New Year's Resolutions -- Final Form

I actually do not do this every year but this year I have decided that I need some sort of kickoff to some of my future plans so New Year's Day will do.

Resolution #1: To memorize two books of the Bible this year -- Ecclesiastes and 1 John -- 17 total chapters, 327 Verses. Easily done if I took one verse a day but review means I would have to take it at two verses a day. Want to be able to quote them like I was reading them.

Resolution #2: Learn Latin: before the end of the year I want to finish Wheellock's Latin -- I have the book, workbook and reader and it is high time I put them to good use.

Resolution #3 Write a non fiction book and a fiction book before the end of the year -- If I am ever going to be a writer I need to push it this year. Means putting something on paper everyday.

Resolution #4: Finish the whole year as a bodybuilder -- no slacking off of training or diet.

All of this should put me closer to my lifetime goals and keep me out of trouble.

I will also continue to blog everyday -- the only resolution from last year I kept. Well sort of anyway.

Getting Close to New Year's Day

New Years Day is two days away and I am looking both forward and back. 2009 was a year where I watched one more of my children graduate, my church stabilize and begin to get a sense of itself and myself grow stronger with Christ in a faithful trust that words cannot describe.

I wonder what 2010 will bring?

One of Those Cold Days

Today was one of those days that I can imagine the perfect scene for myself. Imagine if you will a fireplace and a reading chair. Add a large cup of hot chocolate a blanket and a good book and you pretty much have the picture. If I fall asleep, it is alright -- it is just too cold to be out there.

New Year's Resolutions

Coming into the New Year I have resolved to do a few things to further my major goals which I have talked about before.

1. To memorize a book of the Bible -- I have chosen Ecclesiastes
2. Learn a Language -- Latin
3. Write both a fiction book and a non-fiction book before the end of the year
4. Continue to lay the foundation of body building I have already started.

Hopefully I am up to it -- also the blogging everyday continues.

Jesus Loves Me.

I think one of the most fascinating things I ever heard about Karl Barth -- the 20th century theologian was when he was asked to tell people the most significant thing about God that he knew. He thought for a minute and then began to sing:

"Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so..."

How true -- Remember the "Why" of Christmas -- Jesus Loves You.

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 3 -- The Person and Work of Jesus Christ

Back to work ;-)

The is where Christianity becomes Christianity -- The Person and Work of Jesus Christ. This is what it is all about really -- 1) Who was Jesus? and 2) What Did Jesus Do?

Who was Jesus? To the True Fundamental Christian Jesus is both the Son of God and the Son of Man. I have heard the cliche' that Jesus was the first 200% person but I think the better way to describe it is he was the first complete person since Adam and Eve because he was God and Man.

1) Jesus is the Son of God
2) Jesus is the Son of Man

What Did Jesus Do? He lived, died and rose again for the glory of God with the end result being our salvation.
1) He was born of a virgin
2) He lived a sinless life; teaching us how to live both in word and deed
3) He died on a cross for our sins
4) He was buried for three days and rose again
5) He glorified God through this
6) He purchased our complete salvation

This Person and Work must be maintained to have a true Christian viewpoint

Next: Salvation through Christ

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have a great day celebrating the birth of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Blessings.

Chrsitmas Eve Service

We had a great service tonight despite the weather. It was good just to hear the congregation sing and the Christmas Story.

Merry Christmas

Weather Worries

We are supposed to have a Christmas Eve candlelight service. The weather could be freezing rain. That would mean cancelation.

Pray that we still get to do it.

Getting Close to Christmas

Well it is getting close to the big holiday and I feel better this year than many before it. For once, working in retail has not put me out of the holiday spirit. Really focused on the meaning of Christmas this year. Don't know what is different this year but I like it.

Shopping days: 3

Blessings.

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 2 -- The Trinity

Wow! This is a series I started way back in October but I must have lost it in the shuffle.

Once it is established that the Bible is our authority then one doctrine is clear -- there is one God. It does not take very long to get the fact that God stands supreme in the Old Testament as the one and only but then the New Testament and it becomes pretty clear that three individuals all claim to be God and at the same time one with each other.

True Fundamentalism maintained the Trinity was the true doctrine and so do I -- God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All are God. All are separate persons.

So far, True fundamentalism is about the Word and God. Not too bad as this is essential to understanding of faith. These two are the most basic fundamentals but there are a few more.

Just a short post on Sunday

I love church in the early morning. It allows me so much time later in the day -- and that is good because today is a busy one. Despite this i think I have something short and sweat to say:

Be Blessed One and All. Have a great day of worshiping your King!

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 10 -- Tough Question #4 -- God's Righteousness and Damnation.

Theology is not a science, nor it is an art although it has shadows of both. It is also not some dry exercise of learning doctrine after doctrine with historical analysis to back it up -- it is not about learning somethings; it is about learning who someone is. It is about knowing God.

It is the first and greatest of all human endeavors. Jeremiah spoke to his people long ago "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast of his strength, let not the rich man boast of his riches; but he who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things" declares the Lord. To know what God delights in is the key to knowing God and to true theology as well. When we delight in what He delights in then we are knowing God in truth; that's when we are practicing theology.

God cannot be apprehended by simple learning alone. It takes the whole being of man. It must involve spirit, mind , heart and strength. My spirit must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My mind must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My heart must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. My strength must know and understand God's love, justice and righteousness. When one truly knows God you understand what God understands with your whole being. To me this is the definition of intimacy with God.

That is what makes the doctrine of Hell so difficult. If it was a mere question of Scriptural support I would be pulled between two opinions. Both sides have scripture. The Annihilation Side has the understandings of the frequently repeated terms of "death, destroyed, perish" that appear in many passages regarding final judgment. The Torment Side has the frequent mentions of "weeping, gnashing of teeth, smoke of their torment, etc." Now both sides can dispute the definitions of these things in both directions. There is ultimately no clear winner and historically -- this has been a debated point in the church for its entire existence.

So I am left with trying to Know God through trying to understand a simple question: Why Hell?

My strength waits -- deciding which to back; it takes sides and becomes the depths of my convictions when all other things fail. But where there is no sureness, my strength waits.

My heart recoils at the prospect of eternal torment, embracing the relative compassion of annihilation. On the other hand, It embraces the prospect of justice for the innocent victims of the wicked through torment and recoils at the thought of the wicked just getting off with simple non-existence.

My mind embraces the Scriptures on both sides. Seeing both are supported but not supported. The battlefield of my mind still in conflict in much the same way as my heart but with Scripture as the pieces and philosophy trying to decide who has won the victory. My heart and mind battle waiting for some new piece of information, understanding or thought to tip the scale.

My spirit submits to God that regardless of what end there is -- God is righteous. the one thing i can say with assurance with all the other things I know of God -- "The Lord of the earth will do right" It also in God's righteousness that perhaps the rest of me will then follow.

What is right for God. In his love he must show mercy, In justice he brings right to wrongs. In his righteousness he is right in how he exercises both.

I also believe that both sides are right and the same time wrong. I think there also is a reconciliation. One verse, which at first seems insignificant but has great significance -- Revelation 20:14. Death and Hades are thrown into the lake of fire. Two separate places; two separate purposes. God doesn't create redundancy where it is not needed. Hades is a temporary place to be swallowed up later by the lake of fire. It is, in my mind, because they have tow very separate and different purposes.

Hades -- a place of waiting for the end. It is temporary and has two sides: the place of torment for the wicked and Abraham's bosom for the righteous. It is a place that is described as a place where those who receive good things in life experience torment where those who receive bad things in life -- receive blessing. It indicates a place where the injustices of this world are righted. Where God's love is expressed to the victims, his justice to the wicked is done and all things that are wrong are righted. it may have the possibility of being the place of final redemption.

The Lake of Fire -- the place of final cleansing and elimination of all that opposes God's will. It is the final curtain for the devil, the false prophet and the beast meet their end. Along with any person who refuses to wilfully bow their knew to Christ. Gone -- poof. Ended. In this God justly removes those that would continue to be a thorn in the side of Him and mankind. In mercy he simply removes them. Mercy both for them and those that love them they leave behind. In the end no one will say God did not do right.

My biggest problem with the usual discussion on this is that this twofold place and purpose are never looked at by people. Both are merged into one and that is not the case.

Yet, it is in God righteousness I will trust -- because if I am right -- OK. If i am wrong -- OK. Because the Lord of the Earth will do right in the end regardless of which side of the coin it eventually falls on. That is something I can get my whole being behind.

Finis.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 9 -- Tough Question #3 -- God's Love and Damnation.

Now this gets a little harder. If God's justice stands against annihilation then God's love stands against eternal torment. Or perhaps it is the way we perceive God's love that stands against it. Eternal Torment - - I wonder how many Christians fathom the concept? Think on it long and hard -- it will keep you up nights , if not for others, for yourself. Eternal punishment, burning forever in a lake of fire. For what? -- not submitting to God, disobedience, etc. all in a defined and limited time and space. If God loves all people and desires all to come to repentance why then would he eternally torture people for something they did in only a short time. It sounds like God's love must end at the border of such a place. Sorry it is a big -- "I Don't Love You" to torture a person for all eternity with no hope of escape.

This is probably the greatest reason people give up on God -- how can a loving God do this? More importantly how can God who IS love do this? It is too much for some and honestly this is one thing that has caused my faith shake at times -- it caused this whole series of posts to pursue this question because I still have questions.

Perhaps this is the tough part -- reconciling the justice of God with his love. On the one hand we want people who are wicked to be punished and victims to receive justice. On the other I too like Boyd and many others would be moved with compassion if I was near such a place watching my friends and loved ones burned alive for eternity. I think people who do not have a problem with this have never seen a person burned alive or wondered about it. Perhaps though the answer does not reside in either God's love or justice but in that which binds the two -- His Righteousness.

Next: God's Righteousness and Damnation.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 8 -- Tough Question #2 -- God's Justice and Damnation.

The real issue involving Hell is twofold when it comes to God.

1. How can a God who is just not punish the wicked and do away with evil?

2. How can a God who is love punish people for all eternity for some thing they did in only a short time?

I want to use this post to deal with the first problem.

There are many people who look at this evil world and wonder where the justice is. The cold reality is many time people do thing that are wicked and evil and get away with it. They don't just do small things either. There are the mass murders, rapists and serial killers of the world and for many people the thought is that god will put it all right when it comes to His justice. The simple belief for many Christians is that even if a person escapes justice in this world, they will not escape the justice of God. Hell is part of this belief in justice, in particular that the punishment will fit the crime. I think it becomes morally unsatisfying if a mass murderer, like Hitler, simply gets winked out of existence.

This is one of the problems with the annihilation theory -- it simply stands by itself with no way of God meeting out true justice. It may ultimately be bad for the person who is annihilated but what of the victims and their satisfaction. God is very clear about the 'eye for and eye' thing as a standard of justice -- He wrote it. And what of the martyrs in Revelation who cry out for vengeance for their blood? Simply put annihilation just does not answer the problem of justice -- of the punishment fitting the crime. It seems too light a punishment for evil.

This is where those who believe in torment have a case -- people who are wicked face real pain for what they have done and satisfaction is given for the victims of their sins. The only problem is what about the love of God and the standard of justice being 'eye for eye' is that at what point is it gone past equality and into the realm of torture. But that is the subject of the next post.

Next: God's Love and Damnation.

Is Hell Justified? -- Part 7 -- Tough Question #1 -- Torment or Annihilation?

Back to Hell. Sorry couldn't resist. Above is an old illustration of the Rich Man in Hades.

The big question here is does the Bible present a picture of eternal torment or annihilation? I have always been one who believed in eternal torment until I began to truly analyze the Scriptures and what the annihilation theory was saying. They too have Biblical support and the question has one debated in the church since the very beginning. The only problem i ever had and why I dismissed it is that they need the story of the rich man to be a parable and thus not to be taken literally. They NEED this; or so I thought.

On the torment side I felt the weakness was more philosophical. Like my old professor at Asbury Dr. Jerry Walls, who wrote Hell: The Logic of Damnation, I have felt that it is inconsistent with the love of God to torment someone for all eternity for something they did in a temporal or closed existence.

One of my readers and a good writer herself, Paula Titus, has theorized that perhaps eternal torment is necessary because our sinful actions have eternal consequences to others they require eternal punishment. I admit this is strong theory but one which I have some concerns. One is that after doing a detailed study of Ecclesiastes, I can readily declare that not one single temporal action will last. Everything we are and do will be lost to death and the passage of time. No consequence of anything including things done in sin will last. They will be swallowed up in the victory of God's grace and justice. I simply do not see the idea that our actions have eternal consequences simply because God is the Omega -- not us.

Secondly because of that grace and justice and the promise of god's final victory through reconciliation, I would say a place of eternal punishment would stand against that idea of reconciliation. Everyone could look and point to Hell and ask:"If you have final victory God and have reconciled all things to yourself, why do they still live in torment? They are not reconciled are they?" It is a legitimate question.

Not as easy as you think being a theologian -- all this thinking gives one a headache but occasionally there are moments. Both side have in my mind a fatal flaw, unless we have all missed something I really can't buy wither one at the present time. But I think we have missed something in the simple fact that Hades and the Lake of Fire are two different places and may actually have two different purposes. I think that this new view I have cobbled together may have some merit and it also fulfils some of my concerns about the justice of God in relationship to hell.

Next: The Justice of God and Damnation.

Finishing Up

Just an announcement blog -- I am going to be finishing up the other series that I started one at a time.

Also, going to try to clean up the mess that is my labels area.

Thanks for your patience

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 21 -- Final Thoughts

This has been an interesting journey. My effort was to apply conservative methods to a subject that the 'conservative' tradition proclaims to have already figured out. Using one of the most conservative and methodical Bible study methods, I began to take apart the issue of nakedness and the Bible.

I began by observing what the Bible actually says about the subject. My initial inquiries were to get a definition of nakedness and to see if the there was a difference in what the Bible considers nakedness and what Christian culture considers nakedness. I had one particular issue in mind because of current cultural debate -- are women's breasts considered naked by the Bible. Going from the beginning to the end of Scripture I looked at every time I could find and think of where nakedness, breasts, women, etc. were mentioned to see if those passages would shed some light on the subject.

The interpretations and conclusions I was forced to draw based on what I was seeing were definitely different. I had to conclude that the Bible's definition of nakedness was far different and deeper than what contemporary conservative tradition has. Nakedness is the spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that is caused by sin and a human being is made of aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God. Conservative tradition focuses on the externals of nakedness, but the Biblical definition doesn't to focus on this at all but on the spiritual loss of innocence due to sin. The fact was that on the issue of physical nakedness the bible is back and forth. Adam and Eve are covered by God but Isaiah is told by God to strip naked and David dances naked before the ark and both are vindicated because of obedience. Physical nakedness is only shameful if accompanied by spiritual nakedness due to sin. When it came to the specific issue of women's breasts -- I could find no verse of Scripture that directly connected exposing them to being naked. If anything I found many verses singing their praises.

Applying this to real life became a challenge in the light of traditional conservative thinking. But one verse, a quote from Christ, kept going through my head. "Do not judge after the outward appearance, but judge righteous judgment." When it comes to this issue the church as a whole has the issue backwards. The average Christian is constantly making judgments about people's spirituality based on outward appearance when it comes to exposure of physical skin, but Biblically, in more ways than one, this is unsupportable. No one that I can see is judging things based on spiritual state. Nakedness of spirit is rarely dealt with effectively. I have seen many who were lost in sin fully clothed in body they were naked before God but the church ignores such people in favor of what going after what they can see. This changed my perspective on many issues including art, porn, public nudity, spiritual life and ministry in this world when nakedness is more and more common. I also had to conclude that the public perspective that a women exposing her breasts is nakedness is cultural not Biblical. It is no more nakedness for a woman than exposing her legs or face, but culturally this seems to be a last frontier of a culture war.

To contextualize all this became issues of living faith, liberty and the nature of sin and temptation for the believer. In the end i had to conclude that change the definition from physical to spiritual changes a lot mostly though it is about where the battle is really fought with lust -- in our hearts. It ultimately means that physical nakedness has no power unless the believer because of their own sin allows it to do so through spiritual nakedness. What makes a painting of a naked figure art or porn may greatly depend on the perspective. Is it viewed through the eyes of sin or innocence.

My largest final thought is how a person with a Biblical perspective is going to deal in our world and culture. This issue is both about the church culture as well as the world's

The great irony is that the greater difficulty is going to come from the church culture. Those of us focused on spiritual nakedness are going to look like we are not truly 'conservative' in our outlook. In truth, we are facing an issue of Christian liberty verses not making our weaker brother or sister stumble. We are going to have to think about how to walk a line between effective ministry where the strategy is about being in the world and not of it; and the other side where the strategy that is traditionally employed is legal action and isolation. This second strategy is going to ultimately fail and we must begin to exercise influence to a more Biblical way of doing things -- applying grace and truth to the true nakedness of this world -- the shame and exposure of sin.

To the world, we simply have to suspend our self-righteous opinions and oddly enough I think most people in the world would consider this a breath of fresh air compared to what we normally do. To actually rub shoulders with people who may be unacceptable to Christian culture but then effectively minister the grace and truth of Christ is the ultimate goal. To be able to go to places and be in situations where nudity is present but unaffected by it; to be able to look past the fashion and clothing issues to see real nakedness of spirit would be a more effective strategy than what is currently employed. It would also reflect more fully the ministry that Paul did in his world in the book of Acts.

I only have a couple of negative thoughts on these possibilities 1) nakedness being spiritual is going to be more nebulous -- it is much easier for people to define things by sight even though this is not truly accurate. 2) The church at present very likely lacks the spiritual maturity to reexamine themselves in the light of these Biblical understandings. I just think that the church culture is easier to accept than true Biblical definition. The later actually requires us to think.

For myself, I simply wait , pray and change my own attitude -- it is all I really can do. One thing is for sure though -- the nature of nakedness is changed in my mind and as much as possible, given those around me, I will walk in the liberty and truth of it.

Finis

Immanuel -- God With Us.

I always love nativity scenes because, like versions of the Christmas Carol by Dickens, most people never quite get it completely right. The wise men will be present. The baby Jesus looks six months old, etc., etc. The one thing they almost can never artistically express is the fact that Jesus was God with us.

God the almighty in the form of a Baby? It is still a mystery in many ways to me. Simple but profound. But then again that is true with most of the great truths of Scripture.

Blessings.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 20 -- Other Things to Consiider -- Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith

Now I want people to understand that I am not picking on Islamic people here. The issue is religion vs. faith in the context of nakedness and you can find dress codes all over the place for am multitude of reasons. Substitute any faith for 'Islamic' and you have the idea.

There is nothing more worthy of contempt that a person whose faith is only outward and has no living nature to it. Religiousness does this.

Jesus had no love for religious practice without heart. The Pharisees often were his favorite target. Why? Because to everyone else they were both righteous and religious, to Jesus they were whitewashed tombs full of dead men's bones. They controlled people's outward behavior -- what they ate, what they did on the Sabbath, what they wore, etc. They had no living relationship with God.

When I look at how the church views nakedness, I see more and more how this issue has become about the control of behavior. There are those in the church who want to define modest and nakedness for others and then tell them how to dress. They may be well meaning but in the end they tell other people what nakedness is (whether it is Biblical or not is not the issue) and then condemn those who do not live to their code. Probably the most heinous example of this is how men in the church tell women what to wear so they will not be tempted to lust. I love it when men, or women put up to it by men, start telling Christian women that if they do not dress a certain way they are acting like prostitutes or being sensual. They are inciting men to lust by how they dress. The real aim is control. I am going to also level the accusation that such men are actually guilty of lust and by trying to control women's dress they are admitting their weakness to it. I wonder why none of them looking the mirror and say -- 'I have to change'? Because they have a self righteous belief in the rightness of their opinion. "My lust is not my problem it is all these women running around 'naked' that are the problem".

Living Faith differs from this in that a person is dedicated to a relationship with God. it is not about religious codes or following rules as it is about love. Love toward God; love toward neighbor. Physical nakedness should not affect a person acting in in living faith and love. When a man sees a woman, regardless of dress, he will either choose to love who she is or treat her like an object. When religious people look at a woman and say "Did you see how she was immodestly dressed' they are not acting in love. They are simply bringing someone else down to justify themselves.

Living faith understands that their is a genuine difference between admiration of a person' body and lusting after a person's body.

One example in Scripture is Esther 2:7 where Esther is declared to be by the writer to be 'lovely of both form and features'. In short she had a great figure and a beautiful face. This is sincere admiration and does not diminish Esther's personhood one bit. The writer is not lusting his is simply pointing out that Esther was beautiful.

Another case of someone respecting the personhood of a woman is Jesus with the woman caught in adultery. Because she was caught in the 'very act' of adultery, one thing can be surmised -she was probably dragged naked to Jesus. Sorry, they did not give her time to dress -- their whole purpose is to humiliate both her and Jesus. As she is dragged naked through the streets, her exposure and shame (true nakedness) would have been more pronounced. Honestly, I don't think the mystery of what Jesus wrote on the ground is as fascinating as how Jesus acts. He looks down to write -- respecting her nakedness. He only faces her to forgive her, once no one condemns her and he does not either. Her exposure and shame evaporates and she heads home with neither, even though the physical state of her dress has not changed. Of course someone probalby covered that up as well, but only after she has already been forgiven.

My point is that living faith based on love is not conscious of a persons physical nakedness but the spiritual nakedness of others. Then it seeks to cover that nakedness with the grace of Christ. Some of the most spiritually naked people I have met have been wearing the most modest of dress. While others I have seen are spiritually covered by god but were wearing little in the way of clothes.

Next: The Final Word on the the Bible and Nakedness.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 19 -- Other Things to Consiider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation.

Aah. Vintage Bomber nose Art from World War 2. The 'Modest Maiden" and compared to some of this art she is 'modest'. Got into nose art after I found out my grandfather was a WWII B-17 pilot. Never have found out what his plane's name was. In case anyone is out there who knows his name was Captain Edward William Raby.

OK. Liberty aside what can these new understandings do to help us in our understanding of the nature of sin and temptation.

First of all, we need to understand that sensuality and lust are spiritual forces. Can the visual be used by Satan to tempt us -- of course but how does it have this power. Certainly not, the nudity in and of itself. The power of lust comes from a lustful heart. Jesus was very clear about this -- that which comes out of a man corrupts us. What come from outside into us does not corrupt us.

Secondly, I would have to conclude that the notion that we can stop lust from happening by everyone covering up is nonsense. Whether a woman is nude or not a man could lust after her. Remember Jesus spoke into a Jewish Ancient Middle Eastern where women were cover up more than today. Still he warned that lusting after a woman was adultery. He also said something else which is the third point.

Thirdly, both Jesus and James point that the target we should take for action is ourselves. James gives us the fact we are tempted from our own lusts and Jesus gives us the notion that we should cut off hands and eyes to avoid it. Metaphorically, take extreme measures to correct yourself in the face of sin.

Add to these understandings that nakedness in spiritual and not necessarily physical and you get in my opinion a very different course of action in dealing with temptation to lust. The target dramatically changes from the outside world to yourself -- in particularly your own heart.

Perhaps an example is in order. Let's say I am walking down the streets of New York City on a hot day. Never been there but maybe someday. Two women approach me and because of the laws they are topless/topfree and it is OK because several men have their shirts off as well. To add to the crisis of temptation they are both highly attractive. To top it all off, I am street witnessing. They head right for me, curious as to what I am doing. The come right up to me and ask we what I am talking about.

Now if I was a conventional conservative Christian with traditional views on sexual temptation and nudity the proper response is to beat feet out of there and leave the women standing with their mouths open. We might send up a prayer that someone else will talk to them about Christ when they are 'properly attired".

Or I could show some Christian maturity and armed with my understandings about nakedness and what Biblically constitutes nudity, I might say a prayer for myself that lust will stay dormant in my heart and then witness to them myself. By so doing I also treat them as humans and not as problems. If they accept Christ, then things might change or maybe not. Might be an interesting testimony from them how they accepted Christ as Lord while strolling around topless on a hot day in New York City. Imaging that, God still loved them anyway.

Maybe the imperative of this understanding would hit you if I further tell you that two minutes later they are both hit by a car and killed. Which option does the will of the Father then?

Isn't it amazing how we pick and choose who is worthy of the message of the gospel simply because of outward appearances and our own religious prejudices as if sinners hold to our moral views.

For myself, I never won a single victory over lust by getting rid of every image or nudity from my presence. I did this once upon a time and I can tell you the human imagination is far more vivid than a photograph and more likely to produce lust. It wasn't until I changed my understandings of things and sought a Biblical understanding of nakedness and nudity that I began to realize that I was taught very badly on this issue by the church. The 'don't look' approach does not work. What did work is when I began to appreciate the human body for what it is -- a beautiful creation of God and learned to treat women as human beings regardless of how they are dressed (including those in photographs and artwork) that I began to win battles against my own heart. When I began to truly understand what nakedness is, that is when I began to win the battle against my own shame and exposure. When you can stand naked in front of God and feel no shame, then you are walking in victory in Christ and have returned to 'naked and unashamed'. Unlike the 'Modest Maiden' above, you can be exposed and understand it is about openness and intimacy, not shame as God originally intended.

Next: Nakedness and External Religion vs. Living Faith.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 18 -- Other Things to Consider -- Christian Liberty

Ancient Corinth above, Paul moved in these streets that were dotted with brothels, temple prostitutes and nude images.

Contextualization is the process by which you take what you have studied (observed/interpreted/applied) and put it into large stew pot of all previous knowledge and see if their are new understandings or changes to previous understandings you already have in your beliefs and theology. It is a lifelong and constant process.

The first question: What areas of understanding would this affect? I can think of three:

1. Christian Liberty

2. The Nature of Sin and Temptation

3. External Religion vs. Living Faith

I had originally thought to handle all of this in one post but I am going to take three. Let's Start with the issue of Christian Liberty

The issue of Christian Liberty is most properly presented by Paul in 1 Corinthians 8 where Paul reminds us to take care with our liberty so as not to be a stumbling block to those that are weak. Paul also address the issue of immorality in chapter 5 of the same book so it was on his mind when he talked about liberty. The church of Corinth was given over to idolatry and immorality as mentioned before so it also puts things right in our context. Despite this, Paul champions liberty for the Christian but with this condition -- don't let your liberty become a stumbling block to the faith of another. The strong in there personal liberty should make sure their liberty does not become something the weak in liberty might use as an excuse to sin. Paul was so strong in this view that he was committed to not eating meat at all to make sure the weak did not stumble.

In the issue of nudity and nakedness, we need to define who is weak and who is strong. Based on chapter 5 of 1st Corinthians, we are never to condone immorality in fact strong action may be required to discipline those who act in immorality, but there is a great deal of difference between sexual intercourse and nudity for public display. One requires relationship (no matter how brief or poorly motivated) and the other simply is there for public view by anyone who looks.

The strong would be people who understand that Biblically 'nakedness' is a spiritual state of vulnerability and shame because of sin and not an outward state of undress. Paul was one of the strong here -- he was able to minister in places where nudity was both prevalent and common and did not succumb to temptation. The weak would be those who could not do this because nudity leads them to sin -- lust in particular. Those of us who understand the true definition of 'nakedness' need to be mindful that not everyone understands this and are not at liberty to act in this freedom. We cannot use our freedom as a stumbling block for others. It may be that some could join a Christian nudist colony and be free in it, but others would be drawn back to their sin. The very fact someone may discover its existence might be a stumbling block in and of itself. Liberty used as licence in this area may be out. That said I find to many weak people not willing to become stronger in their understanding. One could spend all their time trying not to offend the weak but that also is wrong -- liberty s their to make us free.

What the strong need to do is think of ways to walk in their liberty and not offend others. To be free but understanding of others. Probably the bast way is those who are strong can use this to help them in their fight against temptation and sin.

Next: Other Things to Consider -- The Nature of Sin and Temptation

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 17 -- The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction

Now as a general observation -- traditions die hard. Even if the truth of a situation can be shown -- the tradition will be maintained because it is...well tradition. That means even if you show the truth that a tradition is wrong it will be maintained. People do not like change and they do not like to admit they were wrong.

Now in the case of traditional Christianity and Nudity the issue is that Biblically there is little support for traditional understandings of what constitutes nudity and nakedness. However, I doubt they will change their definition. Simply put, they have invested a lot of time and energy maintaining and they are not going to consider it a waste. There are political and religious forces that will hold them in place as well.

In order to affect change, a younger generation that is willing to reexamine their understandings of Scripture. In short, there is a need for a reformation of Biblical thought and theology. You can see it already beginning in many ways but the most significant is the amount of young people leaving the church but returning but with their own ideas. The emergent church also has had an effect with people have their own Christianity on their own terms. I think an interesting transition is about to take place in the American church where a new generation is going to throw off the old ideas and rediscover a new Christianity that will be different. It will also have its problems but hopefully one thing that will be present is a desire to reexamine viewpoints in the context of what Scripture actually says. I hope the issues of sexuality and nakedness will be among them.

Next: Other Things to Consider -- An Initial Attempt to Contextualize.

What Do You Think? -- Revival!

What do you think -- what is it going to really take to have a revival in this country?

Verse of the Week -- Isaiah 1:18

"Come now, and let us reason together, Says the Lord, Though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red as crimson, they will be like wool."

First snow of the year that looks like it is going to stay around. I used to love snow but as I get older I dislike the problems associated with it. Namely, the cold, wet and driving in the stuff. One thing though that newly fallen snow does illustrate is when God says -- 'i will make your sins whiter than snow" It is a great image.

Blessings as you know the forgiveness of God and how he has cleansed your sins whiter than snow.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 16 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World

Here in North America one thing is becoming clear -- skin is becoming more and more common. Christians still have to live and minister in this world, but it is becoming more clear that as we do we are going to see more public nudity and it is going to become more prevalent. The questions are course of action ones. We have one state that already has topless laws that allow women to be topless in the same places men can be and several others that have laws that allow these things in certain situations. I predict it is only the beginning.

The traditional 'conservative' position is one of isolation and an attempt at stopping the skin from showing as much as possible through political action. With the prevailing wind being that the church is supposed to stand for 'traditional morality' including women and men keeping their clothes on, it becomes difficult to kind of stand against that wind but here I go.

1) To be blunt, there is no Biblical support to the idea that nakedness, in and of itself is evil or sinful, and if we are going to maintain credibility we need to acknowledge this. The fact is our views on nudity, toplessness and other related issues reflect more of a holiness movement cultural mentality than an honest Biblical assessment.

2) I see this issue being used more as another reason to isolate ourselves from people who need the gospel. The nude beach sign above is humorous in its own way but there are real ones in certain states that warn of areas where nude sunbathers might be. On the streets and everywhere else in New York State, in any place a man can go without a shirt so can a woman. In many places, people are not a squeamish about showing their bodies to public consumption. The church's reaction has been one of hiding and avoiding or trying to reverse political decisions on enact moral legislation.

Looking at the book of Acts, I do not see the apostles doing this. As Paul ministered in Corinth he would have been greeted with sexual perversion on a grand scale. Nudity was in abundance in Corinth. I find it telling that Paul does not start a petition with the government to get it stopped. He does not stay away from areas where the temple prostitutes are showing themselves and their services. He does not lead a moral crusade against the nude temple statues and mosaics depicting nudity. He does none of that -- he ministers right in the middle of it all. He simply preaches the gospel and disciples those who believe. Even when the church is established his focus is the ethics and morality of the church -- not those outside of it. It is almost as if he expects sinners to sin -- imagine that.

I think the American church's failure in this country continues to be compounded because we act as America's moral police rather than engaging the message of Christ. When we do pop out of our holes we seem to call down curses from our ivory towers and then disappear back into our holes. So much for compassion for the lost -- we continue to want to meet the sinner on our terms instead of his or hers. To do this may require us to walk down the streets of cities where women are walking around topless, go to nude beaches and visit places where nudity in both reality and art are present. Why? Because it may be our only opportunity to minister to some people.

3) The current 'conservative' position fails to understand the nature of the lust problem in this country is not the prevalence of nude images. Nude images are the result of an already existing lust in people. The fact is there is a current philosophy among many church folks that in order to stop sin is to eliminate external temptation but this does not take James 1:13-15 into account. Temptation comes from our own flesh. It does not come from externals it comes from our heart. Why then do we think we will rid the world of evil by getting rid of externals -- eliminating pornography and making women cover up will no more get rid of lust than standing on your head.

Next: The Church and Nudity -- A Prediction.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 15 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Public Nudity

I debated long and hard about whether or not to use this picture, but it illustrates the current modern debate about public nudity so well ... I couldn't resist using to make a point.

The issues questions on this one are very current. Particularly the issue of women going topless or topfree (depending on who you talk to) in public. When I did my study I paid considerable attention to the issue of women's breasts and how the Bible views them and if in any way are they connected to nudity. Part 7 of this series I focused on it in particular along with scattered references in each of parts 1 to 12. The issue of physical nakedness I looked at also. Observation over. Interpretation I gave in Part 13 -- The Biblical Definition of Nakedness. Now to the second area of application -- public nudity.

The Questions for the Christian concerning public nudity:
1. If a woman were to show her breasts in public would it be considered a sin by the Bible?
2. At what point does the Bible consider a person naked physically and thus publicly unacceptable?

Before I begin answering these questions back to conservative ideals vs. conservative tradition:
The traditional 'conservative' position I grew up with and which many still hold today in many Christian circles is that a person who displays their body's skin of inappropriate places was inciting sin and sinning themselves. The problem is the definition of 'inappropriate places' has changed over the years. During the Victorian Era any man or woman who showed in public more than their face or hands was considered 'loose'. I remember during my childhood it is why I always wore pants (no jeans) to church with dress shirts (short sleeved was OK for boys but not for girls). My teen years saw a few changes -- jeans were OK but they better not be tight ones. Girls broke the mold of always having to wear dresses and jeans and slacks appeared in church among the girls. Now to be considered loose in my generation meant you wore tight jeans or a girl showed *gasp* a little cleavage. As time has gone on, I can faithfully observe that women have shown more and more in the church setting as the years have gone by. Just this last summer a woman visiting my church wore a sun dress that was well above her knees and showed more than a little cleavage and was sleeveless as an example.

Despite all these changes a couple things have remained constant. 1) Showing of anything involving the bathing suit (trunks for guys and a bikini for girls) area of the body has been forbidden and 2) For a girl or woman to show too much of her breasts, in particular, to show her nipples in any context would be considered inappropriate. I did hear of a story of one pastor that allowed women to breastfeed without blankets in his church, but lets be honest this is not an activity that would be accepted in most Christian churches.

Question #1: If a woman were to show her breasts in public would be considered a sin by the Bible?
Short answer -- No. The problem Biblically with this notion is that there is absolutely no verse of Scripture that says this. By you say: what about the modesty passages? My position on them is posted here. Read it an come back so I don't have to repeat myself. Simply put these passages do not deal with this question at all but an entirely different problem. In addition there is no verse that connects women's breasts with nakedness or nudity. In fact the majority of verses that talk about women's breasts are either neutral about them to illustrate a point or praise them for their appearance or function a symbols of nurturing and motherhood. The few that do place women's breasts in sexual connotations do not connect them with nudity, nor are do they indicate that a women bearing her breasts would be a sinner. There is simply no way to BIBLICALLY support the idea. In fact it might be said the Bible supports the goodness of female breasts and says nothing of how they are bad. If someone were to ask me to build a case from the Bible to prove that woman should always wear tops in public, I would be at a loss as to how to do it.

Question #2: At what point is a person considered physically naked according to the Bible and thus publicly unacceptable? Honestly there is only a few verses that deal with this and the definition would be probably anything covered by a swimsuit bottom. Buttocks included. The issue here is that this definition arrived at by observing a few passages not because the Bible explicitly says so. The way Adam and Eve cover themselves and a few verses from the Old testament Prophets lead us to this definition. The problem is there are also verses where prophets are ordered by God to be naked and in public and where David dances naked before God. We may know what physically the Bible constitutes as nakedness but the Bible makes interpretation difficult when determining, if it is always a sin. In the case of Adam and Eve it is a result not the sin itself and in the case of the prophet and David it is actually symbolic of obedience and worship of God. Once again is what real nakedness in light of the whole Bible's teaching spiritual rather than physical? Very likely.

In short, the Biblical definition of nakedness being spiritual evil as a result of sin, but good is in the context of being sinless makes the issue of public nudity cloudy. It is once again dependent on the consciences of the persons involved. It is more likely to be an issue of culture than a Biblical one and that is something the current 'conservative' tradition cannot accept.

Just a note here even though my positrons on this fall very much outside the positions of 'conservative' traditions, the reality is that I am more conservative than they are because I have followed the conservative idea of the Bible as authority and in looking at it found a position that stands firmly on those ideals. The truth is the 'conservative' tradition on this issue has not a single bit of God's Word to stand on for its authority, but remains purely traditional understandings to uphold a certain religious culture. I am not going to say at this time that its position is wrong or not beneficial, but I am going to say for a group of people who claims to hold no position without Biblical support, they have very little here here.

Next: The Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 14 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

OK. Given some of the comments I have received -- mostly from my own son -- I have decided to use this post along with the remainder of the posts in this series as an illustration conservative ideals vs. 'conservative' tradition. (Yes, there is a difference). In light of this, a few notes about methodology on how I approach issues like this.

1. I start with a few presuppositions a) The Bible is the INFALLIBLE Word of God -- All 66 books of it. b) There are rules to interpreting the Word of God the biggest being --Don't read into Scripture (technically called --eisegesis) but let the Scripture speak for itself (exegesis). c) When the infallible word of God is properly understood according to the rules of interpretation it constitutes authority over life, faith and behavior.
2. The rules of interpretation are: a) Don't read into scripture; Let it speak to you -- it says what it says b) The Context (textual and cultural) of a passage is important. c) As much as possible -- Let Scripture interpret Scripture.
3.There is an orderly method to make sure the above happens: a) observe -- ask: what does it say? b) interpretation -- ask: what does it mean? c) apply -- ask: what is it asking me to do or understand? d) Contextualize -- Ask: How do these new understandings change my overall understanding of Scripture?
4. When dealing with issues the best thing to do is consider every verse on the subject before drawing any conclusions.

This to me constitutes the conservative method of looking a Scripture and the conservative ideal of submitting to its authority.

Now with this in mind lets consider the issue of nakedness in relationship to the art verses pornography debate.

The traditional 'conservative' understanding is that all nakedness of flesh constitutes nakedness. When a man or woman is physically naked and shows themselves to people, they are engaged in sin. An image or depiction of men or women naked is wrong because it could lead to causing lust in a person therefore all such images are pornography. God does not like nakedness.

When I was growing up this play out in the early days like this -- I remember one time I went to a museum and there was an art section. Guess what section we didn't go to -- the art section. When I asked why? "They have pictures and statues of naked women." was the reply. What the field trip people wanted to avoid was religious types having a fit taking sixth graders through such a thing and corrupting their brains with nakedness. One piece I heard mentioned was the 'Venus de Milo' probably of a replica of it not the real one pictured above but it was present and we couldn't have young men corrupted by that. Some of you older folks who read my blog holler if you hear me!

So is the Venus de Milo art or porn? More importantly what makes porn, well porn? Who defines it? Of utmost importance, is such a definition Biblical?

Now back to a conservative approach to Scripture. The questions I am asking are many but the real issue comes down to what does the Bible say is nakedness and is it wrong in and of itself?
The first 12 posts in this series have been the observation phase of this method -- What does the Bible say about nakedness? That finished I went to phase two -- interpretation and drew a conclusion in part 13 by providing (as best as possible) a defintion of nakedness based on what the Bible actually says. Nakedness is not a state of physical undress -- Adam and Eve were naked both before and after their disobedience. The difference was the change in their spiritual status before God -- what was good (their nakedness) was turned to shame because of their sin. Sin is the change and the shame and vulnerability it caused. This became reflective in how they viewed their physical nakedness. There is a difference between sinless nakedness and sinful nakedness. In sinless nakedness it represents openness and intimacy; in the sinful nakedness it represents shame and exposure.

Now application: this understanding of nakedness applied to the art vs. porn debate. What does the Venus de Milo represent --art or porn? I will tell you --art. It is a depiction of the beauty of the female body. It is not about sex or lust or shameful nakedness -- it is nakedness for the purpose of illustrating beauty and openness to that beauty -- sorry it is art, but then again that is my understanding. Another man, might look at the same statue and think -- 'man what I would do with that, if it was a real woman'. Then it is porn. Confusing, huh?

Hate to say it but whether something is porn or art greatly depends on the spirit, mind and heart of the beholder. Now I am not talking about stuff that is deliberately designed to bring arousal or in the depictions shows sinful acts; I am talking simple nakedness. Take woman model posing in the same pose as a the Venus de Milo and take a picture -- what do you have now? Art or porn? Not so easy to answer is it? I had one conversation with a minister who said that when you really look at it, it really comes down to you and your ability to control your own lust--To him the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue could be considered art. Poor in taste and tacky but art just the same -- it depended on how you looked at it

The fact is that the definitions of what constitute porn in 'conservative' circles are largely the construction of religious opinion and not an honest considerations of the texts dealing with the subject of nakedness. Ask ten of these people to give a Biblical definition of pornography and then back it with Scriptural references and I doubt 1 in 10 could do it adequately. Ask them to regurgitate what someone else taught them and it is 10 for 10. Definitions as to what constitute soft porn, hard porn, hardcore porn, etc. etc. are almost entirely based on the upholding what current 'conservative' Christian public opinion is, not what the Bible defines as nakedness.

In this issue, a Biblical definition of nakedness leaves us to our own conscience as to whether a presented piece is art or porn. I know, this makes it clear as mud but then again why do people try to define this anyway -- religious people do it to define behavior. It is about religious control -- we can't have people thinking for themselves after all. A biblical definition of nakedness depends on what is steeped in sin not in the state of physical dress and that means each situation, each viewing and each depiction can be art or porn depending on whether or not LUST is present.

This will become clearer when I engage the next issue: Public Nudity

By the way, the next time I am in a museum I am going to walk through the art section and additionally I find the Venus de Milo one of the best depictions of female body ever -- it is art to me. I also consider this a conservative interpretation because I am actually stay dead on with conservative ideals of biblical interpretation concerning nakedness. I have done my homework. Traditional 'conservative' ideas on this issue are not really 'conservative' at all - -they just label themselves as such.

Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Public Nudity.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 13 -- A Biblical Definition of Nakedness

Back to the Garden of Eden. After rereading all my posts on this subject and considering all of what Scripture has to say on the subject I have to conclude that our definition of nakedness -- that is 'without clothes' is completely wrong. Nakedness, Biblically, actually has very little to do with clothes; it is a question of spiritual condition. Is it reflected in a person's felling about being with out clothes -- Yes, but at the same time the source of the feelings of nakedness are spiritual not physical.

Before the Fall, Adam and Eve are naked but not ashamed, after it they are naked and ashamed. Their nakedness did not change, what changed was their perception because of the change in their spirits due to sin. They were just as naked after as before. They had become spiritually vulnerable and exposed and thus their physical vulnerability and exposure began to reflect this in feelings and fears.

As I have examined this topic there were a couple things that I had problems with reasoning out -- 1) Why would a husband and wife who were not ignorant of each others nakedness suddenly be ashamed of each other's nakedness. Why would they make clothes for themselves; exactly who were they trying to cover up from? I had to conclude that both the making of clothes and hiding in the bushes from God were part of the same problem -- shame and exposure for disobedience -- not some inherent problem with the human naked body. There problem was not with each other's nakedness but their own nakedness before a holy God. It was a God-mankind problem not a male-female problem. The fact is that in a few verses of leaving the garden man 'knows' his wife and she conceives -- did they do that in the dark? No -- the issue is the shame, exposure and vulnerability that their sin has caused before God and it is this spiritual state that is reflected in a change in their understanding of physical nakedness. They cover their flesh in hopes of covering up their spiritual vulnerability and shame before God. Nakedness is both spiritual and physical but it is the spiritual that determines the understanding of the physical. The physical feelings of nakedness are caused by spiritual nakedness.

2) Romans 8:35 -- that the love of God cannot be stopped by our nakedness. This is not possible if nakedness in and of itself is a sin. Nakedness is a result not and action; a state not a act of disobedience. This means you can stand naked in the shower and still be loved by God. You can also be sin free and be naked before God.

These two factors along with the Old Testament prophets constantly referring to nakedness as exposure, shame and vulnerability lead me to formulate the following definition from the Bible concerning nakedness.

A Biblical Definition of Nakedness: The spiritual state of vulnerability, shame and exposure that caused by sin and a human is made aware of by the righteousness and holiness of God.

It is often reflected physically but not necessarily so. A person can still be exposed by their sin before God even when fully clothed. Likewise, a person who is devoid of clothing may still be covered by the righteousness of Christ and thus naked and not ashamed. Physicality is only a reflection and consequence not the state itself which is spiritual.

This definition is constantly repeated as God speaks to his people -- The idea of His punishments being exposing His sinful bride Israel to the world in naked shame is repeated over and over again.

There are several implications that now can be made when looking at nakedness of the physical and spiritual sort in our world when compared to this definition. My next three posts will reflect on these issues:

1. Art vs. Pornography

2. Public Nudity and the Christian

3. Spiritual Life and Ministry in an Increasingly Naked World.

Next: A Biblical Definition of Nakedness and the Issue of Art vs. Pornography.

Sorry for the Delay on Some Series....

But I am thinking hard on both of them. 'Is Hell Justified?" and the 'The Bible and Nakedness' to be particular. The problem is I have always had a very conservative viewpoint on most issues and on this own the texts of Scripture do not take me there but somewhere else and I am still trying to come to grips with exactly where I am.

"The Book of Revelation"I have put on hold till I get these other two done.

Blessings and something should be done after I have my workout tonight -- good time to think when your 45 min on a stationary bike.

Verse of the Week -- John 1:14

John 1:14 -- "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt amoung us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth"

And who says John does not have a Christmas story?

Blessings as we head into December and the holiday season.