Just a Note About the Next Month

Next Month I will be writing a novel in National Novel Writing Month (NaNoWriMo). I will still be blogging every day but all my extra writing time will be devoted to getting a 50k word novel finished in 30 days. If i don't respond to a comment right away do not be alarmed or angered I am just busy. My hope is this year i will finish nad it will get me started in an actual writing career of some sort. I figure if I can write one book to completion I will find it easier to write more.

Blessings

The Book of Revelation -- Part 10 -- Interlude and 144,000 sealed.

The Vision of the Lamb opening the Seals is interrupted because the final seal on the scroll will usher in a great woe and there is a need for a few actions to take place first. Nothing is to be harmed until the chosen of God are sealed.

The next thing that happens is the sealing of 144,000 Jews -- note to you Jehovah's witnesses it says those of the tribes of Israel not of the Jehovah's witnesses. One weird thing -- the half tribe of Manasseh (part of the line of Joseph) is listed but Ephraim is not but replaced with the tribe of Joseph. I wonder if John considered them the same. The other weird thing -- the tribe of Dan is completely missing. The purpose of the sealing of these Jews is protection from the wrath of God to follow.

To the original readers it would have indicated that god has not forgotten his people and that he would protect them.

Next: The Great Multitude

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 6 -- Bathsheda's Bath.

This is Biblical illustration of what I have been talking about. Bathsheba is taking a bath -- back then this is usually accomplished by doing in the courtyard of the house -- from street level totally secluded. or on the roof that also had walls so it was secluded fro the street but open air to the sky. In short, Bathsheba was bathing and not suspecting that anyone would see her. Maybe she glanced up at the palace -- the one place she could be observed -- but then again in this culture and according to the law you need to bathe so you bathe. What I am saying is that she was not trying to look sensual or seduce the king.

David sees her bathing. now if we were to do the normal thing people do --"she should know better" or "what was she thinking bathing without clothes on" or something similarly stupid. But even the Bible places the blame where it belongs -- not on Bathsheba for taking a bath but on David for committing adultery, lying and murder. David's lust was the problem, not Bathsheba's nakedness.

Next: Women's Breasts.

Where I am going from here.

The fact is that some days I ma busy and others I am not -- what this means for blogging has always concerned me but recently with a lot of other things happening I have still managed to get a post in -- sometimes brief -- every day.

That said, I will continue on but I am making some changes. I am basically going to write three series of posts at the same time -- altering them. Right now they are actually four of them:
1. The Bible and Nakedness
2. The Book of Revelation
3. Is Hell Justified?
4. I am also going to continue my look at Christian apologetics.

I have temporarily dropped the one on the Constitution.

By doing things this way I may finish more in a shorter time and drop the little useless posts. I also want to spend some time cleaning up my labels. Enjoy.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 1 -- The Main Questions.

On problem that people often work on in dealing with the problem of evil is hell. Now there are at least two major ways to look at hell -- punishment or annihilation. Either way though -- is hell justified? I mean how do we say God is just if God inflicts hell -- an eternal punishment -- for what we do here on earth -- temporal action?

Questions this Series Will Consider:
1. What is the nature of Hell?
2. What is Hell's Purpose?
3. How does God Relate to Hell?
4. Is Hell Justified?

I will be engaging Greg Boyd and his video series on the topic as well.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 5 -- Saul and David: Naked in Public

Not doing apologetics today as a I catch up some back posts. Today this subject gets fun because of two interesting cases -- Saul and David get naked in public and in both cases God is involved.

1 Samuel 19:23-24 Chronicles Saul trying to find David but as he gets near his destination he get filled withe Spirit of God -- it has two effects: He prophesies and he strips off his clothes and lays naked all day -- notice this is what the Spirit of God causes him to do.

2 Samuel 6:12-23: This incident is a little more controversial but based on what Micah said -- in dancing before the Lord David uncovered himself. That is he showed himself. I would also note that David whore only the ephod so it is completely possible. Many modern interpreters say that in twirling around David showed his undergarments but that would not explain Micah's anger. What is puzzling is the fact that God sides with David. Micah is the one who pays by being barren the rest of her life for her outburst.

Both incidents are men naked in public -- one because of God and the other in praise to God. In the first we have God causing someone to be naked -- if getting naked in front of others nakedness is a sin in and of itself, then God just caused someone to sin. Clearly in nakedness and shame there is something else going on here. in the second, a person is exposing themselves to God and others but bears no shame.

Both actually represent something positive, the nakedness is symbolic of openness and vulnerability before God. In both cases God approved. There is some food for thought.

Next: Bathsheba's Bath

Religious Pefection vs. Passion for God

Revelation 2:1-7
The church at Ephesus had a problem. They didn't know they had a problem but they had one anyway. Jesus himself pointed out that they were truly the masters of the truth. The knew the truth, they practiced the truth and they even discovered those who presented falsehood and showed them false. But one thing cause Christ to tell them that if they didn't repent they would lose their place before him -- they had left their first love.

Ephesus was a church that had it all right -- they were religiously perfect. Their failure was the simple fact that the passion for Christ had over time wained. Jesus exhorted them to return to what they did at first. To have the same passion they did at the beginning.

There is a point we sometimes cross -- it is the point when we are doing things out of religious habit and not out of love for Christ. The change is subtle and slow to come upon us. We often do not notice it coming upon us and then all of a sudden we know there is something wrong.

It is like the married couple that does everything right but somewhere they lose their way. The communicate, they are in agreement on their direction in life, they even spend regular time together. But one night, they are sitting alone together and realize the painful distance that has developed between them. That is what Jesus is talking about -- that feeling of distance brought upon by the pursuit of religious perfection instead passion for God.

May we all learn a lesson from this -- passion for God is primary -- it is the love of God with all our strength, with all our mind, with all our soul, with all of our heart that is more important than all else.

Due to Time Constraints

I will not do an article today. I will try to do something nice tomorrow.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 9 -- Seals Five and Six are Broken

As the Book of Revelation continues two more seals are broken.

The Fifth Seal is actually a promise of vengeance by The Lamb for the martyrs. They cry out for vengeance for their deaths and the Lamb Promises it to them. To be honest this idea of God is love is put to the test here as the lamb seems to be offering no quarter to those who killed his saints but instead tells the martyrs to wait until there are more of them. More killed for Christ and joining them at the throne. I suppose any one of the seven churches undergoing persecution would have been comforted by this thought. In fact it is probably for their benefit it is written.

The Sixth Seal is summed up in one word. Fear. What the seal does is cause darkness, earthquake and signs in the heavens. It reminds us of the great power God has to inform us of his judgments and that his wrath is always their for the disobedient. The churches with problems would have taken note that this Lamb thus speaking to others could speak the same way to them.

Both seals demonstrate the justice of God that is coming. Those wronged will be avenged and those that are in the wrong should fear the Just One and his wrath. Lessons that the world should learn again and again even today.

Next -- Interlude and 144,000 Sealed

Announcements -- Open Theism Blog

Just wanted to announce that my open theism blog is active again with my first post in a while. Going to make it once a week so some discussion can get going. Enjoy.

"You Shouldn't Do That!" -- Why Religous Control Has To Go.

Colossians 2:20-23: If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as,
21"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" 22(which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men?
23These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.

I was having and discussion with my son some time ago about his comparative religions class and he remarked that his professor had said that he felt religions were created for weak people so they could have power over others. I have to agree.

I really have no love of religion. That is a system by which people are told to do certain things or conform to certain behaviors to gain a spiritual level. In such systems you will see people who in all the rest of their life cannot achieve anything but who rule in the religious structure of --'don't taste that, don't touch that, don't handle that'.

In Christianity, there is the type of spirit people can develop where they see it as their sacred duty to inform the rest of us what behaviors and issues we are avoid and how we should think about them. "Don't watch that it is bad for you." "Don't read that it will corrupt your mind" "Don't send you kids to public school -- it could ruin their faith." etc. etc. ad nausium.

First of all, if my faith cannot stand up to something out there in the world, then my faith isn't worth much is it.

Secondly, where in the world do we read in the Bible that our struggle with our own sin is external. The external can tempt us but the real struggle is not out there is it. I takes place in our own hearts and minds.

Now I am not saying we can just do as we like but that the struggle we have with sin is as individual as the person and no universal rule about 'taste not, touch not, handle not' is going to stop a persons thoughts and meditations of heart.

Take the Pharisees as an example -- outwardly -- perfect in every outward behavior. Inwardly ---corrupt and unrighteous. Think about it.

Thirdly, the same spirit that thinks externals are where it is at it the same one that wants to make others conform to that behavior. Manipulation and control of others follows.

Probably the most common place to find this is in parenting -- I have watched well meaning parents force kids to church, memorize Scripture as punishment and censor their kids from certain activities, programs and books. The result universally -- when they turn 18 -- see ya! I don't want to have anything with God or religion -- time to party -- and the first thing they do is embrace all the things they couldn't do at home. The Bible -- "I was punished with it so I am going to avoid it because it is like a belt on the backside to me"

My point, no amount of external control will change the heart and until you work on a child's heart you will not see them change. Until you can get a child to be genuinely transformed by Christ, you are only delaying the inevitable by external control. Or worse, creating someone who can look good on the outside but inwardly and when they are in private is a sinner extreme.

If you want to change children you have to love them like Christ loved you -- that mean forgiveness and a lot of trust even when they don't deserve it or you think they are in the wrong. Love is a tough thing both ways.

This is none of many examples I can give but the end result is you cannot control someone to salvation.

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 1 -- The Bible.

True Fundamentalism. I know fundamentalism gets a bad rap at times and quite frankly most of the time it is deserved, but there was a time when true fundamentalism was a great idea. True fundamentalism was about exactly that -- the fundamentals of the Christian faith. In short what is fundamental (basic) to Christianity and Christian belief. Now i am speaking of Protestant belief here so keep that in mind. The fact was that in the beginning fundamentalism was about making the list short and basic what doctrines Christians hold to.

The first one True Fundamentalism upholds about the Scripture. There are two factors: 1) Inspiration by God and 2) Authority.

In the question of inspiration, the original fundamentalist felt that is was not so important to get bogged down with discussion about how the Bible was inspired only to say that is was inspired by God. Verbal, Plenary , etc. were not their concern -- the issue was simply who did it. The Bible to them was not ultimately the product of man and that is what need to be ultimately said. It was written by men but was God inspired.

The question of authority was simple -- it is the authority over everything we believe and do.

I like this -- it keeps things to the basics and allows room for discussion about the role of mankind in the inspiration. It also means that I can accept as a brother in Christ someone who has different views on how god inspired the Scripture as long as we all understand that that it is God's Word and has authority over us in what we do and believe.

This makes things a lot easier.

Apologetics: How do you talk to Jews? --Part 1 -- Biblical Consideration.

As you look through the Bible there is probably more on this subject than any other. The original church was Jewish. That is, it was made up of Jews that had accepted the Risen Christ. Because of this, you see many books of the New Testament addressed to Jewish people or believers.

Matthew as a gospel, for example, is very much a gospel for the Jew as it tries to to persuade Jews that Jesus is the Messiah. Even Luke though has Jesus himself going through the Law and the Prophets to two on the road to show that Jesus is the Christ and need to suffer these things.

The book of acts shows Paul on many occasions debating in the synagogues and showing through the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

Finally both Hebrews and James are addressed to Jewish people. Hebrews in particular is trying to persuade Jews not to leave the faith and go back top their former covenant but stay with the covenant in Christ.

What this shows me is that the Jewish question has been with us from the very beginning and that the Bible already has arguments about it. The issue is there anything about modern Judaism that changes things.

What It Means to Be a Congregationalist.

I suppose some people have passed by a congregational church and wondered what that is about -- I mean what in the world is a congregational church in the first place. Well in short it has nothing to do with doctrine and everything to do with government. In a Congregational church the congregation rules. The Council in many way has the ultimate power and they are elected by the congregation. The pastor's role is clearly defined as spiritual and in the end he can overruled. Risky but worth it -- It truly demonstrates a balance of responsibilities and power.

Having looked at my church for over a year now I can tell you I like the concept. The issue is to be independent but at the same time respectful of other people's beliefs

As an example, when Hersey Congregational Church was founded, eight people met that represented five different denominations including, as I remember,: Baptist, Free Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopal. They founded the church in 1870 and next year the church will celebrate its 140th year.

Some years ago, my church demonstrated it independence by leaving the UCC and becoming non-denominational. The congregation disliked how the United Church of Christ was embracing homosexuality as acceptable and they voted themselves out.

Respect is something that requires a little work. Like the original congregation of eight, I have varied theological and doctrinal opinions sitting in front of me when I preach and I think that is why the doctrinal statement is so short. Respect means to be able to disagree and yet walk out brothers and sisters in Christ who love one another. Dialogue becomes key.

Every council meeting I am reminded of this fact. Dialogue is in abundance and opinions are varied on every issue. It is actually rare to get immediate consensus but when the discussion ends we usually have some sort of decision that all can at least in some measure support. Because of this what we do is often limited in scope but powerful because everyone is behind it.

Independence and respect -- I like it.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 4 -- Uncovering the Nakedness of Others.

Now the next significant verses in the Bible that deal with the subject of nakedness are found I Leviticus 18. This entire chapter is dedicated to who you are not supposed to uncover the nakedness of. The list is long and their are other commandments involving sexual practice. The interesting thing is this expression: 'Uncover the nakedness'. The interpretive problem is that this cannot mean strip off clothes or look on a naked body because in Leviticus 20:11 we get a definition:' If there is a man who lies with his father's wife, he has uncovered his father's nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

This makes it pretty clear that this expression is referring to sexual intercourse and who you can and cannot have it with. This also puts limits on who you can and cannot marry.

I am going to tell you this does not help the discussion of what constitutes nudity or nakedness from the Bible's point of view. In short, that is not what these passages are talking about but they are dealing with proper sexual relationships for the People of God Israel. Much of what follows in the rest of the Law of Moses is the same thing repeated over and over.

What gets interesting is when the Spirit of God causes a couple kings to be naked for different reasons.

Next: Saul and David: Naked in Public

The Book of Revelation -- Part 8 -- The Seals are Opened -- The Four Horsemen

Now I want to make a few observations about traditional evangelical interpretations here: 1) there is nothing in the beginning of chapter 6 that says -- 'The Great Tribulation Starts Here" All that really happens is that the Worthy Lamb before God's eternal throne begins to break seals on the scroll. Many say a new vision starts here because of the words and 'then I saw' but the fact remains that this is still part of the vision of the Lamb breaking seals. It does lead to John seeing something outside of God's throne. The Four Horsemen.

The Four Horsemen of Revelation have long fascinated people and conjured up all kinds of art and literature. They even have been the nicknames of certain sports and military groups over the centuries including a stable of wrasslers from the old WCW. The text however does not indicate a timetable -- that is each one of these is released every half year at the beginning of The Great Tribulation. In fact, it does not really say this is a future event. Christ, the Worthy Lamb is the one doing the releasing by breaking each seal. This shows his authority over the horsemen. he controls both their release and their actions. But what are they?

Each Horseman represents a force or power that does certain things.
1. The Rider on the White Horse is a conqueror. If he is the Anti-Christ, John does not say so and I find that strange seeing John has spoken of the Anti Christ before in his epistles. The power released is the desire to conquer the add on to conquests.
2. The Rider on the Red Horse is one that takes peace and brings war. He represents the forces of War the forces that cause people to desire to kill one another.
3. The Rider on the Black Horse is one that brings hunger and famine. He represents the forces that bring famine -- injustice, greed and the forces of nature beyond control.
4. The Rider of the Ashen Horse is actually given a name -- Death. Hades -- the grave -- follows in his wake. His power is killing people -- by murder, hunger, war, disease, and beasts of the field. His dominion is set as a forth of the earth. I would like to note that is is incorrect to say that he kills a fourth of the earth's population -- what is said is that his is given authority over a fourth of the earth to act.

I would like to make a few observations at this point:
1) All of these forces are alive and well on planet earth --RIGHT NOW!!!
2) The picture of Christ opening the seals and releasing them indicates His taking authority is over them.

My thoughts are these things is that they have already taken place and these forces are released right now and under the authority of the Lamb. They are already at work in our world and moving. They are however, under the authority of Christ. As we look at the other seals I think this theme plays out as well.

To those of the seven churches suffering under some of these forces it would be good to understand they are in Christ's control and to those at ease it would put fear into them to take action.

Next: The Seals are Broken -- Seals Five Through Seven

I Finally Drank the Kool-Aid

Facebook. I have agonized over this because I relaly hate that which is popular but I have also been told it is easier to keep in touch with people using it. So if you are on facebook you can find me there as well.

I feel a tingling in my fingers -- it is starting to affect me....fading into faceless oblivion.....

Writing, Weights and Worship.

At present I am looking to the immediate future and trying to solidify my plans for everything so I am writing it out to clarify my thoughts.

1. I am going to continue my blog here but I wanted people to know that I am planning to write and article for Open Theism once per week as well. Hopefully starting

2. November 1 starts my fourth stab at writing a novel with NANOWRIMO. Hopefully I will be a winner this time.

3. I am bodybuilding again after a year off and my body is starting to get back in shape.

4. My work as a pastor continues along with being a retail associate.

5. I continue to enjoy watching my children in their lives.

All of this keeps me busy these days but I love it.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPS -- Part 7 -- Stepping on TULIPS

I suppose if you have been reading this series you will probably gather by now that I am not a Calvinist. In fact over the years i have earned several nicknames -- Sir_Edward -- of the order of the Anti-Calvinists, Calvinist Basher, Calvinists Bane, etc. etc. I gladly accept them all. Most of them were given to by Calvinists in the form of name calling but I have made them badges of honor. The question is why I am so against this doctrine. I have given many of the Scriptural problems I have with this doctrine in this series, but I will admit it is much more personal than that.

1. The Image It Creates of God is Diabolical: In Calvinism we have a God who predestines people to hell and does so without cause. God is not only unjust in Calvinism, he is also one mean SOB. The problem of God in relation to evil is difficult enough when talking about hell but now we have a God who wilfully throws people into it and offers them no chance of redemption. I find this not only Biblically unsatisfactory but what image of God is this where we can say God is a loving God who is 'not willing that any should perish.' This doctrine makes such an idea a fantasy.

2. It is a System That Leads to Hermeneutical Slavery: Once a person accepts this system it forever dominates their thinking. Kind of like the 'dark side'. ;-) Even if you present a verse that directly contradicts a tenet of Calvinist thought they will find a way around it to come with a way to save it. See common interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:4.

3. The Image of Man It Creates is as Puppet Not Person. In the end each person has no real value. In fact Calvinism creates a group of people who are valuable to God and others who are not. You cannot say a person is valuable to God if first he predestines them to hell and then sends them there without any choice or interaction on their part. The elect on the other hand are extremely valuable to God for some reason but no reason you can put your finger on.

4. It's Fruits: a) Fatalism -- people just give up to the fate of God's justice. There is ultimate way to preach personal responsibility when everything you are is because God made you do it and be it. This get difficult to explain how God is good when he is responsible for people for being the evil they are -- Hitler comes to mind. b) Murder -- I know of at least three stories where people believed they were elect to damnation and then killed themselves because of it. c) False security of salvation -- With the ultimate fruits of POTS and OSAS it is not surprising the one thing I here every so often is -- 'I prayed at the altar so now I am saved -- NO MATTER WHAT I DO.' Calvinists say these people are taught poorly, but the truth is they are just arriving at destinations that are logical conclusions.

Yep, for these reasons and all the Biblical ones I cannot embrace Calvinism. In fact I think the doctrine is very bad indeed.

Finis

Apologetics: The New Religious Reality

I have started a new 'Bible' study at church. It is a look at world religions in relation to Christianity. One of the new realities in the United States is that Christianity is not the main religion of people any more. There are now a multitude of religions in the United States and all of them have influence. As I go through this study with my church, I keep asking myself -- 'how would I witness to such a person who believes such and such?" The book of Acts is actually quit helpful because Peter and Paul clearly ministered in a multi-religious culture. Because of this it is very easy to draw comparisons.

The one thing that is interesting is that a number of people have a view of all religions being roads to the ultimate end with no one of them being truly right. I of course find this problematic because then religion is not a search for truth -- just enlightenment. How do you witness to such a multi-cultured religious people? When you talk truth, they dismiss the idea as impossible.

Like it or not Christianity claims an exclusiveness - that is it is the only road to salvation. In such an environment, how does one continue to do this and be respectful yet assured that your getting across the truth? Hopefully as we go through the study and these days looking apologetics we will find the answer.

Ministry and Technology

Today I am reminded how very much I have become dependent on technology to do ministry. Not so much in my church -- In need the copier and a folding machine -- both of which are old technologies. It is the other parts of ministry where I have become very dependent on technology for communication. Today my Internet was down and it was a frustrating moment because some of my communication and ministry depends on e-mail. E-mail, cell phones and the Internet dominate my time and energy because they have become necessary to do ministry in the modern western world. Or have they?

One of the things I have started at my church is a prayer fellowship group. It has a simple accountability question that is asked every week, then a devotional for a brief discussion and then we pray together -- very low, non-tech. It works and is very loved by those who attend.

Technology has also brought with a multitude of problems -- Internet garbage of whatever type has caused a lot of ruckus but then again we have lived in a bubble in the Christian church until the last 20 years or so. The fact is these beliefs have and practices have always existed but now are more visible. I don't think we can stop it anymore -- it is simply a matter of responding effectively.

I still try to minister the only truly effective way -- by personal touch. Technology aside people still respond better to simply being treated as valued human being and that is true at all times no matter where technology may take us.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 3 -- Sundry Verses on Breasts and Priests

A few things first before I begin. I want to address two issues: 1) Why I talk about this -- my personal motivation and 2) some things I have seen regarding Noah (last week's post on this topic) that I think are bad interpretations.

Why? Well I can tell you what it is not -- I am not trying to find justification for myself because I have some habit that I am trying to justify. I know my limits because I have been down that road before and no its pitfalls. Nor am I seeking to justify those who do such things as well. What i am doing is looking at our world and realizing that some day in the very near future it may be impossible not to look at other people's 'nakedness'. I simply want to know what that constitutes nakedness Biblically so i know when to truly turn my head and avoid sin. I also am a weightlifter following a bodybuilding style and I like feedback. To this end i have started posting pictures of myself at Bodybuilding.com and I don't want to be a stumbling block to others, but i am, beginning to see that most Christians' problem with nakedness and nudity involves a bad definition of what nakedness is.

Regarding Noah. One thing I saw was an interpretation that it is a sin to see some one's nakedness because of what happened to Ham. I submit to you Ham seeing his Fathers nakedness was not a sin but what he did about it afterwards that was a sin -- he exposed his father's nakedness.

For instance, if I walk into a bathroom in some one's home not thinking anyone is there and upon opening the door I see my neighbor's wife standing there naked because she has just got out of the shower and forgot to lock the door, have I sinned? No. It was an accident. I sin if I lust after her because of it or expose my neighbor's wife to shame by my reporting it to others. The godly things to do is quickly shut the door and apologize to her through it and then not mention it to anyone and cover her. Ham does not do this toward his father. His father is laying there naked and if he had looked away and then did what his brothers did and covered his father's nakedness he would be remembered as one of the righteous and blessed by his father. The looking on some one's nakedness in and of itself is not a sin. It is the lust and/or desire to expose that nakedness to others that is sin. Sorry to be so technical but I have had a few things happen to me where I have seen other women naked in part or in whole with no intention of doing so -- it just happened. I don't think this is sin. It is lust and slander that are the sin here.

That said as we continue on through the Bible we hit our issue in a multitude of quick things in various verses

Genesis 49:25 talks about the blessing of the womb and breasts. It is Jacob blessing his son Joseph and it is about blessing the tow aspects of motherhood -- the womb and the breasts. It actually does support the notion that when it comes to female breasts that the Bible seems to link them with motherhood and not sexuality of the female. It does not talk about the breasts in a negative way.

Exodus 20:26 talks about the fact that God wants no steps to his altar because he does not want his priests to expose themselves walking up them. This is a clear case of defining nakedness as the lower half of a man -- probably his genitalia. Exodus 28:42 talks about covering the bare flesh of Aaron and his sons as they minister before the Lord. The problem with both of these is that they are very specific in their context -- the priests in ministry before the Lord in the tabernacle. This may provide a principle for being dressed in church but then again it does not help us in the discussion of nakedness in society otherwise.

Next: Uncovering the Nakedness of Others

The Book of Revelation -- Part 7 -- The Worthy Lamb

Revelation chapter 5 is a continuation of the vision that starts in chapter 4 but the focus then turns to Christ -- the Worthy Lamb.

The vision starts with a scroll with seven seals. As each seal is broken it would reveal more of the contents of the scroll. If we were reading this for the first time we would not know what the contents would reveal. The scroll is in God's hand and he is looking for someone worthy to open it. Nobody is found to do this and John weeps about it.

This brings up an interesting question of when this happens. I don't think it is a future event based on John's involvement -- this vision seems to be an actual event in heaven with John witnessing it and having real responses to it at that moment. The vision also has no future tense to the events. It is not necessary for this to be the case because the issue is the worthiness off the Lamb.

What ultimately happens is the lion of the Tribe of Judah is declared the worthy one -- the Lamb and He takes the scroll then the whole of heaven worships Him.

As turn to the original readers all of them would be struck by one thing -- the Christ that everyone of them was supposed to be worshiping was the only one worthy of worship. The other thing is that those that worship him have been exalted. No matter which of the seven churches they were in they would have been in awe of who their Lord was and who they the should have been giving their full devotion to in the first place. The vision makes it exclusive to one being in all the universe who is worthy and deserving of their full devotion and worship.

Next: The Seals are Opened -- The Four Horsemen

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 9 == For Ourselves and Our Posterity.

For ourselves and our posterity. in short we want to create a government that does all these things not just for themselves but also for future generations. You can say what you want about the founding fathers but one thing they were not was short sighted. They may have had their public and private doubts about their grand experiment but they went forward thinking ahead for future generations. The design of the rest of the Constitution reflects this desire to create a government that would do what they set it up to do. For themselves and for the future.

Part of this then is that even as we live under the constitution, we also must understand that the blessings of our liberty had to be preserved long term and thought of long term.

Wish that was the case now.

In most cases I find the government never thinks beyond the latest crisis. In general, democracies tend to be like this but of late, we have gotten very good at thinking only for the moment. Evidenced by how much we are willing to go into debt in this country thinking that future generations will pay it off. We are willing as citizens to tolerate a government that will do this because as long as we get ours, who cares what happens to our posterity? Maybe we should look at this line a little more.

The Law, Christians and the Selective Authority of Scripture

I have often been amazed at how selective Christians can be in applying the law of Moses when it comes to issues in the culture. In two incidents one recently encountered and one an old one we can see this.

1) Many years ago a doctor refused to treat a young girl because her mother had a tattoo. The basis for this was Leviticus 19:28. The interesting thing is that his white robe is made of blended fabric which is also against the law of God. In the same chapter, God forbids his people to trim their beards -- I wonder if he refused to treat someone who shaved?

2) Recently I was reading a work of fiction where the main character is a wizard that is confronted by Exodus 22:18 -- suffer not a witch to live. He returns that the same passage also says that a person should not lend money at interest, that whoever lies with a virgin should marry her and that people should be killed that have sex with animals, worship any other god but Jehovah and oppresses orphans. He then pointed out to the people he is talking to how selective people are about the Bible. He has a point.

I have found an interesting but common phenomena among Christians. When we are arguing about something that we are trying to bring about in our culture we have no fear about quoting the Law of Moses, but then when someone confronts us in the fact that we also practice things that are against the Law of Moses, we are quick to point out that we are not under the law but under grace. I think this is why no one listens to us that much any more.

I know thousands of Christians that have no problem with eating pork any day of the week but use the tattoo passage on their kids. I know many who do not have a problem with working on Saturday (the Sabbath) but will absolutely insist that their family be in church on Sunday.

The point is that most Christians are selective in what they consider authoritative. When a verse confirms our behaviour or more importantly condemns what we think is bad behavior we are quick to embrace it, but when a verse contradicts our own behavior we are quick to call upon grace. It is this hypocrisy and lack of a consistent mode of Biblical interpretation that continues to be a our down fall.

If you are going to insist that people are going to keep all the law then do so yourself -- GOOD LUCK because the whole point of Christ is that we need grace cause we all fail to obey the law.

If you are going to give yourself the grace argument you better be willing to give grace to others on other things of the same nature. Anything else smacks of self righteousness. And self righteousness is what Got the Pharisees in trouble. Make no mistake, I do not believe that we should sin that grace may abound but it not our job to be the moral watchdogs of society -- it is our job to live the grace and holiness of God. as Christians. Part of that is to be consistent in what we consider the authority of Scripture to be over our lives. It is also our job, to recognize what parts of the Word are authoritative because we fall under that particular covenant and what parts have changed because of the new covenant with Christ. It is also required for us to love our neighbor as our self -- something the doctor forgot.

Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs -- Part 6 -- P -- Perserverance of the Saints or Nothing Can Stop Us Now.

Perseverance of the Saints (POTS) is a doctrine I would probably like to believe in except for one thing -- There is at least one entire book of the Bible against it -- Hebrews.

POTS basically states that those who God gives his grace to through U, L and I will automatically Persevere and will not be lost no matter what. The saint automatically perseveres even if he lives a sinful lifestyle or really has no relationship with God. Come to Think of it I remember Romans 6 has something to say about that as well.

POTS combined with Irresistible Grace leads to one of the most devilish doctrines of all time -- Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). If grace can not be resisted and the saints cannot lose their salvation then it seems the most logical conclusion. I know there are some branches of Baptist and Reformed Thinking that discard I and P for a form of freewill defense but honestly I think Calvin is right: If T.U.L. is true than I and P are inevitable. But then again, I think Calvin was completely bonkers about the whole thing.

Getting Back to Hebrews and POTS. Two Problems 1) The entire book of Hebrews is written to Jews who have come out of Judaism for the sole purpose of convincing them to stay in Christianity and not turn back to Judaism because the New Covenant with Christ is better than the Old. If there is no real danger of losing ones salvation as POTS claims, then why would the writer of Hebrews be worried about this happening in the first place? 2) Hebrews 6:4-6 -- For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame. Now this is odd isn't it -- if it is not possible to lose ones salvation then why talk this way?

Now I know that those who hold to POTS and OSAS say that this paragraph does not describe a person who is saved, but then that also has problems 1) If they are not really saved, then what exactly are they falling away from? It is hard to fall from something you never had to begin with. 2) If this verse were written about anything else but falling away and we saw this verse: For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, What would we say it describes then? If this does not describe salvation,what then does it describe?

Suppose it read instead:For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, to be deceived (change for example purposes only).

You could bet then people would be saying that those who are saved cannot be deceived. But because it talks about falling away from these things; it cannot be salvation because to the POTS Believer salvation cannot be flalen away from. It would directly contradict his doctrine. This is probably one of the greatest cases of eisegesis (reading what we want to be in Scripture) in the modern/port modern world today. This is what happens when a doctrine trumps a plain reading of Scripture.

Nope. Don't See POTS or OSAS as true. If fact I have rejected the whole thing and next week I am going to tell you why.

Next: Stepping on TULIPs -- Why I reject Calvinism.

Apologetics -- Defending the Faith

Apologetics. The art and science of defending the faith has been around almost as soon as the faith began to go public. The idea of offering up reasons for why the faith of Christianity is true became necessary as soon as someone questioned the authenticity of Christianity and its message.

In the early days apologetics centered on two defences -- against paganism on the one hand and philosophy on the other.

Today apologetics usually centers on defending the faith against atheism and agnosticism with evolution as their basis. The truth is though that our culture has changed to the point that even paganism is making a comeback -- numerous religions have now found their place in American culture including pagan cults and full blown polytheism. Magic and Wicca also are present in ever increasing numbers. If there was ever a need to give an answer of the hope that is within us -- it is today. The problem is that the number of answers needed has been greatly multiplied and we no longer have home court advantage.

My chief concern is that I have in my own lifetime watch the Christian church in America go from being the dominate force in American culture to being a subculture that is fighting to survive. Now we are typical of most people groups that this happens too we do two things that are not helpful : 1) We blame others and 2) We fail to look at our own behavior as a cause.

Over the weeks to come I want to look at apologetics, not to offer a better apologetics but to ask if the current ways of doing apologetics are effective. To me, apologetics isn't just something you argue -- you live it.

In short, I think the church has largely forgotten one quote when it comes to apologetics:

"The greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians. People who profess Christ in the pews and then walk out the door and deny it by their lifestyle."

Hopefully as I discuss this we may find something better.

Ministry and the Emergent Church

Over the last few years there has been a great deal talk about the Emergent Church and recently I was directed to a video on the issue as I visited another site I enjoy reading:

10 Signs You May Have Entered the Emergent Church Zone

Now the fact remains that the Emergent church is a reaction to traditional church. The belief that we have entered a new era where ministry in the post modern world. My article here is to engage this video in relationship to effective ministry. I simply ask the question is the video accurate and does the Emergent Church have a point.

1. Doctrinal Statements are a good thing but I myself have seen doctrinal statements get completely out of hand. When you are defining what being a Christian is and you leave no room for variance of opinion at all you have gone to far. There is a central core of Christian doctrine that all churches subscribe too but it is often the extras that break Christian fellowship and in that regard the Emergent Church is right on. The Emergent Church is funny this way, I admit: they do have statements on how not to make doctrine to big a deal but they still define their views on the Bible, the trinity, etc. But may that is their point -- "In essentials unity, in non essentials liberty, in all things charity.

2. Polemics refers to an aggressive attack on the opinions of another group or person. I hate to say it that the Emergent church has a point on this one -- I have seen Christian Brother divide against one another because of this problem -- when we get so involved in in being Right that we forget to love one another and allow for differences of opinion we are not really following Christ anymore. I have no problem with engaging other people's ideas to test them to see if they are right (See my Tiptoeing Through the TULIPs series), I do have a great deal of problem with Spirit it is usually done in. At the end of the day, I still want to go out and sit with my Christian brother or sister and have dinner and friendship.

3. Like the third comment -- commercialism is often attacked but it is amazing how many churches do so and then advertise their church in the paper. That however is not simply a Emergent Church problem, it hits a lot of others as well.

4. The fourth point the video makes is a good one. The Emergent Church's problem is that irrelevancy often is more important to them than anything -- including the plain statements made by Scripture. Evangelism in such churches is often watered down to what God does for me, instead of what God asks of me.

5. I am not sure the guy on this point is right. 'Living incarnationally' means to live like Christ. It is a reaction to the character of many Christians who know their faith but don't live it in their daily lives. It means to not only know how Christ lives, but model it in your own lives. Sorry the guy is overgeneralizing on this one.

6. Not sure in this one, the point he is making is confusing. He should define his terms a little better.

7. Good point, but not all Emergent Churches do this, another overgeneralizing point.

8. I do not see this as a problem. The fact is theology without relationships is dry and dead (See Revelation 2:1-7) but relationship without theology is nothing but feel good nonsense. If a church argues theologically for relationship and can do so with the Scriptures how are they wrong? This question has been around long before the Emergent Church.

9. I like this one, but I have not really met an emergent church person who does this in truth. It seems to be an attack by their critics but I have yet to see and example of it myself.

10. I think the emergent churches point on propositional understanding of Scripture is actually more of a point involving how this is only one facet of interpretation. I propositional understand Scripture but i don't stop there. I also ask the question how it applies to my relationship to God. The fact is not all truth is prepositionally attained or understood. I don't reject this as a method, but it also has its limits -- kind of like logic.

All this said I like the video and enjoyed some of its points. I just think at times it over generalizes. When you present the views of someone you are arguing against you should be more accurate with what they actually say and do.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 2 -- Noah: Drunk and Naked

Genesis 9:20-27"Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent. Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him. So he said, "Cursed be Canaan; A servant of servants He shall be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed be the LORD, The God of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant. "May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; And let Canaan be his servant."

This is an odd story. 1) Noah gets drunk and God does not think it ill and 2) God honors his curses and blessings of his sons.

The first I think is explained in the fact that the world Noah now lives in has changed. Before the Flood there is no rain or seasons, but after it there is. This indicates a change in the climate and nature of the world. The flood has removed whatever preserving power of life the world had in its makeup. Evidenced by the fact that the ages of people drop off very fast afterwards and seasons mean there is now weather and natural disaster because of it. I think Noah has no idea that the wine he would make would be alcoholic. He may not have even knew what it was.

The second weirdness has to do with Noah's nakedness. Drunk as he was an perhaps an unwilling participant in this drunkenness. He uncovers himself. I think this refers to full nakedness as when working on the ark the men probably stripped down for work -- Like Peter does in John 21. It is not that these men have not seen most of each other when working and so it is probably the case that Noah is completely naked exposing himself.

The issue here is not so much nakedness as respect. By seeing the nakedness of His father and then telling others he diminished family respect for the leader of that family -- Noah. Shem and Japheth show more respect for their fathers nakedness and cover him without looking. Had Ham done so and then no one but he would have even know he would have covered the shame of his Father's nakedness and shown love to his father. The issue is not the nakedness in and of itself it is how it is reacted too that is the issue. Ham does not show his father respect but exposes him, the other two sons do the opposite. In any case this does little to help us consider the issue of nakedness and modern issues involving it because this is family and these are all men involved.

I don't think there is any evidence that Ham's reaction was homosexual it was one of shock and exposing his father to ridicule -- something that should not have been done.

Next: Sundry Verses about Breasts and Priests

The Book of Revelation -- Part 6 -- The Throne of God

Boy oh , boy. Have you ever looked up charts concerning the book of Revelation? There are quite a few including ones I have seen all my life where the various dispensational views of the future are superimposed over the actual contents but I did find one that was just the contents which is seen below. What makes this one different is there is no interpretive model put on it at all it is quite simply the book diagrammed out. I love it.


Now on to chapter 4. There is line in the first verse that sets all this futuristic looking up: "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things" Now I have no doubt that the book of Revelation, based on this line has something to do with the future. The problem is does anyone notice how vague and nebulous this line is about the future. It only says: 'what must take place after these things.' No time frame is given. Other versions say 'what must shortly come to pass." Shortly is never defined.


Here is an approach based on the fact that the book itself never defines a time or times at all; it just puts things into visions as an order based on those visions:


1. Given that over 1900 years have passed since its writing it is quite possible that the 'shortly' may have taken place in some of the visions and they have already taken place.


2. It is also conceivable that some of the visions have not taken place because they are conditional on other events taking place. There is an order to the book but ... there is no mention in the book itself that that order is to be shoved into a seven year time period called the Great Tribulation (by the way this is another phrase, like 'seven years' that is not in the book).


3. It is also conceivable that many of the visions are constant, that is they are being fulfilled all the time -- past, present and future.


4. Looking at the chart above the visions may be more of a guide to interpretation along with what the seven churches would have understood about the book than anything else.


Chapter 4 is the first half of a vision concerning the throne of God and the scroll with seven seals. To be honest it is a very now vision and John speaks of himself as if he is participating in the now. I believe this vision of which chapter 4 is the first half falls under the constant fulfillment -- it is fulfilled at all times. It is a vision of the eternal and ever constant throne of God that has not changed ever.


1. God is always there sitting on his throne

2. The four angelic beasts are always there saying 'holy ,holy, holy'

3. The four and twenty elder are there even now and worship and serve God at all times as well


Bring back our seven churches into the mix, why would this vision of god's throne be significant to them?
To all the seven churches it would have reminded of the eternal sovereign God who is on his throne. The mighty Roman Empire they lived in suddenly becomes a pale shadow of nothing in comparison to this vision of glory and power and holiness.

1. Ephesus sees who should be their first love
2. Smyrna sees the source of all strength in tribulation
3. Pergamum sees a higher throne than Satan's where Christ has said they live and a motivation to throw off all that is unholy for the sake of the holiness of God
4. Thyatira sees the source of the authority they should be serving not the authority of Jezebel that they should remove from themselves
5. Sardis sees why they should rise from the dead to serve the living God
6. Philadelphia sees the one who has opened the door for them that no one can shut.
7. Laodicea see who it is they should be coming to for gold, eye salve and clothing instead of trusting in their own strength and abilities.


In short all of them should see the god who is High and lifted up and to whom they owe their absolute allegiance. That is a message not only for the future but for the now that even we need to hear.

Next: The Worthy Lamb

The Rabyd Theologian Looks at the Constitution -- Part 8 -- 'Secure the Blessings of Liberity'

This line in my mind is the most significant. The real issue for the Founding Fathers was to make secure the blessings of liberty they had fought so hard to attain. This is why when you look at the rest of the Constitution you will not find what Government is supposed to do but how it is limited so that liberty is not interfered with or destroyed.

This is why you will here Barack Obama and other liberals look at the Constitution as both a flexible document and one that is flawed because it does not establish what government is supposed to do. The fact is the framers and the modern liberal have a very different view on liberty in relationship to government. The framers saw big government as the problem; modern liberal do not.

Liberty is a precious gift whether it is given by a government or God. The framers understood this and in fact revisited this question again and formed the Bill of Rights so that everyone understood how government was limited. They wanted to make it crystal clear what the government could not interfere with in our lives in this country.

Next: For Ourselves and Our Posterity