Because I do not hope to turn again...

Thoughts on sin

2009-03-26T21:54:00.002-07:00

We are now past the midpoint of this Lenten season and, like most people observing this time, I have become more contemplative in the last few weeks. I have been reading a book called The Concept of Sin by Joseph Pieper both for my own education and for a paper I am working on. Pieper does an excellent job in this work of explaining exactly how sin is defined in the Christian tradition and successfully scrapes off the barnacles of public opinion and cultural misunderstandings of sin. I could write at length about the various points that Pieper makes (in fact I am doing just that for one of my classes) but today I just wanted to bring up one point that hit me in the chest as I was reading.

Pieper’s explanation of sin is fairly in depth and covers a lot of ground, but what essentially makes an act a sin (or more to the point, a mortal sin) is that it is an act that intentionally moves away from God and towards the self. He establishes this point early on but throughout the rest of the book he keeps returning to the question “How is it possible for us to knowingly turn away from God?” This question can be restated by paraphrasing Paul’s thoughts: Why do I not do the things I know to be good and right but do the things I know to be wrong? The answer Pieper comes to towards the end of the book is found in our identity as created beings. God is all good and it is impossible for Him to be otherwise because this is the state he has always held. In fact, explaining his goodness by saying he has always been this way it misleading because it denotes temporal existence, it is more accurate to say that He is good. He was not created with good attributes, he is good. When God created man, He did so in His own image. For that reason man is capable of being good just as God is good. But it is this creation that sets us apart. We are created in God’s image, so we have the potential for good but it is what we were created from that gives us the potential for evil: nothing. God did not form us from some eternally existing matter. He called our being forth from nothing. Because of this we always have the potential to return to nothing, to turn from God and face the void.

As I read this section of the book, I felt a heaviness slide over me. It reminded me of that feeling when you are driving in the winter, listening to your radio, and enjoying the day not thinking about anything else until you suddenly realize that the traffic in front of you has suddenly stopped. You push the brake but the icy road prevents you from stopping fast enough. Your carefree, happy world was suddenly violated by the reality of danger. Reading Pieper’s explanation made me suddenly aware of the danger I was in. This is not the first time I had realized that sin was a movement towards nothingness. I had read enough Pieper and St. Aquinas before to be familiar with this thought. But this was the first time that I had truly considered my origins in that nothingness. It suddenly became clear that when I try to focus on myself and not God I am looking into the void and moving towards it. In fact, I was drawn to it like man who feels pulled back to a rundown, dirty town simply because it was once his home.

I had bought into the illusion that there was a separation between God and everything else; that all that existed was neutral matter that God simply had a deed for; creation was God’s in the same sense that my house is mine. But this is a lie. As soon as we try to remove God from our perspective and take Him out of creation we cannibalize ourselves until there is nothing left. We can see this happening in philosophy already. Beginning in the renaissance philosophers shifted our focus from a God centered viewpoint to a Man centered viewpoint. With each movement after that, Enlightenment, Romanticism, Modernism, and now Postmodernism , we see the destruction and disintegration of the self. We turned from God and sought truth in the institutions of man but found them to be corrupt. We looked in community in nature and found chaos, we looked to our senses but found them unreliable, finally we looked to our own self but had no reason to claim legitimacy. We dammed up the River of Life and started devouring creation but nothing we consume could sustain itself. It all turned into dust in our mouths. So we kept devouring till there was nothing left.

This perspective has really affected me deeply. I think it is probably the case with many people in the world including Christians that we separate God from his creation. We can easily picture turning our back on God to focus on the other things we are more interested in. We wake up Sunday morning and decide to go to Denny's and play some golf instead of going to church. Even when we are convicted by our choice we only see this as rejecting church or, at most, setting God aside. But in reality we are rejecting God, the milk we drink at breakfast, the car we drive, the grass we tee off from and everything else. To reject God is to reject all of creation. We must see our lives on these terms. Every action we take, every thought, every feeling is moving us either closer to God and his infinite goodness or closer to the nothingness from which we came. I often recall one of my professors saying that the greatest compliment you can give someone is to say "it is good that you exist." In honoring God we say to all creation that it is good that it exists. In sin we are saying too all things I don't care that you exist. In my sin I tell my 4 month old son, I don't care that you exist. This is a sobering thought for this sobering season.
Sorry for the downer on my first post in a while but it is Lent you know. Easter will be here soon and I will post something a bit more positive.

Why Sarah Palin is not "brave" or remarkable.

2008-09-06T08:14:00.004-07:00

Some may be reading this title and thinking I'm going to criticize Gov. Palin. Let me apologize to you ahead of time. What I am about to say, I am positive Sarah Palin would agree with.

Sara Palin did no great deed in deciding to keep her son Trig who was born with Down's Syndrome. I have heard from supporters and critics alike that this act was something extra ordinary. But from a truly Christian point of view, she did no more than what God has called her to do; love and care for her blessing of a child.
Rahul Parikh from Salon magazine has written in an article that Sarah Palin is actually a hypocrite because she "decided" to not abort her child but she wants to take away other women's right to make that same decision. This is a perfect example of how the pro-choice left simply cannot understand the perspective of pro-life advocates. For people like Sarah Palin there was only one decision made; to open her marriage to children. There is no later decision to keep a child, only to accept God's call and command on those who stand before him and enter into the marriage covenant He established when He created us.
I was surprised and excited to see that even a liberal pundit like Chris Matthew's echoed this point yesterday on Cspan when he remarked that it is wrong for liberals to be shocked that Palin would keep her baby and view her as a "monk" for making such a pious life decision. She did what you are supposed to do, welcome your child to the world even when they aren't perfect. Not all of out kids can go to Princeton and live perfect lives.
What I'm about to say may seem insensitive so if you haven't agreed with me yet, prepare yourself. People who don't abort their children with disabilities are not superheroes; people who do abort their children because they have disabilities are selfish, lazy, and partakers in a genocide fueled by eugenics that is as horrendous as Action T4. Some may see this as judgmental and unchristian but let me be clear that there is grace for these people, but no one receives grace who does not think they need it. It is especially important to remember that the grace given to them is given by our Heavenly Father who, knowing our wretched state and our crippling disabilities before He created us, chose to bring us into this world and make us inheritors of His kingdom. Who knew and has witnessed our failures to accomplished what he has called us to do, but still includes us in his plans even though we can never quite do things right. We are all God's retarded children!! I'm sure He could looks at our simple and ignorant lives where we pass on deeper joys for cheap thrill and shallow pleasures and say "Such a poor existence is not worth living." But He does not. He works with us in our ignorant state and helps us to catch small glimpses of the greatness that He knows and wants for us. How sickeningly prideful are we that we can, in our state, tell anyone that their life is so inferior that they should not exist?
Yet that is what we do. This self righteousness is not even reserved for the most difficult of cases but is seen with disturbing prevalence in cases of children with Down's Syndrome. According to Rahul Parikh, 90% of children diagnosed with Down's Syndrome before they are born are aborted. These are not people who will spend their lives on ventilators and suffering horrible physical ailments. I have worked with a variety of people with Down's Syndrome for years, I have known many who have graduated High School (most with appropriate support), have community jobs, have normal relationships, and have meaningful lives. My brother has Down's Syndrome and is diagnosed with severe/profound mental retardation (he's basically at the bottom of the spectrum in regards to cognitive ability) and he can talk to me, laugh and joke with me, play games, and in general live a good life. We won't be discussing Kierkegaard or anything, but I would never in a million years say that it would be better if he didn't exist. I'm not going to pretend that children with Down's Syndrome are just as easy to raise as any other child. I know just how difficult it can be. But that is what we are called to. If you are not willing to put in the work and sacrifice that a special needs child requires, you should not have children (or have sex for that matter, but that is a bigger issue).
So thank you Sarah Palin, not for going above and beyond what is expected of you, but for reminding us what is expected of everyone.

Palin's speech

2008-09-04T12:30:00.003-07:00

Most people have probably heard Gov. Palin's speech last night last night or at least seen highlights on the news. There has been a lot of buzz from various political figures and pundits but it seems that the majority of people saw it as a very effective speech (whether they agreed with the content or not). I personally thought it was an incredible first step into the presidential race. She did everything she needed to do; introduced the country to her and her family, explained her experience and her philosophy as a politician, and showed herself to be a capable vice presidential nominee that doesn't need to be coddled or protected.
As would be expected, the criticism from the left started pouring in as soon as the speech was over. What I saw was not in any way surprising and seemed to be just another symptom of democrats' memory problems. So let me address a few criticisms I thought were particularly amusing.
First, I have heard many complaints about Palin's attacks against Obama being potshots or below the belt. They try and paint Obama as the nice guy who has always taken the high road and shown respect for his opponents. Really?! So saying that McCain is trying to convince voters not the vote for him because he's black isn't a low blow and in fact an all out lie? Yet that is exactly what Obama did back in June. I guess the dems didn't remember that.
Second, many people (including Obama himself) have been saying that Palin and the republicans have been avoiding the issues because they don't have a plan. The fact that so many people buy into this kind of surprised me and is a bit depressing. Again we have the long term memory loss coming into play as people don't seem to recall McCain laying out his plans for a number of issues months ago. In fact this was well before Obama filled out his plans and he was criticized from both sides of the issues for not having positions. What is really depressing though is that people are too lazy to look up McCain's positions that he has laid out on his website. McCain's energy plan alone has been available for months and has been a lot more realistic and comprehensive than Obama's. But unfortunately, many people get the bulk of their news from the Daily Show and anyone who checks the Networks probably wouldn't have seen to much on McCain's plans since most of the news agencies have been too busy following Obama around and washing his feet with their hair.
Third, critics have stated that Palin's statements about Obama's job as a community organizer have insulted community organizers and the work they do. She in no way said that community organizers don't do great things. She simply pointed out that it is not the type of experience that makes you qualified to be the president of the united states. As someone who has worked in social services for years, I know the valuable and hard work that case managers, and community workers do but I am also realistic about our abilities and quite frankly I don't see these positions as qualifying me or anyone else for the presidency.
On that note let me touch on the experience issue briefly. The debate over who is more qualified, Palin or Obama has been a heated one. I personally am much more impressed with Sarah Palin than Obama, but it is not simply by stacking up accomplishments but by looking at how they have each used their potential. Obama is clearly an intelligent and exciting individual. He corrected the failing trajectory of his youth that included selling drugs to become a student at Harvard where he was head of the Harvard Law Review and graduated magna cum laude. He went on to do..well, very little. He was in a position to do incredible things but instead coasted on his "potential." Even in this campaign you see most Obama supporters speaking of his potential, not about his accomplishments. On the other hand, Sarah Palin started out with a degree in journalism from University of Idaho and worked her way up from PTA, to mayor, to Governor chalking up an impressive list of accomplishments along the way. Obama has had almost 20 years to live up to his potential. I really don't see that he has. Plus the fact that he started writing his first memoir just out of law school seems pretty presumptious to me. If you want to see this point better illustrated than I have here, check out this article.
I know that the media will be focusing on these points for the next couple of days, but I would like to point out something incredible that Sarah Palin did last night. In her speech she declared that she would be an advocate and a voice for people with disabilities in Washington. This was huge!!! Disability rights groups have been doing everything they can in order to get their issues addressed by politicians, both republican and democratic. The fact that even the "enlightened" liberals have ignored such a large population in this country that in most states can and often are thrown in institutions without any say, locked up, abused, overmedicated, and robbed of the freedoms that every other marginalized group have had for years is astounding. Sara Palin has taken up the mantle of George Bush Sr. who established the ADA and has promised to continue to give rights to many who can't speak for themselves. I think that Americans from any political persuasion should really take a moment and acknowledge that this was a noteworthy statement. And democrats should be worried. People with disabilities and those who know and care for them have often chosen democrats as the lesser of two evils. This may shift some people to the McCain ticket more than they realize.

A whiter shade of Palin

2008-09-01T20:58:00.002-07:00

As many other election junkies on the right side of the isle, the past few days have been quite a roller coaster. The DNC wrapped up last week with some powerful speeches, Obama was boosted 8 points, McCain announced his running mate as Sarah Palin, Obama's "bump" decreased returning the candidates to a statistical tie, and finally three big revelations come from Palin 1) Palin is getting a lawyer due to the trooper-gate scandal (no she didn't have a state trooper pick up women for her to sleep with, that was the other trooper-gate involving a certain ex-prez of the Clinton persuasion) 2) Palin's husband had a DUI when he was 20 3) The big shocker, her 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant.
I have to say I feel a bit light headed with everything that has been going on. So I decided to do what most people under 30 do when there is something on thier mind; I blog.
First of all, let me say I have been a supporter of Palin as a possible VP for a while now (as a second choice after Bobby Jindal). I didn't know a ton about her, but from what I did see she seemed like a straight shooter with a lot of potential. I had pretty much ruled her out as a possibility weeks ago so when I heard that McCain had picked her I was shocked but excited. At the same time I was a little apprehensive about the fact that little was known about her. Most politicians (or people for that matter) have some skeletons in the closet but by the time they get to a VP nomination they have had to be be set out in the open and air out a bit. Palin is not so lucky. So now that her dirty laundry is spread all over the major news networks, what are we to think?

For me personally I don't care all that much about the first two. There is an active investigation into the who state trooper issue so I will let the professionals sort that out before I have an opinion and her husbands DUI was 4 years before they were married so it doesn't seem to really have a bearing on this election. As for the prenancy, that is a different issue. Obama has already come out and said that family is off limits and that he will not comment on this matter. Many other polical leaders are echoing his sentiments. But there are still many who say that Palin's position on abortion and sex education makes this an open issue. Personally I would disagree with both sides. I think there is most certainly room to discuss a politicians family if it directly pertains to their ability to lead or contradicts claims that they have made. On the other hand I disagree with Palin's critics because I don't feel that this situation meets the criteria I listed.
I have heard many people call Sarah Palin a hypocrit becuase she supports abstinence education and her daughter is pregnant at 17. This falls apart on several levels. First of all, Gov. Palin is not against contraception as many have claimed. She is pro-contraception but has opposed certain types of sex education. So I would hardly call this incident proof of hypocrisy. Now if she had helped her daughter get a secret abortion that would be a different issue, but she instead chose to support her daughter and encourage both her and the child's father to take responsibility for their actions rather than take a quick fix. That seems to be rather consistent.
Critics have also used this incident to try and prove Gov. Palin's views are wrong and have caused her daughter to end up in this situation. This isn't the first time I have heard people use this type of anecdotal evidence to criticize abstinence education. Even if it was true that Gov. Palin was an abstinence education only proponent (which she is not), the question I would ask is do you really think that Bristol Palin and her boyfriend did not know what a condom was? That somehow not having a class in school prevented them from all exposure to the concept of contraceptives? No, they made the same decision that numerous teens who have been through sex ed. made: to be an idiot and not use a condom even though they are fully aware of what they are and what they do. And since when does one case determine the success of a theory or program? Of course the same people throwing this around think that Obama's economic and energy plans make sense, so they obviously aren't good with numbers.
Finally, I don't want to let Gov. Palin off the hook. This situation does at least point towards some problems in her home but I cannot say anything more than that. I do not have enough information to say anything on that subject, nor is it my place to. The Palin family is dealing with this and I can only assume that there is much more going on privately than what they are stating publicly. But I can say that how Palin chooses to deal with this will be very telling. For now, I will continue to watch and wish the best for Gov. Palin and her family.

Finally a post

2008-04-10T22:28:00.003-07:00

OK, so I've decided to get back to blogging. I had attempted to start up where I'd left off, but I think the tongues topic will have to be put on hold since I have tons of info and not enough free time to sort through it and write it in a way that does justice to the history of this topic. Keep an eye out though and there will be some additions in the future, just sporadically between other posts (hopefully).

Part of the reason that I have been slow to post is that I have had a lot going on these past few months. For starters, I'm at a new job which I like. I won't bore people with the details, but I am working with people with disabilities and I get to work from home. I've also gone back to school (I got accepted into the Masters of Counseling program at VU) which is really awesome, I got a new car (2005 Honda Civic EX Special Edition deep blue), and the biggest news of all my wife Sara is pregnant! So there is a whole lot of activity at my house and not as much free time as I would like. But I like blogging so I'll just focus on shorter posts and things should work out.

Since this is my not so grand return, I will take a moment to write a brief musing.
With the baby coming I've been pretty much a big ball of concerned dad to be. I think that most people who have had a child could probably relate to the millions of concerns that have been going through my head. Mixed in with the smiles and daydreams about what color his or her hair might be or how they will respond to their first guitar (I'm currently picking out by the way) I have had all sorts of questions ranging from "Would it have been better if we got pregnant after the second floor is finished?" or "Am I really informed enough to be a father now-a-days?" to "What if the economy/environment/middle east/nanobots/lab created black holes go to hell in a hand basket; how will I care for children in the midst of that?" While dealing with all these thoughts I was reading through some sermons by Gilbert Meilaender including on titled Fellow Fetuses. In the article, Meilaender explains how we are to view the unborn making the points that 1) we are all fellow fetuses "unable to speak for ourselves in the court that really counts-before God and 2) That we should, out of hope and trust in God, be "eager to receive children into the human family." It was his latter point that struck me, particularly when he quoted two poems by Madeleine L'Engle that I will quote here.

The risk of birth

This is no time for a child to be born,

With the earth betrayed by war and hate

And a nova lighting the sky to warn

That time runs out and the sun burns late.

That was no time for a child to be born,

In a land in the crushing grip of Rome;

Honour and truth were trampled by scorn--

Yet here did the Saviour make his home.

When is the time for love to be born?

The inn is full on planet earth,

And by greed and pride the sky is torn--

Yet Love still takes the risk of birth.

After annunciation

This is the irrational season
When love blooms bright and wild.
Had Mary been filled with reason
There'd have been no room for the child.

These words did more to calm me and correct my perspective than anything else. After reading this I thought about my fears and realized some things. We often convince ourselves that we do not want our children to suffer or be in circumstances that are not ideal because we care about them so much. I wouldn't say that this is entirely false, but I think there is an element of selfishness in this as well (perhaps much greater than we like to admit). I think that we want to spare out children from suffering because it is difficult for us to endure. We are called to love our children so deeply yet part of such love is the potential for great pain that we are also called to endure. One of my former professors once told me after an Ash Wednesday service how strange and almost disturbing it was to go up and watch the pastor place ashes on his 2 year old sons head and tell him "from dust you came and to dust you will return" yet that is the call of the body of Christ, to die. For most of us this death is a metaphorical one but there are those who are called to a true physical death as a servant of Christ. As a parent, we do not get an itinerary of our children's lives. We do not know what call God has for them or what difficulties they will face. But in a world that is so rotten with deceit and doubt and that only gives when it gets more in return, how beautiful of a testimony to have faith in God and let love take the risk of birth.

A brief apology

2007-12-06T14:43:00.000-08:00

I am truly sorry that it has taken me this long to post again. I got distracted from blogging for a while and in all honesty simply forgot about it. But i am back and dedicated to completing this endeavor. I apologize for leaving anyone hanging and I promise I will see things through to the end this time.

Part Three: Speaking in Tongues in the Middle Ages

2007-04-12T12:10:00.000-07:00

I would like to claim my long silence on this blog as a metaphor for the historical silence of speaking in tongues during the middle ages. But truth be told, I did not think that far ahead. I just got busy these past few weeks and did not have time to update. But now I’m back and beg your pardon if I left any of you hanging.

Section 1: Speaking in Tongues in the Early Middle Ages

As you may have guess from my statement above, there is not any mention of speaking in tongues during the early Middle Ages (at least that my research could find). There could be several explanations for this relative silencing of tongues:

1) The Middle Ages were not known as a flourishing time of written works (or much else), in fact the opposite was true. The decline in recorded accounts of speaking in tongues may be, at least partially, attributed to an overall decline in scholarship during this time (it wasn’t called the dark ages for nothing).

2) The expansion of the Holy Roman Empire into dozens of new cultures each with their own language required a common language to be stressed among the educated and those in authority in order to keep order. In monasteries during this time, the study and use of Latin in place of local languages assured the church that there would be less confusing both in its day to day operations as well as in the writings and translations of the clergy. So it is plausible that, either by the church or by the Holy Spirit (or both), tongues were suppressed. This would have been especially important given the amount of heresy that cropped up throughout the church during this time.

3) The expansion of Christianity throughout most of the western world made tongues less necessary. It is important to note that, although tongues is not referred to during this time, there is a plethora of accounts of other miraculous gifts such as healings and prophetic visions occurring during the Middle Ages.

These are just a few possible explanations for the lack of historical evidence for speaking in tongues during the early Middle Ages. Let me be clear in saying that these are theories at best. I cannot be sure that any of these accounts are definitely true. What I can be sure about is that there was no cessationist theology that developed during the Early Middle Ages and many miracles other than tongues did occur. So I would say that there should be no difficulty for Christians to believe that tongues continued beyond the first 4 centuries of the church regardless of this apparent “gap.”

Section 2: Speaking in Tongues in the Late Middle Ages

Many cases of speaking in tongues occurring in the Late Middle Ages took place among the various monastic orders of the time. Here is a list of accounts of speaking in tongues during this period:

St. Dominic (1170-1221)

While travelling from Toulouse to Paris in company with Brother Bertrand de Garrigue, who was the first Provincial of Provence, our holy father spent the night in watching and prayer in the church of our Lady at Roc-Amadour. Next day they came up with a band of pilgrims from Germany, who, hearing them reciting the Psalms and Litanies, joined company with them, and on coming to the next town hospitably entertained them during three days. One morning St Dominic addressed Brother Bertrand after this fashion: 'Good brother, I am much troubled in conscience seeing that we are reaping the material good things of these pilgrims without sowing spiritual ones in return, so, if it please you, let us kneel down and ask God to enable us to understand their tongue, that we may preach Jesus Christ to them.' This they did, and to the bewilderment of the pilgrims they began to speak fluently in German, and as they trudged along together during the next four days, they continued conversing about our Lord Jesus Christ until they came to Orleans.[i]

St. Anthony of Padua (1195-1231) was a Franciscan monk who was known to be one of the greatest orators of his time. Not only has St. Anthony been acclaimed as a great speaker, he has had numerous miracles associated with him including speaking in numerous tongues while preaching. The accounts of his miracles are truly astonishing and I recommend that anyone reading this take a break and read about the incredible things that St. Anthony has done.

Other ascetics that spoke in tongues include Angelus Clarenus and St. Clare of Montefalco.

I would like to point out that I have come across numerous other claims of saints and ascetics speaking in tongues but did not list them here because I did not find solid enough resources to back them up. Maybe some day when I have a library card at a good sized catholic institution (or if I break into the Vatican) I might be able to validate these other claims. For the time being however, I will stick with what I have here.

My next post will bring us up through the reformation and one step closer to the real meat and potatoes of this subject, modern day Pentecostalism.

[i] Tr. Placid Conway, O.P., Lives of the Brethren of the Order of Preachers 1206-1259, II, x (London: Blackfriars Publications., 1955).

Part Two: Tongues in the post Apostolic Church

2007-03-21T12:32:00.000-07:00

I apologize to those of you reading for my last post. I realized that I had ended it without addressing a major point of speaking in tongues in the first 4 centuries of the Church. I doubt anyone lost sleep over it (if they in fact noticed to begin with), but I will remedy it now.

Section 2: Accounts of tongues ceasing by the 4th century

One major historical proof for cessationists is found in the writings of two major Christian authors, St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom. Each of these authors (both writing in the late 4th century) wrote in their work that speaking in tongues no longer occurs. So what are we to do with these writings? Let me begin to address this issue by making it very clear how important these two figures are. Most people are familiar with St. Augustine. He is a Doctor of the Church, the patron of the Augustinian religious order, and the one of the most influential Christian writers in history (perhaps second only to the Biblical authors themselves). Simply put, he is a founder of Western Christianity (and Western Civilization in general). St. John Chysostom was the arch-bishop of Constantinople and a contemporary of Augustine. He is a saint in both the Catholic and Orthodox churches and is a Doctor of the Church. He is one of the Three Holy Hierarchs, together with Saints Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Neither of these men can simply be ignored nor can their writings be easily tossed aside as just the opinions of long dead men. It is important that we look at what these men had to say and seriously consider their relevance to the church today.

Looking first at Chrysostom, we find one of these pesky passages in his Homily on 1 Corinthians 12. He writes,

This whole place is very obscure: but the obscurity is produced by our ignorance of the facts referred to and by their cessation, being such as then used to occur but now no longer take place. And why do they not happen now? Why look now, the cause too of the obscurity hath produced us again another question: namely, why did they then happen, and now do so no more?[i]

These are the first sentences of his discussion of 1 Corinthians 12. He goes on,

For since on their coming over from idols, without any clear knowledge or training in the ancient Scriptures, they at once on their baptism received the Spirit, yet the Spirit they saw not, for It is invisible; therefore God’s grace bestowed some sensible proof of that energy. And one straightway spake in the Persian, another in the Roman, another in the Indian, another in some other such tongue: and this made manifest to them that were without that it is the Spirit in the very person speaking.

This section does not necessarily have to do with this particular subject, but I thought it was interesting that Chrysostom interprets speaking in tongues to be speaking existing languages. It is also significant that he teaches that the Holy Spirit was received “at once” upon being baptized. Chrysostom points this out to show that the focus of these gifts was not meant to be on the person being given the gift, but rather on the Holy Spirit. These miracles were not meant to be a test of an individual’s holiness or “proof’ that a person is really a Christian. These gifts were meant to be a manifestation of the Holy Spirit to all around them. The gifts are meant to bring the Holy Spirit to those who do not believe. The individual using the gift is the least important part of the equation. He expands on this point by saying,

But he calls miracles a “manifestation of the Spirit,” with evident reason. For to me who am a believer, he that hath the Spirit is manifest from his having been baptized: but to the unbeliever this will in no wise be manifest, except from the miracles: so that hence also again there is no small consolation. For though there be a difference of gifts, yet the evidence is one: since whether thou hast much or little, thou art equally manifest. So that if thou desirest to show this, that thou hast the Spirit, thou hast a sufficient demonstration.[ii]

But in continuing this point he has also shown something else. Chrysostom has clearly stated that the Holy Spirit empowers us to perform miracles so that we may have “a sufficient demonstration” of God’s power. It seems to me that these don’t seem like the teachings of a cessationist. But what about his earlier passages? All we can really say about them is that he reports that miracles no longer occur. He does not say why this is, how long they will cease to manifest, and he certainly does not say that they never will again. Chrysostom is making an observation in this Homily, he is not trying to develop a theology about gifts ceasing, he is just saying that, to his knowledge, they have. Reading over his entire Homily and seeing how he treats these gifts and instructs his church regarding them, it seems impossible to say that Chrysostom was a cessationist. He may very well be saying that they were not needed at that time, or that God has chosen to manifest himself in some other way. This is more evident in the writings of Augustine.

St. Augustine writes on speaking in tongues in his 6^th homily on the Epistle of John,

In the earliest times, "the Holy Ghost fell upon them that believed: and they spoke with tongues," which they had not learned, "as the Spirit gave them utterance." Acts 2:4 These were signs adapted to the time. For there behooved to be that betokening of the Holy Spirit in all tongues, to show that the Gospel of God was to run through all tongues over the whole earth. That thing was done for a betokening, and it passed away. In the laying on of hands now, that persons may receive the Holy Ghost, do we look that they should speak with tongues? Or when we laid the hand on these infants, did each one of you look to see whether they would speak with tongues, and, when he saw that they did not speak with tongues, was any of you so wrong-minded as to say, These have not received the Holy Ghost; for, had they received, they would speak with tongues as was the case in those times? If then the witness of the presence of the Holy Ghost be not now given through these miracles, by what is it given, by what does one get to know that he has received the Holy Ghost? Let him question his own heart. If he love his brother the Spirit of God dwells in him. Let him see, let him prove himself before the eyes of God, let him see whether there be in him the love of peace and unity, the love of the Church that is spread over the whole earth.[iii]

Augustine is here dealing with an all too familiar issue, whether or not tongues should be seen as proof that an individual is filled with the Holy Spirit. His answer is “absolutely not.” Rather he points to love as a sign that someone has received the Holy Spirit but, even then, he states that it is not up to the church to judge such things. The believer should “question his own heart.” I feel that Augustine’s handling of this topic is especially Biblical and can’t help but think that this passages similarities to the structure of 1 Corinthians 12-13 is intentional. He begins with a question about the place of tongues in the church and draws the attention of the reader to the greater gift of love. Most importantly, what I observe from this passage (just as with Chrysostom) I see no doctrinal statement that tongues has stopped for good. I see an observation from the author that, in his experience, tongues have ceased. But notice that neither of the authors in question have used any scripture to explain the ceasing of tongues or to defend a belief that they have ceased for good. The writings of early Christian leaders of this caliber are so jam-packed with scripture that it would be almost uncontainable for them to put forth such a doctrine without adequate Biblical support. If that weren’t enough to dissuade a cessationist interpretation of these writing, a good look at their other writings should be.

In book XXII of Augustine’s City of God, chapter 8 is titled “Miracles, performed to make the world believe, have not ceased now that the world does believe.” This seems to be a pretty strange title for a supposed cessationist. In this chapter Augustine reports dozens of miracles that he himself has witnessed as well as some that he has heard about. After he has given several accounts of miracles that have occurred in his time, he apologized for not being able to write more,

What am I to do? I am so pressed by the promise of finishing this work, that I cannot record all the miracles I know; and doubtless several of our adherents, when they read what I have narrated, will regret that I have omitted so many which they, as well as I, certainly know. Even now I beg these persons to excuse me, and to consider how long it would take me to relate all those miracles, which the necessity of finishing the work I have undertaken forces me to omit. For were I to be silent of all others, and to record exclusively the miracles of healing which were wrought in the district of Calama and of Hippo by means of this martyr—I mean the most glorious Stephen—they would fill many volumes.[iv]

Augustine says here that, not only are there many more healings that he cannot fit into this work, but that there are many other miracles besides healing! He continues,

Even now, therefore, many miracles are wrought, the same God who wrought those we read of still performing them, by whom He will and as He will; but they are not as well known, nor are they beaten into the memory, like gravel, by frequent reading, so that they cannot fall out of mind. For even where, as is now done among ourselves, care is taken that the pamphlets of those who receive benefit be read publicly, yet those who are present hear the narrative but once, and many are absent; and so it comes to pass that even those who are present forget in a few days what they heard, and scarcely one of them can be found who will tell what he heard to one who he knows was not present.[v]

God performs miracles “by whom he wills and as he wills.” This passage seems to be a much more appropriate basis for Augustine’s views of miracles than his earlier homily. In his homily on the Epistle of John, he states that he is not aware of any current occurrences of speaking in tongues, but in City of God he states that many miracles in his day do not spread very far and are forgotten. It would seem from his statement that God performs miracles “as he wills” that Augustine is not willing to discount the possibility of any particular miracle.

In conclusion, I would like to make it clear that I am not denying that certain gifts may cease for a time. God has a specific purpose for the gifts that he has bestowed upon his church. We should not try to force his hand by emphasizing any particular gift or the manifestation of all of them at any time or place. Neither should deny the possibility that God may chose to bring back a gift that has remained dormant for a time or in a particular place.

[i] John Chrysostom, Homily XXIX, s 1.

[ii] Ibid. s 5.

[iii] St. Augustine, Homily 6 on the First Epistle of John, X.

[iv] St. Augustine, City of God , XXII ch.8.

[v] ibid.

Part Two: Tongues in the post Apostolic Church

2007-03-19T21:53:00.000-07:00

Section 1- Speaking in Tongues in the first 4 centuries

In exploring the charismatic experience, our first step outside of Biblical narrative and into early church history is a step onto an overgrown path. I say this because, although there is a fair amount of information about “charismatic” gifts in early church history, little attention is given to this part of history (in regards to this particular topic) from either Pentecostals or their critics. This seems to be due to the fact that Pentecostal/Charismatic churches tend to be restorationist, believing that the church was led off course and needs to be “restored” to its original state, and do not like to extend the works of the Holy Spirit too far beyond the Apostolic era lest they be forced to accept the Catholic Church as Spirit led. Oddly enough many cessationist churches hold a similar disliking for the Catholic Church and will write off accounts of prophecy, tongues, and miraculous healings as the works of cults or mystics (a derogatory term in cessationist circles due to such writers as B.B. Warfield).

What both views lack in nuance they make up for in tenacity. In most Pentecostal churches, the only church history given jumps from the book of Acts to 1901 Kansas where students of Bethel Bible College began speaking in tongues. This can be observed simply by looking at the “history” section of the official Assemblies of God website. Without even blinking, they have ignored and invalidated (at least from their perspective) almost 2 millennia of church history. The cessationists are not without their own audacities and are quick to label saints of the Catholic and Orthodox churches as heretic (or at least associate them with heretics). In between these extreme rests many protestant churches that treat the charismatic experience as a taboo in a similar fashion as sexuality, acknowledging its necessity for the formation of the church but seeing it as distasteful to discuss in decent company (perhaps there is more to the similarities in how the many churches deals with the charismatic gifts and sex, but that is a topic for another time).

I feel that in order to understand this topic fully we must take a serious look at speaking in tongues, prophecy, and other such gifts in the first few centuries To begin, I would like to make a clear distinction between the various cults that displayed behaviors similar to the gifts in question and, what I believe to be genuine acts of the Holy Spirit. So let us begin with the cults.

Cults and Heretics within the Early Church

1) The Gnostics

I will assume that most of my readers will be at least somewhat knowledgeable of the Gnostics. This heretical offshoot of Christianity was known to perform a wide variety of strange ceremonies and spiritual exercises including ecstatic utterances.

Among Gnostic groups, glossolalia of the type requiring interpretation was common, and there exist several transcribed Gnostic Prayers in the Coptic Tongue in which are included several lines of ejaculated glossolalic syllables or single vowels and consonants. There are also instances of nearly unintelligible utterances in some Gnostic texts in which Aramaic words or other nomina barbara can be recognized in somewhat distorted form.[i]

Not only do we find an example of glossolalia in the Gnostic sect, but we also have one of the first (if not the first) examples of the sort of nomina barbara (to borrow a great word from the text) that we see in Pentecostal churches.

2) The Montanists

The Montanists were a heretical Christian sect that began in the second century under the leadership of Montanus and existed, in some form or another, until the seventh century according to some accounts. They were known mostly for their ecstatic prophecies in which the prophets believed themselves to be possessed by the Holy Spirit. The practices of the Montanists conflicted with Orthodoxy at the time in several areas. Most significantly, the Montanists felt that their prophecies superceded the doctrine of the church and the teachings of the Apostles. They were also known to have put aside the traditional language of Christian prophecy (i.e. “Thus saith the Lord”) and instead chose to speak in first person saying things such as “"I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," The teachings of Montanus were heavily inspired by his belief that the end of the world was at hand and that Christ’s thousand year reign would soon begin. His followers, Priscilla and Maximilla, who took over the cult after Montanus’s death, gave prophecies supporting this idea including a universal war, none of which came to pass.[ii] One of the several major church figures to discuss the Montanists was the Christian historian, Eusebius. He writes in his masterwork, The History of the Church,

There is said to be a recent convert named Montanus, while Gratus was proconsul of Syria, in his unbridled ambition to reach the top laid himself open to the adversary, was filled with spiritual excitement and suddenly fell into a kind of trance and unnatural ecstasy. He raved, and began to chatter and talk nonsense, prophesying in a way that conflicted with the practice of the Church handed down generation by generation from the beginning.[iii]

Eusebius describes in this text a practice of ‘ecstatic chattering’ that, even though it was used as prophecy, was contrary to Christian teachings. The fact that such behavior cannot even be redeemed through its use as prophecy should give us a clue as to the dangers of this "chatter and nonsense talk." The author makes a clear point to say that the problem does not lie in the idea of prophecy led by the Holy Spirit, but in the method by which the prophecy is given which “conflicted with the practice of the Church.” Later in the text, the author (whom Eusebius is quoting from) lists several prophets in the Church that are held in high esteem for their gift. So clearly it is the divisive “chatter” that is at fault here.

Speaking in Tongues in Orthodox Christian Tradition

In the first four centuries of the church we find several references to speaking in tongues by the Church Fathers and other notable Christian leaders.

Irenaeus (c. 130-202) Irenaeus was in bishop in Lyons and spent a great deal of his career defending Christian Orthodoxy from heretical teachings such as that of the Gnostics. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp who was in turn a disciple of the Apostle John. He writes of tongues,

For this reason does the apostle declare, "We speak wisdom among them that are perfect," terming those persons "perfect" who have received the Spirit of God, and who through the Spirit of God do speak in all languages, as he used Himself also to speak. In like manner we do also hear many brethren in the Church, who possess prophetic gifts, and who through the Spirit speak all kinds of languages, and bring to light for the general benefit the hidden things of men, and declare the mysteries of God,[iv]

In this quote lies two important points. First, we have an account of speaking in tongues occurring after the deaths of the Apostles. Second, tongues is clearly seen to be speaking “all kinds of languages,” not just a solitary angelic language. Irenaeus implies that we should seek to speak “all languages” so as to spread the Word of God to all nations.

Novatian (d. 258) Novatian was a controversial figure in his time. He was a Presbyter in Rome who opposed the offer made by Pope Cornelius to forgive the sins of Christians who had committed apostasy during the Decian persecution. He was consecrated as pope by three bishops (some believe against his will) and, needless to say, was excommunicated. But despite his disagreement with the pope, his doctrine remained orthodox and he is considered a father of the church. He writes in his treatise On the Trinity he writes,

This is He who places prophets in the Church, instructs teachers, directs tongues, gives powers and healings, does wonderful works, offers discrimination of spirits, affords powers of government, suggests counsels, and orders and arranges whatever other gifts there are of charismata; and thus make the Lord's Church everywhere, and in all, perfected and completed.[v]

Here again we have a post Apostolic writer supporting the gift of tongues in his own time. This passage does not specifically say that “tongues” is speaking in an existing language, but I feel that it can be assumed. Notice that tongues is listed after prophecy and teaching and that all gifts are said to be used to “make the Lord’s Church everywhere.” It seems a much more likely understanding of this text to see the gift as tongues as a tool by which to minister to those in foreign nations, not as some incoherent, private prayer language.

Hilary of Poitiers (c. 300-367) St. Hilary was a bishop and Doctor of the Church. He was known to some as the “Athanasius of the west” and did a great deal of work refuting the Arians. St. Hilary writes of speaking in tongues in his work On the Trintiy (popular title I guess).

After quoting the list of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12, he commented: “here was have a statement of the purpose and results of the Gift, and I cannot conceive what doubt can remain, after so clear a definition of His origin, His action, and His powers.” In a subsequent chapter, he mentioned among other things the “gifts of either speaking or interpreting diverse kinds of tongues” and concluded: “Clearly these are the Church’s agents of ministry and work of whom the body of Christ consists; and God has ordained them.”[vi]

Pachomius (c. 292-348) St. Pachomius was the founder of cenobitic monasticism and had a first hand experience with speaking in tongues. Once, after praying for three hours he was able to speak in Latin ( a language he did not previously speak) with a visitor from the West.[vii]

This completes this section of Part Two. In my next post I will deal with speaking in tongues in the Middle Ages and beyond.

[i] Michael P. Hamilton, The Charismatic Movement (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1975) 64.

[ii] Chas S. Clifton, Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics (New York: Barnes & Noble Inc., 1992) 98-99.

[iii] Eusebius, The History of The Church From Christ to Constantine, V, xvi (London: Penguin Books Ltd., 1989) 161.

[iv] Irenaeus, Against Heresies V, vi, 1

[v] Novatian, On the Trinity XXIX

[vi] Hamilton 67-68.

[vii] Hamilton 69.

Part One Review

2007-03-19T11:43:00.000-07:00

These last two post complete my overview of Biblical texts pertaining to tongues. Please keep in mind that these posts by no means are meant to deal with every aspect of this topic. For every point I chose not to discuss, I am sure there are two that I am not even aware of. Also, there will be some references to Biblical passages in future posts that were not mentioned up to this point. I chose not to bring them up in the "Biblical" section to avoid unnecessary repetition and to save my hands from mildly annoying cramps from making my posts too long. So at this point I would like to open the floor to any discussions on Part One (this will keep discussions from having to be spread over 3 posts). Anything goes so feel free to critique, praise, amend, laugh at, or respond in any other way you feel appropriate.

Part Two will begin either tomorrow or Wednesday.

Part One: Biblical accounts of speaking in tongues and their application (cont.)

2007-03-14T22:04:00.000-07:00

2) Speaking in tongues was never meant to be used as universal confirmation of an individual being filled with the Holy Spirit.

The idea of tongues as a universal confirmation of being filled with the Holy Spirit is more common in denominations the closer they are to the Pentecostal church proper. The idea is exactly what it sounds like, we know that an individual is filled with the Holy Spirit when they speak in tongues. This is also referred to at times as "initial evidence." This idea is based primarily on 3 sections of scripture, all found in the book of Acts: Pentecost- Acts 2 (which was quoted in the past post), the conversion of Cornelius- Acts 10, and the baptism of John the Baptist's followers- Acts 19. In each of these instances, the baptism of the Holy Spirit is accompanied by speaking in tongues. First of all, I am in no way attempting to negate that these individuals did in fact speak in tongues or deny that being graced with such a gift was a confirmation of sorts for those particular cases. I do feel however that it is ridiculous to place speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of someone receiving the Holy Spirit. This is for four major reasons.

1) Out of the numerous conversion accounts in the book of Acts, these three are the only ones that link receiving the Holy Spirit with speaking in tongues. Most compelling to me is that in the story of Paul's receiving the Holy Spirit there is no mention of tongues even though, by his own declaration, he speaks in tongues more than anyone in Corinth!

2) Interpreting these three events in such a manner would hold a little more ground if they happened in roughly the same time frame. But the conversion of Cornelius took place 10 years after Pentecost and the baptism of John's followers took place about 25 years after Pentecost. These are fairly isolated occurrences.

3) Nowhere in the Bible is it explicitly or even ambiguously stated that tongues should be viewed as the universal evidence of an individual being filled with the Holy Spirit.

4) It does state in the Bible that not everyone will speak in tongues in 1 Corinthians 12:

"Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28 And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. 29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30 Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 31 But strive for the greater gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way."

Clearly Paul is saying that God gives us all a variety of gifts and that we do not all receive the same gifts.

So what does Paul mean when he says to strive for the greater gifts? That brings me to my next point.

3) If Spiritual Gift must be put in a hierarchy, speaking in tongues is a lesser gift.

This matter always confused me. I mean, it's one thing to say that everyone filled with the Holy Spirit must speak in tongues, but then to be so bold as to say that tongues is a superior gift makes no sense what-so-ever. The reasons for this teaching that I have run across usually stem from a bad reading of 1 Corinthians 12-14. The first evidence for this doctrine that is gleaned from these chapters is simply that they were written at all. Pentecostals will teach that the fact that such a large section of this Epistle are dedicated almost exclusively to speaking in tongues shows that it is an important gift. This reasoning ignores the whole reason that Paul was writing about tongues in the first place. He was writing to Corinth because they were abusing tongues and divisions were developing in the church because of it. Notice that he begins chapter 12 warning the church about worshiping idols and then teaches the church to have unity in light of the spiritual gifts. In fact if we look at chapter 12 it seems like Paul is trying to downplay speaking in tongues. At the end of the chapter (which I quoted above) he gives a list of spiritual gifts and speaking in tongues is the last item on the list. Some people will try to say that this list is not meant to order the gifts from greatest to least, but i say you can't have your cake and eat it to. Either Paul is setting up a hierarchy of gifts or he is not. If you are going to say that these chapters show that Paul views tongues as a greater gift then why does he not use a perfect chance to say so explicitly in this list? And why does he number the items if this list is supposed to be just random? It does not add up.
Moving on we look at 1 Corinthians chapter 14. here the Pentecostal proof texts are verse 5:

"Now I would like all of you to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. One who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be built up."

and verse 18:

"I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you;"

I think that anyone being honest can already see that the exegesis of these verses is a stretch to say the least. In verse 5 we don't even have to look outside of the verse to see that it is a qualified statement. Look at it this way, he just spent a good amount of time correcting the mistakes of the church regarding speaking in tongues. just look in the previous chapter when he compares it to a clanging cymbal. So what is Paul going to do after he has torn down? He is going to build back up. He is saying here "Don't get me wrong, I would like for all of you to speak in tongues I'm not saying it's a bad thing," and then he throws a "but" in to the mix. This conjunction shows us that his point in this sentence is not a command for everyone to speak in tongues. He is saying "Go ahead and speak in tongues BUT there are better gifts for you to be seeking."
In verse 18 I just don't see any reason for putting speaking in tongues on a pedestal above other gifts. In fact the verse does the opposite when you look at it with the next verse.

"nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue."

He is saying "I'm glad I speak in tongues, but i'd rather be able to preach or prophecy." These imply that tongues are OK, but there are better gifts out there. Now before I move on to the next section I would like to make clear that I do not endorse any sort of hierarchy of spiritual gifts. I feel that the scriptures are intentionally vague on this subject and any attempt to make a list of gifts from greatest to least (or even to limit spiritual gifts to those mentioned in the Bible) is to miss the point of these gifts completely. My reasons for discussing gifts in such a manner was to show that, if you insist on making a hierarchy, then tongues cannot logically be placed anywhere near the top based upon the pertinent scriptures.

4) There is no biblical evidence that tongues were to cease after the Apostolic age.

On this point I happen to agree with the Pentecostal and Charismatic movement. I have never found the arguments of the cessationists all that convincing. There are three reasons for this.

1) Cessationists cannot even agree when tongues ceased. Some place it after the last apostle died, others after the destruction of the temple, and still others after the canon was completed. In all truth some of these theories are interesting, but most are based on poor exegesis and even poorer knowledge of history.

2) The Bible verses used as proof texts are completely misunderstood. One of the sections in question is 1 Corinthians 13:8-13:

"But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love."

The cessationist would claim, based upon these verses, that the time when tongues and prophecy would cease has come to be. As noted in my first point, there is disagreement over when this period actually began, but they feel it has come nonetheless. But let us look closely at what it would mean if we the time had come when tongues and prophecy would cease. It says in verse 12 that, when tongues cease, we will no longer know in part but will know fully "just as I have been fully known." This seems to speak of us knowing God as fully as he knows us. Are the cessationists willing to say that we, in this era know God fully just as he knows us? I feel that this is an era that cannot be reached in this life, but rather is a poetic description of the life to come.
The next verses cited by cessationists are Ephesians 2:19-22.

"Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit."

The cessationists glean from these verses that the offices of apostle and prophet were foundational only and that they no longer exist since the church foundation is complete. The problem with such a reading is that is fairly deductive in its approach. This verse does not directly say or imply that prophets were only foundational and that they have no other part in the church. It certainly says that there were prophets that made the foundation of the church, but it certainly does not say that they no longer serve a function or exist. A cessationist interpretation also neglects to consider the possibility that the gift of prophecy and the office of Prophet can be separate things, (i.e. someone can prophesy without necessarily being a Prophet) just like I can replace the O2 sensor in my car, but that doesn't mean I am a mechanic. This goes into the definition of prophecy which is a bit larger of a topic than I care to get into right now (maybe that will be my next series).

3) Cessationists ignore the rich history of speaking in tongues, prophecy, and other miraculous gifts throughout church history. This is mostly due to the fact that, for the most part, Cessationist theology is a modern Protestant creation that tends to be selective in what they see as part of church history. Church leaders in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions especially mystics and monastics can be dismiss pretty on a whim when an individual happens to not be a part of either denomination.

This brings me to my next post: Speaking in Tongues and the Charismata throughout Church History.

Part One: Biblical accounts of speaking in tongues and their application

2007-03-13T22:21:00.000-07:00

As in any theological discussion it is good to start with the Bible itself. In this first section I will try to limit my scope since many volumes could be written discussing the various aspects of this topic and I simply don't have the time or resources to discuss them all here. So let us begin by laying some groundwork.

1) Speaking in tongues in all Biblical accounts should be assumed to be referring to existing languages.

This point was actually a difficult one for me to accept. While reading certain verses, I just did not see how the New Testament writers (Paul in particular) could be talking about existing languages exclusively. But I realized that my difficulty came from a post Charismatic point of view. I was so used to seeing this verses in relation to modern day speaking in tongues that I was slanting my whole understanding. To understand how I came to my conclusion, let's begin at the beginning.
The first account of speaking in tongues in the New Testament is recorded in Acts chapter 2. Verses 1 through 13 read:
"When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. 2 And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting. 3 Divided tongues, as of fire, appeared among them, and a tongue rested on each of them. 4 All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other languages, as the Spirit gave them ability.

5 Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven living in Jerusalem. 6 And at this sound the crowd gathered and was bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in the native language of each. 7 Amazed and astonished, they asked, "Are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each of us, in our own native language? 9 Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene, and visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs�in our own languages we hear them speaking about God's deeds of power." 12 All were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" 13 But others sneered and said, "They are filled with new wine."

It seems pretty clear to me that, at least in this instance, that the apostles were speaking in actual existing languages. But it would be naive to think that all agree with me. In fact, there are some people who do not. A decent number of individuals in the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements believe that the apostles were speaking in an angelic language, the "prayer language" that is common in their congregations today. They believe that this is a twofold miracle, the first being the gift of tongues and the second being the gift of understanding by the witnesses. The problem with this logic is that it ignores the fact that Luke explicitly says that the Holy Spirit gave them the ability to speak in other languages or tongues. The author makes it clear that it is not a single angelic language that is being spoken, but many languages. Unless someone is willing to argue that there are many angelic languages, I think the theory that the apostles spoke an angelic language is out of the question. He drives the point home by listing the many places from which the witnesses came from thus the many diverse languages the apostles were miraculously able to speak! This event is a direct fulfillment of Christ departing words in Matthew:

"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

The events of Pentecost were a divine confirmation that Christ was still with them and sent his Spirit to guide them on the task they had been commanded to complete. Here, in the upper room, representatives from numerous nations heard the gospel and were made disciples that very day! Some may continue to argue for an angelic language because there were people who thought that they were drunk. They would argue that their unbelief made them unable to accept the Spirit and understand the apostles. I think a less far fetched understanding who be that these men were local Jews who did not speak any of these languages and therefore did not understand. This would be consistent with God's previous ways of dealing with His people as was seen in Isaiah

"Truly, with stammering lip and with alien tongue he will speak to this people, to whom he has said, "This is rest; give rest to the weary; and this is repose"; yet they would not hear."

This verse may seem familiar. It is the same verse that Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 14, a chapter devoted almost exclusively to the subject of speaking in tongues, but we'll get into that more later. As a bit of a side note, I think it is strange that some Pentecostals will teach that some Christians are not filled with the Holy Spirit and therefore do not speak in tongues, yet in the same breathe they argue that these foreigners that were present at Pentecost were given the gift of interpretation before even converting to Christianity. In other words confessed Christians may not necessarily be filled with the Holy Spirit, but individuals who had not repented or received Christ could. Maybe it's just me, but that seems inconsistent.

Some of you may be thinking, "OK, so at Pentecost they were speaking existing languages, how does that disprove that other occurrences of speaking in tongues were an angelic language. " my answer is that it doesn't, at least not entirely. What it does do is puts us in a position where speaking an existing language is the default understanding of the term "speaking in tongues." That is not to say that other interpretations may not be correct, but it does mean that we would have to find specific evidence that such occurrences warrant such an interpretation. In my readings of verses dealing with speaking in tongues there are only two which support the possibility of some sort of angelic language. One would be Christ's words in Mark 16:17

"And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues."

Some see this verse as saying that the Holy Spirit would bring an altogether new language to the church. This is not a preposterous interpretation, but it is a hasty one that ignores several things. First of all, just as the with the verses in Acts, we need to be careful about singular and plural nouns. In the modern church we have gotten so used to people saying "speaking in tongues" when referring to a single "language" that we have overlooked an obvious blunder in our understanding of scripture. The verse says new tongues. So we can rule out the idea that Christ is promising a single Holy language unheard by human ears. It makes much more sense to see this as a promise that, just as the Spirit blessed the apostles with the gift of speaking in foreign tongues at Pentecost, so would the Spirit continue to bless saints with such a gift in the future, giving them the ability to speak languages unheard of at the time. For example, I doubt any during Christ's life had spoken or even heard Maori and it would be centuries before anyone from the West encounter anyone who spoke it. Christ's declaration here is that His grace would continue so that people who spoke such languages could be ministered to.

The other verse that may possibly defend the idea of an angelic language, and by far the most compelling, is 1 Corinthians 13:1.

"If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal."

Well, there it is plain as day. Paul says we can speak in the tongue of angels. Case closed. Right? Not necessarily. What we must remember about Paul is that he is a talented and educated writer. His works are full of rhetoric, poetics, allusions, humor, and even sarcasm. So before we start developing a theology based on this verse, let us understand what his point is here. This verse is not focused on speaking in tongues. In fact he is trying to shift focus away from tongues and place it on love. So how does this statement about tongues help further his point? Through the time honored tradition of hyperbole, that's how. All of us have had some sort of experience with our parents where we were talking on the phone or doing some other similar teenage activity and our parents want us to do our chores. We argue and say "But I'm talking to Susy!" and what wise retort did our parents come up with? "I don't care if you're talking to the President of the United States! Get off the phone!" This is exactly what Paul is doing here. chapters 12-14 are all devoted to Paul dealing with an un-Christlike focus on speaking in tongues. The congregation has put such a big focus on it, that they have neglected to love one another and have allowed divisions to occur because of it. In this verse, just as our parents might have done, Paul is saying "I don't care if you're speaking in the language of angels! That doesn't mean you can stop loving each other." This interpretation is furthered by the poetic nature of the rest of the chapter. The very next verse says:

"And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

Again Paul is exaggerating to make his point. There is no way for us to understand all mysteries and all knowledge (at least in this life). Paul makes this clear a few verses later when he says:

"For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end."

He is using the same device for both verses. Why would we interpret the first verse one way and the second verse another? Clearly to believe that we can speak in the tongue of angels is to completely misunderstand what Paul is trying to tell us. The very fact that people have taken a verse, that was intended to show how a poor understanding of speaking in tongues destroys the church and Christian love, and used it to puff up their "gifts" is ironic and a bit disturbing.
Finally, some people reading this may be wondering, "If speaking in tongues is only speaking in existing languages then how does it help as a prayer language? Wouldn't an angelic language bring us closer to God and build us up more?" What we need to understand about speaking in tongues is that it's use as a prayer language is not a Biblical one. Paul makes it very clear through 1 Corinthians that, without interpretation, speaking in tongues is a lesser gift to say the least. It is not beneficial to the church at large (v. 4-10), neither is it beneficial to the individual (comparatively speaking). My latter point may rub some people the wrong way, so let us look at the verse I am specifically referring to.

"14 For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unproductive.15 What should I do then? I will pray with the spirit, but I will pray with the mind also; I will sing praise with the spirit, but I will sing praise with the mind also."

Many people mistakenly assume that this chapter is only talking about speaking tongues in public, but these verses show an important application for tongues used in private as well. Paul is showing that, without interpretation, not only are tongues meaningless to others, they are meaningless to us! Also, let us not fall into the trap of thinking that when Paul says that tongues builds up the individual that he means it in a good way. If a Christian is built up in a good and holy way, wouldn't it follow that it would also build up the church? Yet Paul says that tongues (without interpretation) builds up the self but, unlike those who prophesy, do not build up the church. Nothing we do should build up ourselves at the expense of building up the church. Such an act is prideful and self serving, not self sacrificing as the church is meant to be.
Some individuals in the Pentecostal movement claim that tongues are a superior Prayer language because they are directly from the Spirit. They say that, when praying in tongues, it is our Spirit that prays and that makes it more powerful. To this I would respond, "how is that different from any prayer?" Nowhere in the Bible is tongues given a more Spiritual nature than any other prayer. This is the exact same mentality that Paul is trying to correct in Corinth. He writes in 12:3

"Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Let Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit."

All prayer is inspired and led by the Holy Spirit and therefor tongues has no higher place as a prayer language. The only real difference between regular prayer and praying in tongues is that the mind is not involved when praying in tongues, which some people see as a good thing, but Paul says is absolutely not (as seen in the verses mentioned previously).

Even if we assume that speaking in tongues was meant to be a prayer language, how is it any less powerful if it is an existing language? Is it any less impressive if you started praying in Gaelic rather than the "tongue of angels?" Looking back at 1 Cor. 13, I would say that it does not matter if you are speaking in English, Mandarin, or the language of Gabriel himself, if the Spirit is moving in you and you are filled with the love of Christ then that is all that should matter.
This concludes my first post on the topic of speaking in tongues. I apologize for its length. I usually try to keep my posts on the short side, but with this sort of subject matter I don't want brevity to be mistaken for being flippant. Please continue to comment and share your opinions on this matter. I by no means consider myself to be an expert in this field and would appreciate feedback from any and all perspectives.

Speaking in Tongues (not the Talking Heads album)

2007-03-13T15:39:00.000-07:00

Many of you who have read my blog are at least aware of my love hate relationship with the modern Charismatic movement. I have written several posts dealing with the charismatic movement in one way or another. With this is mind, it is probably not a surprise to anyone that I will be devoting a number of posts to the subject of speaking in tongues. What may be a surprise (at least it is to me) is why, with the amount of emphasis placed on speaking in tongues both in the charismatic movement at large and in my personal experience, have I not posted on this subject sooner. There are a few reasons for this. First of all, I saw it as a non-issue. I have not become a hardened cessationist who is hell bent on trashing the practice of speaking tongues. Up until recently I just did not think there was anything worth saying on the subject which brings me to my second point. I felt that there was nothing worth saying on the subject that had not already been said better by other authors and theologians. "So what has changed since then?" you may ask. Well, let me start out by being clear that I am still not in any way shape or form a cessationist. But, in the light of some recent studies inspired by my wife's own searching, I feel that there is much to be said on this subject that either has not been said or has been ignored by the church for the most part. I'm not sure at this point how I am going to break down my discussion of this topic, but here are a few of the points I will be presenting in the next few posts.

- Speaking in tongues in scripture and throughout the majority of church history was speaking in an existing languages unknown to the speaker, not the gibberish found in many churches today.

- There is no evidence that modern day glossolalia as seen in the pentecostal/charismatic churches is the same as that referred to in the Bible.

- The origins of Pentecostal glossolalia in rooted in several heretical movements including the Shakers and the Spiritualists who each had incidents of incoherent babbling that they referred to as speaking in tongues that took place almost a century before the Azusa Street Revival.

- Pentecostal glossolalia was born out of a perceived need for Christianity to compete with the spectacles of the the increasingly popular eastern religions, Spiritualism, and heretical groups such as Church of Christ, Scientists.

- The refutation of Pentecostal glossolalia does not negate the authenticity of its adherents beliefs or experiences.

- What Pentecostals term as "speaking in tongues" may still be a scripturally supported act BUT removes itself from that possibility when it is confused with true speaking in tongues (this may seem like a contradiction, but I will clarify later).

There are a number of other points I want to hit on in the next few days, but this gives a pretty good overview. Basically what i am hypothesizing at this point is an acceptance of speaking in tongues in the church today but a rejection of its Pentecostal counterfeit. I would love to hear insight from both sides of the fence and appreciate any and all constructive commentary.

The Christian Life

2007-02-08T08:18:00.000-08:00

I've made it a point not to be particularly autobiographical in my blog. This is mostly because I wanted to discuss issues that I feel get clouded when personalized and hinder real discussion. But today I feel that the subject I want to discuss cannot really be done so from an objective perspective.
It started the other night when I was talking to my wife. We were discussing our weeks and things that we have been thinking about. Last week I had been thinking a lot about where i was in life and if I was truly following God's will. For years I have played and recorded music and I always felt like that was a gift from God that would fit into a key part of my life somehow. But at this point it has not. When I was younger i pictured myself going to a place like Greenville college or maybe Hillsong and then touring possibly as a musician but more likely as a sound technician of some sort or maybe working in a studio. I wanted my ministry to be something fast paced and uncertain. Something more on the edge (to resurrect that horrid cliche one more time). But here I am working in a office, living in a nice little house with a wife and a dog and going to a "boring" church (by worldly standards). So as i looked over my life this past week I wondered, what happened? I began to seriously doubt my place in life and in God's plan. But as I talked to my wife and let these ideas roll out of my mouth I realized something. All these boring aspects of my life are things that my wife and I put serious prayer into and received major confirmation from God (in far too many ways to list here). But despite this I still had this sort of panicked feeling that maybe I was supposed to be somewhere else doing something exciting, but why?
Then it all started making sense. I had given into the assumptions of a young evangelical musician. When I returned to Christ my senior year in high school I started attending evangelical churches and groups. From the moment you walked through the door of these places you were barraged with missions and groups that go to far away places. Everything is dominated by this idea of being on the cutting edge, to drop everything and jump into the mission field like Jesus and His apostles. For artistic types the pressure was even greater to go start a ministry somewhere, to travel the world and spread the God's Word through art.
This all seemed very Biblical. Christ abandoned all the security of a home and a paying job in order to spread the Gospel and he called his followers (at least a group of them) to do the same. It seemed simple, the apostles are so often used as examples for the church it only makes sense that our lives model theirs. But as I talked with my wife, God revealed something to me . Where did Jesus eat? Where did he stay? Just look at Matt. 10:11 "Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave." This is just one example of numerous references to the followers of Christ that we so easily forget. The truth is, Christ's ministry would have gone nowhere if the Spirit had not led people to give their homes, food, and money to the new forming church. The book of Acts is a great place to see all of the saints whose duties may not have been as exciting as some of the apostles, but were just as important to God's purposes.
If we all just ran out to be crusaders for our cause, the church would collapse. I think that the church needs to loose its grandiose views of ministry and humbly accept the position that God has given us. Moreover we also need to accept God's timing. I think there are many people that God wants on the front lines so to speak, but that doesn't mean right now. I know God has a lot of things planned for my life, some of which he has shown me in part. But he has a schedule for those things that requires my patience more than my zeal right now.
I remember at my old church, people would be disappointed when they found out that worship was really good at the other service that day or that God moved in some big way at a conference they missed. But in light of what God has shown me recently I think that maybe we should focus more on not wanting to miss God in the not so glamorous ways. Maybe our most illumined and life changing experience with God is going to be had in supporting a missionary, writing a congressman, attneding a Bible study, or even just waiting patiently on the Lord.

Embrionic Stem Cells

2007-01-12T05:22:00.000-08:00

It appears that stem cells are back on the front pages these days as part of the democratic party's 100 hour plan. I could go into great length about the problems of embryonic stem cell research on an ethical level, but in all honesty, I think we need to be looking at the major problems on a scientific level. So let's take a closer look at stem cell research, shall we?

It would seem to most Americans that embryonic stem cells are in essence the philosopher's stone that will turn diseased and aged bodies into pinnacles of health. It would also seem that this miraculous discovery lay in the warehouses of science untouched due to government restrictions (like the ark of the covenant at the end of Indiana Jones, sorry if you haven't seen the movie). But the truth is over 20 million dollars has been spent on embryonic stem cell research since 2002, 900 papers have been published about human embryonic stem cell research (and over 1000 papers published on animal stem cell research), and 80 research projects have been devoted to the study of embryonic stem cell research. Clearly this field is not scientific potential stunted by politics.
"So what has been learned from this research?" you might ask. "An excellent question" I would respond. With all the research that has been done thus far, it would seem that
scientists would have a great deal of evidence that embryonic stem cells are the gold mine that they predicted it would be. But they haven't. In fact, most research shows that this field is a dead end scientifically, economically, and ethically. You can find a detailed account of the major problems with embryonic stem cells in this article.

Haunted by the spectre of Romanticism

2006-10-05T21:10:00.000-07:00

I was thinking about a number of things as I drove home this evening (as I often do) and one subject seemed to stick out in my mind, Romanticism. I've been doing some reading about the romantic era and i can't help but notice (as I doubt anyone could) the similarities between romanticism and post modernism. Both are movements strongly opposed to objectivity and rationalism while pursueing a more experiential truth. Both movements are critical of the path which history has taken and look to elements of the past for inspiration. One could go on and on about the relationship that these eras have and i'm sure many an author already has, but what struck me most about their similarities is the danger that lies in them both. I must admit that there is something very appealing about the romantic era, it is the birthplace of many incredible advancements in art and literature and some of its pilosophy is very easy to get swept into. But there in lies the problem. It was just such a sweeping away by visceral passions unbridled by rationality that led to the French Revolution, one of the bloodiest and most revolting chapters in Western history. The ideas of liberty, nationialism fueled by emotionalism. This romantic mixture also led to the fascism that plagued Europe through WWI and WWII.
So what does this have to do with postmodernism? Well, let me tell you. In the Romantic era we saw untethered violence in the name of nationalism (not a nationalism of governments and borders, but of language and culture). In Postmodernism, we see the denial of grand narratives, thus the elimination of the type of nationalism that we saw in the romantic era. It also has destroyed any structure of authority making the self the ultimate judge. But, like the romantics, it seeks something genuine and is driven by intuition and with this drive can become radical in its opposition to that which it does not agree with (the objectivity of the modernist movement, globalization, morality, etc). Enter terrorism, the bastard child of postmodernism. With reason and authority being thrown out the window, a person has no where to look but to themselves and when the outside world disagrees with them, there is no reason that they should not react anyway they want, even violently. Whether in the middle east, a subway in tokyo, or in our own high schools, terrorism rears it's ugly head as living proof of postmodernisms dangerous outcomes. But terrorism is not the end of the story. There is one more step in this path of destruction. Romantics began with an attack against authority outside of nationism, communism took this a step further by attacking authority outside of of the people, postmodernism attacked authority outside of the self, and finally postmodernism has turned the gun on itself. The ideas of the self attack the authority of ones own body. The suicide bomber is definitively postmodern in this way.
Now I don't want to pick on postmodernism too much, there are plenty of other people to do that. Postmodernism is just another step in the wrong direction that began at the Renaisance. When man stopped looking at God as the center of all things and looked to himself, he set this ball in motion. Since then man has looked at himself closer and closer to try and find something true, and now he is looking at himself in the morror and finds his reflection fading.

Questionaire

2006-08-07T21:57:00.000-07:00

Only a month into the blog world and already my Dad has started tagging people :) This is my first experience being tagged, so here it goes.

1. One book that has changed your life.

Continuing my Dad's exception for the Bible on these first three questions, I would have to say On Hope by Josef Pieper. Reading this book was an existentially defining moment in my life as it explains how the Christians life is continuously being "on the way." We are moving towards God and never reach our goal until the end of this life. What was most profound to me was the idea that we can not only lose salvation by denying it outright through despair but also through the presumption that we have already attained it. This book shattered my alter call theology and really pushed me to seek God fully.

2. One book that you have read more than once.

The one that stands out the most in this catagory would have to be Jurassic Park. Yeah, it's not the type of book that one displays proudly next to a first edition Ulysses, but man i loved this book. Science, monsters that just might become a reality (or at least it seemed possible to me in 5th grade), guns, cool australian guys who hunt dinos like a pro, what's there for a boy not to love? In fact, where is my copy...

3. One book that you'd want on a desert island.

I'd have to say a Flannery O'Connor anthology. Yes, i realize that technically that's more than one book, but she writes short stories so I think it's allowed. What can I say, she's an awesome writer. She has such an amazing ability to write lifelike characters, that I may be able to deal with the lack of companionship on the island (although no book can replace the experience of playing Halo with 4 loud guys).

4. One book that made you laugh.

Oddly enough I'd have to say Bondage of the Will by Martin Luther. As loving as passionate as Luther can be in many of his writings, he can write some hilarious zingers when responding to bad theology.

5. One book that made you cry.

At first I thought I wouldn't have an answer for this question. Books really don't make me cry like a good movie might. But then I remembered that I got teary when I finished Abel's Island. Granted I was in 4th grade, but it counts. i might have gotten a little misty when I read The Dream of a Ridiculous Man but I can't remember for sure.

6. One book that you wished you had written.

Fear and Trembling by Soren Kierkegaard. I just wish I was that smart.

7. One book that you wish had never been written.

I think i would have to go with The Divinci Code. Not because it has heretical ideas or is some sort of danger to the church. I'm just sick of uncultured dolts who pick this up at an airport store asking me "Hey have you read The divinci code? It's all true ya' know." Get a library card and an attention span and call me in the morning.

8. One book you are currently reading.

I just got a new book the other day that is really interesting. It's called Monster's from the Id. It basically puts forht the idea that horror in literature and film comes about in response to the immorality of its day. I like it a lot so far and owuld recommend it to any Christian fans of the horror genre.

9. One book you've been meaning to read.

The Brothers Karamazov. I'm fairly certain that not reading it is a mortal sin in my house, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Plus it's really long.

10. Now tag 5 people.

I'll have to get back to this one and see who hasn't been tagged yet.

When I grow up

2006-06-28T22:36:00.000-07:00

As some of you who frequent Sara's blog may already know, I have just been hired at the Youth and Family Services Bureau. This is my first grown up job and I am really excited. Let me first say that I love my current (soon to be former) job. Working with people with disabilities has always been in my blood and it has been a great experience to help all my clients over the last 5 years. That being said I'm so glad that I'm not going to have to do shift work for at a job where I have no guarantee that I will get the hours I need. So hooray for no more midnight shifts, no more 3 hour wrestling matches with angry clients, no more ripped shirts! I get a 9-5 job with a desk, a salary, and most importantly I get to work with troubled teens which is really what God has been making my heart bleed in this season of my life. God has just been so incredible in getting this job for me and I can give no one credit but Him. He basically laid it in my lap and removed any obstacles that would hinder me getting it. I just pray that I can live up to what great things He has planned for me. The only possible cloud on the horizon is that this position is available through a grant which means that it may not be there next year. But even if we lose the grant, I will have gained priceless experience in my vocation, a ton of resources, and a great thing to add to my resume. So although I may not know what's ahead of me, I know that this is the beginning of an incredible part of my life.
So if anyone who reads this could do me a favor, please be praying that God continues to bless me with wisdom, patience, discernment, and His pure love so that I can truly be a light to my community through this job.

What should have been v. What should be

2006-06-24T02:15:00.000-07:00

Two posts in the wee hours of the morning- anyone figured out that it's a slow night at work?
Anyways, after my last post I did some more thinking and decided I should do a little more posting. Specifically I wanted to post on the state of Man before the fall. The question I have been asking myself this morning is if what we see described in the garden of Eden is a model for how we should relate to God on this side of the flaming sword or if our Fall has forever changed our relationship to the Creator. On one hand you have God being the same before and after the Fall in the sense that He was, is, and always will be a triune God. We have John telling us that Christ was present since the beginning (in the beginning was the Word) and we have Genesis and Proverbs telling us that the Holy Spirit has always existed as well. This throws out any sort of modalism, but it doesn't clear up the question of how we relate to God. Since the Fall we have been looking to the coming of Christ as a redeemer and now that he has, we stand before Him as redeemed. But what would our relationship to Christ have been if the Fall never took place? Would He have become incarnate and broken bread with His people? Was it Christ who was walking in the garden and found Adam and Eve hiding because of their shame? Perhaps the most interesting question to me when it comes to this issue is, was it inevitable that Man would fall? This question has been at the back of my mind since I first took notice of Revelation 13:8 that refers to Christ as "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;" There is some disagreement about the order of the words in the Greek, but that ultimately doesn't matter for the point I am getting at. It seems to me that it may be possible that God knew before making us that by giving us free will that we would fall, not that there was a chance that we would fall, but that it was inevitable. How incredible of a love would that be if God knew that there was no way around it, that He would create this wonderful beings that would betray Him and that He would have to die for in order to redeem? Yet He still made us and called us "very good." This is all just speculation and I would even blink if I died and God said, "yeah...you were way off on that one." But it's an interesting thought anyway.
Back to my main point. I think in some ways we can look to Eden as a model for the true church today. In the garden we had an intimate relationship with God on so many levels, we had a loving and respectful relationship with other people (granted there was only one at the time), and we had a dominate but respectful relationship with the earth. These things should be our goals today. We don't even have to limit ourselves to Genesis to see how important these three things were. Look at all the laws that Moses came up with (even the weird ones) and you see these relationships as the primary focus: man with God, man with man, man with earth. These relationships are eternal.
But in some ways, life before the Fall cannot be a model for Christians relationship to God and His creation. Most significantly, we cannot deny the fall. Some people will say that justification makes us as if we never sinned, but this is just not true. By taking on this mindset we rob God (and ourselves) of the most glorious display of love the world has ever seen; His atoning death and resurrection. We rob Him of the title of Redeemer, Savior, etc.
Another reason that life before the Fall cannot serve as a complete model is that our relationship to God changes. I want to be clear that I am not saying that God changes, but rather that we change. God is infinite and no period of time can reflect how one would relate to an infinite being. Both in this life and if the life to come we will plunge further and further into the depths of God; into His infinite wisdom, into His infinite love, into His infinite holiness. Perhaps that is what would have happened if Adam and Eve hadn't listened to the serpent, but we'll never know for sure.
What it comes down to is that there are far to many uncertainties about life in Eden to make a complex theology from, but there is enough in those two chapters to give a glimpse of something more, something beyond the scope of this fallen world. I personally would like to believe that that is all God intended.

Thank goodness for the good souls?

2006-06-23T22:53:00.000-07:00

I'm working a midnight right now and my client is asleep. So I've been sitting and thinking (as I often do on these shifts when everything on TV is replaced with infomercials) and my mind wandered to conversations I've had over the years. What stuck out tonight was a topic I've talked about with a lot of people over the years, 'Why would God damn people who are, for the most part, good even though they aren't Christian?' Usually when this matter comes up, I go on the defensive and try to show how God is merciful and just and that members of the hypothetical African tribe who love everybody and are all around nice people but haven't ever heard of Christ aren't necessarily going to hell. I could go into this further, but my response to this notion is not what I was pondering this evening.
What sparked my interest tonight was the realization that the question itself that the "good-people" apologists ask is flawed. The question posed (why would good people go to hell) reveals the mistaken view that many in today's culture have towards humanity. It is a strange misconception because on one hand it bears a sinful pride by assuming that people can really be so good as to be justified by their own works before God and on the other hand it shows the great despair of a culture that has gotten so used to the cruelty and sin of humanity that even the dimly lit shadows can look like daylight to the eyes of a people shrouded in pitch black.
Looking to scripture, we see in the Psalms that, "there is no one who does good, not even one." Anyone can look through the Bible and find hundreds of similar verses. Conversely anyone could look through the Bible and find verses like Psalms 34:8 which says, "Taste and see that the Lord is good." So God is good, and man is not. Simple enough right? But that's not all there is to it, because it was not always this way. Looking at Genesis we see that God's creation is also good. In fact humans are said to be "very good." This is what i think is so important. We were made good and (before the fall) we were good by the very definition of our existence! We didn't have to do anything extra, we just were good by our very nature. But we screwed it all and we continue to screw it up. We sin so much that our cruelty and selfishness is referred to as human nature. This is the despair that I am talking about, we are so lost that we had to actually redefine what it means to be human! So for a sinful creature to turn around and point to some good works and call call themselves a saint is like standing in a deep chasm (a chasm you created no less), putting a few shovels full of dirt in a pile, and calling it a mountain. Such an act is not only a denial of the chasm you are in but it is an insult to mountains. This skewed perspective places "being good" on a level above and beyond our natural existence, when in fact being good is supposed to be our existence and, if it wasn't for our selfishness and lust, it would be. It reminds me of a quote that I've heard attributed to Augustine, Goethe, and even Nietzche- "become who you are." That is the call on humanity. To be holy is not to become divine, it is to become human. We are not filling mountains, we are filling holes (or for some of us, not digging up the whole that Jesus just filled).
Looking now at the pride in this way of thinking, I draw your attention back to those first verses I mentioned. According to the Bible, not only are we depraved but God is good and moreover he is the giver of all good things. Since God is good and anything else is good only in that it reflects Him, we can see that people cannot take credit for being good, that is for God alone. The only thing we can really say is our doing is sin. So to turn to God and point to our good deeds saying "isn't this good enough?" Is like cutting out the face on a painting, taking it the artist, and trying to take credit for its beauty (while ignoring the destruction we have cause to his creation).
Those are my thoughts for now. Maybe there's more to say, but I hear stirring upstairs so I must get back to work.

Dan

New links

2006-06-16T22:13:00.000-07:00

I'd like to point everyone to the links over there to your left. There are some new ones. I'd especially like you to check out my Dad's new blog. There's only one post but it's got some good stuff and I'm sure there are more than a few gems to follow. My brother is also getting a blog so keep your eyes peeled for that link. The Carter's are storming the blogosphere!!!

Law and Grace

2006-06-16T19:06:00.000-07:00

At the Bible study I go to on Thursdays, we've been going through James. Now I know what some of you are thinking, but no, I am not going to get into the whole "faith without works is dead" thing. What intrigued me about James was his use of the term 'law' in his letter. You can look for yourself if you want details (it's not a long book) but just for an overview, he basically says you should follow the law "do not be hearers who forget but doers." From an exegetical point of view one would do themselves a service not to pick apart James as they would a letter from Paul. James has a bit more of a shoot-from-the-hip type of approach and can't really be held up to the same word for word scrutiny of Paul's works. I am in no way denying the authority of this text, I'm simply saying that as a writer, he's not Paul.
Back to my point, the book of James really got me thinking last night about the post resurrection relationship to the law. It is by all accounts different than the relationship between the law and Moses, but how exactly? Paul uses some very strong language in Romans as well as other letters saying that we are no longer under the law, that we are dead to the law and alive in Christ, and that Christ is the end of the law. I could keep listing similar verses that, at first glance, give an image of early Christians dancing around Christ whose house had just landed on the law causing its feet to curl up under the house, striped socks and all. But what are we to make of Christ's promise that he was not here to abolish the law? and what of the book of James? and what about Paul's own words that we do not overthrow the law but rather we uphold it?
These were some of the thoughts I was pondering on the way home from Bible study last night and while I was thinking about these things something clicked. God took pity on me and gave me an analogy that made it all make sense. So let me set this up, I was in my car (listening to Waterdeep I think) and I was thinking about how we are justified by grace and how our life in Christ moves us toward Sanctification. At that moment the thought popped into my head; justification is being given a job (despite that fact that we are unqualified) and Sanctification is our vocation. Our life's work, by the grace of God, is to become holy. Then in the next second another thought popped up; the law is like school and being under Christ is like having a job.
Spelled out it goes like this: in school, we learn things for the sake of the things themselves because a teacher told us to. We learn multiplication so that we can multiply, we learn words so that we can read, etc. We do our calculations on worksheet after worksheet for no other reason than to learn how to do them (point being that these worksheets aren't being sent off to NASA as calculations for the next rocket; they have no outside purpose). We take tests, we are told to do things that we wouldn't do in the real world (I don't think that French diplomats are playing Pirate Bingo with French vocabulary words), and we constantly repeat things all so that we can learn the rules and processes of these studies. Most importantly, we fail. We make mistakes and are never perfect, no matter who we are (this part of the analogy gets a little thin with grade inflation being what it is in American schools, but if schools were doing what they were supposed to, this would be the case). I can think of one example of a friend of mine, lets call her Calli, who is an incredibly bright girl. She got a full ride to college and is one of my first go-to people for questions on literature or grammer. But despite her brilliance she struggled unbelievably in high school in an advanced placement chemistry class. No matter how hard she tried, how many ours she studied, how many times she went to the teacher for help, she couldn't get it quite right.
This is what the law does. It first of all shows us that we are ignorant and that we are failures, it shows us that there is perfection out there and shows us what it looks like (mostly to serve the first purpose), and it shows us how we can be good and what things we need to do to be good.
Now to grace. When Christ died for us and made us sons and daughters, it is like he gave us a job. Now in this job we use the things that we learned in school (the law) but we no longer do math for math's sake, we do it to serve a greater purpose! We know the rules and practices of our trade and no longer have to perform the self serving exercises that we did in school. At times we may be reminded of these rules and people may correct the things that we do, but it is not because we are in school and that we have to do things a certain way for their own sake, but because they are essential to the job. For example, you are at work and someone tells you that you didn't tally up the payroll checks right and the outcome was wrong. That would be valid. Now if someone told you that you need to calculate something a certain way, not because you were wrong (you infact have started using a more efficient computer program to do it) but simply because they didn't learn it that way, then that would be invalid.
So the law is still here and we still follow it, but not for it's own sake. Rather by following Christ we automatically are fulfilling the law. If I may use another example, I do not run a race for the sake of running a straight line, but by running the race I am in fact running in a straight line. When Paul tells us that Christ is the end of the law, he does not mean that the law is no more, but that the law leads to Christ who is its ultimate end (as in means to an end). It is an eternal relationship.
So let us try to not be so quick to throw around words like "legalist" or "pharisee." The law is still a part of our Christian walk. True we are no longer under it but, by being under Christ, we still uphold it, and when we do not uphold the law, it is a sign that we are straying from our path with Christ.

Dan

more than words

2006-06-14T08:48:00.000-07:00

Church can be a pretty egotistical place nowadays. One place that this is prevelant is in the revivalist church model. By this I am referring to the the 2 part service found in most evangelical denominations that conists of worship (music) and the sermon. Sometimes this will get changed up by adding announcements somewhere in the middle or a song at the end. The way I see it there are several problems with this. First of all the focus is on the sermon, this is the crux and the climax of the service. I should clarify that I don't have a problem with sermons generally, but in this format you don't find churches following any sort of lectionary (Bible verses that follow a predetermined calender used by the majority of the church) this means that what scripture we do hear is selected by the pastor to support his point rather than to create a sermon inductively starting in the scripture. Such sermons also make it easy to avoid preaching on the difficult verses in scripture or even to stretch ourselves by preaching on something that isn't our specialty.
Secondly, this type of service is an oddity in the history of the church service. Since the beginning of the church, Christians have been following a liturgy that (with some variation) is still found in liturgical church bodies (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutheran, Episcopal, Reformed, and a few others). The liturgy is the worship setting given to us by the Apostles. We can trace it back to the 2nd century through the Didache and from then on see it consistently and exclusively in the church. So why not use it? As far as I can see, the only benefit of the revivalist model is that it may be easier for the short attention spans of the last few generations, but that hardly seems like something to contour to. If for no other reason, these churches should return to the liturgy because it is the model presented to the church in the beginning by the men Christ ordained to form the church as well as the model that has been maintained by the Spirit for 2000 years.
Third, these services willingly deny themselves the physical presence of God in the assembly of believers! Since the beginning, the eucharist (not the sermon) has been the center of Christians gathering. We see this as early as Paul who admonishes those who partake of Christ's body in the bread and wine in the wrong way. For 2 millinia, Christians have met to experience the true presence of Christ among them. But now churches have not only abandoned the real presence, they have even repudiated what shallow remnants of the eucharist that remains to being taken once a month or less. We come to church and bring our loved ones there to be with Christ, but we have thrown Him out the back door and replaced Him with an empty ritual.
Fourth, the creeds and prayers have disapeared. What prayers are said are usually said to close or open the 2 parts of the service and they are hardly the united declarations of faith found in the creeds. There is something truly powerful when believers gather and declare in unison what they believe or lift up the prayers of others. In such an individualized culture we need this more today than ever. People need to learn to put aside their personal preferences and what their comfortable for the sake of others. If we cannot do this in a chuch, where can we?
I could continue to list a number of other issues, but i think that these things will suffice. My point is that the liturgy is a beautiful thing that has been abandoned far to hastily in some traditions. I do not mean to imply that those whose churches do not use the liturgy are purposeful or malicious in their abandonment nor am I saying that God does not move in such services. God's grace is endless and such a matter would hardly find its end. But i have encountered far to many people in these traditions that are ignorant of the history of Christian gatherings (as most younger Christians are ignorant of a great deal of their history) and it is incredibly important that they understand what's at stake here. If the church is the bride of Christ then how we worship Him as a body reflects the state of our marriage. This is why the dissapating presence of Christ (as in Word and sacrament) are so disturbing. i don't know to many marriages that succeed when the husband is not allowed to speak or be intimate with his wife excpet maybe once a month.

New Layout

2006-06-12T13:48:00.000-07:00

As you may have noticed, I have changed things around a bit. I was a little tired of the old look so I decided to try my hand at html. Finally, after a couple days of being confused by tutorials and notepad files, I got at least a functional understanding of how to alter my site. So this is it. The layout will probably go through a few more changes as I learn more and get a little more creative, so feel free to make suggestions.
In celebration of my new look, I will return to posting regularly. Sorry to any of you disapointed by my long absence (I realize that my vacation from the blog world was a cruel thing to do to my many many readers). My first post should be up in a few days so keep an eye out.

Dan

Biting the hand that feeds me

2005-12-30T20:18:00.000-08:00

A couple weeks ago i was at a friends house who was having a little party. It was a great time all around. . I got to see some people I hadn't seen in a while and catch up on all sorts of things that reminded me just how long it has been since I had actually talked to them last.
During the party, I was sitting in the living room with a group of people and I began talking to a friend with the default conversation starter "So what are you up to these days?" Most of what he said was normal enough but there was one thing that struck me. During his answer he said that God had called him to be a "multi-media visionary" (this I assumed to be a reference to his music and internet design talents). What struck me here was not the claim that God bestowed such a task to him (seems pretty common place for the most part) or the use of the word "visionary," a word usually reserved for praise found in bicentennial biographies rather than preliminary titles. What caught my attention was something completely different.
As my friend said these words, i felt a sort of weight fall in my stomach as somber thoughts began to fill my mind. The idea of the internet and digital technology being the means of a Christian "visionary" was unsettling.
I should make it clear that what i am about to say is not a rebuttle to my friend. Our conversation was very short and I can't be sure what he entirely meant by his comments or his intentions. What I am about to say is really just a response to my own questions about Christianity on the internet. I would also like to note that the irony of my chosen medium for this rant has not abandoned me. That being said, let's begin.
In the article "God on the Internet" for the magazine First Things, I found this passage:

"Beliefnet’s Waldman thinks that this distancing of the self from the religious act can be helpful. “The anonymity of the Internet is what makes it work so well for religion,” he says. “It’s the flip side of why porn spreads. The same phenomenon that has led to pornography spreading, a variant of that has made religion one of the most popular topics online. It’s that you can explore religious matters in the privacy of your own home; ask questions you might be embarrassed to ask; have conversations with people with some anonymity; and do it anytime day or night.” This “anonymity combined with intimacy,” Waldman says, makes people “more inclined to open up,” since they aren’t revealing themselves totally.

To which one wants to say: Doesn’t that metaphor give you pause? Is a technique that has made pornography into the Internet’s number-one business really a good idea for religion, the Internet’s number-two business?

The failure of anonymous online pornography to be real sex is also the failure of anonymous online churching to be real religion: In both sex and religion, incarnation—the physical body—turns out to matter a great deal."

This is the central point of my problem with the church on the internet. There is no doubt that there is benefit to the internet. It has allowed every person with a phone line and a computer to have access to libraries of information that they may not have had. As a Christian I have access to dozens of translations of the Bible, volumes of writings from Christians who have come before me , and a place to put my own thoughts. But this is not the Christian experience. We may be able to read each others thoughts or even talk to and pray for eachother over AIM. But these are only phantoms of the true body of Christ. If God wanted the Christian life to be a simple exchange of ideas, He could have created us to be matterless spirits floating thoughts to one another. But He didn't. He created a world of touch, smell, taste, sight, and sound. He created a world where the air you blow rustles the hairs on my arm. We have no further to look for proof of this than the climax (or at least a climax) of the gospel story. On the night when He was betrayed, Christ called His disciples to meet together and partake of his body and blood through the bread and wine. In order for the disciples to truly understand what was taking place and what would take place, Christ gave them something they could experience with all their senses and do so in the physical presence of one another. As Christ did this he asked the disciples to do it in "rememberance' of Him. Much has been done exegetically with this word "remember." But in order to understand the weight of what Christ was calling His disciples to do, we must understand that the Greek word that is so crudely translated as "rememberance" more accurately means to make something intangible tangible. So everytime we Christians gather and take part in this sacred meal (as we should every time we are assembled) Christ is truly and corporeally present. Through this mystery we are of one mind through our confession of faith, one spirit through the Holy Spirit, and one Body through Christ.
It is no wonder that in traditions that have abondoned this doctrine, we find the eyesoars of TV and interent churches , where its members sit in their homes ignorant of one anothers existence.

Another problem I have is that internet religion opens the floodgates of buffet style theology. Anyone can go on the interent find what they like and simply move on to the next page when they find something they don't. There is no obligation to listen to an entire thought or even an entire sentence. Even whil having a discussion online a person can simply walk away rather than continue with a conversation they no longer want to have.
I could go on in this vain, but the basic point is that, along with the absence of a body, internet religion destroys the obligations and social mores that exist with in any regular community. Any person could log on, go to tons of websites posting horribly crude and cruel things and recieve no punishments where he (or she) would at very least loose friends and at worst be arrested in the real world.
In conclusion, i like the internet and all of the digital equipment sprawled out in front of me. But let us remember that the church is about a true connection with the body of Christ. This connection is reflected in the sounds of laughter during times of joy and an embrace in times of sorrow. As pure and unselfish someone's heart may be, a good hug after a personal tragedy cannot be replaced by :,(

Conversation about church revisited

2005-11-21T21:27:00.000-08:00

Ok everybody,

Some of you in the know may have been following the series of discussion that have been taking place off and on for the last couple months on a couple of friends and my blogs. In light of the newest conversation, I have reposted this conversation that began a while back to see if there are any new ideas that people would lik to add to it. Come let us reason together.

Levi Fuson said...

dan

first, it think you must differentiate the "man" church and the "God" church. They are two completly different things. I believe that the Church as God sees it, is us. you and i. the relationtional connection that binds us, even though we don't really even know each other we are bound by cords that are unseen.

the church proper, institutional church or "man" church is the creation of man, somethign that was initiated first by the early church from a culture that was used to social gatherings in the synagogue. a culture that had a large appreciation for oration. coming largely from the greek/roman culture. it developed eventaully into what we have today. an institution, that has become more concerned with its own preservation than on than on the reason for its existence, the "God" church.

this article is interesting in a couple of ways to me. first it was written over 6 years ago. a lifetime in this age of change. second it really focuses on genx, which i think is a fault, because it leaves out all those who have the same issues that it addresses that are not genx'ers. thirdly, it makes no mention of relationship. its solution of focusing on the narrative is right on, allbeit a little confusing. the one on one relational connection, sharing of life, missional, experiencial connection is imperative to this genre of peoples that she is identifying.

l.

Dan said...

good thought.
as far as the man made church and the "God" church, I don't think the two can be seperated so easily or perhaps even at all. Looking just at Matthew 16:18 (and matt. 18:18 as well) i think there are some interesting things to note. First of all, Jesus says He will build his church on Peter, a man. Second of all, this was not merely a relational church, it was a judiciary body as weel. In the next sentence he says that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, which should not be seen merely as a generic reference to salvation as some hold it to be, but rather a position of authority. it appears that Christ is using the image of Isaiah 22:22 that says," will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open." so with the keys to the kingdom of heaven comes not only the ability to enter the gates, but to close them. the next sentence echoes this sentiment by saying "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
This last verse has been horribly interpreted in some circles (as a former Vineyardite, I'm sure you have heard this verse used to declare power over spiritual matters). But looking at chapter 18, where it is repeated, we see it for what it is. To bind someone is to hold them to the law, to hold them accountable for their action, to loose them is to treat them as "a Gentile and a tax collector" and no longer hold them to the law. Chapter 18 goes on to say, "truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them."
It appears that Christ has given a great deal of authority to men in these passages. These passages also reveal a process by which men must act within this authority. looking into the epistles (which i will not do right now) we see the creation of church offices and the roles of each.
So the church is a relational connection, indeed. But it is also an organized system. These two need to be present for a church to exist. So perhaps we can say that were the church has gone wrong, it was/is due to a lack of one of these two, not the presence of one.

Dan said...

i can see what you mean about the article, but in its defense i still think it has many good relevant points despite its age and it leaves out non gen-xers because it was an article about gen-xers, it wasn't meant to be read as a diagnosis (if this article applies to you then you have to be gen x). Though i agree, since some of it's ideas trancsend the gen x label, perhaps it shoulc have widened the scope. Finally, i think the relational aspect goes without saying. it is not something that is specific to gen x or those who fit within the scope of the article. The need for relationships is opresent in everyone and this article was trying to focus on what is particular to gen xers.
But it is a 2 page article with limitations. There are probably some better articles on the site dealing with this subject. If you haven't checked it out before, you should really peruse the site. There are some unbelievable articles there. my recommendation is 'Christians and the Death Penalty" in this months issue.

iggy said...

dan,
reread the passage in Matt... it is not "Peter" Jesus builds His "church" but the "faith of Peter".

Matt 1:17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

In the literal translation is implied "in this statement" I will build my church.

It is the statement of faith.

Blessings,
iggy

iggy said...

Also...
The Key is faith.. one needs faith in Christ to be part of the HIS Kingdom.

this is not about judiciary authority, but rather relationaly knowing Christ Jesus as savior and recieving the Kingdom of God. All by faith...

Blessings,
iggy

Dan said...

iggy,

There may be something to you interpretation but if we are going to say that the Key is simply faith then we run into problems. First of all, if Peter had faith initially and because of that Christ gives him the "keys" what sense would it make for Christ is give Peter what he already had? Second, looking at the rest of this section
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven"
We see that whether or not it was Peter's faith that Christ was intending to build his church on , He gave him authority within that church (which he later gave to the desciples as well). i am not denying the relational aspects of Christ's church, i'm simply saying that there is more to it.

Dan said...

After, rereading the verse (as you suggested) it seems even more obvious that Christ is refering to Peter himself, not simply his faith. Why else would he make a point to identify Peter (not his faith) and declare "on this rock," an obvious play on words with the name Peter, "I will build my church." The previous verse, is too show that Peter is worthy of such an office. So I'm not sure what you mean by "literal translation" so please inform me if there is something I don't know.

Levi Fuson said...

dan

"Looking just at Matthew 16:18 (and matt. 18:18 as well) i think there are some interesting things to note. First of all, Jesus says He will build his church on Peter, a man. Second of all, this was not merely a relational church, it was a judiciary body as weel. In the next sentence he says that he will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, which should not be seen merely as a generic reference to salvation as some hold it to be, but rather a position of authority."

i think you may need to explain this to me in greater detail. im slow sometimes, :) but i don't see how you jump from tying, the church as god sees and the institution together, to this verse? your drawing conclusion that don't relate. for Jesus to build his church on a man, still does not draw the two into one. its a matter of perspective. the man can then take it and do what he wishes with it. Im just not seeing how this scripture has anythign to do with it. it seems very subjective to me.

"To bind someone is to hold them to the law, to hold them accountable for their action, to loose them is to treat them as "a Gentile and a tax collector" and no longer hold them to the law."

again here some explanation is due. first i don't understand how this is relevant, second, how do you juxtapose this with Paul talking about Christ coming to abolish the law? not bind us to it. again im might be misinterpreting what your trying to say.

"So the church is a relational connection, indeed. But it is also an organized system. These two need to be present for a church to exist. So perhaps we can say that were the church has gone wrong, it was/is due to a lack of one of these two, not the presence of one."

i geuss im just not seeing the correlation. you are very much dealing in a subjective interpretation of the scripture. im not denying it, im just trying to get you to see how the way you haev strung these together don't neccesarily prove your point. as iggy has shown, it can be looked t viably from a totally different perspective. niether way is wrong from my perspective they are just different and therfore you get different praxis resolving from it...... or should. :)

please expound.

l.

Dan said...

well, to see what I'm getting at, lets look at the definition of institution.
1. The act of instituting.
2.
1. A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family.
2. Informal. One long associated with a specified place, position, or function.
3.
1. An established organization or foundation, especially one dedicated to education, public service, or culture.
2. The building or buildings housing such an organization.
3. A place for the care of persons who are destitute, disabled, or mentally ill.

Looking mostly at definitions 2.1 and 3.1 I think that it is fair to say that Christ is setting up an institution in these verses. He is placing into the hands of the church the authority and responsibility to uphold the teachings He has taught. The church is not just the place where Christ's teachings are read but where they are lived. In this way the church becomes an institution, according to the definitions i have provided. if this is not what you mean by institution, then perhaps we have missed each other.
As far as the binding and loosing, it goes to the same purpose. Christ has given the authority to tell someone that their behavior is no longer that of a christian and so they shall no longer be treated as such. What treating someone as a "gentile" means could be another interesting discussion.
As far as the law, I'm not sure what verse you are refering to. The only verses i can think of that refer to abolishing the law are when Christ says, in matt. 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill."
Paul also speaks of upholding the law in Romans 3:31
"Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law."
Does this clear up where I was going with this?

Daddy's gonna pay for your crashed car

2005-11-17T07:01:00.000-08:00

Wow, I'm on a posting streak here.

Anyways, at the mens group i go to we are reading On Hope by Josef Pieper. For those of you who have not encountered Pieper i suggest you go to amazon.com and pick up a book immediately. His stuff can be pretty dense, but it is phenomenal work. Back to what i was saying; the chapter we read for this week discussed the subject of natural hope v. supernatural hope. SImply put, natural hope is what is instilled in all of us as humans. It is the hope that after 2 weeks of work you will get a check, that you will become knowledgeable from going to school, that the girl you met will become your wife, etc. Basically it is the hope of fullfillment in this world. Supernatural hope on the other hand comes only with the knowledge and acceptance of Grace. It is the hope of a world to come and humanity becoming fully present with God. It is supernatural in the sense that it will not be fullfilled until after this life. What was interesting about Pieper is that he writes that supernatural hope does not replace natural hope, but rather refines it. In supernatural hope we encounter the Ultimate Good and through faith we know that all things will be perfected through Christ. It is with this hope that we can then look to the world and see that it will be made perfect. He goes as far as to say that it is wrong for us to loose natural hope in light of supernatural hope. Such was the case with some early Christians who believed that we should seek God and look to His coming kingdom, but should not desire the joy and happiness that it will bring. Thus the council of Trent declared that anyone who teaches that should be "anethema" meaning devoted to public abhorrence or destruction.
We don't hear too many people today saying that we should not seek the joy of the coming Kingdom, but natural hope has gone to the wayside in the eschatalogical haze of evangelical America. A poignant example of this was on a recent news/talk show where a conservative and liberal were discussing political influence. The conservative man stated something along the lines of
" In the next generation conservatives will have control of the government because we have more children that liberals do."
To which the liberal man said,
"That's fine, we'll get them in college."

This exchange, while quite witty I must say, was a disturbing wake up call to the reality of the church. We are in an enviroment where there is so much focus on the Kingdom coming that we have lost all hope the the world we are currently in. The university is a perfect example. Almost every major college in this country was founded by the church or with a Christian focus. Harvard, Yale, and almost all the Ivy league schools were founded by Christian organizations and even had/have divinity schools. Yet when adversity came, the church abandoned its institutions faster and ran to the safety of a shanty it calls Bible college. Don't get me wrong, there are some good things about Bible college and there are some excellent ones out there, for what they are (But ultimately these school lack the scholastic merit found in the university, and for every good Bible college there are several bad ones). However my point is not to bash Bible college but rather to bash how easily we abandoned hope for what God had founded in this world. We see it happening again in the grade schools of America. Prayer gets thrown out of schools and every year they become more decrepit but rather than fight the good fight every holy joe in the community throws together a Christian school. What's worst of all is that these schools are so reactionary that they become propaganda mills that allow no room for free thought outside of the 7 day creationist model. The same people who lobbied for side by side teaching of evolution and creationism bar any other ideas from their own schools.
This cycle has repeated itself for centuries. When a group goes ga-ga for Armageddon, they abandon the world around them with horrible results. Post enlightenment Christians abandoned science ending the tradition of God centered science with Descartes. In the beginning of this century, film and music was abandoned by evangelical denominations, a relationship that is only now being mended. Under the Reagan administration, a high ranking official in the White House said that he wasn't very interested in the environment because he didn't think we had very long to before Christ returned. This is outrageous. Worst of all Christians are abandoning their own history!!! Christians will freely associate with "the early church" (a term they define so idiosyncratically I'm suprised it still has meaning at all) but forsake the whole of Christian history between then and when their church plant started. Some even go as far as to not call themselves Christian because of the "baggage" associated with it.
Such acts are a cop out of God's command that we subdue the Earth. It reminds me of the gospel reading this past week the parable of the talents. We all know it, a guy is given 5 tlents and earns five more for his master, another guy gets 2 and brings back 2 more, then the third guy gets one and buries it. When the first two give their money to the master he tells them "well done good and faithful servant." But the last guy he throws out into the outer darkness with the moaning and gnashing of teeth. I hate to say it, but the church is burying its talent as we speak. They are hiding in their stained glass bunkers waiting for the Master to return so that they can unbury themselves. Looking at this through the lens of that parable, I wouldn't be so excited about the master coming home if I were them.

...continued

2005-11-17T06:45:00.000-08:00

Ok, I'm back again.
The last area I would like to discuss is:
4) As Christians, men need to be more active in serving and protecting women. It is not enough to be responsible for yourself, we must also strive to correct the wrongs commited by men in general within and outside of our church walls. Men need to take a stronger stance against rape, dead beat dads, and anyone who takes advantage of women. Too often men will take a stance against promiscuous women and abortion. These are certainly ills in our society. But niether one of these would be possible if it weren't for the men who prey on women. One specific area where men are desperately needed in these sort of circumstances is at rape crisis centers and battered women's shelters. While in most cases men will not be effective in counseling victims, there is a desperate need for men to volunteer to simply go and play with the many children who are brought there with their mothers. These children have seen the worst kind of men imagineable and are destined to grow up with a slanted persepective on what it is to be a man and worst of all on who God the Father is. This is just one way we can help correct this wrong.
Ultimately it comes down to remembering that every move we make is made as a model of Christ. As I have said before, this is true for all Christians. But since Christ was a man there is a heavier burden upon men. Always remember that your interaction with women informs their concept of men and in turn their concept of God. This is a heavy burden we have been given and to whom much is given, much will be expected. But Christ has promised to share our yolk. Seek the shelter of Christ and let your pressence be a blessing to all people.

Thoughts on gender

2005-11-15T07:00:00.000-08:00

"For a man...is the image and reflection of God."

This is an interesting passage from 1 Corinthians. It is also a heavily debate one. But my thoughts at the moment are not about whether or not this section was meant only for one church, culture, or time but rather with what it says about being a man. However you feel about this verse, one cannot escape the fact the Christ was a man and that God is often portrayed in a masculine way (*important side note- despite what some believe, God is not exclusively masculine. He is referred to as "the breasted one" in the OT; El Shadday and wisdom in Proverbs is perdonified as a women and is accepted to be the Holy Spirit by most theologians).
What struck me about this recently is the absolute lack of humility and fear that men folk have about this notion. If we are truly the image and reflection (sometimes translated as "glory") of God, then we must realize that any poor representation of men that we cause is defiling God.
Think about how a woman's view of Christ is shaped by an image of men as uncontrollably sex focused, emotionally cut off, callous, and violent among other things. Yet this is the widely accepted image of men in our society.
Unfortunately, Christian men are not left out of this stereotype and in some cases perpetuate it. Whether through prescribing to the "boys will be boys" mentality, looking at porn or media that exploits women, serial dating just for "fun," or even something as simple as neglecting to be vocal about others' mistreatment of women Christian men have neglected to take their role as a man seriously. If we are to truly reflect God's image and protect His name I think men should consider the following.
1) No matter what your personal experience tells you or what the latest scientific research has found, men need to control their sexual drives. Yes, we have a much harder time than women, yes we may be "programmed" to be more sexual aggresive. In this way we are finite, physically limited by the chemistry and biology of our bodies. But we are not slaves to this body. God has also made us free. We are self aware of our condition and, by our free will and the power of the Holy Spirit, able to control this condition. For a Christian to claim that he has no control over his state is to deny free will and God's power.
2) The objectification of women in the media and the pornography industry should not be endorsed or tolerated. It is obvious that porn is condemned by the Bible and Christian tradition, but for this point I am appealing to all men Christian or not. Unless you are a nihilist or a sadist you have no reason to support pornography. Here's a couple interesting points, it is believed that 70% of women in the porn industry are victims of sexual assult or incest. In january of 2002 there were 100,000 child porn sights and, over a six month period in 2002, there was a 345% increase in child pornography on the internet. 53% percent of teens pornography, hate, or violent material in the internet, 91% or which was found unintentionally. In one study 28 children's show characters (such as pokemon and my little pony) generated porn sights in a search engine. The porn industry fosters and supports the abuse of children and women. Even without these statistics, if you take a real objective look at pornographic material you find on the internet, do you really think that this is how women like to be treated? Do you really think that women enjoy the acts that are being performed to them? The fact is many of these women are ployed with promises of money, auditions, acting deals, and all sorts of other lies not to mention drugs and alcohol. Think of the women around you, how many of them do you think would like to go to some hotel, be used by several men and called a slut and whore on camera? If any of you know women who would, ask yourself if they were abused at some point. I can understand that some people may say that there are consenting well adjusted adults that make "classy" porn which does not objectify women. For the sake of arguement, let us assume that this is true. But should we allow pornography to go on unchecked because of these rare cases? Should we have allowed slavery to continue for the sake of a few men who treated their slaves really well? In my opinion, if all pornography were made illegal for the sake of one child that would become a victim, then let it all burn to the ground.
As far as mainstream movies are concerned, I am in no way saying not to watch any movie with sex or nudity or what have you. But I do think that, because of the abuses in some cases we must be over vigilant so to speak when it comes to such material. Maybe seeing Fast Times At Ridgmont High doesn't affect you or cause you to sin, but if women find it offensive and see you enjoying it, how does that look?
3) Women deserve better than to be a rung on your ladder to Miss Right. I have a big problem with serial dating. I can't think of a single thing that you need to date someone to find out if they are worthy of an exclusive marriage focesed relationship. If you can't find out if a women is a good and Godly women who would make a good wife by being friends, then you have problems you need to address before you even think about dating. If our marriage is supposed to be like God's relationship to His people, then we must note several important things. A) God has only one people, he didn't try out a bunch of other people to see if they were compatible. B) Just because a person wasn't in a relationship with God doesn't mean that worshipping other God's is fair game. When you come to Christ all things you worshipped before were still sins. In the same way all our past relationships are sins against the person we marry. From the time we were concieved that person is our wife.
I'm going to stop there becuase I have to go to class. More later.

I'm afraid I'm that I'm not supposed to be like this

2005-10-05T09:35:00.000-07:00

I've been reading St. John of the cross and some of the other Christian mystic writers and i've really been convicted. One of the first things you will notice when you read works by Christian mystics is that they focus a great deal on poverty. You will be hard pressed to find a Christian writer from this tradition that will discuss contemplative prayer or experiencing the Living God without calling for the denial of all earthly goods and sacrifice for others.
While reading these books, I started thinking about Christ saying that there will always be poor. This is completely true. There will always be poor and there will always be suffering. Unfortunately, this verse has been used to make the church complacent. we all figure that since there will always be poor, then there is no rush to care for them. But as i thought about this more, i said to myself, "why does the poor have be "them"?" Yes, it is inevitable that there will be poor because we are in a fallen world where people take far more than they need and even intentionally withhold from others to fulfill their sinful plans. But we seem to have automatically put the role of poor on others, why not take it on ourselves? why not give up as much of our money and belongings as we can and put an end to unintended poverty? There are around 2 billion Christians in the world, granted some of them are already poor, but imagine if the church eliminated the starvation and suffering caused by lack of money. This would be the greatest attestment to God and his love since His Son hung on a tree. Not to mention, this is following Christ's model of poverty. Which brings me to a bit of a side rant.

Jesus was poor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone get Benny Hinn and his cohorts the memo. Jesus was poor and so were the disciples. Before I start looking at the Biblical evidence for this, let me point out that when the Bible refers to the poor, there is a much different meaning than what we think of. In the greek and later the Roman culture, there were two catagories of poor. There was "poor" which basically meant that you had enough to live, no more. The life of the "poor" was horrible. they were able to eat and to live though meagerly. But as people who had little money and little or no land, they were easily victimized. The second catagory was "slave." Slaves had nothing besides what was given to them. Without the food given by their masters, they would die. Now that we have clarified that, let us look to scriptural evidence for Christ's poverty.

1) He was born in a stable (Lk. 2:7) . if Christ has been born into a rich family, then they would probably have had a caravan and set up tents to stay in, not have to rely on a inn. Some people will point to the three wisemen and say that their gifts were God providing riches for Jesus. This is certainly a possibilty, but we don't know how much gold was given or what the worth of the other gifts would have been. Plus, we don't know what purpose God had for those riches. it is entirely possible that they were used to fund Jesus's exodus into Egypt. Either way, to assume that these gifts were a sign of God's desire for Jesus to be affluent seem to ignore the rest of the gospel accounts.

2) He and his father were carpenters (Mt. 13:55) . A Carpenter during the time of Christ was by all accounts a lowly job. A man would not become rich from such a profession nor would a rich man ever do such a job.

3) Jesus lived in Nazareth (Mt. 2:23) which was a poor agricultural community.

4) Jesus did not have a permanent home (Mt. 8:19-20). Keep in mind that things were much different back then, people couldn't just travel around and renting a place to stay using their credit card. If you didn't have property, you were poor, plain and simple.

5) When Jesus asked the disciples to feed the people who had heard him teach (Mk. 6:32-44), they could only get the equivalent of $28 worth of bread. Not a whole lot for 13 people even in those days.

6) they would have to sell their clothes to buy a sword (Luke 22:35-36). if they were all rich then they would need to sell anything to buy a sword.

7) In order to pay the temple tax, the disciples had to get money from the mouth of fish (Mt. 17:24-27). Again, something unnecessary if they were well off.

8) He was buried in someone else's tomb (Mt. 27:59-60). If he were rich, he would have had a family plot or purchased his own tomb.

There are a ton of other verses that point to the poverty of jesus and his disciples, but i think we've touched on the big ones. Heck i haven't even touched upon Jesus's teachings, but I doubt that anyone will seriously try to say Jesus wants everyone to be rich based upon his teachings ("blessed are the poor," "it's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven," etc) . let me put one thing to rest though before I move on. Some believe that since Jesus asigned someone to be treasurer (Judas) that they had a lot of money. I must say, thi conclusion is jumped to with so little hesitation that Evil Knievel would be impressed. Judas was given the common purse because the disciples were living communally. Just as in Acts, Christ and his followers shared everything. Their ministry was funded by friends and through offerings. I don't know how one could assume that just because someone was responsible for the money that they must have had a lot of it. Go to any poor struggling church and you will see that having someone in church of the money is just as if not more important than in a well off ministry.

back to my main point. Christ suffered so that others wouldn't have to. he worked himself regged and was asked several times to rest by his concerned mother and family. He spent all the money he had to feed others. And finally he was tortured and murdered for the sake of others. Some people try to milk his sacrifice for everything they can get out of it. They claim that faith in Christ brings abundant living here on earth and in heaven. They are half right. Faith in Christ will lead to fulfillment of all things. But it is not in the way they think. Christ's death returned us to a proper relationship with God. It allowed us to once again be in His presence and know his will. Now we can begin to live as He intended, loving Him, loving each other, and loving the world he created. We will have abundance because we no longer desire more than we need, and what we need he provides through his creation. By his creation I mean us, his children, whom he uses to provide for the world. if we all begin caring for eachother, we will be cared for. If we die doing so, if we starve, if we become sick, then we must remember, this life is not necessary. It is only the heavenly world we hope for that is needed. It is only our heavenly and eternal Father that is needed.

"Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. 25 Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life."

That's my rant for today. i think tomorrow I may go over earthy suffering.

The City of God against the pagans

2005-09-27T08:07:00.000-07:00

This semester i am taking a bunch of sociology classes and the more I've been reading about criminal justice and the like, the more I have been wondering where God fits in "secular" society. As Christians living in a non theistic state, how do our convictions and presumptions fit into the law of our country? Specifically, I've been wrestling with the idea of grace and how we can (or if we can) apply that to criminals. I'm reminded of one of the closing scenes in Magnolia, where Officer Jim Kurring is driving and giving a sort of syliloquy about his job and the events of the last 24 hours and he says,
"Sometimes people need a little help. Sometimes people need to be forgiven. And sometimes they need to go to jail... That's the hard part of the job. That's the hard part of waking up every morning."
As simple as that line sounds, it was quite profound in the context of the movie (which I absolutely recommend to anyone who hasn't seen it. If you have go see it again and buy two copies for your friends). I agree with this line 100% but it is certainly something you wouldn't hear from most law enforcement officials or anyone involved the legal system. Forgiveness is not mentioned much or even at all to my knowledge when it comes to law enforcement. The law of the land these days is punishment and revenge. Blood cries out for blood. I will probably post about this some more later, but for the moment I am interested in what you guys think. Today we discussed 3 methods of policing in my crim. justice class. the first is the watchman method which is basically the idea that police presence deters and stops crime. If you have police patroling areas, place cameras everywhere, and monitor people heavily, crime will be lower. the Second method is the legalistic method. This idea is just to follow the law exactly. If you get caught going 1 mile over the speed limit, you are ticketed and fined. If you commit a crime and are given a 20 year sentence you go to jail for 20 years. It is basically a rigid system that bends for no one. The third method is the social service method where police basically are servants to the community. Crimes are dealt with through programs of counseling rather than rigid sentencing. This method does not exclude jail or prison but rather allows for alternatives. Each catagory has their strong areas and their weak ones. So what do you guys think is the best model (s)?

and when I can't see, i wake up to your eyes

2005-09-18T03:54:00.000-07:00

So I've been listening to Further Seems Forever and have been pleasantly suprised. I usually don't like emo, in fact i can't stand it. There is just something about someone wailing about breaking up with their 17 year old girlfriend using cliched allusions to death and dying (that's right Hawthorn Heights, I'm talking to you ya' piss poor production pansies), that just seems meldramatic and self indulgent. But Further Seems Forever has really sone something incredible on thier latest CD. They have taken what is definitively emo and twisted it to make it profound. In most emo you have songs describing a downward slide from happiness to suffering (usually a break up or something similar). But Further.. has turned that around and started at the suffering and moves towards happiness. They write songs that move towards hope rather than wallowing in despair. It's as if Further is on an escalator at the Emo mall with their contemporaries on the escalator next to them. They are both meeting at the same level of the emotional escalator but Further is ascending while the rest go wallow in the basement bargain bin of masochistic mediocrity. There is still room for sadness in their music since a lot of it is written to a third party and deals with the empathy we should have towards those who suffer while offering them hope. Not only that, their subject matter actually warrants the use of death and dying as a poetic device since they are dealing with issues of sin and struggling to find God in a difficult world. Throw in some excellent musicianship, vocals and a powerful delivery and you have an incredible album that gives me hope for the emo genre.
So cheer up emo kid, there is hope for you yet, but probably not for that rediculous haircut.

Caught underwater, breathing; Breathing is hard

2005-09-10T18:43:00.000-07:00

So I had an cool experience the other night. It was a Thursday and Sara and I went with some of out friends to the lighthouse is Michigan City. First of all, it was just a great time. We went with some really fun people and it was just nice to hang out and talk at such an awesome place. But what i really want to talk about was my experience at the lighthouse.
It was about 9:00 or so when we got there and it was completely dark. We walked out on this concrete isthmus that connected the beach to the lighthouse then walked around the lighthouse to this little area of concrete slabs. It was completely dark except for some light coming off the boardwalk and a little moonlight. As we were sitting and standing respectively, I walked down to the edge of the slab where the metal rods that supported the concrete from the inside were exposed from years of erosion. It was pretty windy that night and the lake had large peaking waves crashing into the beach. At the lighthouse, we were surrounded by large rocks that were placed around the lighthouse to break the water and prevent it from doing too much damage, though clearly the water had payed its toll on our particular location.
From where I stood, all i could see was black water that would creep every now and again pull back from the rocks and then lurch out in a white foam overcoming the rocks and pouring onto the slab I was standing on. As strange as it sounds, it acted almost animated; like some great beast crouching and then launching forward, clawing to reach you gurgling, hissing, and roaring the whole way. As i watched this happen over and over I couldn't help but feel some fear sneak into my mind as i wondered "what would happen if i got pulled out into the water? Would it crush me against the rocks? Would it pull me out away from shore/ Would nybody find me?"
That's when i realized that if i feel this way now, with satallites, cell phones, the coast gaurd (or whatever you call those guys that patrol the lakes) how much more would people have feared centuries or millenia ago when there weren't even well documented maps! At that point God pointed my minds eye (used poetically, not theologically, philosophically, or physiologically) to baptism. In Christ's time, water (as in Seas, Oceans, etc) was a symbol for chaos and death as it had been in Jewish tradition before then. To be baptized, to be immersed in water, is to enter into death. It is to be overcome by the swirling waters that covered the world and destroyed the wicked in the times of Noah and that killed the pigs filled with demons in the time of Christ. In our baptism we are drowned. The old man is left in those waters and, through Christ's gift of grace, the new man emerges.
As i looked at that black water and felt that fear run through me, I was calmed by this thought. That in my baptism I was brought beneath the waters where my body was dashed against the rocks and i was carried deeper and further from shore. But Christ brought me up just as He did with Peter when he stepped out of the boat and began to sink. Because when it comes down to it, we all sink. We all have this inexplicable tendency to pick up the heavy wieght of our past sin and adding the weight of new sin; as if we are chaining oursleves to the carcass of the "old man" and then trying to cross the water with it. But we cannot cross with this weight. And there is Jesus holding down his hand to us. All we have to do is let go of that sin we carry and grab onto Him. Forgive my analogy within an analogy, but it remind me of the last Indiana Jones where Indy is hanging over a cliff trying to reach this treasure he had sought for his whole life (which was the holy grail, but tht doesn't really matter for my point). He at that point must choose between grabbing this treasure and dying or reaching up to his father's hand and being pulled to safety. That is the choice we face everyday. Do we grab onto our sin, take back the old self. Or do we affirm the promise made in baptism and stay above the water through Christ's grace.
That's what came to me at the lighthouse that night with my friends. It's just incredible the places and times God speaks to us.

" we went through fire and through water; yet you have brought us out to a spacious place. I will come into your house with burnt offerings; I will pay you my vows, those that my lips uttered and my mouth promised when I was in trouble."

Papa was a rolling stone

2005-09-06T10:37:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since my last theological rant, so I've decided to delve back into the world of heresy, blasphemy, fallacy, and outright silliness. Today we look at Generational Curses. To those of you in mainstream denominations, this may be an unfamiliar concept to you. The basic idea is that the sins of your forefathers bring a curse upon your family that will cause them to either commit the same sin or suffer a related malady due to the sin. This belief pops up in here and there in some pentecostal charismatic groups but has mostly been supported by the Word Faith movement. The proof texts for this are: Exodus 34:7
'The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet He does not leave the guilty unpunished; He punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

Leviticus 26:39-42
Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their fathers' sin they will waste away. But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers.

As well as Exodus 20:8; Numbers 14:18; Deuteronomy 5:9; 27:15-26; 28:58-59 and several other similar verses that all pretty much say about the same thing. Let me begin my discussion of this issue by saying that I am in no way denying that generational curses have or continue to exist. I will not go into what form they take or how they work in this particular post, but what I will say is that Christians cannot be afflicted with generational curses. This notion that is going through certain channels of the church of repenting for generational sin is based on OT verses read out of context, a seemingly complete dismissal of the New Testament and that Jesus fella' we all like so much, and a smorgasbord or logical fallacies. We'll first take a look at the OT.

Generational Curses are from God
It is important for this discussion that we remember that generational curses or any curse mentioned in the books of the Law are God's just and righteous judgement upon his people. They are not from the devil or demons. Every scripture that supports the concept of generational curses makes it clear that it is God who has issued them. "Cursed be anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by observing them." All the people shall say, "Amen!"
So if curses are from God, why would he continue to curse those whom he has washed white as snow? Why would he punish people for their sins after He has justified and sanctified?

Generational Curses are not inevitable

Even in the OT we see the prophets dealing with the question 'what about children who uphold the law, shall they be punished for their fathers?' There are several places in the OT that answer a resounding "NO!" such as 2 Kings 14:6; Jeremiah 31:29-30; Deut. 24:16, and most notably Ezekiel 18:14-20 which says, "
"But if this man has a son who sees all the sins that his father has done, considers, and does not do likewise, who does not eat upon the mountains or lift up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, does not defile his neighbor's wife, does not wrong anyone, exacts no pledge, commits no robbery, but gives his bread to the hungry and covers the naked with a garment,
withholds his hand from iniquity, takes no advance or accrued interest, observes my ordinances, and follows my statutes; he shall not die for his father's iniquity; he shall surely live.
As for his father, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother, and did what is not good among his people, he dies for his iniquity.
Yet you say, "Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?" When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own."

Christ's atoning death removed all curses

Galatians 3:10-14, 23-29 clearly show us that the curses of the law no longer hold us.

For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law; for "The one who is righteous will live by faith." 12 But the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, "Whoever does the works of the law will live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree"— 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith... Now before faith came, we were imprisoned and guarded under the law until faith would be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our disciplinarian until Christ came, so that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to the promise"

In verse 10 Paul quotes Deut. 27:26 and 28:58 both of which directly deal with generational curses. He makes a two fold arguement in this chapter against generational curse. 1) Christ's death atoned for all sin thus freeing us from the curse of the law. 2) We are now adopted sons and daughters of God! He is our Father and I can guarantee that there won't be any inherited sins from Him (he's done pretty good at keeping the law, you know, being perfect and all).
Some might argue that they agree that Christ's death frees us from curses, but that we must ask for deliverance, refering to Lev. 26 where God called for people to confess their sins and the sins of their father. This is problematic for several reasons. First, it disregards what confession meant in the old testament. This is not confesion as Christians know it to be. These people would have had to perform a sacrifice to atone for the sins. But we no longer need to atone for our sin since Christ was a perfect sacrifice. To apply this verse to Christians just because it uses the word "confess" is hammering a square peg in a round hole. Secondly, the theology of the generational sin proponents taken to its inevitable conclusion would claim that it is our confessions that justifies us. But Paul addresses this directly in Galatians (as well as many other places) and tells us that it is faith that justifies us. Through faith we are reunited with God and made holy. Once we are reunited with God we are filled with the Holy Spirit and from the Spirit we cry 'Abba, Father' andgive our confession. Christian confession is not an atoning act, it is a sign of our love for God that comes from the Holy Spirit.
In the end, the teaching of Christian generational sin defiles God. To say that God will give us the gift of grace that will save us from eternal damnation and ushers us into His Holy Kingdom but He won't take away that pesky curse is foolishness. It's like someone forgiving your debt of $1,000,000,000 but leaving your $1000 debt just for the heck of it. It makes no sense!!! To also say that regular your faith in Christ isn't enough but that you have to go through a special deliverance turns God into a fickle god reminiscent of the pagan myths. As if God is listening to our prayers asking Him to heal us and he shakes His finger and says "You didn't say the magic words!" That certainly doesn't sound like a God whose heart was so broken for His people that he took on flesh and bone and suffered the worst possible death to be with us again.

Why I'm all about the "death tax"

2005-08-29T20:02:00.000-07:00

So I was listening to the radio on my way home this evening and I heard a senator talking about how unconstitutional the "death tax" is. For those of you who don't know, the estate or death tax as it is known basically says that if you have over 1.5 million dollars when you die, then the government gets half. What those opposed to it are saying is that it goes against the capitalist system that our country is founded on. First of all, even if this were true, I would have no problem. But I think that the estate tax is very much keeping with capitalist economics. If you made over 1.5 million dollars then great, your kids can go and do the same thing. If you were to keep the money and give it to your kids, then you are creating a socialist system just as much as if the government took it. The only difference is that you have made a small communist system that only the rich and thier brood get to be a part of. So here is a completely fictional conversation between an estate tax protestor and a lower class 6th grade kid.

"So lil' Franky, do you have any questions for me?"

"Yes sir, what is the death tax?"

"I'm glad you asked. The death tax is a evil tax that takes money away from the rich so that they can't give it to their families, mistresses, or what have you."

"So they take away all their money? That is mean."

"No not all of it, just half of it."

"But they won't be rich anymore."

"No, they're still rich."

"oh...I guess that would be bad if they took the money and they needed it for something like their business."

"Well, actually the government doesn't take the money till the person is dead."

"So what do they need the money for?"

"Well, they may want to give it to their children so that people like Paris Hilton can go on living their lives anyway they want without having to contribute to society at all. Tht's the American way."

"What's so bad about the government using that money?"

"The government would just waste that money on welfare."

"What's wrong with that?"

"Those people need to work for their money instead of just leeching off the welfare system."

"But isn't that what the rich people are doing?"

"Well_ its different."

"Why?"

"Because rich people use their money for good things like expensive cars, jewelry, and exotic pets that make America beautiful."

"my mom uses welfare for food."

"See, that doesn't make America beautiful does it."

"I guess not"

"So Franky, as you can see the death tax is evil. By the way, we are cutting the music program from your school so I'm going to need that violin back. But don't worry, we are keeping gym. It's important that we force all you akward and easily embarassed kids to compete in arbitrary physical activity then walk around in a room naked. That'll build you character better than a music program anyway."

God hath willed His truth to triumph through us

2005-08-26T21:48:00.000-07:00

It's been a while since I posted, but I've been busy recently and a lot of cool stuff has happened. I'm all setup for classes this semester and financial aid seems to be working out nicely. I have a huge work work next week (57 hrs) and so I have a good cash flow. And most importantly, Sara, my brother, sister-in-law, and friend Tim met with our pastors to talk about some new ministry ideas.
The meeting was fantastic. we all met up at Passtimes (a Valpo bar) had some beer and just talked for like an hour to start off. There's nothing more reassuring about meeting with church leaders than having a beer and talking about MC5 and church tradition! Anyways, we met with them to talk about starting a new Bible study (actually moving our current into the church) and opening up new expressions of faith (I've been using this term instead of worship. Not for any theological reason per se but just because "worship" has connotations these days that I think are misleading). First off, we are going to start having a cofehouse open mic thing (I know it sounds cliche but hear me out here) where people can come and share their music, art, poetry, theatrical works etc. when there's no performances going on we will have a table discussion open to anyone who wants to join about art, politics, theology, or whatever. This will be a spring board for concerts, art shows, and the like from members of the church. Next, we are planning on having concerts of prayer where we will pray for the church, the community, the nations_ really just whatever needs prayer and have different worship styles and such. We also will be starting a social justice group that will meet and discuss_ well, social justice and them go out and do service projects. Really cool stuff. Basically, we are trying to open up some new doors for people to let their cup runneth over into the arts and acts of service.
We talked about everything for over an hour and the pastors were really supportive and excited about it all! It was really great. What really made it such a fruitful meetings is that the church is already heavily involved in these areas. Music and art are a staple of our congregation and the are so many different ways that they serve the community. So this wasn't a meeting of conviction or trying to tell the church they are doing something wrong. It was a group of people who have been fed by their church and who the Holy Spirit has called to join and expand an already blessed ministry.
Needles to say i am really excited. Especially since lately i've found my love for music waning. That's not to say that i at any point disliked music, it just didn't give me the same thrill that it did a couple years ago. This had been a problem since about 2003 or so and has been slowly getting worse. Music just didn't move me like it used to (with the exception of church, Stuff like It Is Well With My Soul or A Mighty Fortress is our God always brings up good stuff). But after this meeting and thinking about the possibilities of making music with this group of people, the love is back. I made a Violet Burning mix CD today and was listening to it all day just letting the full palate of emotions pass through me. it was really refreshing.
So in closing, I'm moving my music equipment over to Valpo to be closer to church and my co-musicians and hopefully I will have some music samples on myspace sometime soon.

That God fella, he's good people.

This is the church, this is the steeple

2005-08-09T20:51:00.000-07:00

Ok, so i have recently been discussing various aspects of the church in modern society with some interesting folks on another blog. basically the discussion covered a lot of different terrain and reveal several different opinions within our group. So i was inspired to move some things here. To start, an individual known (at least to me only as Iggy has placed some interesting thoughts on his blog so go check it out.
What i want to discuss here is what needs to change in the modern church for it to become more "authentic" as some would say or more...well, Christian i guess. i think Iggy's post is a good starting point.before we change "church", how do we define church?

A good article that addresses the question at large is called talking to generation X

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9902/hinlicky.html

Tires

2005-07-29T14:48:00.000-07:00

So I'm looking for some new tires on my car. For those of you not in the know, I'm currently driving a 1989 Honda Accord LXi. Since it is over 16 years old and has now clocked over 205,000 miles it has some wear and tear. Unfortunately, it wasn't until this year that i realized my car is not a self perpetuating miracle machine and i have to take some effort in its upkeep besides putting gas in it. So I put on some new from breaks (not just pads mind you) with the help of my brother. Now it's onto tires. Tiresare apparently expensive. Somehow i doubt this is do to production cost. It's rubber and metal for crying out loud! So I've decided that the automotive field is much more of a racket than i ever realized. Seriously though, my brakes would have cost me over $400 if i had someone else do them, it cost me just over $100 and i was done in about 2 hours (if you don't count when i had to drive back to the store because they gave me the wrong part). Want more proof? How many mechanics are in your area? There are at least 30 automotive repair places in Valpo, not including parts stores that change batteries and such like Auto Zone. There's a lot of money to be made here and they all know it.
I've been fortunate enough to find a good place around me though and, despite my new found cynicism about the auto industry, i really like working on my car. And it is a great car. it still gets 25 MPG on average and the engine and transmission are great. It'll be a shame to put her down some day.
You know what, I never named her because i thought she was just a junker, but now i see the error of my ways. Her name will be..... Mabel. Yeah, that's nice. Mabel: its an name that says "I'm respectable, gentle, and always a lady." Well, I gotta get going now. Mabel needs a litle more steering fluid, and you know how women get when you don't get them their steering fluid (raaaaarrrrr..*fisk *fisk). But I will leave a question for anyone who visits (which I don't have any evidence of).
Is it worse to be a pacifist and wrong or a realist and right? (**note, i am not making a claim about which I believe is right or wrong)

Stairway(s) to heaven

2005-07-28T06:30:00.000-07:00

The world has become gnostic! or at least America has. The more I look at the state of religion today the more I see a world that is trying to find God in some hidden or distant rather than within its midst. The church today treats God as if he is playing a game of hide and seek with humanity; like Christ came and told us to count to ten and then he ascended into the clouds and we are left to find Him. some look for him within the libraries and acadamies, others look for Him in rigid moral structures, and others look for Him in emotional fervor. These three catagories have made to quite clear that seeking God here on Earth is folly. We must transcend this world, become more than human, and allow our soul to free itself from its flesh tomb by way of the mind, will, or emotions. Only then can we find Him. But is this a Christian belief? i think not.

All we can do is humbly accept Him. This is what people have forgotten today. Some may say that it is different now that Christ has ascended and he is no longer with us. they would argue that we have to find ways to ascend beyond this word as Christ did. This idea is proliferated by the disregard for Word and sacrament in the church today. But they are mistaken. If you want to hear the voice of God, you have no further to look than His Word. If you want to be with Christ then come to the baptismal waters and become one with Him. If you want to feel Him then come to the table to recieve His flesh and blood. If you want to know his mercy, then confess to him and be forgiven. This is truly the greatest miracle known to Man! Anywhere at anytime anyone can be tangibly presesnt with the Creator of the Universe!
it reminds me of the U2 song, "I Still haven't found what I'm looking for." Some people think its a song about losing faith, but it is just the opposite. It is a confession from a man who has tried everything to find God, self sacrifice (climbing the mountain, crawling in the field), emotional fervor (speaking in tongues), and finding the "right" theology ("i believe in the kingdom come") and has realized that you don't find God, He finds you.
It's so simple that it's hard to believe, but God is here! he is not hidden away in a book, he is not only visible to those who live righteous lives, and he is not locked away in the "third heaven" waiting for us to ascend. Any attempts that we make to find God these ways end in a type of self worship.
in the end, if we don't see God here on this dirty earth in this dirty flawed flesh, we never will.

Back in Blog

2005-07-25T12:27:00.000-07:00

So after a relatively long stint over at My Space, I decided to return to Blogger. My space was just a bit to exclusive for me and, though it is great for posting music (which I will continue to use it for), it is not all that great for blogging. So hello all. Feel free to comment on anything and everything.

So, recently I've been doing a lot of reading about church history and during this time I found myself reading about the pre-reformation Catholic church and the Evangelical/ Holiness/ Charismatic traditions in America from a couple different books. The strange thing i noticed was that as the Charismatic movement has developed in the past 100 years it has become more and more like the corrupt Catholic church of the 15th and early 16th centuries. Here are a few major similarities:

1) The declarations of church leaders and the traditions of the church hold equal authority to scripture. In the Catholic church of the middle ages, distortions had developed in their theology that placed the word of Man (namely the pope) as authority equal to the Bible. A person could justify a belief or action by citing a papal decree or pointing to church traditions. This was intensified by a claim that Europe was the Kingdom of God. As the rightful rulers of God's earthly kingdom the church took for itself a place of authority equal to that of God's word. Looking to the Charismatic movement today we see the same things occuring. Charismatics today depend more and more on the "prophetic" teachings of its leaders than on the Scriptures themselves. One has no further to look than the eschatology of the Evangelical and Charismatic church that proclaims that Christ will return 2 more times, once before the tribulation and again afterwards despite a major deficit of Scriptural evidence. It is in such beliefs and in the authority of church leaders that most charismatics find their identity. These ideas are intensified by the belief that we are in a nation "blessed by God" much like Christendom in the Middle Ages. If you want proof, go to a typical charismatic church, tell them you didn't vote for Bush, you don't believe in the rapture, you don't believe that we are in the end times, but you are charismatic.

2) Poor theology and the decline in Biblical authority allows non-Christian beliefs to seep into the church. In the early church, Christians were very well educated and many of them refered to works by Plato, Aristotle, and other greek or pagan writers or the time. But such theologians as Augustine, Ambrose, and even Paul himself kept such writings in check by being firmly rooted in the Bible. During the middle ages, with the decline of scriptural authority, we began to see Greek and Roman influence breach the walls of Christianity and corrupt the beliefs of the church. In the modern church, such a leak has occured in the Charismatic movement. Within Charismatic circles you can see influence from everywhere from Plato and Gnosticism to Cartesian philosophy, neo-paganism, and 19th century humanism. Yet, because the authority and traditions of their church have been given the same authority as the Bible, to question such practices would be to question all of faith.

3) Man's merit is responsible for his/her salvation. Medieval Catholicism was ripe with humanism that place man's salvation in his own hands. It was only through his confession and work that he may enter God's kingdom. Through his merit he could be like Christ and earn his place in heaven. Likewise, charismatic leaders teach that we must earn God's grace so we can such things as the gift of tongues, complete sanctification, and the "third heaven experience." Some leaders have said that there is nothing Christ has done that we cannot do. So the charismatics in some ways take a step further than the Catholics of old by claiming that we can in a sense "be" Christ and enter Heaven anytime we want through our own actions.

4) Taking money in the name of the Church. Catholics offered plenary indulgences that forgave a lifetime of sins for the right price in order to pay off the popes debt. Within the Charismatic churches we have the Health and Wealth preaches that offer riches and health if only you pay the right prices. If you sow into their ministry God will bless you with everything you need.

So these are just a few really quick observations I've made (well...I'm sure others have already made them but I'm not trying to publish this or anything). I just thought it was ironic since the last group that Charismatics would want to associate themselves with are Medieval Catholics. One real quick disclaimer, I don't mean to imply that all Charismatics belief all these things. But it has been my experience that most people proclaiming themselves to be charismatic hold at least most of these beliefs to some degree. So that's my disclaimer. Now no one can get mad thanks to a short after thought of a sentence

Papers galore!

2004-12-07T11:32:00.000-08:00

So i just finished my peer reviews for my paper on infant baptism. Went pretty well, but I realized that this ten page paper is very quickly turning into a 20 pager. but at least most of the work is done on it. Now i just have to work on another 10 pager about how the american charismatic movement originated in racism, and another on on the salvation of people with disabilities. Then, to top it off a 7 pager on liturgy and a 7 pager on philospohy. i really like writing though and it helps me organize my thoughts so that I can be a better speaker. So I probably own't be blogging to much over the next 6 days because I will be typing somewhere between 45 and 50 pages worth of paper. Damn, i should just make it a book called "Thoughts by Dan." I could make finger paintings depicting each topic and write it all in crayon!! hey it sold millions of books for that Sark lady, and she didn't even say anything in her book (The bodacious of succulance my ass!)Anyway, i'll leave with a question. Is there any purpose for the insert key other than pissing me off every now and again?

yay blog

2004-12-06T13:51:00.000-08:00

So I've gotten my self an actual blog that people post on without joining the site and being hit on by strange men from Elkhart. Anywho, this is just a preliminary post to make sure everything works. That is all.