So I was talking to a friend yesterday, and it came out that they’re a polygamist. They’re “in the closet” about it, but their identity isn’t important. It’s likely no one that you know. Still, the discussion led to me apologizing for the drubbing that people of my faith have given people in that lifestyle. Personally, as I told this person, I don’t care who you live with, sleep with, or marry so long as you’re all healthy and happy. It’s not my place to tell you how to run your life, particularly if you’re not a Christian. Even if you are, I’m not sure that I could come up with anything other than a cultural argument against it, and, personally, I couldn’t come up with one of those that would hold water.

This must have been on my mind quite a bit though, subconsciously. While driving into work this sentence popped into my head. “Jesus was a bisexual polygamist.” I fired it off to a friend and he said that he wanted to read that for sure. I let it run around my brain for a bit to figure out what I meant by it. After having a few cups of coffee I think this is where I’m headed:

We’re told that we are the bride of Christ. All of us (in the Church). Obviously there are men and women in the Church and there are more than one of us. So, there you go, Christ is married to millions of men and women throughout space and time. A little anticlimactic? A bit. But bear with me.

I’ve been married for sixteen years now, but I’m an only child (biologically). The analogy that we’re all married to Christ is a bit more meaningful to me than the one where we’re all his brothers and sisters. The notion that I’m to treat my fellow believers as I would my own spouse hits nearer the mark. I’ve learned a lot about communication and how to treat my wife thanks to quite a lot of therapy over the last year or so.

Things I would never want to do to my wife:
Make her feel unworthy.
Tell her that her feelings are wrong.
Abuse her physically (this one’s never been a problem for me) or verbally.
Try and “fix” her.

Things I need to do:
Encourage her.
Love her.
Learn the art of compromise.
LISTEN TO HER.

This is how a relationship with Christ and with our fellow brides needs to look (this and more). Lately it looks a lot more like an episode of Bridezillas. Whether you believe that God chose us before the creation of the world or whether we chose him, we’re in this relationship for the long haul. There’s no divorcing each other, and since this isn’t “Wife Swap” (that this is a real show pains me), there’s no telling other families how to live their lives.

I had to get this off my chest. Thanks again for your patience.

Jesus – Bisexual Polygamist? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

If you could help stop a genocide would you?

Right now, one of the worst atrocities in the world is unfolding in Sudan. The genocide we witnessed in Darfur is still being played being out against the people of Northern Sudan. It is the same people group being persecuted, the same government regime and the same tactics being used.

This month, The Persecution Project Foundation has launched a campaign to Save the Nuba.

You can help spread awareness of the Nuba’s plight by posting about this on Facebook and Twitter, or by reposting this on your blog. One person alone can’t stop a genocide, but a community of people can.

Please vIsit www.SavetheNuba.com to learn more.

Save the Nuba is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

As you can imagine, an interesting conversation was had. There were bombs thrown, naturally. But I got to thinking about this whole “Hitler was a Christian!”/”Mao/Stalin/Pol Pot was an atheist.” meme that tens to show up early in these games. There’s an old saying “If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.” The duck test applies here. Christianity, the Bible itself, uses this sort of inductive reasoning.

Jesus says, speaking of prophets, “You can identify them by their fruit, that is, by the way they act. Can you pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?” Paul in Galatians 5 says “22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law… 25 Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.” If you fail this Christian duck test then no one will have any reason to believe that you’re a Christian, or so I thought.

Derek is quick to jump on the notion that Hitler was a Christian supposedly because he said that he was one a sufficient number of times. That strikes me as bad logic. If Hitler was a crazy as a fruit bat (a rabid, insane, Jew-hating fruit bat), then why should we accept that he was what he said he was? Particularly when he had a habit of tacking on all manner of non-Christian religious tradition to his worldview, politics, etc. I can’t think of any other reason than it suited his purpose to paint Christianity as a force for evil.

Something else Derek said jumped out at me, referring to Hitler and the rest, “As for the rest on the list, they were not Atheist, they just wanted to make sure the citizens who they ruled had no one above themselves as the leader. They were more like hard-line slave owners, had pretty much zero to do with actual Atheistic views.” I’m curious as to what those “actual Atheistic views” are. I asked him, but he didn’t answer other than to say “Basically he was not an Atheist, in any way, shape or form.”

Now, I don’t know what Hitler’s true religious views were. He pandered to the German people and add his fruit bat-ness on top of that and I don’t think it matters. These men were crazy. That much we can be relatively certain of. If you wipe out large portions of your population to make others toe the line in service to some half baked ideology cobbled together from your own insecurities then I honestly don’t think a religious belief or lack thereof can be the root cause.

I would like to know what “actual Atheistic views” are, outside of a lack of a belief in God. If I were to take the views of the Atheists (I capitalize the A to denote people who are “militant”) in that Facebook post and elsewhere:

“You do not talk to god. You do not have a personal relationship with an imaginary being. This delusion of yours is an exaggerated sense of your abilities.”

“I’m sick of being told by society that I have to “respect others’ beliefs.” No I don’t. ”

“Religion is child abuse.”

and the responses of some Atheists to Phil Plait’s admonition to not be a dick, then I would have to come to the following conclusions. If you’re an Atheist then you believe that you’re a better person than anyone who believes in a god of any stripe. You believe that your worldview will ultimately lead to the betterment of mankind through the casting off of the ancient morality most religious people stick to. In general, you know more about the universe and your place in it than your theistic counterparts. You’re essentially a mirror image of that which you hate.

Now, I won’t paint all atheists with that brush. I know some of you are capable of respectfully disagreeing. We can have discussions without despots being brought up as examples of anything other than despotism. We won’t tell the other person what they believe. We will express love for the Other as best as we are humanly able.

I do want you to know though, that if you are an Atheist (or a Theist) and your waddle gives you away as a dick, you’re not going to convince anyone of anything, religious or otherwise. I suspect that most people of this stripe are okay with that. None of them actually seem to want to do much more than beat their chests and feel awesome about themselves. I seriously doubt that any of those sort will comment here, and I also recognize that this post may well bounce back in my face. It needed to be said for my piece of mind though at least.

Walking Like a Dick is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

When it comes to non-believers would it make sense to say that their undoing is ultimately idolatry?

What are some of the more common and perhaps more unusual idols that we have as a result of our culture (Christian or American)?

I don’t know that I have answers for all of these things, but that’s never been what this here blog is about. Let’s talk about it.

Idolatry is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

A little movie came out recently called Courageous. I haven’t seen it, but it’s done by the same church that put out Fireproof and Facing the Giants. I have seen both of those and they’re not horrible. It’s basically like someone filmed a community theater production on a pretty high budget. The acting in the movies I’ve seen is uneven at best, as is the writing. It seems that for a lot of Christians, enough to enable them to continue putting these movies out, it’s better to have a “good message” that feels likes “a [very long] sermon” than it is to have a well written story where the message may be a little less in your face.

For me though, I really want something more. I really don’t have a problem with movies, music, or books that deal intelligently with themes or struggles inherent in the Christian faith. If you’re going to put something out there that is really out there with the gospel message (whatever you think that is) then by all means, do it. All I ask is that you put a lot more effort in the production/writing/acting/etc. than you think you need to. Everything you do in that vein is going to be judged, more than that scrutinized, and not just by “the world”.

If you’re going to make a movie like this, it really needs to feel like something more than a direct to video effort. Make something that I don’t feel reluctant to watch or that I feel I have to apologize for. That really shouldn’t be that hard. It’s really all I ask of any book, movie, or song, regardless of its message. The created thing needs to be good on its own and only then will the message have any meaning beyond the “choir”.

That’s my two cents anyway. Let me ask you, is message or story more important and why?

Story vs. Message is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Exodus 22:21 “You shall neither mistreat a stranger nor oppress him, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”

Leviticus 19:33-34 – “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him. The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.”

How’s that for some Old Testament righteous anger grace? According to Strong’s that word stranger can also be translated alien, sojourner, or stranger. Now of course it might be making a mistake to apply this to the current problems we’re having with immigration (illegal or otherwise). It might be falling into the same trap that I often accuse my brethren on the right of, when it comes to cherry picking verses and applying them to pet beliefs. But in this case I’m willing to take that risk. If cherry picking leads us to be better human beings and to loving those around us, it’s a good risk.

Christians living out the Gospel are strangers in a strange land. We are oppressed (to varying degrees) and should be more understanding of those who live in a more real sort of physical oppression. Yes, some of them are breaking the law, but even legal immigrants are oppressed by those of us who see only their skin color and hear only their accents.

Children that are born here are legal citizens and I think that’s the way it should be. If that means it brings people here to have their babies that should be a source of pride for us. Yes, it means we need to decide what to do with their parents. I’m not sure that chucking them back to their countries of origin is the answer. But this is really less about what the government should do and more about what we should be doing.

If we know of a stranger among us, how should we love them? What steps do we take? Take the legality of their presence off of the table for the moment. Remove even the question of immigrants and just think about the last person you looked at with an eyebrow lifted in judgment. Someone who didn’t dress like you or talk like you, what did you do to love them?

Strangers Among Us is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Wait, wait, hear me out. According to certain traditional Christian thought, the land that Israel now occupies is at least in part the land that God has promised them.According to gotquestions.org:

With Genesis 15:18 and Joshua 1:4 in mind, the land God gave to Israel included everything from the Nile river in Egypt to Lebanon (North to South) and everything from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River (West to East). So, what land has God stated belongs to Israel? All of the land modern Israel currently possesses, plus all of the land of the Palestinians (the West Bank and Gaza), plus some of Egypt and Syria, plus all of Jordan, plus some of Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Israel currently possesses only a fraction of the land God has promised.

That’s a lot of land. For most of the last two thousand years, they didn’t occupy it (if they ever truly did). The only reason they have the part of the land they do now is because of some degree of luck and a whole lot of money. If God wanted them to have it back, all of it back, now wouldn’t he make it happen? And under what circumstances would he make that happen?

I have to ask myself, with some degree of tongue in cheek, that if I as a Christian believed those things then I’d say that God will give it back to them in one shot and he’d do it when they were obedient. As it stands they still aren’t recognizing the true Messiah (as Christians understand it) and until they do why would God reward them? If he did extend them grace, something the God of the Old Testament did do from time to time, why would he do it by half measures? I don’t think so. Of course, the joke here is that none of us has any idea what exactly God would do here, so we need to stop pretending that we do.

I say that we should leave any amount of theology, good or bad, out of the equation. I think that if this whole thing is to work out, both parties need to come back to the negotiating table and let go of their death grips on those things they hold sacrosanct. This whole thing is a nearly perfect example of what is plaguing DC right now, the unwillingness to compromise. It won’t get either party anywhere and leaves them no option other than to try and make the other party look as bad as possible to win some sort of sympathy vote (oh and in the case of Israel/Palestine, buckets of blood).

As Christians it’s our job to make peace as best we can. If we as a country are to be involved in this decision on whether or not to give them statehood, then I believe it behooves us as Christians (if we’re going to be involved at all) to move things in the direction of peace. Denying Palestinians what they want and supporting Israel’s every move hasn’t done that. I’m not saying that we should cave in to the Palestinian people, but true peacemaking can’t happen if things continue apace. Giving them statehood strikes me as the only clear option for peace to “break out”. I’m willing to be proven wrong.

This post was inspired by a previous post on this debate from a few years ago. It sparked some excellent debate and I hope this will.

Make Palestine a State is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I hope I have a few folks with this site still in their readers, so for those of you paying attention, I’m curious as to what you’d like to see from me. I’ve tackled subjects like abortion, homosexuality, and orthodoxy. I’ve also talked somewhat candidly about personal struggles, my brand of politics, and the like. Part of me feels that I’ve said it all, but I know that can’t be. I’m just too opinionated. Help me prime the pumps.

Ennui is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Part of the doctrine that I believe in as a Christian is the notion of “total depravity”. That means, while we’re not as bad as we could be, every part of us is touched by sin, including our sense of right/wrong. So while there exists an absolute morality and God has laid it out, our understanding of it is tainted. That gets back to the question, why push away/give up the bad stuff? If it’s because it will make you somehow a better person/more holy not to consume South Park (and in some ways I could argue it would) then I think your motive is wrong. If, on the other hand, you’re watching it to be cool/relevant/to reach your unbelieving friends I think your motive is wrong too.

You have to look at how watching/listening to certain things affects you as a person. If watching violence makes me more violent or desensitizes me to violence I shouldn’t watch it. I like the verse from 1 Corinthains 13 – “When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. ” Do the things you know are right (prayer, fellowship, reading the Bible) and as you mature spiritually you lose the taste for things that are childish (bad for you/immature/etc.). That’s a good description (I think) of what “sanctification” means. The process of becoming more holy.

I think a lot of people try and force it, rather than letting their lives bear that fruit naturally. I mean, honestly, when I tell someone, “Don’t watch SP, it’s bad for you!” as an adult what’s their reaction going to be? I think that the rules that are laid out in the Bible are good things and that people will benefit from following them, but you can’t strongarm people into them. It just won’t work. There is a place for you going to a fellow believer and challenging them on their behavior/consumption, but laying down the law to someone who doesn’t have the same spiritual maturity/development as you do without a spirit of love (also to be found in 1 Corinthians 13) is about as effective as Cartman the cop.

Respect My Authoritah! is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Don’t let the title fool you. It’s not a book that allows you to squeak by. What it is, is an attempt to take the current “hot button” issues in Western Christianity and reveal them for what they are, points that are debated and debatable within our faith. He tackles things like doubt, evolution, the role of women in the Church, social justice, a literal reading of the scripture, how we as Christians view other religions, and homosexuality. It will come as little surprise to any of you that I agree with his take on most, if not all, of these issues. The point is, agree or not though, you can sit wherever you like on these matters and still count yourself a believer. If I have any problem with this book, it’s that he seems to be making the case that on these ten or so topics, you should actually agree with him if you want to be right. I suppose that’s hard to avoid.

One thing he does make clear is that this is not a book on systematic theology. It’s hardly a book at all, weighing in at 144 pages. That’s not much when you not only want to cover the ten things you don’t have to believe, but the ten things you do. There he talks about things like who Jesus is, how God works in people’s lives, suffering, the resurrection, and the Holy Spirit. I’m satisfied with the answers to those questions as well, as I think most mainstream Christians would be. He also makes it clear that if you believe in these doctrines, that a few things need to happen. You need to be a member/regular attender at a mainstream church. Spiritual growth is vital and will only happen in community. Central to that growth is the ongoing process of sanctification through prayer, Bible study, congregational worship, service to others, and the like.

What this book won’t do. – If you’re a conservative Christian, it’s not going to convince you to change or that you’re wrong. That’s not his point. If you’re a hard core atheist it’s not going to convince you that Jesus is the only way.

What I hope (and I suspect the author hopes) it will do. – It can show some of you that Christianity isn’t a monolithic belief system. If you’re soured on the faith because you somehow came to the conclusion that we all belong to the He Man Woman Hater’s Club or that we’re all a bunch of evolution deniers, then maybe this can set the record straight.

Dr. Thielen isn’t going to set the world on fire with this. It’s well written and well thought out. The title is going to intrigue some people and turn others off. If it turns you off, likely you’re not the target audience. You might go ahead and read it anyway. You’d be a step ahead of some of the one star reviewers on Amazon. You risk nothing by giving it a shot. It’s free and if you can read this blog without tearing out your hair then you can read this book.

What’s the Least I Can Believe? – A Review is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

So, I’m listening to NPR this weekend and something comes on the radio that almost made my head spin. Apparently, the church building/expansion business in Winston Salem is booming! Why would that make me angry? Or even just a bit miffed? Isn’t that a good thing?

I suppose it would be if I thought for a millisecond that every chair/pew/bench was full to bursting. I don’t. We don’t need more churches, particularly not brand new two million dollar buildings.

“But Scott,” I hear you say, “what are the options? If a church wants to plant a new congregation, they need somewhere to meet. And they need to look towards expanding the future. Maybe they want a school down the road, or a community center. And doesn’t building a church mean more jobs?”

Here’s the answer. For the last few years there has been a congregation meeting at our church at five o’clock on Sunday nights. It started as just an extension of our own congregation, an attempt to reach out to those that, for whatever reason, didn’t or couldn’t come on Sunday mornings. At some point, and it’s possible that this was the plan all along, they decided that it was time to move to a different part of town to continue meeting. They still wanted to continue meeting at night, but they wanted to separate off from out church and become a fully functioning body, on their own. This wasn’t a split, but rather a bit of mitosis (if I remember my cellular biology).

Now they’re meeting in a different church building. Here’s the mind blowing thing. The building they’re meeting in isn’t a Presbyterian church building. I’m not sure what the denomination is right off the top of my head, but that’s not the point. The point is, we have two congregations, working together as a body, meeting in the same building. My hope is that they’re sharing other resources, breaking bread together, you know, being a family.

It would be awesome if there weren’t denominations to get in the way of things. I suppose in a perfect world this sister church of ours could feel free to go to any other church in the county and seek a place to meet. Of course the argument could also be made that they could have decided to meet outside a “church building”. I’m sure that came up, but I know they don’t really have the funds to build one, and maybe they never will. Maybe when they outgrow their current situation, they’ll do what we did and use a former school space, or reclaim some other unused building.

Whatever they do, what they’re doing now is at least done in the spirit of working together. We need more of that. We don’t need to yell at each other, pointing accusatory fingers over doctrine. We don’t need to draw physical battle lines, decide on turf, and generally take the approach to land management that Wal-mart uses (come in, buy land, build a gaudy church, outgrow it, move on leaving a gaudy shell). We don’t need to create a cottage industry of businesses whose sole purpose it is to build these modern cathedrals to consumer driven divinity. We need to meet in houses or bars or old school buildings or libraries or (worst case scenario) in churches that have already been built. Maybe when we’re all out of other options we build something purpose built and make sure to put it to use every day of the week as something open to everyone in the community, not just members of that specific congregation.

*DEEP CLEANSING BREATH*

Okay, maybe I’m over-reacting. Maybe I’m guilty of finger pointing. This is a rant and I’m a bit out of practice around these parts. But I’ve gotten it off my chest and I’m going to hit “Publish” without batting an eye or proofreading a lick. Feel free to comment below. And here’s hoping it’s not another three months til my next post.

Living Together is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The overwhelming answer I get is, no. So I went digging through the Bible to find out what it says. There are three passages I’ve found that seem to be talking about this very thing. Let’s take a look at them and see what they have to tell us.

Romans 5 and 6 have a lot to say on this matter. In the first couple of verses Paul writes, “1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” He goes on to say more about being dead to sin and slaves to obedience. This is certainly language that indicates a massive change. If there is a sin that we struggle with, we are to be dead to it. If we continue to engage in that sin (or perhaps sin in general?) then are we at that point no longer dead to it? Aren’t we still enslaved by it? More on that in a bit.

The next passage I found is 1 John 3:7-10. This one is even more hard core in its language.

7 Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. 8 The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. 9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.

If we as God’s children have been “born of God” the we won’t continue to sin. If we do continue to sin that would seem to be evidence that we’re not born of God. We are still children of the devil. Okay, one more. This one from 2 Corinthians 10, “5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” Every thought is taken captive to make it obedient to Christ. Not most thoughts, every thought.

So here’s the thing, I know, and I think you do too, that this bar is set impossibly high. You can’t take every thought captive. You will continue to sin so long as you live. Maybe the sins will become less frequent to the point where we stop noticing them. That doesn’t mean they’re not there. The good news is that grace is there and I agree with Paul, we shouldn’t sin “more” or “bigger” so that the grace we receive is legendary. So there’s an element of improvement in the life of faith. Here’s my question though, is that our goal?

I look at sanctification as more of a “side effect” of our growth as believers. We are to live our lives as Christ lived his. We are to love people, teach them about the good news, to speak the truth and healing into lives. In the process we will grow. We will begin to understand the depths of our sin and the amount of grace we have received. We will, as my wife has said, become characterized by the fruits of the spirit and not by our sins. That doesn’t mean we’ll stop sinning or that we’ll become aware of every sin in our life and immediately (or even in the long term) repent and drop it in a grave with the old man.

That’s my take anyway. For those of you that believe that if you “continue in sin” and can either loose your salvation or were never a Christian to begin with, I’d like to know how your sins stack up now verses a year ago and what measure you’re using. I’d like to know what men like Peter are to do. You know, he denied Christ three times and went on to be reprimanded by Paul for getting the gospel wrong. I’d like to know what happen to men like Paul who have a thorn in their flesh that continues to dig and dig and dig no matter how much they repent and pray and fast and beg for it to be removed.

Sin, Continued is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

First, I know someone who recently came out and I assured him that I think a person can identify as a homosexual and still be a Christian. I firmly believe that to be true. Second, a gay man was elected to the Presidency of the North Carolina Council of Churches. Stan Kimer is a lay leader in the Metropolitan Community Church. From a brief skimming of that Wikipedia article, it seems that the MCC, apart from its stance on the homosexual issue, is pretty much straight up Protestant.

So, we come back to the question, do you as an individual believer think you can tell someone that based strictly on their sexual orientation whether or not they are a Christian? I’m not sure what I expect anyone to say in answer to this question. It’s real easy for me to get self-righteous when someone answers “Yes.” I suppose it’s equally easy for some folks reading this to get self righteous in the other direction. So I’m going to do what I can to avoid that in my post.

So here’s what I will say. I have to answer that question in the negative. (I know, that’s not a shock.) I’m hoping that the answer to that for all of you is “No.” as well. Of course it goes well beyond that.

I know of people that would agree with the statement that simply “being” gay isn’t a sin. It takes acting on that orientation, they would say. Then it becomes a sin. I have a problem with that. Jesus said in Matthew 5 that simply looking at a woman with lust is a sin. If a homosexual man is only different from me in the matter of the object of that lust that it seems clear not even acting on that sin is necessary to commit it. That seems to put these people in a serious bind. You can’t act on your desires, but it doesn’t stop there. Even your desires are sin and it’s sin to the degree that you can’t be forgiven for it. You must turn away from who you are, before you can be forgiven. That’s the message I hear. I think it’s the message they’re hearing too. Is that the Gospel? Yes and no.

We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. We must turn away from our sins. We must turn to Christ alone for our salvation. We must love and forgive and pray. There is a process in there that involves sanctification. That’s taking a path that carries us away from our “pet sins”. Perhaps in the case of homosexuals that means giving up the “gay lifestyle” whatever that means. Maybe there’s some other sin in their life “greater” than that, that needs dealing with. Is it our place to judge that? Maybe… Yes, if we’re in that person’s life as a part of the body. I don’t think that means declaring that person a non-believer based solely on their orientation or even the expression of that orientation.

Are the two men I mentioned earlier in the post my brothers in Christ? I’ll be frank. I don’t know. I don’t know if there are areas in their lives where they might still be rebelling, to the point where they’ve given up on God entirely. If they are still struggling, trying to remain faithful to God and to his commands as best they know how, then yes, I believe I can call them brothers. If they remain unconvinced, as I do, that being gay is an unpardonable sin or if they don’t believe it’s a sin at all, that wouldn’t prevent me from communing with them. There’s a lot more ground we’d have to cover before that even makes it to the table.

My Gay Family is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

While an income tax and the other sorts of taxes the wealthy should, in my opinion, be paying are not in the Constitution, I have good reason to believe that there’s no way the founding fathers could have envisioned the massive country that we have become and how expensive running that country has become. As a result of that, some amount of taxation is necessary. Taxing the poor is right out. Taxing the middle class happens already. Now we need to level the levies at the folks with money. I think that’s pretty much a no brainer.

Now it should be said that I’m not an economist. I don’t know a supply side from a hole in the ground. On the one hand it makes some sense to think that if we don’t tax the highest earners in this country (let’s be generous and say if you’re making a million plus then you’re rich) then they will go forth and create jobs. After all, the more we take from them the less they’ll spend, right? Well if my understanding of the last thirty years or so is correct, that’s just really not happening. Taxes have consistently gone down over the last fifty years. Bush cut taxes again while he was in office. We see where we are. Now I’m not saying that’s all due to taxes, but it seems to poke a hole in trickling down.

Don’t get me wrong. I know that’s there’s a lot of wasteful spending. I hear my Libertarian/Tea Party friends crowing about that consistently. We should cut that right, left, and center. That’s not going to do it all I’m afraid. I think doing things like returning to the marginal income and inheritance tax rates of the nineties are a good addition to cutting back on waste. While I love taxing the rich, I don’t think we should tax them at seventy plus percent.

None of the above is a spiritual issue really, at least not for me, but it is a philosophy I can get behind and is thus one reason why I’m a Democrat. I can see people trotting out “render unto Caesar” for one side or the other of the argument. I’m pretty sure that using that as Jesus’ message regarding taxation misses the point. What we do with our money as believers apart from taxes is a spiritual issue though.

I think that we as the church need to be providing for the poor among us more than we have been. I do think that if you’re a Christian and you’re hanging on to your dollars and cents to give to your kids down the road or to buy that second home in your favorite vacation spot that’s a problem. I do think that if your church is spending it’s money on an ever increasingly large meeting place that’s a problem. While Jesus didn’t have a lot to say about taxes, he did say a thing or two about storing up your riches on Earth. I’m not sure that if we were giving and caring like we should that that would go far enough to stem the tide of poverty, but it would be a worthy experiment and may just do a thing or two to lessen the “need” for government programs.

I’m all for getting rid of social programs and taxes and big government. I know those things aren’t perfect. You show me a way we can do that this side of eternity and I’ll consider changing my voter’s registration. Until then I would rather err on the side of more taxes for wealthy Americans (within reason) and using that money less for bombs and more for butter.

Why I am a Democrat Pt. 3 is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Anyway, on to the topic at hand. For those of you that know me in person, you know I can be snarky/sarcastic and can take a joke too far. Online (and even in the flesh) I tend to do a fair amount of trolling, though I hope never to do any of the above to the point where someone’s feelings are honestly hurt. There are people though that act this way on purpose and push it as far as they can. I won’t speak to what I perceive as the motives for this behavior since I’m no expert and humans are awfully complex critters. That’s not the point of this post either. My question is, as Christians, how are we to treat this sort of person?

My stance has always been to hold brothers and sisters in Christ to a higher standard. So, for those trolls out there who profess to have a Christian faith, I have to ask where the love is that you’re supposed to have? While I don’t expect you to be perfect, Lord knows I’m not, I’m going to take you to task when you act like a fool. I think there is a point where this kind of behavior becomes a sin and when it hits that mark (hopefully before then) we’re going to have a talk. For the record, when I push things too far, I fully expect to likewise receive a talking to.

The real sticking point in the conversation I had with Leigh though is, what do we do with the people in our lives who don’t profess to be a Christian and who strive to reach new depths in terms of their desire to offend? There’s a particular individual in my life that fits this mold to a T. On the one hand, I understand the desire on many folk’s part to surround themselves with pleasant people that they get along with and have a great deal in common with. There’s also the argument to be made that someone like this can do more harm to you than you can do good to them. If a person is simply so negative or engages in behavior that drags everyone around them down into argument, or worse imitation, then is there any point to continuing that relationship?

My answer is yes. Christ loved us while we were yet sinners. In fact, he went one or two steps beyond that. He actively sought out (and was sought out by) not only “regular” sinners, but some of the most offensive sinners there were by Jewish standards. I believe we are called to do likewise. With this person, I intend to keep on loving them as long as they’ll let me. I intend to extend hospitality to them and get together with them as often as I can. I think they need relationship as much, if not more than anyone. I will put on my psychoanalyst hat for a second and say that it seems to me that some people like this are trying to push love away. If we let them succeed in that then we’re doing them no favor.

Now, I want to be fair. I don’t want to set up a straw man. I know that people who say there’s a limit want to love the “unlovable” too. The question they ask, and rightly so, is what are the limits? And should we, as their friend, hold them accountable to any degree? I’m not sure I have the right answer to that, but I’ll take a stab.

Sin is offensive to God and it should be offensive to us. It should not be something that we want to take part in or turn a blind eye to. I think if we’re truly friends with someone and they are doing things that we find incredibly offensive there are ways to address that. We need to be open and honest with that person. They need to know, though in most cases I’d argue they already do know, that what they’re saying and doing bothers you.

What I don’t think we need to do is to demand that they change “or else”. Because they also need to know that their relationship with you isn’t based on them living up to some level of moral perfection (however low) that you have set for them. That doesn’t mean that you can’t hope and pray and encourage that sort of change. Be aware that just like it is with you, any change that does occur won’t happen over night and as a friend asked me, “how long can you go in openly condemning someone and constantly critiquing them before it can be said that you don’t love them?”.

The exception to that would be if they’re actually causing you or someone else physical or psychological harm. If you find your behavior being negatively affected by them, then hopefully you have a good support system that will help you deal with that. If that begins to happen consistently then that likely qualifies as being harmful and you may have to re-examine the relationship. It may also be healthy to set certain limits. I think it’s wise, depending on the situation, to choose times and places to meet them where your family isn’t exposed to the negativity.

As with any relationship, we should pray for wisdom, patience, and above all love. In closing, I’ll point to 1st Corinthians 13 – ” 4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” That is the kind of love we must strive for, even as we are and are among the “unlovable”.

And furthermore:

Unlovable? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

When it come to the moral/religious side on both issues I take a fairly conservative stance. I believe that in the majority of cases they are both sins as defined by the Bible. A recent post on homosexuality lays out the questions I still have as far as the scripture is concerned. I believe that one can find one’s self in a homosexual relationship and not be in sin, but as with heterosexual relationships these days I think that’s certainly in the minority. I don’t think God smiles on a relationship or frowns on a relationship simply because of the physical bits involved. But I digress.

I think that getting an abortion, with very few exceptions, is an immoral act. I’ve laid this out in the past as well, but due to blog changes the archives are rather spotty. The limits I would impose on abortion where I the emperor, include: an age limit (equal to the age of consent in the state involved), a term limit (I don’t believe an abortion should be performed past the first term), and a necessity limit (abortions would be allowed only in cases of medical necessity with possible allowances for cases of rape or incest). I should say that even in these cases, and my limits would likely eliminate the majority of abortions performed today, I don’t think that the abortion is made moral.

It is not the unborn child’s fault that they were conceived. To end their life because something horrible happened to the mother and the side effect of that thing was the conception does not negate that horrible thing. It adds one on top of the other. To end the life because of a clear and present danger to the mother’s life is one instance that I really can understand making that choice. Honestly, if I were a woman I have no idea what I would do in that situation. I can’t imagine that it’s an easy choice and I’m certain that for most people there would be a certain amount of grief, regret, and pain if they make the decision to abort.

The notion that there are women that get abortions as a form of birth control and feel none of that sort of emotion (an argument that I often here coming from the other side) is one I have a hard time with. I’ll give the benefit of the doubt and say that this does happen. Those sorts of abortions, ones of “convenience” are ones that I would make illegal were I able to.

So let’s distill all of that down. I can’t personally stand here and say that all abortions are wrong all of the time. I don’t see the purpose of our government as being a moral arbiter in all situations. We have the freedom in this country to make decisions that other people will be horrified by. That doesn’t mean I believe that everything is permissible. It just means that there is a balance to these things. We have to find a balance between personal freedom and protecting the weak at the expense of that freedom. I think that the Democratic party is working towards that, however imperfectly.

This extends to things like homosexuals in the military and civil unions/gay marriage. Many of my fellow believers are firmly against that as well. It seems that they believe that allowing gays to serve or to marry are some indication of a moral degradation in our society. I would argue that there have been homosexuals serving and living together for as long as this country has been standing. We are just recognizing that fact as a society and are providing them the protection they need to pursue happiness just as it has been provided to us. I don’t see a clear indication that allowing these practices will actively cause harm to anyone actually so in that way, these issues aren’t anything at all like abortion. It is, in fact, protecting the (politically) weak and providing them personal freedom without denying anyone else that same freedom.

“But wait, didn’t you say that homosexuality is immoral?”

Under certain circumstances, yes. But allowing them in the military has nothing at all to do with their sexuality. Anyone should be allowed to serve who wants to. Allowing them to receive benefits that will ultimately benefit both them and society at large does more good to society at large than “allowing” their lifestyle does harm to them personally. In other words they aren’t going to make the decision not to be gay simply because we deny them some basic right.

So, there you go. I believe in allowing people certain basic freedoms even if I don’t agree with the exercise of those freedoms. I think that’s a very Democratic stance.

Why I Am a Democrat – Pt. 2 is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

In this post (and perhaps subsequent posts as this one is getting long already) I will outline some of the reasoning behind why I’m still a Democrat and how I reconcile that with being a Christian. Why do I want to do this? Well it’s my long held belief that some of my brethren on the Right have branded Christianity as the official Republican religion. I won’t go so far as to say that they have highjacked the faith, but they have certainly cast aspersions on anyone that claims to be simultaneously a Christian and a Democrat.

A long, long time ago I found myself a young man sitting in my college dorm. There was a presidential election coming up and I needed to register to vote. I had made it through two years of college blissfully ignorant of anything outside my own sphere of influence (little larger than a hamster ball), but even I knew that I had a responsibility to vote for the leader of our country if for no one else. I knew almost nothing concrete about platforms or even why I needed to register with a certain party. At the time I figured I had two choices and based on my limited knowledge, I chose the Democratic Party. Of course I realize now that my options were somewhat broader, but we’re dealing with me then, not me now.

I did know that my politics, such as they were, lined up with the liberal side of things. I believed very much in the freedom of choice in all things. I was strongly pro-choice on the abortion issue. I believed that the government had the responsibility to take care of those who couldn’t take care of themselves. My mother and I, in addition to other family members, had been the recipient of government help in the past. Affirmative action sounded pretty good to me as did equal rights for women, homosexuals, and every human being that drew breath.

Now at this point in my walk of faith I was little more than a yearling, literally. I had been baptized the year before. I’d always believed in a god of some sort and was raised in a nominally Christian household, but church going and Bible reading had never been a huge part of who I was. If you had asked me then about any of the basic tenets of the faith you would have gotten an opinion to be sure, but it would have been as shaky as any statement I’d make on anything other than literature or role playing games (my whole world at the time). So I do think that my fuzzy faith informed my fuzzy politics or perhaps vice versa; all of this coming out of my somewhat insular and naïve, though good intentioned, worldview.

As I’ve gotten older my political and religious beliefs have developed considerably. I consider myself to be moderate when it comes to both. Some I suppose would say that that means I’m still a bit fuzzy. To them I say, the more extreme your beliefs in either of these fields of human endeavor are the less good you are likely to do for anyone or any group. I think history will back me up on this point. As my views have changed, my faith has always been the basis for how I view the world and interact with it. I think that that’s a natural enough thing for any religious person. I for one don’t trust a politician who says that their faith doesn’t “interfere” with their political calling.

So presently I am still a Democrat and still a Christian. Now here comes the fun part (I know you were waiting). I’ll pick a couple of issues and tell you why I think I’m on solid ground with this choice. You feel free to agree or tell me why I’m a nut case.

Welfare/Social Programs – This has long been a bone of contention between my wife and me. Oh, time for a sidebar. For those of you that don’t know, my wife is a VERY conservative Republican and Christian. This has led to many fights, debates, sleepless nights, accusations, recriminations, and as a result of that a fair amount of makeup whoopee. So that’s all good. I think that the Bible is crystal clear on the need for taking care of those less fortunate than we are. This includes but is not limited to orphans and widows. We are to love our neighbors as ourselves and do unto others as we would have them do unto us. All well and good but why does this mean that we have to do that as a country? Isn’t that a personal thing? Of course it is. I think that it is also a corporate thing. Christianity calls for the Church to help others out, not just the individuals.

Large bodies of folks are almost always able to do more good than individuals (at least financially). The larger than body gets the more likely it is that certain things need to be mandated and codified. In our country, especially the early days, the Church has often done just that and still does to varying degrees. Unfortunately, or perhaps very fortunately, we don’t have a state church to take care of those sorts of things as a centralized function. So it falls to the State itself to perform that function for the people and by the people (that sounds pretty good). If this is, as some claim, a Christian nation then its values and actions should reflect that. Even if it’s only Christian in the sense that the majority of Americans claim to be Christian (which is what I believe that means). So for me the idea of our country having a wide variety of programs supported by our tax dollars to help out those that can’t help themselves is pretty much a no-brainer.

Now I know what some of you are saying. These programs are abused, misused, mismanaged, can be a bottomless money pit, etc. I hear that. That’s no reason not to try. Reform is needed, rejection is not.

Well this has gotten kind of long, so I’ll go ahead and close for now. I’d love to hear from the Republicans in the audience. Tell me where I’m wrong, or where I’m right, but how the Democratic party isn’t the one to help take care of folks.

Why I Am a Democrat – Pt. 1 is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

So my question is, as I tweeted/Facebooked yesterday, “Does the notion that the Bible’s injunctions against homosexuality refer only to temple prostitution or abuse hold water with you?”

The overwhelming response (other than the “Tryin’ to start a twitter fight are ya?”) was “No.”  That’s not terribly surprising, given the circles I run in.  I have a gracious plenty of conservative friends and family.  It has inspired at least one person to right a blog post (unwritten as of yet) and I’m always glad of that.  So now’s the time to lay things out on the table.  What do I believe?

Well, first where do I get that notion anyway?  The Bible seems pretty clear on the issue, doesn’t it?  Aren’t there dozens of passage in the Bible that address it?

Oddly enough, not so much.  There are seven passages that ReligiousTolerance.org lists as “gotcha” passages.  These are the ones most often used by conservatives to point out how clear the Bible is on the subject.  You can find them listed here.

Let’s take them on one by one.

Genesis 19 - This is the Sodom passage.  This is ground that we’ve covered before on this blog in the comments here. While I maintain that the men of Sodom wanted to have sex (among other things) with the strangers, it wasn’t because they were homosexuals.  It was because they had gone so far down the rabbit hole that they had lost any sense of humanity.  They were complete sociopaths.

Leviticus 18:22 - This one seems to be an absolute slam dunk.  It’s worth noting though (as many have) that the rather long list of shall nots in Leviticus is ritual law and not moral law.  As such, does it apply to us today?  If it does, then there are a few of us who are in trouble.  If most of them don’t apply, then why pick this one out of the heap?

Leviticus 20:13 – Similar to 18:22 this seems to be solid.  What’s troublesome is that if you find such a person, you’re to stone them.  Even the most (non-wacko) conservative isn’t suggesting we stone homosexuals or any other “sinners” so why do we latch on to this passage?  Again this would seem to be listed firmly under ritual law.  Interestingly enough (and I’m not a Hebrew expert) apparently a literal translation of this passage is, “If two men engage in homosexual sex while on a woman’s bed, both have committed an abomination.” So it seems to be not so much a matter of who you can’t have sex with so much as where you can’t have sex.  That seems a bit of a stretch though.  Anyone care to help us out there?

Romans 1:26-27 – There’s some interesting qualification going on here.  It’s describing people who are obscuring the truth about God and because of that they are “given over” to these desires.  Apparently, and I’m just going by the passage here, those people were having “natural” relations with opposite sex partners and once God gave them over to their sinful desires (a thorny bit of prose) they started having sex with same gender partners.  Whatever this means it doesn’t seem to address folks who have grown up with the feelings of same sex attraction.  Did God “give them over” to that at a young age or is that attraction natural to them?  If the latter then aren’t these therapies getting passed around to convert homosexuals likewise “unnatural”?

I Corinthians 6:9-10 – This list mentions “male prostitutes” and “homosexual offenders” in the NIV.  It gets translated as just homosexual in a number of other translations.  That’s problematic because whatever you believe about “arsenokoitai” (and that ranges from straight up man on man sex to pimp to dirty old man) it’s definitely male focused.  So are lesbians left out of Paul’s list?  Is he really referencing the Levitical passages?  I’m tempted to say that ultimately is doesn’t matter since Paul goes on to say “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”  There’s that pesky “were” though.  If you do translated “arsenokoitai” as “male homosexual” does that mean that Paul expects you to leave that behind you?

1 Timothy 1:9-10 – There’s that pesky “arsenokoitai” again.  What do we do with that?  Do we honestly believe that a man who loves another man or a woman another woman are in the same league with slave traders, liars, and perjurers?  If so, have you told a lie?  Did you stop telling lies when you became a Christian?  I haven’t.

Jude 1:7 – Here we go back to Sodom and Gomorrah.  Clearly the men in that town weren’t interested in a monogamous homosexual relationship.  Clearly they were sociopaths.  So is this really pointing to the majority of homosexuals?  I can’t see that.

Okay, a few notes.  I’m aware that these links all point to NIV passages.  Clearly KJV and other more “conservative” translations differ in their language.  So, don’t bag on the NIV and don’t use your favorite translation to poke holes in my argument.  I’m not relying on any particular translation.   Be aware that just because someone chose to use the word “homosexual” in your favorite translation, that is not proof from on high that God meant “people of the same sex who desire a faithful monogamous relationship with one another”.  It likely means that the translator has an interesting bias.   As an indication of that, apparently “arsenokotai” was apparently translated as “masturbator” once upon a time.

Also, for the record, I’m not firmly convinced that all expressions of homosexuality are either “good” or “bad”, moral or immoral, sinful or not.  It is quite possible that there are expressions of homosexuality that are just as sinful as some expressions of heterosexuality are.  I think all blanket statement are stupid at worst and short-sighted at best.

If you can show me that what the Bible has to say makes such blanket statements without appeals to authority and with an eye towards awareness of confirmation bias (in other words let’s just say that I’m not going to take any particular Bible teacher has to say too seriously  unless you are that Bible teacher) then do so.  I want to know what you think, based on what these passages say.

Homosexuality – Big Sin or _______? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The whole thing makes a bone stick in my craw though.  There’s a certain smugness that exists on the part of some people who organize/promote this.  For instance I heard on the local Christian radio station that they need to make sure students know that their Constitutional rights don’t end at the school gates.  The problem with that is, some of these same people balk at kids wearing anti-authoritarian clothes or at letting young people bring who they want as their prom date.   They cheer for school uniforms or say “just host an alternative prom”.

That’s not the only problem I have with it either.  The Bible certainly encourages corporate prayer.  It also tells us though that we need to pray in the right spirit.  We don’t need to be out there doing it just so folks see us do it.  Prayer isn’t a means of “evangelism”, at least not in the sense that doing it out where you can be seen will automagically lead folks to the Lord.  It’s a nuance that I’m not sure kids can grasp and as such I don’t know that it’s such a great idea.

Pray for your schools.  Pray for your teachers.  Heck, if you get permission haul your whole church out to the school grounds and pray on them in the evenings or other times when the only eyes you’ll catch are the janitor’s.  If I read the info on how this “movement” (one that smells of astroturf these days) got started that’s what they did.   Encourage your young folks to pray without ceasing, to pray in their closets,  and when they do pray as part of the body to do so not so they may be seen by others, but so they may communicate with our Father.

See You At The Pole? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Student claims nose stud is religious symbol | abc11.com.

Have a look at this video.  The young lady has a sincerely held “religious” belief.  I’m not asking if you think there’s any truth inherent in her religion, but I’m curious to know a few things.  What, in your mind, constitutes a religion?  Does she have a valid point legally in your opinion?  Does the state have the right to decide what a valid religion is or is not?

Personally I think the school should waive the suspension.  This doesn’t seem to be a rebellious teen using a loophole.  This seems to be a young lady who is getting  some comfort from a belief.  If it helps her in the short term I don’t see the harm.

While I’m no legal expert it does seem to me that the school has no grounds to deny her this expression.  If tey do then they should be denying other religions their expression as well.  This sort of zero tolerance policy is never a good idea.

What Constitutes a Religion? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Friend and long time commenter Shawn Murphy aka Sidfaiwu answered that with a comment of his own.  He said, “What’s it about then? It often seems to be all about personal salvation.”  And he has a point.  Christians talk a lot about having a “personal relationship with Christ” and while Jesus may or may not be your homeboy, he is certainly described as your brother.  The question is, does it stop there? Is the whole point of Christ’s sacrifice to give you a relationship with him or to give you a ticket to Heaven?  Is that even the main event?

I think the answers are “No.”, “No.”, and “Maybe, maybe not.”

There are a number of things that Christ’s sacrifice are supposed to achieve.  Big picture things like the redemption of the whole of Creation would seem to dwarf concerns about an individual.  Now I don’t want to downplay that individual’s salvation.  I think that would be an easy over-reaction.  But once you’re saved, then what?  You still have a part to play.  You have responsibilities.  You are called to be good, righteous, and holy.  I hear that a lot from a lot of brothers and sisters.  The question then becomes, why?  Why do we do these good works?  What purpose do they serve?

Based on what I’m told in answer to this question, it seems that they’re  proof that your saved  and/or a good witness to others so that they can be saved (“He’s just so good and so righteous, I’ve gotta get me some of what he’s having.”).  So be saved so that you can do good works so that others know you’re saved so they can be saved (seems a bit circular to me, though not untrue).  I think that’s thinking too small though.  Don’t get me wrong.  I think the acts of love and kindness that are expected of the new creations of God certainly do those things.  They are a sign of your newness.  They do serve to inspire other people.  I just think it goes beyond that.

God will use you and your good works in the redemption of the world.  That’s a clear message in the Bible.  When most people think of that redemption though, it’s a sort of hazy future.  The works that we do, the ones incidentally that the Bible says we’re made for, will be refined and outlive this temporary body.  Wright believes, tough he admits to not knowing the details that these good works will continue to resonate in the new Earth.  It’s all part of God’s ultimate plan, though perhaps a part that’s not widely understood.  I think that’s perfectly valid.  Again though, there’s more to it.  Good works as a result of our salvation are also important in the here and now.

We have a hope that this body of believers, this holy temple, will bring justice and peace to the world.  The phrase “social justice” has gotten a fair  amount of play in certain circles lately.  To some people it sounds an awful lot like socialism.  It makes other folks uncomfortable because there’s a historical branch of liberal Christianity who played fast and loose with theology in an effort to make the social justice part of the faith of greater importance than the supernatural parts.  So I get the cringe that I felt run through some of you when you read the first sentence in this paragraph.

Still,  I believe that as a family we need to bring as much focus and attention on this part of what the gospel teaches as we do on our personal salvation.  While there are certainly excellent examples of where this has happened, I think there are also some excellent examples of where it hasn’t.  There is evidently plenty of opportunity for us as a body to improve.  Wouldn’t it be wonderful if people not only heard but saw this in action as much as they hear and see us talk about being free from the worry of hellfire?  Personally, I think it would go a long way in making us look and sound more like the Jesus of the Gospels.

A Ticket to Ride is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The teaching of 1 Corinthians 11

Time and again I have found the teaching of 1 Corinthians 11 to be central to this discussion. This is indeed the exegetical firewall in existence that keeps individuals within the Reformed tradition from embracing paedocommunion, and in my judgment their particular perspective on 1 Corinthians 11 provides the only plausible exegetical argument against the practice. Were children participants at Passover? Without trouble, my Old Testament professor at RTS conceded that all the evidence points to the inclusion of even young children in the celebration of Old Testament sacrificial meals. Louis Berkhof’s passing assessment that children “were allowed to eat of the Passover in the days of the Old testament” (Systematic Theology, p. 656) goes largely uncontested within the Reformed community. Yet, in spite of these evidences, the working assumption is that 1 Corinthians 11 is the exegetical argument against the continuity between the covenant meals and the  inclusion of children in the New Covenant meal.

The traditional Reformed interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 argues that by direct implication the apostle’s words bar young children from the table, due to their inability to “examine themselves,” “discern the body” and “proclaim the Lord’s death.” I have become convinced, however, that this chunk of Paul’s writing simply does not sustain the weight placed on it in seeking to refute the paedocommunionist argument. My reasoning is four-fold:

1. I do not believe it is the apostle’s intention to lay out terms of admission to the Table, but to deal with the behavior of those who have already been admitted to the Table. While the traditional understanding is that when Paul speaks of the necessity of self-examination he intends to exclude from the Table those who do not possess a substantial level of mental or spiritual maturity, this understanding fails to see that this call for self-examination is issued explicitly to those guilty of openly schismatic behavior in general and at the Table in particular. (His concern is that “there are divisions among you” – v. 18.) This sin had reached scandalous proportions, which is made obvious by Paul’s opening words: “when you come together it is not for the better but for the worse” (v. 17). It is, then, in the context of this behavior, and specifically with the guilty perpetrators in mind that Paul says “let a person examine himself.” My conclusion is that he is thereby calling his readers to stop and consider whether they themselves are guilty of the kind of sin which he has named before coming again to the Table, and to repent of it, or else they will profane the Table further. With this in mind, it is clear that the very youngest members of the congregation are not even in view in Paul’s exhortation. (See 1 Thess. 3:10 for another example of this limitation of scope.)

2. In a similar way, when Paul speaks of “discerning the Lord’s body,” rather than implicitly setting a minimum age of admission to the Table, I believe he is simply calling for a loving and considerate attitude towards others with whom one fellowships at the Table. The Corinthians had been guilty of a blatant disregard towards others in their celebration of the Lord’s Supper, and here the apostle calls this sin a failure to “discern the body”: i.e. a failure to consider one another in love as they partook together.  A growing number of commentators today see this reference not as the physical body of Christ, but as his body, the church. They note that Paul has already used this expression to the church in 10:17 where he states, “we who are many are one body.” For example, F.F. Bruce writes:

“To eat and drink ‘without discerning the body’ meant quite simply to take the bread and cup at the same time as they were treating their fellow-Christians uncharitably in thought and behavior.” (Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 285)

Even little children are capable of considering one another in love, and of avoiding uncharitable     behavior towards others. Of course, children at some point are also capable of eating and drinking     judgment to themselves: not, however, due to sheer immaturity of understanding, but due, again, to     patterns of sinful behavior which make a mockery of the Table.

3. I believe that withholding the Table from our children in order to spare them from “eating and drinking judgment to themselves” not only misunderstands Paul’s meaning in the text, but also fails to take into account the broader realities of the covenant membership of our children. The reality of covenant membership of our children means that, from infancy, every means of grace they are exposed to will result either in their spiritual blessing or condemnation. By their enjoyment of every privilege of the covenant – whether that of Baptism, the biblical instruction of parents, the fellowship of the saints, the participation in corporate worship, or the celebration of the Lord’s Supper – covenant children, like all members of the covenant, receive either covenant blessing or eventual covenant curse according to whether or not they respond to those privileges with faith. It is unwarranted because I do not believe it is the Session’s prerogative to attempt to spare members of the covenant from the judgment God has promised upon covenant unfaithfulness. It is futile because it fails to see the countless ways in which covenant children, like the covenant community in Jesus’ day, are rendered more accountable for their sins than the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, unless they repent. (see Matthew 11:20-24)

4. Finally, it is obvious that the great sin of the Corinthian church consisted in a disregard for each other that, in effect, led to excluding certain members of the church from partaking of the Table: that is, those who had nothing to eat. It’s rather ironic, then, that the Church has appealed to this text in support of the common practice today of excluding certain members  of the church from the Table.

Conclusion:

I am optimistic about the future of paedocommunion within the Reformed community, yet I also remain content to submit to the authority of a non-paedocommunion church that is cordial towards the open discussion of this, and frankly all, theological quandaries. I am optimistic because even among those who do not call themselves paedocommunionists, there is an increasing willingness to lower the requisite age of a child’s profession of faith and admission to the Table from what it has traditionally been. I am content, however, because I do not regard this issue as one worthy of starting a fight over. I strive to be committed to pursuing the peace of the Church, with the hopes that the traditional practice will one day be amended as part of the ongoing Reformation of the Church.

Communion for Kids – Part 3 is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Observations regarding the historical record of the practice

I have not performed an exhaustive study of the historical record of the practice of paedocommunion. There is an excellent summary of historical material on the topic available for review at http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/tl_paedo.html . However, I have several opinions that have taken shape in my mind about what has contributed to this consensus against paedocommunion:

1. The Reformers were typically confronted with these arguments, not by fellow paedobaptists who sought to be consistent in their covenant theology, but rather by Anabaptist detractors who primarily sought leverage against the doctrine of infant baptism. I fear this goes a long way towards explaining why they were so dismissive of points made, often failing to give what I regard to be any substantial rationale for the traditional practice.

2. Historically, the consideration of these points within the Reformed tradition has been partly obscured by the larger theological battles being waged over the Lord’s Supper. For instance, the question of the nature of Christ’s presence in the supper came to focus largely on the question of whether the unbeliever who received the elements also partook of the flesh and blood of Christ. Calvin and the Reformed tradition answered, “No, Christ is only received at the Table by faith,” while Luther and Rome answered, “Yes, otherwise there is no integrity to the sacrament.” It seems obvious, particularly from reading Calvin, that the language of 1 Corinthians 11 was repeatedly pressed into use for this particular debate as if these words were addressing that specific issue of unbelievers at the Table. Yet in my estimation, Paul nowhere suggests that the unworthy partaking of the Table is due to the unregenerate state of certain members of the Corinthian church. In fact, he presumes that even the worst offenders among them are regenerate people as he identifies the Lord’s judgment upon them as a means of preserving them from being condemned with the world. (v. 32)

3. One other incredible obstacle in Reformed church history to a paedocommunionist perspective, particularly among Presbyterians, has been the misplaced emphasis by many (most?) of the Puritans on a covenant child’s public profession of faith as a means of preserving experiential religion – and even the purity of the Church. I am of the opinion that in their zeal to combat nominalism in the Church and to hold out the necessity of “true conversion,” many of them found it hard to resist making admittance to the Table the primary means of ensuring a regenerate church membership. However, it is teaching, rather than the administration of the sacraments, that is the primary pastoral means of combating nominalism in the church. The administration of sacraments in the New Testament does not seem to be constrained by concerns to avoid nominalism, especially as I think of the near immediate access to the sacraments granted to those who simply professed faith.

In the next entry I hope to dive face-first into the primary concern for those following traditional reformed practice. Some of my biggest appreciation for the reformed tradition is found in the desire to interact with the text we claim as authoritative in a honest, open and consistent manner. The true benefit of this is frequently found in a willingness to discuss and genuinely explore, seeking continuation of the reformation.

Communion for Kids – Part 2 is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The biggest difficulty I find in writing a piece like this is the same difficulty with any writing: consideration of the audience. This was initially written for a number of individuals already thinking and operating within Reformed practice, although, thankfully, labels have a hard time sticking with these folks. Its very likely that I am making some gigantic assumptions that need further unpacking – preference of a philosophical model, knowledge of assorted particulars within church history, understanding of covenant theology, familiarity with past and present church practice of reformed churches – but in spite of that, I’m willing to put this out if for nothing else than a catalyst for good conversation. I am very appreciative to Scott for providing the space for publication and the editorial advice – sage writing wisdom at it’s best.

I have come to embrace the position commonly known as paedocommunion. I accept this label, however, with some reservations about the term. I do not embrace such a doctrine of “infant communion”. I hold to what could be called “young child communion.” Notwithstanding, I am in agreement with all so-called paedocommunionists in humbly insisting that the Reformed churches have erred in delaying the admittance of covenant children to the Table until they “are of years and ability to examine themselves.” I am comfortable with the label and thereby identify myself as one member of a class, loosely defined, of “paedocommunionists.” In what follows, I hope to summarize what has persuaded me to embrace the position I was once content to oppose. I do not intend to provide a comprehensive defense of paedocommunion. There is already existing and thorough writing towards this end, particularly in the 1988 majority report of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s committee to study paedocommunion, primarily authored by G.I. Williamson, and more recently in Tim Gallant’s book “Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children” and “The Case for Covenant Communion,” edited by Gregg Strawbridge. Rather, I intend to briefly highlight a selection of points, seeking to demonstrate what has led me in particular to this perspective. We’ll chase these down under three headings: 1. The role of the sacraments in the life of the church, 2. The teaching of 1 Corinthians 11, and 3. Observations regarding the historical record.

The role of the sacraments in the life of the church

My orthodoxy has been preserved by one iteration or another of the Reformed faith. I will readily admit that it was God’s providence that preserved me, but the means by which he did has been through the many shapes, sizes and various streams within the Reformed pale. Through this, I have an ever-increasing appreciation for the Reformed view of the nature and function of the sacraments in the life of the Church. I simply affirm the description in the Westminster Confession of Faith, that the sacraments are:

“holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word” (WCF 27:1, emphasis added)

While I affirm this, I also have no problem asserting that it is a regrettable inconsistency in the Westminster Standards that the sacraments are together spoken of as marking out the visible church, yet the sacrament of the Lord’s Table is withheld from certain members of the visible church as “unworthy receivers” until they reach “years and ability to examine themselves” (Westminster Larger Catechism #177). The traditional perspective asserts that for those children their baptism alone is sufficient mark of membership, yet it seems to me that this statement of the Confession – that the sacraments considered together provide the mark of membership – finds plenty of proof in the obvious case of excommunicated persons. While I am not trying to say that we are treating our baptized children as apostate by denying them the supper, it is obvious that while excommunicated persons are still baptized persons, they are not counted as members of the church due to having been barred from the Table. Through this, I find it to be true that not only are both sacraments essential in defining the boundaries of the church, but that, if anything, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper has the primary role in this identification.

The simple and straightforward argument made by paedocommunionists that the signs and seals of the covenant are to be received by the members of the covenant is an insurmountable one.

I do believe it is a misuse of the Lord’s Supper to impose it upon a passive recipient, whether it be an infant or an adult. While baptism is administered to those who are passive in order to represent God’s sovereign initiation and establishment of the covenant, the Lord’s Supper, as the sacrament of continuation with that covenant, is rightly administered only to those who are active in order to represent in part the response of God’s people to his covenant. However, I do not believe these differing designs of the sacraments can justify the traditional practice of withholding the sacrament of covenant response and communion from children until they are able to make an articulate profession of faith and undergo the ordeal of taking vows before a congregation.

In both the church and the home, we should rightly call for faithful covenant response from the children of the covenant from the very earliest days of their comprehension and self-initiative. We rightly teach them to pray even as they learn how to talk, we rightly encourage them to sing praises as soon as they can carry a tune (and sometimes even before), and we rightly teach them to actively participate in the worship of God from the very early days of their inclusion in it. Likewise, I believe we would be correct to allow them to take part in the Lord’s Table at as early a time as they actively can do so. While this certainly presumes some space of time between their passively receiving baptism and their actively partaking of the Lord’s Supper, it is far from the present practice of many of barring our children from the Table until many years after they have, in fact, expressed their covenant response to God’s love in a plethora of ways. As Passover was and the other elements of worship are, the Lord’s Supper should be a vehicle for their expression of love to Christ from the very beginning of their days of self-expression.

Communion for Kids? – Part One is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I tweeted the other day asking how many of our questions were like that of the Pharisees. They often asked questions designed to misdirect or to draw someone into a theological minefield.

In order to avoid the pharisaical questions, but understanding the divisive nature of the gospel, a quandry develops. What sorts of questions rightly divide and what sort are simply encouraging pointless squabbles?

I ask this question because, well because in part asking questions is what this blog is largely about for me and i want to hit the former questions more regularly.

I’m also about to post a series of entries that make an argument for what some may consider an issue that rightly divides. It’s hardly a hot button and the guest author handles it well, but this seems a good time to ask.

Not Peace But a Sword is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Early in my Christian life I was taught Dispensationalism. Perhaps that’s why, even as a Presbyterian now, I can see the point of it. It’s a relatively new way of looking at this topic, apparently originating with John Darby in the 1800s, but that by no means invalidates this school of thought. It does seem, at least on the surface, that God had a different deal with the Jews than he does with the Christians for instance. That’s just one example. According the the wikipedia entry there are anywhere from three dispensations to seven or eight.

Now, as a member of the Presbyterian church, I’m being taught Covenant Theology. This seems to me to make God at least a little more consistent through time. It says that God has made a covenant of works, redemption, and grace (covenant theologians don’t agree that all of these are included) and that these promises were established “in the beginning” and have been in force since. These covenants, so CT teaches, are fleshed out in the covenants God makes with the patriarchs. So the way he deals with them doesn’t change so much as they are codified or fleshed out.

So that’s an awful lot of promises. Here’s what I propose though, and this is likely not a new or staggering idea (and I could be wrong), and that is that there is only one requirement that God has of us. Faith. If we have faith in him then everything else falls into place.

God’s first recorded words to Adam were “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.” Now that could be pointed out as the beginning of the covenant of works, though it’s more of a “don’t do” than a “do”. I’d say though that this was God’s way of saying “have faith in me and what I know to be best for you”. All Adam had to do, all any of us have to “do” really is to trust God. The rest will flow out of that.

We achieve righteousness through faith. We receive grace through faith. We are saved by that faith. So it could be argued I think that at the root of any “dispensation” or “covenant” God has used to interact with us is that faith in him and his plan for us is. If we have that faith, that trust then God will deal justly with us. That’s a promise.

Am I oversimplifying or missing anything?

Promises, Promises is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I’ll weigh in after I get some comments.

Final Destination is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Gal. 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

The associate pastor that gave the sermon did some research and determined that the word “goodness” can also be translated as generosity or beneficial acts towards others. He went on to stress that we as a body should be focused on sacrificial giving towards others. That gift could be monetary or one of time or abilities that you use for their benefit. Whatever form it takes, he went on to say that it should be characterized by a passage from Hebrews chapter ten.

32 Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33 Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34 You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions.

This sermon was especially relevant in the face of a video I had just watched on Saturday. Zach Ricks, good friend, co-author, and editor of Flagship, gave a talk at a Tea Party rally recently and posted the Youtube video. The whole thing got mashed up in my brain and I need to get it out on “paper”. So watch these videos (they’re short) and think with me on this.

Now, Zach and I don’t agree on much politically. I suspect we also differ on a number of theological issues, though nothing either of us would consider critical. But, as he says in the video, we should be able to discuss that. I won’t pick apart everything I disagree with in the videos. That’s not the point of this post. The point isn’t even to pick apart the “on topic” things I disagree with. The point is, given the notion that at least a significant portion of Tea Party folks are Christian and that that’s part of their platform, I want to look at some of the claims that at least Zach makes and see if they line up with this notion of sacrificial generosity.

At about the six minute mark in video one he quotes Calvin Coolidge. “Our great hope lies in developing what is good.” and then he goes on to say, “America is good”. Now I’m not going to say that America is bad. We have many, many good qualities. The questions is, if we are good, what does that mean?

Zach says that there is no country that compares to us militarily, scientifically, culturally, or economically. I’m not sure what grounds he’s using to make those statements and they seem to be a little subjective and as such are arguable. In any case, does that make us good? He also says that we don’t conquer our neighbors. That may be true at present, but wasn’t true when we first came here. Again though, while that may be true, does that make us good?

Zach says that God “is the center of my life.” Laudable, commendable in a brother and I don’t doubt that he means it. He then goes on to say that without religion there can be no virtue. Here he is referencing Dr. Benjamin Rush. God isn’t (and I’d argue shouldn’t be) the center of America’s life. It sounds like Zach thinks he should be. I think that a God, perhaps even the God that I believe in, is the center of many American’s lives. Assuming for the moment that God even could be the center of a country’s life, how would it look? Well, if goodness/generosity is a fruit of the spirit then that would be a part of what we would need to express in order to be a good, Godly nation.

The notion of letting someone pick one’s self up, he says in the second video, is an American virtue. We can’t guarantee equal outcomes. It’s up to us as individuals to figure out that course which will give us a state of comfortable subsistence. All of that is true, as far as it goes. None of that really sounds like generosity though. It sounds like rugged individualism (not necessarily a bad thing by itself) and not at all like having the giving and generous nature that God wants for us.

He goes on to say that the government can’t force us to be charitable. Charity comes from the heart. Forced charity equals theft. That’s all very true (except for maybe the last part which is arguable) and here’s where our goodness is put to the test. If government does take from us that which is “rightfully ours” what do we do? Do we joyfully accept the confiscation of our property and move on in a spirit of generosity? Or do we complain that we’re being dealt an injustice? (Please be aware that I don’t think that all the folks that were at this rally, Zach included, are “complainers” or aren’t generous.)

I suppose one could do both. It’s well within one’s rights as a citizen to protest bad taxes. Still I think any given generation had a significant portion of the populous (probably in any given country) that felt wronged by how the government spent “their” taxes. The question becomes, what do we as Christians do when that happens?

In the face of this, Zach says, “we are a giving people”. He goes on to say, “we give more as a percentage of GDP than any other country”. If that’s true (and the stats I’ve found don’t entirely back that up), is that alone enough to make us “good”?

As a nation we’ve done great things. We are certainly not, as some on the left have said, evil. Though, it should also be said, we have done and continue to do evil things. As individuals the Americans I know are, in general, “good” people, in the sense that they care about others and in the world’s eyes at least they could be a lot worse.

We all sin though and have fallen short of the glory of God. That is a Christian doctrine that I have no problem affirming. Given that, I’d be hard pressed to say that as a country, we’re “good”. I don’t think that’s something any one of us as citizens should take personally. I just think that we should be careful going about and telling others how good we are as a country, without something a little more solid to back it up.

Are We Good? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The first mistake is surely to condescend to fundamentalism. We may disagree with it, but it has attracted millions of adherents for centuries, and for a good reason. It elevates and comforts. It provides a sense of meaning and direction to those lost in a disorienting world. The blind recourse to texts embraced as literal truth, the injunction to follow the commandments of God before anything else, the subjugation of reason and judgment and even conscience to the dictates of dogma: these can be exhilarating and transformative. They have led human beings to perform extraordinary acts of both good and evil. And they have an internal logic to them. If you believe that there is an eternal afterlife and that endless indescribable torture awaits those who disobey God’s law, then it requires no huge stretch of imagination to make sure that you not only conform to each diktat but that you also encourage and, if necessary, coerce others to do the same. The logic behind this is impeccable.

If reading that stings you in any way, I’m guessing that you either are or were some sort of “fundamentalist” be that Christian or otherwise. I’m not sure that every word in that paragraph is necessarily true or that the whole thing is fair, but I share it because,
believe it or not, it described me once upon a time. These days, not so much. That level of certainty when it comes to every jot and tittle is beyond me.

I also share it because in talking to my friend Brad last night, the Uncertainty Principle came up. It states, for instance, that the more accurately you can describe a particle’s position, the less accurately you can describe its velocity. This isn’t a limitation of ability or science, it’s simply the way the universe works. Now, neither Brad nor myself is a scientist, and this is simply an analogy that came up, so forgive any damage done to the definition or its implications. But we saw an application in this to our faith. Being uncertain isn’t a bad thing.

A certain amount of uncertainty (heh) is practically required in our faith. Brad brought up Job. The man’s questions went largely unanswered, save for God basically saying, “are you me?”. Job accepted that he wasn’t God and would never have all of the answers and that was to his credit according to the scripture. For me it’s not that easy. I have these questions and I simply can’t not ask. So what can I do?

I can take comfort in knowing that while I don’t have the answer, that doesn’t mean there isn’t one. I can understand that God wasn’t angry at Job for asking the questions. He was angry at Job’s friends for misrepresenting him. I can try to grasp the notion that the more certain I am of God’s love and character, the less certain I might be about how that’s actually playing out in the world. And I can be okay with that.

For now.

The (Un)Certainty Principle is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

In any event this one was and remains particularly persistent. While I do feel better today than I have in some time, there is still a gauze over my spirit. Where once there was a crystal clear connection to the source of my beliefs (if battered by the occasional static), there is now for all practical purposes, nothing.

I was talking to a friend of mine (who shall remain nameless) about this and he said that he was experiencing something similar. In fact, if I’m not mis-characterizing what he said, he never really felt the same sort of emotional connection/resonance with God that I often talk about and that forms, or rather formed, the core of my faith. For him it’s more of an intellectual process.

I’m reading a couple of books by NT Wright (The Resurrection of the Son of God and Surprised by Hope) and they’re quite good and helpful. He presents some excellent arguments in my mind for the reality of the resurrection (if you want to deal with his arguments I suggest reading the books). It all feels more … intellectual than I’m used to though. Apologetics, even really good ones, seem less relational than the walk I’ve had with God to date.

We’re talking about the fruits of the Holy Spirit in church and the most recent one we talked about is patience. I’m having to rely on that to know how much longer I’ll be at sea. I’m not in my home port yet. Until then, expect me to drop the occasional note filled bottle over the side of my poor excuse for a sailing vessel.

photo credit Jimmy Coupe

At Sea is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I know it’s been a LONG time since my last post. I’ve been a busy little bee and not much in a blogger mode. I did want to share something special with you though. As some of you may know I’ve been working on an electronic magazine called Flagship for a new publishing company called Flying Island Press I’ve helped launch alongside Zach Ricks, Jeff Hite, Philip Carroll, and J-P Losier. We had our launch date yesterday and it was AWESOME.

I know there are some of you out there that might not want to buy something sight unseen and I respect that. As a result, we’re giving away one story in both audio and e-pub format. If you buy the magazine, you’ll get this story and five more for $1.99 for just the audio or text versions or $2.99 for both. I think that’s an outstanding deal.

The story we chose was “Inciting Incident” by Blake M. Petit. Choosing was hard, but we felt his story was indicative of the tone and quality we were shooting for. We at Flying Island Press hope you enjoy them!

E-pub Version
Audio Version

Celebrating Freedom is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There is at least one person in the Twitter ‘verse that I can think of who I thought was doing just that. Then I met this person and they had me convinced that the forward face we saw was it. Now I’m not so sure. In any event this is about me and not about them. It’s just that… I’m fairly certain that we’re all doing that to one degree or another in real life. It might bother some of us less than it bothers others and there are probably a few blessed souls out there who are exactly what you see. The question is, how much of it is healthy?

My good friend Mae said “there is a diff(erence) between being who you are fully and giving into thought patterns and attitudes that are not who you wanna be”. I think that hits pretty close to the mark. I shouldn’t be afraid to be who I am, so long as in the process I don’t become someone I really don’t want to be.

working…
working…
working…

Yeah, clear as mud.

So I guess rather than have an anonymous twitter account, I should probably just be who I am and do as good a job with that as I can. On the off chance I’m wrong and it’s good to have a safety valve and you have a thick skin and a good sense of humor then … look around. Maybe you’ll find it.

Keeping Up Appearances is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“Now is the time for fasting and prayer begging our Father’s forgiveness for destroying his creation with our carelessness and greed. We are all guilty. Have mercy on this country, O Lord. Free us from our addiction. Restore your ocean. Amen.”

It was put up on the projection screen and we were encouraged to read it as a group. I recited it, though there was something about it that bothered me. I chewed it over for a few days, trying to decide what it was.

Ultimately I can to this conclusion. I’ve always looked at corporate confession as us confessing our individual sins as one body. It didn’t feel like that was what we were doing there. It felt like we were confessing sins we committed as a body. Added to that, it felt like there was an agenda there. Now agendas aren’t necessarily a bad thing. However, even if we agree with the points on an agenda, we need to think about whether or not it’s a good thing by itself.

The thing it reminded me of most was the notion that many evangelicals put forth that’s relayed in 2 Chronicles 7:14

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

They use that verse to say that if we’ll just repent of the immorality that we have in our country that we’ll prosper. The immorality in question is often of the sort not actually practiced by the evangelical in question. So really they’re not repenting so much as they are finger pointing and blaming our lack of healing on the fact that those dirty sinners aren’t repenting.

What we “confessed” on Sunday felt an awful lot like that.

Now I know that we’re all guilty to varying degrees of hurting the planet and of greed. I also know that we’re all dependent on (if not addicted to) oil. Does that make this confession good/accurate? So I asked our pastor to expand on this. He had this to say:

I believe the church is responsible for confessing the corporate sins of the culture. We confess racism, violence, poverty, greed, and other issues that are everywhere. We bear the burden of the culture and ask God to come to help. We pray for our communities and do our best to represent them to God as we pray for their transformation and live that transformation in them. We mostly confess individual sin. Perhaps that’s not so good. It is good for us to understand the corporate nature of our faith and our link to the community we live in.

I agree with him that we as the church should pray for our communities. I also agree with his last sentence. It is good to understand the corporate nature of our faith and our link to the community. I’m not so sure that we’re responsible for confessing the “sins of our culture”.

Then again Nehemiah prays this in Chapter 1.

“O LORD, God of heaven, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and obey his commands, 6 let your ear be attentive and your eyes open to hear the prayer your servant is praying before you day and night for your servants, the people of Israel. I confess the sins we Israelites, including myself and my father’s house, have committed against you. 7 We have acted very wickedly toward you. We have not obeyed the commands, decrees and laws you gave your servant Moses.

But is that the same as confessing our part in what the oil companies have done? Whatever part that may be. I’m still conflicted about it, seeing the good and bad in it. I’m curious as to what your take is.

Corporate Confession is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“Rocking out” in a suit and tie.
Using scary ventriloquist dummies (any of them really).
Ranting about “the culture” and how sinful it is.
Using “cute” church signs.
“Reclaiming” ANYTHING.

This note is not telling you to stop doing any of these things (though if you did it wouldn’t hurt my feelings). It’s to tell you that I don’t think those things are doing anyone any good (not that God can’t use any of out attempts) and that there are better things you could be doing.

Feed the hungry.
Read the Bible.
Take someone out for a beverage of their choice and really talk (mostly listen).
Take your child fishing.
Start a blog.

Thanks.

Dear Fellow Believers… is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Leigh and I were up late last night talking and I wanted to find out what really bugged me about this. I think I hit on something. While there certainly isn’t anything wrong with having limits and accountability, I think there is something wrong with fencing one’s self completely in.

To help me go into that I’ll reproduce a response to that Facebook thread, a defense of Josh from one of his parishioners:

“He (Josh) had just preached a message from Mark 6 about Herod and his wacked out wife Herodias and the killing of John the Baptist. He spoke of how Herod had obviously not built many fences in his life and relationships, and this led to some pretty serious offenses, and that is putting it lightly.”

So the proposal is that if Herod had simply built some fences, presumably ones based on the Jewish faith, he would have been a lot better of a person. I find that more than a little odd. If Herod was a practicing Jew then he would have had the “fences” God put in place by which he could run his life. These fences, the Law, are certainly the basis for a solid way to run one’s life, even if you just stuck to the Decalogue. Since I’m reasonably sure that Herod wasn’t a practicing Jew he had whatever fences he built for himself.

What it sounds like here is that there is a proposition on the table that we need to build our own fences over and above the Law that God provides and that this will lead to a blameless life, or at least a more moral one. More on that in a second. The gent went on to say:

“Personally, I think our society could use a few more fences…..the cool thing is Christ gives us freedom in many areas as to where and how high those fences need to be.”

So yeah it seems like he’s advocating that our society needs more fences (“Biblical” ones presumably?) and that if we would all just follow the law we’d be better off. Better still if we add a few more fences of our own devising that keep us from jumping God’s fences. And apparently we have freedom from Christ as to where and how high these man made fences are.

Okay…

Deep breath…

Here’s the problem I have with this.

16So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. 17For the sinful nature desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the sinful nature. They are in conflict with each other, so that you do not do what you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law.
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. 25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. – Galatians 5

If we’re living by the Spirit we won’t gratify the desires of our sinful nature. If we’re living by the Spirit we’ll have (among other things) self control. If we’re led by the Spirit we’re not under law.

So if we build these fences are we not trusting ourselves or the Spirit? Are we saying “I don’t have self control so I’m going to advocate giving control to someone else so that I don’t fall and can remain blameless.”? It sounds like it to me.

Now just to try and be clear I’m not saying that if you live by the Spirit that you’ll never sin again. I know we’re not made completely perfect in this life. However, I do know that we can get better and that God can give us victory over sin. It doesn’t take good, strong, high fences to do that. It takes living by the Spirit. I’m also not saying that we shouldn’t have brothers to hold us accountable. That’s part of being in the body of Christ.

Ultimately what I’m working through here is the idea that fences don’t make a righteous society or a righteous individual. What they do make is bad theology.

Good Fences Make Bad Theology is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

We have a lot of idols in this society and no small number of them revolve around personal appearance and the effort to stay not only young but unnaturally fit. I recorded a podcast for Compassion365 on beauty that addressed a thought or two on this topic.

Now there’s nothing at all wrong with getting in shape and being healthy. I’d make the joke that I’m in shape and that that shape is slightly ovoid, but… oh wait I just did. There is however a problem when you push that past a healthy place and into “fighting and working against every natural instinct that there is” and when you try to look real good by feeling real bad. This obsession with becoming like the guy/girl in the ads can destroy people’s physical, economic, and mental health and all in pursuit of something that isn’t real.

Oh sure, the trainer in this video is real enough and he slaves away for hours every day to get and keep that reality. Like one gentleman said though, in referring to the workout machine ads, they take pros who have punished their bodies into shape and pose them with the machines, selling a falsehood. These ads for machines and pills and workout regimens promise that if you just do what they say then you’ll look just like the pictures they show you.

If you can get there, and I would imagine that there are some that do, though not many, then what?

Are you a better person? Will people respect and admire you? Will grown men slap you on the back and will beautiful women swoon (or vice versa)?

What they’re selling to you isn’t health, it’s an image, an idol. Being healthy is great, but shooting to end up like Mr. Universe or Chuck Norris by buying a bottle of pills or a stack of DVDs is short sighted and I’ll even go so far as to say foolish. I say that not just because of the fact that you will likely fail. I say that because chasing a certain appearance will not satisfy you even if you manage to attain it. More importantly, it won’t satisfy God either.

When Jon sent me the trailer earlier today, my first thought was of a passage from 1 Samuel 16.

6 When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.”
7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”

Many of us see a person on TV or walking down the street and say, “I want to be like him/her!” We’ll sacrifice time, money, whatever it takes to be pleasing in men’s eyes. How much effort do we put forth to be pleasing in God’s? How hard would you work, fighting against your “natural instincts” to sin? Do you have as big a heart for God as you do for being a perfect 10?

I Wanna Be Like Him! is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

As each speaker was brought up, the leader would read an introduction written by the speaker’s wife. They were largely ringing endorsements of the individuals and none of them knew that it was coming prior to the retreat, so that was pretty cool. During Hunter’s intro, his wife told him to relate the “nun joke” and so he did. It was a story about his sons when they were young. They were playing in the car and Hunter was watching them from inside their house. He saw them roll down the window and shout something at some passing nuns. Interested in seeing what it was all about, Hunter came to the front porch and realized that both boys were yelling obscenities. In the interest in avoiding any offense to my readers I will avoid repeating that here (though admittedly I feel conflicted in doing that).

Those words offended some that were present. Now to take Hunter’s side, he was just repeating what his sons said. It was clear that his boys had no clue what they were actually saying and it made the story (at least in my opinion) funnier to hear Hunter shout it. It didn’t end there tough. The rest of his talks were lightly peppered with a few other choice words (or so I’m told). The only one I can think of right of the top of my head was the use of the actual noun for a female dog in heat (interestingly enough actually referring to that very creature). I’m sure though that there were others. This shocked some of our visiting guys who had never heard a pastor use that language before. For all I know it offended some others who said nothing.

This offense was actually a large part of a conversation I had with a couple of lads that lasted well until the wee hours (about three in the morning). The question being, should a pastor (or any Christian) ever “swear”? Is that a sin?

Well James talks a lot about the tongue and how we should use it. The verse often picked out is:

James 3:9 “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.”

The word curse there means “to curse, doom, imprecate evil upon” and is the same word used a few times in that passage. This is not about the words themselves but about what you do with those words. What is your intent in using them? I think that’s what’s important here.

Ephesians also has a lot to say on this matter:

Eph. 4:29 “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”

Eph. 5:4 “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.”

Those are a bit more pointed and it seems clear that some of what went on could be considered obscenity/unwholesome talk and likely is by some folks. There’s also the notion that we need to consider the “weaker brother” and the possibility that we need to avoid offending someone but in the light of these verses those points seem secondary if not tertiary to me. It’s not that they’re not important, but if the reason we need to avoid these things is that they’re a sin then that seems most worthy of addressing.

The problem here seems to be that we define what coarse joking or obscenity or foolish talk is by the words themselves. Ultimately that’s a little tricky. If we go down that path then it’s all very subjective. We develop these lists based on what our culture (and the notion of culture is much more narrow than I think most folks like to admit) deems inappropriate. The use of the word bitch is a perfect example. Some people think that you shouldn’t use that word under any circumstance. Because our culture (or at least some in our larger American culture) have deemed it offensive, then they would argue that this word should never be used about anything, not even the appropriate use that Hunter gave it.

To me these sorts of fences are awfully arbitrary. Even in the first Ephesians verse it seems to me that Paul is still looking at what effect these words are having on people. I think that is what’s important. If we are using words, whether they are on “the list” or not, to hurt people then it is clear to me that that is a sin. If I use a word that you find offensive in and of itself, but I’m using it to relate a story to make a salient point and censoring would blunt the impact of the story, then I say use the word. If leaving it out doesn’t reduce the story’s efficacy (a call I think is up to the author/teller) then I say air on the side of caution. Consider your audience and decide if it’s really necessary to “salt” your language.

The Bible itself. even Christ himself, used language that both their original audiences and modern day ones would find offensive or crude. Jon pointed out Ezekiel 23:20 and 16:17. Christ and Paul both used language that seem designed to offend. There was a good reason for those words being in there though. They were there to impact people. They were often wake up calls, chosen to benefit the hearer in some way.

I think that is how we should decide on how to speak.

Salty Language is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Mentioned in this podcast:Let Christians Vote As Though They Were Not Voting

Promo played for Are You Just Watching

Spiritual Stew: Episode 16 – Your Jesus is Too Safe is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Apparently the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law has a policy that if you are to be an officially recognized student group, you have to follow their non-discrimination policy. If you do that then you can use their logo, you get a small stipend, and you get access to some facilities and a school email address. If you don’t then you can still meet, you just don’t get those perks.

This wasn’t an issue for the Christian organization until they joined the national chapter. Once they did, they were required to accept the group’s ban on homosexuals or non-Christians in leadership positions. CLS claims in its brief (which isn’t):

For Hastings College of the Law to force the Christian Legal Society chapter to admit nonadherents into its leadership and voting ranks—on pain of exclusion from an otherwise open speech forum—violates Petitioner’s rights of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion.

In order to vote or be an officer in this group:

“… must exemplify the highest standards of morality as set forth in Scripture” in order “that their profession of Christian faith is credible.” Id. at 102a-103a. Officers also must “abstain[] from ‘acts of the sinful nature,’ including those in Galatians 5:19-21; Exodus 20; Matthew 15:19; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.”

So, basically you have to abstain from breaking the ten commandments, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy, evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander. The lawyer jokes practically write themselves…

So basically, I don’t think anyone could be a part of their little group. This doesn’t sound like a Christian group to me. Heck they don’t even hold Deacons/Elders in my church to these sorts of standards! Anyone else see a problem here?

This takes me back to my own halcyon days at college. I applied to be a part of a Christian fraternity (another oxymoron?) and they rejected my application because I wasn’t Christian enough.

Look people, if you want to form a group and slap the label Christian on it, then make sure you’re adhering to Christ’s own admonitions. What are those? “I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” There are more, but these are a good place to start.

And if you do get busted for acting like you didn’t remember these verses from your Bible study, then don’t claim that if you did, that it would endanger everyone else’s freedom. Cause that’s just cheap.

Help, Help, We’re Being Repressed! is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Mentioned:

Drew Beatty
http://www.drewbeatty.com/
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/drewbeatty
http://twitter.com/drewbeatty

James Melzer
http://jamesmelzer.net/
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/jjmelzer
http://twitter.com/Melzer

Scott Roche
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/ScottRoche

Paul E. Cooley
http://shadowpublications.com/?q=node/167

Zach Ricks
http://www.madpoetfiles.com/

Jennifer Hudock
http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/jennybeans
http://jennybeans.net/2010/04/10/the-dark-side-anthology-project/

Critters.org E-book Pricing Survey
http://critters.org/surv/

Jake Bible
http://jakebible.com/

E-book Chat is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

If you click the picture and go to his blog you’ll see it inspired a whole bunch of comments as you can imagine. Some come from atheists and some from believers all pitching in their two cents. After chatting it over with Jon I figure I’d pitch in mine here on the blog.

I’m not going to presume what NP meant with the cartoon. He seems to be a veteran pot stirrer/question asker so maybe that’s all he was doing. I will say that after having run it through the veg-o-matic that is my brain pan, that I have come to the following conclusion. I think that there is a segment of Christianity that puts too much emphasis on a “closer walk with Jesus” or a “personal walk with Jesus”.

We are followers of Christ, so don’t get me wrong. We need to be walking as Christ would have us walk, but is it just me and Buddy Jesus?

I don’t think so. Jesus isn’t my homeboy and he and I aren’t walking together, just the two of us, down a long beach somewhere. I’m walking with my friends and relations in Christ. Where multiples are gathered together, Christ is there. And naturally God is everywhere. The fallacy here is, if fallacy’s the right word, that it’s me and Jesus against the world. That’s the message that this personal walk imagery seems to be sending and I don’t think that’s healthy.

Here’s what I think. For me, this is a picture (David’s, not Buddy Jesus) of my understanding of my relationship with him. When I was young in the faith, I needed to follow him closely and to feel that he was here beside me at all times. Now that I’ve got some maturity on me, I don’t think it needs to be that way. I’m not saying I don’t need Jesus or that I’m not following him, just that I don’t have to be arm in arm with him, or have that feeling.

There came a time when Jesus sent his disciples out into the world. They didn’t go alone. They had the word that Jesus gave them and they had the Holy Spirit. They also had each other. In fact Jesus seemed to send them out in pairs so they wouldn’t be going it alone.

So, here I am, a follower of Christ, walking in the Spirit, walking with my fellow believers, and all of us following Christ. Will you walk with us?

A Closer Walk With Thee is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Help a brother (and our community) out by taking a few minutes and filling it out!

Podcast Survey is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Promo for http://www.classicyak.org/ played.

Spiritual Stew: Episode 15B – Love the Sinner is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I’m an animal lover, much like Swoopy proclaims herself to be towards the end of the episode. I totally think that we should treat animals as well as we can and that includes making sure that they aren’t abused/mistreated by people that aren’t as conscientious about it as we are. That extends into farming and medical research and a whole host of other areas. If you sense a big but coming here…

But, I hit the following statement, “parts of Eastern NC are uninhabitable because of the waste from pig farms” and it stopped me. Those parts of North Carolina weren’t really inhabitable before the farms arrived (most of Eastern NC is made up of reclaimed swamp land). I know that’s not really his point, but it’s not as though pig farming wrecked nice property where people were flocking to build houses. What pig farming did and does do is provide people jobs and affordable food.

I know that factory farms are bad for the environment in some ways and that no one is required to eat meat. I won’t argue that. But there seems to be this notion that by somehow making “small choices” and striving to eat local rather than farmed foods we can turn this whole bus around. There are a couple of problems with that and I’m not sure how we can make them surmountable.

First and biggest, eating right is expensive. Buying certified organic foods or foods that were farmed locally simply costs a lot and in a lot of cases if you live in rural America, you’re just not going to have access (the irony of that isn’t lost on me). My wife who does most of the food buying in our family does an outstanding job of making sure that we eat as many veggies/fruits as possible and that we don’t eat a lot of processed foods. We do from time to time for convenience’s sake, but in addition to that sometimes we have to just to make ends meet.

Secondly, eating non-processed foods can often mean cooking from scratch. I know that’s easy and maybe you know that’s easy, but for some reason there are a lot of folks out there that don’t cook from scratch. I’ve heard every reason from “I don’t have time.” to “I don’t know how.”. Most of their reasons are pretty bogus to be sure. Cooking from scratch isn’t hard or time consuming really, but to get people to see that means a pretty dramatic paradigm shift.

So my point is, mainly, that the changes that need to be made are neither small nor simple. It really is a cultural change that needs to happen. For the sort of person that would read the good doctor’s book it may be as simple as buying a nylon bag or going to their local fresh market. In many cases I’m sure they already are. For many of the rest of us though, I’m not sure what it will take to make his goals realistic or manageable.

I tweeted that I think many animal rights folks go too far. I don’t think that’s because they love animals more than they do people (though some might) as they have often been characterized. I think it’s just that when you get too close to a problem, you can lose sight of just how big that problem is and how your proposed solution may impact the rest of society.

While this isn’t exactly a spiritual issue per se, I do think that Christians have a responsibility to be good stewards with our planet and all of its resources. The caricature of most of us is the anti-environmentalist and I’m not sure where that comes from. I think much of it might be a reaction to the environmentalists like Dr. Bekoff who seem not to understand or at least address the deeper cultural issues at stake.

So my question is (getting back to the food issues), how do we talk to one another? I don’t think there’s a disagreement that we are as a nation far to unhealthy when it comes to our eating habits. In watching Food Revolution it’s plain that on some level and for no reason I can gather, people are woefully ignorant, in spite of all of the science behind what it means to eat right. But because there is so much emotion wrapped up in what and how we eat, it’s one of those land mine conversations.

Food Husbandry is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Music from3rd Man, called Blind Spot.

Spiritual Stew: Episode Fifteen – Holiday Hijack is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

So go have a look. It’s available in just about every format they have. You can read the first half for free and see if you think it’s worth the price. A few people have bought it at this point. You can also review it and rate it over there and that would be a big help to me. I’ll be putting up a short story a month at least over there so you can always bookmark my author page and check back periodically.

I should add that the cover art was done by Dan Absalonson and I thank him for that.

Finally, I’m curious to know from anyone reading this who might not buy the short story as to why? I need to know if price or payment is a barrier or if it’s the story itself or the fact that you don’t want to read it off a screen. Any and all feedback welcome.

Bitter Release – A Short Story is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

So in case you haven’t heard, there’s a bill that’s been passed recently that may have some implications on the future of our country. I haven’t read it. I don’t know if it will drive our country into the ground or lift us up into the heights. Here are some things I do know.

We live in a country where it is necessary for organizations like Remote Area Medical to provide health care to rural America, much the same as you might see in a third world country.

We live in a country where your health insurance is tied to your employer, a horrible idea in my mind.

We live in a country where we spend the most per capita but our life expectancy ranks 27th.

I’m not sure that anyone is arguing that we don’t need to change things (though I have heard it said that we have the best health care system in the world, still waiting on the proof of that). The question is what to change. One problem is that when people say “health care” they likely mean all kinds of things. You know what though? This isn’t even about that. We could spend hours/days/months/years talking about that. We could be here all year talking about whether or not what happened on Sunday night sent us down the slippery slope to socialism. And what would we get? Nowhere fast. After all, as I’ve heard said more than once in the last 72 hours, we’ve been talking about this and working on it for one. hundred. years.

Here’s what I’d like to talk about. Reformation.

Three things bring this up:

First, a quote by Representative Nunes (CA-R) “We’re not using fear tactics, but if you’re not afraid of where this country is going…you should be!”

Second, a link send to me by a friend, http://www.russellmoore.com/2010/03/22/dont-be-afraid/, the money quote of which for me is (shut up grammar Nazis) “if what you’re afraid of is a politician or a policy or a culture or the future of Western civilization, don’t give up the conviction but give up the fear. Work for justice. Oppose evil. But do it so that your opponents will see not fear but trust, optimism, and affection”.

Third, an email send to me by another friend, the gist of which is, “Should we as Christians really honestly be incensed by this bill?”

Here’s my answer. Ready for this? We need the reformation, not health care. The government is going to do what it’s going to do. It’s never, ever going to do the one hundred percent right thing, ever. That’s even assuming that there is a one hundred percent right thing TO do in this case or any other. The question we need to ask ourselves is, why are we here and what do we need to do?

The Bible answers that. We are here to love God and love our neighbor (beginning to feel like a broken record here).

We’re not here to vote the “right way” (though I’m not here to stop you from voting). We’re not here to send out spam emails talking trash about the President (past, present, or future) or any other politician. We’re not here to demean people on the right for “not caring” (they do for the most part) or people on the left for be “socialists” (they aren’t for the most part). Heck, we’re not even here to write blog articles about how fed up we are with this whole business. (oops)

We as a church can help solve this and a whole host of social issues if we would just put on our big boy/girl pants and put as much or more time, money, and energy into feeding, clothing, and in general helping as we do on whinging, in fighting, and making ourselves and our church buildings look good. Look I know we’re not perfect. I also know that in this very blog post I have about four fingers pointed back at me. I’m not trying to be a hypocrite and I hope I’m (not) succeeding (whatever makes me not a hypocrite).

All I know is that President Obama, who I believe is a Christian, saw a need and tried to do something about it. As I said, it’s not a perfect attempt and who knows where it will put us, but for right now I say we use that as something to push us forward. If you think health care reform is going to put us in a deep hole then I recommend you start helping your neighbor build stairs. That’s gonna require getting to know that neighbor. If you think it’s going to fix everything health care wise (it ain’t) then you tackle something else. If you see a problem in your community that can be solved with Godly love, compassion, and wisdom then get to work. If you don’t then may I humbly suggest you aren’t looking.

We need to reform what we’ve been doing/not doing for the last hundred years or more and be the true body of Christ in this country and abroad ’cause what we have been doing is not working. Mostly I think that’s been letting the government do stuff for us. Maybe if we do what we should there would be a lot fewer people who “need” government help.

(rant over)

The Reformation is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The basic premise of the book was this: there are two churches in America. The church of Law as he defines it is in essence what I would call Orthodox Christianity. They believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ. They believe in an eternal reward. The generally accept the entirety of the scripture as the revealed truth of God. They tend to place more importance on the great commission (spread the gospel) than the great commandment (love your neighbor). The Church of Love on the other hand is in essence any Christian of a more Unitarian bent, who views the great commandment as the end all of the faith and who at the very least doesn’t view any of the things that I mentioned about the church of Law as being either central or perhaps even important to their faith.

The Church of Law, he goes on to say, has essentially dominated American Christianity for the last hundred and fifty years or so and gives points as to how/why he believes that happened. That has lead us to the place today where this Church of Law has become a political/social powerhouse and has “betrayed Jesus” and his message. Here’s the thing. I don’t entirely disagree with him. There is a section of the church that focuses too much on the law. This is hardly anything new, though. Paul himself, a man that Bawer heaps a fair amount of hate/blame on, called these forces down in the second chapter of Romans.

As an example of the Church of Love he points to the Modernist movement of the early twentieth century, particularly the ministry of Harry Fosdick. Modernists were characterized by taking the Bible less as the directly received will/word of God. They also tended to focus on a “social gospel” not unlike the social justice movement that has gotten a lot of press recently. I consider myself to be more of a member of this so called Church of Love, but upon reading through the book, it’s clear to me that Bawer would disagree.

So here’s my take on the line in the sand that Bawer drew. It’s almost completely false.

Don’t get me wrong. There are certainly legalistic churches in this country. They want to deny evolution, burn books, fulfill every “negative” stereotype of Christianity that you can drum up. Some of those people have taken it upon themselves to politicize their faiths and try and make this the law of the land. On the opposite end of the spectrum there does exist a “Church of Love” as he would have it called. I think perhaps the Emergent movement is the 21st century equivalent of the Modernists. They infuse their faith with pop culture references and focus more on finding the next spiritual experience. While this latter group might not be as openly political as their more conservative fellows, I think that’s coming.

Overwhelmingly though, I believe that most believers in this country and in the world struggle to find some balance between law and grace. Both exist in the Bible and ignoring either one does damage to the overall message that the Bible and our faith carries. Taking a literal view of the creation or of Christ’s resurrection doesn’t make you a legalist. Believing that there’s a place in our churches for homosexuals or that we need to actively fight against poverty shouldn’t make you anathema. To paraphrase Fosdick’s sermon “Shall the Fundamentalists Win?”, I think that it’s unforgivable for either side to be pointing fingers in an effort to decide who’s Christian and who isn’t when there’s so much work to be done.

We don’t need to be the “Church of Law” or the “Church of Love”, we need to be the Church that is the body of Christ, undivided by denominational differences or petty bickering and united not just in the great commandment to love our neighbor but also in the great commission to share the good news of Christ with everyone around us.

Church of Law vs. Church of Love is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Things mentioned:
Conversation with Dan Sawyer
Creation
Abortion
Science
Rabbit trails (ht to http://www.thejenanddaveshow.com)
Conversation with Brad

Promo for http://www.jtindie.com/ played.

Spiritual Stew: Episode 14 – Anti-Intellectualism is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Well maybe you heard about what Glen Beck said:

I’m begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them…are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words ’social justice’ or ‘economic justice’ on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words.

Now if you’re like me, you probably don’t much care what Mr. Beck says so I don’t want to make this about him. What I do want to do is take this and unpack it. I know the term gets used in both political and religious circles and means different things to different people. Apparently it was coined by A Jesuit priest name Luigi Taparelly. There wasn’t a great deal of explanation as to what he meant by it (at least not that I could understand), but I think it’s important to note that at its origins it wasn’t a liberal political/communist/socialist issue.

In our church it seems to be used in circumstances where we as believers are called to act in our community to see the needs of the poor and disadvantaged met. It’s not a call to influence the government or to seek solutions from them. As frequent commenter on this blog Chris Walker said, that just sounds like charity. I suppose he’s right, depending on how you define charity. With a broad definition that would fit. But is that all there is to it?

Jason Rennie points us to Leviticus 19:15 – “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.” What does showing partiality to the poor look like?

I’m not sure. It seems like there’s more. What do you think? What are our responsibilities as believers in this arena? Is there anything that goes beyond charity that we’re called to do in the community?

Social Justice is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

I’ll admit I wasn’t too sure about getting it done to my kids since I was raised with the notion of a “believer’s baptism” firmly entrenched in my mind. After I thought about it though and had it explained to me by some of the elders in my church I decided to go ahead with it and each of my children was baptized as an infant.

Essentially Presbyterians look at it as akin to circumcision. It’s a symbol of you being in the covenant family. Though it’s not a visible mark, it serves the same purpose. There’s no salvation implied for the baby as their might be with someone who engages in a “believer’s baptism” situation. Basically the parents and the church agree to work together to raise the child in a way that pleases God, teaching them about our religion our beliefs.

So I was reading the Bible this morning and came across Romans 2:25-26. “25Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26If those who are not circumcised keep the law’s requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised?” I think this applies to baptism as well. To me the parallels seem obvious.

Whether you’re baptized as an infant, as an adult believer, or not at all what’s more important is that you have the Gospel. If you don’t have that, no amount of water is going to make you one of God’s children. That’s not to say that baptism isn’t important. It has its place as circumcision did, but the water isn’t the active agent in any of this. I’m not sure that anyone’s arguing that in the case of the believers who are baptized as adults. I just want it to be clear to those that are anti-”paedo baptsim” that we don’t believe it is in the case of children either.

Baptism and Circumcision is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel thing other than that which we preached unto you we have decided is that which you should believe to be absolutely true, let him be anathema. Galatians 1:8 remix

We believers split up pretty easily over things that aren’t the Gospel.

Baptism? Not the Gospel.
Communion? Not the Gospel.
Church polity? Not the Gospel.
Preferred version of the Bible? Not the Gospel.

What is the Gospel? It is that “the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand”. It is “the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”. Addendum – Salvation itself is not the gospel, but it is a result of or as a friend put it “an implication of” the gospel, the Kingdom of God being at hand.

These things are worth getting excited about. These things are perhaps even worth letting someone be anathema, should they preach a different set of good news.

So let me ask you, what gospel is your church preaching?

Anathema is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

For some people “are atheists because of a higher implicit theism than that professed by believers. They reject God because His name has been taken in vain, and they are unable to distinguish between His holiness and its profanation.” In other words, they rebel, both intellectually and morally, against what legalistic faiths have made of God, “both in the realm of truth and in the realm of the good, in both culture and ethics.”

Now I don’t know if there really are any (functioning) atheists that arrived where they are because of this, but it’s in line with a thought I had yesterday. In some ways, the church has done more damage to people’s faith than a thousand million Dawkins/Darwins/Hitchens. When someone steps out of our theological comfort zone we can be so quick to tell them how wrong they are and that the error is going to lead them out of the body. You tell someone that often enough and they’ll start believing it. If they do then they’ll either give up telling you that they believe what they do and go along to get along or they’ll just throw their hands up and leave. Sure, they might also come to agree with you, but have you done God’s work in that case? Or are we profaning God by taking his place in the judgment seat?

Now just for the sake of clarification I do think there are times that a person can be in legitimate danger of heresy, but I would argue that those cases are rarer than we really want to make them.

Profaning God is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Parkour – Simple Truths from Danny Pack on Vimeo.

I particularly like this one since it’s a bit more raw, but I could watch them for hours. So now that you’ve seen it, what’s the point of Parkour? For those that don’t know, the philosophy of parkour is as follows:

Parkour is the physical discipline of training to overcome any obstacle within one’s path by adapting one’s movements to the environment.

• Parkour requires… consistent, disciplined training with an emphasis on functional strength, physical conditioning, balance, creativity, fluidity, control, precision, spatial awareness, and looking beyond the traditional use of objects.
• Parkour movements typically include… running, jumping, vaulting, climbing, balancing, and quadrupedal movement. Movements from other physical disciplines are often incorporated, but acrobatics or tricking alone do not constitute parkour.
• Parkour training focuses on… safety, longevity, personal responsibility, and self-improvement. It discourages reckless behavior, showing off, and dangerous stunts.
• Parkour practitioners value… community, humility, positive collaboration, sharing of knowledge, and the importance of play in human life, while demonstrating respect for all people, places, and spaces.

—American Parkour Community Definition [2]

So what does this have to do with Christianity? Well I’m reading this book called Stealing Jesus and while I plan on dealing with that in what will probably be a series of posts, watching this old video and chatting with a buddy made me think that there’s something in common with the way Christianity is looked at in Bawer’s book and how a traceur (one who practices parkour) looks at obstacles in his path.

When Fundamentalists are presented with an obstacle, such as evolution, they would would tend to either ignore the issue outright as long as possible, or fabricate some elaborate solution to get over/under/around it. Neither ignorance about it, nor building bridges or tunnels in the form of “creation science” seems like a particularly good solution to me. While they are certainly “solutions” of a sort, their use of avoidance techniques looks unhealthy. I understand the notion that the paths we have followed for generations are “good enough for me” as the song goes. I know the argument that says that engaging with the culture can lead to tainting our beliefs or harming us spiritually. Why climb a wall when we can go around it? Why swim through a river when we can dam it or build a bridge? Those are common questions and I think we can learn a thing or two from the traceur.

“Modernist” Christians, a term in vogue in the ’30s, took a different tack. They embraced the things some Christians look at as obstacles. The knowledge that science brought was (rightly so) looked at as a good thing. Instead of reacting to it or treating it as adversarial to God’s word, they tried to understand how to move through a life of faith with that new understanding as a part of it. It lead them to ask questions about their understanding of the creation accounts in the Bible and to ask if they were intended to be literally true or if there was another purpose for their being there. The “gymnastics” that modernists or emergent brethren are accused of going through may look a lot like the things that traceurs do, but just as the above points say, they aren’t doing it to show off. Science and culture aren’t things to be avoided or blown off. We need to deal with them. But again, why? Where’s the benefit in this?

In short I believe that engaging with the world around you can give you a more robust faith. Too many Christians I see every day have their heads down and accept what they are fed without asking questions. They live the life they are told to live and only seek out experiences that are approved of by their pastor/church/friends. The take the safe, clear route rather than the more direct and interesting one. Will that get you want to go? Sure. Ultimately I do believe that both the avoider and the engager will end up in the same place, but what sort of life are we called to?

Now there are dangers if you take the path less traveled. As it is with parkour, discipline is required as is a fair amount of flexibility. We need to be aware of the challenges around us and face them, looking beyond the “traditions” for ways to understand the world we live in. There’s definitely something to be said for examining the ways others do things, whether we agree with them or not, and using those ways to improve ourselves. Regardless of which way you choose to go though, that last bullet point is something that we could all benefit from, Christians or not. Whatever path we choose, we must value “community, humility, positive collaboration, sharing of knowledge, and the importance of play in human life, while demonstrating respect for all people, places, and spaces”.

A Robust Faith is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

It caused me to tweet “If you want to “think Biblically” (whatever that means) why would you read John MacArthur’s book about it and not just read the Bible?” Now that was part serious question and part me chumming the waters to see what others would think. I don’t know anything about the book beyond what the Amazon blurb says:

What we think shapes who we are. That’s why the Bible tells us, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind” (Romans 12:2a). In a world of differing voices competing for our allegiance, we must learn to “think biblically” so we can distinguish good from evil. God is the Creator of this world; his voice-his Word-must guide our thoughts and our lives.

With the Bible in their hands, John MacArthur and other scholars and teachers from the Master’s College confront the false worldviews that dominate our postmodern world. The authors provide models for cultivating a biblical mind-set on worship, psychology, gender, science, education, history, government, economics, and literature. This book will help anyone who is striving to think biblically in today’s culture.

Last night I didn’t even know that much. Let me say this. I don’t think that books on the Bible, commentaries and history and the like are bad things. As Brian aka MisterDubbs said “It’s arrogant to assume that by reading the Bible and the Bible alone we will have all the requisite knowledge to understand it in all its cultural, historical, and theological implications.” I think that’s accurate. It was a series of texts written by men thousands of years ago. We have a hard enough time interpreting modern literature that originates in our own culture. So a little help is a good thing.

What I do have a problem with are books that purport to tell us how to think. I’m skeptical when it comes to any book/person that says “your way of thinking/acting/living is bad, here’s how you should think/act/live”. (Yes I realize that the Bible does that and I’m suspicious of people using it to tell me how to think/act/live too.) That’s what this book and whole hosts of books seem to be doing.

“Grow your kids God’s way!”, “Live your best life now!”, and now “Think like the Bible would have you think!”. People, well meaning people, are reading these books to figure out how God wants them to live. I don’t really fault them for that. This is a complicated world (it always has been) and seeking answers is legitimate. I believe that the Bible has some of those answers and I also believe that your fellow man can have some as well. I just believe being in community with other believers who challenge what we believe and who struggle along side us to learn what God has to say to us is more useful than the latest Christian self-help missive or commentary will ever be.

Am I over reacting? Are these books really useful? Will people use these books alongside the Bible and in communtiy to figure out the answers to their questions, instead of swallowing their favorite Christian guru’s opinions whole? Help me think this through here.

Thinking Biblically is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

What does being a friend mean to you? What does it take for you to call someone your friend?
How has social media affected our definition of the words “community” and “friend”. Has it diluted it, broadened it, both?

The consensus seems to be that a friend is someone that you can call on in your time of need. I think that’s certainly one good criteria. That latter question ended up getting me a wider variety of answers. Before I delve into that, let me tell you what prompted these questions in the first place. It gets back to my podcast on critique.

One of the answers I kept getting, whether stated or implied, was that one didn’t critique one’s friends publically. Setting aside the notion of whether or not that’s true, what really jumps out at me is the notion that if you follow someone on Twitter or Facebook you are a friend of theirs on some level. I think that dilutes the definition of friend, at least the idea that a friend is someone that you can rely on and that you can share meaningful parts of your life with.

Don’t get me wrong, I do have “real” friends on Twitter, Facebook, and in the blogging/podcasting community. Some of these people I’ve met only a few times and others not at all. I wouldn’t have met most of these people any other way. So in that sense, it may have broadened my definition of friendship/community to include people I’m not physically proximal to. Those are people that I will share my deeper thoughts/doubts/fears with. Those are people I would “take aside” and hold accountable or challenge. I also expect those people to do the same for me.

Those people are only a small percentage of my crowd/tribe/whatever though. If I follow you or friend you that likely means I’m interested in what you’re saying. It certainly means that potential friendship is there, though as I told one guy, forming/maintaining friendships strictly through social media is practically speaking exponentially more difficult. It means I will be “friendly” with you, applying the Golden Rule as liberally as I can. More than likely though you’re not my friend and none of the rights and honors thereto appertaining, appertain to you. So in that sense my concept of community/friendship stays pretty tight.

I don’t want to water the word “friend” and I fear that the wider the social media net goes, the more likely that is to happen, at least on a macro level. What about you? Thoughts?

Friending is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Shows/People referenced:

Braindouche
Zach Ricks
Brand Gamblin
Dan Rabarts
Rich Asplund Jr
ObiOrion
Pip Ballantine
Tee Morris
Rick Castello
Michael Falkner
Marnen Laibow-Koser
Dan Absalonson
Alasdair Stuart
Steve Eley
Nathan Lowell

Blogs mentioned:
Why Michell Plested cares about critiques and feedback.
Why Odin One-Eye reviews podcasts.
Svallie’s take on reviewer’s ethics.

Public Critique is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

He says that the concept of Non-overlapping Magesteria, which is similar to what I’m proposing, isn’t historically representative of the relationship between science and religion. That may very well be true, in fact I guess based on his examples I know it to be true. I suppose when I think of religion I’m thinking of it as a tool though. Not how that tool has been used, but how it should be used. Again, just trying to think this through and I could well be wrong, but here goes.

Let’s go back, let’s go way back. Religion was a tool that man used historically to explain things going on around them and more than likely they didn’t make a clear cut distinction between the natural and the supernatural. if it rained, a natural phenomenon, they may come up with a supernatural cause. Let me pause here and say that I think all religions (even my own) were sort of manufactured by men. I think that Christians/Jews had the advantage of the basis of their religion, their relationship with God, being true. So, man historically used religion as a tool for everything from examining the natural universe, to making laws, to relating to their god(s).

Along comes science. Science as earlier defined is based on observation and reproducible test results and not on superstition or mythology. I think that gives us better results where the tool is appropriately used. Currently science does have a lot of useful things to tell us about human nature, consciousness, the ultimate nature of reality, origins, endings, and morality. I think religion certainly has things to say about those topics too. So I suppose making a stark contrast between the natural and the supernatural and thus making a stark contrast between science and religion may be a mistake.

It seems that the magesteria do overlap to a degree, whether its simply bumping up against one another or getting thoroughly muddled. It doesn’t surprise me. There’s nothing magical about either “magesteria” after all. They are tools and like any tools they can be misused. If the only tool you have is hammer then everything you encounter may look like a nail. Sometimes, just like physical tools, science and religion can be misused by themselves to answer questions they aren’t best suited for and sometimes they can be used in tandem for a better result.

Stephen Jay Gould, advocate of the NOMA view seems to indicate this in this quote:

[E]ach subject has a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority … This resolution might remain all neat and clean if the nonoverlapping magisteria (NOMA) of science and religion were separated by an extensive no man’s land. But, in fact, the two magisteria bump right up against each other, interdigitating in wondrously complex ways along their joint border. Many of our deepest questions call upon aspects of both for different parts of a full answer—and the sorting of legitimate domains can become quite complex and difficult.

Dan goes on to say that religions’ focus is “on securing and/or maintaining power” and is “concerned with controlling the behavior of beings in the temporal world”. Again I can’t argue that this hasn’t pretty consistently been the case. I would argue that this is not the fault of the tool or in fact its actual purpose. People have used science and philosophy and probably another thing or two lying about for the exact same purposes. That is a people problem.

He closes by saying:

Besides, I daresay that a religion which made no claims about reality, made no demands on its patrons, promised no rewards (temporal, eternal, or existential), and said nothing substantive about human nature would maintain a hold on parishioners for very long. Don’t believe me? Look at the thin attendance of liberal protestant churches compared to moderate and conservative ones.

All religions I’m aware of do all of these things. My original definition said that religion was “to put us in touch with whatever we believe to be true about something that exists outside of the natural realm”. There will be claims about where reality meets god. There will be demands made on how we are to relate to the supernatural and the natural. There will be rewards, though in Christianity most of those rewards are rightly laid up in Heaven and thus supernatural, not all of them are. They do say something about human nature and since there is something of the divine in us it is right for religion to speak to those areas. So religion is not purely supernatural, but it is that which allows us to examine where the supernatural and the natural collide and influence one another, something science can’t do.

If I Had a Hammer is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

During the discussion the question was asked, “Is science diametrically opposed to religion?” Both Zach Ricks and I agreed that that wasn’t the case. He said, “Some people believe that science destroys faith, I don’t agree with that stance at all.” To which I replied, in agreement, the “the two are examining different things.” Writer, philosopher, and all around cool guy J. Daniel Sawyer tagged me on Skype and asked me if I’d like to flesh out and debate that point on our respective blogs. Always ready to cross swords, I agreed. We put it up to age before beauty and since we’re both pretty grizzly looking (in the bear sense) age won out so I get to fire the first volley.

Thanks to Sid I’ve learned that defining my terms is pretty important in these sorts of situations. The definition of science to which I refer is “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method” aka natural science. That is defined as “any of the sciences (as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena”. Science deals with the natural world. It tells us things like how and at what temperature water freezes. It tells us how species adapt to their surroundings and pass that on to their young. It describes the processes of the universe, at least so far as we are currently able to measure and observe them.

Religion on the other hand serves a very different purpose. Again, referring to Webster, religion is “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices”. The purpose of such a system is to put us in touch with whatever we believe to be true about something that exists outside of the natural realm, at least that’s how I see it. There exist things that do not belong to the natural world. God, angels, and demons, belong to this class of things. There may well be other things that are supernatural, but that’s a different topic. The point is that these things are not objectively measurable.

So, when I say that science and religion are not diametrically opposed, by that I mean one can be both scientific and religious when it comes to your world view. Science is used to look at and interact with our physical world and religion is used to look at and interact with the spiritual and supernatural world. In that sense science and religion seem to me to be dramatically different in terms of their purpose. The opposition, the downright animosity, that often exists between representatives of the “two worlds” is one that I frankly don’t get. Too often it looks like people who each believe that their particular way of looking at everything in creation can eventually answer the prevailing questions without any help from the other. That hardly seems necessary or productive.

Dan says that “science and religion can not meaningfully be said to be examining different things.” I’m not sure if we’re using different definitions for the terms or if our respective world views are different. Whatever the case I look forward to what he has to say.

His response.

Science vs. Religion is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Anyway, this particular brain dropping elicited a fair number of responses.

JT said “christians hold no special monopoly on that. that is a people problem not a christian problem”. That’s true enough. Folks have been coming up with rules for as long as there’ve been people. Rules are good things so far as they go. I’m not anti-rules, but more on that momentarily.

Jon Welborn said so you’re saying “don’t spend time on do’s and don’ts”?” Boy if that didn’t cut right to it. Jon’s sharp as a razor. I’m not trying to set up yet another thing to do/not do. But, of course, that is tempting. I’ve posted a number of posts (blogged a number of blogs?) that seem sort of like reverse legalism and that’s the last thing I want. I’m not about licentiousness or coming up with new rules, but more on that momentarily.

Comedy blogger extraordinaire Rhodester said “*snork* stating the obvious again, Scotty?” (and yes he and my Aunt are the ONLY ones who can call me Scotty) So I said to him I said, obvious to you and me maybe but I’m not preaching to you. Which he liked, cause most folk don’t like being preached to or at. No this particular missive was aimed at my regular church going, rule spouting brethren.

Ed Parrot, the prettier half (and that ain’t sayin’ much) of the writing team known as Ed Talbot said “especially don’ts ”
To which I replied, “We spend a lot of time telling each other what to do. Of course that’s usually couched in the terms ‘ur doin it rong’”. And that’s pretty dang true right there.

Renee Osborne, fellow writer and Messianic Christian (I think that’s the proper title), and I had a long back and forth about this since she and her husband Doug are both observant of a good number of Old Testament laws. What it boiled down to is that there are some decent reasons to be as observant as she and her husband are. They’re trying to be more like Christ and to be more obedient to God. I don’t think either of those things are bad. In fact, they can be quite beneficial.

So what was I saying exactly? Well let’s see. Rules are good, to a point. Ignoring rules meant for your benefit can be very bad. I believe that the rules God laid out can certainly be beneficial. I don’t believe that it’s his will that all people everywhere follow all of the rules laid out in the Bible. I do believe that, as Renee said, the covenants that these very rules come from build on each other. Ultimately I think the covenants point to Jesus and our need for him.

He said in Matthew 22 “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” That is a distillation of all 1700 or so laws that Renee mentioned. Everything hangs on these two things. So here’s the thing. I can’t do either one of those perfectly. Neither can you. That’s why we need Jesus.

Now should we try? Yes, of course we should try. Being obedient to those two rules and how they are broken out in the Bible and in your life as a believer is of vital importance. It can draw you closer to God. It reveals your need for and drives you to Christ. It makes you want to know Christ more so that you can be an imitator of Christ as we are called to be. Those are all great and wonderful.

“So get to the point Scott, what do you mean?”

Here’s what I mean, and check me on these.

I don’t believe we are called to use the laws that we have laid our for us in the Bible to run other people’s lives for them. If I feel convicted by God to observe the Passover, so long as it doesn’t become a law that I think others should follow to obtain their salvation, then I have the freedom to do that or not to do that. If I believe that smoking is sinful because it’s unhealthy and the body is our temple then I’m allowed not to smoke. I just don’t have the right or the obligation to tell someone else that they are sinning by smoking. We are not to spend our time looking for specks of sawdust to remove from others’ eyes in order to make them more righteous.

I also don’t think that we need to spend overly much time worrying about whether a particular thing we are doing is sin or not. There is certainly a place for examined life. If we do have a question about some activity or behavior we’re engaged in, we should go to the word and go in prayer to God to seek out the answer. Asking your brother/pastor is also a good idea. I see people getting eaten up by this though. I’ve even heard tell of folks making a list of every sin they can think of and using that in ways that I don’t think are healthy or beneficial to try and rid their life of sin. Some of these folks sweat and worry about missing one and the consequences of that. That’s unhealthy.

Now I do think that there’s a place for accountability in our lives. If I go to someone and tell them, “I struggle with this thing that is clearly a sin, can you help me by keeping me accountable?” I think that’s good and healthy. If I feel that someone has sinned against me then I need to talk to them, not harbor it in my heart. If they’re not receptive to that then once again the Word is clear that we need to get others involved. Hopefully maturity and a healthy perspective brought on by someone outside the situation can bring a resolution. These things shouldn’t be happening all the time though, really.

We are to be concerned with loving God, loving our neighbor, and spreading the news of the grace that we have received through Jesus Christ. This shouldn’t look like control or gutting out living under some code that’s a burden to us and those around us. It shouldn’t be a bait and switch job where we tell people that “it’s all about grace” and then when they come in we spring an Extreme Makeover on them. It’s not about reading the right books or the wrong books or being filled with purpose or saying the right prayer or listening to some music and not other. It’s about knowing Christ and him crucified and treating those around us and in our care like the beloved family that they are. Good families have good rules, but belonging to a family isn’t first and foremost about following those rules, it’s about loving your family.

Does all of this add up to even more dos and don’ts? Maybe so. The last thing I want to do is give you another thing on your mental checklist. What I hope it does is to encourage you to change focus away from that list and towards your brother who is there to love you and your father who is there to guide you gently.

Dos and Don’ts is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Communicate, when necessary use words. Just make sure that you choose them and the order you put them in, carefully.

This post was inspired by the above cartoon I found at Wordsell. They’re sponsoring a little contest and so I might win a Nano. I might not, but anything that serves as inspiration for a post is a good thing. (Ed. note – the contest was in ’08)

So anyway, it got me to thinking about how we as Christians market our message. There seem to be two major means these days as far as the written word is concerned. The first would be the ubiquitous Christian tee. You know the kind I’m talking about, that say things like “Property of Jesus” or the ones that rip off a popular logo. They usually have some sort of scripture verse attached and occasionally that verse might even have something to do with the logo/slogan being put forth. There was a time in my life when little other casual wear existed in my closet. I thought to myself, “Now this, this right here is evangelism!” I honestly thought that someone would see my “Not Without Jesus” tee and immediately fall to their knees in repentance, or something like that. Surprisingly it never worked that way.

The other thing I’m seeing everywhere is the Church Sign. You know what I’m talking about. There have been a hoard of memes thanks to sites that let you create your own. In case you don’t though, in place of the typical Name of Church followed by the times of worship, you get pithy sayings like “Give God what’s right–, not what’s left!” or the ever popular “Make your eternal reservations now— ‘smoking’ or ‘non-smoking’?”. If that doesn’t make you want to veer into the parking lot and jump into the pew…

So what am I saying here? Are the signs or tees bad? No. I still have a few of those shirts left and if the sign is pithy enough I could see it drawing me in, of course I’m already a believer. I think what happens in most cases though is that if any thought occurs in the mind of the unbeliever that sees these attempts at distilling down the gospel into bite-sized chunks, it’s rarely a positive one.

If you really want to communicate the gospel to your community, I would recommend starting with your actions. When necessary, you should certainly use words. Those words need to be filled with love and wisdom and it may take time to use them to good effect. Sure it’s not as funny, but it is in fact What Jesus Did.

Communicate – When Necessary Use Words is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

So, when you give, do so cheerfully. That’s pretty clear. There’s a bit more I want to say though, I can’t just leave it there. Joe Harrison host of the podcast Christianese Radio posted a question about tithing, i.e. “Should we as Christians tithe?” The majority of the answers indicated that we should indeed. My answer was that we should leave it up to the individual. I don’t believe that a strict tithe of ten percent is required. We should, as Paul wrote, give as we have decided in our heart to give. That might mean more or less money as you are so lead. The amount isn’t the most important part, it’s your attitude. He does say earlier that there are consequences, you reap what you sow, and I take that as an encouragement to give sacrificially, not as an attempt to inspire guilt or fear.

So we should give happily and generously, but what should we give? Paul says we “will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion” and earlier talks about seed and bread. I think that those are certainly partly metaphors for money, but we also need to give food if we have extra and one of the most important things I think we have to give is time. Give what you have, where there is need. For instance, our particular situation is such that we don’t have an abundance of money, so we give time and food in service not only to our church but also to our community.

And that’s another thing, Christians focus an awful lot on giving to the church. We should meet the needs of God’s people but it shouldn’t stop (or even necessarily start) there. If you feel led to give out of your abundance to a homeless shelter or the YMCA or to a buddy down the road then that’s just as much the work of God as adding to the building fund. I could take this opportunity to opine on building funds and professional ministry salaries, but that’s going too far afield. Suffice to say I think you should give as much as you can of whatever you have to give where you feel led to give. We have a lot of freedom in the gospel and this is one freedom that we need to exercise.

This sort of beautiful giving has been acted out in two places in my online community and it continues to amaze me. Tee Morris, Podcaster General, had a personal family tragedy some time back and there is a ChipIn fund dedicated to taking care of expenses and his young daughter’s future. Almost five hundred folks raised over twenty thousand dollars. Another member of our community, SVAllie, voice of Brand Gamblin’s podcast novel Tumbler, has had some serious legal expenses revolving around her attempts to maintain custody of her daughter. She too has a ChipIn drive where folks are pouring our what support they can. It’s my personal feeling that giving what you have in situations like this, or to the people down in Haiti, might actually speak more about your love of God and your neighbor than dropping a check in the plate on Sunday.

That probably sounds like I’m trying to lay some guilt trip on you and I don’t want my blowing this particular horn to turn into another rule for you to follow. If God is leading you to give to the church then that’s what you should do. I know the money that goes into the plate at Redeemer on Sundays goes to do some wonderful (and some very mundane) things, all valid needs in my opinion. I just want to encourage you to examine your heart as I’m doing lately and give out of whatever abundance you have and to do so in the right spirit.

Cheerful Givers is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The two that I wold like to draw your attention to are South Coast and his most recent outing Ravenwood. Like any really good fiction these particular stories spark some, I suppose you’d call them extraneous thoughts. The one in question was prompted by the main character in Ravenwood, Tanyth Fairport. Tanyth is an herbalist and has some considerable knowledge and wisdom gathered in her wanderings through the fantasy world that the story takes place in. At the point I’m at in the story, she’s become the healer and in some ways the spiritual leader of a small community. Mysterious things are happening and the villagers are beginning to look up to her in ways that she’s not very comfortable with. She thinks to herself that she feels like “a bit like an impostor being on the wrong side of reverence”. She doesn’t really feel like she’s anything special, at least not worthy of being held up in the same way as the others who she herself reveres.

That made me think about Lowell’s treatment of shamanism in South Coast. There we get to (among other things) watch two shaman’s discover their gifts. Richard Krug, the village shaman believes that a birthright puts him in the position and that this alone is enough and that the position alone is the gift. Meanwhile, his son Otto is destined to fill his father’s shoes and desperately wants to be a fisherman instead. They both seem to attach a fair amount of reverence to the position alone and revere it as something more, or less, than it is. Richard revels in what is basically the pastoral counseling side of the business and his position in the community. Otto believes that in order to become a shaman he must give up his dreams of going fishing. It turns out that both of them are wrong to a degree and that there’s more to this shaman business than meets the eye. There’s mystery to it and the gift (part magic, part meditation, and part connection to the planet) is that which should be revered.

So while the Krugs’ and Tanyth’s situation may not be the same, I think there are some things here that are of value to those in the “professional ministry” and to you, me, and the lamppost. A lot of folks, myself included for a time, attach a lot of reverence to the position of minister. When we see someone whose “job” it is to care for the flock the temptation is to think of how much more Godly they may be than we are and that it’s their calling and position alone to preach and teach, to heal the sick and comfort those who grieve. Putting minister’s on a pedestal like this isn’t fair to them and it isn’t what God desires. We are a priesthood of believers. Yes we’re to hold our teachers, preachers, and prophets to a higher standard, but that’s only so folks won’t be lead astray.

What does need to be revered is that connection that we have with God through Christ. That doesn’t come as a result of a birthright. If you grow up in a Christian family, that’s simply not enough. That connection is not cemented by a teaching position or a calling of men that comes with a title and an office. It comes from listening to God and communing with him. If you do happen to be in a position like Richard or Tanyth and you’re the spiritual leader of your flock, whether you want to be or not, then you’d do well to keep your head about you as Tanyth does. She doesn’t want to be revered. All she wants is to teach her people the things that they need to know in order to survive. There may be a certain level of respect that comes with that, but some of the gifts that she has aren’t anything that she learns or could ever learn. They’re just that, gifts. Giving people what they need and loving them is what we, regardless of position, should strive to do and that should come, not out of a desire to be revered by men, but out of a reverence we have for God and his creation.

That is the right side of reverence.

Wrong Side of Reverence is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

That quest is what God used to ultimately lead Abram to believe in the promise to make him a great nation and for that to be “credited it to him as righteousness”. He was also faithful in the binding of Isaac and in his obedience to move where God told him to go. As faithful as he was though, I don’t think it was Abram’s overall faith that made him the patriarch and one of the examples of great men of faith that is lifted up in Hebrews 11. After all, this was also the man that laid with his servant to try and “make” the promise happen. This was the man who told his wife to lie about who she was, not just once but twice. He often questioned God and had troubles believing.

I say these things not to run down a person whom many hold in high esteem, but to give you and I hope. To remind us that God chose this very fallible man and made him into what he needed him to be. God made a covenant with him, knowing that if the man had any end to hold up, that he would fail. In that sense the covenant was unconditional. There was nothing special about Abraham, nothing unique in his character that made God choose him, at least nothing that you or I know of. God simply chose him and did with him what was necessary to fulfill his plan.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”

1 Cor 1:26-31

That’s you and me right there. We have no place to boast, just as Abraham had no place to boast. What we do for God and what God does with us is a credit to him, not a feather in our caps. The lives I’ve touched I have only touched because of God’s calling. May I have faith and rest in that and not in my own abilities, the things that are not save for God’s intervention.

The Things That Are Not is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

Our pastor did that this past Sunday with the parable known as the Good Samaritan.

“A Jewish man was traveling on a trip from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he was attacked by bandits. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him up, and left him half dead beside the road. By chance a priest came along. But when he saw the man lying there, he crossed to the other side of the road and passed him by. A levite walked over and looked at him lying there, but he also passed by on the other side. Then a despised Samaritan came along, and when he saw the man, he felt compassion for him. Going over to him, the Samaritan soothed his wounds with olive oil and wine and bandaged them. Then he put the man on his own donkey and took him to an inn, where he took care of him. The next day he handed the innkeeper two silver coins, telling him, ‘Take care of this man. If his bill runs higher than this, I’ll pay you the next time I’m here.’ “Now which of these three would you say was a neighbor to the man who was attacked by bandits?” Jesus asked. The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.” Then Jesus said, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

This was prompted by the question, “Who is my neighbor?”

So it’s clear from the text that part of the message is at least in part that we should be like the Samaritan, loving those that have fallen by the wayside, even if that person is someone that we find despicable. He also lays out pretty clearly that this love should be complete. It wasn’t enough to just take him to an inn, but the Samaritan paid all of his bills and demanded the best care. Our love for the man in the ditch should be as sacrificial. That’s the sermon I’ve heard nearly every time this passage has ever been brought up anyway.

Hunter was talking about the offering and how thankful we should be to be able to make one and he said, “I am the man in the ditch.” And I was like… “Yeah.” He didn’t really go too much further with that, but here are my thoughts.

We have been beaten and left for dead. We have been salved and taken care of. We will be given a place beyond that which we could acquire on our own. All of this by a man that, under most circumstances, we would find despicable. I think this is a great picture of our lives as believers. I’m not so sure it accurately portrays our salvation (except perhaps as part of it in a larger sense) since I think we weren’t just half dead in our transgressions, but rather completely dead. However I think it’s spot on for our sanctification and our ongoing relationship with Jesus.

Sin beats us about the head and shoulders. Satan is the bandit who wants to take what we have and leave us in that ditch. Jesus comes to take care of us, to bind our wounds and put us back in the place that he has for us. He has not only paid for those sins, but has gone further and deeper, showing us a sacrificial love alien to many. He does all of these things for a person that many may call unlovable or unworthy.

This is an example for me of “what Jesus would do” and as we have been given such a great gift, so should we give to others. Now that we are out of the ditch (a place we may well wind up in again) we must become the good neighbor and live the life that he laid out for us. For me that makes the image more powerful and meaningful (even though it was already both) and gives me a clearer picture not only of how we should love our neighbor, but yet another good reason as to why we should. “We love him, because he first loved us.”—1 John 4:19.

Like a Good Neighbor… is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

There have been a couple of people in the last few days that have used a disaster for personal gain. Though this gain may or may not be expressly monetary, to profit in any way from the suffering of others and to not even bat an eye is not inhuman, but it is at the very least callous and in my opinion unforgivable. I wish I could expect different words from either man in question, particularly the one that calls himself a man of God, but I don’t.

Now would be the point where I would usually say something like, “We’re all sinners and none of us are beyond salvation.” I believe that to be true, no matter the person in question. The most “sainted” person isn’t perfect and the most evil could be forgiven if they would but ask. Still I find myself unable to generate any sense of Christian charity for these two men.

My preference would be that their respective audiences would turn off the devices that they consume the words of these men on, that they would write letters, make calls, and bring torches and pitchforks to the very doors of the institutions responsible for bringing not only these particular examples of hate filled speech but many other instances besides into the homes of people around the world. That part of me would be satisfied to see their careers fall into ruin and for them to be unable to earn a single cent or a shred of their credibility back for the rest of their natural lives.

I wouldn’t, as some have, wish them harm, whether here or in the after life. I would want them to have the health and opportunity so that they could eventually come to realize just what they’ve said and to sorrow for it. I don’t honestly believe that that would ever happen, any more than I really think that what audience they do have would be offended and then take action. Still, there is a part of me that holds out some hope in that direction.

The problem with all of this of course is that my own continued hatred of them would be no more healthy or righteous than their own misguided hatred. It feels good in the moment and I can see some of you shaking your head and thinking how right this anger of mine (and perhaps yours) is, but it’s not. I don’t think holding hatred in your hearts even for the most despicable of men is a healthy way to live. Feeling it in the moment is perhaps completely natural, but to dwell on it, to hold on to it isn’t.

These men deserve pity. Their lives have become something worse than anything I could wish on another human being. They have held on to their hate. It has born fruit and has poisoned not only their lives but the lives of those that idolize them. I don’t want that for you or for me. So, in honor of the man whose birthday this is, I’ll close with a Martin Luther King Jr. quote from Strength to Love, “Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” and by saying donate what you can to the folks down in Haiti and pray for them if you’re so inclined.

Leave Hate Behind is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The definition of it is a bit tricky since there are apparently “hard” dominionists and “soft” dominionists and like any other political/theological belief system quite often the people who are called by the name don’t particularly like it and have adopted their own terms. Then there are those on the opposite end of the spectrum who (as often also happens) have developed a conspiracy theory about the hardliners. Because this represents a spectrum of beliefs, I will try and be fair to this view and make only a couple of (hopefully charitable) assumptions, if any.

According to this belief, generally, the dominion mentioned in Genesis extends not only to our biosphere, but also to people relationally. The thought being that we have some sort of responsibility to ensure that men either return to or come under the Law of God as the basis of our rule of law. The end result of this being that all men, Christians and non-Christians, would benefit from what is, arguably, the way God would have all men live. Often the Decalogue is portrayed as directly or indirectly being the basis of our laws specifically or all modern laws generally.

Because of this notion, at least it seems causal to me, and in no small part due to the belief that our founding fathers were at least in some large part Christian, this dominion has also come to include America specifically. This view holds that we were either at one point a Christian nation and need to return to that, or we need to become one in order to fulfill a particular eschatological view. I have also heard it said many times that if we would as a nation turn to God and repent for our sins (as a nation) that we would benefit (as a nation). So the view of America as some sort of body founded by God and beholden to Him also seems core to this point of view.

I have serious problems with both of conclusions. I know that this will not come as a shock to any of you. My problems are’t even mostly political, though I would like to start there. First, I have no problem with the notion that an uncertain percentage of the Founders were Christians. That many of them would have been burned at the stake had they been born in earlier centuries or disfellowshipped/excommunicated in many of our modern churches if born today seems more certain than their number. Let’s assume just for fun though, that a large percentage of them were Christians and that a percentage of that percentage possessed a theology that the Dominionists would be happy with. They simply didn’t seem interested in making this a Christian nation.

“Wait, wait,” I hear you say, “what about the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence?”

Well as I said, I don’t have a problem with the notion that these men believed in a Creator or sorts, even one that was or looked like the Christian God. But the Establishment Clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” seems to shoot the idea that we need to make laws establishing religious ideas… as law right in the foot.

“But what about Patrick Henry who siad ‘It can not be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!’?”

He didn’t actually say that. He did say several great things that I agree with regarding Christianity and the Bible, but nothing indicating that we should be a “Christian nation”. One interesting thing did turn up in my research in this regard. One of the very first treaties we entered into as a country (The Treaty of Tripoli), ratified by the Senate and signed by President John Adams, said the following:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That seems pretty clear to me. But you know what? This whole argument isn’t even the biggest part of where my problem lies. Let’s say that I give you everything that you believe that applies to our founding and the people involved. Suppose we were a Christian Nation in our history. Suppose that all of our laws and core beliefs once upon a time lined up with the Ten Commandments. So what? That doesn’t make it right or biblical.

I’m not trying to be flip here, but nearly everything I read in the Bible indicates that God doesn’t want us as his nation to be ruled by Kings. In 1 Samuel chapter eight the people of Israel asked for a king and God didn’t like it. He granted it though, making sure to have Samuel warn them. God wanted Israel to be ruled by Him, not be a monarchy or even presumably a democracy (though it’s somewhat ironic that apparently the need for a human king was arrived at by the people, the first democratic monarchy?).

Fast forward to Christianity. Paul in Galatians 3 says

“26You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

That to me says that our national identity as Christians should be of no importance. Some take that to the place where they don’t even self identify as Americans, at least when it comes to things like politics. Perhaps that’s taking it too far, perhaps not, but at the very least it sticks a thumb in the eye of some Dominionists, or should. We aren’t, at our core as Christians, to put the importance on our gender, our freedom, or our nationality. Those are three pretty important things to most folk, but in Christ we are none of these things. So why should we be pushing to make our leadership consist solely of Christians? It just makes no sense.

One final point and I think that this is my main beef. All of the people I talk to who I would put (correctly or incorrectly) in the Dominionist camp are concerned about the laws of God being followed, not just by Christians, but by everyone. There should be no gay marriage because the Bible says it’s bad. We should have laws against abortion because murder is a sin. We should put the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and leave “In God We Trust” everywhere we can get away with it. Why? Why is putting the Law up front and center and making everyone toe that line so important? Well, why does the Bible say that the law is important?

Paul again in Galatians chapter three:

1You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard?

He goes on and on from there. The law is important, yes, but it is not of ultimate importance by itself. It is meant to drive us to Christ. Making those laws into the law of the land does not drive people to Christ. What does it do instead? It controls. That, in a nutshell seems to be what Dominionism is about. I don’t think that’s what God intended.

In the Genesis quote, Adam and Eve are given dominion over all the earth. They are to be its caretakers, its stewards. The Earth is to provide us all food and shelter, but only if we care for it. To take that notion and twist it to say that we should exercise some level of control over every human being so that they must fall into line with our interpretation of the Law seems adversarial to the Gospel to say the very least. If that’s not what Dominionism is saying then I would love for someone to tell me what it is all about. If it is as I suspect though, it’s hardly new. The Pharisees exercised a similar amount of control over their people. They too wanted every aspect of life to be controlled by the Law and we see where that put them in God’s sight.

Control is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

In any event, Sid (always good for a barb) posited that it might be Evangelism. Both Mer and I reminded him that it was just the last decade that was in discussion. I think perhaps though he has a point. Evangelism, at least the way many folks do it these days, may well be the worst religious idea ever.

So let me paint a picture. I’m Mr. Happy Atheist sitting in my den, drinking vodka from a fifth, chain smoking, and unwinding after having just eaten a baby. Maybe I’m relaxing, trolling the internet looking to pick a fight when my doorbell rings. I throw on my bathrobe and answer the door in a blue rage at having been interrupted. There stand Billy and Bobby Baptist ready to share with me the Good News. They’re all clean cut and shining in their off the rack suits and wielding well worn Bibles in new cases. Depending on how crappy my day has been I might trigger the bucket of bat excrement I’ve been saving for just such an occasion, or I might tear their theology a new one with my ready wit and the knowledge I’ve gleaned from perusing the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. In any case I am not ready, willing, or able really to hear what it is they’ve got to say.

Now this picture is painted mainly for humor’s sake and for the satirically impaired I know that atheists don’t actually eat babies. The fact is though, the door to door approach hardly seems to be the best approach. Does it work? I honestly don’t know. I don’t have any hard numbers. I will say, however, that I’ve been in Happy’s position after a fashion. We Christians don’t have flashing neon signs over our doors letting our brethren know that we’re in like Flynn. Even if we did though, that wouldn’t stop those from other denominations/religions/etc from knocking on our doors. When that happens my first thought, even provided my own reveries have not been interrupted, is hardly “Let’s have an open mind, shall we?”. I’m ready to either a) shuffle them off as quickly as possible or b) argue with the proverbial fence post. I’ve done both and neither party wins in that situation.

I do believe that we as Christians are called upon to evangelize. It is not optional. We are given a great amount of latitude as to the hows and wherefores. I think that stuff like what Mr. Hume gets taken apart for here:

is a bad idea. Not so much because he’s wrong in saying what he did (other than the thing about proselytizing), but because I can honestly see no clear reason for choosing that particular venue to do it in. He certainly wasn’t confronting Mr. Woods directly and he made a blanket statement about a religion with no person of that religion present to defend themselves. He then gets a little self-righteous about a negative backlash, indicating that it was to be expected. Yes, if you use your bully pulpit to demean another religion you’re going to get crap for it. It’s got nothing to do with Jesus Christ and everything to do with the way you used his name. So all in all, this is an “evangelism” fail.

If you’re going to share the good news with someone there’s a time and a place for it. Yes Jesus went about the country and spoke to the masses. In most cases, so far as I am aware, he did so in places where that was appropriate/expected (and in doing so… still got crap for it). He also talked to individuals, willing individuals. He didn’t harass anyone. He answered questions when asked and generally loved the people he came into contact with (provided they weren’t being jerks about their religion). I don’t think that he, or Paul, or anyone else in the Bible or in much of Church history walked up to random doors and handed out leaflets.

I think what you need to do is love the people you’re around. You put yourself out there in places where you will run into people that don’t agree with you. You make them aware of who you are and what you believe, preferably by your actions more than your words. Maybe you wait to bring up the subject once you’ve gotten to know them. Maybe you invite them to church. Or maybe you just ask them over for supper. God will open the doors that need to be opened. It’s not as “sexy” as walking on the beach and pestering people who are on vacation. It takes time. It’s hard work, the work of a life, not a Sunday afternoon or a Spring Break. I think that’s the Evangelism we’re called to do.

Now here’s the hard part for me. All of the above? I could be wrong. Maybe you’ve had an instance where this has worked for you. Maybe this works well and I’m just not seeing the why or the how. Please, clue me in. Let me know how this works for you and let me know how you spread the good news.

Worst Religious Idea Ever? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

The gist of it is, Ham (the man behind Answers in Genesis) and company surveyed one thousand people who were raised in conservative churches and who are no longer attending. The interesting and in his (and my) mind is that the kids are leaving while they’re in the Middle School/High School age range. Only eleven percent of those that left did so while in college. Another interesting tidbit is that the more regularly these kids attended Sunday School the more likely they were to leave the church, believe that the Bible is less true, defend the legality of abortion and same-sex marriage, and defend premarital sex.

Due to the survey he believes that this is largely happening for two reasons; the church is no longer “relevant” to them and they are tired of perceived hypocrisy. I’m on board with that. I know that many people I’ve talked to who no longer attend church but still believe and some that no longer believe point to these very reasons. He goes on to say that the solutions need to look like a) teaching sound apologetics and b) live a more Christ centered life.

I got to the point where he seemed ready to discuss remedies to these problems when he seemed to go off on a tangent. He began talking about Genesis. According to Ham, up until the 1800′s the church pretty much all believed in a young earth creation model. Thanks to Darwin and wishy washy church leaders who caved, that all began to change (but just in Europe). With the authority of the Bible undermined, the churches in Europe began to empty. Now in America we’re beginning to see the same phenomenon. So really he’s putting much of the blame for what’s happening on that.

All of these premises raise a couple of questions/problems in my mind.

If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. – Ham strikes me as a bit of a one trick pony. It seems that he decided that the whole Genesis thing is the ultimate Biblical issue. While he does say that if you don’t believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 you can still be saved (mighty generous of him) he makes it pretty clear that if we do and we pass that on to our children then we’re perpetuating a heresy. Also, based on my research there were Christians prior to the eighteenth century that believed in a less than literal interpretation, so his hanging all of this on Darwin seems disingenuous to say the least.

If it’s broke then fix it. – He studied why people were leaving his sort of church. If they’re losing folks for the reasons that their survey indicates then look at those things. Here’s a hint, looking at those things and then deciding that the real problem is elsewhere means that you’ve wasted a lot of time and money on surveys. Like I said, the notion that we need to teach the Bible in a more relevant way (you can’t make the Bible more relevant than it is, which is very) or that we need to be less hypocritical are important realizations. Stick with that and don’t get sidetracked.

See how the other half does it. – He did indicate that if the exodus in the conservative church was bad then it must be worse in the more liberal churches. It’s worth noting that he did not study these churches, so there was a big assumption there. I’m not sure where my church would fall in his study since we are certainly conservative in a number of ways (no female pastors, homosexuality is a sin) we’re “liberal” in others (many pastors don’t believe in a literal young earth interpretation), but I’m guessing the latter and we’re doing okay so far as I know. So yeah, I think if he believes that the whole literal interpretation thing is the stumbling block then it might be worth looking to see if the liberals are having the same problem since we’re not teaching it. We should be absolutely bleeding people if it is. If we’re not then maybe we’re doing something right?

Spare the (man made) rules. – In striving not to be a hypocrite, a sound goal, you need to set up fewer man made rules. See I don’t have a problem with you trying to live a godly life. You’ll fail, but so long as you recognize that and share that recognition with others you’ll prevent yourself from looking like a Pharisee. More important than that though, you need to stop making up your own rules. See when you tell people not to dance, or play amplified music, or drink, or read anything other than the KJV you’re going to end up on the wrong side of it. When kids realize that doing these things don’t make you a bad person and when they see that there are folks out there who not only do these things, but don’t believe in this sort of literalism for its own sake then they are going to leave. Maybe they’ll become a liberal, maybe they’ll leave the church entire.

Actually, I’m not sure that this last point isn’t the main problem. It’s got nothing to do with the slippery slope of Darwinism/Humanism. It’s got a whole lot to do with the sort of moralism that you’ve set up in your church. I can’t blame kids for waking up and wanting none of that. It corrupts what the Gospel proclaims. I will grant you that it’s easier to teach than what the Bible actually says, but it’s not the truth.

Finally, I will agree with one of the conclusions he draws. Sunday School, at least the way most churches I’ve been to do it, is broken. It’s not really a “biblical” practice, really only having existed for around two hundred years, so I say it might be worth either dumping it entirely or severely overhauling how we do it. Either way it appears we wouldn’t be losing much.

Already Gone is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.

“In the absence of a secular authority, would Christians revert to burning astronomers, executing heretics and persecuting their own members?”

To which I’d say that if memory and research serves, we likely did a few of these with the blessing of a secular authority, especially that last one. Humanity, religious or not, is good at persecuting people that we disagree with often to the point of death.

What really lurks under this nasty little question (I say nasty not because it’s not true that we have done those very things, it is, but nasty in the “Have you stopped beating your wife?” way. There is no real good answer.) is another one or two. Are Christians just slavering to get back to our old way of doing things? And are we only held back by those non-religious types or governments founded on non-religious principals?

I’d like to think that humanity in general and Christians in particular are better off than we were a hundred, two hundred, a thousand years ago. Frankly, we’re not. I have but to point you to Germany sixty years ago or China today. While the leaders of those nations were (arguably in the former case) not religious they certainly killed anyone perceived to be in the way or in disagreement with the party line. So I don’t think much of secular authority and their ability to hold back the masses from the slaughter of those they deem unhealthy for society.

If there was a modern Christian theocracy in the vein of those that were responsible for past atrocities then I suppose we would see similar, though perhaps whitewashed, acts committed. We might not kill our enemies outright. We might “re-educate” them, imprison them for years without just cause, or something equally politically expedient. Again, no different than any current secular government is capable of, even if they aren’t doing it in public view.

See here’s my thing. Many of you folks reading this would argue that humanity has made great strides in the last couple of centuries. We’re so much better off now than we were back then. In some way you’d be right. We have made incredible scientific strides. Civil rights (in some countries at least) are on the increase. We live longer. There are fewer hungry folks. Satellite TV, the internet, cell phones, we’re more “connected” as a species than we’ve ever been before. Does that mean we’re better?

I’d say yes and no. Humanity has incredible potential for good and for evil. Whether you’re religious or not doesn’t matter. Neither world view is intrinsically superior/inferior in terms of its morality. Both sides in this matter have done wonderful things for the human race and both sides will continue to do terrible things in the name of their philosophy. Centuries from now I’m willing to bet that if we’re still here, there will be two people sitting in a cafe somewhere having this very conversation, “Are we better off now than we were then?” The answer to that question in that bright day will be the same as it is now, “That depends in the measuring stick.”

If we as people don’t learn from our past, if we aren’t aware that yes there was a day that Christians drowned each other and lit one another on fire in the name of God then yes we are doomed to repeat it. Even being aware isn’t enough, though. It’s not any kind of insurance. We will hurt those that are entrusted to us. We will destroy those who stand in our way. To those that believe in evolution I would say it’s the wild animal that’s still and will ever be in us. To those that believe God put us here six thousand years ago (or more) I would say, well… you know what I would say. We sin.

There is hope. We as individuals can strive to live up to the measuring stick that God laid out for us. “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The Bible isn’t the only book that puts forth that command and no matter what you believe I’d say that’s a good thing to aim for every day. We may miss the mark, in fact I guarantee we will. Perhaps if we all did that the world would be a better place. It will never be a perfect place though, even if most of us managed, most of the time (an unlikely event).

There’s hope beyond that too though. I serve a very real God and He has grace on me, a very real sinner. He has a plan for this world and while I can’t tell you that I can even begin to understand that plan in its fullness, I have faith that it’s there. One day when this world passes away and there is a new world created in its place, my hope is that we will all fulfill that command all the time. Until then, all we can do is the best we can.

Progress? is a post from: Spiritual Tramp

If you enjoyed this post, consider subscribing to my RSS feed, either by reader or by e-mail. While you’re at it, connect with me on Twitter, too.