The Rabyd Theologian

Rabyd Theologian 2.0

2010-12-09T09:14:00.001-05:00

I have moved and started a new blog: Rabyd Theologian 2.0

My 41st Birthday

2010-03-18T06:17:00.002-04:00

Wow! Things go fast when you are not keeping track of them.

Let's see -- the most interesing thing that happened the day I was born was not reported -- it was a little known operation called -- Operation Breakfast -- the secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War. Hey, the other bomb dropped was me into my parent's lives. There was also a solar eclipse that day, wonder if that was a sign of something. Lennon and Ono were on the cover of Look Magazine released that day. Ain't love great!

1766 -- Britian repeals the Stamp Act in the American Colonies.

1852 -- Wells Fargo's first day of business.

1939 -- Frank Sinatra records his first song - "Our Love". Earned him a contract of $75 a little later

1965 -- First walk in space by a cosmonaut.

1997 -- Aerosmith released their album Nine Lives with the Hit -- "Pink"

I share a birthday with Vice President John Calhoun (1782), President Grover Clevland (1837) and Writer John Updike (1932).

All that is trivial stuff. The Greatest things are serving the Lord, loving my family and having great friends.

Blessings.

I'm Back -- New Plans

2010-03-12T05:20:00.003-05:00

Wow! I stayed away a whole week. The fact was that the creative well was running dry and I was also wrestling with some of the passages that my articles were going to deal with in the future. I also am engaging some purpose issues about all this. I love to write but I also would love to write something that would actually lead to making a living at this.

So what is the purpose of this blog? It's a question I am trying to answer. This thing began May 5, 2009 with the purpose of writing about issues American and Western Christians do not want to touch and hopefully engage the Bible on those subjects. Some of them I have addressed; others have been not so well covered. In the end this blog is really for me to express myself by addressing issues.

In addition, after setting aside a book outline I wrote last year, I picked it up again with fresh eyes and said to myself -- "This needs to be written". But I also made a commitment to this blog to have 365 post by May 4th, 2010 and then keep it going. Current count is 304 posts including this one so that is 61 posts to go in 51 days -- not to terrible. I also am tired of writing crap just to get a post in so...

1. I am going to write double and triple posts to be posted on my nights off after good editing. I am usually off three nights a week so if I triple for a while I should catch up at two a week. Just in time.

2. I am going to be writing on my book whenever I have the time but after the 4th of May it will be scheduled in time for me

3. One I get the 365 post I am going to probably post twice a week and try to write some thing better than what I have been. The extra time will be used for my book.

Blessings

Ed Raby

A Couple Days Off

2010-03-05T20:19:00.002-05:00

I am taking a couple days off of blogging. Mostly i am still looking at a lot of passages and I haven't drawn any conclusions. I really hate writing about something I am not sure of yet.

Wow! Missed a Day!

2010-03-04T05:49:00.002-05:00

Yesterday was completely bonkers. work, sleep, get up, drive one and a half hours to watch my daughter play basketball, watch half of first game of playoff, watch my daughter's game, drive back -- arrive home past midnight. Yipes. I forgot to get a blog article in. Well, the goal was to have 365 articles by May 4th so that is what I am aiming for.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 17 -- The Seventh Trumpet

2010-03-02T06:37:00.003-05:00

The seventh trumpet ends in climactic fashion as it starts a vision of worship -- all of heaven worships the LORD. The twenty four elders, all the voices of heaven, etc., join in to praise the Lord.

One interesting thing is the mention of the ark in the temple surrounded by acts of power both great and terrible.

The seven trumpet simple ends this phase of the book and open the door to a very different vision.

Next: The Woman, the Dragon and the Man Child.

Tired Today

2010-03-01T22:06:00.002-05:00

You just have one of those days where your energy level is low. Today is my day for this. I can't even really think straight.

In any case -- blessings to all. I will try to write something of meaning later.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 6 -- Space Travel

2010-02-28T20:46:00.004-05:00

I know this is hard to believe but my daughter picks on me. In specific she pick on me because of an app game I play on Facebook called Starfleet Commander. I play this one along with its twin sister Starfleet Commander Extreme. I am accused of being a nerd. It is just the thought of space travel has always fascinated me.

Not to mention theological issues abound.
1. Colonization of other worlds would change the way the Bible is interpreted. Particularly Revelation where current thought is earth centric.
2. Depending on the type of space travel -- issues abound as people are separated by distance. Relativity and all that. But even more puzzling is that realistic space travel you are dealing with cold sleep. This means either unmarried people or entire families would have to agree to travel together. (More on this later) The social issues of marriage come into play. Particularly if you get a separation due to travel that has no hope of returning to each other.
3. The vastness of space -- The universe is a HUGE place. I wonder what thoughts we would have about God actually travelling through the vastness of the universe?

Next:Cryo Sleep

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 17 -- Wives as Gifts

2010-02-27T06:29:00.003-05:00

One thing that happens several times in the Old Testament account is on several occasions a man will give his daughter to a man in marriage for acts of valor or favors.
Do you get the feeling that this was about more than the surface? It was about making that man a part of his family. The obligations of this were BIG.

The only thing I wonder is how the girl would have felt about marrying someone simple because of obligation.

Next: Many Things Resurface.

Another Long Day

2010-02-26T23:05:00.001-05:00

It has been another long day of watching my daughter play basketball, sleep and driving in snow. See you all after my workout.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 16 -- The Two Witnesses

2010-02-25T22:36:00.005-05:00

The more I look at this passage the more I am convinced the symbolism is deliberately designed to conceal the identity of the two witness -- we are not supposed to know who they are. What is supposed to be significant is what they do:
1. The prophesy for a great length of time
2. They are called by God the two olive trees and lamp stands that stand before God on the earth.
3. Every time someone tries to stop them they are destroyed by the fire that comes out of their mouth
4. They engage in major prophetic acts that are designed to bring people to repentance but no one does.
5. It is not until they are finished that the Beast is allowed to kill them in Jerusalem
6. They rise from the dead and the whole world see them do so.

It is only after the last action do the people glorify God.

What can you say about this? Not much there is no recorded historical action that fits this vision and no clear answers as to who they are.

What is clear is that these two witnesses are powerful prophets who defy everything to do God's work.

Next: The Seventh Trumpet

No Time

2010-02-24T20:30:00.001-05:00

Good grief where does the time go -- Work, Sleep, Workout, Get Ready for Work. Blog? -- Well this is it. It simply has not been a good week so far.

Nope

2010-02-23T08:38:00.000-05:00

No creativity today either and I have no time at all today.

Creativity and the Blogger

2010-02-22T19:08:00.002-05:00

I try to write something every day here that is creative and informed, but today I just don't have it. Sometimes, other things go well and today I did rock my workout so -- trade off. Tomorrow promises to be a busy day as well so I am not holding my breath for tomorrow either. Sometimes I surprise myself though.

Replies to Aristiono -- Part 5 -- Why I Believe Jesus is God?

2010-02-21T04:57:00.006-05:00

Well, this is a tough question to answer, but at the same time easy. The simple way to put it is this -- how many people tell you what is going to happen to them and then tell you they are going to die and then three days and nights later they tell you they are going to rise from the dead? Not many. How many tell you these things and then do it? Only one person has ever done it. Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Now, unlike Mohammad whose revelation that lead to the Q'uran, the revelation of Jesus was public and witnessed. With Mohammad we are still left to trust that he just did not make it all up in the cave. Jesus on the other hand has multiple witnesses of his life, death and resurrection. These events are as historical as any other and have more historical evidence than any other event of ancient history. We have more eyewitness testimony from ancient literature that Jesus rose from the dead than Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon.

The historical fact of the resurrection means that all the other things Jesus said about himself not only true but empowered as truth. I mean are you really going to say that someone who rises from the dead does not know what he is talking about?
1. Jesus forgives sins -- Only God can do so
2. Jesus claims God as his Father making himself equal to God
3. John 1:1 claims the Word was God -- The Word is Jesus Christ.
4. The disciples and many others worship Jesus -- He does not prevent them from doing so.

I could list many more but these are enough.

More than this, is the present power of Christ as God at work in my life! How could I deny someone who removed my sins and transformed my life? It would be easier for me to deny the world is round or water is wet.

In my earlier days I studied many religions asking the question -- why do I consider my faith better than this? Simply put 1) I have a savior who is historically raised from the dead and 2) This Savior lives inside me to make me the man God wants me to be.

Islam failed for me because it does not change me. It could change my actions and thoughts, but it could not change my spirit. It is externals without meaning. It is salvation only from habit not sinfulness. In short, it cannot transform me like Christ has because it is not the truth.

Aristiono I want to thank you for the opportunity to answer these questions I hope it was informative for you as it was fun for me.

Finis -- with possibility of more is more questions come up.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 5 -- The Information Hyperhighway

2010-02-20T19:40:00.005-05:00

Computers, cell phones, Internet, etc. etc. Do you ever feel overwhelmed with how much information you can access? Is it becoming alarming to you how much people can know about anything? It is to me.

When science fiction popularized the notion of computers and cell phones long before they existed people thought only of the wonders of it, now the problems of such information overload are becoming evident.
1) Privacy -- anything you put out there, is out there all over the place in seconds. A person who posts a picture of themselves must take not that someone can view it on the other side of the globe in minutes. What gets more disturbing is the fact that these cell phone things can take such pictures and download them. Is there really such thing a privacy anymore?
2) Information overload -- how much can you absorb? We are getting to a point where you almost need an information sorter to filter out the junk.

The future of this promises more speed, more info and greater access. Will we one day forget the real world for one that is digital?

Next: Space Travel

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 16 -- The Law of Moses

2010-02-19T02:48:00.007-05:00

Looking Back at the Law of Moses concerning the issue of marriage I think it is safe to say we can make the following observations:

1. In many ways marriage can be defined in the Law a a contract between a man and a woman for the purpose of having and raising children.

2. This definition is significantly different from the idea of a man and woman becoming 'one flesh'. To be husband and wife in this sense goes a little beyond just having a contract to have children. The idea of being open and intimate with each other start right at the beginning 'naked and unashamed' is what Adam and Eve were before sin enters the picture.

3. As human history unfolds, the nature of marriage changes in many ways. a) Very quickly on we realize incest as we know it must not have existed because Cain and Seth would have had to marry their sisters, but at this time this is not forbidden by the law. Only later is the idea of incestuous marriages introduced by the Law. b) Polygamy is introduced very early one as an acceptable form of marriage. It becomes one of the chief characteristics of many of the characters in Genesis -- Lamech, Abraham, Jacob and Esau all follow this model. In some senses polygamy almost seems to a necessity in the producing of children in case the first couple fails to conceive, the handmaiden can be brought into the mix to produce a child.

4. Marriages are often arranged by others. There is little of romantic love involved. This is not a bust however as many of the arranged marriages work out.

5.One issue is intermarrying between the godly lines and the ungodly ones. The results are often disastrous so in the end the Law forbids the children of Israel from intermarrying.

6. One law that puts an interesting wrinkle on things is the law of an older brother's seed being preserved through a younger brother. It really brings home the 'sexual contract' only view of marriage.

7. Another Law is the law that requires a man to marry a woman if he seduces her and in so doing gives up his right to divorce.

8. That brings about the issue of divorce -- marriage as contract whose obligations can be set aside by the husband.

The thing that is sure is that at the beginning you have a situation where marriage does not exist so much as two people become one flesh but once sin enters it seems necessary to provide marriage as a way of enforcing the idea. This contract idea begins to express itself in different ways but always culture intrudes to bury the original intent of 'husband and wife".

Next: Giving Brides as Prizes

Double Post Later

2010-02-18T22:04:00.001-05:00

Been a Busy Day so I will post twice tomorrow a little after midnight.

Facebook vs. Breastfeeding Mothers -- What's The Biblical Response?

2010-02-17T08:17:00.011-05:00

I don't know how many people are aware of it but right now there is a heated battle going on between breastfeeding mothers and Facebook. Now, I have written on the topic of what nakedness is at length and this is one of those practical issues involving the subject. Back then I came to understanding of Biblical reality that basically said that nakedness is spiritual and that if Christians were going to try to make a Biblical case against a woman exposing her breasts in public from Scripture they would find it nearly impossible to do. There is no verse of Scripture that says that women's breasts are in and of themselves either sexual or a temptation to sin. Quite the opposite exists where women's breasts are either praised for their motherly role in nurturing children or for their beauty (Song of Solomon). Biblically there is no case to be made. In fact, you might say that the Bible is very positive about the use of the female breast to feed children and blesses it.

So what to do about mothers who want to post pictures of themselves breastfeeding their children? Biblically, there is no case against this and oddly enough maybe a case for saying this is good and wholesome. Church culture will of course disagree thinking that the morality they have created outside the Bible is still right.

Facebook has however done some stupid things on this. Above is a photo of a breastfeeding mother that was banned. At the same time here is a photo they cleared:

Now could someone tell me which of these two photos is more sensual? Shows more breast?
Another thing is that whoever is deleting these photos must be just pushing buttons at random sometimes. Another banned photo:

Even More Funny is this one:

So now great art work is to be banned because it has a breast in it and even female pigs are subject to being banned for showing their breasts?

Why do I mention this? Because this may be the issue that brings this whole thing national. If these women succeed in their petition and possible court cases as getting this defined as sexist and discriminatory that will of course pave the way for women should have the right to go topless, or topfree if you prefer, for the purpose of nurturing children or otherwise, simply because you cannot make a legal discrimination between the nipple of a man and a woman.

Organizations like TERA the Topfree Equal Rights Association make it crystal clear that to them this is not about religion but about equality under the law. There is also a statement that they do not believe the Bible says a woman should not expose their breasts -- they are right.

This fight is going to get ugly but in the end I believe that the law and the Bible may be on their side. IMHO

Replies to Aristiono -- Part 4 -- Pagan Influences on Christianity

2010-02-16T19:34:00.006-05:00

I know that the crescent moon is an Islamic symbol but i am going to make a point about it later.

Aristiono makes two charges:
1. That Jesus' story and many pagan myths parallel each other.
2. That Christianity has been corrupted by paganism.

Well to the first, if you look at a lot of stories long enough you will find parallel to anything. There are a couple of key differences 1) The other virgin myths do not have the significance of redemption from sins that Jesus does. 2) The virgin birth of Christ has historical evidence to support it.

As to the second: yeah, no doubt that if any religion exists for too long it will be corrupted by something. Throughout church history there has been those moments when this has been he issue. Removing the pagan elements and other bad influences to Christianity has been motivation for many reforms during church history and ultimately the Protestant Reformation.

My point is this -- name me a religion that is still true completely to its original founding?

Now, I have a question -- if Islam is so free of these influences why do they use a moon as a symbol? The reason is that it is the former symbol of Mohammed's tribe -- which is symbol of the moon God they used to worship. My question to Aristiono why is it OK for Islam to take former pagan symbols and turn them to something for their religion but it is not OK for other religion including Christianity to do so?

Next: Why I Believe in Jesus.

President's Day

2010-02-15T18:53:00.004-05:00

You know there is something odd about a holiday to celebrate Presidents. Most of them fall into the category of 'old dead guys' but some have been very notable. My favorite is actually Thomas Jefferson. His commitment to liberty, states rights and a weaker central government have always been an inspiration.

Today is a day to pick your favorite and have them inspire you.

Happy Valentines Day

2010-02-14T02:12:00.003-05:00

You know what gets weird about this holiday? That there are at least three guys who claim sainthood by the Catholic Church who have the name St. Valentine and we really only have legends about two of them. It was like many holidays a product of legend and the Church's attempt to remove the pagan influences of the Roman world and replace it with Christian ones. Feb 14 used to be the beginning of a festival to celebrate Faunus -- the goat god of agriculture and fertility. You know the faun -- like Mr. Tumnis. It was considered to be a time for pairings to be done by lottery. That's right, boys step up an pick your lucky number for your new wife.

The Roman Church decided to change it by introducing St. Valentine and changing the nature of the holiday. The problem is which St. Valentine are we talking about? 1) The guy who performed marriages in secret in the Roman army because the Emperor outlawed them or 2) The guy who was smitten in love with a young woman and wrote a letter to her from prison and signed it -- "From your Valentine". Take your pick.

What is it today? Well, it is the day everyone goes broke trying to buy things to show that they love one another -- A day of romance and love in theory, but all those cards we buy are making someone money. I know -- I am the Scrooge of holidays but why is it that in order to prove my love to my wife I have to buy her something every February 14th? Oh, yeah because I love her. Wait a minute didn't I just say that? ;-)

Happy St. Valentine's Day

The Book of Revelation -- Part 15 -- The Angel and the Little Book

2010-02-13T19:18:00.005-05:00

Revelation chapter ten is all about one thing the mighty angel and his little book.
Two significant things happen in this chapter:
1) Seven thunders utter something that john is told not to write because they are for the end. What then becomes interesting is John knows this stuff but no one else will but God and the angels.
2) John is asked to eat the little book in the hand of them mighty angel which he does -- it tastes as sweet to his mouth but bitter in his belly. He is then told to prophesy.

Now the angel is never named but I am sure some have tried --Michael would make sense but ultimately who knows and his name is not as significant as what he holds. The significance of the little book being eaten I partially understand because I am a preacher. Preaching or teaching is always sweet in them mouth but bitter to the belly. God's Word is always good to speak but harder to make a part of your life.

I think this vision has significance to John most of all but to the seven churches it was one of acknowledging John spiritual right to speak and know God's Word.

Next: The Two Witnesses

Replies to Aristiono -- Part 3 -- Some History Lessons

2010-02-12T19:32:00.005-05:00

Aristiono in a comment to me made some of the following assertions:
1. Jesus was created by Constantine in 325 with the Nicene Council
2. The Roman Church changed worship from Saturday to Sunday
3. The name Jesus is derived from the Greek word "Ieasus" which means 'Son of Zeus'
4. Constantine made huge changes in Christianity that mandated it as the faith of the Empire and made changes to holidays and the Sabbath.

#1 -- I don't have any idea how a person could believe this -- Jesus is a well documented person and his name exists in literature long before Constantine. The gospels themselves are much older than Constantine and with the discovery of texts of the New Testament that are conservatively estimated at 150 AD and of the Gospel John the oldest gospel by all scholarly opinion. That thrusts all the gospels by evidence at least into early second century but more likely the first. All the Gospels talk of Jesus as a historical figure who lived and ministered in that century. To deny the historical reality of Jesus as a person from the first century is prejudicial -- we have more evidence for Him than any other ancient historical figure. Outside of Scripture we have a multitude sources that talk of Jesus. All of them long before Constantine. What confuses me more is that I was under the impression that Islam accepts Jesus both as a historical figure and a prophet.

#2 -- When is the Sabbath? I think a more important question is does it matter? We need to understand that all calenders have been modified and moved around so is Saturday really Saturday. One of Jesus' great teaching was that the Sabbath was about devotion to God not external religious control. To me the issue is to make sure one day a week is devoted to God and his work.

#3 -- Wow! Sorry this is just plain wrong. "Jesus" is a Greek transliterated form of "Yeshua" -- the Hebrew word for -- "The Lord is Salvation"

#4 -- No Doubt Constantine made some huge changes to Christianity, but some of those changes were simply because Christianity went from being a persecuted religion to one of acceptance. Hey, even I argue against some of the changes because I disagree with them. That is why I am a Protestant and not a Roman Catholic, although I have many Roman Catholic friends. As for the holidays, Constantine was attempting to remove the paganism from the Empire by changing the significance of many pagan holidays and then injecting Christian significance instead. In a sense he was trying to convert the holidays from pagan to Christian. It simply may be a case of good intentions but poor results.

Next: Pagan Influences on Christianity.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 4 -- Brain Transplant -- Effective Immortality

2010-02-11T05:57:00.006-05:00

Probably the most sticky questions of Science Fiction are raised when medical ethics and technology are discussed. One thing has always been organ transplant. Now many of the medical procedures that do this where originally some form of Science fiction; now many are science fact. One that remains fiction in brain transplant. Perhaps it would be better to say central nervous system transplant. Robert Heinlein postulated this in his book "I Will Fear No Evil". In it a rich beyond billionaire transplants his brain into another body. The big issue though is the body is female and is young, sensual and pretty. By so doing the man extends his life into another.

This of course leads to a whole host of ethical questions:
1. Who is the person then? The brain or the body or both.
2. Does this really constitute a sex change? Not really in a sense but this could be used to do it.
3. Who would be a donor body for this?

Now what get really frightening is when you couple this idea with cloning.
1. Could we then keep spare bodies around when we get tired of the one were in? Effective youth and immortality.
2. Are such clones persons when their only function is to be the next shell?
3. What happens to -- a man is appointed once to die and then the judgment?

Gets interesting and sticky doesn't it?

Next: The Information Hyper Highway

Sorry -- Pastor Work Intrudes

2010-02-10T22:43:00.003-05:00

One of my parishoners had a triple heart attack so I had to travel today to Grand Rapids, Michigan (that is about an hour away from me) to be bedside. As it turned out even though she had a Code Blue (her heart stopped once), she is alright and alive. Going to take a few days to get back on her feet plus some further surgeries and treatment but she has a good chance of making it.

No blog entry becasue of it though but as a bonus I will do two for tomorrow.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 15 -- Divorce

2010-02-09T22:29:00.005-05:00

Probable the most significant development in the Law of Moses is the idea of divorce. Up to this moment, there has been no mention of the idea of divorce in the Scripture; then Moses adds a marriage law that dissolves marriage -- divorce. The Law of Divorce basically gave the man the power to send his wife away if he was no longer pleased with her. All he had to do was give her a writ of divorce. Once divorced he could take her back unless she married someone else in the interim. There is no record that women have this right to divorce.

one of the interests for me is how this reflects back on what marriage is -- it becomes a legal matter or contract that can be broken. This is a far cry from conceiving of marriage as being one flesh. It is simply a matter of law.

Next: The Law and Marriage

Replies to Aristiono -- Part 2-- Some Simple Answers

2010-02-08T19:01:00.003-05:00

Aristiono points out that the word 'Trinity' does not appear in the Scriptures. True, but that does not make the point he hopes it makes.
There are many theological concepts in all religions that do not appear in their Scriptures. Just because the word 'trinity' doesn't appear in the Scriptures does to mean the concept of the Trinity does not exist in the Scripture. The word 'Monotheistic' does not appear in the Scriptures (Jewish, Christian or Islamic) but all have the theological concept of a 'monotheistic' faith -- one God. We use many words outside the Scriptures to describe concepts that we see in them -- it does not make them false concepts simply because the word does not appear.

The Doctrine of the Trinity is such concept. The word may not appear in Scripture but the concept is there. It was created as a process in trying to understand how certain passages of Scripture could be true. Passages that indicated Jesus as both God and separate from the Father God. Passages that indicated another Comforter called the Holy Spirit -- also equal to God but separate in person hood. Three separate persons but all God (One God Together). The doctrine of the Trinity did not arrive as a result of pagan influence but a wrestling with an understanding of God and the Scriptures.

I wrestled with this myself on my own and had to conclude that the conclusion those who settled this long ago were right. The Trinity is just a way of explaining the concept.

Do I Believe in one God -- Yes. Do I believe in the Trinity -- yes. One God manifested in three persons all equally God, but all equally separate persons but united and one.

Next: Some History Lessons

Replies to Aristiono -- Part 1-- Introduction

2010-02-07T11:35:00.004-05:00

On my last post, this gentleman sent me a reply that while it did not deal with the subject matter, did ask a lot of great and pointed questions. If no one minds a practical jaunt in theology I will answer them a couple at a time over the next week or so. For right now, I want to inform Aristiono of one thing -- I have read the Holy Qur'an. It was a while ago but I have read it. I don't mind reading it again to get back up to speed.

Right now though I have to get some sleep.

Fasting, Bodybuilding and Fitness

2010-02-06T18:44:00.005-05:00

Ronnie Coleman above -- former Mr. Olympia
One of the things I have been considering is how one can fast and still be engaged in bodybuilding style fitness.
Bodybuilding requires a high level nutrition -- protein, carbs at a certain level, water (lots) and supplements. Fasting devastates a bodybuilders body. Without fat to burn, the energy comes from the muscle and other organs rather than fat. The very thing your trying to build begins to shrink. Not good.

One thing to consider, bodybuilding's strict nutrition requirements are so stringent it might be considered a form of fasting -- Daniel type -- lentils (protein) and pulse (veggies) with water. Bodybuilders restrict themselves constantly in a very similar fashion.

For myself the issue is one of balancing religious practice and staying fit. it is also a question of whether or not to ratchet my own fitness training up and still maintaining a practice I have found helpful in my spiritual walk -- fasting.

If I begin to look at the nutrition requirements as a form of fasting I could be looking at killing two birds with one stone. Joining things together this way begins to let you see how God has made us a a single being.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 14 -- The Sixth Trumpet

2010-02-05T19:19:00.004-05:00

If the fifth trumpet was devastating, the sixth is catastrophic in comparison. It is an army like no other released on the rest of mankind -- it destroys one third of mankind by plain old violence. Probably one thing that is mentioned here is the fact that even though this plague was so devastating, people still do not repent of their idolatry but instead continue in it.
I find this not completely amazing becasue the nature of mankind is rebellion, but even after such devistation -- nothing. No change of heart.

Next: The Angel and the Little Scroll

Quick Post

2010-02-04T21:09:00.002-05:00

Imagine my surprise a I looked up at the clock and realized I hadn't posted today. He it is -- short and sweet.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 3 -- Alien Religion (Faith and Practice)

2010-02-03T20:34:00.002-05:00

OK, along comes and alien race with a Scripture that reads like ours but different and has a different concept of how God is. The issues are limitless. But the two that interest me the most are -- our concept of who man is, or better what our concept of being a being created in God's image is. If the alien race is also created in God's image and they are different from us in outside appearance what does that do to our concept of the image of God? What does do to our concept of being a person.
The other issue is faith along with practice of that faith. What is faith if an alien race has a different concept of what faith is? Practice: how is faith lived? Were talking prayer, meditation and service. So you have a race that serves God but their definition of prayer is to stand on their head -- what then?

Next: Brain Transplant -- Effective Immortality.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 14 -- Other Laws Regarding Wives and Marriage

2010-02-02T19:27:00.006-05:00

Now in the law there are many sundry laws regarding women and marriage that do apply to the discussion.
1. Exodus 20:17 includes not coveting a neighbors wife -- right up there with the rest of his possessions.
2. In the bond slave law Exodus 21:10 basically says that if a man takes a second wife he cannot reduce the rights of the first wife -- including sexual rights. A woman had sexual rights to her husband -- wonder if God was thinking of Leah?
3. Exodus 22:16 requires a man who seduces a virgin to take her as his wife and to give up his right to get rid of her. Deut. 22:19 and 29 restate this. I wonder what this would do to the unwed mother problem?
4. Leviticus 18 provides a life of relatives and relationships in which marriage is not allowed. A couple of interesting ones that a person is not allowed to marry a mother and daughter together or sisters together (Leah and Rachel?). Polygamy is assumed but now has some restrictions. Note: Both Abraham and Jacob would have been in trouble by these laws.
5. Leviticus 20:21 eliminates taking a brother's wife while he is still alive. If divorce takes place then a brother cannot have her. The law of a brother being required to take his older brother's wife to raise up inheritance still stays however.

What gets interesting is what is not condemned: polygamy. In fact there are some laws that assume its existence.

Next: Divorce

An Low Energy Post

2010-02-01T17:19:00.003-05:00

Well, I am feeling better but my energy level is low and about the only thing constructive I have done in the last two days is sleep. Well, the one thing about fasting, even when it is forced on you is that you still gain something from it spiritually. Just a very calm spirit through the whole thing.

Well, I will get back at it tomorrow.

Sickness

2010-01-31T16:44:00.002-05:00

I am not really creative enough today to write anything mostly due to the fact that I have been sick for the last 24 hours. Starting to feel better but I am going to take it easy on my body and mind today. I will blog something worthwhile tomorrow.

The Book of Revelation -- Part 14 -- The Fifth Trumpet

2010-01-30T15:47:00.004-05:00

What gets interesting here is that after four trumpets in rapid succession and taking up only a few verses; suddenly the book focuses at length on a couple trumpets. An additional title is given to them as well -- the first two woes.

The Fifth Trumpet has more speculation and controversy on it than much of the rest of the book -- What the heck are these things? Deformed demons or something that John could only describe in terms he could understand but is seeing something entirely different? Don't know. Don't know how machines could come from the bottomless pit. I also doubt the original hearers would have looked at this as anything other than a supernatural force or event.

What is clear is a) This is very bad -- worse than the previous trumpets. and b) they do something far worse that kill -- they torment with terrible pain for a specific time period -- five months.

Next: The Sixth Trumpet

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 3 -- Alien Religion (Scripture)

2010-01-29T06:12:00.006-05:00

Now consider this. When an alien race is discovered they too have a Holy Bible. What then?

If you really consider it, it becomes a difficult question. On what level would such a book be authoritative? Is it inspired? How do we determine these things? Not easy questions at all are they?

The questions of what Scripture would be if done by other races other than the human race becomes a quagmire of thought.

My thoughts are that it would be differ net from our own -- different events and characters with different actions. It would contain history, the history of God's interaction with that race, but it would be completely foreign to our own. The one thing it would have in common is that through that interaction between God and the aliens there would be a revelation of God in truth. It would echo our own understandings but would not be completely the same. it might, were we to understand it, give us a view of God that we would find opens up our own understanding and that of the aliens.

Because of this we would understand it is inspired but to whom -- us, the aliens or both? Possible both, maybe just to them.

It is also possible that they may also have conflicting religions each with their own scriptures and that means sifting through them all to find the ones that are inspired. But what criteria to use? Maybe simply finding common understandings about God may be enough; maybe not.

Next: Alien Religion (Faith and Practice)

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 13 -- Wives as Possessions

2010-01-28T21:19:00.005-05:00

What gets interesting as you get into the Law of Moses is the dealing with the idea of a woman as a wife also being a possession of the husband.
1. If a slave is given a wife for instance the wife still belongs to the owner unless the slave decides to bond himself to his master permanently.
2. Divorce is only one way -- it is almost like giving up title to a car today the way the law for divorce reads in the law.
3. Up till now wives are given and taken but there is almost no provision in the Bible for a woman to decided by her choice who she is to marry and the opposite is true for men.
4. The handmaiden laws and customs meant that in a sense the handmaiden was property of the mistress unless she gave that handmaiden to her husband -- then she became his.

Now this would change as we go along, but up till now what is presented by the Bible both in example and the law is women as a special kind of property. With some rights but not as much as men. We are still far from the end of this study, but if we were to stop here we would have to conclude women are a kind of property. Protected and valued, but property nonetheless.

Next: Other Laws Regarding Marriage and Women

The Book of Revelation -- Part 13 -- Trumpets One Through Four

2010-01-27T18:00:00.004-05:00

When the seventh seal is opened it, seven angels step forward with seven trumpets. Before a single one of them sounds a vial is given to another angel that contains the prayers of the saints that is poured over the altar of God. It is an addition vial to the prayers already before God and it causes these events to start.
1. Trumpet 1 -- Hail and fire that destroys one third of the world's vegetation.
2. Trumpet 2 -- mountain thrown in the ocean -- third of the world's water -- blood
3. Trumpet 3 -- Wormwood star that makes the fresh waters bitter -- people die.
4. Trumpet 4 -- Strikes third of the lights in the sky darkened.

Now there are two notes to make about this:
Firstly, that it is the prayers of the saints that start the ball rolling here.
Secondly, there is still no time table in this from the book itself.

In the end an angel speaks woe about the trumpets still to sound.

Next: The Fifth Trumpet

Is There Any Doubt?

2010-01-26T08:43:00.003-05:00

1. Is there any doubt that God has a sense of humor when you look in the mirror?
2. Is there any doubt that God has a sense of humor when you consider the duck billed platypus.?
3. Is there any doubt God has a sense of humor when you consider he has called you into his service?
4. Is there any doubt God has a sense of humor when you consider who God has placed in you family and church?
5. Is there any doubt God has a sense of humor when you consider how He has solved some of your problems?

I don't doubt that God gets a great big belly laugh at times.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 2 -- Aliens!

2010-01-25T18:49:00.005-05:00

My issue here is what does the existence of aliens do to our understanding of God and ourselves. The issue of whether they exist I will leave to you the reader but for the sake of argument lets us assume they do. I will add though that the universe is a BIG place and to assume that we are the only sentient life form God every created is not only egotistical but Human centric nonsense. God is also a very creative God and I doubt he has limited his creativity to just us here on planet earth.

This brings us to the first issue. Human egotism. On two fronts this confronts us a) that God's plans may involves something larger than this speck of dust rotating around a bright light in the Milky Way. Other races and beings my be involved in God's plans and we may only be a small part of that and a) In humility we may have to realize that we are not even really essential to God's plans at all and do not have an inherent right to those plans.

The second issue. The nature of what the image of God is may be called into question. If other races are also created in this image but they do not look or act like us, what does this do to our understanding of ourselves as created in God's image.

What becomes very clear is the discovery of aliens would do one of two things -- create fear or humility. Given our sinfulness -- fear is more likely and there would be war and we would start it if the race we encounter is sinless.

That brings up a final issue, one that C.S. Lewis explored in his Sci-Fi series of books -- what if another race of aliens faced their test and did not fail? How would we react to them and how they would react to us becomes and interesting issue. A non-fallen race would completely compliant with God's will. Maybe that is why we haven't met them -- it would be too dangerous -- for them. I know another blow to human pride and ego.

Next: Alien Religion

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 12 -- Giving and Taking Wives

2010-01-24T18:45:00.005-05:00

What has happened repeatedly so far is an interesting phenomena -- there is a contstant reference to 'giving' or 'taking' wives. A man is always in charge of this giving or taking. The father or other guardian gives or the future husband takes. The woman -- well she seems to just be caught in whatever the giving or taking does to them.

The one thing the Bible does not possess when it comes to marriage is that many times it has little to do with love and romance. Marriages are more about producing children than companionship. In those stories, sometimes a couple finds love either slightly before or after the marriage but for the most part marriage is about arrangement or situation but not about the happiness of the husband or wife.

This is why I am starting to see a concept of the simple fact any man and woman can be married. Whether or not they enjoy 'oneness' by being husband and wife seems to be a matter of choice and desire.

Next: Wives as Possessions

The Book of Revelation -- Part 12 -- The Seventh Seal

2010-01-23T05:53:00.004-05:00

OK. I am ready for Revelation Again. Revelation 8:1-2
The only thing that can really be said about the Seventh Seal is that it ends the opening of the Scroll and initiates two things -- Silence for a half hour and trumpets are distributed to angels for the next act. It does not really say what these things mean it just says they are done.

Next: Trumpets One Through Four.

Science Fiction and Theology -- Part 1 -- The Challenges

2010-01-22T20:36:00.006-05:00

New Series to break things up a bit and have a little fun.

The issues science fiction has brought to theology are numerous. People may say 'why bother' but science fiction has an alarming way of becoming science fact in a quick hurry. Robots, cell phones, landing on the moon, space stations all have moved across this line. Probably more alarming are some of the medical ones -- cloning, regenerative medicine and others.

Theology, unfortunately, always seems to be reactive to these issues mostly because we have have this 'stay in the real world' mentality. The problem is the real world has a rapid way of turning into the sci-fi one. Then we're always scrambling.

Some of the issues out there are:
1. Aliens -- existence and who.
2. Alien Religion -- if aliens do exist what about their beliefs?
3. Brain transplant -- effective immortality?
4. The continued advance of information and the spread of information.
5. Space Travel -- moral questions abound about (marriage, children and colonization)
6. Cryo sleep -- what do we do with people who sleep through centuries?
7. What does all these things do to our understanding of the Scriptures?

Next: Do Aliens Exist?

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 11 -- Joseph's Wife

2010-01-21T22:53:00.002-05:00

Joseph's Wife was an Egyptian given to him by the Pharaoh. Two issues that merit a look:
1. The mixed marriage issue seems suspended at this point. God is not upset and the two half tribes do come from this woman
2. The idea of a person giving another man a wife and the woman not having much choice about it (or even the man in some cases) -- we will see this more in the future especially next post. You know you almost think women before they were married in this culture were like assets or trading cards. Not exactly the high view of person hood that many believe in today.

Next: The Giving of Wives

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 10 -- Judah and Tamar

2010-01-20T17:56:00.007-05:00

The story of Judah and Tamar actually illustrates several points.
First, it introduces the custom of a younger brother raising up seed for his older brother. A custom that will later become part of the Law. Basically if the oldest brother died the next older brother would take his wife as his own wife in an attempt to raise up children for the inheritance. Marriage for other legal purposes is what is represented here. Not a lot of romance there but God actually sides with the idea because the guy who does not cooperate with the custom is killed by God.

Secondly, it introduces a possibility. If the second brother already has a wife this was not considered an exception to the rule. The second oldest brother would still have to take her as wife number two. Polygamy enforced by God and the Law.

In the story Tamar eventually has to take matters into her own hand and gets Judah to conceive a child with her by playing the prostitute. In the end, Judah becomes her husband although he never touches her again. Marriage here is about fulfilling the desires of culture to produce heirs as well as God's purpose in making sure this is done.

For me, this is starting to show a difference between people becoming one flesh -- husband and wife and marriage for other purposes. Judah and Tamar were married but were they united in the end as husband and wife? One Flesh? Probably not.

Next: Joseph's Foreign Wife

Tuesdays are Always Busy

2010-01-19T08:46:00.003-05:00

True. I come home from work, sleep, go to the church at 4pm and stay till 8pm with various activities and then go back to work. Yeash. That's why the short meaningless article.

Blessings to those in Christ.

Babylon 5, An Introspective Moment

2010-01-18T06:54:00.006-05:00

I have always been a fan of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Christians have a tendency to overreact to such things thinking them attacks on their faith or wastes of time. In my understanding of God there has sometimes been no greater spur to my imaginations and thoughts about God than someone who has decided to create his own world or imagined what it would be like to fly to the stars.

One of my favorites in past years, over a decade ago was a series called Babylon 5 which spanned five seasons encompassing many characters both human and alien it dealt with more subjects that than can be reasonably covered in this post but every science fiction genre and idea was touched along with so many social issues including theology and philosophy as well.

For me personally, I originally watched this series on cable recently having returned from Seminary and I was still dealing with my fathers death. One of the few joys I had in those dark years for me was Babylon 5. Even when the series had its final season I still loved the story and watched reruns every time they were on. The final season was particularly hard to watch not because it was not good but because of the finality of it all. Every major character either faded out over the last few episodes or left entirely.

I have always been drawn to good characters particularly side characters just off the main path. For me three characters were my favorites G'Kar (the alien Narn played by Andreas Katsulas) Micheal Garibaldi (played by Jerry Doyle -- he has a book out now) and Londo Mollari (the human like alien Centauri destined to become Emperor played by Peter Jurasik). Between the interplay between G'Kar and Londo and Garibaldi's struggles throughout all five seasons it made for a great story. Londo was always a fascinating character and one of my favorite quotes comes from him. "When I first arrived on Babylon 5 I had no power and all the choices in the world, Now I have absolute power and no choice at all" He is speaking of the fact that as he became Emperor he had to wilfully slave himself to another alien race to save his people. Kind of a Messiah figure only slightly different.

This morning I finished the last episode of the final season. Even after all these years the goodbyes and endings still make a person a little sad. All things end and even the memory of them fades away but for me it was something that got me through a trying time in my life. Babylon 5 -- still a great story.

Great Unity Service

2010-01-17T20:36:00.000-05:00

This evening we the local unity service. I have seen a lot of things in my time in ministry but these times are always the greatest -- It is always great to see brothers and sisters in Christ from all over the specrtum worship together. Each person and church did their part and it was a great success again.
I had the particular honor of preaching and I chose Acts 10:34-48 as a passage and I reminded people that just as Peter was a 'living witness' of Christ in his day we must be living witnesses in our day regardless of the name on the door. May it be true for all of us these days.

Blessings.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 9 -- The Intermarrying Issue Again!

2010-01-16T03:09:00.000-05:00

Of all the people in the Bible that most interpreters of Scripture get it wrong about, I think Simeon and Levi when they kill Hamor and Schechim and their men get the worst look of all. The real idiot of the story is Jacob -- a) He does not seem to care one whit for his daughter getting RAPED and b) when he comes back from Laban he does not camp where he promised God he would (Bethel); had he done, so none of this would have happened. Lesson: keep your promises to God and you don't open yourself up for this nonsense. It also points out one of the flaws the family had -- favoratism. Dinah was after all the daughter of Leah.

The reason I say this is that when Jacob curses both at the end of his life neither curse seems ot work and when you look at the Law of Moses later they actually fulfill it on two count's 1) The punishment for rape in the Law is death which is what Schechem recieved along with all those who would have protected him and 2) The Law will later specifically forbid intermarrying of the children of Israel with outsiders who are not Israelites with only one acception -- girls who were virgins from foreign lands who they conquered. Jacob would allowed the violation of both principles. Simeon and Levi will not allow it and through cleverness (they are outnumbered) they exact the proper punishment.

In the end, history vindicates both Simeon and Levi. Levi's tribe becomes the preisthood for Israel and Simeon does indeed get an inheritence in the land in the end. In short Jacob's curses don't work.

The quesiton of intermarriage is not a race one; it is about faith and worship. The issue is the draw of pagan spouses on their husbands or wives that would cause others to leave their faith in God.

Next: Judah and Tamar

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 8 -- Lest We Forget Esau

2010-01-15T18:01:00.001-05:00

Esau is ultimately removed from God's plan. Because he was a polygamist? No. Although he did marry several women including some daughters of Ishmael as well as a few local girls. Esau's major grief to his parents when it came to his marriages was not how many, but who. In short, Esau married women he did not consult his parents about and women who were idoloters.

What I think this illustrates is marriage can be bad by simply one thing -- having no consideration of the spiritual leanings and strength of your future spouse. This draws the issue of marrying beleivers vs. non-beleivers into the discussion as well as parental involvment in a marriage.

Next: The Intermarrying Issue Again Already!

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 7 -- Jacob, Necessary Polygamist?

2010-01-14T22:47:00.000-05:00

Changed the title because as I thought about it Jacob's polygamy, though he was tricked into it, becomes used by God to build the nation of Israel. It is in fact the how of there are twelve tribes is due to Jacob's many children, possible becasue of his four wives.

There are also several issues in this like Leah's basically being handed off to a man who didn't want her. Still married but were they husband and wife? Was their really a 'one flesh' relationship beyond the sexual between them? Based on what happens -- probably not. So what was their 'marriage'?

One thing that does need to be considered is what would have happend had Jacob only had one wife and produced all his children through her. Genetically, there would have been problems if this had been the case. With four wives genetics spreads out and allows for more latitude.

The one thing that the story of Jacob's family does illustrate is the problems of a polygamist household. Leah and Rachel basically have a baby making contest and when they can't do it anymore they involve the handmaidens. But is this really a problem of polygamy itself or simply the way these marriages came about? More likely the later.

Next: Lest We Forget Esau

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 6 -- Isaac's Arranged Marriage

2010-01-13T18:45:00.004-05:00

Arranged Marriage. To many Westerners such a concept is repugnant but in the ancient Near East and in much of the world today it is actually the most common way a couple gets married. When you get down to it though this would cut through a lot of the garbage associated with 'finding the one".

Isaac's Father Abraham is the one with the idea and in the end the story is one of God's guidance although it will cause problems for one of Isaac and Rebecca's children later with a relative Laban. Overall, Isaac and Rebecca's' Marriage seems to be a happy one other than them each taking sides over their children.

Perhaps bringing in one's parents to help decided who you should marry isn't such a bad idea.

To recap so far, we haven't really passed the middle of Genesis and so far we have the following issues.
1. Marriage vs. Husband and Wife
2. Polygamy
3. Arranged Marriage
4. Marrying Relatives

Getting to be an interesting ride.

Next: Jacob, Super Polygamist?

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 5 -- Abraham the Polygamist

2010-01-12T08:14:00.004-05:00

Now one thing that is often overlooked is that Abraham too was a polygamist but through a new concept at this point in the Bible -- concubinage. In the first case Hagar is offered to Abraham by Sarah (I always like to point out to people this was Sarah's idea). In Abraham's day this was common practice if the wife could not produce an heir, always nice to have a backup womb. Now we might argue that this was them not acting in faith. Maybe so but for the rest of Hagar's life she is considered to be Abraham's concubine/wife. In addition this is not the only concubine Abraham will take. After Sarah's death in Genesis 25, while Issac is being comforted by his new wife, Abraham takes a second concubine -- Keturah. She bears Abraham six children. Hagar is still alive. Two concubines for Abraham and the second one is by his own choice.

What this introduces to our discussion is the issue of concubinage -- the second class wife if you will. Basically, such wives are wives of convenience or necessity. They are their to bear the husband children but they and their children do not receive any inheritance after the husband's death should the first wife bear an heir. In Abraham's case both his concubines received stuff while he was alive but after he was dead only Isaac received the rest of his Father's inheritance. This is clearly a case of contractual obligation in a marriage and maybe defines the difference between a husband wife relationship by choice and a marriage agreement for practical purposes.

Next: Isaac's Arranged Marriage.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 4 -- Abraham Marries His Sister

2010-01-11T19:39:00.002-05:00

You know for all the talk of how Issac was the child of promise and he is, one of the interesting things about his parents Abraham and Sarah was that they had the same father. Two different mothers (another polygamist relationship) but they were brother and sister as well as husband and wife. Incest by the time Moses writes the Law but at this point apparently there is no such thing.
Who one can and cannot marry based on family relationship is something the Bible does deal with but the interesting thing about Genesis is that such concerns do not seem to be prevalent. The issue of why Sarah could not conceive may be as much an issue of family genetics as it was her own biology. Even to today the most common arranged marriage in many countries is to a member of the family.
The biblical issue is what is allowed and why. As time goes on the Bible becomes restrictive about who one can marry in the family but it does not completely get rid of it. If Moses is using Genesis as a basis for the Law that follows then it is interesting that Abraham's marriage to His sister will be illegal later. Changing nature of the God-man relationship? Probably.

Next: Abraham the Polygamist

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 3 -- Lamech and His Two Wives

2010-01-10T19:15:00.004-05:00

Probably one of the most significant things about about the story of Lamech is his belief that God protected him because he was somehow greater than Cain even though he had murdered two men, although based on what he says is could have been self defense. In any case, that is not what is significant for this discussion. What is significant is Lamech is the Bible's first recorded polygamist. This introduces polygamy very early into our discussion on marriage.

One of the arguments I have read from several sources against polygamy is that Lamech was of the line of Cain and therefore polygamy's origins are suspect in an ungodly line. I find this argument a little unsatisfying because it is an argument from silence. Just because no one in Seth's line is referenced to have more than one wife does not mean it didn't exist. All the children's names are not mentioned either so it does not mean they didn't have names. In addition the text itself does not say Lamech was the first polygamist ever; the only reason he is being recorded is because of his belief he would be revenged seventy fold, he just addressed this to his two wives so their existence is recorded.

In addition, if we refrain from everything that the line of Cain invented then we need to stop: Living in tents and herding livestock, playing music, doing metalwork, etc. because it was the line of Cain that invented all these things as well.

What is really curious is that God is silent about the issue. The mention of multiple wives seems to be as matter of fact as if he had told people Lamech was bald. The morality of polygamy really is not an issue here, the only thing we can really say is that polygamy has been around for a LONG time.

Next: Abraham Marries His Sister

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 2 -- Were Adam and Eve Married?

2010-01-09T05:26:00.003-05:00

It is an interesting question because we have certain notions of what it means when people get married but in the story of Creation none of those notions really exist: No ceremony, no vows, no license with a civil authority, etc.

What we do have is a statement by Adam -- "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man." Not exactly classic vows are they? And Eve says nothing. What follows are verses 24-25 which are commentary by Moses in a way -- "For this reason..." tells us that this story guided Moses' understanding about the significance of this action. He gives three things that seem to constitute a couple becoming husband and wife:
1. The man leaves his mother and father -- there must be a desire by the man to form his own household. He desires to take authority and start a family.
2. The man is joined to his wife -- now 'joined' could have multiple meanings but to put it in basic terms the couple forms their own household together and has sexual intercourse which makes them....
3. They become one flesh -- What God took apart is put back together and made one.
4. From then on they are naked and unashamed -- their relationship is open with no fear.

Notice that all that really matters is the formation of a household that is separate, sex and openness with no shame toward each other. Not a whole lot of romance in this story but then again if Eve asked Adam -- "Do you love me?" his response is -- "Who else?" There is also not a lot of cultural garbage attached to this either. No vows indicates Adam and his wife simply understood what it meant for them to be together. No ceremony meant they didn't real pronounce to any community other than the two of themselves and God that they were married. No licence indicates there were no obligations to law. They only had spiritual obligations to each other and God.

Husband and wife -- yes. Married -- by our cultural and religious standards -- No. Just a couple who just starts being together intimately in all senses right out of the gate. Maybe by God's standards, but the question of marriage isn't answered here. Marriage may be all the vows and crap, but being husband and wife is far more a constant thing and that is the nature of the question.

Next: Lamech and his two wives.

Marriage and the Bible -- Part 1 -- The Questions

2010-01-08T02:40:00.008-05:00

New Series. I know I still have Series on Revelation out there but I am not ready to continue it so I am looking at something new.

Marriage. Now i am not going to give 7 steps to a healthier marriage. I am also not here to reinforce what everyone says marriage is my question is -- What does the Bible Say Marriage is? When does God according to his word recognize that a couple is married? These two questions have a whole batch of questions tagged with them.

1. Is there a difference between marriage and being husband and wife? Some say there is, are they right?

2. Does a license, vows and sexual intercourse constitute marriage or does the Bible give an actual moment of marriage that is definable?

3. Are other types of marriage bonds acceptable? Polygamy? Homosexual? Group?

4. Can someone become unmarried to God's view? Divorce?

Now other questions may come up but these are good for starters. My method will be much the same as always: Observe what the Bible says, try to interpret what it means, apply it to real life and the draw it all together with what I already know.

Next: Were Adam and Eve Married?

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 6 -- Why Does This Matter?

2010-01-07T05:29:00.005-05:00

OK. Let's recap. True Fundamentalism is about making a list of the minimum things required in a Christian doctrine statement to be Christian. my list is only five things long:
1. The Bible is the Inspired Word of God
2. God exists in three persons: The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit and these three are one.
3. The reality of the person and work of Jesus Christ as both historical and spiritually significant
4. Through the person and work we can find salvation and find it in no other
5. Christ will return

Now, I want to note something -- I think this is all one needs to know to become a Christian and get saved. That said can anyone note all that is not said:

1. Type of inspiration (verbal, etc.)
2. The nature of God outside the trinity doctrine -- how is God omnipotent, omniscient, etc.
3. How one is saved by faith (faith and works controversy)
4. How salvation works and the nature of salvation are left somewhat open
5. End times -- completely open.

Why is this important? I think that unity is better achieved by fighting for the core, making allowances for differences outside the core and in all things being loving. Probably, the greatest downside to the Protestant Reformation has been division and hostility between the children of God. The fact is we often fight about many things that are not central to faith and the real issues often go by without really looking at them. The kind of unity Paul talked about in his writings is quite frankly imposable as long as these issues exist. We simply have a hard time accepting someone whose beliefs about Christianity are not very similar to our own and tat is becoming our downfall.

Finis

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 5 -- The Return of Christ

2010-01-06T18:06:00.003-05:00

Last fundamental of the true fundamentalist is that Christ will return to earth for his own.

Now, the significant thing is not what is said by this but what is not said:

1. No specific statement about 'the' tribulation
2. No statement about the flow of the end times

In short all that matters is Christ is going to return.

Next: So what is the big deal?

Arrrgh -- Technical Difficulties!!!!!!

2010-01-05T09:59:00.003-05:00

Sorry for the missed post but my modem fried itself two days ago and just now it is fixed. I will try to write something substantive tomorrow.

Returning to True Fundamentalism -- Part 4 -- Salvation Through Christ

2010-01-03T18:04:00.002-05:00

With the work of Christ complete, the door to salvation is opened. The issue for the true fundamentalist is one of Jesus being the only way to salvation. In short there are no other roads to eternal life.

The faith-works question is actually open and left to debate. The real issue is one of who purchased salvation not how it is acquired. Salvation issues are left open because salvation is a mystery and many of its parts are indeed subject to such debate.

Next: The Return of Christ

Last Holiday Post

2010-01-02T01:51:00.003-05:00

I could call this the last garbage post but I digress. The point is I have been posting short because of the holidays and the fact I like to enjoy them. Tomorrow should be different as I will continue with something of substance. Right now I am just basking in the silence and last bits of goodwill of the holiday season.

Blessings.

Happy New Year -- 2010

2010-01-01T16:34:00.003-05:00

Well, It has finally arrived. I simply wish everyone a great new year and one of spiritual blessing.

Looking forward to a great new year for myself with God guiding me I can't go wrong.

Blessings.

New Year's Resolutions -- Final Form

2009-12-31T06:06:00.011-05:00

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

2009-12-30T21:21:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-29T08:59:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-28T08:15:00.004-05:00

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.

2009-12-27T10:32:00.006-05:00

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

2009-12-26T04:26:00.009-05:00

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

2009-12-25T08:44:00.001-05:00

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

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

Blessings.

Chrsitmas Eve Service

2009-12-24T21:21:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-23T23:47:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-22T09:30:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-21T18:53:00.003-05:00

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

2009-12-20T11:17:00.002-05:00

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.

2009-12-19T08:49:00.015-05:00

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.

2009-12-18T07:15:00.007-05:00

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.

2009-12-17T05:42:00.009-05:00

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?

2009-12-16T20:16:00.006-05:00

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

2009-12-15T08:26:00.006-05:00

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

2009-12-14T19:12:00.011-05:00

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.

2009-12-13T10:37:00.004-05:00

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

2009-12-12T04:06:00.008-05:00

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.

2009-12-11T05:31:00.005-05:00

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

2009-12-10T16:49:00.010-05:00

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

2009-12-09T19:08:00.009-05:00

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!

2009-12-08T08:35:00.001-05:00

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

2009-12-07T18:23:00.005-05:00

"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

2009-12-06T18:42:00.016-05:00

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

2009-12-05T04:55:00.013-05:00

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.

2009-12-04T02:10:00.012-05:00

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

2009-12-03T02:09:00.011-05:00

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....

2009-12-02T18:52:00.002-05:00

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

2009-12-01T08:35:00.005-05:00

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.

Looking Ahead to 2010.

2009-11-30T19:22:00.005-05:00

It is the last day in November 30, 2009. It is also about this time of year that I look to the next and assess where I am with my long term goals. I have added one long term goal this year.

1. Spirit: To be the best pastor I can be. Actually this is a change I have long realized for the last couple of years the only one in the church I can change is myself.
2. Mind: To be a professor in a college or university
3. Heart: To be published writer of fiction and non-fiction books
4. Body: To die old and healthy like Moses at age 120.

For 2010 I want to do the following things to get closer to them.

1. Be a Man of the Word -- I want to memorize at least two books of the Bible this year.
2. Need to advance my education and I need to prepare for the Doctorate I need. That means learning languages -- This year -- Latin for the whole year.
3. Need to write two books this year. Have the non-fiction planned out and need to get a novel written. NaNoWriMo was a bust this year but I learned a few things and got 24000 words. Learned you can write a lot when motivated. Like to have both written and submitted for publication this year.
4. Embracing the bodybuilder in me this year -- trying to get down to the basic foundation I have to work with this year -- have a three year plan on this one and hopefully the results will be great.

Time to move forward.

Hero Worship

2009-11-29T16:48:00.006-05:00

We all have people that inspire us. In many cases, the people that inspire us are good people that have overcome odds and achieved their goals. There are also those people that inspire us that are not who they really are. We are actually inspired by a carefully preserved image of that person but not the actual person themselves. It is often too late that we discover that supermodel was using heroin or that politician was seeing a mistress or that preacher was embezzling funds from the church and once discovered heads off to Mexico with his secretary. These stories are common.

This is the peril of looking at people to be our heroes -- they can be genuine but many times they are not what they say they are -- they wear masks or they have some hidden agenda of their own that is selfish. People are flawed, petty and stupid at times.

That does not mean we should not have heroes, but it does mean that we need to be ready to remember they are human. When our admiration for the person exceeds our commitment to our own principles we are on dangerous ground. It can also be helpful to pick a hero that is not flawed and there is only one I know of --Jesus Christ.

Jesus has always been my hero precisly becasue he was both God and man -- sinless and yet real. This is hero worship in truth.

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 12 -- The Rest of the New Testament

2009-11-28T05:10:00.004-05:00

Now once we leave the Gospels and Acts it only takes till Romans 8:35 to get to a reference on nakedness -- it is a reference that nothing can separate us from the love of God -- not even nakedness. Now I am going to tell you this is one of the most significant verses I have seen on the subject of nakedness but I am going to tell you why in a later post -- just know this that if you are standing in the shower naked, the love of God is still there.

The next reference to nakedness is 2 Corinthians 5:3 which is in the context of taking off this mortal body so that we may put on the eternal one -- so we will not be found naked anymore. Does that mean part of new body will be clothed -- I doubt it -- but with the same of sin gone so will the shame of nakedness be gone. While we wear our white robes in 'heaven' we will doubtless not be ashamed; but also, if we were to take them off we would not be ashamed either -- sin is gone.

You have to get to James 2:15 where it makes reference to a brother or sister being without clothing and that faith would be demonstrated in giving them clothes to cover them.

In Revelation there are actually several stops -- 3:17-18 both mention nakedness -- in verse 17 it is about the reality of the state of the church of Laodicia -- they were naked -- exposed, vulnerable and shameful. Verse 18 tells them the cure -- buy clothing from God.

Revelation 16:15 has a parenthetical blessing to those who keep their clothes so that god will not see their shame -- now in this case I think the clothing is symbolic of righteousness which has been mentioned before in the book of revelation.

Finally in Revelation 17:16 there is a promise by God to the Whore of Babylon -- that He will strip her naked and leave her desolate. Another symbolic use of naked that she will have nothing left.

Well that is all i could find in reference to the Bible but I want to continue this series to by making a few observations and drawing a painful conclusion.

Next: Biblically -- What is Nakedness?

The Bible and Nakedness -- Part 11 -- The Gospels and Acts

2009-11-27T05:54:00.007-05:00

On to the New Testament, the first real reference to nakedness in the New Testament is in Matthew 25 where Jesus is blessing the sheep and cursing the goats. In all cases, though the thought is on naked as vulnerable and destitute. A naked person in he ancient world meant either very poor or a slave. Jesus reminds us to cloth the naked and protect them from this vulnerability.

There is one case of nakedness in all three of the first gospels but it is indirect -- the Man possessed with legion is said Mark to be 'clothed' although no reference is made (at least in the NASB) to him being naked it is assumed because of the reference to him being clothed. In this case nakedness is indicative of how nothing was shameful to the demon possessed man. Once healed he gets clothes on to show he is back to being normal.

The second reference is in Mark 14:51-52 -- where John-Mark (it is believed) covers himself with a sheet to go to the garden with Jesus and as they arrest Mark he lets go of the sheet they grab and flees into the night naked. I am going to tell you this sound like someone who was used to sleeping naked who is roused from sleep and asked if he wants to come the Garden of Gethsemane -- he agrees but does not even dress -- he simply wraps the blanket around himself. There is nor moral statement of whether this was right or wrong -- simply a statement of the facts.

Luke makes two references to women's breasts -- Luke 11:27-28 in which a woman speaks of the blessedness of Jesus' mother's breasts and womb and Luke 23:28-30 where Jesus blesses the breasts that never nursed. In both cases the issue is the nurturing power of women's breasts through nursing. No sexual reference is indicated at all. Jesus also does not seem embarrassed in either case to make references to this part of a woman's body or to hear it referenced.

John makes no reference to either

Acts has only one reference to nakedness and it is Acts 19:16 where the seven sons of Sceva flee stripped naked -- They are totally humiliated and dishonored.

What all this shows us is that nakedness is about being shamed, humiliated, being vulnerable or destitute.

Next: Nakedness and the Rest of the New Testament