many daughters have done nobly

Let's stop right there, as those last 5 words say an awful lot about his general attitude towards women.

"Many daughters" - the evaluation that follows covers a large segment of the female population. The Hebrew for 'Many' generally carries a connotation of abundance. In this context it's even likely he's talking about a majority of women.

"have done" - note that it's their acts that he's evaluating. The Hebrew connotes doing or making things in a systematic or habitual way, so this is not just the exceptional actions he has in mind.

"nobly" - this is not a minor term of praise. The Hebrew connotes enough of some resource to constitute a force.

So what do we have here? We have a man who regards women in general not as mere attractive backdrop, but as people doing worthwhile things, and doing them very well.

Is it any accident that this is the man who is the excellent wife's husband? Is it possible that his high regard for women is one of the things that enables her to accomplish all that she does?

I ask because I'm not sure how often I see this in modern times, even in the church. Too often, we men take the Biblical concept of male headship as though it was a sop to the male ego, making us the important ones, and women mere attractive backdrop. Too often on modern men's lips, the expression of praise in this verse comes out more like "Y'know, women as a whole don't amount to much, but You, You're OK". Before we ask our wives to try to live up to the example of the Proverbs 31 wife, we ought to make sure we're living up to the example of the Proverbs 31 wife's husband.

Paying attention to the Therefores

2005-11-27T16:34:00.000-05:00

One of the things I've learned when reading scripture is to pay attention the therefores (or as Bible Teacher Bob Mumford puts it "Whenever you see a therefore, check to see what it's there for"), particularly when they occur in Jesus' teaching. Especially interesting are what I call the 'practical therefores'. These take the form "This is true, therefore your practical response to it should be this". In some translations the 'therefore' is expressed more as 'because of this' or 'for this reason' or similar. In the New Testament, at least, there are several Greek expressions that can be translated as 'therefore', and some translations will try to distinguish them by using different wording. But the idea is still there: Because this is true, you should do this as a result.

When you see this, you're got an opportunity to

See what God's logic is in this situation, and

Contrast it with typical human logic in this situation

For example, let's look at Mat 9:37,38(NASV):

Then he said to his disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore, beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest."

The situation Jesus is talking about is familiar to a lot of people: there's a lot of work to be done, and not enough people working on it. I'm sure anyone who has had even a minor leadership position in the church has found themselves in this position. Our usual reaction ranges from pestering friends and acquaintances to get involved, to organizing recruiting campaigns, to blistering preaching that tries to induce guilt into those who aren't yet involved. Somewhat like Martha, we may find ourselves trying to pull into our work people who aren't called into the same work we are doing.

Jesus' logical response to this situation will seem simplistic to some: Pray. But I'm convinced from what follows that He is being quite practical.

First, note the emphasis on who is in charge. It's mentioned twice in one sentence ('Lord of the harvest', and 'His harvest'), which strikes me as a deliberate emphasis. In the face of temptations to regard the work as our own (or to feel like the burden is entirely on us), we're to remember that it belongs to God and He is in charge.

Second, the Greek word here translated 'send out' implies forcefull action. It is used, for example, for expelling an invading army from a city. In this context, I'd be tempted to translate it 'shove out'. I can't think of anything that would be more indicative of a practical knowledge of how these things work. If, in a 'lots of work, few workers' situation you've ever found yourself wanting to grab some people and shove them out into the field, know that the Lord knows exactly how you feel. Some people simply have to be forced to do the work. It's just that He reserves the right to do the shoving, and to choose who gets shoved, for Himself.

Aaaauuuggghhh!

2005-11-20T20:10:00.000-05:00

<Sigh> After years of internal grousing that I seemed to have some worthwhile insights, but no real outlet for them, I finally figured out that blogging might actually provide one. You'd think a programmer would have figured that out sooner.

So, I set up a blog on here, and five and a half months later, we have......well, essentially nothing. One post about my score on the Theological Worldview Quiz and one unfinished post on miscommunication. This is not looking impressive.

I guess part of my problem is a combination of time and my writing style. I'm not the kind of writer who zips something off the top of the head in 5 minutes - I'm more the brooding over every word type who grinds things out slowly but (hopefully) precisely. Worse, I tend to be verbose. Hence, if I'm going to sit down and write a post, I want to feel that I've got a fair block of time to work with. Unfortunately, fair blocks of time have been in short supply for the past few months, what with a late project at work chewing up all spare time. Happily, that project is no longer chewing up time, and spare fair blocks of time are popping up again.

A bit of introduction is probably in order. As you can see from the profile, I'm a computer programmer (been at it for almost 30 years) whose college degree sports a Bible major. Basically, I started at Asbury College with a mindset that pretty much equated a Bible major with General Studies. Half-way through college, I discovered computers, and essentially felt that I'd found what I was made for. As Asbury didn't have a Computer Science major at the time, but did have a minor, I ended up finishing with a BA in Bible, with a Computer Science minor (and following it up with a good bit of self-teaching in CS). The result is a technical type with at least enough theological education to be dangerous.

I've got most of the influences you'd probably expect from a conservative/evangelical Christian with a technical bent. The writings of C. S. Lewis ranks high in the list, along with Francis Schaeffer and G. K. Chesterton. The programming background is also an influence. As a programmer, I'm used to dealing with systems for which I have only partial information, which gives me a different outlook on a Systematic Theology approach (which, from my viewpoint, sometimes has the weakness of assuming that we already have all of the necessary information to see a system in its fullness). But one of my major influences is that I tend to be heavily communications/listening oriented. Listening for what a person is trying to say, even if the way they express it would normally suggest something different to you, even if their background and assumptions are different than (or even contrary to) yours, is something that ranks pretty high in my set of values. As is probably typical for someone with that kind of emphasis, I've developed an ear for those little clues that indicate that miscommunication is likely to be occurring. And somewhere along the line, I've learned to apply those skills when approaching Scripture. You might say I tend to approach Scripture first as a listener, and secondarily as a studier. I've found that it makes a difference, and hope to be posting some of the insights that come from that difference here.

As a listener, I'll welcome feedback on what I post (for one thing, it'll give me another chance to listen). I typically need feedback to develop new insights. With my skillsets, I sometimes have people say I ought to be a teacher (e.g., teaching in Sunday School/Bible Study group or the like), but I've found that if I sit down and try to plan out a lesson, I don't do too well. Sit me down as a participant in a Bible Study group, though, let me listen to the rest of the group and I have no problems adding to the discussion. I seem to need the interaction to figure out where the knowledge or communication holes are in a group, at which point I can help fill in those holes. Part of the reason I'm doing this blog is to try to help get past that need, but the feedback will still be welcome.

Theological Worldview Quiz

2005-06-13T10:20:00.000-04:00

I saw this on Reverend Mommy's blog and gave it a try. The results, while not entirely surprising, were unexpected. You don't exactly expect that someone who has spent most of his church life in an independent Charismatic church, and is now attending a Baptist church, to score %100 Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. I guess my years at Asbury College must have had more effect on me than I realized....

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

100%

Reformed Evangelical

79%

Fundamentalist

68%

Neo orthodox

61%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

50%

Emergent/Postmodern

46%

Classical Liberal

39%

Roman Catholic

18%

Modern Liberal

18%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com