Christian Issues

•

In the “Allegory of the Cave”, we see an example of people seeing “through the glass dimly.” Plato describes a group of people in a cave since their childhood, chained so that they cannot move their heads. I could not picture this until I saw the illustration, but imagine a fire behind the people, casting shadows on the wall in front of them. There is also a walkway and animals, people and things are carried along between the fire and the wall in front of the prisoners.

All these people know of the world are the shadows on the wall in front of them. In fact, they may not even know that there is a world outside of those shadows. All they can see – all they can know – are the flickering shadows on the wall in front of them.

Imagine that one of these prisoners is set free. He stands up and turns around, seeing the fire for the first time. This is the first time he sees the direct flame and he is blinded. At first, before his eyes grow accustomed to the light, the objects that cast the shadows seem unreal – less real than the shadows. He rebels – this is not what he is used to!

(continue reading)

• 4 Comments

•

Yes, I know that McLaren and Driscoll are on "Out of Ur" but that's not what I'm writing about.

I firmly believe that homosexualty actions are wrong - sin. Of course, so are a lot of other things that are right out in the open at church. How homosexuals should be treated should very much depend on whether or not they are in the church (professing Christians).

Wherever they are at, whatever they are doing, our motive should be love.

But on to the real topic.
...and my struggle with gentleness...I'm going to be writing a letter to the editor and need to focus on gentleness and respect. My first letter "went away" when somebody rebooted the computer before I saved it and I think God's hand was in that.

I got my February copy of "The Banner" and read a couple of things that kind of mystified me.

The First Christian Reformed Church in Toronto, Ontario announced three years ago that it would allow its members living in committed gay and lesbian relationships to be nominated as elders and deacons.

In December 2005, after being on the brink of being disaffiliated, "The Council of First Christian Reformed Church, Toronto...resolved[s] to acknowledge the CRC guidelines with respect to homosexuality and agrees to tailor its ministry accordingly."

So far so good. Next up: First CRC plans ask the synod to revisit the CRC's position on homosexuality. So, they're going to go through the normal channels to get gays and lesbians into the formal leadership of their church. (Here's where I start to lose the "gentleness" thing.

I'm not mystified by this; I'm glad that the denomination's structure brought enough pressure to bring the church into line. The structure did its job.

What mystifies me is another article on "General and Special Revelation in Conversation" by Dr. Donald Oppewal at Calvin College (words from the article in blue. Special revelation is the Bible and general revelation is:
- an embodiment of the divine thought in the phenomona of nature;
- the general composition of the human mind and
- the facts of experience or history.

Oppewal maintains that special revelation alone is inadequate; the two sources are interdependent and...that general revelation promotes a proper understanding of special revelation."

(This is where I really start to lose my gentleness - not with sinners, but with the denomination)

Oppewal's final paragraph reads: "The Spirit moves most surely among us when Christians read the "facts of experience or history" as well as when we read the Bible. Christian thinkers in the vaeious disciplines, including theology, can give us counsel as we try to walk together toward that day when we shall all see more clearly the will of God for our communal lives, both in church and in society."

(Here's where I have to work to stay focused on gentleness)

Apply that final paragraph to Oppewal's final point.

"It remains to be seen how the question of homosexuality as a lifestyle comports with a Christian view of sexuality. But we can hope that the church will examine the evidence from general revelation just as seriously as it does the evidence from special revelation.

"Without also considering the evidence from biology concerning how sexuality is shaped, and without turning to the actual sociological evidence about same-sex relations, we'll end up doing only half our homework as Reformed Christians."

What Oppewal appears to be saying is that we have to look at God's Word through the lens of "sociological evidence" - not the other way around.

My desire is (with gentleness and respect) state clearly that we should be looking at the world through God's lens - not looking at God's Word through the lens of the world.

• 5 Comments

•

A couple of years ago I wrote a research paper on "Adult Singles in American Christian Churches". My professor suggested I get it published, but I was already kind of persona-non-grata at my church when it came to singles issues. Then my motherboard fried and I lost the finished product - I'm going through and doing some additions and edits. 2006 might be the year.

I was widowed at age 41 after 23 years of marriage. Like most married people, I didn't have a clue about how many single people surrounded me (or not). Like most married people - the church I was at didn't have a lot of single people and I didn't waste my time asking myself why that could be.

I did have single friends - my husband didn't come to church with me for several years and in that time, married women didn't befriend me, it was the single women that gathered around. But when my husband joined the church, I kept those single friends, but didn't look for new single friends. I was part of a "couple" and that's largely how we socialized.

As of 2004, 49.8% of "Heads of Households" in the United States are single adults. That's a lot of single people.

Does your church look like the population, reflecting that fact that roughly 1/3 of adults in the United States are single? If not, why not?

I had some interesting experiences as a widow. Because of my age (only 2% of the US population consists of widows between 34 and 55), my experiences are different than most widows. In a lot of ways, I have more in common with divorced women my age than I do widows of all ages - who are mostly older)

By and large - married women treat single women as "outsiders". Face it, we're not part of the club. Some of the excuses:

THE WOMEN SAY:
We have different challenges. I would answer that when my daughter wants to go out with a young man that I don't approve of, the challenges are very much the same - only I don't have a husband to stand beside me to provide an example of what a Godly man should be like.

We're in different social circles" I would answer with a question: Why? As a woman, I love gardening, animals, reading, cross stitch, walking. I love to go out for coffee and just chat. I have teenage children. Socially, you might get along really well with me, if you can get over the fact that I'm not married.

I've read "Boundaries" by Cloud and Townsend. It's all about putting up good boundaries and it could be dangerous if I include a single woman in my life" I would answer that going out for coffee with a single woman is not going to endanger your marriage unless your marriage is so fragile to start with that life as a single starts looking more attractive than your own life. This would not be the fault of the single woman.

I don't want to take the risk of my husband getting to know a single woman I would answer that most single women will assure you that we promise not to jump your husband in the sound booth at church. Seriously. (Yes, I had this experience. A gentleman was teaching me to run the power point from the sound booth. His wife was in the choir loft and when she saw me talking to her husband she made a beeline for the sound booth, put her arm around her husband and didn't let go until I left.)

My family is busy. Okay, you have a home and teenagers. So do I. We're both busy. Some are busier than others. I'll make time for a woman-to-woman relationship if you will.

THE MEN (in terms of helping single parents) SAY:
My wife wouldn't like it. I would answer with a question: who rules your home? The man or the dragon? (This is a reference to Mark Driscoll, who I have heard a couple of time explain that there are two options - either the man runs the home in a Godly way, or the devil rules it in an ungodly way.)

I SAY:
There are a lot of things that would help single people - and single parents in particular.

- recognize that we're part of the family. For just as we have many members in one body and all the members do not have the same function, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another (New American Standard Version Romans 12:4-5)

- Help us out. Help can take many forms - even just a cup of coffee. Offer to include a single parent on a picnic. Better yet, a husband can include a fatherless child (and I'm including the children of some divorced moms) on a father/child outing with your church. Many single moms cannot afford a family outing to a baseball game - take an extra child.

- We're have gifts. And they don't just include being in the nursery during an even for couples. Make a real and purposeful effort to include singles in church planning (women's events, men's events, picnics, etc.)

- We hurt. Just like you do, only for different reasons. Please don't make being excluded one of those reasons.

- We don't necessarily want a "Singles Group" that is a church within a church. Many times, that just feels safer. Please help us feel safe.

We (like all people) recognize that it's not what a person says, it's what they do.

A single person can say all day long that they want to be included - but if they don't make themselves open to inclusion, all of their talk won't do any good.

Likewise, a married person can say all day long that they would include a single in their group - but if they walk by with a nod and a smile, all of their talk won't do any good.

It's not what you say, it's what you do: “But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, ‘Son, go work today in the vineyard.’ And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he regretted it and went. The man came to the second son and said the same thing; and he answered ‘I will, sir’; but he did not go. Which of the two did the will of the Father?” They said, “The first.” (ESV; Matthew 21:28-310)

How do you treat people who are different than you are? This includes single, married, white, black, whatever, impaired, "normal" (if there is such a thing).

How do you show Christ to those who are different?

•

This book would be very helpful for Christian families who are in a Reformed tradition - and even for Christian families who are not in a Reformed tradition, but have an open mind.

There is a bit of "Arminianism vs. Calvinism" in that the suggestion in put forth that Arminians cannot contemplate "infant faith" since for them faith is of human origins and there needs to be at least some human reasoning ability. Calvinists, on the other hand, believing that faith is a gift from God and thus there is no human ability to reason required.

I understand that faith is not the same as trust, but there are verses that seem to say that a Covenant child (child of the promise) can have faith from a very early age.

Psalm 22: 9-10
Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.

Psalm 71:5-6
For you have been my hope, O Sovereign LORD,
my confidence since my youth.

From birth I have relied on you;
you brought me forth from my mother's womb.
I will ever praise you.

Psalm 8:2
From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise
because of your enemies,
to silence the foe and the avenger.

Jesus used this last quote in Matthew 21 when He cleared the temple
(has this every clicked for any of you, it sure didn't me!)
14The blind and the lame came to him at the temple,
and he healed them.
15But when the chief priests and the teachers of the law saw the
wonderful things he did and the children shouting in the temple
area, "Hosanna to the Son of David," they were indignant.

16"Do you hear what these children are saying?" they asked him.
"Yes," replied Jesus, "have you never read,
" 'From the lips of children and infants
you have ordained praise'?"

Can those who do not have faith, truly praise God?

• 1 Comment

•

Here are some conclusions/questions...

The author concludes that babies of covenant families are given faith by God. He is "happily agnostic" when it comes to the salvation of babies that die in unbeliving families.

so...
If we are saved by faith, it would follow that babies have some sort of faith. If they do not have faith, then how are they saved?

If babies have faith, but can fall away, what does that do for perseverence?

I'm fairly new to Reformed theology and I know that baptism does not save. However, Lusk seems to say that baptism is more than a symbol, it is more like the (my words) door through which salvation comes.

How does one relate baptism to salvation?

If baptism is a symbol, and not a vehicle, why baptize infants before they understand the symbolism?

Here is a tough one. I spent years outside the church. Looking back, I can pinpoint a moment when my relationship with God became very real. Given it is possible that is the moment I "got saved" - are the babies that I lost before that moment saved or lost?

• 2 Comments

•

Our sermon title this morning.

Luke 6:27-36 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

"If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

The first thing - the first line - "to you who hear." Are we paying attention? Are we paying attention?

The Greek word for love here is "agapao" - charity. Not phileos, brotherly love.

Christ's command was to love those who hate you, abuse you, curse you. This is a love that we are to give to those who don't desire it. It removes the possibility of retaliation and it treats others the way you want to be treated.

Our behavior flows from our hearts - is it agapao that flows? phileos? or something else?

"turn the other cheek" means so much more than simply putting up with mistreatment. Agapao turns the tables, responding with charity.

A radical love that declares that we are children of the Most High, merciful and kind.

With the help of the Holy Spirit we CAN love anybody

• 13 Comments

•

A commenter here (Elena) left a link in the comments section that (in a nutshell) says that our Christian marriages must reflect the church's marriage to God (so far, I agree). To go further (relate it to birth control), God would never use contraception in His marriage to the church, therefore we must never use birth control either. This theology (study of God) does not address the difference between artificial birth control and Natural Family Planning.

Actually, I fully accept Philothea Rose's view on God's marriage and our marriage...I just followed her reasoning to its logical conclusion...read on.

This is, primarily, mental Onanism. Fun, with little hope of producing anything.

Anyway, given that the way God increases His family is through salvation, the linked post connects contraception with sotierology. This argument actually strengthens the idea that God has a permissive will when it comes to family planning - and that God is a Calvinist (actually, the correct way of looking at the grammar - that Calvin's theology of sotierology is correct).

I'm going to look at this from both a Calvinist and Arminian/Catholic view of salvation.

This is premise I'm using - either you are conceived here and "born" when you enter heaven, or you are both conceived and fully born into the faith here.

1) (everybdy). We all recognize that God works in real and specific ways, and at very specific times in order to bring us to Him. If we fall upon our faith in His timing, is He not planning the time of "conception"? This supports family planning...however...

1) (Arminian/Catholic) If the way God increases His family is through salvation, and His will is that *everybody* comes to Him - how can you then justify Natural Family Planning? If God wants every single person possible to come into His family, how can a couple who says that artifical birth control is wrong, justify *not* wanting every single person possible to come into their family? I don't think you can. If you want your marriage to truly reflect God's marriage, you must strive to have as many babies as you possibly can. The Natural Family Planning thing does not reflect God's marriage.

2) (Calvinist) If the way God increases His family through salvation, and you believe in election (some are chosen, some are not), those who are "hardened", those who are prepared for destruction - the objects of God's wrath...these are never conceived. Faith is a gift from God and faith = belief = being conceived into the family of God. In sotierology/contraception theology, those who do not receive the gift of faith (belief/fertility) also do not receive the gift of life (conception/salvation).

3) (Arminian/Catholic) Arminius and the Catholic Church teach that a person can lose their salvation. This is where I think that an Arminian or Catholic should (yes, should find this sotierology/contaception theology absolutely abhorant.

If God gives a person the gift of life (salvation/conception) only to remove it later - is that abortion, or infanticide? The other issue - if God can abort a person that He has given the gift of life to, because He has found them wanting, that supports the idea that it is permissible for a couple to abort a baby that is found wanting. Do you really want to go there?

I reject the idea that God supports either abortion or infanticide, when it comes to His marriage and His family, so I must either reject Arminianism/Catholicism or sotierology/contracteption or both.

4) On the flip side, Calvinism, once a child is conceived (saved), they are secure, God will never get rid of them. There will be those who "fall on rocky soil", who never come to belief (I guess you could relate that to a miscarriage). But once you are given the gift of faith, God will not lose you.

So, there here are the points - if you truly want to
- God either is permissive (or even actively supports) family planning, or all family planning is sin, even NFP
- if you believe that the doctrine of election is true, then God specifically plans His family.
- if you believe that a person can lose their salvation, then God supports (and practices) either abortion or infanticide (I reject this)
- If you believe perserverance of the saints - that you cannot lose your salvation, then you believe that God would never abort one of His children.

Conclusion - if you're a Calvinist, you're okay with God practicing family planning. If God's okay with family planning, I am too...

If you believe that a person can lose his or her salvation, you are also okay with God practicing family planning, only in a much more disturbing way.

Taken to its logical conclusion, either this theology does not work...or Calvin was right.

• 5 Comments

•

This is a beautiful verse about the way a marriage should be handled. I'm still trying to figure out how to get Greek letters in here...

But Young's Literal Translation (awkward but accurate) says:
Defraud not one another, except by consent for a time, that ye may be free for fasting and prayer, and again may come together, that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence;

A couple of things really popped out at me...

Defraud is just like it sounds. I've done some studies on Old Testament marriage contracts and there were three things that were always guaranteed. A home (the husband provides and the wife maintains), food/oil (the husband provides and the woman prepares) and bed (sexual relations). These three things were so important, if any of these three were denied on a regular basis, it was grounds for divorce. To enter into a marriage and refuse the marraige bed was to defraud the mate of marital rights.

except by consent: this really caught my eye, concerning marriage in general.

sumphonou - sounds like "symphony" and means, in harmonious accord. Isn't that the way a marriage should work? Each half of the whole striving to be in harmonious accord. Just like the word that we get from this, symphony - it doesn't imply that you are in lockstep. Just like a symphony, each partner plays his or her own instrument. One time, one will have the melody, another time, the other will. And each time, their mate will be behind them, harmonizing, supporting. A symphony wouldn't be a symphony if everyone played the same note! So it is with marriage.

pros kairos hina scholazo - for a limited time, in order to give oneself to

fasting and prayer

and again may come together, (be one flesh, husband and wife, give one another comfort and pleasure)

that the Adversary may not tempt you because of your incontinence; How many people have fallen, because their spouse didn't pay attention to the consequences of denying their other half? I submit that a husband or wife that denied his or her spouse is a stumbling block the likes of which few people ever see.

This verse communicates the importance of "one-flesh-ness" and the importance of setting it aside only for the things of God, and then only for limited times.

I would submit that a husband or wife should not have to go without marital relations (unless there are special circumstances that prohibit them) for any longer than they also expect their husband and wife to go without food.  There is no reason for denying one's spouse the comfort and pleasure that a marriage bed should bring.  (The last paragraph has been edited just because it  was an awkward sentence and didn't quite say what I wanted it to say.

• 21 Comments

•

I guess I see two ways of looking at the Law (with variations on those themes).

1) Everything is legal, unless the Bible tells us it is not
2) Everything is prohibited, unless the Bible tells us it is not.

There are those who will show you in the Bible what you are supposed to be doing, and there are those who will attempt to put you under a law that does not even exist. If you believe that God wrote the Law,. and think you need to add to it, because God forgot a few things, that puts you in a dangerous position of trying to be more righteous than God - and I'm sure not going to try that!

I grew up in a church that pretty much took the second way of looking at things. Drinking was sin, as was smoking, dancing, playing with a regular deck of cards, etc. The strictness varied with the pastor. I remember one that prohibited his wife from buying their children clothes from the store if they could be made at home, and also prohibited her from using an electric sewing machine. Another kept his daughter away from youth group on an evening that I led devotions (as a female, I wasn't supposed to do that). I think it was that same pastor that eventually agreed to perform a marriage for a divorced woman (it was a "Biblical" divorce), but not in the sanctuary - it had to be done in his office (I never quite understood why, if the marriage was permissible, it couldn't be fully permissible. If it was not "good enough" to be done in the sanctuary, should he have done it at all?) These days, it's homeschooling, Christian schooling, quiver-full, even delaying marriage.

Take alcohol specifically. My mom and dad are teetotallers - as are other members of my family. I am not - I have a bottle of beer once in a while - more often, I'll have a glass of red wine. That is not a lifestyle of drunkeness. If you can show me in the Bible where having a drink is a sin, we'll talk again. But I will not put myself under bondage to a Law that does not exist. My dad and I disagree. But he does not condemn me for my occasional drink, and I respect him and don't drink around him - or even mention it.

Or, more recently - the "quiver full" debate. There is a difference between a quiverfull lifestyle (which I cannot do, but wish I could), a quiverfull mentality (which I probably have) and a quiverfull theology (which I cannot find). Yes, children are a gift from God and I'd love to have more - the Bible never says that we should not steward our resource and our health - in order that we can spit as many of those babies out as we possibly can.

God is pretty eloquent and I think that if He wanted to prohibit contraception, He could have spelled it out. He gave the Jews 613 laws - do we really think that He just "forgot" birth control?

I know - some will say that it was just a "given" that contraception was wrong. Excuse me, but the Jews needed something in the Law that laid out the penalty for having sex with animals!!! If they couldn't figure that one out, I'm guessing a prohibition against birth control would have had to be spelled out pretty clearly.

And then there's Onan...which many scholars today recognize as something a little deeper than birth control.

The fact is - these two things (and many others), alcohol and contraception is not in the Law. Any law against it is arrived at by methods other than God's Word. And that puts in the category of all the laws of all the teachers of the Law that put further yokes on the people. By the time Christ arrived, they "tied up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders" and they traveled over land and sea to win a single convert, only to make him twice as much a son of hell as they were.

What God has spelled out for us, we should obey. What God has put on our hearts, we must follow. But we are under no obligation to follow another person's heart, if it is following a Law that does not exist.

• 12 Comments

•

When my kids were little I worked for a little while for a historic neighborhood association. One day I was driving around (long story, but I was doing my job) a block where a little house had been torn down. That was the first time I noticed "that" house. It had been empty for years, it was boarded up, siding was missing, as was part of the roof.

But it grabbed my attention. No, God grabbed my attention.

...continue reading →