To get some background on Bart Ehrman's thoughts on Scripture I picked up his other book Misquoting Jesus -- Who Changed the Bible and Why. It was on the New York Times Bestseller list. I read it and now I understand why Bart has a problem with God -- he doesn't really believe the Bible accurately represents God because of the variants in the texts of Scripture.
The arguments he presents are not new but he communicates them well -- he has a great way of making the complicated more understandable. Besides this I still think his reasoning has problems:
1. He thinks the early copyists (1st and 2nd centuries) were just rich Christians and not professional scribes. Given the absence of a text from the period how would we know this? How can we ascertain quality if we have nothing to look at. We do many things about how the scripture were preserved. One question: if it was the rich Christians who held the texts wouldn't they be rich enough to hire a professional scribe to do the work especially if they thought the Scriptures in question were important?
2. One thing he does not mention is how much of Scripture has no variants at all. Wouldn't this indicate that the text at least at these points are accurate and trustworthy?
3. He still relies on higher criticism in this book which is largely opinion.
Right now I am reading the counter to this book by Timothy Paul Jones called Misquoting Truth. Hopefully his arguments will cover everything I think about in dealing with Ehrman. If not I will mention some of them.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Church Antagonism -- Part 3 -- Types of Antagonists
Or perhaps we should say levels of antagonists. You can classify antagonists based on their level of hostility. This is important as antagonism has a pyramid structure going from top to bottom. I classify them as various types of wolves in sheep's clothing.
1. The Demon Wolves -- This is the top of the pyramid -- these wolves are psychotic and paranoid -- that is they see evil in everything but themselves. The enjoy making trouble although they will deny it. These are the clergy killers who feel they are on a crusade to rid the church of evil and that evil to them is found in the pastor and his closest associates. I never really faced one this bad but I could see where a couple of them might develop into ones.
2. The Big Wolves -- These are not as demon inspired as the above but they still do many of the same things. They are distinguished by the fact there is no reasoning with them. They don't necessarily enjoy what there doing but they are dominated the the belief they are right and that's that.
The guy who ultimately got the board to go along with him in voting me out of my second church was this type -- all he could see was evil. Everything I did and said was interpreted through the lens of darkness. I had ulterior motives for everything he said. I was the problem no matter how much I did, explained my actions or apologized. The guy just did not have grip on reality. There was no explaining things to him or reasoning with him. There was a woman in my first church like this too -- I was shielded from her by the fact she wasn't as member of the church but her influence over her family that did attend and were members was large and she used it to try to get what she wanted. There were a couple of others as well. One board member I had was convinced that I should micromanage everything and that my belief in team leadership was bad. No matter what I showed him there was no convincing him -- he caused problems but then when he couldn't get what he wanted he left the church but did so in a way that caused further problems. This happened a lot in my first church.
3. Pack Wolves -- These are the antagonists that have power or position but take their orders through the Demon or Big Wolves. They strike when the first blow has already been laid down. They act as support before the blow is struck. They are cowards but get brave when the there is an advantage to them and the battle is on and the shepherd is on one knee from the knife in his back.
The best example I have of this was in my second church. There was a couple who kept under the radar but they were hostile toward me from day one. As they were leaving the church at my election they told the denomination official that the vote that elected me was illegal. They wanted someone else and I was not the people they wanted (they were trying to get a friend of theirs). After that they would show up when they felt like it. This was barely enough to keep their membership and they used their money (they were quite well off) to manipulate people. They ultimately wrote a letter saying that it was them or me. They waited until the other board member talked about above made the first move. The thought of the loss of their money put fear in the rest of the board and that formed the atmosphere for the board meeting (without me) that the board requested I leave. I could go on and on with this type -- seen a lot of this.
4. Wolf Pups -- These people yap a lot -- that why I call them pups -- they have little power or influence but they act to create the atmosphere of trouble. They create mood by keeping the gossip going or supporting what the bigger wolves are doing.
These are the basic types of antagonists. What allows them to prosper is the subject of the next post.
Next -- What Allows Antagonists to Thrive
1. The Demon Wolves -- This is the top of the pyramid -- these wolves are psychotic and paranoid -- that is they see evil in everything but themselves. The enjoy making trouble although they will deny it. These are the clergy killers who feel they are on a crusade to rid the church of evil and that evil to them is found in the pastor and his closest associates. I never really faced one this bad but I could see where a couple of them might develop into ones.
2. The Big Wolves -- These are not as demon inspired as the above but they still do many of the same things. They are distinguished by the fact there is no reasoning with them. They don't necessarily enjoy what there doing but they are dominated the the belief they are right and that's that.
The guy who ultimately got the board to go along with him in voting me out of my second church was this type -- all he could see was evil. Everything I did and said was interpreted through the lens of darkness. I had ulterior motives for everything he said. I was the problem no matter how much I did, explained my actions or apologized. The guy just did not have grip on reality. There was no explaining things to him or reasoning with him. There was a woman in my first church like this too -- I was shielded from her by the fact she wasn't as member of the church but her influence over her family that did attend and were members was large and she used it to try to get what she wanted. There were a couple of others as well. One board member I had was convinced that I should micromanage everything and that my belief in team leadership was bad. No matter what I showed him there was no convincing him -- he caused problems but then when he couldn't get what he wanted he left the church but did so in a way that caused further problems. This happened a lot in my first church.
3. Pack Wolves -- These are the antagonists that have power or position but take their orders through the Demon or Big Wolves. They strike when the first blow has already been laid down. They act as support before the blow is struck. They are cowards but get brave when the there is an advantage to them and the battle is on and the shepherd is on one knee from the knife in his back.
The best example I have of this was in my second church. There was a couple who kept under the radar but they were hostile toward me from day one. As they were leaving the church at my election they told the denomination official that the vote that elected me was illegal. They wanted someone else and I was not the people they wanted (they were trying to get a friend of theirs). After that they would show up when they felt like it. This was barely enough to keep their membership and they used their money (they were quite well off) to manipulate people. They ultimately wrote a letter saying that it was them or me. They waited until the other board member talked about above made the first move. The thought of the loss of their money put fear in the rest of the board and that formed the atmosphere for the board meeting (without me) that the board requested I leave. I could go on and on with this type -- seen a lot of this.
4. Wolf Pups -- These people yap a lot -- that why I call them pups -- they have little power or influence but they act to create the atmosphere of trouble. They create mood by keeping the gossip going or supporting what the bigger wolves are doing.
These are the basic types of antagonists. What allows them to prosper is the subject of the next post.
Next -- What Allows Antagonists to Thrive
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Elijah -- Man of Courage
Today I was involved in a pastor exchange where I preached a message at the Hersey UMC on Elijah's confrontation with the 450 prophets of Baal at Mt. Carmel.
The main thing that has always struck me is the power Elijah had with God -- he prays and AT HIS WORD the rain stops for three years, but in 1 Kings 18 Elijah shows something truly brave. To go into a test of god verses GOD and know that he will win. His courage is overwhelming in that he stands up against popular opinion and prays in a way few do -- simple with power. It still overwhelms me how much Elijah risking for himself. Then again -- is he?
1. He serves God -- omnipotence
2. He is a righteous man with a covenant relationship with God that will not quit.
Is that risky for man -- probably not.
Courage then maybe one of the great elements of faith that is overlooked, but courage then is to face men with the fear of God that does not allow you to fear man. That is what Elijah teaches.
The main thing that has always struck me is the power Elijah had with God -- he prays and AT HIS WORD the rain stops for three years, but in 1 Kings 18 Elijah shows something truly brave. To go into a test of god verses GOD and know that he will win. His courage is overwhelming in that he stands up against popular opinion and prays in a way few do -- simple with power. It still overwhelms me how much Elijah risking for himself. Then again -- is he?
1. He serves God -- omnipotence
2. He is a righteous man with a covenant relationship with God that will not quit.
Is that risky for man -- probably not.
Courage then maybe one of the great elements of faith that is overlooked, but courage then is to face men with the fear of God that does not allow you to fear man. That is what Elijah teaches.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Christians and Sexuality: Sexual Fantasy
It's Saturday so it sex day. In particular, I want to talk about sexual fantasy. The question being what relationship should sexual fantasy have in the Christian life. Is it sinful or is it one of those things that is sinful in only certain circumstances?
Matthew 5:28 -- lusting of course is sin, but at what point does fantasy --simple desire -- become -- lust -- the desire to possess a person's sexuality for ones self. And what do you do when the fantasy person is just that -- pure fantasy -- they do not actually exist.
Now the main problem is that when a person approaches the church about this subject the response is usually one of two things -- silence or counsel to repression. In either case the result is guilt followed by shame or disillusionment. The church is notoriously bad when it comes to this subject.
I believe there is distinction between lust and sexual fantasy, but the must be a way to distinguish between the two to keep things clear. The line can often get blurry. Lust is uncontrollable passion that causes a person not to look at the subject of that lust as a person but and object to be used. Sexual fantasy does not always lead to this -- many times it is the longing of persons heart for intimacy or attraction. They do not always lead to lust based on the above definition.
There is a positive function to sexual fantasy -- for the single person it allows one to keep reality at bay while letting the imagination loose in a boundary it can fit in. The problem is when that boundary is crossed you end up in lust. The positive function in marriage is to loose the imagination so you don't get bored. It enables a couple to keep things fresh. It is also of use when separated due to circumstances.
Sexual fantasy needs to be reflected upon not ignored -- the "why" question needs to be asked -- is this fantasy about longing like in the Song of Songs or is it something that has crossed the line. People seem to be embarrassed or don't see the value of reflecting on the "why" of their own sexual fantasies but there is great power here when we both reflect and pray about them so that we engage the question of where the line is with God's help. By reflection and prayer one may find the answer to victory over lust.
Matthew 5:28 -- lusting of course is sin, but at what point does fantasy --simple desire -- become -- lust -- the desire to possess a person's sexuality for ones self. And what do you do when the fantasy person is just that -- pure fantasy -- they do not actually exist.
Now the main problem is that when a person approaches the church about this subject the response is usually one of two things -- silence or counsel to repression. In either case the result is guilt followed by shame or disillusionment. The church is notoriously bad when it comes to this subject.
I believe there is distinction between lust and sexual fantasy, but the must be a way to distinguish between the two to keep things clear. The line can often get blurry. Lust is uncontrollable passion that causes a person not to look at the subject of that lust as a person but and object to be used. Sexual fantasy does not always lead to this -- many times it is the longing of persons heart for intimacy or attraction. They do not always lead to lust based on the above definition.
There is a positive function to sexual fantasy -- for the single person it allows one to keep reality at bay while letting the imagination loose in a boundary it can fit in. The problem is when that boundary is crossed you end up in lust. The positive function in marriage is to loose the imagination so you don't get bored. It enables a couple to keep things fresh. It is also of use when separated due to circumstances.
Sexual fantasy needs to be reflected upon not ignored -- the "why" question needs to be asked -- is this fantasy about longing like in the Song of Songs or is it something that has crossed the line. People seem to be embarrassed or don't see the value of reflecting on the "why" of their own sexual fantasies but there is great power here when we both reflect and pray about them so that we engage the question of where the line is with God's help. By reflection and prayer one may find the answer to victory over lust.
Friday, June 26, 2009
The Irony of Pacifism
As I was bringing my son home today form Alma College, I saw a bumper stick that said -- "Stop the War". I see many people that support one notion of pacifism or another and i wander if they understand the irony of their position. They live in a nation where they have such peace an prosperity they can both afford and have the ability to speak out freely for their cause. They can do this because we have a strong defense force to protect both.
I am a Christian and I believe that God does not preclude war. Christ will go to war someday and is at war with spiritual darkness so warfare in and of itself is not evil and sinful. In the law is both a commandment not to murder but also laws regarding division of spoils in war. For all you New Testament people -- remember John the Baptist's address to the soldiers -- he never tells them to give up their job.
History now shows that many soldiers in the Roman army were Christians. Seems like the issue is one of personal conscience but no one is going to say god told you to be a pacifist and have true Biblical support.
That said, the pacifist assumes all violence is evil but he or she is wrong. What needs to be considered is why the violent action is performed -- to defend hearth and home to remove oppression to protect yourself from death -- all good in my book.
Pacifism cannot exist in a country that is involved directly in war where the country itself is overrun with violence -- why? Because the pacifist, will probably find himself dead. If not, he will be accused of being 'good' but not doing anything to stop evil. In short, pacifism either disappears or becomes discredited in a land of violence. Only in a country such as the USA where there is peace over a long period of time and people do not have to struggle to survive can pacifism live. This is only possible where a national defense is strong.
You can be a pacifist, but remember the irony.
I am a Christian and I believe that God does not preclude war. Christ will go to war someday and is at war with spiritual darkness so warfare in and of itself is not evil and sinful. In the law is both a commandment not to murder but also laws regarding division of spoils in war. For all you New Testament people -- remember John the Baptist's address to the soldiers -- he never tells them to give up their job.
History now shows that many soldiers in the Roman army were Christians. Seems like the issue is one of personal conscience but no one is going to say god told you to be a pacifist and have true Biblical support.
That said, the pacifist assumes all violence is evil but he or she is wrong. What needs to be considered is why the violent action is performed -- to defend hearth and home to remove oppression to protect yourself from death -- all good in my book.
Pacifism cannot exist in a country that is involved directly in war where the country itself is overrun with violence -- why? Because the pacifist, will probably find himself dead. If not, he will be accused of being 'good' but not doing anything to stop evil. In short, pacifism either disappears or becomes discredited in a land of violence. Only in a country such as the USA where there is peace over a long period of time and people do not have to struggle to survive can pacifism live. This is only possible where a national defense is strong.
You can be a pacifist, but remember the irony.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Engaging God Problem -- Disagreements with Chapter One
I, of course, have many disagreements with Bart Ehrman's in chapter one of God's Problem.
Bart brings up many things in chapter one but one thing you get loud an clear is that Bart has a problem with God and it is in part because God will not do as Bart wishes. God simply does not fit into his mold. This attitude, by the way, is all through the book.
Of course, Bart brings up theodicy and if you are unaware of what it is; it is an argument that has been around for a long time about God and suffering.
1. God is all powerful
2. God is loving
3. Suffering exists
The conclusion is that 3 is incompatible with both 1 and 2 so therefore God is either not all powerful or not loving. Therefore the God of the Bible cannot be true. I have found this problematic for years because I think theodicy oversimplifies the issue and does not take into account other aspects of God that reflect on suffering, but more on that later.
Bart's main thrust in the chapter seems to be the fact that while many things regarding freewill can explain suffering, natural disasters seem to defy this -- Bart asks -- how did freewill cause this natural senseless evil? This where Bart makes a critical error because in reality he does not accept the Bible as history -- if he did he might find a connection between natural evil and the Flood.
Bart maintains that the freewill defense has only a minor role in Biblical tradition and that is a major problem for me because if you look at the origins of evil and suffering much of it has much to do with freewill disobedience -- all of the suffering and evil that follows in Genesis 1-11 is predicated by bad decisions BY THE HUMAN RACE.
Bart argues in the Bible God overrides freewill on many occasions to get his wishes why not in all cases to prevent evil. I have two questions:
1. Are we sure that God is overriding freewill in these cases or does it seem that way or is that the way they have been interpreted?
2. What kind of world does Bart want us to live in? -- Apparently a world where god always bails us out of our problems and where we have no responsibilities but to do whatever we please without consequences apparently.
Probably the greatest disagreement I have though is with his statement that the various answers the Bible gives contradict each other -- I don't think so but we will deal with this book we will deal with each answer as it comes and at the end show that the answers are various because each type of answer deals with various types of suffering and evil.
One more thing, Bart seems to have prejudice against traditional views. He dislikes answers to the problem of evil that old or unimaginative. My thoughts are just because something is old or unimaginative does not make it wrong.
Next -- Agreements with Chapter Two
Bart brings up many things in chapter one but one thing you get loud an clear is that Bart has a problem with God and it is in part because God will not do as Bart wishes. God simply does not fit into his mold. This attitude, by the way, is all through the book.
Of course, Bart brings up theodicy and if you are unaware of what it is; it is an argument that has been around for a long time about God and suffering.
1. God is all powerful
2. God is loving
3. Suffering exists
The conclusion is that 3 is incompatible with both 1 and 2 so therefore God is either not all powerful or not loving. Therefore the God of the Bible cannot be true. I have found this problematic for years because I think theodicy oversimplifies the issue and does not take into account other aspects of God that reflect on suffering, but more on that later.
Bart's main thrust in the chapter seems to be the fact that while many things regarding freewill can explain suffering, natural disasters seem to defy this -- Bart asks -- how did freewill cause this natural senseless evil? This where Bart makes a critical error because in reality he does not accept the Bible as history -- if he did he might find a connection between natural evil and the Flood.
Bart maintains that the freewill defense has only a minor role in Biblical tradition and that is a major problem for me because if you look at the origins of evil and suffering much of it has much to do with freewill disobedience -- all of the suffering and evil that follows in Genesis 1-11 is predicated by bad decisions BY THE HUMAN RACE.
Bart argues in the Bible God overrides freewill on many occasions to get his wishes why not in all cases to prevent evil. I have two questions:
1. Are we sure that God is overriding freewill in these cases or does it seem that way or is that the way they have been interpreted?
2. What kind of world does Bart want us to live in? -- Apparently a world where god always bails us out of our problems and where we have no responsibilities but to do whatever we please without consequences apparently.
Probably the greatest disagreement I have though is with his statement that the various answers the Bible gives contradict each other -- I don't think so but we will deal with this book we will deal with each answer as it comes and at the end show that the answers are various because each type of answer deals with various types of suffering and evil.
One more thing, Bart seems to have prejudice against traditional views. He dislikes answers to the problem of evil that old or unimaginative. My thoughts are just because something is old or unimaginative does not make it wrong.
Next -- Agreements with Chapter Two
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- Agreements with Chapter One
In dealing with this issue I have decided to engage each chapter and divide each chapter in two. I want to first express some of the things I and Bart agree and and then what we disagree on will be handled in the next post. Going back and forth through the book like this I hope to engage the book completely after about sixteen more posts with maybe a few final words.
Chapter One is entitled Suffering and a Crisis of Faith. I chronicles Bart's own journey to his conclusion that the God of the Bible cannot be the God that exists and the issue that tilts the balance for him is suffering. I agree that this is a great problem and should not be taken lightly because it is a serious problem.
Like Bart I agree that pat answers and shallow thinking on it are both not helpful and short sighted when it comes to faith. In truth, this question should be a make or break issue for faith and if it isn't then it probably means the person involved hasn't thought completely about the issue. I too am bothered by the question of suffering and evil, but as you can see the course I chose is different.
Bart does seem to give a nod to the freewill defense involving suffering but in the end brings up a question -- If bad decisions are made by people and that results in suffering because of freewill what about heaven or the new earth? If freewill is a great gift won't we have it in heaven and wouldn't that mean the possibility of disobedience and suffering will still be possible afterwards. It is a great question and one I am still wrestling with at the moment.
One pet peeve both he and I share is the fact that people pick and choose what Scriptures support their views and then ignore the rest and this is bad. We all do this to an extent but it doesn't make it right.
Here is the big agreement -- both of us find the books currently addressing the issue to be Intellectually unsatisfying, morally bankrupt and practically useless. Most Christians I see that write on this subject are just regurgitating old arguments and there has been little original thought into the issue.
In short, both of us are tired of the half-hearted, half-intellectualized, half-brained solutions to the problem. But at the same time I disagree that the Bible does not have a solution. I believe if the Bible is taken for what it says it is and not turned into something else there is an answer to the problem of evil and suffering --through we may not like to hear it.
Next: Disagreements with Chapter One
Chapter One is entitled Suffering and a Crisis of Faith. I chronicles Bart's own journey to his conclusion that the God of the Bible cannot be the God that exists and the issue that tilts the balance for him is suffering. I agree that this is a great problem and should not be taken lightly because it is a serious problem.
Like Bart I agree that pat answers and shallow thinking on it are both not helpful and short sighted when it comes to faith. In truth, this question should be a make or break issue for faith and if it isn't then it probably means the person involved hasn't thought completely about the issue. I too am bothered by the question of suffering and evil, but as you can see the course I chose is different.
Bart does seem to give a nod to the freewill defense involving suffering but in the end brings up a question -- If bad decisions are made by people and that results in suffering because of freewill what about heaven or the new earth? If freewill is a great gift won't we have it in heaven and wouldn't that mean the possibility of disobedience and suffering will still be possible afterwards. It is a great question and one I am still wrestling with at the moment.
One pet peeve both he and I share is the fact that people pick and choose what Scriptures support their views and then ignore the rest and this is bad. We all do this to an extent but it doesn't make it right.
Here is the big agreement -- both of us find the books currently addressing the issue to be Intellectually unsatisfying, morally bankrupt and practically useless. Most Christians I see that write on this subject are just regurgitating old arguments and there has been little original thought into the issue.
In short, both of us are tired of the half-hearted, half-intellectualized, half-brained solutions to the problem. But at the same time I disagree that the Bible does not have a solution. I believe if the Bible is taken for what it says it is and not turned into something else there is an answer to the problem of evil and suffering --through we may not like to hear it.
Next: Disagreements with Chapter One
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Higher Criticism and Revisionist History: An Interesting Parallel
Robert Heinlein, the Grandmaster of Science Fiction, wrote this of revisionist history in his last book To Sail Beyond the Sunset through the character Maureen Smith:
He has a good point -- revisionist history claims to be recovering the truth about our history but every time I read one of these people what I get is not revision but anti-USA. They start with the assumption that the USA is the bad guys.
In a similar way the 'scholars' of Higher Criticism assumes that the Bible is not history. They claim to be trying to uncover the real history of Biblical times but in reality they do much the same thing.
1. Both assume that we here have a better perspective to the events in question than the people who were there or knew people who were there. There is a chronological and philosophical arrogance to both groups.
2. Both assume that the original or ancient accounts are in error or outright lies if you take them to their logical conclusion. Must be hard to believe that everything you read is false.
3. Eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted. But then why are non eyewitness accounts more trustworthy?
Recently I received a copy of Bart Ehrman's book -- Misquoting Jesus which I plan to read as soon as I can. I engage Bart because he represents a new kind of scholar in higher criticism. The ideas he presents are not new, but what is new is the way they are being packaged -- to mass audience appeal so that doubt is created. They are 'pop' in their orientation. I feel very sorry for them in a way -- doubt is all they know, but at the same time their views are fallacious and need to be confronted. I am not the first to take their ideas on but right now this is the battleground -- if the Bible is stripped of history then everything we believe is built of falsehood and we might as well do something else. The same is true with US history and our beliefs in this nation.
The battle is in history and faith -- The Bible must be a product of both to believed. This is the battle of our day. Fight on.
"In the twentieth century Gregorian in the United States of America, something called 'revisionist history' became popular among 'intellectuals'. Revisionism appears to have been based on the notion that the living actors present on the spot never understood what they were doing and why, or how they were being manipulated, being mere puppets in the hands of unseen evil forces....But why are the people of the United States and their government always the villains in the eyes of the revisionists? Why can't our enemies ... take a turn in the pillroy? Why is it always our turn?" p.67.
He has a good point -- revisionist history claims to be recovering the truth about our history but every time I read one of these people what I get is not revision but anti-USA. They start with the assumption that the USA is the bad guys.
In a similar way the 'scholars' of Higher Criticism assumes that the Bible is not history. They claim to be trying to uncover the real history of Biblical times but in reality they do much the same thing.
1. Both assume that we here have a better perspective to the events in question than the people who were there or knew people who were there. There is a chronological and philosophical arrogance to both groups.
2. Both assume that the original or ancient accounts are in error or outright lies if you take them to their logical conclusion. Must be hard to believe that everything you read is false.
3. Eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted. But then why are non eyewitness accounts more trustworthy?
Recently I received a copy of Bart Ehrman's book -- Misquoting Jesus which I plan to read as soon as I can. I engage Bart because he represents a new kind of scholar in higher criticism. The ideas he presents are not new, but what is new is the way they are being packaged -- to mass audience appeal so that doubt is created. They are 'pop' in their orientation. I feel very sorry for them in a way -- doubt is all they know, but at the same time their views are fallacious and need to be confronted. I am not the first to take their ideas on but right now this is the battleground -- if the Bible is stripped of history then everything we believe is built of falsehood and we might as well do something else. The same is true with US history and our beliefs in this nation.
The battle is in history and faith -- The Bible must be a product of both to believed. This is the battle of our day. Fight on.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Church Antagonism -- Part 2 -- Identifying an Antagonist
At what point does a person cross the line from being a person with an objection to the direction of the church (which I think is healthy) to an antagonist.
The real issue is what is the standard makeup of the average antagonist. I am speaking here of course of the guy or gal who leads the charge not the followers of an antagonist. I am showing you what the leader looks like and how they work. My backup is The Wounded Minister by Guy Greenwood. I am summing up his findings. It is a good book to buy if you are going through this; it helped me a lot.
1. They are destructive --they have no qualms about destroying relationships or causing emotional pain. To make matters worse they initiate trouble because they genuinely believe they are doing what they do for the greater good.
2. They are determined -- They will stop at nothing to achieve what they want regardless of the desires of the rest of the church. They have contempt for rules, constitutions or democratic action. They are never satisfied and no amount of concessions will be enough for them. Even when they get what they want they still go on starting a new crusade.
3. They are deceitful nitpickers -- they dwell on the smallest problems and enhance the belief there is a bigger problem by lying about it and making things up. They will do something and then accuse someone else of doing it -- The end always justifies the means for them.
4. They are masters of intimidation -- They often start harmless enough and maneuver themselves into positions of power and responsibility through putting on a show of being pious and devote. Once they strike, they attack the top and have no fear in trying to destroy a minister or even a fellow board member. The goal is selfish ambition to get what they want and to do this they must seize control.
5. They take advantage of inactivity an apathy. They attack where things are weak and when no one seems to have a desire to put up a fight.
There are people out there like this? In church? Yep. I have had two churches in Assemblies of God which had several each. Now none of them were this extreme and you don't have to have all the characteristics to cause trouble. In fact, there are many levels to this, but that is the subject of the next post
Next -- Types of Antagonist.
The real issue is what is the standard makeup of the average antagonist. I am speaking here of course of the guy or gal who leads the charge not the followers of an antagonist. I am showing you what the leader looks like and how they work. My backup is The Wounded Minister by Guy Greenwood. I am summing up his findings. It is a good book to buy if you are going through this; it helped me a lot.
1. They are destructive --they have no qualms about destroying relationships or causing emotional pain. To make matters worse they initiate trouble because they genuinely believe they are doing what they do for the greater good.
2. They are determined -- They will stop at nothing to achieve what they want regardless of the desires of the rest of the church. They have contempt for rules, constitutions or democratic action. They are never satisfied and no amount of concessions will be enough for them. Even when they get what they want they still go on starting a new crusade.
3. They are deceitful nitpickers -- they dwell on the smallest problems and enhance the belief there is a bigger problem by lying about it and making things up. They will do something and then accuse someone else of doing it -- The end always justifies the means for them.
4. They are masters of intimidation -- They often start harmless enough and maneuver themselves into positions of power and responsibility through putting on a show of being pious and devote. Once they strike, they attack the top and have no fear in trying to destroy a minister or even a fellow board member. The goal is selfish ambition to get what they want and to do this they must seize control.
5. They take advantage of inactivity an apathy. They attack where things are weak and when no one seems to have a desire to put up a fight.
There are people out there like this? In church? Yep. I have had two churches in Assemblies of God which had several each. Now none of them were this extreme and you don't have to have all the characteristics to cause trouble. In fact, there are many levels to this, but that is the subject of the next post
Next -- Types of Antagonist.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Happy Father's Day -- Rest In Peace Dad.
My dad has been dead now for 15 years. I still miss him. Here is one thing my dad did well and that was hug and each Father's Day the thing I miss the most is a hug from my father. The things he taught me about God, faith and life I can never measure. It makes Father's Day bittersweet. Enjoy your rest in the arms of Jesus dad.
On the flip side I have three great kids who it has been my privilege to raise for the last 19 years. All of them wished me a happy Father's Day and meant it and didn't have to be reminded. That alone is worth it all.
Blessings to every dad who is keeping up the good fight.
On the flip side I have three great kids who it has been my privilege to raise for the last 19 years. All of them wished me a happy Father's Day and meant it and didn't have to be reminded. That alone is worth it all.
Blessings to every dad who is keeping up the good fight.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Christians and Sexuality: The Song of Solomon
Often there are certain interpretations of Scripture that continue on and on even though there is little evidence for it. In many cases the reason is culture -- not of the time of the Scripture -- but the interpreter's time. I think Song of Solomon has been interpreted poorly for a long time. The standard interpretation by Christians I have heard since I as was a kid is that Song of Solomon is a metaphorical picture of Christ and His Church. I wonder if that is what Solomon was thinking when he wrote it? I doubt it. I think this interpretation has survived so long because to take it for what it is is a little embarrassing to traditional Christian views when it comes to sex and sexual desire.
The truth is, this is an erotic poem about the desire of Solomon and his future bride for each other. They are very descriptive in their desires and wishes as well as of each other. The language is archaic but if we were their we would realize this is about two people who have the hots for each other and can't wait for their wedding night to 'get it on'. There is actually a practical message to the Song of Songs. It is that sexual desire in the proper context is not sinful or bad. Even to those who are not married it is true. There is also another message here -- virginity is a key element in this desire. In the story the bride speaks of her virginity as a gift she wants to give to Solomon, her future husband, on the night of their marriage. It is her crowning achievement in the poem and she receives high praise for it from Solomon and her family.
I am also going to add this -- I think this is the only true interpretation -- I don't think you connect this to Jesus and His church. No New Testament writer makes this connection and there is no Messianic prophecy in it as far as I can see unless you really want to read into the book.
Look at it this way -- The Song of Solomon is God's answer to the Kama Sutra. Or is that the other way around?
The truth is, this is an erotic poem about the desire of Solomon and his future bride for each other. They are very descriptive in their desires and wishes as well as of each other. The language is archaic but if we were their we would realize this is about two people who have the hots for each other and can't wait for their wedding night to 'get it on'. There is actually a practical message to the Song of Songs. It is that sexual desire in the proper context is not sinful or bad. Even to those who are not married it is true. There is also another message here -- virginity is a key element in this desire. In the story the bride speaks of her virginity as a gift she wants to give to Solomon, her future husband, on the night of their marriage. It is her crowning achievement in the poem and she receives high praise for it from Solomon and her family.
I am also going to add this -- I think this is the only true interpretation -- I don't think you connect this to Jesus and His church. No New Testament writer makes this connection and there is no Messianic prophecy in it as far as I can see unless you really want to read into the book.
Look at it this way -- The Song of Solomon is God's answer to the Kama Sutra. Or is that the other way around?
Friday, June 19, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- About the Author.
Much of chapter 1 of God's Problem by Bart Ehrman is his personal story of how he moved from being a Christian theist to an agnostic. Who an author is and where he has come from are often factors in how they view things and so I am commenting on his background. What I am including here is what he says about himself so keep that in mind.
1. Bart was baptized in an Congregational church but raised Episcopalian. There is no story here of conversion in the classical sense -- he is born into the church and it is always a part of his life.
2. At a Youth for Christ rally he had what he calls a born again experience but in his description is not one of personal transformation but one of desire to escape hell. The experience 'ratcheted my faith up a notch" but there is no evidence from what he says that God became a personal God to him.
3. He had a desire to do ministry and went to Moody Bible Institute but had to finish at Wheaton because Moody was not accredited at the time. He then attended Princeton Theological Seminary eventually receiving his Ph.D in New Testament Studies.
4. His Ministry included work in a Evangelical Covenant Church and an American Baptist Church along with being a professor. He is well versed in classical Christianity and the Christian Faith.
5. He left his faith kicking and screaming and in the end became an agnostic because of the problem addressed in this book -- suffering.
6. He is currently the Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and has authored at least a couple books --this one in 2008 and Misquoting Jesus in 2007.
Evaluation:
I wish I could say I am surprised at his background, but Bart actually represents a larger group of people who cannot reconcile the world around them and their faith. Their faith however, in my humble opinion, is faith based on a faulty view of God and a particular interpretation of God's Word that comes from a Baptist /Calvinistic background. Coupled with a liberal education where the historicity of the Bible is undermined and questioned and you get an agnostic.
I have a few questions:
1. In his examination of the problem of suffering I wonder how much time was spent looking at other interpretations of Scripture other than the classical ones?
2. I wonder how much Higher Criticism affected his interpretations and affected his judgment on the issue?
3. I wonder how one would convince a person to return to Christianity after leaving if no answer will seem to do no matter how much it may make sense?
Still he is a person I would love to talk to because we both had the same problem at about the same time in our lives -- his was 15 years ago or so and mine more recent but in both cases it was the problem of suffering and evil that nearly broke me a couple years ago and it is the problem that broke him. The significance is three fold
1. One I was trained to believe, he to doubt
2. I understood that born again required transformation and was not ultimately about escaping hell but entering to dynamic relationship with God, he did not.
3. I was not afraid to look at the entire Bible differently if the theory I was trying to make work was just not working. I believe in possibilities of interpretation and was not afraid to take on the status quo of both higher criticism and classic theology.
This engagement will be interesting
1. Bart was baptized in an Congregational church but raised Episcopalian. There is no story here of conversion in the classical sense -- he is born into the church and it is always a part of his life.
2. At a Youth for Christ rally he had what he calls a born again experience but in his description is not one of personal transformation but one of desire to escape hell. The experience 'ratcheted my faith up a notch" but there is no evidence from what he says that God became a personal God to him.
3. He had a desire to do ministry and went to Moody Bible Institute but had to finish at Wheaton because Moody was not accredited at the time. He then attended Princeton Theological Seminary eventually receiving his Ph.D in New Testament Studies.
4. His Ministry included work in a Evangelical Covenant Church and an American Baptist Church along with being a professor. He is well versed in classical Christianity and the Christian Faith.
5. He left his faith kicking and screaming and in the end became an agnostic because of the problem addressed in this book -- suffering.
6. He is currently the Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and has authored at least a couple books --this one in 2008 and Misquoting Jesus in 2007.
Evaluation:
I wish I could say I am surprised at his background, but Bart actually represents a larger group of people who cannot reconcile the world around them and their faith. Their faith however, in my humble opinion, is faith based on a faulty view of God and a particular interpretation of God's Word that comes from a Baptist /Calvinistic background. Coupled with a liberal education where the historicity of the Bible is undermined and questioned and you get an agnostic.
I have a few questions:
1. In his examination of the problem of suffering I wonder how much time was spent looking at other interpretations of Scripture other than the classical ones?
2. I wonder how much Higher Criticism affected his interpretations and affected his judgment on the issue?
3. I wonder how one would convince a person to return to Christianity after leaving if no answer will seem to do no matter how much it may make sense?
Still he is a person I would love to talk to because we both had the same problem at about the same time in our lives -- his was 15 years ago or so and mine more recent but in both cases it was the problem of suffering and evil that nearly broke me a couple years ago and it is the problem that broke him. The significance is three fold
1. One I was trained to believe, he to doubt
2. I understood that born again required transformation and was not ultimately about escaping hell but entering to dynamic relationship with God, he did not.
3. I was not afraid to look at the entire Bible differently if the theory I was trying to make work was just not working. I believe in possibilities of interpretation and was not afraid to take on the status quo of both higher criticism and classic theology.
This engagement will be interesting
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Engaging God's Problem -- A Two-Fold Task
I have been reading and digesting God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer by Bart D. Ehrman. My original task was to engage the book on my open theism blog but as I have engaged the book I have found that this is a twofold task. Open Theism will handle much of it but God's Problem has more issues than just a simple open theism fix. There are issues of higher criticism, views of atonement, western influence of philosophy, etc. etc. issues that will work here as well. Bart has so many assumptions that work in his book that it will take more than one blog to engage them.
The question is how --
1. If a blog entry here deals with open theism it will go on opentheism.blogspot.com as well. If it does not deal with open theism it will remain here.
2. On my open theism blog I will be engaging other issues involving open theism on Sunday and Bart Ehrman's book when it comes up.
I am almost finished analyzing the first three chapters so the first article will appear Saturday.
Blessings
The question is how --
1. If a blog entry here deals with open theism it will go on opentheism.blogspot.com as well. If it does not deal with open theism it will remain here.
2. On my open theism blog I will be engaging other issues involving open theism on Sunday and Bart Ehrman's book when it comes up.
I am almost finished analyzing the first three chapters so the first article will appear Saturday.
Blessings
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
"Most Scholars Agree..."
Honestly, this is a phrase I can't stand. It is generic and undefined -- which scholars, who exactly -- it is kind of like -- "most doctors agree".
People use this expression in books and what not to bolster their point as if the majority of scholarship makes something true. The majority opinion is not always the right one. Scholars are susceptible to the same 'pop' movements just like everyone else.
I am currently breaking down God's Problem by Bart Ehrman and he uses this expression a lot and in the context he uses it I want to also add a further criticism -- If you are only using this as based on the people you hang with or who's opinion you agree with -- it is dishonest. The fact is I know a large number of scholars who would disagree with some of Bart's "most scholar's agree..". Most of what he is talking about is higher critics and there is a large camp that disagrees with higher criticism with good reason.
In fact, what it really points to is the fact that a person is trying to avoid putting up the different opinions of the various schools of thought. Opinions that all have merit or are engaged in the debate.
Yes folks -- there is a division in scholarship and it needs to be mentioned, but often one side or the other simple says -- 'most scholars agree.." and in actuality they are citing the scholars that agree with their position, not a true majority of scholars.
People use this expression in books and what not to bolster their point as if the majority of scholarship makes something true. The majority opinion is not always the right one. Scholars are susceptible to the same 'pop' movements just like everyone else.
I am currently breaking down God's Problem by Bart Ehrman and he uses this expression a lot and in the context he uses it I want to also add a further criticism -- If you are only using this as based on the people you hang with or who's opinion you agree with -- it is dishonest. The fact is I know a large number of scholars who would disagree with some of Bart's "most scholar's agree..". Most of what he is talking about is higher critics and there is a large camp that disagrees with higher criticism with good reason.
In fact, what it really points to is the fact that a person is trying to avoid putting up the different opinions of the various schools of thought. Opinions that all have merit or are engaged in the debate.
Yes folks -- there is a division in scholarship and it needs to be mentioned, but often one side or the other simple says -- 'most scholars agree.." and in actuality they are citing the scholars that agree with their position, not a true majority of scholars.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Vegetarians -- Killers of Plants.
Every once and a while you have to have fun and this is a fun post.
It has come to my attention that there are certain people in this world that only eat plants.
I wonder what the plants think and feel about this. There they are just enjoying the sun growing, living, breathing and enjoying there existence with their fellow friends the other plants and WHAM. Suddenly their one someones plate and being eaten. Destroyed in the prime of life so some human can exist.
OK, if you think that is ridiculous so is the same argument about animals.
The vegetarian lifestyle I have always wondered about. It strikes me as weird.
If you want to be a vegetarian -- I am OK with that but :
1. Don't go moral on me. There is nothing Biblically or morally superior about being vegetarian. If life is life, than don't plants count with animals?
2. Don't start saying it is superior as a diet.
In the first place, while in the beginning mankind was vegetarian or at least we assume so only because their is no record of animals being killed by man (God does clothe Adam and Eve with animal skins -- wonder how that happened?), but that dos not mean it didn't happen. In the end God opened up animals to be both eaten and enjoyed for sure after the flood -- He also used animal sacrifice (and plant sacrifice through the grain offering) as part of worship. No moral high ground.
Second -- do you ever notice how thin vegans are? The fact is without our food transport system, true vegetarianism is not possible. Overall nutrition requires using all nutrition sources in an area to get it done. Without those oil using ships, transports and trucks -- full nutrition with only vegetables is not possible. Particularly protein.
In short -- keep hunting and keep the cattle, pigs and chickens coming because I can't keep the grill fired up without you.
Meat and plant eating blessings.
It has come to my attention that there are certain people in this world that only eat plants.
I wonder what the plants think and feel about this. There they are just enjoying the sun growing, living, breathing and enjoying there existence with their fellow friends the other plants and WHAM. Suddenly their one someones plate and being eaten. Destroyed in the prime of life so some human can exist.
OK, if you think that is ridiculous so is the same argument about animals.
The vegetarian lifestyle I have always wondered about. It strikes me as weird.
If you want to be a vegetarian -- I am OK with that but :
1. Don't go moral on me. There is nothing Biblically or morally superior about being vegetarian. If life is life, than don't plants count with animals?
2. Don't start saying it is superior as a diet.
In the first place, while in the beginning mankind was vegetarian or at least we assume so only because their is no record of animals being killed by man (God does clothe Adam and Eve with animal skins -- wonder how that happened?), but that dos not mean it didn't happen. In the end God opened up animals to be both eaten and enjoyed for sure after the flood -- He also used animal sacrifice (and plant sacrifice through the grain offering) as part of worship. No moral high ground.
Second -- do you ever notice how thin vegans are? The fact is without our food transport system, true vegetarianism is not possible. Overall nutrition requires using all nutrition sources in an area to get it done. Without those oil using ships, transports and trucks -- full nutrition with only vegetables is not possible. Particularly protein.
In short -- keep hunting and keep the cattle, pigs and chickens coming because I can't keep the grill fired up without you.
Meat and plant eating blessings.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Church Antagonism -- Part 1 -- The Issue
If there is one thing I have experience with it is church antagonism or antagonists.
A church antagonist is a person who for whatever reason decides that his or her agenda should be the sole agenda of the church. If that means destroying the pastor, board members or other church members, so be it. The thing about them is that they truly believe that they are helping the church and that what they are doing is right.
The effect of antagonism is one of disunity, anger and confusion. In my experience, I have seen these situations escalate to the point of seeing the vision of the church disappear or stagnate, friendships forever lost, families torn apart and in one case -- the church closed completely.
For ministers, antagonistic situations can break a persons ministry. One of the most common causes of ministers leaving the ministry is antagonism. The effects on spouses and children are catastrophic.
In this series I want to look at the following:
1. Identifying an antagonist
2. Types of Antagonists
3. What allows antagonists to prosper.
4. How to act in the face of antagonism
5. Recovering from Antagonism -- Minister and Family
6. Recovering from Antagonism -- Church
A church antagonist is a person who for whatever reason decides that his or her agenda should be the sole agenda of the church. If that means destroying the pastor, board members or other church members, so be it. The thing about them is that they truly believe that they are helping the church and that what they are doing is right.
The effect of antagonism is one of disunity, anger and confusion. In my experience, I have seen these situations escalate to the point of seeing the vision of the church disappear or stagnate, friendships forever lost, families torn apart and in one case -- the church closed completely.
For ministers, antagonistic situations can break a persons ministry. One of the most common causes of ministers leaving the ministry is antagonism. The effects on spouses and children are catastrophic.
In this series I want to look at the following:
1. Identifying an antagonist
2. Types of Antagonists
3. What allows antagonists to prosper.
4. How to act in the face of antagonism
5. Recovering from Antagonism -- Minister and Family
6. Recovering from Antagonism -- Church
Sunday, June 14, 2009
The Problems with Higher Criticism
Perhaps a definition is in order:
Higher criticism, the name given in the 19th century to a branch of biblical scholarship concerned with establishing the dates, authorship, sources, and interrelations of the various books of the Bible, often with disturbing results for orthodox Christian dogma. It was ‘higher’ not in status but in the sense that it required a preliminary basis of ‘lower’ textual criticism which reconstructed the original wording of biblical texts from faulty copies. Answers.com
Now what are the methods of higher criticism. Well -- If your asking if they find old texts that actually support their views -- you will be disappointed. The methods are usually to look at a text make judgements based on style alone compared to the style of other literature from the periods in question.
For instance -- the deutero (two) Isaiah theory. This is the belief that Isaiah was written by two different guys named Isaiah. Why -- because chapters 1-39 are judgment and then chapter 40 begins with comfort. Somehow it is unbelievable to the higher critic that a single individual could do both. Problems:
1. Is there a text of Isaiah that only has chapters 1-39 and then another text separate that has 40-66 only? -- NOPE.
2. The theory (and it is totally theory) is based on style and opinion about words an style that cannot be verified.
3. Somehow we who are farther removed from the actual writing of Isaiah are better judges than people who were closer who said it was written by one guy.
4. Textual Criticism has actually produced texts of Isaiah that are completely unified but no text of Isaiah has shown division in any way other than functional and this goes all the way back to the Dead Sea Scrolls (hidden at the time of Christ) at least probably further back.
5. The Dead Sea Scrolls do divide Isaiah in half but at chapter 33 -- putting 34-39 with the rest in a second scroll. This actually supports that the two Isaiah theory is false but do the higher critics change -- nope.
In short, the two Isaiah theory has no smoking gun at all. In fact this it true of almost all the Higher Criticism theories. The problem is that these theories are taught as fact based on 'reason' alone and no actual facts or texts that support them. It is all pure theory on theoretics and stylistic OPINION.
One other problem I have had with Higher criticism is that the assumption that church and Jewish tradition are lying and that no text of Scripture is what it says it is. The fact is the higher critics seek to divorce the Bible from its historical nature and in so doing remove its authority since that authority derives from the Bible being historical fact.
I really have never had much use for higher criticism -- it just has too many problems for me.
Higher criticism, the name given in the 19th century to a branch of biblical scholarship concerned with establishing the dates, authorship, sources, and interrelations of the various books of the Bible, often with disturbing results for orthodox Christian dogma. It was ‘higher’ not in status but in the sense that it required a preliminary basis of ‘lower’ textual criticism which reconstructed the original wording of biblical texts from faulty copies. Answers.com
Now what are the methods of higher criticism. Well -- If your asking if they find old texts that actually support their views -- you will be disappointed. The methods are usually to look at a text make judgements based on style alone compared to the style of other literature from the periods in question.
For instance -- the deutero (two) Isaiah theory. This is the belief that Isaiah was written by two different guys named Isaiah. Why -- because chapters 1-39 are judgment and then chapter 40 begins with comfort. Somehow it is unbelievable to the higher critic that a single individual could do both. Problems:
1. Is there a text of Isaiah that only has chapters 1-39 and then another text separate that has 40-66 only? -- NOPE.
2. The theory (and it is totally theory) is based on style and opinion about words an style that cannot be verified.
3. Somehow we who are farther removed from the actual writing of Isaiah are better judges than people who were closer who said it was written by one guy.
4. Textual Criticism has actually produced texts of Isaiah that are completely unified but no text of Isaiah has shown division in any way other than functional and this goes all the way back to the Dead Sea Scrolls (hidden at the time of Christ) at least probably further back.
5. The Dead Sea Scrolls do divide Isaiah in half but at chapter 33 -- putting 34-39 with the rest in a second scroll. This actually supports that the two Isaiah theory is false but do the higher critics change -- nope.
In short, the two Isaiah theory has no smoking gun at all. In fact this it true of almost all the Higher Criticism theories. The problem is that these theories are taught as fact based on 'reason' alone and no actual facts or texts that support them. It is all pure theory on theoretics and stylistic OPINION.
One other problem I have had with Higher criticism is that the assumption that church and Jewish tradition are lying and that no text of Scripture is what it says it is. The fact is the higher critics seek to divorce the Bible from its historical nature and in so doing remove its authority since that authority derives from the Bible being historical fact.
I really have never had much use for higher criticism -- it just has too many problems for me.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Five Continuing Conversations of Long Term Reationships -- Part 5 -- Sex
Probably up till now you have been saying -- "I have heard all this before" Your probably right as these are common topics of relationships building mentors and gurus. Sex in a Christian context a continuing conversation might be a little different.
One thing I get here is -- "Your talking after marriage right?" No I mean before marriage sex needs to be talked about. Too many times I see Christian young people acting on sex before marriage instead of talking about it. If they talk more and act less they might make it to their wedding day with their virginity still intact. My Biblical test case is the Song of Solomon.
I plan on writing on the Song of Solomon in the near future, but my view, in short, is that the book has nothing to do with Christ and His Church and the relationship between them. Sorry, this is an erotic poem about two lovers who can't wait until the night they wed to consummate their marriage. It is God's answer to the Kama Sutra.
That said, there is a discussion here of sexual activity before the two come together and the end of the book emphasizes the fact the bride was a virgin. If you talk about sex before marriage it simply makes it easier to talk about it after marriage.
What should be discussed.
1. Christian Boundaries -- Hebrews 13:4 gives a lot of liberty in sex but it must be stressed, as I once read somewhere, it also has a boundary to it -- marriage. Once there though, it should be stressed that even then there are boundaries -- no body else but the two of you -- one male. one female for life (strange I have to say that).
2. Personal Boundaries -- Lets just say that some things may be uncomfortable for you or your future or current spouse. Respect these things. Some people are never comfortable making love with strangers or certain family members in the house, certain sexual activities might be uncomfortable or, at first, embarrassing. That said, it should also be noted that it is unfair to be comfortable with something done to you but you refuse to do it back. Boundaries cut both ways.
3. What will you do about children when they come and how will that effect you love life? This was a big one for me and my wife when my kids were say 6 to 13 -- old enough to understand and act if something is out of the ordinary but not old enough to get it. It takes some careful planning and patience when you have kids. It also helps to have lock on your doors. Getting a babysitter to take them to the babysitters house while you have a romantic evening is a good idea. Be creative and take advantage of any time there is time.
4. Parents -- this one has come up for me at times, in fact right away for me and my wife because for the first two months before heading to Trinity we lived with my folks. My wife was uncomfortable at times with the thought of sex with all of us in the same house. My dad also had a way of making lite of the subject so eventually she could laugh about it -- a little. One fact should be mentioned even though your married and your parents are close -- call before going over. Parents still have sex long after the kids leave. I know that's gross to you, but don't ruin it by being rude. It may be the reason your parents are miffed at you.
5. Talk about when your tempted to sin in this area. Why? because you are supposed to be each others defence against such things. It can also lead to some interesting things in the bedroom. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.
Things change in the sexual areas as you grow closer and live together longer so keep talking. This is one where as you become more intimate you will open up more to each other. It also starts with talking about it early and keep talking.
Finis
One thing I get here is -- "Your talking after marriage right?" No I mean before marriage sex needs to be talked about. Too many times I see Christian young people acting on sex before marriage instead of talking about it. If they talk more and act less they might make it to their wedding day with their virginity still intact. My Biblical test case is the Song of Solomon.
I plan on writing on the Song of Solomon in the near future, but my view, in short, is that the book has nothing to do with Christ and His Church and the relationship between them. Sorry, this is an erotic poem about two lovers who can't wait until the night they wed to consummate their marriage. It is God's answer to the Kama Sutra.
That said, there is a discussion here of sexual activity before the two come together and the end of the book emphasizes the fact the bride was a virgin. If you talk about sex before marriage it simply makes it easier to talk about it after marriage.
What should be discussed.
1. Christian Boundaries -- Hebrews 13:4 gives a lot of liberty in sex but it must be stressed, as I once read somewhere, it also has a boundary to it -- marriage. Once there though, it should be stressed that even then there are boundaries -- no body else but the two of you -- one male. one female for life (strange I have to say that).
2. Personal Boundaries -- Lets just say that some things may be uncomfortable for you or your future or current spouse. Respect these things. Some people are never comfortable making love with strangers or certain family members in the house, certain sexual activities might be uncomfortable or, at first, embarrassing. That said, it should also be noted that it is unfair to be comfortable with something done to you but you refuse to do it back. Boundaries cut both ways.
3. What will you do about children when they come and how will that effect you love life? This was a big one for me and my wife when my kids were say 6 to 13 -- old enough to understand and act if something is out of the ordinary but not old enough to get it. It takes some careful planning and patience when you have kids. It also helps to have lock on your doors. Getting a babysitter to take them to the babysitters house while you have a romantic evening is a good idea. Be creative and take advantage of any time there is time.
4. Parents -- this one has come up for me at times, in fact right away for me and my wife because for the first two months before heading to Trinity we lived with my folks. My wife was uncomfortable at times with the thought of sex with all of us in the same house. My dad also had a way of making lite of the subject so eventually she could laugh about it -- a little. One fact should be mentioned even though your married and your parents are close -- call before going over. Parents still have sex long after the kids leave. I know that's gross to you, but don't ruin it by being rude. It may be the reason your parents are miffed at you.
5. Talk about when your tempted to sin in this area. Why? because you are supposed to be each others defence against such things. It can also lead to some interesting things in the bedroom. See 1 Corinthians 7:1-5.
Things change in the sexual areas as you grow closer and live together longer so keep talking. This is one where as you become more intimate you will open up more to each other. It also starts with talking about it early and keep talking.
Finis
Friday, June 12, 2009
The Five Continuing Conversations of Long Term Reationships -- Part 4 -- In Laws
Ah Family. It is always wonderful to have a good loving family, but there is also something to be said for the leave and cleave aspects of marriage and relationships. How much input each side of the family gets on the relationship needs to be discussed and how that will play out over time.
1. How much input into your relationship will your parents have and how much do you want them to have? At what point would you consider them meddling with your life as a couple?
2. How much time are you going to spend with family? You know it gets really tiring if a spouse comes home and their partner is not there and it happens all the time. You married the person you did and they should be the chief person in your life.
3. In what ways would you accept help from family? This is important all you life so keep on top of it. The one benefit of having a good family is support, but at what point is it going to make you a slave to the other person. What support will you give family members? How will you take care of your aging parents?
4. What family baggage does each person have? Is one from a two parent home and the other a child of divorce? It makes a difference trust me and it does not go away.
Family is always gong to be their so be prepared to discuss it and keep discussing it.
Next --Sex
1. How much input into your relationship will your parents have and how much do you want them to have? At what point would you consider them meddling with your life as a couple?
2. How much time are you going to spend with family? You know it gets really tiring if a spouse comes home and their partner is not there and it happens all the time. You married the person you did and they should be the chief person in your life.
3. In what ways would you accept help from family? This is important all you life so keep on top of it. The one benefit of having a good family is support, but at what point is it going to make you a slave to the other person. What support will you give family members? How will you take care of your aging parents?
4. What family baggage does each person have? Is one from a two parent home and the other a child of divorce? It makes a difference trust me and it does not go away.
Family is always gong to be their so be prepared to discuss it and keep discussing it.
Next --Sex
Thursday, June 11, 2009
God's Problem -- Initial Thoughts
I recently picked up a copy of a book by Bart D. Ehrman called God's Problem -- How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. Bart is an agnostic who 'converted' from Christianity and I must say Bart is very good as far laying out the problem and dealing with the 'biblical' issue of suffering and the reasons he does not believe in the God of the Bible.
On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:
1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.
2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.
3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.
One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.
I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.
On a personal note, I have kindred spirit in Bart. I see somewhat similar paths and thoughts we have had as we have 'suffered' through the problem of Evil. We have similar backgrounds as far as education and upbringing although he has gotten farther in his education than I have. His story is compelling and his arguments tough but I think there are some problems:
1. His problem with suffering follows classical lines addressing two classical Christian positions -- theodicy and penal atonement. There are other views of theodicy and the issues of the nature of God and atonement that he does not seem to consider. He does not address one of my favorite viewpoints -- open theism -- at all in the discussion.
2. He heavily relies on Higher criticism as true. In truth the Bible he is talking about is a Bible which is a combination of these views which makes the Bible into something that is unhistorical. In fact, he makes note in a couple places that he is not saying he believes in the history of an event he is talking about but that he is dealing with it in its message. Part of the problem is that the problem of suffering he has then is based not on the Bible I and most Christians have come to know and accept but one that is a combination of JEPD theory, Two Isaiah theory, etc. Not the Bible as it presents itself, but one he and liberal critics have created.
3. By the end of the book, you really get the feeling that no matter what answer you might provide to his questions he will not change his mind.
One thing I liked very much though was his treatment of Ecclesiastes in the problem -- I have seen very few works of late that do and it is refreshing to see someone bring that book into the discussion in any way and both of us like the book of Ecclesiastes very much.
I hope to write a more in depth review and engaged the issues of this book both here and on opentheism.blogspot.com. But have to read it again a couple more times to make sure I am getting him right about the issues involved.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Rabyd Theologian Celebrates 20 Years of Marriage
20 years. Seems like a lot and yet a small amount of time. In that time my wife and I have had three children. Raised up two of them to high school graduation. I have graduated from both Bible college and grad school, my wife has finished one year at Baker College. We have lived in many different places and been through two churches and many ministry jobs and other jobs. Ups and downs and through it all one thing remains the same -- my love for her and her love for me. Its been a good ride simply because she is with me.
I look forward to many more years.
I look forward to many more years.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Christians and Sexual Education
Sex. A wonderful word isn't it? I am often reminded that this I one of those things you just don't talk about in polite Christian society but then again on this subject I am a bit of a rebel.
My personal belief is that sex is best enjoyed and has its greatest fulfillment when it is marriage. The only thing that keeps it in this boundary is the will of people to do so. That said, I believe the greatest reason why sex is now out of this boundary in abundance is not that the Western world has gone sex crazy, but that Christians have in large part not given themselves to Sexual Education of their members and what Sexual Education is being offered in the world, Christians have reacted in a way that has made the situation worse. Had the church been engaged in proper sexual education we may have not had this problem in the first place.
For the majority of Christian young people growing up in your typical conservative church for the last 50 years the sexual education ha been something like this:
"Don't until your married!"
That's it.
Others when considering marriage might get a little more, if the pastor is not too embarrassed to talk about it. There might be a discussion on the purposes of sex in marriage -- keep us free from sin, produce children, etc., but then after marriage -- nothing.
Needless to say, this is not going to be adequate in a culture where sex and education on sex is on every newsstand. If you don't believe me walk by a checkout counter and check out the cover of the latest issue of Cosmo. What Christian young people, before and after marriage, began to experience is that if their going to get some real information on sex, they are going to have to search for it elsewhere -- their church is no help. What they run into in the world is often lacking in an Biblical ethics, but it is educational.
In the schools and colleges of this world this becomes more pronounced and the education given is, in my opinion, causing a great health risk for our young people through the myth that their is such a thing as safe sex through contraception. All sex has risk unless it is done by two virgins and then those two virgins keep to each other for their rest of their life. Marriage is the vehicle for this in this world as given by God.
The world is talking very frankly and openly about sex and the church better realize that to not discuss these things in an open manner without embarrassment is causing part of the problem. When discussing sex most Christians look like rank amateurs and it creates an impression, one that is rightly deserved, that we really do not know much. If they do get any impression it is that we are obsessed with the absence of sexual activity rather than what is permissible.
This needs to change:
1. We need to talk about the benefits of sexual activity in the context of marriage. Particularly the fun part of sexual activity and that is why sex should be enjoyed and pursued, not avoided, when a couple gets married. We need to show that sexual activity before marriage actually ruins this fun and promotes lack of sexual skill. Sorry people that are promiscuous have fun with sex and that cannot be denied, but I don't think they are very skilled lovers, because once they use up all they know they move on. Try keeping another person satisfied sexually for life and succeed and then you can say you are a successful lover.
2. We need to talk more openly about sex in a way that genuinely responsive to what the people are saying in the world. Too much of what we have done her is -- 'taste not, touch not, handle not" -- will worship.
3. Our young people need to hear information from us that is positive and biblically based before and after marriage about sex. I imagine some people are better natural lovers than others but knowledge helps everyone become better.
One thing I suggest is to actually take Song of Solomon seriously in what it is presenting about sexual activity. But that is a subject of another later post.
My personal belief is that sex is best enjoyed and has its greatest fulfillment when it is marriage. The only thing that keeps it in this boundary is the will of people to do so. That said, I believe the greatest reason why sex is now out of this boundary in abundance is not that the Western world has gone sex crazy, but that Christians have in large part not given themselves to Sexual Education of their members and what Sexual Education is being offered in the world, Christians have reacted in a way that has made the situation worse. Had the church been engaged in proper sexual education we may have not had this problem in the first place.
For the majority of Christian young people growing up in your typical conservative church for the last 50 years the sexual education ha been something like this:
"Don't until your married!"
That's it.
Others when considering marriage might get a little more, if the pastor is not too embarrassed to talk about it. There might be a discussion on the purposes of sex in marriage -- keep us free from sin, produce children, etc., but then after marriage -- nothing.
Needless to say, this is not going to be adequate in a culture where sex and education on sex is on every newsstand. If you don't believe me walk by a checkout counter and check out the cover of the latest issue of Cosmo. What Christian young people, before and after marriage, began to experience is that if their going to get some real information on sex, they are going to have to search for it elsewhere -- their church is no help. What they run into in the world is often lacking in an Biblical ethics, but it is educational.
In the schools and colleges of this world this becomes more pronounced and the education given is, in my opinion, causing a great health risk for our young people through the myth that their is such a thing as safe sex through contraception. All sex has risk unless it is done by two virgins and then those two virgins keep to each other for their rest of their life. Marriage is the vehicle for this in this world as given by God.
The world is talking very frankly and openly about sex and the church better realize that to not discuss these things in an open manner without embarrassment is causing part of the problem. When discussing sex most Christians look like rank amateurs and it creates an impression, one that is rightly deserved, that we really do not know much. If they do get any impression it is that we are obsessed with the absence of sexual activity rather than what is permissible.
This needs to change:
1. We need to talk about the benefits of sexual activity in the context of marriage. Particularly the fun part of sexual activity and that is why sex should be enjoyed and pursued, not avoided, when a couple gets married. We need to show that sexual activity before marriage actually ruins this fun and promotes lack of sexual skill. Sorry people that are promiscuous have fun with sex and that cannot be denied, but I don't think they are very skilled lovers, because once they use up all they know they move on. Try keeping another person satisfied sexually for life and succeed and then you can say you are a successful lover.
2. We need to talk more openly about sex in a way that genuinely responsive to what the people are saying in the world. Too much of what we have done her is -- 'taste not, touch not, handle not" -- will worship.
3. Our young people need to hear information from us that is positive and biblically based before and after marriage about sex. I imagine some people are better natural lovers than others but knowledge helps everyone become better.
One thing I suggest is to actually take Song of Solomon seriously in what it is presenting about sexual activity. But that is a subject of another later post.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Five Continuing Conversations of Long Term Reationships -- Part 3 -- Finances
Money is one of the two biggest causes of fights in a marriage that can lead to divorce. Most couples have no common understanding of financial planning or philosophy. Agreement is critical on this issue.
1. Debt -- you should agree not to have any, but the reason you should have this conversation before you get married is -- if you are committed to being a Dave Ramsey -- "live like no one else so you can live like no one else" -- person and you future spouse is not -- YOU ARE GOING TO FIGHT. It will happen. Better convince the other person to be debt free before you tie the knot or it will be a problem.
2. Budgeting -- If you want to know what a person feels is important look at where they spend their money. Give the person you love a test question -- "If you had X dollars how would you spend it" will tell you a lot -- toys or future, poverty mind or prosperity mind. It will tell you if a person is responsible with money or a person who does not really care.
3. Work -- Career choices are important and both sides should be respected. If one person wants to stay near home and the other want to work abroad their could be a problem. Finding s way to mess your occupations and career aspirations is lifelong process that requires changes on a regular basis.
Once your married, the conversations continue because the financial situation of a couple is constantly changing. Get a plan and stick to it but don't be afraid to change the tactics as this situation changes.
Next -- In Laws
1. Debt -- you should agree not to have any, but the reason you should have this conversation before you get married is -- if you are committed to being a Dave Ramsey -- "live like no one else so you can live like no one else" -- person and you future spouse is not -- YOU ARE GOING TO FIGHT. It will happen. Better convince the other person to be debt free before you tie the knot or it will be a problem.
2. Budgeting -- If you want to know what a person feels is important look at where they spend their money. Give the person you love a test question -- "If you had X dollars how would you spend it" will tell you a lot -- toys or future, poverty mind or prosperity mind. It will tell you if a person is responsible with money or a person who does not really care.
3. Work -- Career choices are important and both sides should be respected. If one person wants to stay near home and the other want to work abroad their could be a problem. Finding s way to mess your occupations and career aspirations is lifelong process that requires changes on a regular basis.
Once your married, the conversations continue because the financial situation of a couple is constantly changing. Get a plan and stick to it but don't be afraid to change the tactics as this situation changes.
Next -- In Laws
Sunday, June 7, 2009
A Change of Plans
I originally intended to post an Open Theism article on Sunday every week and then post it on me other blog Open Theism, but then I thought why two places? Seems kind superfluous. So instead of pulpit report or open theism I will be writing on the normal things of this blog. Two articles on Sunday -- rock on.
To those that read both blogs -- thank you and blessings.
To those that read both blogs -- thank you and blessings.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
An Extistential Moment
Allow me an existential moment. Today was the open house for my second child and with that both my sons are graduated from high school. With that all I have left is my daughter and it is a strange feeling to have both of them men and on their way to starting their own lives. I have looked forward to it and long to see what they become, but I will miss them.
1. I will miss watching my boys play football on Friday nights. Ed will continue play on Saturdays but it isn't quite the same as when its all on the the line for Reed City High.
2. With Justin's exodus to college I will be the only male left in the household, I am not looking forward to only me and the dog being in a house full of women.
3. I get along with my boys so well and I will miss the constant chance for good conversations about the things that interest us.
I don't know, I just am not very good at dealing with both sadness and happiness at the same time. I guess I am also looking for what is next after children.
Blessing to my sons -- may they find their dreams.
1. I will miss watching my boys play football on Friday nights. Ed will continue play on Saturdays but it isn't quite the same as when its all on the the line for Reed City High.
2. With Justin's exodus to college I will be the only male left in the household, I am not looking forward to only me and the dog being in a house full of women.
3. I get along with my boys so well and I will miss the constant chance for good conversations about the things that interest us.
I don't know, I just am not very good at dealing with both sadness and happiness at the same time. I guess I am also looking for what is next after children.
Blessing to my sons -- may they find their dreams.
Friday, June 5, 2009
What Israel Should Do
The fact is that Obama has made it clear that Israel is the one in the wrong and that if push comes to shove the US will not back Israel. That being said here is one American (and I am not alone) that feels that Israel should be backed. But, I don't think the El Presidente of the US is going to back them. Here is the response they should take to all this.
1. They should absolutely reject any plan that involves a Palestinian State. Lets not put the enemy and terrorists on our front door. If Obama suggests this again tell him that he should do the same by giving us Conservatives our own state here in the USA. Lets have the 30 states that didn't vote for him.
2. Develop Nukes, if you haven't already because your neighbors are going to have them and you don't want to be bringing a knife to a gunfight.
3. Be prepared to act alone to defend yourself. Here is one American who will not say you are wrong to defend yourself.
Yes I am a Christian, but God has never given up on his people and we should not either. Why is it that we continue to stand against them when they are the ones who are being attacked by terrorists and being slammed by the media of the Arabs.
Pray for the peace of Israel.
1. They should absolutely reject any plan that involves a Palestinian State. Lets not put the enemy and terrorists on our front door. If Obama suggests this again tell him that he should do the same by giving us Conservatives our own state here in the USA. Lets have the 30 states that didn't vote for him.
2. Develop Nukes, if you haven't already because your neighbors are going to have them and you don't want to be bringing a knife to a gunfight.
3. Be prepared to act alone to defend yourself. Here is one American who will not say you are wrong to defend yourself.
Yes I am a Christian, but God has never given up on his people and we should not either. Why is it that we continue to stand against them when they are the ones who are being attacked by terrorists and being slammed by the media of the Arabs.
Pray for the peace of Israel.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
The Five Continuing Conversations of Long Term Reationships -- Part 2 -- Children
Solomon wrote a Psalm -- Psalm 127 in which he states: "Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed when they speak with their enemies in the gate. " Being that he had 700 wives and 300 concubines at the end I wonder how blessed he was? I don't even want to know what the logistics of that big a family should they all have produced at least one child would be. The thought on the production of the children in the first place with one man and 1000 women is enough to boggle the mind.
In any case if your headed to marriage one of the purposes of marriage is to produce and raise children. Any long term relationship that is going to have marriage at its end needs to talk about them.
There are a few issues that need to be discussed and continue to be discussed.
1. How many children do you want? Now in this day and age it is possible to choose if you are a believer in birth control, a subject we will take up in a few seconds. it can be very annoying to one half of the relationship if one of you wants twelve kids and the other only wants one. There are also some who figure it is God's choice how many kids you have, but then again sex is required which requires the couple to engage in it. If momma says I don't want any more and dad decided to leave in the hands of God then momma may just decide that sex is no longer in the cards. This will cause conflict. See why this discussion has to continue until both agree it is time to stop?
2. How are the children to be disciplined and who is going to do it? This one is important because if you don't have agreement about how the children will be brought up you are going to have fights of your own. It is also important that both parents do the discipline and respect the discipline of the other parent when it is done. There is nothing more annoying than to punish a child and then have the other spouse rescind it or not back it up. Both better be involved -- it is not fair for one spouse to always be the disciplinarian either -- take turns.
3. Birth Control? If your thinking about marriage you better know ahead of time if your going to use birth control or not. If the future momma is expecting to and the future dad doesn't believe in it your going to have a problem. The theology you have may be important on this issue and you better get into agreement. The continuing part involves when you have had the number of children you both want -- now what? -- who is going to do some thing permanent or are you going to wait using non-permanent solutions in case you change your mind?
4. Once the children leave the home and get married themsleves what are you going to do and how involved will you be?
In all cases agreement is important and as the situation changes you need to keep talking.
Next -- Finances
In any case if your headed to marriage one of the purposes of marriage is to produce and raise children. Any long term relationship that is going to have marriage at its end needs to talk about them.
There are a few issues that need to be discussed and continue to be discussed.
1. How many children do you want? Now in this day and age it is possible to choose if you are a believer in birth control, a subject we will take up in a few seconds. it can be very annoying to one half of the relationship if one of you wants twelve kids and the other only wants one. There are also some who figure it is God's choice how many kids you have, but then again sex is required which requires the couple to engage in it. If momma says I don't want any more and dad decided to leave in the hands of God then momma may just decide that sex is no longer in the cards. This will cause conflict. See why this discussion has to continue until both agree it is time to stop?
2. How are the children to be disciplined and who is going to do it? This one is important because if you don't have agreement about how the children will be brought up you are going to have fights of your own. It is also important that both parents do the discipline and respect the discipline of the other parent when it is done. There is nothing more annoying than to punish a child and then have the other spouse rescind it or not back it up. Both better be involved -- it is not fair for one spouse to always be the disciplinarian either -- take turns.
3. Birth Control? If your thinking about marriage you better know ahead of time if your going to use birth control or not. If the future momma is expecting to and the future dad doesn't believe in it your going to have a problem. The theology you have may be important on this issue and you better get into agreement. The continuing part involves when you have had the number of children you both want -- now what? -- who is going to do some thing permanent or are you going to wait using non-permanent solutions in case you change your mind?
4. Once the children leave the home and get married themsleves what are you going to do and how involved will you be?
In all cases agreement is important and as the situation changes you need to keep talking.
Next -- Finances
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Thoughts on Education
Today I have been thinking about education. I have had two children graduate from the public school system and one with two years to go. The problems I have had have been varied but most of it has to do with philosophy.
1. There has been a dumbing down of education -- lowered standards and less of a push for competition for good grades have hurt education over the years. I think this is particularly true for boys. Boys are naturally competitive but that has been downplayed or taught that they should relax more. Unfortunately this is reflected in lower scores for boys as a whole. In short a drive for competitive excellence has been watered down.
2. ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder)has become a big thing with the use of drugs to control children instead of discipline and teaching self-discipline. The majority of ADD diagnosis seem to be boys again -- makes me wonder if ADD is a legit disease or simple a female reaction to the male drive and activity of boys.
3. Getting in touch with ones' feelings have replaced the idea of thinking things through and calmly. This has resulted in a teaching style that is more conscious about a persons desires than their reality. Results in a lot of emotional decisions and emotions very often do not make good choices.
4. On moral issues the educational establishment has decided to use cover up programs than actually dealing with the problem. Now given that most kids are not familiar with the Judeo-Christian in schools it may be a good thing that some of these programs do what they do. In the end; however, they are not addressing the real issues of young people's decision making processes.
5. Over the years I have watch an growing anti-Christian bigotry (I call it what it is) in the public schools. Many religions outside Christianity are given a fair shake or allowed to be heard as far as their worldview and ethics in the public school, but Christianity has all but been told to go away. I am not against other religions being present, but Christianity should also be allowed to speak. In fact, I think this is the only way to avid violating the first amendment -- let every public forum and organization be open to any speech including all religious speech. When the public schools gag the Christians they are violating this amendment and the idea of free speech.
I think in the end,education has been on of those areas where liberals have concentrated their efforts for good reason. Between this, the media and politics they have done a good job in controlling the debate and ideas presented and taught. This needs to change the other way by conservatives getting involved in all these areas.
1. There has been a dumbing down of education -- lowered standards and less of a push for competition for good grades have hurt education over the years. I think this is particularly true for boys. Boys are naturally competitive but that has been downplayed or taught that they should relax more. Unfortunately this is reflected in lower scores for boys as a whole. In short a drive for competitive excellence has been watered down.
2. ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder)has become a big thing with the use of drugs to control children instead of discipline and teaching self-discipline. The majority of ADD diagnosis seem to be boys again -- makes me wonder if ADD is a legit disease or simple a female reaction to the male drive and activity of boys.
3. Getting in touch with ones' feelings have replaced the idea of thinking things through and calmly. This has resulted in a teaching style that is more conscious about a persons desires than their reality. Results in a lot of emotional decisions and emotions very often do not make good choices.
4. On moral issues the educational establishment has decided to use cover up programs than actually dealing with the problem. Now given that most kids are not familiar with the Judeo-Christian in schools it may be a good thing that some of these programs do what they do. In the end; however, they are not addressing the real issues of young people's decision making processes.
5. Over the years I have watch an growing anti-Christian bigotry (I call it what it is) in the public schools. Many religions outside Christianity are given a fair shake or allowed to be heard as far as their worldview and ethics in the public school, but Christianity has all but been told to go away. I am not against other religions being present, but Christianity should also be allowed to speak. In fact, I think this is the only way to avid violating the first amendment -- let every public forum and organization be open to any speech including all religious speech. When the public schools gag the Christians they are violating this amendment and the idea of free speech.
I think in the end,education has been on of those areas where liberals have concentrated their efforts for good reason. Between this, the media and politics they have done a good job in controlling the debate and ideas presented and taught. This needs to change the other way by conservatives getting involved in all these areas.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Five Continuing Conversations of Long Term Reationships -- Part 1 -- Religion
Weddings are wonderful things but I sometimes wonder if people understand the real issues involved in a long term relationship. I say long term relationship because my belief is a couple should be starting these conversations if they think they might be heading to something longer than a couple dates. The moment your thinking "I could be serious about this person" you should start having these conversations and they should last through dating, engagement and into marriage and beyond. The reason --these areas will be either strengths of a relationship or weaknesses based on whether or not you talk about them.
I do very few weddings because I still maintain traditional understandings of engagement and marriage and don't compromise on them. If your not into these understandings just head to the justice of the peace or magistrate or whatever and get married, don't call me because I am not going to bless a marriage God will not. To think God is going to bless something that hasn't been entered into in the way he prescribes is just silly.
1. I won't marry people who are living together -- 'but were not having sex." Then you won't mind moving out will you? Don't con me, the only reason a couple lives together is sex. It is about Eros love, so don't' lie to me please. One of you move out and commit yourself to refrain from sex until the wedding date and come back to me.
2. I don't marry people who have been divorced for unbiblical reasons -- a) Marital unfaithfulness and b) if the unbelieving spouse wanted the divorce.
3. I don't marry people unless they have had counseling and if they get it from me its a nine session process. Part of that process is these five continuing conversations.
The first conversation is religion -- if you don't have religious compatibility it is not going to work. Many problems result from this -- morals, ethics, child rearing, etc. Any issue involving what faith you have and your central core values is an issue of religion.
1. Suffice it to say Christians should not be marrying non Christians. Sorry it is going to lead to major problems and violates the principle of not being unequally yoked.
2. Christians that marry each other should at length discuss the differences between their beliefs and consider what implications that will have on their lives together.
3. Which church will you go to together? Sorry I think when one spouse goes one way and the other goes another it is bad business. It is important for any future children that they go where their parents go together. Church should be a family affair.
4. One note on politics -- for some people politics is their religion -- this is particularly true of secular liberals.
5. The significance of marriage being a picture of Christ and His church needs to be reflected on and acted on.
Once these issues are decided their needs to be a discussion on faith in the relationship for the rest of life:
1. Devotions together are important.
2. Talking about spiritual troubles and testimonies together is a great way to grow together so talk about your walk with God often both as individuals and as a couple.
3. Discussing how faith and the Bible should be applied to life is important.
Next: Part 2 -- Children
I do very few weddings because I still maintain traditional understandings of engagement and marriage and don't compromise on them. If your not into these understandings just head to the justice of the peace or magistrate or whatever and get married, don't call me because I am not going to bless a marriage God will not. To think God is going to bless something that hasn't been entered into in the way he prescribes is just silly.
1. I won't marry people who are living together -- 'but were not having sex." Then you won't mind moving out will you? Don't con me, the only reason a couple lives together is sex. It is about Eros love, so don't' lie to me please. One of you move out and commit yourself to refrain from sex until the wedding date and come back to me.
2. I don't marry people who have been divorced for unbiblical reasons -- a) Marital unfaithfulness and b) if the unbelieving spouse wanted the divorce.
3. I don't marry people unless they have had counseling and if they get it from me its a nine session process. Part of that process is these five continuing conversations.
The first conversation is religion -- if you don't have religious compatibility it is not going to work. Many problems result from this -- morals, ethics, child rearing, etc. Any issue involving what faith you have and your central core values is an issue of religion.
1. Suffice it to say Christians should not be marrying non Christians. Sorry it is going to lead to major problems and violates the principle of not being unequally yoked.
2. Christians that marry each other should at length discuss the differences between their beliefs and consider what implications that will have on their lives together.
3. Which church will you go to together? Sorry I think when one spouse goes one way and the other goes another it is bad business. It is important for any future children that they go where their parents go together. Church should be a family affair.
4. One note on politics -- for some people politics is their religion -- this is particularly true of secular liberals.
5. The significance of marriage being a picture of Christ and His church needs to be reflected on and acted on.
Once these issues are decided their needs to be a discussion on faith in the relationship for the rest of life:
1. Devotions together are important.
2. Talking about spiritual troubles and testimonies together is a great way to grow together so talk about your walk with God often both as individuals and as a couple.
3. Discussing how faith and the Bible should be applied to life is important.
Next: Part 2 -- Children
Monday, June 1, 2009
A Few Changes
No, not like Barak Obama's changes -- these are good ones.
1. I will not be giving the pulpit report each Sunday anymore. The next series of messages I am doing at the church is also going to be subject for a book, so I don't want to give anything away -- it scares publishers off.
2. On Sunday instead I will be doing an Open Theism Article -- I will be publishing it here and at opentheism.blogspot.com.
Just keeping you informed.
Blessings to those in Christ.
1. I will not be giving the pulpit report each Sunday anymore. The next series of messages I am doing at the church is also going to be subject for a book, so I don't want to give anything away -- it scares publishers off.
2. On Sunday instead I will be doing an Open Theism Article -- I will be publishing it here and at opentheism.blogspot.com.
Just keeping you informed.
Blessings to those in Christ.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
