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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apologetics: The New Religious Reality

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

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

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

The Passing of Kennedy

There is an old expression about people dying -- respect the dead and if you can't say something nice then don't say anything at all. So what can be said good about the passing of Teddy Kennedy
1. The man who escaped justice for his role in Mary Jo Kopechne death will now face bar of God for which justice will be perfect.
2. The Senate is now no longer filibuster proof for the rest of the health care debate in addition without Kennedy a lot of things are going to fall apart.
3. He never became President of the United States.

It always saddens me at somebodies death and that sadness is compounded when someone wastes their life without God. Kennedy wasn't even a good Catholic.

Now I know the media will be going gangbusters covering how wonderful he was as the youngest of the Kennedy clan and they will probably give him more time than Ronald Reagan which would be a crying shame, but the truth is when you look at his life it is just sad in the eyes of eternity.

IMHO.

Higher Criticism and Revisionist History: An Interesting Parallel

Robert Heinlein, the Grandmaster of Science Fiction, wrote this of revisionist history in his last book To Sail Beyond the Sunset through the character Maureen Smith:

"In the twentieth century Gregorian in the United States of America, something called 'revisionist history' became popular among 'intellectuals'. Revisionism appears to have been based on the notion that the living actors present on the spot never understood what they were doing and why, or how they were being manipulated, being mere puppets in the hands of unseen evil forces....But why are the people of the United States and their government always the villains in the eyes of the revisionists? Why can't our enemies ... take a turn in the pillroy? Why is it always our turn?" p.67.

He has a good point -- revisionist history claims to be recovering the truth about our history but every time I read one of these people what I get is not revision but anti-USA. They start with the assumption that the USA is the bad guys.

In a similar way the 'scholars' of Higher Criticism assumes that the Bible is not history. They claim to be trying to uncover the real history of Biblical times but in reality they do much the same thing.

1. Both assume that we here have a better perspective to the events in question than the people who were there or knew people who were there. There is a chronological and philosophical arrogance to both groups.
2. Both assume that the original or ancient accounts are in error or outright lies if you take them to their logical conclusion. Must be hard to believe that everything you read is false.
3. Eyewitness accounts cannot be trusted. But then why are non eyewitness accounts more trustworthy?

Recently I received a copy of Bart Ehrman's book -- Misquoting Jesus which I plan to read as soon as I can. I engage Bart because he represents a new kind of scholar in higher criticism. The ideas he presents are not new, but what is new is the way they are being packaged -- to mass audience appeal so that doubt is created. They are 'pop' in their orientation. I feel very sorry for them in a way -- doubt is all they know, but at the same time their views are fallacious and need to be confronted. I am not the first to take their ideas on but right now this is the battleground -- if the Bible is stripped of history then everything we believe is built of falsehood and we might as well do something else. The same is true with US history and our beliefs in this nation.

The battle is in history and faith -- The Bible must be a product of both to believed. This is the battle of our day. Fight on.

Thoughts on Education

Today I have been thinking about education. I have had two children graduate from the public school system and one with two years to go. The problems I have had have been varied but most of it has to do with philosophy.

1. There has been a dumbing down of education -- lowered standards and less of a push for competition for good grades have hurt education over the years. I think this is particularly true for boys. Boys are naturally competitive but that has been downplayed or taught that they should relax more. Unfortunately this is reflected in lower scores for boys as a whole. In short a drive for competitive excellence has been watered down.

2. ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder)has become a big thing with the use of drugs to control children instead of discipline and teaching self-discipline. The majority of ADD diagnosis seem to be boys again -- makes me wonder if ADD is a legit disease or simple a female reaction to the male drive and activity of boys.

3. Getting in touch with ones' feelings have replaced the idea of thinking things through and calmly. This has resulted in a teaching style that is more conscious about a persons desires than their reality. Results in a lot of emotional decisions and emotions very often do not make good choices.

4. On moral issues the educational establishment has decided to use cover up programs than actually dealing with the problem. Now given that most kids are not familiar with the Judeo-Christian in schools it may be a good thing that some of these programs do what they do. In the end; however, they are not addressing the real issues of young people's decision making processes.

5. Over the years I have watch an growing anti-Christian bigotry (I call it what it is) in the public schools. Many religions outside Christianity are given a fair shake or allowed to be heard as far as their worldview and ethics in the public school, but Christianity has all but been told to go away. I am not against other religions being present, but Christianity should also be allowed to speak. In fact, I think this is the only way to avid violating the first amendment -- let every public forum and organization be open to any speech including all religious speech. When the public schools gag the Christians they are violating this amendment and the idea of free speech.

I think in the end,education has been on of those areas where liberals have concentrated their efforts for good reason. Between this, the media and politics they have done a good job in controlling the debate and ideas presented and taught. This needs to change the other way by conservatives getting involved in all these areas.

Notre Dame and Barak Obama

I am not a Catholic and every time Michigan and Notre Dame play football I have only one desire -- to watch the Fighting Irish lose. But I have to speak on this one because the one area where Catholics and I agree in many respects is moral issues.

On March 20, 2009 the University of Notre Dame invited Barak Obama to give the commencement address. The Outcry has been large and at first it looked like the whole thing was grinding to a halt, but the address is still on as of recent news reports on 5/7/2009.

I don't know what the University staff was thinking but this is not a good idea.

Obama has made it very clear that he does not take moral stands anywhere close to Catholics -- Pro-Choice, Not family oriented, etc. Why in God's name (I mean that in all sincerity) would you invite him to speak the commencement address. A few points if I may.

1) The whole thing is bound to cause controversy and that will make the graduates day of honor less wholesome.

2) The President is opposed to everything Catholics believe

3) This is going to be bad for the University

4) Giving this man an honorary degree is also insulting -- for what? Opposing everything Notre Dame stands for?

Probably the sadist thing is this was a no brainer as soon as proposed -- NO! It's not hard -- just don't even go there.

The University should fire the president if they don't stop it. It should be cancelled no matter what the media would say -- I would be proud of them. It would make a statement that not everybody supports Obama Mania.

Notre Dame -- do the right thing -- tell Obama to stay home.