THEOLOGICAL PERSIFLAGE

Your Brain Might Hurt After This But ...

2010-07-21T02:18:00.001-04:00

Coming Back Soon ...

2010-04-20T23:34:00.000-04:00

In the meantime ...

2009-09-13T02:10:00.001-04:00

Novus Monastica (Weekly Religious News) - 9/3/09

2009-09-03T19:11:00.015-04:00

A Look “At Historical Record” Shows Jesus Was a Vegetarian?

Hollywood filmmaker, Kamram Pasha, is writing a fictional work on the origins on Christianity. Nice. He’s concluded -

“... after lengthy research into the historical record, I have become convinced that Jesus Christ himself was in all likelihood a vegetarian, and that vegetarianism was probably a central tenet of the early Christian community founded by his disciples. In fact, there is evidence that Christ's opposition to animal sacrifice at the Jewish Temple may have been the triggering event that led to the Crucifixion.”

Whoa. How many of you knew that Jesus was crucified for being a vegetarian, raise your hand … no one? Honestly? Me neither.

“One of the central themes that set Jewish Christian groups apart from Pauline Christians was their belief that Jesus rejected animal sacrifice and the consumption of meat.”

Yeah, I think that would be “consumption of meat” sacrificed to idols in pagan temple rituals. But you know, I say potato, you say putato.

“According to Church historians like Iraneus (2nd century CE), Origen (3rd century CE), Epiphanius and Eusebius (4th century CE), groups like the Ebionites had their own Gospel written in Hebrew (or possibly Aramaic, the language Jesus actually spoke) … Based on this Gospel, the Ebionites rejected what was becoming mainstream Christianity and denounced the letters of Paul as false teachings. The Ebionites faithfully observed the Law of Moses, claiming that in doing so, they were following the example not only of James, Peter and the disciples, but of Jesus himself. And according to Epiphanius, the Ebionites were vegetarian, rejecting animal sacrifice as immoral, claiming again that they were following the teachings of Jesus himself.”

So assuming (a) Origen & Co. are credible on this one, (b) the Ebionites’ extra gospel is reliable, (c) Paul’s letters were not truly Christian, (d) somehow following the law of Moses AND rejecting all consumption of meat are reconcilable, and (e) this is what Jesus did, then (f) we can come to the conclusion that Jesus was vegetarian! Am I right?

“Hegesippus, a 2nd century orthodox Christian historian, wrote of James the Just, the brother of Jesus: ‘After the apostles, James the brother of the Lord surnamed the Just was made head of the Church at Jerusalem. Many indeed are called James. This one was holy from his mother's womb. He drank neither wine nor strong drink, ate no flesh, never shaved or anointed himself with ointment or bathed’ … According to Epiphanius, the Ebionites also rejected alcohol and used water for communion, further strengthening their claim to be continuing the practice of James, who was the brother of Jesus and his appointed successor … As biblical scholar Robert Eisenman points out in his monumental work James the Brother of Jesus, ‘Who and whatever James was, so was Jesus.’”

Damn, is this guy’s chain of reasoning is incredible or what?

“In Romans 14:1-2, Paul denigrates those Christians who 'eat only vegetables' saying that their "faith is weak." So it is clear that vegetarianism was common among Christians in Paul's day, to the extent that he had to refute their claim that refraining from meat was an act of piety … The fact that Paul has to make this point means that ethical vegetarianism was being presented as a moral requirement to be a Christian!”

Yeah, there were a lot of weird Christians claiming you had to do (or NOT do) legal stuff to “be a Christian” - like never ever have sex. Be circumcised. Follow all the Judaic laws. Never drink alcohol. But never eat steaks? That’s just taking it too far. Keep denigrating away, Paul. We're on your side.

"I came across a remarkable book called The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity by Keith Akers, which posits a shocking thesis -- that the central event of the Christian faith, the Crucifixion, was predicated upon Christ's willingness to fight for animal rights."

Truly remarkable all right.

"In the Gospel of John, Jesus physically drives herds of animals out of the Temple courtyard using a whip. It is an incredibly powerful visual image. Yet in all the years of that I have listened to the story of Jesus at the Temple, I have never heard anyone focus on this compelling scene. The overturning of the currency tables seems to be what is stuck in the Christian consciousness, and yet the most dramatic and chaotic event in this incident is clearly the freeing of the animal herds."

Wowzers. Just imagine what would happen if Jesus walked into a poultry farm then. Feathers a-flyin’? Talk about dramatic. Personally, I still prefer the image of Jesus driving out the money changers with a whip.

"… many Islamic legends around Jesus portray him as an ascetic who avoided meat and was deeply concerned for the welfare of animals as well as humans."

And you know, what’s cool about these legends is … they’re ISLAMIC. Oh wait, this is the Huffington Post? Never mind.
______________________________________________________________________________

Imminent NFL Season Bringing Back the Bad Football Sermon Analogies

Well it’s started again. And I’m not one to be hating all sports/spiritual life analogies. I’m a big sports fan obviously and so, as it happens, was the apostle Paul. However, unfortunately there are some extremely painful (and kindergarten level) sports examples used in sermons these days. I lose IQ points even thinking about them. Pastor Barrett Vanlandingham, Fort Gibson Church of Christ, takes the top spot for now -

“I know a little about the excitement of football season. All of those things seemed tremendously important at the time. But as we all know, the years go by and a little perspective tends to put life's events in the proper order.”

Wait a second … hold on … is this guy even a football fan or what? That sounds like he’s implying that football isn’t that important in the long scheme of things.

“The apostle Paul, who was growing older, told young Timothy these important words to live by: ‘For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come.’” (1 Tim. 4:8)

If you’re a young Christian guy who has spent years listening to sermons, classes, and chapels all aimed at Christian young men, you will learn to hate this verse. Because you will hear it in over 50% of men's sermons ... over and over and over again. Because men like that part about sports being of "some" value.

"Jesus then victoriously sat at the right hand of God in order to encourage us and give us a goal that we can attain. We can make it to heaven by following Christ's example of living a life dedicated to serving and loving God, and serving and loving others. It's only by God's grace that he gives us such a plan to follow."

You know how there are “goals” in football? Well, God has “goals” in your spiritual life too. See how similar Christianity and football are? If you like the NFL, then you should like being a Christian too.

“If you want a real challenge with a real reward, living for God in an increasingly immoral world is the toughest challenge any of us will ever face. But it is also the only challenge that comes with a reward of eternal life in heaven where there are no worries, no pain, no death, only joy and praise of God the Father who makes it all possible. Real victory comes for those who have the choice to live life however they want, but choose to live it for God who in turn gives the richest blessings of all, peace and joy, now and later.”

Living for God in an increasingly immoral world … you see, that’s a challenge that’s similar to trying to score a touchdown, only better.

“Being on God's team can feel lonely, especially when we look at the world's team which has so many members.”

That other bad “worldly” team just doesn’t follow the rules. But we're all in God's football team, isn't that cool?

"But when it's time for God's team to march victoriously into the end zone of heaven, many on the opposing team will want to switch sides. But for them it will be too late. Please pray today that God gives us the wisdom and perseverance to suit up and play for him everyday until the clock on life's scoreboard runs out."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA …

Sorry, I just … knew it was coming but … Oh man … Heaven is like the end zone you see, and you’ve got to try and reach it to score eternal life, but watch out for the clock on life’s scoreboard ... it could run out before you get the chance to score heaven. Yes, my friends, this is the Gospel. Don’t you just want to come to church and listen to sermons like this, instead of staying home to watch the game?

My IQ just got a minus 20 points writing all this down. That's like a yardage penalty without a first down, except it's like in your brain ... get it?
______________________________________________________________________________

Vick & the Eagles are Giving Sportswriters the Opportunity to Wax Deeply on “Forgiveness”

If you like football, I bet you're interested in some shrink's opinion on the sociological psychological cultural impact of our forgiving Michael Vick for being a bad bad man. That's what Dana Scarton thinks anyhow. Because Vick owes all of us, would it be mentally healthy for you to indulge in that thing Christians always talk about called forgiveness?

Scarton writes - “Let's be clear: Michael Vick's involvement in the blood sport of dogfighting was beyond wrong. It was horrifying, senseless and inhumane … This was as brutal as it gets. Still, it's time to consider forgiveness for Michael Vick.”

You, the reader, should be horrified by Michael Vick. Horrified.

"News of Vick's acquisition by the Eagles prompted a harsh reaction from many, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, who condemned the signing and questioned what message it sends to young fans. Undoubtedly, the team will face a public-relations nightmare."

Or undoubtedly, the Philadelphia Eagles simply don’t care about PETA and instead care about winning football games. Could be … just a guess.

“Forgiveness is good for our health. Forgiving is defined in a recent Mayo Clinic consumer publication as ‘acknowledging hurt and then letting it go, along with the burden of anger and resentment.’ Once achieved, forgiveness results in a decrease of negative thoughts and feelings toward an offender and an increase in positive thoughts and feelings.”

More positive thoughts and feelings, less negative thoughts and feelings … see where we’re going with this? Do you think it’s a coincidence that forgiveness is a Christian virtue?

"A central message is that harboring a grudge appears to be detrimental to both psychological and physical well-being. 'People who have been able to forgive show clear health benefits,' says Kathleen Lawler-Row, who chairs the psychology department at East Carolina University in Greenville, N.C., and has published her findings in the Journal of Behavioral Medicine and the Journal of Psychophysiological Research."

Respected psychophysiological scholars have discovered from their studies that harboring a grudge against Michael Vick could be harmful to your health. So we definitely should forgive Michael Vick for what he’s done to us … oh wait.

"Given such reports, deriding Vick the next time he steps out in public might be something you do at your own risk, says Frederic Luskin, a health psychologist and director of the Stanford Forgiveness Project. 'If every time you see Michael Vick take the field you boo and say nasty things at the top of your lungs, you are flooding your system with stress hormones,' he says. 'And just think, you caused all that stress yourself when you could have gone out and enjoyed the game.'"

You see, flooding your system with stress hormones during a football game is bad for you. It’s better to watch a football game with a heart full of feelings of love and goodwill for all the players on the field … the Stanford Forgiveness Project says so. And if there is one thing a football fan should seek to avoid, it's stress hormones.

"By most accounts, forgiveness demands considerable time and effort. There is no single method, although for many the process is intra-psychic rather than interpersonal, meaning it can be accomplished without engaging the offender."

Forgiving Vick will be more intra-psychic than interpersonal … this is something all football fans absolutely give a (expletive) about.

"But not everyone believes forgiveness is the only healthy solution. 'We don't have a word in the language for healthy nonforgiveness,' says Jeanne Safer, a New York psychotherapist and author of 'Forgiving and Not Forgiving: Why Sometimes It's Better NOT to Forgive.' Yet Safer contends there is such a concept."

Uh oh … time to hear from the shrinks on the other point of view. We’ve got to give the ones with memberships in PETA a say too. (And just ignore the fact that Vick just spent 2 years in federal prison for killing dogs.) What matters is your decision whether or not to forgive him.

"Rather than flat-out forgiving, which may trigger guilt and anxiety in someone who is unable or unwilling to release resentment, Safer recommends revisiting the wrong. 'To help yourself feel better you should not have an agenda other than wanting to understand,' Safer says. 'That way, you can't fail.'"

Because all this is about you feeling better and that’s what’s important. Your self-worth is at stake here, in case you didn’t realize it.

"Safer favors second chances but stops short of advocating forgiveness. She doubts that any dog lover will completely forgive Vick and wonders whether the best response might be along the lines of what she terms, 'forgiveness lite,' a more nuanced and neutral reaction."

Do you have problems with forgiveness? Why not try forgiveness lite instead - it’s easier and you can feel better about yourself and still hold a grudge both at the same time. The psychologists say so, and they are more nuanced and neutral than we are.

"She questions those who rush to forgive and maintains that much of the press coverage spouting forgiveness amounts to Christianity disguised as psychology. 'While I say the only way to get out of being a victim is to understand, Christians say the only way to get out of being a victim is to forgive.'"

As a Christian myself, I’d offer the suggestion that one of the best ways of always staying a victim is by imagining all sorts of bad things, that people you don’t know have done, that you need to decide whether to personally forgive or not. Contrary to what most shrinks will tell you, the purpose of forgiveness is not about making yourself have better thoughts and feelings. It's not Christianity disguised as psychology. It's not what you think about different pop culture celebrities. It’s actually something real.

More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________

Christians Can Be Socialist-Pinko-Commies Too!

Angela Boatright-Spencer of the Charlotte Episcopal Examiner gave us this fun for the week -

“… when most of us think about socialism (and communism), we think about Karl Marx, whose vision was harsh in comparison to these earlier thinkers. Marx believed humanity could flourish only when the basic needs of all were guaranteed. His system set up a central authority (government) that would ensure the distribution of necessary goods to all people. In his view, conflict, rather than brotherly love, was the catalyst for growth; ‘the path to socialism proceeds not through the establishment of model communities that set examples of harmonious cooperation to the world... but through the clash of social classes.’”

Although the main problem with Marx’s ideas wasn’t that they were “harsh” it was that they were just blatantly wrong. They didn’t work. Marx’s socialist economic ideas have been tried over and over again historically and proven to not match up with reality.

“Not everyone with socialist ideas felt that way. Let me introduce you to Frederick Denison Maurice, a Christian Socialist who became a loyal priest in the Anglican Church (The Study of Anglicanism, p. 169), a professor at Cambridge, and is commemorated in the Episcopal Church calendar. He once stated, ‘I seriously believe that Christianity is the only foundation of Socialism, and that a true Socialism is the necessary result of a sound Christianity.’”

So this should help make you feel better about advocating for socialism. I mean, even if socialist ideas ignore fundamental and elementary economic laws, they can be held to in a nice and Christian way instead of in that harsh Karl Marx way. Of course, I could probably think of a few Christians who would disagree with Maurice about Socialism being the logical outcome of Christianity - Adam Smith for one.

“Maurice rejected individualism, with its competition and selfishness, and suggested a socialist alternative to the economic principles of laissez faire. Christian Socialists promoted the cooperative ideas of Robert Owen and suggested profit sharing as a way of improving the status of the working classes and as a means of producing a just, Christian society."

Yes, there have been some Christians in history that liked socialism. In fact, there still are. This, on the other hand, has nothing to do with whether socialist ideas actually work in the real world. But we’re not talking about that - socialism can be nice and loving.

“He considered competition to be against the church's teachings, favoring a ‘science of partnership’ in which people worked together instead.”

Then again, according to the very basics of Christianity, we live in a Fallen world where man is naturally selfish and mankind will NEVER all work lovingly together without any competition. Then there’s also the possibility that lovingly produced goods and services (by workers who all feel good about each other’s welfare) will not necessarily be of the same quality as goods and services produced in order to outclass your competition.

“Closeness with Christ brought a kind of sweetness to this brand of socialist thought that was missing from the thinking of Marx.”

Socialism should be sweet and loving from a Christian’s point of view. It’s regrettable that Marx is supposed to be one of the main proponents for socialism because he didn’t give it that same Jesus sweetness. And again, one could ask how “sweet and loving” it is to embrace wrong economic ideas that always necessarily result in more poverty, and therefore, more suffering for more people.

Some could say that ignoring natural laws and truths that God set down for how things work in the world isn't very "Christian." But again, "Christian" seems to be a loose term that can be applied to almost anything these days.
______________________________________________________________________________

Message From the Dalai Lama: You Still Need to Become More Spiritual - Who Would Have Guessed?

The Dalai Lama is a wise, wise man. At least that’s what everyone tells me. He is one of the most respected religious leaders of modern times. So I had to include some of his latest thoughts in here just for the fun of it -

The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama, who is on a controversial visit to Taiwan this week, held a dialogue with Taiwan's Catholic leader Wednesday, during which both called for the cultivation of spirituality and ethics.

The conversation with Cardinal Paul K.S. Shan in the southern city of Kaohsiung drew an audience of more than 1,000 people, including Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu and Taiwan High Speed Rail Corp.

Stressing that trust is an indispensable element in society, the Dalai Lama urged people to use their wisdom to resolve differences and avoid using harsh words to create rivalry.

According to the Tibetan leader, the purpose of religion is to discover the good of humanity and allow followers to understand universal values through various doctrines.

The Dalai Lama said he believes all religions should teach mutual tolerance, respect and cooperation with each other in order to promote world peace.

Agreeing with the Dalai Lama, Shan said birth, aging, disease and death are the normal occurrences in life, and the cultivation of spirituality will help people better control their emotions and sensual pleasures and relieve their suffering through "the power of love” …

The Dalai Lama pointed out that many people lack spiritual values and pay attention only to making money, mainly because modern doctrines and school systems are not paying enough attention to moral discipline …

What I don't understand is that whenever I read anything said by the Dalai Lama, it's something so generic that I could have made it up just while making fun of Ace Ventura in a Tibetan monastary.

"I am now a child of light. Your earthly money holds no appeal to me ... You have all still to attain omnipresent-super-galactic-oneness."

Personally, I'm just hoping my own personal medallion of spiritual accomplishment doesn't take me eighty years to achieve.
______________________________________________________________________________

MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week

TESTAMINTS

Official Desciption
TESTAMINTS™. Pass the Word - each mint wrapped in a verse of Scripture.

Share these mints with members of your congregation. Mint flavor. Individually wrapped in Bible verse wrappers. (Approx. 140 pcs. per unit) Fat-free. Individually wrapped mints in one-pound bags are also now available. Order on-line from Oriental Trading.

“My mother always told me, when someone offers you a mint, you better take one.” - John MacArthur

On the Use of "Dirty" Words: A Bible Study - Part 5 - Well? Then when is cussing not wrong?

2009-08-29T15:02:00.019-04:00

Colossians 2:23
These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.

So, to start this, let's first look at where we are in the discussion at this point -

First, we began the discussion by looking at an old column written by William F. Buckley, where he commented on why he (and Shakespeare), a man of immense love for & mastery of English vocabulary in it's entirety, found a use for "dirty words" -

Buckley: On the Use of "Dirty" Words

Notwithstanding that the word has these clearly nonscatalogical uses, there is an Anglo-Saxon earthiness to it which performs for the writer a function altogether different from such a retort as, say, "Flapdoodle" ...

Next, we looked at Eric Rigney's "Guide for the Cussin' Christian" -

Part Two

I know the Easy Guide works better – we want God to tell us specifically what to do at all times in every situation. That’s why legalism and pious browbeating are so popular – if we have a checklist all laid out for us, obedience becomes a matter of simply checking off items on the list. The more items we check off, the holier we are ...

Then, we looked at a summary of the list of Scripture passages always used in this discussion -

Part Three

And fourth, we went down into detail on the bad Biblical arguments (and Scripture passages) for why cussing is always wrong -

Part Four - Is Cussing Always Wrong? (And this one is finally finished by the way.)

Today we will discuss how "cussing" isn't always wrong. And then in a final conclusion (Part 6) to the discussion, we'll go over good Biblical arguments (and Scripture passages) for why cussing is sometimes wrong (perhaps for even most of the time).
______________________________________________________________________________

II. Biblical Arguments For Why Cussing ISN'T Always Wrong

1 - No Passage of Scripture Condemns the Use of Cuss Words

Of course, there are again two different theological points of view here. On one side, you can take the position that if something isn't expressly allowed by Scripture, then it's forbidden. If the Scripture doesn't say it's ok, then you can't do it. On the other side, you can take the position that if the Scripture doesn't forbid something, then it's not necessarily forbidden.

Most thinking Christians should be able to understand how ludicrous the first point of view really is, so I won’t go into detailed arguments against it for now. Let’s just say that the Apostle Paul was always against man-made, unScripturally based rules being added to the Gospel. Colossians 2:21-23 is one example of his stating his view -

“Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used) - according to human precepts and teachings. These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”

“Do not use this list of temporarily & culturally looked-down upon specific words” could easily be added to Paul’s example here. While not using a list of words could indeed have an appearance of spirituality and being “Christian,” it has nothing to do with the heart and whether or not you are still a sinner. In fact, it’s an outward pretension that does not reflect the reality of the heart.

And again, for a full discussion of how the Bible does not forbid "cuss words", read Part 4.
______________________________________________________________________________

2 - “Coarse Language” Is Found In The Bible

(Note: If you are offended by what you consider to be cuss words, and dirty or vulgar speech, then I would recommend you skip this section. This section discusses a number of words and expressions in the Bible that Christians consider offensive. So if vulgar language offends you, just take my word for it that there is coarse language in the Bible that the English translations gloss over, and move on to Section 3. Yes, I'm including this note out of charity. And yes, it is very funny that I know some dear Christian friends who I felt compelled to write this note for.)

So are there really examples of God-glorifying obscenity in the Bible? Well, that of course depends on how you define "obscenity" or "cuss words."

I Samuel 14:6
Jonathan said to the young man who carried his armor, “Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised. It may be that the Lord will work for us, for nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or by few.”

I Samuel 17:26
And David said to the men who stood by him, "What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine and takes away the reproach from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?"

From just reading this today in English, it would be easy to just think that "uncircumcised" was merely a statement of fact. The Philistines were Gentiles, so they weren't circumcised, so what's the big deal?

ESV Study Bible Notes - "Uncircumcised was a customary derogatory epithet used of the Philistines."

(See also Judges 14:3, 15:18, I Samuel 31:4, II Samuel 1:20 for more examples)

So "cuss words" are culturally defined then? For example, the English word "bastard" was not originally used as a "bad word" until later (it was just a statment of fact - or a name even, like Edmund the Bastard), but culturally, over time, it also came to be used as an insult. "Uncircumcised" is not considered a bad word today, but the Hebrew word "arel" (Strong's 6189) was used as a derogatory expletive or insult by the Hebrews to refer to others back in Bible times. This is one reason the Pharisees became so angry and offended when Stephen called them “uncircumcised” in Acts 7:51.

Consider it uncouth, coarse or vulgar if you will ... David, Jonathan, and Stephen (among others) found nothing morally wrong with using it in certain circumstances. And they weren't just using it as a statement of fact. They had strong feelings on the subject, and this word provided the best way of expressing what they felt.

Of course, you could just try to excuse it and point out that the Bible doesn't expressly say that David and Jonathan were right in using this word as an insult, besides they're both in a rare military culture/environment where all sorts of cuss words are considered acceptable different than in "polite" society.

... Precisely.

I Samuel 25:22
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. (KJV)

(The expression "pisses against the wall" is also used in I Samuel 25:34, I Kings 14:10, 16:11, 21:21, and II Kings 9:8.)

You are going to find that most English translations make coarse language in Hebrew or Greek sound nicer in English. In these verses, most translations simply translate this expression in Hebrew to "male" in English. And male is what the speakers in these verses mean - they are going to kill all the men. But the translation to "male" is not a literal one. There's not a Hebrew word that means "male" and "one who pisses against the wall." It's a Hebrew expression. The Hebrew word "satan" (Strong's #8366) means to urinate, also in the phrase is the Hebrew word "qir" (Strong's #7023) for wall.

The KJV is the most literal translation. The ESV even translates this to just "male" but at least they have in their study notes -

Male (lit., "one who urinates at a wall") is a stereotyped formula that always refers to killing of all males of a group.

One of the arguments against "cuss words" is that they often refer to either sexual or other bodily functions. This is therefore dirty. At some point in the Victorian age (during the Elizabethan age those translating the KJV didn't feel pressured to make "pisseth against the wall" nicer sounding), the Anglo-Saxon word "piss" became a cuss word, while the word "urine" was ok. In fact, you'll find that most of our modern "cuss words" became "cuss words" during either the Medieval or Victorian eras. It was Victorian to consider earthy words related to sex or bodily functions uncouth.

The Bible, and the characters in it, never had this problem. Earthy language was not viewed as a sin by any means. So, from this collection of verses, we can conclude that (a) while these Bible characters may or may not have considered this phrase socially offensive, soldiers used it to refer to the enemy they were about to kill, and (b) terms referring to bodily functions were not considered obscene or profane (there was no "nicer" Norman version of the Hebrew term "to piss"/"satan").

Isaiah 30:22
Then you will defile your idols overlaid with silver and your images covered with gold; you will throw them away like a menstrual cloth and say to them, "Away with you!" (NIV)

Isaiah 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (KJV)

Here again, most English translations gloss over the actual literal meaning in these verses. In Isaiah 30:22, the Hebrew word is "daweh" (Strong’s #1739) which means a used menstrous cloth. In 64:6 the Hebrew word for rags is "beged" (Strong's #899) and the Hebrew word for rags is idda (Strong’s #5708) meaning the bodily fluids from the woman's menstrual cycle. It's important to point out that there are 7 other Hebrew words translated into English to mean "filthy" meaning things like unclean, morally corrupt, sinful, dirty, shitty, etc. But Isaiah chose to use the harshest language that Hebrew allowed him. And in doing so, he was explaining how our own righteousness appears to God - it appears to God as if it were used tampons.

This was not just something that was considered socially acceptable to use as an adjective in a derogatory manner in Bible times. It was intentionally meant to sound harsh. It best described how God felt towards our own attempts at righteousness apart from Him.

Today, talking like this is considered crude and therefore sinful by most Christians. It takes looking at the Hebrew to actually understand what the verses are actually saying, something you wouldn't realize by just reading the non-literal English translation of most versions of the English Bible. If a pastor talked like this today, his congregation (and other Christians) would say he was sinning (Mark Driscoll anyone?) for being crude and vulgar (uncouth, dirty, common, filthy, you name it).

Ezekiel 23:19-21
Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue were like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.

Ezekiel's sarcasm is very strong. This is actually meant to be harsh. It's not even really necessary to go into the Hebrew words for "members" and "issue" in this one. Ezekiel is being sarcastic and insulting on purpose, and yes, you could literally translate this verse to say "and lusted after her lovers there, who had the dicks of donkeys and the sperm of horses." I'm sorry if this offends you. I know many Christians would ask why not use the nicer (or more polite) English equivalents for these terms? Because Ezekiel is not trying to be nice or polite. He is speaking strongly.

This is just one example, but you could write a whole book discussing the prophet Ezekiel's crudity and sarcasm.

And yet again, Pastors would be kicked out of their churches today for using the English equivalent of strong expressions like this in their speech. They would be considered crude, profane, dirty and vulgar and therefore sinful. Christians would be, are often, criticized and condemned for speaking in earthy or crude terms because we've expanded the definitions of "profane" and "swearing" to now also mean "crude" or "vulgar." There is no Biblical basis for doing this, least of because passages of Scripture don't have these hangups. We characters in the Bible want to express themselves strongly with strong language, they do so without inhibition. And it was not sin for them to do so.

So stop telling me that "God would never talk like that."

Speaking of how God talks ...

Matthew 23:13-33
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter go in. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice was much a child of hell as yourselves.

Woe to you blind guides, who say, "If anyone swears by the temple, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath." You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the temple that has made the gold sacred? And you say, "If anyone swears by the altar, it is nothing, but if anyone swears by the gift that is on the altar, he is bound by his oath." You blind men! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by Him who dwells in it. And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. You blind guides, straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel!

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, saying, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?

hypocrites
children of hell
fools
blind guides
whitewashed tombs (full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness)
lawless
murderers
the spawn of animals (snakes) (see also John the Baptist in Matthew 3:7)
going to hell
sons of the devil (John 8:44)

Calling the Pharisees hypocritical snake spawn who were secretly full of rotting corpses was not considered the language of polite society. If there was a Hebrew equivalent for what religious people considered obscene or crude insults, this would be it. And yet, there is something so righteous about Christ's words here that it's hard to find anything wrong with them.

If Jesus was addressing, oh say, the Christian Booksellers' Convention, do you think he would shrink from using epitaphs in modern English that would be considered obscene by today's cultural standards by those he was criticizing? Christ had no problem speaking in earthy terms. And yet, because of the spirit He spoke them in, they would be considered profoundly convicting to anyone willing to admit the truth in His words.

Here's another question - did the Pharisees consider Christ crude and vulgar? In the culture of their day, yes they did. They considered him a drunk (winebibbing), gluttonous, demon-possessed, blaspheming, Samaritan (Luke 7:34, John 8:48).

Philippians 3:7-8
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ.

The term "rubbish" here is the Hebrew word "skybalon" (Strong’s #4657), which means dung (KJV), excrement or perhaps even shit (most literal transl.) But instead of taking my word for it, let's use some references for this one -

From the Dictionary of Biblical Imagery-

NT metaphorical use of dung is limited to Philippians 3:8, where Paul is comparing the glory of his past natural life as a prominent Hebrew to his present servant role as Christ’s apostle. “I count all things but loss … and do count them but dung [Gk sybalon], that I might win Christ” (KJV) forcefully expresses Paul’s extreme attitude toward his past human attainments. The glories of gaining and serving Christ make Paul’s religious prestige seem like mere excrement! Several other coarse English colloquialisms would more closely suggest the negative inflections of sky-blue. The coarseness and repulsiveness of the dung metaphor vividly expresses many spiritually unsavory judgments on human sin and wrong priorities.

From a preacher preparing a sermon on Phil. 3:1-11 -

A few months ago, I was preparing a sermon on this text, and in the course of my word studies, I was fascinated by the word that gets translated as "rubbish" here in the NIV. The Greek word skybalon which gets used here appears nowhere else in the Bible, and translates broadly as "waste". English translations often render it as "rubbish" or "garbage", and sometimes as "dung".

Without other Biblical uses of this word, I had to dig into literary uses in order to derive the common meaning, and I found that the primary meaning of skybalon is "excrement" or "dung", and not "garbage". But even more so, it was used to evoke a visceral reaction, and so is more akin to "crap," or to it's big brother that starts with S, than it is to more medically acceptable terms like "excrement" (which incidentally, is a completely separate Greek word).

The question for me then became, is that really the reaction that Paul is going for in this passage? (A necessary question for preparing this particular sermon). Is he simply saying "all of these things that I had worn as a badge of righteousness and pride are unnecessary (garbage) now that I have Jesus"? Or is he saying "Now that I know Jesus, it's clear to me that the righteousness I have built myself is worth s***!"?

I am convinced that Paul was aiming for that visceral reaction, and that his choice of word here best translates as s***. And he does so in a way that beautifully underscores his point, and makes it clear exactly what kind of righteousness we can hope to achieve on our own without Jesus.

And here's a quote from a word study on it from Bible.org -

That skuvbalon took on the nuance of a vulgar expression with emotive connotations (thus, roughly equivalent to the English “crap, s**t”) is probable in light of the following considerations: (1) its paucity of usage in Greek literature (“Only with hesitation does literature seem to have adopted it from popular speech” says Lang in TDNT 7:445);3 (2) it is used frequently in emotionally charged contexts (as are its verbal cognates) in which the author wishes to invoke revulsion in his audience; (3) there is evidence that there were other, more common and more acceptable terms referring to the same thing (in particular, the agricultural term koprov" and the medical term perivsswma);4 (4) diachronically, the shock value of the term seems to have worn off through the centuries; and (5) a natural transfer of the literal to a metaphorical usage, in which disgust, revulsion, or worthlessness are still in view, argues for this meaning as well.

So again ... since there were more commonly acceptable Greek synonyms for this word, and since Paul purposely chose the most offensive and least used one, it would be wishful thinking to just say that Paul would never use a term as culturally offensive as the English word sh**.

More Biblical evidence that the use of expletives (in English, Hebrew, Greek or any language) in order to express strong feelings in a sense that more polite words can't exrpess ... isn't always wrong.

Galatians 5:12
I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary -

"... the Greek is different from Gal. 5:10, 'they who are unsettling you' were even cut off - even as they desire your foreskin to be cut off and cast away by circumcision, so would that they were even cut off from your communion, being worthless as a castaway foreskin (Gal. 1:7-8; compare Phil. 3:2). The fathers, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and Chrysostom, explain it, 'Would that they would even cut themselves off,' that is, cut off not merely the foreskin, but the whole member: if circumcision be not enough for them, then let them have excision also; an outburst hardly suitable to the gravity of an apostle."

President of Northwest Baptist Seminary, Dr. Larry Perkins -

Paul gives evidence in his writings that he has a significant capacity for witty repartee. His wish in Galatians 5:12 that the agitators among the Galatian Christians “would go the whole way and emasculate themselves” might skirt the edges of propriety.

G. Walter Hansen, New Testament Commentary Series -

Verse 12 sounds terribly harsh and crude, but we must interpret it in its historical and cultural context. It would indeed have been a sensational ceremony if all the male members of the Galatian churches had been circumcised by the false teachers. But then Paul says, somewhat sarcastically, if they really want to put on a sensational show, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! He is probably referring here to a barbaric ritual that actually took place in his day in Galatian pagan temples. The priests of Cybele, the mother goddess of the earth, castrated themselves with ritual pincers and placed their testicles in a box. (Such a box is now on display in the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, England.) The false teachers were leading the Galatian Christians to think that the ritual of circumcision was a sacred act that would bring them into fellowship with God. But Paul has already said that “in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value” (v. 6).

Sorry about that, it's a little graphic. But yes, Paul, in one of his more blunt moments, is actually saying that he wishes these false teachers who are harping on circumcision over and over again, would just cut their own balls off and be done with it.

Crude? Vulgar? Uncouth? Yes.

But I don't think it was wrong for him to say that. In fact, I think it's actually kind of funny.

That's right. Coarse language, when used in the right way and in the right spirit, can actually show a sense of humor. And contrary to popular belief, Scripture is not above this sort of humor or language.

I could go on and maybe, after I spend more time on this, I'll include some more examples. But, after looking at all these verses, some could conclude that Greek and Hebrew equivalents for English cuss words are actually used in Scripture. At your most conservative interpretation, you have to at least admit that our modern standards of avoiding "uncouth language" in the church today have raised the standard far higher than Scripture does.

But talking dirty or making crude jokes is still sinful! Tell that to the prophet Elijah -

I Kings 18:45
And they took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself ..."
______________________________________________________________________________

More after the jump -

3 - Christian Liberty
______________________________________________________________________________

4 - Cultural Arguments

You shouldn’t cuss because it is “culturally” offensive

specific words fall in and out of being considered “culturally offensive” through different periods (decades even) of history.

But why does a culture ever consider some words “profane” or “offensive”?

You really want the answer? Church and old ladies.

No, really - church and grandma always have a pretty powerful influence over the culture.

Phil Johnson - “After all, the fact that Paul bans "filthy language" in Colossians 3:8 without giving a banned-word list or any further guidelines suggests that he was expecting them simply to follow whatever convention was recognized in the polite society of that time.”

Dirty Meaning

Rigney - Well, okay, I will sort of give you that one: the literal, original meanings of cuss words are usually pretty raunchy or insulting. You have your defecation, your fornication, your eternal punishment, and a smorgasbord of otherwise sordid actions and bodily functions. Not exactly a Miss Manners primer of politeness and good thoughts, right? So isn’t this the proof, the proverbial smoking gun, the final straw that settles the issue? If their meanings are so filthy and crude, shouldn’t we avoid saying them under any circumstances?

Meaning - Rigney - what we mean when we say a word is far more important than what the word itself is. The fact is, the meanings of those words are determined by what the speaker intends – not the other way around.

Everyone knows it: we constantly and without hesitation or even much thought allow words to have more than one meaning, based on the context and intent of the speaker.

So my question is: Why don’t we allow words that are traditionally regarded as cuss words the same flexibility? After all, people certainly do not always mean the same thing when they cuss.

Take, for example, the word “sh*t.” In its base, literal context, that word means defecation, as in, “I stepped in dog sh*t.” Due to the vulgarity of this meaning, I suppose the argument could be made that a person should not say that word. But what if I wake up in the middle of the night, stub my toe on the door jamb, and yell, “Oh, sh*t!” What do I mean then? I mean, “Ow, that hurts!” I am neither talking about, referring to, nor thinking about defecation. “Sh*t!” literally means the exact same thing as “Ow!” Curiously enough, however, “Ow!” won’t land me in the doghouse with most of my Christian brothers and sisters nearly as fast as “Sh*t!” will. What a bunch of sh*t that is!

But good ol’ tradition gets in the way, as it is wont to do, and when people blindly believe that something is true, even in the face of logic and reason, no good will follow. I submit as proof of this the fact that many of my fellow Christians will tolerate someone hating another individual, even wishing them harm, as long as they don’t cuss while doing it. I could angrily and hatefully say to you, “Daggone you, you stupid idiot,” and I am not sinning nearly as much (if at all) as I am if we are goofing around and I say, “Hey, cut that sh*t out!” The vitriol of the first instance is overlooked, while the good-natured gist of the second case is condemned as sinful. I must confess that I simply do not get it.
______________________________________________________________________________

5 - Attitude

What Your Christian Denomination Should Be

2009-08-28T12:54:00.004-04:00

Reading over at Church Discipline reminded me of an old theology quiz I took years ago, and sure enough, it's still around -

What's your theological worldview?

I'm usually bored out of my mind by internet quizzes, partly because I have some friends who can just keep taking inane, inconsequential meaningless quizzes for hours at a time. But I always find theology questions interesting (and if you take this, you need to think about the wording of each question carefully), and I tend to resist labels, unless they are something I've carefully decided to back up.

So turns out, according to this guy, I'm still an Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan/Methodist.

Right now, having recently moved, I'm in between churches - but I've mostly found myself ending up in nondescript, fairly mainstream Baptist churches in the past. However, every single time I've read John Wesley, I've been really impressed. So if that's the traditions of the Methodist Church, then I'm all for it. Being only 50% Reformed and only 36% Fundamentalist actually makes sense.

Meanwhile, this one is the one I hadn't seen before -

Christian Traditions Selector

- and it seems more denomination specific. According the guy who made this one, I'm Baptist (non-Calvinistic)/Plymouth Brethren/Fundamentalist.

I can only assume that these guys are using the term "fundamentalist" in two different ways then.

It's funny because, in basic theological terms, I agree with fundamentalists (I've always admired anything I've read of Carl F. H. Henry) particularly on the inerrancy, infallibility and sufficiency of Scripture. But, culturally at least, it seems like I'm always parting ways with fundamentalists. On the one hand, I find the average emergent church trite, vapid & effeminate, while on the other, I find the average fundamentalist baptist church legalistic, dull, & sheltered.

All this to say that I have not found it necessary to call myself by any denomination in particular. I'm a Christian, or a "Mere Christian" for the time being. But according to these tests, I'm apparently supposed to be a Wesleyan Baptist or a Fundamentalist Methodist. Interesting.

And no, I'm not going to go to a Plymouth Brethren (although I have friends who do, and my grandparents used to for a quite a long time).

Try 'em out and see which sides in the religious wars you belong in.
______________________________________________________________________________

(This post is uncomfortably too much about me. That's how blogs end up dying or succumbing to narcissistic, self-indulgent expletive-deleted. Mental note to self: keep focusing on theology (or, in more trivial moments, football or baseball) and do not bore the reader with talking about yourself. I'll let this one pass because it was about belief systems.)

More From "The Genesis Debate" - Day-Age vs. 24 Hour Views

2009-08-27T11:27:00.008-04:00

Here’s a continuation quotes collected from my finishing reading the book, The Genesis Debate. I’d highly recommend it as a fascinating read because it’s made me think more about the creation days discussion more than anything else I’ve read. If you didn’t already read through my first collection of excerpts, go back and read that first.

So, here’s more of what struck me from the Day-Age proponents -
______________________________________________________________________________

One doctrine on which evangelicals agree is that God inspired all 66 books of the Bible. Another is that God created the universe and life. According the Psalm 19, God’s word is written upon the heavens for everyone to read. The Bible also testifies that God is truthful and does not lie. Taken together, these truths lead us to conclude that the record of nature and the words of the Bible must completely agree …
pg 156
______________________________________________________________________________

Duncan and Hall’s assertion that we “affirm parity between sinful observers of nature and God’s infallible revelation” is untrue. Young-earth creationists’ hostility to the billions-of-years duration of nature’s record would collapse were they to concede (a) that students of the Bible may be just as sinful as students of nature, (b) that God’s Holy Spirit has the same capacity and desire to spark faith in students of nature as He does in students of Scripture, or (c) that nature’s “book” is as reliable as the Bible, though it is sometimes harder to read. For Duncan and Hall’s creationist ideology to survive, they must ignore or discount an enormous body of scientific evidence and demean or marginalize all scholars who accept it.

The gnostic leaning is evidenced by the fact that young-earth proponents deny most recorded astronomical events (for example, the 1987 supernova eruption in the Large Magellanic Cloud) and light-travel times. All young-earth creationists (in agreement with atheists) accept the impossibility of integrating the established record of nature with a conservative interpretation of Scripture … we do not think that they are deliberately deceptive gnostics or Darwinists. We simply charge them for failing to consider the logical implications of their young-earth interpretation of nature and Scripture …

Has any scientist ever drawn the conclusion from scientific evidence alone that the universe or earth is young? The answer is no - not one. Even leaders of young-earth organizations admit that in several decades of full-time ministry, they have yet to persuade a scientist on the basis of science, of the young age of the universe or earth.

In note 8 of their response, Duncan and Hall [the 6-day-creationists in The Genesis Debate] imply that the current scientific record holds no more certainty than the flat-earth notion. However, no scientist - Christian or no Christian - has ever made such a suggestion, apart from young-earth indoctrination. On the contrary, even the most cautious scientists accept the certainty of much of this record. One Nobel laureate, in fact, has been quoted as saying that we have more scientific evidence for a flat earth than for a universe and earth less than 50,000 years old …

Many non-Christian scientists reject Darwinism’s strictly naturalistic explanation of life’s origin and the descent of man from primates. Many accept the evidence for a transcendent creation event and the meticulous design of the universe, solar system, and life. None endorse a young earth. Thus, one does not need science degrees to conclude that old-earth creationism has strong scientific support, while young-earth creationism totally lacks it …

We reject the notion that biblical faith is blind. Biblical faith is rooted in established truth. The Holy Spirit reveals truth, encourages us to test it (1 Thess 5:21), and empowers us to act upon it. According to the Scriptures, God wants us to test things, to sift truth from seeming truth, and to cling to that which is good.
pgs 197-199
______________________________________________________________________________

Scripture suggests to us that when God performs miracles, He leaves evidence for someone to detect. God does not play tricks. Duncan and Hall, however, appeal to time and again to “appearance of age,” the idea that scientific measurement reveals a false age. In their view, God hides His miracles, making things appear as they are not …

God, of course, is free to change the march of time. We believe that if He had, however, He would have left evidence of the change for us to discover, in keeping with His character. He would not force cosmic clocks to run millions of times faster than “real” time. To do so would be deceptive and, thus, out of character … We agree that God can create in any way He wishes, but again we hold that He does not lie about the manner in which He creates. For example, Duncan and Hall fail to understand that astronomers can look back in time and directly observe how God created galaxies and stars.

Duncan and Hall argue, “Galaxies, according to our understanding, appear to be old, just because He miraculously created them as full-blown” (emphasis in the original). Actually, astronomers do not see all galaxies as old or “full-blown.” None of them is old enough to have experienced the demise, the total fuel consumption of all its stars. Nearby galaxies appear middle-aged. Galaxies at a distance of 6 billion light-years from Earth are seen in their youth. Galaxies some 12 billion light-years away are observed in a near new state. At a distance of 13 to 14 billion light-years from Earth, galaxies do not yet exist. At that distance astronomers observe newly formed star clusters beginning to merge into future galaxies. Astronomers even have looked back to that moment soon after the creation event, before stars existed, when light first separated from darkness.

What seems to bother Duncan and Hall is that the light structure, star formation, and galaxy formation astronomers observe seem so “natural.” A deeper look into the scientific literature reveals, however, that this “natural” capacity requires the exquisite fine-tuning of more than thirty cosmic characteristics. The degree of fine-tuning exceeds human design capability by more than a trillion trillion trillion times. In acknowledging this design device, astronomers recognize that ordinary galaxy, star, planet, and moon formation cannot generate even one galaxy-star-planet-moon system capable of supporting life. God must have supernaturally intervened to shape and craft the just-right galaxy, star, planet, and moon to make our existence possible. We see this as a significant concession to the reality of the supernatural.

Duncan and Hall pay a huge price when they insist that the natural record astronomers observe may have no bearing on reality. They toss out all the divine design evidence astronomers have discovered in nature’s record. A young-earth interpretation of Scripture demands the rejection of what secular scholars acknowledge as the strongest evidence for the biblical God, evidence indicating a transcendent Cause of the universe and of exquisite design for physical life.

More after the jump -

Duncan and Hall take a different view of miracles than ours. They write, “The very essence of miracles is to confound our wisdom and defy scientific law.” We would say miracles show God’s power over the physical laws (and over us), demonstrating His capacity to create and implement those laws at will.
pgs 201-202
______________________________________________________________________________

A few quotes on Scriptural hermeneutics -

The Hebrew word ’ereb, translated “evening,” also means “sunset,” “night,” or “ending of the day.” The word boqer, translated “morning,” also means “sunrise,” “coming of light,” “beginning of day,” “break of day,” or “dawning,” with possible metaphoric usage. In other words, “evening” and “morning” refer to the beginning and ending components of “day,” however day is used.
Pg 148
______________________________________________________________________________

Duncan and Hall describe our claim to a literal interpretation of the Genesis days as a “rhetorical guise.” We have no trouble understanding their desire to lay claim to the exegetical higher ground. However, all Hebrew lexicons cite three different definitions for yom: (1) approximately 12 hours (the time from sunrise to sunset, variable according to season and location); (2) 24 hours (the time from one sunset to the following sunset); and (3) a long period of time (arbitrarily, but not infinitely, long). Thus, we can authoritatively state that there are three possible literal interpretations of the Genesis creation days: six daylight periods, six 24-hour periods, and six long timespans.
pg 206
______________________________________________________________________________

The evening and morning refrain that brackets the creation days does not fit with the 24-hour view as Duncan and Hall suggest. Theologian Paul Elbert raises an interesting question on this matter. He asks why, if the Genesis 1 text really intends us to understand the creation days as 24 hours, does it mention “there was evening and there was morning” rather than the scriptural norm for 24-hour days, namely, “there was evening and there was evening” or “there was morning and there was morning.”
pg 208
______________________________________________________________________________

So, I started reading this book on the side of Duncan and Hall’s 24-hour viewpoint, but I don’t like how they’ve been addressing Ross and Archer’s Day-Age viewpoint. It just seems unsatisfying somehow. Here’s some of the best I could find after thinking through their chapters supporting the 24 hour view.
______________________________________________________________________________

The 24 Hour Viewpoint

… we are not convinced that secular theories are so certain that they require us to alter the classical interpretation of Scripture. History may prove us wrong, but to date, we assign higher enduring status to the interpretations of Scripture from 2000 B.C.-A.D. 1800, than we do to those influenced by evolution from A.D. 1800-2000.
pg 24
_____________________________

Perhaps unwittingly, Ross and Archer seem to espouse a type of rationalism that is incompatible with the best of biblical Christianity. They open their essay by affirming - at least on the surface - parity between sinful observers of nature and God’s infallible revelation. An equal authority seems to be rewarded to nature (as observed by sinful man) as to Scripture. The result is a rationalism that persistently squeezes Scripture. If Scripture must conform to the status of scientific theory, God’s word is subject to man’s mind.
pg 169
______________________________________________________________________________

Ross and Archer also overstate the ability of fallen man. While we agree that no needless barriers should be erected to prevent us from evangelizing the lost, we do not share the view that those who are fallen will be unbiased, make an unassisted free and rational choice, and commit their lives to Christ “when they see a creation model that successfully predicts future discoveries and withstands the assaults of skeptics.” We do not find, and the Bible does not teach, that people come to a saving knowledge simply when arm-wrestled by numerous facts, scientific proofs, or predictive models. Neither are we of the opinion that “our effectiveness in fulfilling our God-given assignment on the earth” depends on reconfiguring the Bible to meet science’s claims du jour.
pg 172
______________________________________________________________________________

We disagree that the Bible views things as Ross-Archer suggest: “A galaxy measured to be about 13 billion light-years away must have existed about 13 billion years ago.” That is to put God in a box or to expect Him to march to our watches. Surely, the God of all eternity and Creator of time is freer and more capable than Ross and Archer posit. God can create in any fashion He wishes, and He is not bound by our paltry understanding after the fact.

Nor do we view God as inherently “deceptive” if the galaxies, according to our understanding, appear to be old, just because He miraculously created them full-blown. Concluding that He is “deceptive” is our mistaken reckoning, not His. To insist that God fit in with our chronology is to subordinate the Creature of nature to nature. We deny the ant supernaturalism inherent in any attempt to manacle God and coerce Him to fit our fallible observations. The very essence of miracles is to confound our wisdom and defy scientific law.
pg 173
______________________________________________________________________________

And yes, that’s the best I responses I could find reading through the book. Some of these astronomy questions are really bothering me, and the 24 hour guys did nothing to help answer any of my questions now. Read the book for yourself and tell me if Ligon Duncan and David Hall sound very convincing. Instead, they just sort of repeat themselves and ignore half of what the day-age guys were even saying.

I can’t believe it - but my acceptance of twenty-four hour, 6 day creation has just been rocked. This is a first. I honestly never thought I was going to be really challenged on this one.

I'll keep thinking on this one.

"In the arms of an angel, fly away from here"

2009-08-27T02:31:00.003-04:00

Hey, just so you guys know, for $110.00 you can purchase 10 years of insurance for your pet in case the rapture takes you away. An organization of kind-hearted atheists has started organizing a preparation for the rapture for pet-owning Christians. You can order the insurance here -

Eternal Earth-Bound Pets, USA - The next best thing to pet salvation in a Post Rapture World

In fact, I just have to let them speak for themselves on this one -

"You've committed your life to Jesus. You know you're saved. But when the Rapture comes what's to become of your loving pets who are left behind? Eternal Earth-Bound Pets takes that burden off your mind.

We are a group of dedicated animal lovers, and atheists. Each Eternal Earth-Bound Pet representative is a confirmed atheist, and as such will still be here on Earth after you've received your reward. Our network of animal activists are committed to step in when you step up to Jesus.

We are currently active in 20 states and growing. Our representatives have been screened to ensure that they are atheists, animal lovers, are moral / ethical with no criminal background, have the ability and desire to rescue your pet and the means to retrieve them and ensure their care for your pet's natural life.

We currently cover the following states: Maine,New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana ... and growing.

Our service is plain and simple; our fee structure is reasonable.
For $110.00 we will guarantee that should the Rapture occur within ten (10) years of receipt of payment, one pet per residence will be saved. Each additional pet at your residence will be saved for an additional $15.00 fee. A small price to pay for your peace of mind and the health and safety of your four legged friends.

Unfortunately at this time we are not equipped to accommodate all species and must limit our services to dogs, cats, birds, rabbits, and small caged mammals.

Thank you for your interest in Eternal Earth-Bound Pets. We hope we can help provide you with peace of mind."

Please visit our FAQS page
______________________________________________________________________________

Novus Monastica (Weekly Religious News) - 8/26/09

2009-08-26T16:53:00.012-04:00

Copeland Ministries Promises You Wealth for Donating to God

(Note: Once in a while a story comes along that is just too unbelievable for me to make up parts of it just for fun. In this one, I'll just quote bits from the New York Times article, and you can click the link for the whole thing.)

Onstage before thousands of believers weighed down by debt and economic insecurity, Kenneth and Gloria Copeland and their all-star lineup of “prosperity gospel” preachers delighted the crowd with anecdotes about the luxurious lives they had attained by following the Word of God.

Private airplanes and boats. A motorcycle sent by an anonymous supporter. Vacations in Hawaii and cruises in Alaska. Designer handbags. A ring of emeralds and diamonds.

“God knows where the money is, and he knows how to get the money to you,” preached Mrs. Copeland, dressed in a crisp pants ensemble like those worn by C.E.O.’s ...

The preachers barely acknowledged the recession, though they did say it was no excuse to curtail giving. “Fear will make you stingy,” Mr. Copeland said ...

“If God did it for them, he will do it for us,” said Edwige Ndoudi, who traveled with her husband and three children from Canada for the Southwest Believers’ Convention this month, where the Copelands and three of their friends took turns preaching for five days, 10 hours a day at the Fort Worth Convention Center ... A large contingent came in wheelchairs, hoping for miraculous healings. The audience sat with Bibles open, flipping to passages cited by the preachers, taking notes on pads and laptop computers.

Stephen Biellier, a long-distance trucker from Mount Vernon, Mo., said he and his wife, Millie, came to the convention praying that this would be “the overcoming year.” They are $102,000 in debt, and the bank has cut off their credit line, Mrs. Biellier said.

The Bielliers are now among 386,000 people worldwide whom the Copelands call their “partners,” most of whom send regular contributions and merit special prayers from the Copelands ...

Mrs. Biellier said some friends and relatives would say the preacher just wanted their money. She explained that the Copelands did not need the money for themselves; it is for their ministry ... “I remember Copeland had to once fly halfway around the world to talk to one person,” she said. “Because we’re partners with Kenneth Copeland, for every soul that gets saved, we get credit for that in heaven.”
______________________________________________________________________________

Separation of Church and State Watchdogs Reprimand the State of Illinois

To the horror of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the governor of Illinois signed an infrastructure-improvement bill into law that could give up to “$40 million in grants to at least 97 religious organizations within the state.”

Executive Director Barry W. Lynn (who is an ordained minister mind you) said that he was deeply troubled by the constitutional implications of the Illinois grants.

"Government is forbidden by the Constitution to fund religion ... When grants are made to religious groups with no safeguards whatsoever, the rights of taxpayers are clearly being infringed ... No American should ever be forced to contribute money in support of religion. The state of Illinois needs to move swiftly to ensure that public funds are not being misused for religious purposes."

Gov. Quinn was asked about this later, and said "I'm just trying to build the infrastructure of my state, I don't know what all the fuss is about."

Attorney General: Really governor? Giving money to the "Friendship House of Christian Service" for "facility improvements" or "Salaam Conference Center of Muhammad’s Holy Temple of Islam" for "jihadic rennovations"?

Gov. Quinn: Who allocated that? I didn't tell them to give state funds to those groups.

AG: What about the "Misc. allocations" to the "Peace and Rest Center of Spiritual Love" or the "Village de l'Est B.C." or the "Association for Worshippers of the Squirrel God"?

Gov. Quinn: "I didn't ... what is the 'Association for Worshippers of the Squirrel God' want money for?"

AG: Uh ... they're building "healthy nut stands" in public parks. Apparently this is to help improve the health of squirrels through the entire state of Illinois.

Gov. Quinn: Scratch that off the list, but I still think it's ok to help build that Catholic Hospital.

(phone rings)

AG: Hello? Yes, hold on ... It's Copeland Ministries, Kenneth Copeland is promising that God will give us a budget surplus next year if we allocate some of our funds to his private jet ... I'm sorry, hold on ... Yes? ... Ok, he also says to tell you his private jet helps people in our state make more money thus increasing Illinois' gross state product, because God makes them rich if they become Christians.
______________________________________________________________________________

Christian Fortune Teller Predicts Your Future As Burning In Hell

Jamie Cohen was on vacation in Ocean City and decided to stop by a fortune teller. Unfortunately (no pun intended), this “fortune teller” described herself as a born-again Christian. Even worse, Cohen was gay and managed to let this fact slip while the fortune teller, June Mitchell, was reading her tarot cards for him. Then she gazed into the crystal ball,

“I can see you … and this is hundred and hundreds of years later …”

“I’m still alive?” Cohen was surprised, “Wow, did science finally figure out how to make anti-aging pills?”

“Everything is dark, but everything is burning with red hot fire. Oh, no! You’re on fire! And you’re screaming because you can’t put the fire out …”

“That doesn’t sound good.”

“And then one of the demons in charge starts poking you with his pitchfork and laughing. You don’t like this at all … Oh wait, I see a sign inside the cave, it says it’s reads “Enter ye here all ye fag-

“You know what? Screw you, lady!”

Cohen left the fortune telling and didn’t pay his $20.

So ... yes, she called the cops on him for not paying for his fortune. The confrontation of the cops turned ugly, but at the end of the shouting on both sides, Police Officer Jacobson said "Wait, wait, wait ... I can see both of your futures ... you're both talking to me, and hold on, it's coming ... yeah, I listen to both of you whine about each other for a whole (expletive) half hour and then you both hear me say 'I don't give a sh**. Come on, Jack, let's go get some donuts.'"

When asked about this later, Mitchell said “My Christian doctrine opposes homosexuality, but I really was just trying to make him happy. I mean, he wanted to know his future.”

Some might ask whether Christians are supposed to be working as gypsy, tarot card reading, fortune tellers. But that’s only because you didn’t see the “Snake Charmers for Jesus” shop and the “3 Witches of the Holy Ghost” tavern to the left and right of Mitchell’s “Bible Fortune Telling Emporium.”

More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________

Evangelical Film Critics Immediately Pan Quentin Tarantino’s Latest Film

Wait. Is this news?

Adam R. Holz, from PluggedIn Online - Focus on the Family, says -

Wine. Whiskey. Beer. Champagne. Schnapps. All of that and more is consumed throughout the film. Moonshine is mentioned. An extended scene takes place in a bar where several German soldiers are visibly drunk. Cigarettes. Cigars. Pipes. Just about everyone smokes. And Lt. Raine snorts some sort of (unidentified) substance …

Brad Pitt's portrayal of Lt. Aldo Raine is one-dimensional, and at times it brought to mind Bob Crane's TV sitcom Hogan's Heroes—of all things. Not that Col. Klink ever got scalped! And Hogan never dropped the f-bomb …

Kim Masters, on The Daily Beast, writes "The real story is better," writing off Tarantino's work as "cartoonish ... violence-porn."

Movie Guide, A Family Guide to Movies and Entertainment, says -

Regrettably, there are shots of extreme bloody and gratuitous violence, although Tarantino pulls the camera away at a couple of the more extreme moments. The movie also contains plenty of strong foul language and a brief shot of depicted sex between Hitler’s propaganda minister Goebbels and his French mistress. The violence is particularly excessive, however. That said, the movie clearly sides with the good guys fighting Hitler’s National Socialists, but there is a strong and brutal revenge element to it that suggests the ends always justifies the means. Also, at the end, there is a strong, callous message against showing any mercy to the Nazi enemies.

Hunter Baker, at Touchstone Magazine, says -

I admit that I saw the new Quentin Tarantino film Inglourious Basterds. Now that I've seen it, you don't have to. Inglourious Basterds is a cultural low point. It is the revenge fantasy of a poorly educated and completely unreflective thirteen year old. It is a jerky exercise in crudely manipulating the feelings of the audience in order to give them an excuse to hate the bad guys enough to want them brutally and cruelly dispatched … Though Inglourious Basterds opened big, I don't think it will carry over. I can't imagine this film is going to capture many imaginations … I wish I'd seen G.I. Joe, instead. You know, the REAL American hero?

Jeffrey Overstreet, at Looking Closer, says -

And no, I don’t buy the argument that Tarantino is asking us to question our “enjoyment” of such violence. The last scene is a wink-wink “Isn’t this fun?” punchline. And by honoring Eli Roth with a major role, he persuades me that he’s down with Roth, the king of “torture porn” cinema. It’s a shame. Few filmmakers are more talented than Tarantino. But just as the Roman coliseum was an impressive feat of architecture, we must not forget what went on inside.

Daniel Thompson, at the Christian Spotlight on Entertainment, says -

During the film, it’s easy to begin rooting for the Basterds as they scalp Nazis and attempt to kill Hitler. You find yourself justifying their actions because you know how it actually turned out. You start secretly cheering like it’s a sporting event. It’s a strong commentary on why humans are incapable of delivering ultimate justice: because we too are inherently fallen and sinful, just as the killers in the film.

And etc. etc., I could keep quoting more but instead I will add that there were two rebels among the evangelical film critics, Christianity Today and Relevant Magazine, of course both reviews caught hell from most of their readers.

A couple commenters at Relevant Magazine’s review -

I thought you guys were a Christian oriented magazine? You didn't even mention how the movie might effect me spiritually or how the movie comes across to a Christian. Thanks for nothing.

and

No one seems at all concerned about the fantasy world of gore and obscenity. I have been searching for some thoughtful sense of whether "sharing" in this movie has any impact on our witness. Instead it is treated with some sense of glorified adulation … I am going to see it with my son …

Wait, what?

... but whether I can stomach such a film, given the previews, reviews, and warnings I have gathered, remains to be seen. The first audience cheer at the mutilation of a German soldier (or should I use Tarantino's epithet and say Nazi, in that the majority of soldiers in the Wermacht were not members of the Nazi party) will probably propel me out of there.

Good grief. With this attitude, don’t even go and see it, let alone take your son.

Average commenter at Christianity Today’s review -

It puts knots in my stomach to see that CT would even review a movie like this, much less give it so many stars, and that Christians would go see it (even if they didn't like it after, what could they be possibly be expecting?). Movie reviews are, I believe, a serious black spot on CT, and I worry that someday their place in the work of God's kingdom may be taken away from them. Seriously. Christians are supposed to be holy (literally, set apart), different from the world. In so many ways us American Christians simply are not. It does not matter if the director and producer and actors and writers are all wonderfully talented, and the work is "fascinating", we still must call trash trash. And avoid it.
______________________________________________________________________________

Christian Parents Using Their Kids as Anti-Islam Propaganda

10-year-old Billy was sent home from school after showing up Monday morning wearing a "Islam is of the Devil" t-shirt. Where'd he get it? From his local parents and church.

The next day they sent 3 more of their children all wearing the same version of the shirt.

Pastor Terry Jones, one the leaders of this new creative protest against Islam, said that the purpose of the protest is to bring people to Christ. "Our shirts are meant as a great act of love," said Jones, "spreading this important message is more important than education itself. I don't care if the schools don't like it."

"It's pretty offensive, isn't it?" Islamic Association of North Florida President Saeed R. Khan asked The Sun. "Particularly in a school setting where you are trying to create an atmosphere where people are supposed to respect each other and live with each other, where we have people of every ethnicity and every religion."

Great job spreading the gospel, guys. Keep telling everyone that their worldviews are the worldviews of the devil and see if you win them over. Maybe if you tell them that they're just going straight to hell, that's a time-tested witnessing technique, isn't it? How about "God hates fags!" that's another great Christian act of love. Print it on a shirt and send your 10-year-old back to school with that one. You'll win someone over eventually.
______________________________________________________________________________

MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week

JC Lamb and The Secret of Yahweh by Leferna Arnold Walch

Official Desciption
A “magical” book with secrets the author didn’t see coming - Instead of a lightning bolt on the forehead, J.C. Lamb wears the sign of the fish on his chest, right over his heart. He’s magical because God sent him as a messenger in a vision from a song. Instead of using wands and witchcraft, children learn how to spiritually see with their hearts by believing in things they cannot always see with their own eyes– trouble is, they can’t all see J.C. Lamb, either! When LeFerna finished the first book draft, the title was Meet J.C. This was before she felt led to rewrite the true names of God and Jesus into “Mystery Sunday” and change the title to 'The Secret of Yahweh!'. After this change, strange things began to happen. It was as if the secrets to the novel extended beyond the pages of the book. Her first surprise was the way this twist on Mary’s Little Lamb seemed to be attracting adult readers claiming to learn something new from this children’s story about Christianity. This was quite a complement for someone who claims to have spent the first 40 years of her life “wandering in the wilderness” of the unchurched. LeFerna thought she was writing for ages 7 to 12, adding over 100 illustrations so parents would read it with their younger children, but the library refused to stock the book, claiming it didn’t have an age category at all. LeFerna then revised the book with it’s own lending program for church members to use as a tool to reach out to all ages, seeing to whom and how far the book travels before coming back, (some being sent overseas to our soldiers). Mary’s Lamb Publishing predicts tweens will enjoy sharing J.C. Lamb books the most, but as school draws near, college students seem to love J.C. Lamb, too and want to start their own circles on campus; picking up on the slogan; “Do you know the secret yet?” A novel for the ‘child of God’ in all of us.

General Revelation, Six 24-hour-day Creation, and the Character of God

2009-08-26T13:54:00.011-04:00

All my life I have been a six, 24 hour day, Creationist. I’ve been to both secular biology and astronomy college classes, and I’ve heard “creation science” speakers at different events. It never occurred to me that a literal interpretation of Scripture left any room for anything other than the 6 twenty-four hour creation point of view. Even though I’ve read numerous books on the subject, I’ve always thought of the evolution-creation debate as an either/or sort of thing. Either you believe in creation AND creation in six 24-hour days AND a young earth & universe … OR you believe in evolution (whether with or without God).

A theistic evolutionist believes that God simply used evolution for creation. Well, of course, God could have done that if He had wanted to. But the question there is whether He did?

I don’t believe so - mostly because of scientific evidence, partly because I believed that a literal interpretation of Scripture allowed no room for anything other that a less than 10,000 year old universe.

But, it has finally come to my attention that you can believe in an old earth and (a) still believe in a literal interpretation of an inerrant Scripture, and (b) still reject the theory of macro-evolution.

This honestly had never crossed my mind before.

In another try at building my defense of believing in 6-day creation, I’ve started to read a book lent me by a good friend. The book titled The Genesis Debate - Three Views on the Days of Creation, and it’s by six different authors in a debate type format. J. Ligon Duncan III & David W. Hall argue for the “24-Hour Day View.” Hugh Ross & Gleason L. Archer argue for the “Day-Age View.” And Lee Irons & Meredith G. Kline argue for the “Framework View.”

I’m still reading it right now, but I still can’t manage to take the “Framework” view seriously (essentially the idea that the story of creation in Genesis is a mythical fairy tale that is used in Scripture to illustrate Biblical truths). But, to my surprise, I’m being shell-shocked by the “Day-Age” viewpoint and finding the “24-Hour” viewpoint’s arguments strangely hollow.

Below I’m including some excerpts from the book written by the “Day-Age” proponents. These are all questions and arguments they make that I haven’t found sufficient counters for in my own mind or by reading Duncan & Hall’s responses. Here’s just some Ross & Archer quotes from the book for now, when I’ve had more time to think about it, I’ll either end up agreeing with them or write why out some articles on why I can’t.

(Note: these quotes are just focusing on one or two arguments. There is also a discussion about the actual wording of the creation account and the meanings of day, morning, and evening in Hebrew, but these quotes are what I've found the most interesting and new. Also putting the occasional sentence in bold is just me highlighting some of the more thought provoking statements.)
______________________________________________________________________________

Sadly, we see that [the Six Day Creationist’s] approach to Scripture leaves them with little appreciation for the growth in extent, quantity, variety, and accuracy of nature’s “canon.” Our understanding of the Creator’s revelation in nature continues to expand exponentially, especially in astronomy. The evidence for divine attributes and divine design has been doubling every four years in this discipline alone. We need humble hearts to respond to this evidence with faith (which is what we do in accepting the words of the Bible), but when we ignore it, we miss out on both a theological treasure and an evangelistic goldmine.

Extrabiblical evidences are not inconsequential. They are vital. Christianity’s uniqueness resides not only in its gospel message, but also in its testability. Paul exhorts Christ’s followers to “test everything,” and Moses appeals to fulfilled prophecy. Just as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy can attest and clarify biblical texts, so, too, the fulfillment of biblically predicated scientific discoveries help attest and elucidate Bible passages. The Proceedings of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Summit II (1982), express our point:

It is sometimes argued that our exegesis should not be influenced by scientific observations. We believe this view is mistaken. While the Bible clearly gives more specific information about our relationship to God than one can possibly deduce from natural revelation, it does not necessarily follow that our understanding of the physical world, its origin, etc., will also be more clearly deduced from God’s revelation in His word than His revelation than His revelation in His world. Since both are revelations from God, and therefore, give a unified story, it seems quite permissible to consider all of the evidence (scientific as well as biblical) to be significant to the degree that each revelation can be clearly interpreted.

pg 73
______________________________________________________________________________

Scripture leads us to expect an unequivocal consistency between God’s written word and creation’s facts. Moreover, we are exhorted to use such concordance as a tool for spreading our faith in Christ. Of all the world’s religions, only Christianity can back its claims with established historical and scientific facts. It is the only faith that withstands objective testing and successfully predicts the future, including future scientific discovery.
pg 77
______________________________________________________________________________

The overarching hindrance is fear. People are afraid to integrate science and Scripture - some because they fear that science will shatter their confidence in Scripture, and others because they fear that science might shatter their excuse for ignoring Scripture. Who wants to talk about this fear? Most people would rather deny its existence or drown it out in noisy debate. But it lurks nonetheless, and its stranglehold keeps us from reasoning clearly and dialoguing calmly …
pg 124
______________________________________________________________________________

Young-earth creationists … have invested their efforts in fighting the wrong battle. What’s worse, they have been battling their ally: scientific advance on virtually all fronts, which increasingly supports a theistic, interventionist (that is, miraculous) view of life’s origin and development. Perhaps the most stunning irony of this decades-long controversy lies buried - but alive - in the creationist literature. Those who have leveled some of the most stinging criticism of old-earth creationists, accusing them of being theistic evolutionists (those who believe God did not supernaturally intervene but merely initiated and controlled the outcome of natural process evolution), are actually forced by their own interpretation to be hyperevolutionists. Their apparent faith in the efficiency of natural-process biological evolution actually exceeds that of nontheists.

The first chapter of Genesis and other Bible passages state that after the sixth creation day, God ceased to introduce new life forms on the earth. On this point, most interpreters agree. However, the young-earth creationists’ understanding of the Fall and the Flood requires that a huge number of new species of animal life appear on the earth in just a few hundreds to thousands of years. As they see it, animals ate only plants until the moment Adam and Eve rebelled against God’s authority. Because carnivorous activity involves animal death, they assume it must be one of the evil results of human sin. Therefore, they propose, all meat-eating creatures alive now and evident in the fossil record must have evolved rapidly from plant-eating creatures, and since God is no longer “creating,” they must have evolved strictly by natural processes.
pgs 126-127
______________________________________________________________________________

From the perspective of young-earth creationists, any concession that the earth or universe may be more than about 10,000 years old attacks the very foundation of their faith, the veracity of the Scripture. Is it any wonder, then, that they vehemently and incessantly oppose anyone, even fellow evangelicals, who propose an ancient universe and earth?
pg 128
______________________________________________________________________________

More after the jump -

The young-universe interpretation gives rise to a more subtle problem: it forces a gnostic-like theology - a belief that the physical realm is illusory and that only the spiritual realm is real. The universe by its sheer vastness testifies of a beginning much earlier than just a few or even several hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. That testimony comes from light, which takes a certain amount of time to travel a given distance. For example, a galaxy measured to be about 13 billion light-years away must have existed about 13 billion years ago. That’s when the light from that galaxy started on its way toward Earth’s telescopes.

If its light had existed for only a few thousand years, the visible universe would be very small indeed. The visible stars would be less numerous than is the observed case, and most of the Milky Way galaxy (as well as every other galaxy) would be invisible, since they are too far away for their light to have yet reached Earth. Adam wouldn’t have seen any stars, Noah only a few, and Moses, thousands fewer than either Augustine or Aquinas.

Many seem to have forgotten a lesson from elementary science. Light travel time gives astronomers a direct window to the past. Because of light travel time, we can observe in the present moment what God did to the cosmos in the past. Astronomers need only select a heavenly body the appropriate distance away to see how it looked in the past. Evan as we look at the moon, we see it not as it is this second, but rather as it was 1.5 seconds ago when the sun’s light bounced off it on its way to us.

A few young-earth creationists explicitly concede that their view denies the reality of light travel. In his commentary on Genesis, for example, Gary North says,

The Bible’s account of the chronology of creation points to an illusion … The seeming age of the stars is an illusion … Either the constancy of the speed of light is an illusion, or the size of the universe is an illusion, or else the physical events that we hypothesize to explain the visible changes in light or radiation are false inferences.

Most young-earth/young-universe creationists … cite all the possible loopholes to the light-travel-time problem. They see six:

1. Astronomers are simply wrong about the distances.
2. God created the light already in transit.
3. Light traveled much faster in the past.
4. Light takes a shortcut through space.
5. The universe has the equivalent of more time than one time dimension.
6. Distant “clocks” run at different rates …

In a nutshell, God scattered astronomical “clocks” (time indicating astronomical phenomena such as cosmic expansion rates, background radiation cooling times, supernovae, Cepheid variable stars, neutron stars, and black holes) throughout the universe, and they all agree. They reflect no differences in time rate or dimensionality anywhere in the cosmos and thus at any epoch in cosmic history.

In embracing any of these supposed loopholes, the 24-hour creationists inadvertently and ultimately suggest that God, rather than the astronomical community, deceives us. Their interpretation implies that all the distant galaxies astronomers observe - nearly one trillion of them - are part of an elaborate mirage or misconstrued "mural" painted on a nearby background, which becomes visible nightly. On their view, stellar explosions such as the 1987 supernova eruption in our companion galaxy, the Large Magellanic Cloud, did not really occur; they just appear to have occurred. According to 24-hour day creationists, what astronomers observe in the heavens must be a detailed history of events that never happened.

Supposed biblical support for the “appearance of age” rests primarily on Adam’s adult shoulders. Adam’s adult body seems, at first glance, to argue for appearance of age. But does it? An adult body speaks of age only if we incorrectly assume that this body entered the world through the womb of a woman. We must go on to ask whether or not Adam carried memories of his nonexistent childhood. To assume that he did would be to assume that God implanted falsehoods, a notion that virtually all believers would repudiate as a violation of God’s revealed character. The connection with the day-age interpretation is this: The universe carries a kind of “memory” of the past. That memory is the light emitted long ago by distant objects. This light shows us what was happening at those objects in the past, at the time the light was emitted. From the astronomer’s perspective, “appearance of age” implies that God filled the universe with the physical equivalent of false memories.

Although young-earth/young-universe creationists assume that they truly seek to defend the truth of God’s word and lead people to Jesus Christ, they fail to realize that these theological implications flow from their position. We think that they would repudiate the Gnostic notion that “there is no life, truth, or substance in matter,” though unfortunately that’s the direction in which their view leans …
pgs 128-130
______________________________________________________________________________

Many Christians see no possibility for integrating the record of nature with the words of Genesis. Writing nearly a hundred years ago, German theologian Friedrich Delitzsch described the schism in words that few would care to dispute to this day:

How absolutely futile all attempts are and will forever remain to harmonize our biblical story of creation with the results of natural science.

This defeatism is understandable given the widespread failure to apply the scientific method to the interpretation of Genesis. The great irony here is that the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can discern an account of creation that is scientifically plausible and defensible …

The frame of reference in Genesis 1:1 is the cosmos, the beginning of space, time, matter, and energy. God declares through His spokesman, Moses, that He brought into existence the entire physical cosmos. The Bible successfully predicts what has been called “the discovery of the century,” the observation of remnants from that initial creative burst. Einstein’s equations told us early in this century that the universe had a beginning in the finite past, but scientists subjected that notion to every test imaginable before acknowledging certainty about it. Einstein’s equations now tell us that the Cause of the universe created it independently of all matter, energy, and even the ten space-time dimensions along which all the matter and energy are distributed. The work on which the 1994 Nobel physics prize was based establishes this conclusion to better than 14-decimal-point precision. All this testing has done the Christian community a great service, providing support for our confidence in biblical revelation.
pgs 134-135
______________________________________________________________________________

As I keep reading this, I'll probably include a few more excerpts later this week.

Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds

2009-08-22T23:51:00.017-04:00

"If my answers frighten you, then you should cease asking scary questions."
- Jules, from Pulp Fiction

... This is a beautiful film.

But Inglourious Basterds is also a strange choice for a film review when I rarely even write these things. Almost every Christian who avoids this will do so with good reason. First, because almost all the "Christian" movie reviews will denounce it for it's "sickening" violence. Second, because the previews and commercials advertising for this movie were all promoting it to be 2 and a half solid hours of nonstop bloody Nazi slaughter. And this, of course, is the moralist's cue to denounce our taking vicarious pleasure in violence of any kind, and besides, Nazis are people too.

Add to this the further element that this Jewish-American team of "basterds" is the embodiment of all that’s wrong with modern day movies in the eyes of the older generation of your church. You’ve heard the complaint before. Instead of clear cut good guy vs. bad guy, the good guy started wearing the black hat. You can’t tell the good guys from the bad guys anymore. Part of what makes the good guy “good” is that he doesn’t lower himself to the methods of his enemy, he shows mercy and values every human life. I’ve already heard complaints that it’s the younger generation who will be making excuses for enjoying Inglourious Basterds because they’re just so desensitized that they are now entertained by the bloody and graphic deaths of other human beings.

And finally, look back on the old classic movies through the years. What is the one genre where at least the lines between good and evil have stayed absolutely clear? That’s right - World War II movies. There’s a reason Nazis make such good bad guys in Hollywood. You won’t find a single person willing to defend what they did. The Nazis stand for all that is evil in human nature, and the Allies stand up against them. Think back to The Great Escape, The Dirty Dozen, and Kelly’s Heroes - all great WWII films but ... none of the good guys were scalping the bad guys.

But suddenly, we have a story about a group of heroes who decide that, because the Nazis are showing inhumanity to the Jews, they are going to show inhumanity to the Nazis. Essentially, in the eyes of your mother, Brad Pitt’s character Aldo Raine and his merry men are stooping down to the bad guys' level. Every single person who denounces this film for moral reasons is going to focus on one admittedly uncomfortable scene with a baseball bat. These Jewish-American "heroes" are engaging in a sort of psychological guerilla warfare that is making them … just … as … bad … as … the … Nazis?

But I'm going to side with the whimsical here and say that you really ought to see this film. To begin with, you know those movies where the trailers and previews are very misleading? Where, for some reason, they advertise their movie to be something that it isn’t? Well, this is one of those films. The trailer pretty much showed you almost all of the violence you’re going to actually see. In fact, I’d have to look at it again, but I’m pretty sure there was a memorable scene in the trailer that showed one of the Americans running down a hallway blasting away on his machine gun. Yep, it didn’t even make the final cut.

If you are sensitive to really graphic violence, then after Sergeant Donny points to the war medals on their captured Nazi colonel’s uniform and asks him how many Jews he’s killed to get those, just close your eyes for a few seconds when he swings his baseball bat. That’s as graphic as any scene gets. When you look at the two and half hours the story takes, all the violence put together is less than five minutes worth of screen time. This is not to say that there are not a few very fast VERY violent shoot ‘em up scenes, but none of them are really as impacting as the first time that someone pulls the trigger - and when that happens, even though you can’t see what’s happening off the screen, it will matter more to you than when all the rest of the characters get to pull their triggers later.

When it comes to bloody violence, if you’ve seen The Patriot or Braveheart, then you’ve seen worse. Mel Gibson’s The Patriot brings up some interesting questions though. That was another story of a group of rag-tag men fighting for the right side who start using questionably brutal guerilla tactics. Questionable enough for the more idealistic Heath Ledger character to demand that they purposely distinguish their combat tactics from the style of their enemy. He appeals to a higher moral standard that they "are better men than that", and then towards the end of the film he changes his mind.

In Inglourious Basterds, Lt. Raine has his men purposely adopt guerrilla warfare designed to inspire fear in the Nazis. They don’t take prisoners. They take scalps like the Apache Indians instead. Raine explains “and when the Germans close their eyes at night, and their subconscious tortures them for all the evil they’ve done, it will be with thoughts of us that it tortures them with.” In other words, thoughts of soon approaching Jewish justice and revenge. Whether you agree with it or not, this is a form of psychological warfare against the Third Reich that no one has really been able to try before in a WWII movie.

What does taking no prisoners and taking scalps remind you of? Film reviewer, Peter T. Chattaway made a comment that this reminds one precisely of Old Testament Israel -

I am intrigued to hear, also, that modern-day Jews regard Hitler and his ilk as being, in some sense, "descendants of Amalek". The Amalekites, of course, were the race that Saul was supposed to stamp out -- in retribution for their treatment of the Israelites in Moses' day -- and it was because his act of genocide wasn't as thorough as it could have been that the prophet Samuel declared that God was taking the monarchy away from Saul and giving it to someone else, i.e. David. (And David, of course, is the guy who massacred Moabite soldiers after they surrendered, and who killed 200 Philistines for their foreskins after Saul told him, "Every man in my battalion owes me one! hundred! Philistine! foreskins! And I want my foreskins!" Okay, I exaggerate, but you get the point.)

Quite interesting, although the purpose of this review is not to engage in a philosophical discussion of what sort of tactics one can use while engaging in a “just war.” Actually my point here is that the “basterds” engaging in this sort of warfare are really only given one Nazi killin’ scene in the whole movie in order to explain the legend they’ve become behind enemy lines. After the introductory scenes of the movie, and for all intents and purposes of the story, they are more of a looming presence - always there in the background - until they suddenly find themselves forced into some espionage work that they aren’t quite as suited for.

I’m constantly surprised that people call Quentin Tarantino’s movies amoral (at least, if not just plain immoral). Am I the only one being fooled into seeing the distinct moral choices and positions being taken in these films?

(Possible Spoilers in the next paragraph only if you’ve never seen one of these decade old films.)

For me, the poignancy of Reservoir Dogs has always been that the cop is making the choice to suffer a slow and agonizing death (while he could save himself at any time) because he believes the cost is worth it if that means catching the bad guy. In True Romance, the one scene between Dennis Hopper and Christopher Walken is going to offend some people, it’s also going to be an example of loving self-sacrifice to others. Pulp Fiction is still probably Tarantino’s greatest - and it’s filled with characters taking moral stands. Bruce Willis finds himself in a situation where he has to decide whether it’s worth risking his life to save his mortal enemy who was just trying to kill him five minutes ago. Samuel L. Jackson’s character (a) decides he believes in miracles, (b) thus decides he believes in God, (c) thus decides he’s been living an evil life, (d) therefore decides to repent and change, and (e) immediately gets a chance to test out his new beliefs in action.

(End of old Spoilers).

Inglourious Basterds is pure, movie loving fun and entertainment. But that doesn’t stop it from making it’s characters take some very specific moral stands on a few things. Besides the obvious, that all the Allied characters are risking their lives (against impossible odds in near suicide situations) in order to stop the Nazis from winning the war (with the depth of PluggedIn reviews, maybe they can list this as the one thing in their “Positive Elements” list - “well, the American and British are fighting a war on the right side, so that’s good I guess. Now on to list all the bad words they said …”).

One question often asked in WWII stories is how culpable do you hold the German troops fighting for Hitler? Most of the “Nazis” were really just regular men and boys fighting for their country, right? Whenever modern historians look at the history of wars today, we find it very uncomfortable to blame the actual troops for what they were fighting for. Most of them are just doing their jobs and probably didn’t understand what was going on. Because of Adolf Hitler, and because of what he lead Nazi Germany into doing was so evil and morally repugnant to us, we find Nazis to be the easiest evil bad guys in any story.

Tarantino could have just made the Nazis into stereotypical caricatures and left it at that in order to commence cartoonish blood and slaughter. But he doesn’t (take either option). Instead, Inglourious Basterds takes the clear and unambiguous position that it was an individually morally wrong choice to decide to wear the Nazi uniform. If you think about it while you watch the film, you’ll notice a theme. At the very beginning, Lt. Raine asks the German soldier he’s about to let go (to help get the word out) if, after the war is over, “are you going to take off your uniform?” The frightened fellow replies enthusiastically that not only is he going to take it off, but he’s going to burn it (as if there were something inherently wrong with it).

More after the jump -

Raine replies - “Yeah, that’s what we thought. We don’t like that. You see, we like our Nazis in uniforms. That way, you can spot ‘em just like that. But you take off your uniform, ain’t nobody gonna know you was a Nazi. And that don’t sit well with us.”

The implication here being that choosing to fight for the Nazi army was a crime - a capital crime actually. It was not something that you just did because it was your job. This is directly contradicted by the two most developed Nazi characters.

Colonel Landa casually dismisses the nickname he's been given for working for the Nazis -

"Jew Hunter, (pffft), I’m a detective. A damn good detective. Finding people is my specialty. So naturally, I worked for the Nazi’s finding people. And yes, some of them were Jews. But Jew Hunter? Just the name that stuck."

Landa doesn't feel he's responsible for the side he's working for. He just does what he does best wherever he happens to be. In another scene, when Shosanna tells Zoller she doesn't want to be his friend because of who he is, he protests that he's "more than just a uniform" - in other words, the uniform he has decided to wear doesn't say anything about who he really is. But not to Shosanna. And not the Raine and his "basterds" either, which is why they make a practice of giving the soldiers they let live something they "can't take off" like a uniform.

Tarantino takes this position in the film for a reason. This is what Raine and the "basterds" believe, that by choosing to wear a particular uniform you are choosing to fight for a great evil (a theme you see repeated by contrast in Til Schweiger's character, one German solider who decides he doesn't like what the Nazi uniform stands for). And if this is what they believe, then what they are doing makes much more sense (even in an Old Testament Biblical sense if you will). I took no pleasure in the scene where the film illustrated their methods (beating a Nazi to death with a baseball bat) but I still loved the story.

You have to love the righteous anger with which they are able to charge head-first into the movie's climax. It's because, to them, the choices here are in absolute black and white, absolute good and evil. When Hirschberg and Donowitz first walk into the movie theater, you can see the hunger in their eyes - they both look like they are going to explode (no pun intended) at the enormity of it all. When Shosanna first realizes what could potentially happen, you see the surprise and then desire of it in her eyes. Colonel Landa causally and lightly dismisses the role or label of hunter or executioner. It just comes with the job. To Shosanna or to the "basterds" the role of executioner can be a sacred, almost holy, trust.

So why and how should you go see this film?

1 - It's a work of art.

This is not really an action movie. This is a suspense movie. And suspense is something rare in Hollywood today. Tarantino is asking you to sit and watch a story - a World War II fairy tale in a sense - for two and half hours. In my estimation, every second was worth it. From the minute the opening credits start rolling to The Green Leaves of Summer to the last concluding chapter of the film entitled “Revenge of the Giant Face”, unless you have some preconceived reasons for being disappointed, the whole thing is going to hold you spellbound.

Dialogue is one of the whole point of the film. Let me say that again. The point IS the dialogue. Americans speak in English. The British speak in British (yes, there’s a difference). The French speak in French. The Germans speak in German. Thus, there are a whole segments with subtitles. But you hardly even notice. It just feels right. Every scene is longer and technically slower than in most other films, but it doesn’t feel like it. Because in every one of these scenes, there is a reason to be worried. At the very beginning, Tarantino shows you that he’s willing to do anything. You know something bad is going to happen, it hasn’t happened yet, and the longer the characters talk - the longer they get completely and enthusiastically obsessed by their conversation - the more powerfully the tension builds … and builds … and builds …

Brian Holcomb explains how old school this is -

“Alfred Hitchcock used to love to give journalists a characteristically deadpan lesson in suspense filmmaking through an anecdote about ‘THE TICKING BOMB‘. The gist of it was that three men sitting around a table talking about baseball or the weather was by the very nature of MOTION pictures-boring. But any scene involving mundane dialogue or exposition becomes instantly suspenseful to the audience once they've been tipped off that a ticking bomb has been placed under the table. The audience would watch AND LISTEN helplessly while the unsuspecting characters went on talking about batting averages or whatever. The audience would think, "Don't talk about baseball you fools, there's a bomb under that table!" …

How can a filmmaker get an easily distracted audience to sit still while characters ramble on-well, you get the point. Put a bomb under the table and get the audience worked up into a lather. The skill is in coming up with these ticking bombs so that they aren't always LITERAL ticking bombs. In his latest movie, the spelling challenged INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, Tarantino becomes so skilled at it that he can even make a glass of milk function as a ticking bomb.”

These scenes are unlike anything you’ve ever seen before (unless you’ve seen a few other Tarantino films). They are crafted carefully, lovingly, and with the eye of a perfectionist’s attention to detail. Every costume and outfit, every color, every set prop, every line of dialogue is put there for a reason. And yet, these scenes will remind you of a TON of other movies you have seen before. Classic movies back in the 1970s, 60s or later. And that’s a good thing. All of music is hand-picked by Tarantino as well. Somehow we’ve got ourselves a WWII movie where the music can make simple scenes of dialogue sound like they are showdowns at Tombstone. How many films start with The Green Leaves of Summer, take you through a number of old spaghetti western Morricone tracks (themes from The Big Gundown, One Silver Dollar & Dark of the Sun), Elmer Bernstein, David Bowie!, and finally some climatic music at the end that sounds strangely similar to the standoff in Kelly’s Heroes?

Only someone who loved The Bridge on the River Kwai can fully appreciate the simultaneously dry and jovial British humor between General Fenech and Lt. Hicox -

Lt. Hicox: The master race at play, aye?

Gen. Fenech: Basically we have all our rotten eggs in one basket. The objective of Operation Kino … Blow up the basket.

Lt. Hicox: “… and like the snows of yesteryear gone from this earth.” Jolly good, sir.

Fassbender’s stoic rendering of the line “There’s a special rung in hell reserved for people who waste good scotch.” can’t help but make you think must have been one of Richard Attenborough’s right hand men in The Great Escape.

2 - Don’t allow Brad Pitt’s accent annoy you.

Yes, it’s over the top. Yes, it’s slightly comical sounding. But that’s all on purpose. First of all, it isn’t a coincidence that he sounds like a member of John Wayne’s little band from The Alamo. Lt. Aldo Raine is from the backwoods of Tennessee - he’s part Jewish, part Apache, and part very proud descendant of Jim Bridger. Watch The Alamo by the way, listen to how the characters talk, and then tell me if you still think Pitt is overdoing it. Second, this stereotype of an accent has a huge pay off towards the tense closing minutes of the film. One scene simply wouldn’t be as absolutely hilarious as it was meant to be, if he wasn’t just incapable of speaking like anything other than a backwoodsman.

3 - The acting performances alone are reason enough to see the film.

Speaking of Brad Pitt’s acting performance, he is by no means the star of this film. But you’re going to like him. He’s the solid uncouth American stereotype that we can all love and root for when everything else in the story dissolves into German, French and British battles of wits, intrigue, subterfuge, counterfuge, and subsequent complete and utter chaos. The way Raine’s character blusters his way across the screen when forced into a situation where his life depends on his nonexistent ability to fool Nazi master intelligence agents is something unique to Pitt’s abilities. Brad Pitt put a little Clark Gable, James Coburn and Lee Marvin all together with a couple of the homicidal moments of his turn a few years ago as Jesse James. And the result is a perfect Aldo Raine.

All the praise you’ve heard about Christoph Waltz’s Jew Hunter Colonel Landa is true. Waltz is brilliant as the pleasant, cheerful, always calm and logical Nazi detective. Every time he starts asking someone questions, he does so with a combination of both disarming and lethal, charming and deadly. Thus, as so many critics are point out, this guy can make happily asking for a glass of milk seem like a genocidal threat. To have real conflict in a story, your bad guys can’t all just be cartoon characters. Waltz gives us an especially evil and pleasant bad guy - more of a seeming threat than even Hitler and the SS.

Denis Menochet is a strong and silent resistance farmer, Perrier LaPadite. Daniel Bruhl plays the Nazi hero Frederick Zoller with a persistent puppy dog attitude that always seems to include the threat of turning ugly. Michael Fassbender pulls out his young Alec Guinness/young Richard Attenborough impression. Mike Myers reminded me of Danny Kaye’s British General MacKenzie-Smith. Read other reviews for more detailed discussions of how every did. Diane Kruger is cast perfectly as a glamorous substitute for Marlene Dietrich (in fact, I like Kruger better). The “basterds” are all good when given a chance - Eli Roth, Gedeon Burkhard, Sam Levine, and B.J. Novack are particularly memorable. But Til Schweiger will be your favorite.

But Brad Pitt and Christoph Waltz aside, the real star of this film is Hollywood newcomer Melanie Laurent.

4 - Inglourious Basterds asks you to question how film itself can affect you.

There are so many references to older films here, I’ll leave pointing all of those out for someone else. There are so many comparisons made in this story that are not coincidences, that I’m overwhelmed even thinking about it. I have to go see this movie again.

But, one main parallel that anyone should be able to see is the one between everyone sitting in the movie theater watching Inglourious Basterds and all the Nazis sitting in the movie theater watching their Nazi propaganda movie “Nation’s Pride.” If there is one thing Quentin Tarantino believed and wanted to get through in the script (often humorously) when writing this thing, it was that film is dangerous.

Movies can be dangerous.

Was it because they were degenerate and depraved Nazis that they were shrieking with joy whenever Zoller shot an American in the face in the film, or was it because Hitler and Goebbels had been using film for years to help brainwash the German people? Was the Nazis laughing about their guy killing our guys in their movie the same as us laughing when our guys killed their guys? Was our enjoyment of violent entertainment the same as theirs?

Some would say yes.

Some would even say that films like Hostel by directors like Eli Roth are very dangerous because they actually do desensitize and brainwash people to where they no longer value human life. And I would agree with them. Having good friends who love watching every modern day horror movie they can get their hands on, I say firsthand that this is not healthy - psychologically or spiritually.

But I don’t think the message in Inglourious Basterds was that the movie audience in the real theater was the same as the Nazi movie audience in Shosanna’s theater. Why? Because we were taking pleasure in two completely different things. And it is only because I believe in a REAL right and wrong that I can claim this. If morality is just based and created by culture, then we are the same as the Nazis. But if there really is such a thing as a right and wrong side to fight on, if there really is such a thing as good and evil, then it is possible to take pleasure in good triumphing over the evil. And it is morally better to take pleasure in the triumph of good than it is to take pleasure in the triumph of evil.

There is a difference between mere vengeance and actual justice, but sometimes the two can coincide. You can’t tell me that the actions of the good guys at the end of Inglourious Basterds wasn’t revenge. But, on the other hand, neither can you tell me that it wasn’t justice.

But here we go - can the false portrayal of revenge as justice harm and affect the way that you think? Yes. Can the false portrayal on film of fighting for evil as justice harm and affect the way that you think? Yes. But can the clear portrayal on film of real justice and characters who give their lives to achieve it potentially even inspire you to do the same? Yes.

Film is dangerous.

5 - You’ll walk out of the theater speechless.

The closing 30 minutes of the film are simply intense. The climax at the end did not have everyone cheering as much as simply in shock that Tarantino would decide to do things this way. With the life and death, justice and revenge, and simply historically huge epic proportions of what they were given the opportunity to do, Shosanna, Raine and the “basterds” were all bound to look pretty fanatical at the end.

And at the end, that just didn’t strike me as morally wrong. Instead, it stuck me as something good, even inspiringly so.

It also will make you think both about what ought to be and what ought to have been.

Question For The Day: How Do You Know You Have The Holy Spirit?

2009-08-13T13:27:00.006-04:00

John 14:15-17
If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neitehr sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

I Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says "Jesus is accursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except in the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.
____________________________________________

Where do we get the idea that we can know we're Christians because we can feel the Holy Spirit inside of us? I don't see that anywhere in the Bible. It doesn't say we'll have good feelings that will prove we have the Holy Spirit. I honestly don't know if I could say I feel the Holy Spirit inside of me. In fact, at the moment, I certainly can't. To some that might mean proof that I'm not really a Christian. And they'd be right if it's all just about what you feel in your heart.

Personally, I don't trust my heart. And I certainly don't trust my emotions and feelings. Emotions and feelings have their uses, but proving that you can know something is not one of them. Having nice feelings during a worship concert does not equal feeling the Holy Spirit. If that were true, then I can say for a fact that I'm not a Christian because I have bad, and often bitter, feelings against my fellow man during a whole number of church worship services.

So if

1 - being a Christian means you have the Holy Spirit

and

2 - being able to "feel" the Holy Spirit is not Biblical proof for how you know He's there

then

3 - How do you know you have the Holy Spirit?
______________________________________________________________________________

On the Use of “Dirty” Words: A Bible Study - Part 4 - Is Cussing Always Wrong?

2009-08-11T11:16:00.013-04:00

“It is appalling that men should take this filthy talker whose hopelessly dirty language indicated the morally diseased state of his mind, as a guide to expound Eternal Law and that they should hang upon his words, hold him up for imitation and entrust to him their salvation … To give any idea, even of the faintest, of this man‘s filthy and loathsome language would be impossible unless one is willing to descend into the gutter and wade in obscenity. The original sources are extant, and any one who wishes to consult them may do so if he is prepared for the shock of his life.”
- Patrick F. O’Hare on Martin Luther

“Certainly, no Protestant woman can read [Luther’s writing] without - I will not say utter shame and womanly horror - but without indignation that any man, above all a spiritual leader and cleric at that, could speak of her sex with such ordinary common familiarity and coarseness and vulgarity and downright obscenity; that could joke at her sex in its most sacred and venerable moral and physical aspects, taking a stable boy’s unclean delight at rude witticisms over poor woman’s physical differentiation from man; that could make her very body the inspiration of jokes - all evincing a cynical and vulgar contempt for woman as such; that could even have the vulgarity to lift the covers of the nuptial bed and disclose its sacred secrets to the gaze of others.”
- Friar Johnston on Martin Luther

Sounds like what people are saying today about Mark Driscoll.
______________________________________________________________________________

I. BAD Biblical Arguments For Why Cussing Is ALWAYS Wrong

1 - The Bible Says Not To Swear

Matthew 5:33-37
Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. (NIV)

Adam Clarke’s Commentaries
Thou shalt not forswear thyself. They dishonour the great God, and break this commandment, who use frequent oaths and imprecations, even in reference to things that are true; and those who make vows and promises, which they either cannot perform, or do not design to fulfill, are not less criminal … It was a custom among the Scythians, when they wished to bind themselves in the most solemn manner, to swear by the king’s throne; and if the king was at any time sick, they believed it was occasioned by some one’s having taken the oath falsely … A common swearer is constantly perjuring himself: such a person should never be trusted. When we make a promise contrary to the command of God, taking, as a pledge of our sincerity, either GOD, or something belonging to him, we engage that which is not ours, without the Master’s consent.

Matthew Henry Commentaries
There is no reason to consider that solemn oaths in a court of justice, or on other proper occasions, are wrong, provided they are taken with due reverence. But all oaths taken without necessity, or in common conversation, must be sinful, as well as all those expressions which are appeals to God, though persons think thereby to evade the guilt of swearing. The worse men are, the less they are bound by oaths; the better they are, the less there is need for them. Our Lord does not enjoin the precise terms wherein we are to affirm or deny, but such a constant regard to truth as would render oaths unnecessary.

So, if you were look for articles written against cussing and “swear words” from a Biblical perspective, a large number of them would not only be basing their entire argument on Matthew 5, but they even title their columns from 5:34 - “Do not swear at all” or the KJV’s “Swear not at all.” If you don’t believe me, just google the phrase “Swear not at all.” John Plunkett, for example, starts out his Bible discussion on cussing with Matt. 5:34 and then says -

"What really bugs you?" During the Tabletopics session on a memorable Spokesman Club ladies' night some years ago, the Topicsmaster asked this question … What really bugs me, Mr. Topicsmaster, is swearing. More particularly: swearing in public, swearing in mixed company, and swearing in the media. I am not talking about the type of swearing such as an oath in a court of law. That is a different subject altogether. I am talking about cursing, blasphemy, and profanity - in simple terms, bad language.”

Well I’m glad Plunkett isn’t talking about oaths and oath-taking, because that is precisely what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5:33-37. I used the NIV this once because it helps us see how this verse became unfortunately linked to cussing by saying “Do not swear at all.” The ESV more literally translates verse 34 as “Do not take an oath at all.” There is, of course, a difference between swearing oaths and what our culture sometimes calls “swear words” and bad language. So why do we ignore this difference whenever we feel like applying this passage to "bad words"?

A very cursory reading, even just of verse 33, makes it abundantly clear that what this passage is forbidding is taking oaths where you use God’s name or creation to make them especially binding. It could be something as simple as saying “By the Lord in His Heaven, honey, if the Yankees win this game, I’ll do the dishes!” Some Christians even refuse to swear on the Bible in court because of this passage, and I don’t necessarily think they’re wrong. Just don’t use God’s name to make promises. It's not going to help you keep your promise, and besides, it’s breaking the third commandment.

If you wanted to tie this verse into applying to profanity because it says not to "swear". I’d suggest following Eric Rigney’s advice - “If the man was writing about oaths, let’s let the verse be about oaths. That’s speaking plainly, if you ask me.”

So except for the general idea that we should show a reverence for the Lord’s name and creation, Matthew 5:33-37 has absolutely nothing to do with cussing.

James 5:12
But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your “yes” be yes and your “no” be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation.

Exactly the same principle - this is talking about oaths.

Hosea 4:1-3
Hear the word of the Lord, O children of Israel, for the Lord has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land. There is no faithfulness or steadfast love, and no knowledge of God in the land; there is swearing, lying, murder, stealing, and committing adultery; they break all bounds, and bloodshed follows bloodshed. Therefore the land mourns, and all who dwell in it languish, and also the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens, and even the fish of the sea are taken away.

Yes, I've heard these verses used to explain how cussing is listed as a characteristic of the ungodly that brings down God's punishment on those with "dirty" mouths. They saw those three words "there is swearing" on the list here leading to bloodshed, and since "swear words" are bad, that's what these verses must be talking about. Right?

It may come as a surprise but (a) verse 2 is talking about swearing oaths, and (b) it is not a coincidence that "lying" is the very next thing listed after "swearing". In fact, some translations translate "lying" as "breaking faith" and thus the contrast "swearing and then breaking faith" "making promises and then breaking them" - is meant as a characteristic of sinful & fallen man.

The Hebrew word used here is "ala" (Strong's #422) which means to "swear an oath, to bind under oath, take an oath." Some English translations translate verse 2 to say "cursing" instead of "swearing" but the Hebrew word for "cursing" is "arar" (Strong's #779). The Greek translation of "ala" is "omnyo" (Strong's #3660) which means "to declare an oath, swear an oath, promise with an oath" and is precisely the word that's used in Matthew 5:34.

So again, no, Hosea 4:1-3 cannot be used to say that the Bible forbids cussing.

Matthew 26:74
Then he began to invoke a curse on himself and to swear, “I do not know the man.” And immediately the rooster crowed.

This verse is used as an example in order to show that, when Peter was sinning by denying the Lord, he started to use profanity. The problem with this interpretation is that nowhere in this verse does it actually say that Peter was using profanity. The Greek word for “swear” is the same as in Matt. 5:34 - “omnyo.” The Greek word for “curse” is “katanathematizo” (Strong’s #2653) which along with the Greek word “katara” (Strong’s #2671) means “to curse, to call down a curse.” In other words, Peter was saying something to the effect here of “God strike me down if I’m not telling the truth” - something clearly not good at all for him to say.

So again, this isn't a verse that’s forbidding cussing.

Cursing - which is usually defined as asking God to damn someone or something, while not expressly forbidden in the Bible, can easily be demonstrated to be wrong by Biblical principle 99% of the time (unless, oh I don't know, you're an Old Testament prophet. In Luke 9:51-56, Jesus rebukes two of his disciples for asking him if they should curse a nearby village ("Lord, do you want us to tell fire to come down from heaven and consume them?"). Of course, James and John were deadly serious right here - we'll talk more about this later.

Then in Matthew 5:21-22, Christ says that "everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire." Looking at this passage in context, He is comparing this attitude to murder, basically saying "all of you know that murder is wrong, well just having an angry and murderous attitude towards another in your heart is just as much a sin in God's eyes as murder is." This is clearly a heart thing. Therefore, cursing someone by saying something like "Damn you to hell!" or even just "Goddamn you!" can easily be placed in this same category. This is an ungodly and sinful attitude to have.

James 3:8-10
… but no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison. With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so.

There you go. We ought not to be cursing each other (the Greek word for curse and cursing are variations of "katara"). But remember, to curse has a specific meaning in this context here. "To Curse" means "to wish or invoke evil, calamity, injury, or destruction upon" another.

I Peter 2:1
"So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander."

I'm still not sure right now why this verse is sometimes used against cussing. Good verse, though.

So ...

These verses are the closest the Bible ever comes to mentioning cussing, let alone forbidding it. But this is interesting. The two words we have here so far are -

swearing (Hb. ala, Gk. omnyo) - to make an oath or promise

cursing (Hb. arar, Gk. katara) - to invoke God's damnation

But today, these two words are also used to mean cussing and profanity. In fact, in our culture, we use all sorts of ways of describing cussing.

More after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________

A Little Cultural Detour

cussing, profanity, curse words, swear words, obscenity, bad language

also described as -

uncouth, common, coarse, crass, vulgar, strong, harsh, rough, rude, tough, bawdy, colorful

and -

crude, dirty, filthy, raunchy, foul, nauseating, garbage

all the way to -

perverse, insulting, shameful, impure, disgusting, offensive, carnal, sinful, evil

Do you see a progression here? I'm tempted to conclude that, over the course of church history, we have taken the ideas of "swearing an oath by something" and "cursing another" and expanded the meanings of these ideas by adding more and more prohibitions to them. Now people use the term "cursing" to refer to everything from "calling down hell fire on someone" to using euphemisms for culturally "impolite" references to sexual and bodily functions.

I'm not enough of a linguistic historian to trace how precisely this has happened. But while "swearing" in Scripture is only referring to oaths, for some reason today we also define "swearing" to include making use of a list of supposed culturally unacceptable & specific words.

This one fellow however, does an excellent job at suggesting what's happened -

“Profane” means “characterized by irreverence or contempt for God or sacred principles or things; irreligious”. That is the key issue, imo – that our society has confused and conflated “vulgar” with “profane”. There are lots of words that have no religious meaning or connotation whatsoever – that are not “profane” in any way, shape or form – that, nonetheless, have come to be seen as “profane” (as somehow irreligious and offensive to God) ...

There are some examples that never were part of religion, but only came to be seen that way as a result of the elitist division I mentioned earlier. “Bastard” simply means child born out of wedlock, so “bastardize” meant to make illegitimate or corrupt. “Bitch” means female dog – no worse or better in its original meaning than “ewe” or “doe” (or ram or steed) or any other name for an animal. It was the application of the word to “those who act like a female dog” (originally “bitching and whining”) that pushed it into the category of unacceptable “swear words”. “Shit” simply means “feces” – and, in its extended meaning, anything else that is disgusting and/or worthless. It was the fact that such words were employed almost exclusively by the uneducated, unwashed masses as “gutter terms” that led to their classification as unacceptable words. Rich, educated, elite people found other ways of saying the same thing in an acceptable manner. (That is an incredibly important point, but it is not understood by the vast majority of people when considering “swear words”.)

What is the difference between a one syllable word and a five syllable word if they mean exactly the same thing? Why is “excrement” or “feces” more acceptable than “shit”? Why is one forbidden and one allowed? Why is “frak” any better than the alternative? Why is “heck” any better than “hell”? Are ... substitutes any different than the move by elitist Victorian prudes to discriminate against the unwashed masses in speech?

It is also interesting to note that in modern English, it's mostly just the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic words that are today considered objectionable, while the words with Norman and Latin roots are the ones considered polite.

Did you get that?

"S***" is Anglo-Saxon in origin ("scitte"). "Excrement" is Norman in origin ("excrementum").

"Piss" is Anglo-Saxon in origin. "Urine" is Norman in origin ("urina').

"F***" is Germanic in origin ("fricken" - to strike, to penetrate). "Intercourse" is Norman in origin ("entrecours").

"Ass" is Germanic in origin ("arsch"). "Rear" is Norman in origin ("riere").

"C**t" is Germanic in origin ("kott"). "Vulva" is Norman in origin ("volva").

"C**k" is is Anglo-Saxon in origin ("cocc"). "Penis" is Norman in origin.

"Bitch" is Anglo-Saxon in origin ("biche" - a female dog, fox or wolf).

So, the reason most of the "four letter" words are looked down on in the modern English language today is because were originally frowned on by ruling Norman aristocracy in Britain. Anglo-Saxon - the language of the common people - was considered coarse, uncouth and vulgar, while their own Norman terms were favored instead and considered "polite" and "gentile." The language of the lower-class, common people was what was considered "vulgar," while the language of the upper-class nobles was what was considered "polite."

Conclusion?

When it comes to the use of individual words - Blasphemy, taking the Lord's name in vain, speaking in a "profane" manner by "misusing the names for what is sacred or divine" has ALWAYS been looked down on. But there is also a reason why terms like vulgar and coarse refer to what is common or low class. Most other "cuss words" are subjectively and culturally identified. We'll have more questions about what this precisely means for us later.
______________________________________________________________________________

2 - The Bible Says Not To Use “Filthy” Language

Colossians 3:5-8
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.

obscene talk - is also phrased in various English translations as filthy language, abusive speech, obscene speech, filthy communication, shameful speaking, unclean talk, vile language, and foul-mouthed abuse.

First, the Greek word here for obscene is “aischrologia” (Strong’s 148) and it appears once in the New Testament, and means foul, low, obscene or filthy talking. The Greek word “aischrotes” (Strong’s 151) also appears once in Scripture, and means “filthiness.” Both these words have a connotation that implies sin.

Related words (although not synonyms) include the Greek -

“aischron” (Strong’s 149) which means shameful (used 3 times, twice in I Corinthians when speaking on what is “shameful” for women, and once in Eph. 5:12 to refer to sin)

“aischros” (Strong’s 150) which means dishonorable (used once in Titus 1:11 - “filthy lucre”)

“aischune” (Strong’s 152) which means shamefulness or disgrace 5 times, and dishonesty once.

From Col. 3:8 we can conclude, however rarely this is actually mentioned in Scripture, that there is such a thing as “obscene” or “filthy” speech. This is something listed right along with anger, wrath, malice, and slander (all attitude problems by the way). But notice this is speech or language. It’s talk, not specific words.

Is it possible to talk in such a way that you are perverting, denigrating, belittling and shaming something good or pure? Of course it is. This is a good Biblical principle. But are “cuss words” necessarily always obscene, denigrating, and filthy speech? If individual “cuss words” are a sin to utter, then yes. If “cuss words” are merely defined by cultural conventions of what consists of polite society at the time, then no.

No one with a rudimentary knowledge of how words are given meaning by the INTENT of their usage would conclude that cussing is always necessarily “filthy” or “obscene” speech.

Eric Rigney said - “It is ludicrous to say that modern society can arbitrarily decide which specific words (regardless of their intended meaning and context) fit into the category Paul is addressing here.”

And do you know why? Because what are considered to be “cuss words” is both subjective and cultural. (Subjective and cultural? That’s redundant.) Look at this passage again, all the things listed here are attitude problems. These are heart problems. Again, this is an list of attitudes, not a list of specific words.

Filthy and denigrating talk is sinful - and it’s also something you can do without using any cuss words at all.

But can Colossians 3:5-8 be used to say that "cuss words" are always wrong? No.

Ephesians 5:3-5
But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Phil Johnson says

The Greek expressions for ‘filthiness . . . foolish talking . . . coarse jesting’ are speaking of exactly the same kind of language your mother used to wash your mouth out with soap for. Check any lexicon. It's a pretty sweeping prohibition against every kind of ‘bad’ words.”

“When we have an admittedly subjective commandment like this, that's not a warrant to push the envelope and see how close to impropriety we can come, especially for the sheer shock value of being heard. Rather, it's a good time to exercise extreme caution and stay as far away as possible from whatever is obviously in bad taste—perhaps even what is merely questionable.

Filthiness here is the same Greek word we already mentioned “aischrotes” ( Strong’s #151). This is the second and last time it’s found in the New Testament (the first being Col. 3:8). The meaning here is the same no matter how you translate it. Filthy speech, obscene communication, etc. This (a) is more about your attitude than the actual words you are using, and (b) having a sinful or hateful attitude in your speech, it is very easy to makes use of the cultural cuss words of the day.

Johnson’s problem with telling us to look at the lexicon is that the lexicon defines the word “aischrotes” as filthy or obscene. To Johnson, there are a list of specific words that are filthy and obscene to utter. But I’m going to suggest that that is too easy.

It’s much too easy to just say that Ephesians 5:4 is talking about whatever list of words your current culture happens to consider vulgar or uncouth at that particular moment. If that’s what Paul meant why didn’t he just say so? And if that’s what Paul meant, why did he use words and expressions that, if translated literally, couldn’t be read inside a church today (more on this in Part 5).

It’s much more difficult to have to use discernment to decide what is filthiness or foolish talk in different situations. It’s bad manners to even say words like “crap”, “hell”, or “darn” in some social settings. It’s much more difficult to focus on your heart and your attitude in how you are speaking, rather than just using a checklist of words.

And while we’re at it, let’s get into the spirit of the thing here -

The Greek word for “crude joking” here is “eutrapelia” (Strong’s #2160). This is again another example of a word only used once in the New Testament. The Greek/English Lexicon defines “eutrapelia” as “pleasantry, humour, facetiousness in a bad sense.” Nice and clear isn’t it? (I'm joking.) I think it’s at least obvious that this verse isn’t forbidding making a joke. “Eutrapelia” is the sort of joking that is actually wrong in a moral sense.

What do you think the English word “crude” means anyway? Sexual, right? Being “crude” according to a large number of Christians means talking about sexual and bodily functions.

Here’s Webster -

crude - “lacking in intellectual subtlety, perceptivity, etc.; rudimentary; undeveloped … lacking finish, polish, or completeness … lacking culture, refinement, tact … undisguised; blunt”

So how on earth could being crude be something morally wrong? Plenty of the Old Testament prophets were occasionally crude (even with jokes, remember Elijah?). Even the Apostle Paul would be considered crude at times. So how does this word “eutrapelia” imply morally wrong humor? Is it always morally wrong to ever joke about sex? Think about that for a moment. I would answer that it can be. You can use "crude joking" or to denigrate and make light of evil when it comes to sex. That is precisely what “eutrapelia” means. But I wouldn't try and stretch this to mean that joking about sex can NEVER be innocent or harmless.

In some social settings being crude is “lacking culture” or “refinement” - in other words, just plain good manners. Is it bad, even in a moral sense, to choose to use bad manners in a situation that requires it? Yes. Is it absolutely wrong to break out into a stream of cussing in certain situations around certain people? Of course it is.

Crude joking/bad joking is wrong in a cultural sense. Because it’s the culture that decides what is considered crude or unrefined in the first place.

But, I fundamentally disagree with Phil Johnson’s conclusion on these verses. Read it again. Ephesians 5:3-5 is talking about sin. When he says “it must not even be named among you” Paul is not saying that we are not supposed to ever talk about sin. “as is proper among saints” - he’s talking about how we talk about sin. And you know what? This is not something that only Christians understand. This is an inherently moral issue, and you still know what’s right and wrong whether you’re a Christian or not (Romans 2:14-15).

I just wrote out an example, but then deleted it because the example I had written actually seemed offensive to me. Let's just say that it's possible to talk about sin in such a way that you are encouraging it, helping yourself and others give into temptation, and joke about it (in order to make evil look attractive). You can do this with cuss words. And you can do this without cuss words. Filthy talk is filthy talk regardless of what words you're using. Joking that encourages yourself or others to sin is also wrong regardless of what words you use. Being "filthy" or "crude" intentionally in a social setting where you know it will cause harm is also wrong whether you use cuss words or not.

Ephesians 4:29-32
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the days of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

The KJV translates 4:29 as "Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth ..."

The Greek word for corrupt or corrupting here is "sapros" (Strong's #4550) (make putrid) 1 - of such poor quality as to be of little or no value, bad, not good, 2 - bad or unwholesome to the extent of being harmful, bad, evil, unwholesome, in a moral sense an evil word, evil speech

This is an even more direct Biblical principle that isn't just about a bad attitude in cultural settings. This is specifically referring to talk that is unwholesome and corrupting because it actually harms or corrupts someone else. Something or someone is being harmed or corrupted by your talk.

“By corrupting words are meant not primarily obscenities, but any words that promote division, discouragement, etc. It is possible to build someone up with a four letter word. And we all know it’s possible to corrupt someone or slander someone with highly refined rhetoric.”

(The above quote is from another excellent discussion on this topic held by a writer under the writing name Isaiah543.)

Only a slavish legalistic interpretation of this passage could be used to try and say that particular "words", in and of themselves, always harm and corrupt others who hear them. Again, I would argue that a discerning interpretation of this passage, within it's context, results in the conclusion that our talk is supposed to build each other up.

It is possible for "corrupting talk" to include no "cuss words" whatsoever. (Being a sinner, along with the fact that everyone else I know are also sinners, I've seen this happen frequently.)

It is also possible for edifying/building up talk to include "cuss words." Having spent a significant amount of time in the military, I can say I've seen this happen. If you don't believe me, watch a good war movie - in fact, Tears of the Sun would be an excellent example where the American soldiers frequently use speech to build each other up and to encourage each other with the use of multiple "cuss words").

While I do focus on intent frequently in this discussion (because intent of the speaker obviously determines a word's specific meaning), I do think you can even use harmful and corrupting speech carelessly without necessary intending to harm anyone. This is all the more reason to guard your speech. So this passage of Scripture is dealing with the heart and attitude once again - bitterness, wrath, anger, malice - while also not ruling out that you can harm someone by your speech, perhaps even unintentionally.

What this passage is not doing, however, is forbidding "cuss words."

Ephesians 5:11-12
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things that they do in secret.

Again, another passage that is expressly talking about sin, not culturally impolite words.

Proverbs 4:24
Put away from you crooked speech, and put devious talk far from you.

(a) this is a proverb, (b) it's talking about morally suspect crooked and devious talk, and (c) not about "cuss words"

James 1:21
Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.

Amen.
______________________________________________________________________________

3 - Cussing Harms Your Witness & Reputation As A Christian

Romans 12:2
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

To most Christians, particularly if you've been raised in a sheltered all-Christian environment, using "cuss words" means conforming to the world - and thus, sinning.

The argument, at it's most basic level, goes like this -
(1) Christians don't/shouldn't cuss (because cussing is a sin).
(2) If you cuss, you aren't "acting like a Christian" (because you're sinning).
(3) Therefore, nonChristians won't believe anything you say about the gospel.

See the price of conforming to the world, they say. If you start acting like the world, then the world won't think you're a Christian and will scoff at your trying to present the gospel.

I completely reject this argument.

First, because I don't believe cussing is a sin.

Second, if you have very many nonChristian friends, you'll find that it doesn't even cross their minds to think that a cuss word is morally wrong (unless your being a prude starts making them feel uncomfortable). Sure, they might apologize for it afterwards, because that's just plain good manners (and they've probably had a Christian mother or grandmother who told them that those words were bad). But remember that stuff in the Bible about how God has implanted the moral law in the hearts of every man (also called the conscience). Because cussing is not in the moral law, unless someone has be taught to think differently, it never occurs to a nonChristian that a single word of vocabulary, in and of itself, is wrong to utter.

Third, because I believe being legalistic hurts the gospel. If you insist that something that isn't wrong really is wrong. NonChristians will know it. And that will be just one more reason for them to reject the gospel.

Fourth, because I believe being easily offended hurts the gospel. If something as trivial as a "shit" or a "crap" leaves your feathers in a huff, you are conforming to the world's wrong stereotype of the Christian. Simply using good manners in the appropriate social setting is one thing, nonChristians understand this. But being made to feel uncomfortable for not conforming to legalistic Victorian moral rules of social behavior simply because you are around someone makes that someone unlikable. And someone like that is not going to be your friend. And it's your friend who you are most likely to listen to if he starts sharing the gospel.

Fifth, because I believe that being "real" includes dumping institutional and traditional man-made-up rules for being a Christian. If I were a nonChristian, I would be far more interested in someone who was willing to call sin sin (without calling a violating list of their sub-culture's standards of behavior sin). I have found, more than once, that is was easier to share the gospel with other friends when I wasn't making Christianity seem like a list of don'ts you can't do.

I Corinthians 10:31-33 - okay, just 32
So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

Let me be very clear - if you are presenting the gospel in a social setting where using "cuss words" would give offense - then you are NOT TO USE CUSS WORDS. If, on the other hand, you are in a social setting where insisting that cuss words are a sin gives offense, then don't insist that they're a sin!

2 Timothy 2:16
But avoid irreverent babble, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,

Having discussed all these Scripture passages here in Part 4, it is clear that there is a sort of talk that could be called "irreverent" or even "ungodly" babble. With or without cuss words, this is wrong and it (a) encourages/corrupts others into ungodliness, and (b) does hurt you witness as a Christian. It is this sort of speech that hurts your ability to share the gospel. Not cuss words, in and of themselves.

I Thessalonians 5:22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

First of all, we've already gone over the frequent misinterpretation of this verse, see - On the Appearance of Evil

Secondly, let's just say that, even though the Bible does not generally instruct us to actually make an effort to avoid all "appearance of evil," there are times when cuss words do appear evil and times when they don't.
______________________________________________________________________________

4 - Cussing Is Not ________ (Insert “Noble, Pure, Good, Edifying, Encouraging, etc. in the blank space provided)

Remember what Eric Rigney said? -

"... does there need to be a noble reason for everything we do? Does everything have to have some earth-shatteringly significant utilitarian nature? This is really fodder for another article, but I think the answer is no. I think it’s the clamoring for a pragmatic reason for everything that’s taken the joy out of life for so many people and makes so many others hateful and hostile toward anything that does not conform to their standards of usefulness."

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

Galatians 5:18-23
But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control: against such things there is no law.

These two beautiful passages of Scripture should inform and motivate your use of and your intent whenever you are speaking. There is a wrong Christian theological point of view out there that says that everything you do has to be "to the glory of God" in the sense that it is expressly for some noble purpose of spiritual worth. You can be legalistic enough to rule out games, entertainment, "wordly pleasures", normal socializing with friends, or simply taking pleasure in any part of God's creation simply because it doesn't supposedly have an important eternally significant purpose. This viewpoint is neither just nor commendable.

Whether you use cuss words or not, or whether you believe that cuss words are always wrong or not, you can still focus on trying to show the "fruits of the Spirit" by how you lvie and on trying to dwell on what is righteous, just, pure and lovely.

All of these passages of Scripture are talking about your heart and your attitude - not mere outward a-moral actions and words.

On the Use of “Dirty” Words: A Bible Study - Part 3

2009-08-10T13:43:00.020-04:00

(Disclaimer/Warning: This discussion is a look at every passage of Scripture that I could remember that has been used to teach against the practice of cussing. This will also include a cultural discussion of words that are often considered "offensive" in the English language. So if curse words offend you, well ... there's going to be a few used during this series. But, it should be obvious that simply because I write a word does not mean I condone it's use, at least on all occasions.)

“Whenever the Bible speaks about evil men, its scribes consistently tie the habit of cursing to them, such as this verse in Proverbs 15:4: ‘A wholesome tongue is a tree of life, but perverseness therein is a breach of the spirit.’ Christians are advised to be mindful of God's commandments, from which speech is not considered exempt, as James 3:6 warns: ‘And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.’ As if this were not sufficient, verse 8 elaborates further: ‘But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.’”
- Ralph Heibutzki

"For those who might be new to this subject, it is necessary to give warning about 'substitute' swearwords such as 'gosh,' 'golly,' 'jeez,' 'shoot,' 'shucks,' 'heck,' 'darn,' and others. Such words are called euphemisms, literally "good speech." It does not take much thought to figure out what words these exclamations are substitutes for. We do not need them! The English language contains thousands of benign yet descriptive words and expressions that convey the same feeling or reaction."
- John Plunkett

"Words reveal much more about a person. Wise employers know this. A business manager told me of an attractive job applicant who not only 'dressed for success,' but had the background and training to land a job with the organization. Why wasn't he hired? His language. Said the manager, 'If he felt no qualms about using expletives in our interview, he'd probably use them with our customers.' Sadly, this applicant may have thought that profanity would make him appear tough and aggressive —leadership material. Not so. Such language implies an inability to communicate well and to discern what is inappropriate."
- Anita Bateman, Readers’ Digest

An Introduction

So, are there words that it is a sin to utter? Only in Christian circles do you have prolonged discussions on questions like this. Personally, I think it’s hilarious. But it’s fun too. I would assume almost everyone would at least make one exception here - that simply uttering a bad word within the context of a scholarly academic discussion (like this article!) on the use and morality of using the said word is not considered a sin by generally anyone. So let’s qualify our question.

Are there words that it is a sin to utter outside of the occasional very serious academic semantic discussion?

That’s better. In other words, does the Bible say that profanity and cussing is wrong? Is this orthodox Christianity’s position?

Almost everyone, Christian or Non, would say yes. I am going to say no.

We live in funny times. Those three above quotes are examples of what’s happened to our culture these days. Mr. Heibutzki is afflicted with the unfortunate (but popular) habit of assuming his own point beforehand. To Mr. Heibutzki, a perverse and unwholesome tongue is obviously referring to cussing. The tongue is a fire because the tongue is used to say bad words, and this results in a world of iniquity setting on fire the course of nature with the fire of hell. See how cussing is obviously tied to evil men in these verses?

Then we have Mr. Plunkett who firmly believes it is wrong to utter the words “Golly Gee Willikers”, because when you say that you are just secretly saying “God and Jesus’ whiskers” in code. Mr. Plunkett then makes the claim that there are thousands of descriptive words in the English language that convey the precise same feelings or sentiments expressed by both curse words and curse word euphemisms. This is the argument that, when the flying shrapnel blows the Christian soldier’s leg off, not only should he not cry “Oh Sh**!” but he should not cry “Oh shizzle!” Instead, the word “Oh Owy!” would be the appropriate English conveyance of the same meaning. Unfortunately for Mr. Plunkett, he must not be aware that the exclamations “Ow! Ouch! And Owy!” are all euphemisms for “El” ... which means God in Hebrew.

Lastly, that final quote is an excerpt from Mrs. Bateman’s Reader’s Digest article lamenting the use of bad words among our young people. She tells the very sad story of a young man applying for a job who was (a) sharply dressed, (b) educated and experienced for the job. Unfortunately, he laced his entire interview with profanity and was subsequently not hired. This is because the use of profanity, in Mrs. Bateman’s view, is a sign of “an inability to communicate well.” Mrs. Bateman has not, on the other hand, read any Shakespeare. But I’d guess even Sir William would agree with the business manager that using profanity IN YOUR (EXPLETIVE) JOB INTERVIEW was more just a sign of stupidity than lack of communication skills.

But enough making fun, let's get down to the discussion of Scripture.

Our next part to this series will be entitled - "Bad Biblical Arguments For Why Cussing Is Always Wrong."

For anyone who wants to do their preliminary reading on the subject -

Scripture References For You to Misinterpret (in order to show how "bad" language is always wrong) -

Exodus 20:7
Leviticus 18:21
Hosea 4:1-3
Matthew 5:33-37
Matthew 12:33-37
Matthew 15:17-19
Matthew 26:74
Luke 9:51-56
Romans 12:2
I Corinthians 10:31-33
Ephesians 4:29-32
Ephesians 5:3-6
Philippians 4:8
Colossians 3:5-8
I Thessalonians 5:22
2 Timothy 2:16-19
James 1:19-21
James 3:8-10
James 5:12
I Peter 2:1

There you go. Consider that your arsenal for slamming down hard on any poor misguided Christian who you happen across saying one of those naughty words on the list. And, if he can't show you how you're misusing one of these verses, then he deserves to be forced into believing in a "list of forbidden words" anyhow. The loser.

Meanwhile, Here's some Scripture References for You to Ignore (or to just remain ignorant of because the translators used nice and more polite replacements).

I Samuel 14:6
I Samuel 25:22 (try the KJV, more literal on this one)
Isaiah 30:22
Isaiah 64:6
Ezekiel 23:19-21 (whoa)
Philippians 3:7-8
Galatians 5:12

We will, of course, go into all of these references with more detail.
______________________________________________________________________________

So How Does the Nonchristian See Church?

2009-08-09T15:29:00.004-04:00

Catherine Deveny is an atheist and a witty one at that. She just visited an evangelical mega-church (in Australia) with a few friends and then wrote the story of her experience. This story is so priceless that I'm becoming convinced it's one of the single best columns that I've read all year.

A couple excerpts -

THE promise of awesome worship. That’s what got me rocking up to a Planetshakers meeting. And I wasn’t disappointed. They said "awesome" 20 times ...

Christian pop, ’80s power anthems, Metallica meets Cheap Trick. A mosh pit for Jesus was jumping with teenagers in rapture and a balcony of Planetkids went off for Christ. Music blared from the stadium sound system while the screen seduced us with slick videos edited so fast the phrase ‘‘subliminal image" kept popping into my head. Lyrics flashed up: "Come like a flood and saturate me now." I wondered what Freud would have made of the disproportionate use of such words as ‘‘come’’, ‘‘touch’’ and ‘‘feel’’, and the phrases "move within me" and "being filled". My favourite was "King of Glory, enter in" ...

Then out came the pastors. Middle-aged blokes peppering talk about Jesus with constant references to the footy, reality shows and McDonald’s. Almost swearing with ‘‘flipping angry" and "What the heck?" and plenty of ‘‘awesomes’’ thrown in to convince everyone they were down with the youth ...

Just read the whole thing, every sentence is worth it -

Shaken but not stirred by stadium-rock spirituality

This column of Deveny's is so valuable for a number of reasons.

1 - It's an outsider's point of view. It's amazing to me how many of us can't see what we look like to everyone else. This affects both witness and reputation, so it's something we are actually supposed to be aware of.

2 - Everyone keeps telling me I'm crazy. I'm just hearing things. I have a dirty mind that finds sexual innuendo too easily. I'm a prejudiced male who is biased against the feminine, etc. etc. Well here's a girl who sees the exact same things in the worship service that I've been lamenting about for years. See? It's not just something that only guys notice. This is a (site decorum) problem, damn it! Sometimes I feel like I'm shouting at a brick wall.

3 - Deveny sees the church service for precisely what it is. Cheap, manipulative, empty, meaningless, mind-numbing (site decorum). If atheists see this when they go to church, then why in hell would they ever think that Christianity has anything of value to offer? If this is what God's people are like, what does this say about God?

I could go on, but I've repeated all this before.

And of course, IMonk has more discussions (plural) resulting from looking at the article -

Here - Riffs/Open Mic at the iMonk Cafe: Planetshaken, But Not Stirred

And then here - Your Mission: “Resacramentalize Evangelicalism”

Favorite IMonk quotes -

"I’ll be quite honest with anyone: In my limited opinion, this appears to me to be the death throes of any substantial evangelical Christianity ..."

"It’s interesting to me that most evangelicals will read this, not see the probable absence of a clear Gospel proclamation and not see the potential dominance of technological manipulation in the place of dependence on the Holy Spirit and scripture. I believe many evangelicals actually like to be emotionally manipulated by technology and equate it with a spiritual experience ..."

"Reading this leaves me profoundly sad at what is happening to us as we contemplate the coming evangelical collapse (and I assure you, this sort of church is creating thousands of 'evangelicals' who will vanish into thin air with contempt for Christianity.) I read it and I understand why my wife is a Catholic and my children are Anglicans. It makes me certain that I’ll live and die in the evangelical wilderness."
______________________________________________________________________________

Football & Philosophy

2009-08-09T15:07:00.003-04:00

Today is the official first day of the NFL preseason games. So the football season hasn't quite started yet, but thank God it is so close. Yes, I know we have to keep things in perspective when it comes to the difference between the temporal and the eternal, so here's a solid Ted Kluck quote on another reason you can be a football fan -

"There's no escaping the fact that there is absolute truth in football. Football is about defending lines, and in a culture of ultrasensitivity and rampant deconstructionism, the game has changed very little in the one-hundred-plus years it has been around. At the end of every play, and at the end of every game, players know where they stand in the grand scheme of things. I loved the simplicity of the game when I played, and I still do."

Yes, there's a beauty and a simplicity to this game. And there's also a reason why the Apostle Paul constantly uses sports in Scripture as analogies to Biblical truth (we'll have to take a look at this). So we'll have some more on here later as the real season gets closer. I also have a very bad parody of a famous song that I'll probably share in the next 2-3 weeks. Yes I'm biased, basically I'm of the view that if you like theology, then you should like football too.
______________________________________________________________________________

Novus Monastica (Weekly Religious News) - 8/5/09

2009-08-05T11:25:00.011-04:00

The Believer/Nonbeliever Billboard Wars Continue …

After recent controversy over some atheist funded ads on billboards and buses in Florida (Christians found these ads encouraging people to think for themselves “offensive), atheists decided to be a little clever. Now they have an ad that is going to run on 25 different buses for four weeks. In order to show how Christians argue for Christianity, the atheist organization created a bus billboard quoting Pastor John Hannah (pastor of New Life Covenant Oakwood Church and host of a morning Christian radio show). They quote him saying -

“God is still God whether you believe it or not … just believe.”

Making fun of Christians again, are they? I mean the skill that this pastor has in encouraging people towards his point of view is … just … breathtaking, isn’t it?

Since they hate being made fun of, we can assume that this has offended the Christian community once aga-

Wait, what?

(sigh) Nevermind all that. I was wrong. Apparently this ad was NOT the atheists making fun of Christians but was actually paid for by the Oakwood Church ($5,000) and they meant Pastor Hannah’s quote to be taken seriously. Pastor Hannah explained -

"We wanted to represent our city and the Christian community … I felt like the atheists, to come in and say there probably isn't a God, that's an ATTACK against our faith. WE WANTED TO BE LOUD just as they were loud. Do you hear that, you goddamned atheists?!!! We can fund bus billboards too! WHAT DO YOU SAY NOW? HUH? HUH? HUH? You don’t sound so arrogant now, do ya?”

Surprisingly, when asked about it, atheists did not seem threatened or offended by the ad. Atheist activist Joe McLoughon was interviewed -

Reporter: In response to some atheistic billboards some of your fellows were putting up, this church just funded a billboard which quotes their pastor proclaiming “God is still God whether you believe it or not … just believe.” How does that make you feel?

McLoughon: Wait what? Ahahahahahahaha! HAHAHAHAHAHA! No, please don't read it to me again!

Reporter: It's a bold statement - “God is still God whether you believe it or not … just believe.”

McLoughon: HAHAHAHAHAHA! No, I just can't stand i-(chokes) heheheheh! Hahahahaha! I'm dying here.
______________________________________________________________________________

Wisconsin Christian Father Found Guilty of Second-Degree Reckless Homicide for Killing His 11-year-old daughter

On a much heavier note, in what is probably the largest religious news story of the week, Dale Neumann (that’s him in the picture to the left joking around with his attorney during the trial) was convicted of killing his 11-year-old daughter, Madeline. Madeline had an treatable form of diabetes, but because her parents, Dale and Leilani Neumann believed in faith healing, they decided to heal her with prayer instead of modern medicine.

(Note: I'll refrain from joking or making anything up for this story.)

Because she wasn’t treated by a doctor, Madeline’s diabetes progressed to the point where she couldn’t walk, talk, eat or drink. She died on the floor of their house, as they were in the middle of healing her with prayer.

Neumann, who has studied to be a Pentecostal pastor and describes himself as born-again, testified that (a) he believed God would heal his daughter and he never expected her to die because God promises in the Bible to heal, and (b) that taking her to a doctor would be disobeying God.

"I can't do that because Biblically, I cannot find that is the way people are healed," Dale Neumann told the jury. "If I go to the doctor, I am putting the doctor before God. I am not believing what he said he would do."

Speaking of his belief in “faith healing” he also told the jury about how the Holy Spirit once told him to burn two medical books that he owned. And, as soon as he burned these books, his back pain disappeared.

"It was a spiritual cause of a physical ailment," Neumann said.

His wife, Leilani, also testified saying that they believed that illness is always caused by sin and can only be cured by God. Taking their daughter to the doctor would have been in “complete disobedience to what we believe.”

She also said that they believed their daughter's deteriorating condition may have been the result of a falling out with another couple, and called them once the girl was unconscious and persuaded them to come pray for the girl.

"I asked her if she loved Jesus," the mother testified. "She might have said yes. I know for sure she was acknowledging it. What sounds came out, I don't remember. She was making noises ... My focus definitely was to pray."

The jury was unsympathetic to their beliefs in both trials, and both parents have now been convicted of second-degree reckless homicide, and now face up to 25 years in prison.
______________________________________________________________________________

Some Curse Words Make A Church Mighty Upset

St. Jerome’s Catholic Church held a fundraiser called the “Fancy Farm Picnic” where they featured Kentucky Republican Attorney General Jack Conway as a speaker (Conway is running for Senator in 2010). During this speech, his audience gasped in abject horror on two different occasions -

First, Conway referred to his Democratic opponent in the 2010 Senate race, Daniel Mongiardo, saying that Mongiardo “sure as HELL can’t speak the truth.”

And then second, he was trying to describe himself to the audience and said - “Go ahead and chew on my hide … it only grows back tougher! You’re looking at one tough son of a bitch!”

Numerous church members were very offended. And they let their complaints be known. This forced Conway to apologize to everyone. Conway depreciatingly said that he just got carried away by “fiery rhetoric” and he was sorry about being so insensitive.

Conway explained - “I’m one very sorry son of a bitch and I sure as hell know when I’ve done wrong. I apologize to y‘all here and I’ll be damned if I say another dirty word again.”

Kim Geveden, spokesman for Mongiardo and his Senate campaign, took the opportunity to respond -

"I think it's sad and disappointing that the church leaders at St. Jerome's ... think that they have to take that step after the attorney general's profanities," he said. "But it's a step they need to take."

By “step” Geveden is referring to the church making a new rule. Saying the word “hell” or phrase “son of a bitch” is now no longer allowed in their church.

Off the record, Geveden said he had just talked to Mongiardo and they're happy to say they now have the Senate race in the bag. "By uttering a mere two words, Conway just lost his entire Christian conservative vote. They're not going to vote for us, but they're not going to vote for dirty-mouth Conway either ... and that's going to be just enough for us to win! Sometimes you just gotta love Christians."
______________________________________________________________________________

Catholic Bishop Lights Fire Under the Ass of the Facebooking/Texting/Twittering/Myspacing Generation

English Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols has taken a lot of flak this week for criticizing the new and constantly growing “facebook culture.” Nichols spoke out and said that websites and electronic social networking like Facebook and Twitter are leading young people to build “transient relationships” which leave them unable (or less skilled) at forming real friendships in real life. He said that the internet, cell phones, blackberries, etc. are all “dehumanizing” our lives more than ever before.

These comments have so far been criticized and frowned upon in our tech savy culture. Bishop Nichols was considered to be “out of touch” with modern day age, but he wasn't finished -

"I think there's a worry that an excessive use or an almost exclusive use of text and emails means that as a society we're losing some of the ability to build interpersonal communication that's necessary for living together and building a community … We're losing social skills, the human interaction skills, how to read a person's mood, to read their body language, how to be patient until the moment is right to make or press a point … Too much exclusive use of electronic information dehumanizes what is a very, very important part of community life and living together."

"Facebook and MySpace might contribute towards communities, but I'm wary about it. It's not rounded communication so it won't build a rounded community … If we mean by community a genuine growing together and a mutual sharing in an interest that is of some significance then it needs more than Facebook … Among young people often a key factor in them committing suicide is the trauma of transient relationships.”

Whoa. Using Facebook and Twitter too much can eventually result in suicide? Now the online hate mail’s really going to start pouring in.

Nichols continued - "But friendship is NOT a commodity, friendship is something that is hard work and enduring when it's right."

Nichols made these remarks after different news stories about young people’s online relationships ending badly have started appearing with regularity. The latest one included a girl in England who committed suicide after her internet friends had posted spiteful messages on the internet about her appearance and clothing.

More after the jump -

The English Bishop also had a number of suggestions to help change this trend. One of his suggestions being derided on Twitter was to revive the old “pub culture.” Nichols said -

"There are pubs where people have their corner, and they're a bit eccentric, but they're welcomed. If they don't turn up, someone will go and see what's happened." Nichols doesn’t think it’s a coincidence that the old-fashioned pub has “declined as an institution” in a time when human relationships are becoming more impersonal and electronic.

In other words, stop texting and twittering and go make some friends over a couple of beers.

Columnist Jonathan Wynne-Jones found Nichols little diatribe to be pretty insightful -

“ … the truth is that many, obviously not all, blogs and websites do have a ‘dehumanizing’ effect. People would never talk to one another the way they do on these sites. Under the cloak of anonymity, people feel free to say whatever they like, no matter how ill-informed or ill-judged. In fact you only have to look at some of the church blogs to see the worst examples of this. It’s as if all normal rules of human interaction go out of the window once these addicts are sat in front of their computer screens … While most normal people are able to enjoy the great benefits of blogs, for those with empty lives and shallow friendships they are a drug, an asylum for the socially inept.”

All I can say is if England thinks they have it bad, they haven't seen the depths of stupidity that our electronic media obsessed American young people are sinking to.
______________________________________________________________________________

Osteen Brings His Unique And Powerful Message To Australia

For the first time, Joel Osteen was the main speaker at the “Hillsong Conference” in Australia. He and his wife spoke about very important topics - mostly about love.

Joel discussed his relationship with his father (who first pastored Lakewood Church before Osteen turned it into a mega-church of over 40,000 every Sunday). This included a scene where he brought the whole conference to tears as he described his father’s death to them and how hard it was for him. He then explained to everyone that they could all take comfort in the fact that he is doing the work of God.

“God is working behind the scene ... you don't know what is inside. You may not see anything, but don't let it fool you, because God is working behind the scene. He continues His work in the believers. You may not think that it’s necessarily God changing my church from 90 people to over 40,000 people. You might think it was me. But trust me, God IS behind this.”

Osteen’s wife & co-pastor, Victoria, also spoke at the conference. She also focused on the subject of love and relationships. She told the crowd you cannot always expect to agree in a relationship, but that with work, you can make a good relationship happen’ “truth is not about gazing into each other’s eyes, but gazing into the same direction.”

Pastor Aachie Galleghan said later at the conference, “The Osteens’ message just has so much depth to it, it’s amazing! I never understood important love is to a relationship before. Love. Love is what Jesus is all about. I think the world would be a better place if they just embraced Joel Osteen’s message of love.”
______________________________________________________________________________

The Governor of Texas Declares that Church and State Go Together

Rick Perry, the Governor of Texas, made some controversial remarks this week at the New Life Christian Center. He explained that the idea that laws shouldn't be informed by religion is an extreme position.

"Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion!"

A number of different very politically active church congregations attend this conference, and Perry became even more popular with them as he said that there is currently a great spiritual battle taking place for the very future of the state of Texas and America itself. The only way they were going to win this "spiritual battle," according to Perry, is if Christians stayed actively engaged in the public arena and kept voting for Republicans each election.

Meanwhile, Perry is getting ready for his Republican primary run for governor against U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for governor in next year's election. And his campaign just accused the Hutchison campaign of being slanderous and of setting a negative and divisive tone.

Mysteriously, the Web site for Bailey Hutchison's campaign "contained hidden phrases including 'rick perry gay.'" Hutchison spokesman Jeff Sadosky said Hutchison's campaign was not condoning those words and did not know thousands of people would be searching for them. He said they would be removed from the site.

Apparently their website has a tool that generates the most frequent Web searches using the two gubernatorial candidates' names, and "rick perry gay" is a commonly searched phrase in google. Unfortunately, even though he wasn't gay, 1970s porn star Rick Perry's reputation is now being tarnished. And it's not helping the current Governor of Texas either.
______________________________________________________________________________

MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week

Jesus Soap on a Rope - $9.95

Official Desciption
Jesus on a Rope! Someone finally did it. Our luxurious Jesus is made of 100% pure ... soap. From the top of his head protrudes the finest blue satiny rope. Cleanliness is next to godliness, so be sure you scrub well with your Jesus on a rope! Jesus on a Rope is one of our most unique gift items!

On The Use of "Dirty" Words - Part 2

2009-08-03T13:01:00.006-04:00

After looking at William Buckley's point of view on the subject, I think we'd better look at another couple articles first and then I'll come out with mine later this week. Here's Eric Rigney, who wrote two articles years ago discussing the issue of cussing from a Christian perspective.

On this first link, Rigney doesn't get to the subject until the very end of this article, so scroll down to the What the *#!@?? section -

Midnight Shift at the Radioland Asylum

A few excerpts -

"... does there need to be a noble reason for everything we do? Does everything have to have some earth-shatteringly significant utilitarian nature? This is really fodder for another article, but I think the answer is no. I think it’s the clamoring for a pragmatic reason for everything that’s taken the joy out of life for so many people and makes so many others hateful and hostile toward anything that does not conform to their standards of usefulness. So no: cussing is not a noble enterprise – but its lack of a significant usefulness does not by default make it a sin ...

"Also, there is another compelling reason to argue for liberty to cuss. There is a principle at work here: it is just plain wrong for individuals to demand that people live according to restrictions that are not expressly outlined in the Holy Scriptures. Christ’s salvific work is all about liberty, not needless restriction, and under normal circumstances, any activity that is not clearly forbidden or unnatural should not be universally prohibited (there are, of course, times for sensical, civilized, self-imposed restraint – more on that later). And whether we like it or not, cussing falls into a category of ambiguity – it is not expressly forbidden in God’s word, and it does not fly in the face of the natural order of things; therefore, anyone who says that cussing is wrong under any circumstances must shoulder the burden of proof that such a principle is correct ...

"If you want people to not cuss, you need to give them a reason. This, believe it or not, is a radical concept. After years and years and years of simply accepting Thou Shalt Not Cuss as one of the Ten Commandments, it is sometimes hard to get people to look at it in a different way. But like with all things that are not expressly forbidden in the Bible, anyone wishing to prevent others from taking in this activity must provide a justification for the restriction."

Then then his full discussion on cussing is here -

A Guide For The Cussin' Christian - The most detailed examination of the ethics of "cussin'" in the English language.

A few excerpts -

"I am not the first person to argue this point, of course, but usually the debate is relegated to the fringes, safely and quietly withheld from mainstream discourse. I think this is a shame. I think that it is a subject that is representative of the idea of freedom in Christ, and the responsibility inherent in sincerely and responsibly – and freely – exercising that freedom ...

"I know the Easy Guide works better – we want God to tell us specifically what to do at all times in every situation. That’s why legalism and pious browbeating are so popular – if we have a checklist all laid out for us, obedience becomes a matter of simply checking off items on the list. The more items we check off, the holier we are ...

"We’ve all had the verse hurled at us (or perhaps have been the hurl-ee): 'Do not swear at all,' the author cautions, 'either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king' ... If you back up just a couple of verses in this passage (I know, I know, context is so much trouble and is such a party pooper), it becomes clear that the author is talking about oaths, specifically. He is talking about a specially-binding, particular promise, one using God or his created things to back up what you are guaranteeing. The author tells us in no uncertain terms that to use God and His creation to settle your argument or guarantee your human arrangement is just plain wrong.

"Good stuff. What I can’t understand is how this has come to be the champion verse for those who favor a complete and total refrain from cussing. How does this passage have anything to do with saying a cuss word? Yeah, someone could use a cuss word when they swear, maybe to emphasize their point or show how serious they are, and some people certainly do. But the oath is what is wrong here, the act of swearing in the name of God and his creation, not the specific words used to make the oath – you could just as easily sin in such a way, but using the word 'couch' or 'pachyderm' or 'marsupial.' It is not the words that are important – it is the act itself that is the sin ..."

I'd highly recommend reading the whole article. Rigney takes you through bad reasons against and misinterpreted Scripture against cussin', and then takes you through good reasons and situations where cussin' is wrong.

Seems pretty balanced to me, but then I'll post and explain how I've come to understand this issue later this week.
______________________________________________________________________________

IMonk: Tremendous Question & Answer Session

2009-08-02T14:49:00.009-04:00

For those of you who like to think about theology and the Bible, there’s no better way to start the new month than doing a little more IMonk (Michael Spencer) reading. Yesterday he allowed his readers to ask him any questions and he would answer them.

You can read the whole thing here - Saturday Is For Asking Questions

He got such a huge response, my guess would be that he’ll do this again some weekend, so be prepared. This time, he received more than 130 different questions from his readers. And remember, he is coming from what is a Baptist, post-evangelical, departed Calvinist point of view.

Here are my favorite 15 question and answers (somewhat shortened/edited commenter’s questions for grammar), but you can read the whole thing and over a hundred more of them if you click on the above link. I personally LOVE asking questions, so this stuff is pure gold.

15 - Question: Post-modernism is becoming the dominant worldview in our culture. In your opinion, is this good or bad, and what ought to be the church’s response?

IMonk: Evangelicals are enamored with postmodernism, meanwhile philosophers are saying its a stale and passe’ theory. We can’t make our response to our culture oblivious to these things, but I don’t know of a single instance where they are determinative. The human heart hungers for love, significance and relationships in every age and culture. The first century Christians didn’t do much philosophical analysis. We need to create communities of love, service and clear, simple Gospel communication. The changing philosophical tides are secondary.

14 - Question: How do you wrestle with issues of Old Testament accuracy and what that means for Christianity’s narrative?

IMonk: I allow scripture to be exactly what God designed it to be in the form and time and language he chose. I have no interest in verifying its “accuracy” beyond its own testimony to being God’s word to us … It’s not a scientifically accurate text. It’s a narrative of salvation and revelation …

Christianity is a historical faith, but the Bible isn’t a scientifically historical book. How do we ever know that David killed Goliath “historically?” Hold out for the autopsy?

It’s not just a story. It’s a true story, and the author of the meaning of truth is its author. It is what it is, not what we say it is.

These things “really” happened, but not because of anyone’s vote for verification.

This is the route the Creationist takes. In my view, it ends in despair.

13 - Question: If Mars Hill Seattle and Mars Hill Grand Rapids were to throw down, who would win?

IMonk: Depends on the sport. In bowling, MHGR. Gladiatorial combat? MHS.

12 - Question: Is the connection between baptism and formal congregational membership really as clear in Scripture as we Baptists make it out to be?

IMonk: It is a very hard matter. But here in the states. SBC churches baptize 3 and 4 year old routinely. That’s completely at odds with what we believe about the nature of the church. For our tradition, conversion is the sovereign work of God and a child can have faith, but baptism and the LS are prerequisites to church membership and discipline. Again. we don’t do confirmation. For us it is an adult culture in the church.

11a - Question: What do you think of Universalism?

IMonk: … not orthodox Christianity. Beyond that, take your pick of any major Christian essential. They would deny it as orthodox Christianity understands it.

11b - Question: You commented that full Universalism is not orthodox Christianity, but any thoughts on the “wider hope”?

IMonk: I am part of the wider hope, and I think Christians should be huge optimists about the Kingdom. But I can’t avoid the clear teaching of scripture that not all will be in the Kingdom and some are in hell.

Wider Hope is defined several ways. For me, it’s similar to the RC view: Historical knowledge of Jesus is not necessary to saving faith. See Abraham for details. Faith can respond to whatever amount of true revelation we have. That is not an endorsement of other religions btw. Just saying that Cornelius was not lost when Peter knocked on his door. Just didn’t know the name of Jesus yet.

10 - Question: Do you have an opinion on whether or not Christians should only marry other Christians? Is the “unequally yoked” verse about this or is that particular interpretation twisted and/or blown out of proportion (perhaps to try and control teens and their raging hormones)? Should someone’s Christian faith be the highest priority in evaluating a potential mate, or are other things more important?

IMonk: I believe a shared Christian faith is an essential, but I don’t believe that passage is primarily about marriage. It may have an extended application to marriage. The NT never considers that Christians would choose to marry a non-Christian, but are told to remain with unbelievers in a marriage before conversion.

I consider it the highest level on incompatibility, and I won’t marry couples if they are not both Christians.

9 - Question: We have come to the knowledge of God and enjoy full communion with Him and are indwelled by the Holy Spirit - why the need to keep rehashing the scriptures?

IMonk: It’s our air, water and food. It’s what the spirit uses. We do live in repetition according to the Bible. We have to find ways to make that natural and helpful, not tedious. Harder than many think.

8 - Question: What do you think are the top 5 most pervading myths in Evangelicalism today?

IMonk: The victorious Christian life
Biblical Principles make things work better
Non-Christians are bad
Jesus is all about church growth
Well known pastors and preachers are telling the truth.

7 - Question: Where do you agree and disagree with Calvinist Soteriology?

IMonk: I do not believe in Limited atonement as Calvinists teach it. That’s the main story.

I also believe many Calvinists turn election as discussed in scripture into functional hyper Calvinism.

Mostly, I don’t find Calvinism as interested in the Gospel as it is in the sovereignty of God.

6 - Question: How has all the steroids scandals changed your view of baseball?

IMonk: Athletes seek every advantage. It’s simply part of the history of the game now, and fans have to get over it. We don’t have to like it, but its part of baseball and on some level always will be. The difference between using PEDs and having Tommy John surgery is rather small in my view. Both are evolutions of the culture of the game that fans have to accept.

Baseball has a purist mentality, which is charming. Not realistic though. Ty Cobb was a violent criminal. The Babe was an alchy. As were most of the Yankees in the 60s. Gambling was common. PEDs are as well. This is our world. Welcome to it.

More after the jump -

5 - Question: Lately, you’ve mentioned Luther’s impact on your understanding of how we are called to live out our sanctification. Could you help clarify how Luther sees living with our sinfulness and our sanctification as different from the Calvin camp or the Wesley camp?

IMonk: Well, the guy who said “sin boldly” isn’t Wesley, that’s for sure.

Wesley believed in the possibility of perfect love. Luther would never use the word “perfect” about anything in Christian anthropology or experience.

Calvin’s view of sanctification is about visible evidence that you are elect. “Make your election sure,” i.e. drive yourself to despair, imo.

Luther says sinful people are given a perfect salvation by faith as a gift. Sanctification is totally rooted in the Gospel.

I think Luther is weak on discipleship. My views on discipleship are in a 4 page article in the upcoming Modern Reformation magazine. Wesley’s type of discipleship processes, with Luther’s theology in the Gospel. That’s a good balance.

4 - Question: What do you think about blood in food? in sex? Weird question, I know, but the Bible seems to talk about this a lot … the prohibition’s location among many other sexual prohibitions that we wouldn’t dream of disregarding seems to hint that it still applies.

IMonk: You seem to have an issue with the old covenant. All old testament laws of that type were fulfilled by Jesus and no longer apply. The prohibition on eating meat with blood in Acts was a concession to Jewish Christians reluctant to change their habits. It was a pragmatic concession, as can be seen throughout Paul’s letters and especially Hebrews where all foods are declared clean.

... if you approach the Old Testament law as still in force for Christians, you need to read Galatians and Hebrews. The Law is shadow of Good things to come. They’ve come. No more priests. No more food laws. No more temple. No more sacrifices or Levitical piety. Only the moral law remains, and that as illuminated by the Gospel.

That’s all old covenant or covenants if you are a dispensationalist. All that came before Christ was fulfilled by Christ.

The moral law and the ceremonial law are mixed together lots of places. That doesn’t mean they can’t be distinguished. Don’t consult the dead will be in the same chapter with don’t cut your sideburns.

3 - (This was my question): Biblically, what does the term “wordly” mean? is there ever a Scriptural basis for something being wrong for a Christian, not because it is sinful, but because it is worldly?

IMonk: I think the term simply means in reference to the social reality that is opposed to God, in contrast to the new community of the Kingdom. It is humanity opposed to God, in a general “outside the community” sense. It is a helpful way of thinking at points, but Christians have always gone too far with it. Paul in the Corinthians letters says “you can’t leave the world.” I assume some were trying to do so.

I’d say that worldly is a descriptive. If someone is a “friend of the world,” they have an alliance with the world of unbelief that may be unwise. Sinful would depend on other factors.

For example, it may or may not be wise of me to go to an R-rated movie that depicts lots of sin. But I don’t think you could say it is sin per se. I couldn’t be that specific at a distance. But there are questions to be asked.

Separationism, however, is a Christian mistake if it comes to dominate our way of living. We are not to be separate but to have normal relationships, jobs, etc. At the same time, we need to exercise wisdom personally and corporately. It’s a narrow and subjective line.

2 - Question: Do you ever fear that God is an incomprehensible other and that we are just kidding ourselves when we attribute qualities to Him like love and justice?

IMonk: God is incomprehensible and other apart from revelation. Jesus is the only revelation of God we have. This is a tension regarding scripture. For me, scripture is the verbal setting of the revelation in Jesus. Jesus IS inspiration and revelation. What I know of God is what I know of him.

Now strictly speaking, I do know concepts, words, etc. But Jesus is the only dependable word I have on the ultimate meaning of these things. So I don’t look at God’s OT justice, for example. I look at his justice/mercy in Jesus. That is THE final Word that gives the others meaning.

This is essential, otherwise, Christians drive themselves into despair with theology.

1a - Question: Why are you following Jesus?

IMonk: Because I believe the God who is the answer to my existence has invited me to know him forever as he has revealed himself exclusively in Jesus. To know Jesus is to know God. Jesus reveals the God who is there.

1b - Question: Why do you believe this?

IMonk: I believe this because I believe the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is convincing of who Jesus really is and what he means.

Also because of my personal experience of God as he has showed me what it means to know him. All agree that Jesus is a great revelation of God. But when you look at the resurrection, you see he IS God, come to us in human form.

Ok, I have to include just one more (and perhaps the best of the bunch) -

Question: What is your understanding of the gospel? In five sentences…

IMonk: God created.
Man sins.
Jesus saves.
We believe.
God reigns.

Again, there are OVER A HUNDRED MORE OF THESE, read them all here - Saturday Is For Asking Questions

Buckley: On The Use of "Dirty" Words

2009-08-01T12:49:00.005-04:00

I’ve been planning a closer look at the use of cussing & profanity from a strictly Biblical & Theological point of view for a while now. This is an issue that bothers Christians. Cussing is anathema to the Christian. Particularly a “Cussin’ Christian” even more so (cue the outrage against Mark Driscoll). I’ve read a couple different interesting pastors and thinkers on this (from both points of view), but I still want to spend a little more time on the passages of Scripture used on the subject.

So, in the meanwhile, I was reading this book with the delightfully pretentious title -

Buckley: The Right Word - About the Uses and Abuses of Language; About Usage, Style & Speaking; Fiction, Diction, Dictionaries; With Reviews And Interviews; A Lexicon; On Latin & Letters, Eloquence & Journalism; and More, All Drawn from the Works of William F. Buckley, Jr., His Correspondents, His Critics, Friends, And Others

Just read that title out loud to yourself and you’ll walk away with a finer appreciation for the use of the English language.

This book is really a must own book for any aspiring writer. Written by one of the last modern day masters of the English language. I highly recommend it. It’s worth every cent.

William F. Buckley didn’t just have a reputation for being the most heavyweight conservative thinker & influence of our age, he also had a reputation for his incredibly comprehensive vocabulary. He simply loved it and finely crafted his English prose in such a way that you knew he took joy in doing so. So here’s an excerpt from this book, consisting of a column Buckley wrote, that I think will provide an excellent introduction to this topic -
______________________________________________________________________________

ON THE USE OF “DIRTY” WORDS

I guess I was seven when I first heard the maxim that only people with a small vocabulary use “dirty” words. I am forty-seven and have just received a communication from a reader delivering that maxim as though he had invented it. The trouble with the cliché is (a) it isn’t true; (b) it doesn’t take into account the need to use the resources of language; and (c) the kind of people who use it are almost always engaged in irredentist ventures calculated to make “dirty” words and expressions that no longer are, and even some that never were.

The first point is easily disposed of by asking ourselves the question, Did Shakespeare have a good vocabulary? Yes; and he also used, however sparingly, profane and obscene words.

The second point raises the question of whether a certain kind of emotion is readily communicable with the use of other than certain kinds of words. Let us assume the only thing it is safe to assume about the matter, namely, that every emotion is experienced by everyone, from the darkest sinner to the most uplifted saint. The sinner, having no care at all for people’s feelings, let alone for propriety abstractly considered, let’s loose a profanity not only on occasions when his emotions are acutely taxed, but even when they are mildly stirred. The saint - or so I take it from their published writings - manages to exclude the profane word from his vocabulary, and does not resort to it under any circumstances. It was for the saint that the tushery was invented. “Tush! tush!” the saint will say to his tormentors, as he is eased into the cauldron of boiling oil.

Non-saints, it is my thesis, have a difficult time adopting the manners of saints; and even if they succeed most of the time in suppressing obnoxious words, they will probably not succeed all of the time. Moreover, as suggested above, they are up against a community some of whose members are always seeking to repristinate the world of language back to the point where you could not even say, Gosh, Babe Ruth was a good baseball player,” because Gosh is quite clearly a sneaky way of saying God, the use of which the purists would hold to be impermissible under any circumstances - indeed they, plus the Supreme Court, reduce the permissible use of the word to the innermost tabernacles …

I had reason to reach, a while back, for a word to comment upon a line of argument I considered insufferably sanctimonious. “Crap,” I wrote: And the irredentist hordes descended upon me in all their fury. I have replied to them that the word in question is defined in a current dictionary in several ways. That among these are meaning 2: “nonsense; drivel: Man, don’t hand me that crap. 3. A lie; an exaggeration: Bah, you don’t believe that crap, do you?” Notwithstanding that the word has these clearly nonscatalogical uses, there is an Anglo-Saxon earthiness to it which performs for the writer a function altogether different from such a retort as, say, “Flapdoodle.”

There are those of us who feel very strongly that the cheapest and most indefensible way to give offense is to direct obscenities wantonly, and within the earshot of those who seek protection from that kind of thing. There will always be a certain healthy tension between Billingsgate and the convent, but in the interest of language, neither side should win the war completely. Better a stalemate, with a DMZ that changes its bed meanderingly, like the Mississippi River.

- WFB

APRIL 14, 1973
______________________________________________________________________________

Our Feminized American Culture - Part 2

2009-07-31T00:38:00.020-04:00

“Total abstinence is so excellent a thing that it cannot be carried to too great an extent. In my passion for it I even carry it so far as to totally abstain from total abstinence itself.”
- Mark Twain

“Men are nicotine-soaked, beer-besmirched, whiskey-greased, red-eyed devils.”
- Carry Nation

(Note: I wrote Part 1 recently here.)

In the first part of this series, we discussed how there is such a thing as feminine values and masculine values. Both sets of values are good. I also suggested that both society and the church needs a balance of both sets of values. Now, I'd like to give examples of how bad things start happening when one set of values overcomes and dominates the other.

In fact, let's start with a couple overly masculine cultures.

Early Settlements and Towns in the American West

One good example of society dominated by masculine values were the early settlements during U.S. Western Expansion. The worst towns were the towns with virtually little too no women. Even when women made it to these towns, they were either mostly prostitutes and still couldn’t even safely walk the streets. When you read about western towns like Dodge City or Deadwood, you get an idea of how bad things were.

Deadwood, for example, (starting as a mining camp) even encouraged it’s reputation for being a wild and lawless town - murder was common and often unpunished, let alone theft, rape, drunkenness, prostitution, drug trafficking, and nonstop violence. This place was so rough that you had to go to sleep every night armed to the teeth still wondering if your throat would be cut before you woke up. Visitors of the town were shocked by the violence and even by the infinite amount of profanity. Basically this was a place where masculine values and character traits were allowed to reign unchecked. And untempered by feminine values, the result was NOT civilized. The town didn’t become civilized until families (with women) showed up and hired lawmen to keep law and order.

Islamic Cultures

This one doesn't even need an explanation. Read A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. Islamic culture is dominated by men, and thus by primarily masculine values. The result is that the rights of women (actually the rights of everyone) don't matter. Power, violence, strength, swift justice, and at least the appearance of honor are all incredibly important - to the expense of mercy, minority rights, open communication, and yes, even romantic relationships. But the less radical and more moderate any given Islamic country is, the more rights their women have and the more feminine values are allowed to influence that country.

Throughout history, there are countless examples of overly male dominated societies where feminine values virtually didn't matter. Take any women's lib class in college, and they'll take you through all the horrible tales from before Greece & Rome all the way to modern day China, India and the Middle East.

Yes, this is making a value judgment here, but I think these masculine dominated cultures are bad. They aren't civilized. Historically, women's rights movements have helped change this - and I would argue that Christianity has helped change this. And some places in the world still need work. But, the pendulum in our culture has now swung too far the other way.

American Culture in the 19th and 20th Centuries

Throughout American History, there has justifiably been a women’s rights movement that slowly started to accomplish more and more. (And no I’m not blaming “women’s rights” for the feminization of our culture either, so stop that and keep reading.) American women have traditionally been more independent and have obtained more rights than in other cultures. By 17th century standards, the women in Plymouth Colony had more legal rights than any women in Europe had at the time (they could be parties to contracts, usually always had prenuptial agreements before marriage, could own property separate from their husbands, could not be legally left out of their husband’s wills, guaranteed part of his property after his death even in spite of his will, etc.) Abigail Adams, the wife of President John Adams, was famous for being an outspoken advocate for women’s suffrage years before her time.

Throughout the 1800s, women’s rights conventions were held, and American women constantly advocated for increased civil rights, and were already serving on juries in territories like Wyoming. As women were given more and more influence in the public square, feminine values were given more of a voice. The benefits of allowing feminine values to influence society are obvious. Coinciding along with the women’s suffrage movement were advocates for the abolition of slavery, for improved working conditions, for improved hospitals, for improved prison conditions, and for laws against child labor. Society was becoming more civilized.

Prohibition

But then we start seeing examples of a culture that is slowly becoming effeminized (feminine values are starting to dominate masculine values). Since Prohibition was the 18th Amendment (1919), and Women’s Suffrage was the 19th Amendment (1920), most people really haven’t put these things together. But any historian can tell you that the women’s suffrage movement was primarily responsible for Prohibition. In fact, if you look up the biographies of the most famous and influential suffragettes, they all were very active members and speakers in temperance societies and anti-saloon leagues (Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone, Abby Kelley Foster, Mary Livermore, Carrie Chapman Catt, Frances Willard - all great women’s suffrage advocates & and all great Prohibition advocates).

Temperance leagues were started (mostly by women) in the 1850s. The most powerful of these become the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (started in 1874 - read about Frances Willard). Before either the 18th or 19th Amendments had been passed by the federal government, the women’s suffrage movement had already prevailed. Starting in the 1890s and going into the early 1900s, the majority of the states in the union had already given women the right to vote. Backed by churches and temperance leagues, it’s almost ironic that the Prohibition amendment picked up a little more steam and was passed less than a year before the 19th amendment.

Was it a coincidence that, as soon as women got the right to vote, the first thing passed was Prohibition?

Actually some women cared more about the temperance issue than the suffrage issue. Suffragettes recruited from temperance leagues literally arguing that the only way they were going to prohibit the sale of alcohol was if they fought for the right to vote. So many suffragettes were convinced to fight for women’s right to vote in order to pass Prohibition in the first place.

You know what also isn’t a coincidence? Who do you was the strongest opponent of women’s suffrage? That’s right - the liquor industry. They knew that women were going to vote to outlaw their businesses. They had first hand experience of suffragettes and temperance league members invading their bars with hatchets and battle axes smashing every bottle and barrel in sight. (One women’s rights activist, Carrie Nation was famous for organizing this, charging into bars with groups of women screaming “Smash, Women! Smash!”)

Today, many people assume that Prohibition was a Christian Puritanical idea that came from the Puritan churches in America. But drinking wasn’t looked down upon in the first century of American history, in churches or anywhere else. Most historians who study the subject find that drinking beer, heavily alcoholic cider and hard liquor was an American & Christian practice starting with the Pilgrims at Plymouth (one of the first structures they built in Plymouth was a brewery) and going into the 1700s and early 1800s.

More after the jump -

One writes -

“As for the Puritans, on whom most people blame Prohibition, aside from having lived 300 years too early to have been involved, they were actually pretty heavy drinkers. Most Puritans were making hard cider in vast quantities, and they enjoyed gin. They didn’t approve of drunkenness, but they certainly had no problem with drinking. So we can’t pin this on them.”

The founding fathers regularly met at pubs to discuss politics. Pastors regularly drank in pubs with their congregations and often brewed their own beer.

No ... there was something that changed.

How did Christian churches in American start out with no problem with drinking (and sometimes their own breweries) to joining women in their fight for Prohibition in the mid-to-late 1800s?

David Murrow, who has written on the increased women to men gender gap in today’s church, writes -

"The gender gap became a yawning chasm in the 1800s. The great evangelist Charles Finny wrote in the 1830s: ‘Women composed the great majority of members in all churches.’ Fredric Dan Huntington, an Episcopal rector, wrote in 1856 that the church was ‘composed chiefly of females and aged men.’ Even in the post-Civil War Bible Belt, one observer wrote, ‘The altars of our churches are pitiably devoid of young men,’ and ‘There has scarce been a religious young man in here in years’ …

"Clergymen, finding the pews filled with women, began to tailor their messages to them. The vengeful God of the Calvinists was supplanted with a warm, comforting Jesus who matched the sensibilities of the predominantly female congregation. One of the era’s favorite hymns began, ‘Jesus, Lover of My Soul, Let Me to Thy Bosom Fly.’ This romantic view of Jesus was popular with women whose husbands had little time for them. But men were repulsed by Christ as lover and had no desire to fly to His bosom ...

"During the Victorian era, men and women were consigned to strict gender roles, but pastors were something in between, a special class of men who were allowed to exercise feminine gifts. Pastors moved in feminine circles; preaching to women, counseling women, drinking tea and eating cakes with women. The image of the thin, weak, sissy pastor was common in literature of the day. Ann Douglas writes, ‘It seems highly likely that, in a period when religion was more and more the province of women, many of the young men drawn to the church were seen to be deeply attached and even similar to the women they knew best, namely their mothers.’ Victorian women adored these effeminate, sensitive, caring men, but their husbands were not impressed. They steered clear of church as a result ...

"As the twentieth century dawned, women and pastors worked against male pleasures such as drinking, gambling, cursing, and whoring. Their political alliance reached its zenith in 1919 with the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, making alcohol illegal in America. For many men that was the last straw. Surveys take in the 1920s found a 60-40 gender gap, similar to the one we find in today’s church."

American Culture Became Increasingly Effeminate Over Time

Fighting for women's right to vote was a good thing helped balance feminine values with masculine values in society. But Prohibition was one of our first historical examples of taking feminine values too far. Drunkenness? Poverty? Drunk husbands abusing their wives? Women’s (and the church’s) solution was to make drinking alcohol illegal.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of economics would have already known that this wouldn’t work. Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Biblical theology also should have known that this wouldn’t work. And, as everyone knows with historical hindsight, it didn’t. Prohibition didn’t stop drinking or drunkenness. What it did do was increase crime, deaths from drinking bathtub made alcohol, and the number of men suddenly willing to break the law by going to the local speakeasy.

But to the American Victorian era mindset, Prohibition made sense.

You can also notice that America was the only one to take it this far. In Britain there were temperance societies too, but they were disparagingly dismissed as “teatotalers” and know one wanted to associate with them. So now today you can see the obvious difference between our two cultures. Americans somehow manage to drink more heavily than the British do, and yet also remain moralistic about it while the British don’t give it a second thought. Thus the crying and complaining in America about the fact that 16-year-olds in the latest Harry Potter movie are seen (gasp) drinking alcohol.

Everyone knows the stereotype of the prim and proper Victorian lady. She’s repressed, a prude, dainty, gentle, thinskinned, easily offended, romantic, easily embarrassed, easily faints away during any sort of conflict. Think lots of lace and doilies. Think lots of moral rules about not being able to do anything fun. Somehow, this Victorian lady also managed to find a very emotional and active interest in two causes - women’s right to vote and outlawing alcohol.

Here’s the problem.

This Victorian, legalistic, temperance/anti-saloon league mentality? It is alive and kicking today in most of American churches. Remember when Douglas Wilson said that dominating feminism is disguised in church as “traditional family values”? This is what he was talking about. Christians in today’s church still have the philosophy and worldview of 1800s Victorian ladies. They haven’t even let go of the idea that drinking alcohol is morally wrong.

This is primarily an American phenomenon (unique to our culture).

This is primarily a historical phenomenon (developed in only about the last century).

Feminine values are dominating over masculine values. I’ll go to one more example from Murrow. Who’s a masculine character from the Victorian age in America? How about Teddy Roosevelt?

Murrow writes - "Before he became president of the United States, Teddy Roosevelt was a Sunday school teacher. One day a boy showed up for class with a black eye. He admitted he’d been fighting, on the Sabbath no less. Another boy was pinching his sister, so he took a swing at the scoundrel. The future president told the boy he was proud of him and gave him a dollar. When word of this got ‘round the church, Roosevelt was let go."

"TR was caught between two scriptural imperatives: turn the other cheek and defend the weak. One soft, the other tough. He chose to praise the boy for his tough response, but was fired for it, because in most churches the right choice is always the soft one."

Teddy found himself in a culture that was growing more effeminate, particularly so in church. Because he refused to go along with this trend of always valuing the feminine value over the masculine one, he was fired as Sunday school teacher.

Really, how funny is that?

You see, I'm trying to show that we are stuck in cultural and historical aberration. This is a period, hopefully, that can be looked back on later as a rather curious hundred year anomaly. Point being, it is up to us to get out of it. Christians whine and complain about this issue all the time, but I say it's high time we started living differently and raising our children differently, discarding any preferential treatment to either masculine OR feminine values.

(In Part 3, we’ll keep looking at more examples of how American culture has become more and more feminized over time, and then look at the sissified state we’re in today. I also have some suggestions on how to start changing this, but we'll see if that has to turn into a Part 4.)

On Really Studying The Bible ...

2009-07-30T23:45:00.008-04:00

Agathos over at Scotteriology had a few impassioned remarks to get off his chest today - Do You Really Want To Study The Bible?

Here's a good excerpt -
______________________________________

In one of my classes at the graduate level during a discussion of the Hebrew Bible a student definitively declared with an air of finality, “If it is not going to help my faith then I don’t want to deal with it.” At that moment my head almost exploded. Shouldn’t someone have worked through this at least a little at the undergrad level? Basically, “I already know everything about the Bible so don’t confuse me with none of that there learning.” I have everything figured out; now give me some sources to confirm that.

That my friends is the definition of willfully ignorant; and it’s intellectually and spiritually arrogant to boot.

Might I suggest that if you are unwilling to deal with tough issues that won’t help your “faith” then biblical studies is not for you ...

In the past I have suggested that pursuing biblical studies is akin to taking the red pill in the movie The Matrix: once you do you will never be able to return to the blissful, idyllic world of blind faith. Nope, once you take that pill you’re going to have to deal with tough, tough questions that reject pat answers, and sometimes presents answers quite unpalatable to those who have developed a taste for theories straight from the Sunday School.
__________________________________________________________________________

The "if it makes me question my faith then it's bad" mindset is, unfortunately, probably the viewpoint of the majority of Christians today.

Reason Harry Potter Is Bad For Your Kids No. 3891 - It Encourages Your Children to Drink

2009-07-30T11:14:00.006-04:00

The New York Times just came out with another review of The Half Blood Prince. Seems they didn't notice one of the most serious problems with the film earlier.

Harry Potter and the Pint of Liquid Courage

The problem? This latest Harry Potter film is trying to encourage your little children to consume alcohol!

Tara Parker-Pope writes -

"As Harry Potter fans crowd movie theaters to catch the latest installment in the blockbuster series, parents may be surprised by the starring role given to alcohol. In scene after scene, the young wizards and their adult professors are seen sipping, gulping and pouring various forms of alcohol to calm their nerves, fortify their courage or comfort their sorrows."

How horrible! The New York Times clearly understands that children should never be taught that there can be anything good about alcohol.

"But recreated on the big screen, the images of teenage drinking are jarring. Previous Harry Potter movies have shown drinking, but this one takes it to a new level. In one scene, Harry, Ron and Hermione order butterbeers at the pub, and Hermione ends up with a frothy mustache. While it’s never been entirely clear whether butterbeer is alcoholic, it seems to have an effect on the normally uptight Hermione, who acts tipsy walking home as she throws her arms around the boys ...

"As the mother of a 10-year-old Harry Potter fan, I was taken aback by the reaction of the young people in the theater. They snickered at Hermione’s goofy grin and, later, guffawed when an inebriated Hagrid passed out. While I don’t think my daughter fully understood what was going on, I wondered how other parents, educators and addiction experts would react."

We Americans understand how truly sinister these scenes are. Now we're going to be raising children who are not only going to want to become witches, they are going to want to become alcoholic witches.

"Liz Perle, a mother of two teenage boys and the editor in chief of Common Sense Media, which reviews books, movies and Web content aimed at children, said she was bothered by so many scenes showing alcohol as a coping mechanism. 'Hermione is such a tightly wound young lady, but she’s liberated by some butterbeer,' she said. 'The message is that it gives you liquid courage to put your arms around the guy you really like but are afraid to.'"

Hey, I wouldn't want my teenage sons drinking up the liquid courage to put their arms lovingly around the guys they were secretly in love with either.

"Other parents were less concerned. Daniel Isaacs, a New York advertising copywriter, said his 9-year-old daughter didn’t notice the drinking scenes. 'The Harry Potter universe is not our own,' he said. 'Trying to put 2009 American norms into play seems kind of silly ... Plus, in a world where dark wizards are kidnapping or killing people on a regular basis, a little under-age drinking is the least of their problems.'"

Wow, who would have thought? The first guy (as opposed to a mother) that she asked about this said told her that he thought the drinking in the film didn't matter.

More after the jump -

"Alcohol educators say that they don’t want to ruin the fun, but that parents should be aware of alcohol’s role in the Harry Potter series, the books as well as the movies. Several studies suggest that movies influence teenagers’ behavior when it comes to drinking, drugs and tobacco. An Institute of Medicine committee on under-age drinking has said there is 'a strong possibility' that youth exposure to alcohol through movies contributes to early initiation of alcohol use."

Yep, I can see it now. Some nerdy kids dressed as Harry Potter will walk into a bar someday and ask the bartender "Please sir, we would like 3 butterbeers please."

You know what? That does sound like it could be dangerous.

"Alcohol experts say this does not mean that children shouldn’t see the new Harry Potter movie. It actually presents an opportunity for parents to talk to their children about alcohol, says Dr. Christopher Welsh, a University of Maryland psychiatrist and addiction specialist. 'I hope parents can talk to their kids and tell them even though Harry Potter made that seem fun, that it isn’t O.K.,' said Dr. Welsh, the author of a 2007 article about alcohol use in the Harry Potter series, published in The Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse."

Leave it to psychiatrists and the New York Times to tell you to use the Harry Potter films as a trick to get into a deep and serious discussion with your kids about what they shouldn't do. "Little Billy, do you see them drinking there? Those drinks have something called alcohol in them. Yes. And drinking alcohol is bad. It's really bad. Yes. Harry and his friends are wrong."

Ms. Tara Parker-Pope also talked to a British lady about this. Response?

"I think the alcohol angle washed over me because of the magical context of the film — this isn’t a real school, real teachers or real students — so it’s almost like the drinking isn’t real... I wonder how many kids even know what mead is."

Here's a thought - maybe no one gives drinking a second thought in the Harry Potter stories over in England because their culture is radically diametrically different from our American culture. Drinking is not a big deal over there. While here in America, drinking and smoking in a movie can now give that movie the bump from PG-13 to R. When you think about it, we have ourselves a pretty unique culture when it comes to attitudes about drinking. I think we can safely consider ourselves alone on this one.

I think parents in Britain, or parents in American a hundred years ago, have/had absolutely no problem explaining to their children the differences between a alcoholic drunkard and a normal human being. So thanks New York Times, I'm sure your excellent reporting has now helped many parents freak out over what their children must be thinking about The Half Blood Prince. I think we can chalk this one down for a whole number of awkward moralistic parent/child discussions along the lines of "do what I say, not what I do."

Harry Potter Now Blamed For Alcoholism

Novus Monastica (Weekly Religious News) - 7/29/09

2009-07-29T12:48:00.027-04:00

Police In High Speed Car Chase With A 7-year-old Who Was Trying To Escape Going to Church

Around 9am on Sunday morning (when it was time to go to Sunday School), little seven-year-old Jimmy managed to acquire his father’s car keys, and to drive off in his family’s Dodge Intrepid. Police dispatchers started receiving reports of a child driving recklessly. Two police cars eventually started chasing him through the neighborhood to get him to stop, but the seven-year-old outmaneuvered the cops, made a beautiful tail-spin into a parking lot, and then executed a quick amazing left turn easily losing his pursuers.

“Hey, for a 7-year-old, his driving wasn't too bad," said County Sheriff Klint Anderson, “He had a few near misses, but he didn't hit anything or crash.” After eluding the police, the kid pulled back into his driveway at home, and ran back into the house and upstairs into his room. When the cops got there they had to explain to the father that they had just conducted a high speed chase with his son. But he didn't even know his son had gone out for a drive. When confronted with this and asked why he‘d do such a thing, the kid told them,

“I didn’t wanna go to church today!!!”

“That’s just too bad,” said his father. “Now we’re just going to have to go to the second more Christian Contemporary service instead.”

“Nooooooooo!”

The cops told the family that they weren’t going to press charges because the kid was seven and because they didn’t like going to church either. They also asked the father to please not give his car keys to the kid for another 10 years or so.

When asked for his name, the kid said his name was James Tiberius Kirk.
______________________________________________________________________________

Newly Tolerant Episcopal Church Discriminates Against Christian Buddhist Priest

After glorying in all the nice media coverage that is accepting gay bishops into your church, the Episcopal Church suddenly fell out of everyone's good graces again. That didn't take long, did it? They’ve just refused consecration to Reverend Kevin Thew Forrester who wanted to lead the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan. Why?

Because he practices Zen Buddhist meditation and is also lay-ordained as a Buddhist priest.

After the votes, presiding Bishop Katharine Schori declared the Buddhist Forrester’s election to the Diocese to be “null and void.” While some diocesan leaders and retired bishops supported Thew Forrester's election, he needed the consent of a majority of bishops and standing committees. The 120-day consent period ended last week and he didn't get it.

"I treasure the support they have extended me and my family, as well as that I have received from Hong Kong to Holland and from Great Britain to New Zealand, and indeed from so many throughout The Episcopal Church," Thew Forrester explained at the news conference. "As we live and move and have our being in Christ, there is truly a Holy Wisdom in all that is unfolding, and as St. John of the Cross affirms, a grace in 'all that happens.' Now, please pardon me … Ommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …”

Schori complained, “The problem with Forrester is that he teaches that many paths lead to salvation. And while it’s true that many paths do lead to salvation, Zen Buddhism is just not one of them!”

This blatant discrimination against Buddhists has upset a whole number of civil rights protesters in Michigan. The ACLU is considering whether this could merit a good lawsuit. And news media anchors are heavily expressing their repulsion by this new and latest brand of “Episcopalian Intolerance.”

“It’s just not fair” said Bishop Maximilian, “we had built up all this good publicity for allowing gay bishops and now this happens! Men having anal sex with other men? That I can take. See? We’re tolerant. Yes, we are. But some wackos just want to push things too far! No, we aren't closeminded I tell you! Stop saying that!”
______________________________________________________________________________

Reformed Theologians Celebrate the 500th Anniversary of John Calvin’s Birthday & And Keep Trying to Excuse His Stake-Burning Happy Dictatorship in Geneva

This last July 10th was John Calvin’s 500th birthday. Calvin is supposedly the single most famous and influential leading Reformer of his day. Martin Luther? Small fry. Huldych Zwingli? Who? John Knox? Calvin’s student.

Calvinists across the land held conferences, symposiums and parties to celebrate for Calvin‘s 500th birthday. And this eventually started getting the attention of the news. Apparently, it’s news that Reformed theology has been gaining a wider influence in American churches over the years. Well it has - Reformed theologians know their Bibles and their doctrine, and when they come across a normal American evangelical, well … it’s like wheat & chaff before a sickle blade.

There’s just one problem though. There’s a difference between Calvin and other reformers like Luther. Calvin set himself up as the head of a church-state in the city of Geneva during the Reformation. And Calvin had a number of people executed while he was the head of state there. Athiest Christopher Hitchens called Calvin a “sadist and torturer and killer,” but who listens to atheists anymore?

The most famous of these was a Spanish theologian named Michael Servetus. Servetus, who had been arrested and imprisoned by the Catholic church already, attended a sermon in Geneva. He was recognized and arrested in church for heresy. Why because he disagreed with the doctrines of the trinity and of infant baptism. Calvin engineered his prosecution, acted as a key witness for it, and then lobbied for Servetus’ death. Result? Servetus was burned at the stake.

When other Reformers of the day protested the execution of Servetus for a mere doctrinal disagreement, Calvin was incensed: “A new heresy has been discovered,” he said. “We must stamp out this burst of hell-fire before it spreads over the surface of the earth.... Freedom of conscience is a doctrine of the devil.... Better to have a tyrant, however cruel, than permit everyone to do what he pleases.”

Yes, that's a real quote.

In 1551 Calvin was confronted by a reformer called Jérôme Bolsec, who accused him of making God out to be the author of evil in deciding the fate of the damned before their creation. Bolsec was imprisoned by the magistrates and lucky to be banished from the city.

There were a total of 57 people executed in Geneva during the 4 years of John Calvin’s power over the city of Geneva.

Twenty-three people, mostly women, were burned at the stake was witches. Calvin wrote later that they were found guilty for trying to use witchcraft to spread the black plague.

Several people, mostly women, were executed for the capital offense of adultery.

One little girl was executed for slapping her mother. But that’s just Old Testament law, right?

Jacques Gruet was arrested, tortured for 30 days and, upon confession, beheaded for being an atheist.

Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for being a heretic.

This isn't to mention a number of other crimes, such as a number of women in Geneva being thrown in prison for the "sinful practice" of dancing.

But on Calvin's 500th birthday, a number of Calvinist theologians have been using the occasion to make the news and defend Calvin.

Christopher Elwood, author of Calvin for Armchair Theologians, a concise summary of Calvin's life, said “So everyone back then was intolerant. You can’t blame Calvin. In fact, Calvin didn’t want to kill Servetus, he just wanted Servetus to recant his doctrinal error. In fact, Calvin even tried to be lenient and have Servetus beheaded instead of burned at the stake. You wouldn‘t think it, but Calvin was actually deeply influenced by Renaissance humanism.”

Reformed Pastor Jim McClarity quotes J.I. Packer to explain the list of reasons why Calvin having Servetus executed wasn’t really that bad -

"1 - Geneva was a Christian state. In Christian states, denying Christian doctrine is a capital offense. This wasn’t Calvin’s fault. 2 - Other churches like the Catholics burned “heretics” at the stake too. 3 - The Catholics already were planning on killing Servetus for heresy against their church anyway. 4 - Other Protestant Reformers would have killed Servetus too, I mean come on, this heretic was against infant baptism. 5 - Calvin wouldn’t have prosecuted Servetus if Servetus had just admitted that he was wrong. 6 - Calvin just wanted Servetus beheaded - that’s more humane. 7 - This could be seen more as a fault of the culture of the day, not the fault of Calvin’s."

Oh, ok - we should sympathize with Calvin then. After all, he really was a great Bible scholar.

Reformed Pastor Joe Morecraft said he‘s tired of hearing about Calvin murdering people -

“Look, just because Calvin had all these people executed doesn’t mean his theology was wrong. Geeze, ok, ok, so some of them were executed for disagreeing with his theology - well doesn’t mean they were right. Calvin could have still been right. Do you realize how arrogant it was of Servetus to foolishly go to Calvin’s church. He probably thought he could debate Calvin. Well, he was wrong.”

Elwood also noted that even though Calvin’s predestination doctrine denied the free will of man and seemed to mean that God destined the majority of people to damnation in hell, Calvin and his followers would never emphasize this. “This isn’t something they would push in your face. If you asked them about it, they’d answer you, but no one was burned at the stake for refusing to believe that God created people to go to hell.”
______________________________________________________________________________

Obama shocks Nation by appointing a Christian geneticist to the National Institute of Health

More after the jump -

The American Chronicle just ran a incensed piece by Frank M. Di Tore -

President Obama´s appointment of a Christian geneticist to the National Institutes of Health, who is essentially a Creationist, is a great disappointment.

I thought we elected a liberal President, dagnammit! What’s he think he’s doing appointing CHRISTIANS?

Nevertheless, Dr. Francis Collins is no wacko but a clever and congenial man with an impressive resume: physical chemist, medical geneticist and former head of the Human Genome Project.

But he believes God created the world. So that disqualifies him.

Yet, it must be confusing for some of his audience that he declares no conflict between 21st-century science and evangelical Christianity, who says that science and religion should not be "walled off" from each other, when tearing down that wall does exactly that for those wishing to further their understanding of the universe through real science.

Don’t you Christians understand that science and Christianity don’t mix? Stop saying they do!

Any scientist who happens to practice a religion and is honest enough to admit it knows that science is based on empirical evidence while religion is based on the ether of faith and it is unlikely under the harsh light of reason and logic for the two to meet and make sense.

Hmmm … I don’t know M. Di Tore, but maybe every religion isn’t just based on the “ether of faith.” At least, if there is one true religion, it shouldn’t be.

According to Dr. Collins, there are no alternative explanations to the Big Bang and the emergence of complex life.

(clasps hand to heart in shock)

Scientific ignorance in America is already rampant so why does Dr. Collins continue to put up barriers to scientific curiosity and learning?

How is he doing this precisely?

He is telling Americans to give up on the search for man´s origins because he knows the answer.

Why that arrogant bast***. Thinks he has all the answers does he?

I refer to a lecture on science and belief given by Dr. Collins at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2008 where he shows slides and lays on the snake oil laced with sugar -

Snake oil laced with sugar? - sounds sweet and delicious. But why does it have to be “snake” oil again?

The argument here is that he supports the facts supporting Darwinian evolution and at the same time asserts that God did it all (he wants it both ways).

How DARE … wait … so this guy Dr. Collins that Obama appointed isn’t a creationist then. He’s a theistic evolutionist. That pansy’s trying to have it both ways.

The "evidence" Collins gives for the God side of the equation is supported with assertions like; the universe was put together by a mathematical mind, or that physical constants have "precisely chosen values" that enable the existence and evolution of complexity, and that the Big Bang shows there was a beginning, therefore "that sounds like God".

I’m sensing a truncated argument here. I’m going to make a wild guess that the level of sophistication in the arguments made by a physical chemist, medical geneticist and former head of the Human Genome Project were more than that. But that's cool. I'm not smart enough to read some geneticist's treatise anyhow.

How can such a smart man ignore such obvious flaws in logical reasoning?

Like … like … like that watch and watchmaker argument. So obviously flawed.

I run into these same old talking points with all creationists with the same old canards, like Hitler being proof of the consequences of godlessness (Hitler was a Catholic).

Yes! YES! I knew we could get a comparison to Adolf Hitler in here (Hitler was a Catholic).

Using his same reasoning how would Collins account for Islam´s view of Christianity and Jesus, who Muslims do not recognize as divine nor as the solution to man´s estrangement?

I’m going to make another totally wild guess and say that Dr. Collins would consider Muhammad as fundamentally wrong on these points.

I suspect he might just ignore Islam´s assertions or simply declare them patently false like atheists have already done for many other gods they know do not exist.

You, sir, suspected correctly. In fact, most people consider Islam to be in error. Looks like you and Dr. Collins agree on this one.

So it would seem that President Obama by placing Dr. Collins at the head of a powerful scientific institution with a budget of over $30 billion should be seen as a bad idea that will only reinforce ignorance and superstition and encourage some fundamentalists to say, yup, you see, this "proves" we were right all along.

No, don’t worry about that. President Obama appointing some creationist/evolutionist/theistic evolutionist to work in some scientific bureaucracy of researchers is not going to prove anyone’s side right or wrong. In fact, why are funding this again? Going to cure cancer, right?

Ah, Mr. M. Di Tore, at least your reaction wasn't the same as Nobel Peace prize winner & former vice-president Al Gore's - “Everyone knows that you can’t be a scientist and believe that God created the universe. So what the (expletive-deleted)!”
______________________________________________________________________________

While the Economy Goes Under, Christian Conservative Republicans Work Hard to Try And Prove Themselves Mentally Retarded

The religious right and other fringe elements of the Republican Party have a new issue currently called the “birther controversy” in the news. Just recently, Rep. Mike Castle of Delaware found his little town hall meeting overrun by hysterically screaming Republicans. One lady, waving a copy of her own birth certificate back and forth, demanded to know how Obama, an obvious foreigner, could supposedly be the president of the United States. After she started shrieking “I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!” a poor Rep. Castle tried to reassure everyone only to be shouted down by an impromptu redux of the crowd reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (as suggested by the rabble-rousing female.)

Theories that Obama was foreign born abounded during the presidential campaign, even after an official Hawaii birth certificate was produced, along with August 1961 birth notices from two Honolulu newspapers. Numerous lawsuits and emergency appeals were lodged challenging Obama's eligibility to be president, and all were rebuffed due to the legal evidence.

And yet, a whole number of Christians and Republicans are still convinced that the birth certificate is a forgery and that the newspaper notices are fakes.

I know, I’ve talked to a number of them myself. But seemingly unimpeachable evidence hasn't swayed the birthers.

Conservative talk show host Joe Scarborough complained - "They would rather be like sea lions barking at waves ... Instead of trying to figure out what's happening to their country ... they embrace conspiracy theories, and they make themselves look like cartoon characters."

Here’s the close up -

To help fan the flames, 10 Republican members of Congress have co-sponsored a bill that would require future presidential candidates to provide a copy of their original birth certificate. One of the most outspoken sponsors of the bill is highly-touted Christian conservative John Campbell from California.

(He ran for president???)

He’s in the video above. When Chris Matthews held up President Obama’s birth certificate, the argument went something like this -
_________________________

Matthews: Congressman Campbell, what you’re doing is appeasing the nut-cases. By the way, let me show you his birth certificate (holds it up).

Campbell: (oblivious) But it’s clearly required in the Constitution that you have to be an American citiz-

Matthews: Why don’t you mail this to the wacko element in your party and tell them to go (expletive-deleted) themselves? Why don’t you do that instead of telling people, ‘you’re right, that’s a reasonable question - whether he’s a citizen or not'?

Campbell: (fake smile) But Chris -

Matthews: Do you believe it’s a legitimate question whether Obama is an American citizen or not?

Campbell: Chris, isn’t it a legitimate question to ask -

Matthews: Here’s the birth certificate right here.

Campbell: (energetically) blah, blah, blah, Constitution, blah, blah, blah, know for sure

Matthews: Do you have any doubts that President Obama was born in this country?

Campbell: (waving his hands wildly in an attempt to look forceful) Chris, it doesn’t matter -

Matthews: Do you believe Obama is an American Citizen?

Campbell: THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT CHRIS! As far as I know, sure. But I don’t know. But I’m not saying Obama isn’t an American citizen. I’m just saying we CAN’T let American be duped by some foreigner’s chicanery a second time!

Matthews: As far as you know? I’m showing you his birth certificate right here.

Campbell: I can’t see it. I’m not in there with you Chris. (fake chuckle) Blah, blah, blah, blah, certainty, blah, blah, blah, blah, my bill isn’t about Obama-
_________________________

(sigh)

Look at this mentally handicapped Congressman and then remember that he is a prime example of the Republican conservative leaders that we have in our government today.

Does he represent Republicans like the crazy screaming b**** in poor Congressman Castle’s town hall meeting? Yes, he does that quite well.

Is he representing all the rest of conservatives too? Yes, he is.

Look at your leadership and weep.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

The Born Identity

http://www.thedailyshow.com/

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Joke of the Day

______________________________________________________________________________

Disney owned ESPN Is Coming Out With A Nudie Magazine To Show How "With the Times" They Are

After the huge controversy over the violation of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews’ privacy, ESPN is announcing that ESPN The Magazine is going to print their first “Body Issue” scheduled to come out in October this year. The “Body Issue” will consist of photographs of pro & amateur athletes in the nude. Editor-in-Chief Gary Belsky says he also wants to be sensitive to the fact that ESPN is owned by Disney, so they are going to “use equipment and pads and bats and goalposts and soccer nets and pucks and helmets to obscure body parts” in these photographs, but for everyone “not to worry” because they’ll still get to see “lots of skin.”

Belsky fully expects the "Body Issue" to generate complaints from some subscribers. The magazine won't do anything that would compromise ESPN and Disney brands, he says. "Disney would have a problem if I turned it into a 1970s porn magazine for that issue," he says. "But we're not doing that at all. This is going to be about sports. And sports is about bodies. And sometimes sweaty naked bodies ... lots of them.”

Ted Kluck’s “Open Letter to ESPN” in Christianity Today

Christian sports columnist Ted Kluck came out with a response to this announcement yesterday in Christianity Today -

“I write that with much trepidation, knowing that Letters to the Editor from irate fundamentalist housewives have become as much a part of the ethos and legend of the SI swimsuit issue as the nearly naked girls themselves. Upsetting the prudish is part of the devil-may-care outlaw/renegade ethos that helps you sell big trucks and Viagra. I respect that. But really? …

“Nudity is the most over-ridden pony in mass media. I dare say that nakedness is more available to the masses today, thanks to technology, than it's ever been. It's not difficult to find pictures of people without their clothes on, but it is, ironically, increasingly difficult to find good sports writing. That's where you come in … I think you've lost your first love, ESPN (assuming, of course, that your first love was ever sports to begin with) … There's real beauty in one of Kobe Bryant’s playoff performances, or Marc-Andre Fleury’s game seven. It's the kind of beauty that, regardless of your rooting interests, makes you feel sort of proud to be a human being, and proud to be a sports fan. It transcends, for a moment, the overriding need to move product that is the backbone of our economy and has become the glaringly obvious point of all sports media …

“… consider the ramifications of your decision, particularly for the young male readers who idolize the Adrian Petersons and Lebrons on your pages. Ask yourself if what they need is more nudity and sexuality at increasingly younger ages, or perhaps more greatness—in the form of great performances and, more important to me, truly great writing.”

I like Kluck, but I have to say his hope that ESPN can ever produce good sports writing or reporting is the sort of hope that eventually leads one to complete & utter despair. ESPN's sports coverage has been a joke for a long long time now. The only reason they get as many consumers as they do is because other sports networks haven't quite produced the competition we need yet. It will come.

When asked if different beloved sports anchors would also make nude appearances in the magazine, the ESPN spokesman gave a small smile and winked at the audience. "Look, I'm not saying that we won't have the first naked layouts of Jay Mariotti, Chris Berman, Matthew Berry, Stu Scott, and Tony Kornheiser in all their glory and I'm not saying that we will. But ... I just think you're all going to be pleasantly surprised. (sniggers) Fox's Joe Buck is really really jealous right now."

When asked if the magazine would include a nude centerfold of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews, Gary Belsky furrowed his eyebrows. "I am disgusted, sir, by that implication. ESPN thinks that men are horribly obsessed with looking at pictures of naked women. To put it bluntly, you are a pig, sir. I don't even have words to express how outraged I am that anyone would think ESPN would promote nude pictures of ... (cough, cough) ... ah, what I mean to say is ... that's ... Thank you all for your questions and have a nice day."
______________________________________________________________________________

MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week

Miracle Eyes Jesus Sculptured Heads - $9.95

Official Desciption
Is it a miracle? An optical illusion? Both? If optical illusions are miracles. This 7-inch-tall polystone sculpture is made in a negative relief, but if you look at it long enough, it'll go from negative to positive. Oh... and his eyes follow you as you walk around the room. Do you need a holy night light? For just an extra $5.99, you can get your own glow-in-the-dark talking Jesus Head. Push the red button in the back and he'll comfort you with Biblical truths like "I have prepared a place for you" or "It's alright. I'm the Son of God, your very special friend. You can tell me anything." Especially a great gift for grandparents!

To Read List: The Football Fan's Manifesto - by Michael Tunison

2009-07-27T12:33:00.004-04:00

How does this relate to theology? Well, there are some universal truths that are affirmed in this little video, so they should be affirmed in the book as well. Tunison is also taking a stand against outright heresy. That's right, didn't you know there was such a thing as NFL heretics out there? The very first girl in this video counts as one.

Our Feminized American Culture - Part 1

2009-07-26T17:16:00.017-04:00

"Americans are the people who describe their use of alcohol and tobacco as vices."
- G.K. Chesterton

"Instead of getting hard ourselves and trying to compete, women should try and give their best qualities to men - bring them softness, teach them how to cry."
- Joan Baez

By now everyone’s heard about the “feminization of the church” (or more broadly the “feminization of American culture”). And it’s admittedly a favorite topic of some conservatives. If you’ve read very many articles on this website, you’ll also already know that the “feminized church” is something I frequently refer to.

But …

When I talk to friends and others about this, it often feels like, even though they’ve heard about this and perhaps even mostly agree with it, that they still haven’t put two and two together. There’s a BIG PICTURE here. This is something historical we are talking about. I don’t care whether it’s an angry Mark Driscoll or some academic sociologist, when they start talking about the feminization of our culture - the point is that it didn’t always used to be this way.

Something happened.

Actually a lot of things happened.

And the sissification of our society was the result.

Other point being?

It doesn’t HAVE to continue this way if we don’t like it.

When I was reviewing that Douglas Wilson book the other day (A Serrated Edge), I came across a very interesting comment. I’ll quote it again -

“We live in an effeminate age ... Not only are we up against the pietistic foppery that has been present in the Church in every age, we are also up against a prevailing feminism. This feminism is very dangerous because one wing of it is pervasive …”

wait for it -

“… in the conservative wing of the Church …”

take time to savor this -

“… and is disguised as ‘traditional values.’”

So ... we conservatives are to blame just as much as anyone else. Wilson continues -

“What many conservative Christians suppose to be the antithesis of contemporary feminism is simply that same feminism in its nineteenth century form.”

What is Wilson saying here? You know what the nineteenth century is, right? 1800-1900. So the twentieth century is 1900-2000, and we are just beginning the twenty-first century. So he is saying that there was a feminism in the nineteenth century that the Christian church kept during the twentieth century. So right now the church still has this "prevailing feminism" that is almost 100 years old.

I'm going to give concrete examples of this, but first ...

In my discussions with people about this, it is amazing how hung up we all get on the simple words "feminine" and "masculine" - and apparently people with strong or emotional opinions about these things will point out that a word like "feminine" can mean completely different things to different people. Everyone has their own little individual or "generational" definitions. I've talked to girls about this who seem to automatically assume that I'm using "feminine" to mean something negative while using "masculine" to mean something positive.

So before we do anything else, let's agree on what "feminine" and "masculine" both mean. And I'm not interested coming up with my own "individual definitions" for myself, I'm interested in what everyone pretty much universally regards "feminine" and "masculine" to mean.

Webster's Dictionary -

Feminine: of or pertaining to a woman, or to women; characteristic of a woman; womanish; womanly

Masculine: having the qualities of a man; suitable to, or characteristic of, a man; virile; not feminine or effeminate; strong; robust

and, while we're at it -

Feminism: 1 - the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes, 2 - organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

My point is NOT that feminine things are bad and masculine things are good. To have balance, we need both. Masculine men and feminine women is how things should be. Do we have to speak in absolute stereotypes? Of course not. But the fact that men and women are different means that there are limited generalizations that you can make. Everyone one of us, no matter how objective or prejudiced we are, use certain generalizations all the time when discussing and thinking about the masculine and the feminine.

Remember, the dictionary defines feminine as referring to primary characteristics of women, while it uses masculine as referring to primary characteristics of men. Do men and women share many of the same characteristics & values? Of course they do. Do they have some things they value more than each other? Again, of course.

What’s one of the easiest ways that everyone can relate to in order to distinguish between mostly feminine and mostly masculine values?

Movies.

More after the jump -

David Murrow used the analogy of a sort of “gender values thermostat" to measure the masculine or feminine attraction of different films -

“Every film has a thermostat that’s set for a certain kind of audience. If a filmmaker is trying to attract a male audience, he will pack his movie with the things men like: buildings exploding, cars crashing, guns blazing, and bodies flying. There will be tension, intrigue, and a hero who saves the world against impossible odds. Go to the action/adventure rack at your local video store, and you’ll find hundreds of films with thermostats set for men …”

“If a filmmaker wants to set the thermostat for women, he’ll include lots of clever dialogue, beautiful costumes, flowers, and scenery. The movie will star a handsome couple who, after a series of misadventures, end up in a happy relationship. Go to the romantic comedy section to find hundreds of these chick flicks.”

There is a reason why certain films have a primarily 80% male audience while other films have a primarily 80% female audience. There are things guys generally like more than girls do. There are things girls generally like more than guys do. Are there exceptions to the rule? Yes. But exceptions, by definition, prove the rule.

Can there be violence in a chick flick? Yes - watch Legends of the Fall. But any guy stuck with the misfortune of having seen that movie will tell you that action was not valued very highly by the producers. Meanwhile, other examples like the Die Hard films have romantic subplots. But any girl who has seen the Die Hard films can tell you that romantic relationships were not the primary focus of the series.

Is there anything wrong with films focusing their marketing exclusively on men or exclusively on women? No. Is it always a good thing? No. It is men who are to blame for making films like Bad Boys II and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen financially possible. This is unfortunate. It is women who are to blame for making films like Sex and the City and Twilight financially possible. This is also unfortunate. But the audiences that these movies draw proves a point.

Call them whatever you like - characteristics, traits, values, goals, etc.

safety, stability, harmony, comfort, nurturing, relationships, communication, beauty, feelings, relating, community, peace

All these things are generally valued more by women than they are by men. This is why they are looked upon in our culture as more feminine values.

risk, conflict, competition, challenge, power, violence, goals, results, proving oneself, efficiency, competence, strength

All these things are generally valued more by men than they are by women. This is why they are looked upon in our culture as more masculine values.

The Problem With the Feminization of a Culture

So in a male/masculine dominated society, risk and competition, power and conflict are going to be far overvalued over things like harmony, security, and good feelings. This is not good. Harmony and security in a civilized society is important. In a female/feminine dominated society, relationships and community, comfort and safety are going to be far overvalued over things like risk, competition, and power. This is not good. Competition and strength are critical for the survival of civilized society.

We need balance between the two.

Not the overemphasis of one group of values over another.

So what do I, and others, mean when we refer to the feminization of our culture or the feminization of the church?

We mean that suddenly feminine values like stability and relationships have become overvalued in our society to the loss of other more masculine values like competition and strength. We care more about feelings and relating well to one another. We care more about talking and communicating well all just for the goals of peace and harmony. We care more about comfort.

We care less about conflict if it means we have to give up harmony. We care less about strength if it means we have to give up being comfortable. We care less about risks and challenges if it means we have to give up peace and nice relationships.

In Part 2, I intend on giving a number of examples for how this has happened historically.

Novus Monastica (Weekly Religious News) - 7/22/09

2009-07-22T00:17:00.016-04:00

Former President Jimmy Carter Publicly Leaves The Church That He’s Attended For 60 Years - For Repugnant Sexism

Jimmy Carter (a Nobel Prize Winner) decided to leave his old Southern Baptist Church of 60 years because of their discrimination against women. “At their most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime,” wrote Carter to explain why he had left the church.

Carter was deeply offended after hearing a sermon on Genesis that said that Eve was created second to Adam as his helper in the Garden of Eden. If Eve was meant to help Adam then that means that women are inferior to men, and that violates human rights as Carter understand them. It’s only because of Southern Baptist gender discrimination & sexism that they don’t allow women to be pastors in the church.

“The words of God do not justify cruelty to women!” Carter declared during the press conference he called to announce he was leaving the church. “This is against the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul, Moses and the prophets, Muhammad, and founders of other great religions. And do you know what happens when we ignore Jesus and Muhammad? Women are denied access to equal education, equal employment, and other benefits. And they have been across the world for centuries!”

When asked “No, really … why did you leave a church you’ve taught Sunday School in for 60 years?”, Carter replied that Southern Baptist sexism is clearly violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set down by the United Nations “and many other religious figures.” He then asked the reporter if he was aware than women had been denied the right to vote for hundreds of years back in the day.

"It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population," Mr. Carter wrote (in a press release announcing he was leaving the church). "We need to challenge these self-serving and outdated attitudes and practices."

Asked why it took him so long to realize that women were people too, and whether this was just another publicity stunt during a time when Obama is getting all the news coverage, he commented “When you realize the truth, the important thing is to take a stand, even if this issue was already resolved a hundred years ago, women should not be discriminated against! I hope more Southern Baptists can understand how important the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights really is. I personally think we are facing a crisis here.”
______________________________________________________________________________

Entire Nation Waits With Baited Breath for President Obama to Pick A Church

Speaking of U.S. Presidents holding press conferences in order to leave their churches, ever since Obama left Reverend Wright’s church in Chicago, everyone has supposedly been watching dying to see which church in Washington DC he decides to attend. Different DC churches have also been sending him invitation letters hoping that they become the lucky one to get the honor.

Joshua DuBois, director of the “White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships (WHOFBNP), announced “The Obamas are committed Christians … What has become clear is it’s no easy task.” President Obama also told the National Catholic Register that find a DC church was turning out to be difficult. A whole number of Americans have been disappointed with this since it was so easy for them to decide what church they go to. “All I needed was to see Osteen’s smile,” said Joe Churchgoer, “after that it was easy.”

At a meeting recently, Obama said, “Michelle and I decided that we would wait a few months after arriving before we made a decision on this, partly – let’s be blunt: I mean, we were pretty affected by what happened at Trinity and the controversy surrounding Reverend Wright … It made us very sensitive to the fact that, as president, the church we attend can end up being interpreted as speaking for us at all times.”

In fact, the idea that you agree with what your pastor says has been disturbing Obama over the last year and half. “I never realized that everyone would think I agree with what my pastor says at the church I commit to for 20 years. This next one I pick better have a preacher who understands when to keep his mouth shut.”

All is not lost however, although he misses attending church, Obama said that Dubois sends him “a little note of sustenance” every day on his Blackberry. “For me personally, I’ve found these little text messages are much more loving and encouraging than Reverend Wright’s old sermons.”
______________________________________________________________________________

Joel Osteen Gets the Nod For the “Walter Cronkite Standard of Trustworthiness” Award

Being the great professional journalist institution that they are, The Washington Post recently asked a number of people to suggest what next public figures would meet the Walter Cronkite “standard of trustworthiness.” Their question went something like this - “In honor of Walter Cronkite’s death, who do you think is out there that could replace the respect that Americans had for Cronkite. Who else is there who, due to their integrity, Americans trust?”

John Prendergast, co-founder of the Center for American Progress's Enough Project, a nonprofit group that works to end genocide and crimes against humanity, blew everyone away with his suggestions -

“There are a few. Joel Osteen: Americans are looking increasingly to the pulpit for spiritual direction in uncertain times, and the biggest televangelist-author of all of them is Osteen. Chris Berman, HBO: If you are a sports fan, and there are tens of millions of them in the U.S., this choice requires no explanation. When the Boomer speaks, people listen. Oprah Winfrey: One of the tag lines of the 21st century has become, 'It must be true; I heard it on Oprah.’”

The Post writer who had asked the question then burst out into a prolonged and hearty laughter, and it wasn’t until almost 5 minutes later that he realized that Prendergast was deadly serious.

“You … you mean you aren’t joking? Osteen is a ****ing fraud. If you listen to a single game announced by Berman, you know for a fact that his IQ is less than 2. And Oprah? Have you seen the **** she recommends in her book club?”

But Prendergast insisted that he implicitly trusted everything he hears all three of these people say. The Post writer then chucked his notes in the nearest garbage can and quit the writing assignment, and the only reason we have this article is because his industrious assistant fished it out of the trash. When Osteen was told that he was considered Cronkite Trustworthy by the Post, the light reflecting off the teeth in his appreciative smile permanently blinded the messenger.
______________________________________________________________________________

San Diego Group Plans ‘Kiss-In” at Mormon Temple

Did you know that gay rights protesters don’t have sit-ins to protest anything? Well, they don’t. Instead, they hold kiss-ins instead where they all hang out in one place and french kiss each other. Recently, a mass kissing demonstration has now been planned outside of the San Diego Mormon Temple “as a peaceful rally to encourage dialogue between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the gay community.”

Local Mormon authorities are displeased. Apparently, a gay couple decided to stop and kiss on church property and security guards told them to stop, told them that their behavior was inappropriate & disgusting, and then cited them for trespassing when they refused to leave.

Ever since, mass homosexual kissing demonstrations, or “Kiss-Ins” are being organized on Mormon property all across the nation. Hundreds of guys show up and all start making out. Many of these “kiss ins” are being organized and supported by the civil rights organization called “The Empowering Spirits Foundation.”

I have just one question - how was the first kiss on Mormon property not clearly just meant to be antagonistic. I mean who on earth says to each other (gay or not gay) "hey honey, let’s walk over to that Mormon Tabernacle, I think I saw a great make-out spot.” How would anyone even get this idea?

Holy Shizzle.

Ok, I guess it does sort of remind you of Disneyland. And I’m not sure why, but apparently Disney related themes attracts gay men (you didn't know, just take a trip to Disneyland - they have a "kiss-in" there every day).

“Brigham Young wouldn’t have liked this,” said one San Diego Mormon Elder. “We’re going to hold some secret meetings about this in the inner sanctum and see what revelations are revealed to us.”

Two teenage boys were interviewed after they claimed to have witnessed the beginning of the last kiss-in, and they still looked pale days afterward. “That **** has scarred us for life,” said one, “we only showed up to watch because we thought some lesbians would be there.” His friend sneered angrily, “But it was all just dudes!”
______________________________________________________________________________

Christian Harry Potter Protesters Resume Beating Dead Horse

Old news, right? Maybe, but as the 6th Harry Potter film made it to the theaters last week, Christian groups resumed their protests and sermons against this occult and witchcraft recruiting abomination. As more and more Christians have been won over by the Harry Potter stories (and many of them just never made the news because they enjoyed the books from the very beginning), the Reverend Doug Taylor has been managing to get more and more publicity for himself by making a hue and cry against J.K. Rowling’s creation.

Who is Rowling attacking? The children, of course.

"There is a battle raging for the minds of our children, and it's a moral battle," said Taylor, "J.K. Rowling has truly bridged the gap between magical make-believe and paganism. These books are trying to turn your children into WITCHES!”

Taylor and his group have gained national notoriety since 2001 when one of his anti-Harry Potter public protests in Kennedy Park drew dozens of people from both sides and came to blows. The scene ended with Taylor's group ripping up "Harry Potter" books and an individual from the opposition shredding a Bible.

With this fond memory in mind, Taylor started his sermon by violently waving his own personal copy of “The Half Blood Prince” in the air and then viciously tearing out handfuls of pages from the book and angrily throwing them into the congregation.

Along with his friend Robert McGee, Reverend Taylor has also produced a documentary entitled “Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged — Making Evil Look Innocent" where he argues that Rowling’s books should be banned from all schools. McGee and fellow author Caryl Matrisciana, an expert on world religions, sects and cults, urge viewers in their film to closely examine the pagan symbols and references riddling the "Harry Potter" books. Their examples included everything from spells, shape-changing, curses, drinking animal (unicorn) blood to references to Nazism, possession, phallic symbols and "dark arts."

I will give them credit for their school book banning argument being unique. It goes something like this. (1) Witchcraft is recognized by the government as a religion with tax-exempt status. (2) Assigning Harry Potter books in school is endorsing and promoting the religion of witchcraft, and thus (3) Harry Potter books in public schools is a violation of Separation of Church and State in the Constitution.

“Yah heer that y’all? It’s hiah time ter git us a gud ol’fashioned BUUK BERNING! Yeeaarrrrggghhh!”

"I wouldn’t look like such a crazy retard tonight if every church in town would take a stand against this abomination of Satan,” Taylor said as he ripped out more pages of the book. "But because nobody else will, do this, that's why I have to do it … Hey Bill, next time pan the camera around me in a circular motion as to rip out chapters 13 and 14. That way it’ll have a dizzying effect on the audience … (cell phone rings) Yes? What’s that? An Interview with the Times tomorrow at 10? No. Make that at noon, I already have an interview with the Post tomorrow at that same time. What’s that? They’re bringing a camera? That’s fine - perfectly acceptable. Yes, yes, I do think Harry Potter mania is from the raging pit of HELL! Yes, I’d be perfectly happy to say that on film. No problem. Alrighty, see you tomorrow.”

more after the jump -
______________________________________________________________________________

Baptist Church Says They Didn’t Really Mean To Pretend That Their Propaganda Statement Was Signed By The Oklahoma Governor

The Baptist Messenger, a church newspaper in Oklahoma, had to apologize to the Governor of Oklahoma for falsely putting his seal and signature at the end of a morality proclamation in their paper that accused the United States of forsaking it’s Christian heritage as a Christian nation and instead becoming a world leader of debauchery.

It turns out that the controversial article was actually written by Oklahoma Republican Rep. Sally Kern, NOT by Gov. Brad Henry. Sally Kern is known for her pleasant inflammatory remarks last year where she kept repeating that the greatest threat to the United States was homosexuality, a threat even more dangerous than terrorist attacks. Yep, you heard it from Sally Kern, gays are worse than terrorists.

The publicist for the Baptist Messenger explained that it was all just an honest mistake made by their graphic artist who put the wrong name at the end of the article. “It was artwork mistake, he just thought the governor’s seal and signature would like graphically better than Kern’s signature," said Doug Baker (who is replacing the fired executive editor of the Baptist paper). “Besides no one likes Kern anymore. Even most Baptists think she’s a crazy ***** … But we are sorry about this honest mistake and it will not happen again.”

And here’s a fun little news piece on Sally Kern - she is just the sort of voice Christians need speaking out for our viewpoint in government -

______________________________________________________________________________

Amazing New Church Strategy More Than Doubles Church Congregation

When one pastor noticed church attendance dropping off, she (notice the “she”) came up with a creative Noah's Arc-ian solution: What if people could bring their pets?

Well, what if they could bring their pets?

Rachel Bickford, pastor of the Pilgrim Congregational Church in North Weymouth, Mass., writes about looking down from the pulpit and seeing Lucy, a terrier, Sam, a pug and Bernese mountain dog Chloe. She started services with animals last October and has kept it up ever since.

Cats, dogs, parrots, lizards, hamsters, gerbils, you name it - all creatures can learn to love Jesus.

“I’m finding the animals are much more responsive to my sermons than people were, and our church membership has now more than doubled. Growing up, I’d wanted to be a vet, but in my twenties I felt called to seminary. After seven years at Pilgrim Congregational, I still loved coming to work," she writes. "But folks just weren’t coming to church as much anymore. Too many sporting events on Sundays and too little faith. I looked out at the half-empty sanctuary one Sunday and thought, Lord, what can I do to fill back up the pews?”

Then a voice came out of heaven and told her, “Look down at your feet, my daughter, and the answer shall be granted unto you!”

“...my gaze fell on my two apricot cockapoos, Tugger and Indy, curled up at my feet." Bickford started with a Sunday afternoon service. After worship she served biscuits and invited everyone to toss tennis balls with our dogs in the side yard. Everyone was leashed. She called it Woof ’n’ Worship.

Woof ‘n’ Worship became even more popular with all the dogs when she started letting animals partake in the Lord’s Supper. Each member of the congregation gets their choice of crackers, dried fish, dog biscuits or bird seed for Christ’s body, and so far, only the cats are refusing to drink the wine.

"Before long we had 150 people—150!," she writes. "The dogs got along famously. I giggled when, during my first reading, a handsome German shepherd with a clownish grin licked a tiny Chihuahua’s ears. "Later, the choir sang “Amazing Grace.” Pee Wee, a schnauzer, began howling along. He was almost in key!"

Unfortunately, the days of their joyfully singing, barking and meowing to the Lord in worship services together may be numbered. PETA has angrily filed an lawsuit against Bickford’s poor little open-minded church.

Charles G. Smarmyson, PETA lead spokesmen in North Weymouth, told new reporters, “Bickford’s Woof ‘n’ Worship church services are a blatant totalitarian abuse & brainwashing of animals who have not been given a chance to choose their own religion. I personally know for a fact that most Siamese Cats prefer Buddhism, while most Neapolitan Mastiffs and Bedlington Terriers are of an atheistic proclivity. Forcing them all into Christianity is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment. And this will not stand!”
______________________________________________________________________________

Atheists Get To Have Their Own Non-Religious Ceremonies Too

Up until last summer, Jennifer Gray of Columbus, Ohio, considered herself "a weak Christian" whose baptism at age 11 in a Kentucky church came to mean less and less to her as she gradually lost faith in God. Then the 32-year-old medical transcriptionist took a decisive step, one that previously hadn't been available. She got "de-baptized."

Yes, but was she really baptized when she was 11? Was it a Presbyterian baptism or a Methodist baptism?

In a type of mock ceremony that's now been performed in at least four states, a robed "priest" used a hairdryer marked "reason" in an apparent bid to blow away the waters of baptism once and for all. Several dozen participants then fed on a "de-sacrament" (crackers with peanut butter) and received certificates assuring they had "freely renounced a previous mistake, and accepted Reason over Superstition."

Gray talked to reporters after her de-baptism - “It was very therapeutic,” she said as she took a mouthful of crackers and peanut butter, “It waf uh chanf tuh loof at th- thththth- ftop fo juft a fecund (swallows hard) … to laugh at the silly things I used to believe as a child. It helped me see that it’s ok not to have any religious beliefs.”

(looks at crackers and peanut butter distastefully)

“You guys, what are we substituting for wine? I can’t swallow this by itself anymore! … But why are we using wine? … Oh, Christians don’t actually use wine because they say it’s a sin? … ok … Well then, pass the wine over here you wine-hogging-********.”

After they are baptized, they are given an “official” certificate of De-Baptism by the … um, atheist priest. It’s all a good joke.

But now some of the so-called "de-baptized" have used their certificates to petition churches to remove their names from baptismal rolls. One argument: they were baptized without their consent as children and should now be declared de-baptized … De-baptism efforts have been growing internationally in recent years. More than 100,000 Britons downloaded de-baptism certificates from the National Secular Society (NSS) and some major churches are receiving thousands of de-baptism certificates.

After receiving de-baptism certificates in the mail, Presbyterian minister Jones responded - “Well … well we never wanted to baptize them anyway.” Baptist pastor Johnson responded that “Heck, all these atheists getting ‘de-bap-tized’ were all ‘bap-tized’ as infants which doesn’t even count as real baptism anyway. So who cares?” Catholic Rev. Richard Mangini said “NO! I DO NOT ACCEPT! STOP SENDING THESE TO ME! THE HOLY CHURCH REFUSES TO INVALIDATE YOUR BAPTISM! And oh yeah, God loves you, go say fifty Hail Mary’s on the rosary and your sins for the week shall be forgiven.”

Meanwhile, organizers of de-baptisms are broadening their mockery to include other religions. At the American Atheists' national convention in Atlanta last April, the de-baptism event included a dance where women in burqas stripped down to red-sequined leotards, according to Blair Scott, the group's national affiliate director.

“It was pretty bad” Scott said, “There wasn’t a single attractive woman in the place, and the really tight sequined leotards didn’t help any of them look any better.”

The goal, he said, was to say blasphemy shouldn't be prohibited. "We made fun of Islam, we made fun of Hinduism, we made fun of Christianity with intent to be blasphemous on purpose to make a point" about the proposed anti-blasphemy initiative at the United Nations.

Although, if an anti-blasphemy initiative at the United Nations causes anyone to worry, then I would suggest you are over-estimating the power and influence of the United Nations.
______________________________________________________________________________

MUST HAVE: Christian “Jesus Junk” of the Week

So this was simply too much fun to resist. This new section was obviously staring me in the face just begging to be included. Here’s introducing a new feature in our second and now weekly Novus Monastica column. We’ll call it the “Jesus Junk” advertising section exclusively devoted to the latest and greatest creative ideas from today’s moneychangers in the Lord’s house. Using the name of Jesus to sell your junk? You just might get included in here someday. We’ll include two items this time to make up for last week.

The Mighty Jesus BBQ Apron - $18.00

Official Desciption
Need a savior? Your hero, ‘Mighty Jesus’ fits the bill! “I’ll Save You,” he says. Because Jesus saves, as only Jesus (the mighty rescuer) can; this cartoon (with Jesus tattoo) makes a smart gift. Great in the kitchen or at the BBQ, our mid-length apron provides great coverage to help keep spills and splatters off your clothes. Makes a great gift for gourmets or grill-masters. Ties at neck and waist. Two center-stitched bottom compartment pouches for keeping tools and recipes handy. 35% Cotton / 65% polyester blend, twill fabric. Machine washable and guaranteed.

The “God Is Light” Finger Light Ring - Sale Price Just $1.99 Each

Official Description
Fun finger light ring lights up with matching glow, and fastens on your finger with gelly ring. In assorted colors: red, blue, yellow, white; your order will be filled with random color selection. Fun for all ages; button cell batteries are refillable. Bright LED. Scripture God is Love is featured on each ring, and Scripture God is light. I John 1:5 on each flashlight. Durable plastic; 1.25" x 1.25". We regret that we cannot choose specific colors.

(And yes, this week’s selection of news stories is way, way too long. We’re going to start keeping this more short and sweet for both the sakes of the writer and the reader.)

BOOK REVIEW: A Serrated Edge - A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking - by Douglas Wilson

2009-07-21T11:08:00.014-04:00

Within the modern day church, this website has named a number of very influential & powerful men who are energetically doing everything they possibly can to help the church swirl down the toilet into the sewer (Brian McLaren, Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Tony Jones, Ed Young, Bruce Wilkinson, Rick Warren, etc).

To counter this, I’ve also tried to recommend a few badass defenders of real orthodox Christianity who are out there. As William F. Buckley said, “There are, thank Heaven, the exceptions” - a small group of men standing athwart church history, yelling Stop, “at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it” (Michael Spencer, Mark Driscoll, David Murrow, Kevin DeYoung & Ted Kluck, etc).

To the list of good guys, I was reminded today that I should properly introduce Douglas Wilson. Wilson is the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, a member of the faculty at New Saint Andrews College, and very prolific writer. He has something of an infamous reputation for arguing for “muscular Christianity” and arguing for the use of satire, even against the church. But to me, of course, those are good things. His son, Nathan, has also turned out to be a pretty good author himself. I had to heartily recommend one of his latest books, Right Behind, earlier. To give you a better idea of who Wilson is, I decided it was time to review a good example of what his books consist of - in this case, A Serrated Edge - A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking. This little book is a short, 121 pages - easily read in an evening or two. For anyone serious about writing or speaking to address the problems in the church today, you simply have to own this book.

REVIEW

Since Wilson has been criticized by other Christians for making fun of both Christians and the church, he decided to write a book defending both having a sense of humor and using the tool of satire. Funny, isn't it? That there are Christians who, at least in practice, seem to think that humor and satire are not a "Christian" way to act. Why is Wilson unapologetic for making fun? A Serrated Edge is his answer -

So here is a slim volume to put right next to that ever-growing Hardy Boys in the Apocalypse series by LaHaye and Jenkins. Call it our apologia for not apologizing.

He introduces his theme by noting that wit & satire is pretty much an old relic these days, particularly among Christians -

For various reasons, satire is studied today as something of a museum piece, in much the same way that a military historian might analyze a crossbow. The learned and respectable among us have agreed to abandon the use of satire, leaving this particular form of abuse to the buffooneries of late night comedians. Our academicized scholars have gravitated to respectable discourse, along with other forms of surrender. This does not mean we have no knowledge of literary and learned satire. The names Swift, Erasmus, and Juvenal come to mind. But who does this kind of thing anymore? Can anyone name a respectable academic journal where one theologian might dismiss another as a barking dog?

The first, and in my mind, the best defense of the use of satire that Wilson provides is the fact that it is constantly used by the writers of the Bible. Even if the way we have been taught to look at the Bible is humorless, or even if our cultural differences with the writers of Biblical times helps obscure the jokes and sarcasm in the Bible - if you get rid of your pre-conceived notions, you'll be surprised to find how often it is there -

… this genre is pervasive throughout Scripture, so much so that the Bible can actually be described as relying heavily on satire … Satire treats the foibles of sinners with a less than perfect tenderness. “Satire is the exposure of human vice or folly through rebuke or ridicule … It might consist of an entire book (e.g. Amos), or it can be as small as an individual ‘proverb.’” But nevertheless, if a Christian employs satire today, he is almost immediately called to account for his “unbiblical” behavior … Suppose a man were to refer to certain respected theologians dismissively as having graduated from Bag of Snakes Seminary. He would instantly be upbraided for his un-Christlike behavior. Unfortunately for the one delivering the rebuke, it was discovered shortly thereafter that the speaker was Christ (Mt. 23:33).

Making fun of ... sin? No! That's certainly not very pious. Most Christians I know would think it very irreverant to make fun of something so deadly serious as sin. But there's a difference between making fun of sin where you are taking pleasure in it, and making fun of it so as to expose it and point it out. The fact that Christians are still sinners is very funny. Yes, it's serious too, but it's also ironic and a fact often glossed over by the church. Sin in the church should be exposed and addressed. Humor, wit, and satire is a light-hearted way of doing this. And, in spite of sin, don't we have a reason to be light-hearted?

Wilson then provides a number of examples in the Bible that are very funny when you think twice about them -

The prophet Isaiah delivers a devastating aside in his description of the daughters of Zion strutting their stuff down at the mall (Is. 3:16-26). At the same time, the description might be as brief as a single potent metaphor. Solomon does this when he says that a beautiful woman without discretion is like putting lipstick on a camel or something (Prov. 11:22) … Luke makes fun of the debating skills exhibited by a rioting crowd. “But when they knew he was a Jew, all with one voice about the space of two hours cried out, Great is Diana of the Ephesians” (Acts 19:34). Something similar happened when Paul got to an unacceptable part of his speech to a crowd. “And as they cried out, and cast off their clothes, and threw dust into the air” (Acts 22:23). In none of these instances does Luke use a heavy hand, but in all of them we find out what he thought, and what his chuckle probably sounded like.

And that's just a few examples that Wilson provides in the introduction of the book. There are three whole chapters devoted to using Scriptural references showing where the Bible has satire and a sense of humor - "3 - The Satire of Jesus" "4 - Old Testament Satire and Jabs" and "5 - The Language of Paul." Wilson isn't just making some logical or philosophical argument here. He has a sense of humor and wit precisely because that's what he's found in Scripture. You could say Wilson has a sense of humor because he believes that God has a sense of humor. So he's willing to find things funny that other Christians don't - and then make fun of them anyway.

Wilson also addresses the charge that using satire shows arrogance. The way he writes his argument is simply a pleasure to read. 1 - most discussion within the church is civilized, respectable and academic, in other words humorless and without the use of satire. This is intellectual surrender under the assumption we should begin neutral to all points of view. 2 - it is, however, impossible to be neutral. Every society has it's own orthodoxy & accepted points of view. 3 - in our modern day society where we value tolerance, satire is considered arrogant because it implies that the satirist has an idea of what "ought to be." 4 - making claims to absolute truths (even if you aren't claiming to know everything) is considered arrogant in today's culture. So, 5 - Biblical satire is considered arrogant today, and Christ and Paul would be very offensive today because of the blunt & humorous way they talked. This is why we suddenly have two schools of thought in what we want from our pastors -

The biblical preacher is a herald, a steward. He has been entrusted to declare something that would have been true if he had never been born. He is to preach it with a strong view of his own ultimate irrelevance. He is to get into the pulpit and say, “Thus says the Lord …” And to the modern world, this is insufferable arrogance. In stark contrast with this, a modern pretty boy preacher - excuse me, a pretty boy communicator - gets up front and can talk about himself the entire time he is there. He is open, transparent, honest, and emotionally approachable. He is humble, or so it is thought. The evidence? He is humble because he talked about himself a lot. And the other one, the insufferable one, he must think he has a personal pipeline to God. He must think that God wrote a book or something … wait. The apostle Paul says, “For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake (2 Cor. 4:5).

Again, Wilson gets criticized for not being "loving" towards others because he makes fun of other Christians and churches. But his work is aimed as something in the church that is very specific -

In my writing, the object of attack has usually been what I call modern evangelicalism … For now it should suffice to say that modern evangelicalism (not historic evangelicalism) is represented by what one president called the axis of treacle - Christianity Today, the Christian Booksellers Association, Wheaton College and its environs, Colorado Springs and its environs, Thomas Kinkade, and Jerry B. Jenkins.

He is attacking "Christian culture" on purpose. In America today something bad has happened to the church. And it is a cultural phenomenon. And yes, part of our cultural problem that Wilson addresses is one of my own frequently addressed topics - an effeminized culture and thus an effeminized church (or vice versa).

Resistance to a mindless and fastidious approach to the Christian faith is a mark of Christian masculinity. But we live in an effeminate age ... Not only are we up against the pietistic foppery that has been present in the Church in every age, we are also up against a prevailing feminism. This feminism is very dangerous because one wing of it is pervasive in the conservative wing of the Church and is disguised as "traditional values." What many conservative Christians suppose to be the antithesis of contemporary feminism is simply that same feminism in its nineteenth century form.

Whoa.

Hit the brakes.

Cultural feminism has disguised itself in the church as traditional family values?

More after the jump -

These are the kind of claims that make Wilson so interesting to read. Because this is stuff I've never heard anywhere else before. That is really something to think about though, and I may have to write a separate post sometime on just this one idea. I can see how it could really make a hell of a lot of sense though.

And you know what else Biblical satire does? It looks on everything from an outsider's point of view.

Wilson - The real problem for many devout Christians, the hidden reef where many pietists have shipwrecked, is the problem posed by what we think are our virtues. And correspondingly, this is where a satirist can start to get into real trouble. If a satirist were to go after a minister who was a well-known lecherous drunk, there would be many among the pietists who would not mount such an attack themselves, but would not be all that bothered by it. But if an attack is mounted on someone who is generally respected, and if the target is respected because he is, taking one thing with another, a smarmy collection of gooey and correct sentiments, then defenders of that person can get really irate. It is one thing to attack murder, rape and pillage. It is quite another to attack prayers, rosaries, inspirational study Bibles, John 3:16 skateboards, and counseling pastors who exude empathy for a fee. These attacks run the risk of being mistaken for an attack on that which is actually being defended. If I saw someone approaching a priceless Vermeer painting with a can of orange spray paint, I would wrestle him to the ground - not as an enemy of art but as a friend of it. But in an insulated community of performance artists, the critic of art vandalism is likely to be thought of as an enemy of art itself.

Stuck in this unique culture we've created for ourselves, it's really hard to see ourselves. But isn't how we look to the rest of the world supposed to be important? Isn't there something in the Bible about reputation and testimony? The fact that you are attacking the viewpoints of other Christians does not make you an enemy to Christianity.

In the same way, the critic of Jesus junk stores is assumed to be a critic of Jesus. But of course, scriptural satire assumes that the foremost critic of Jesus junk stores would be Jesus Himself. If Christ were to go to the Christian Booksellers convention (CBA) and see all the crap being hawked with His name on it, He could spend all day there turning over the tables.

Hold on. Jesus walking into a CBA Convention ... let me just picture that for a moment. Do you know how glorious and violent the result would probably be? That would be something worth seeing. On the other hand, when we walk into one of these conventions or one of these "Jesus junk stores" as Wilson calls then, we're usually buying their sh--, aren't we? 7 Keys To A Life of Predictable Miracles? Wow, I've got to have that!

Wilson continues -

So one of the central points of biblical satire is that we must not only repent of our sins, but also of those “virtues” for which we preen ourselves … Our point of stumbling with regard to our religious “virtues” is warned against in 2 Corinthians 10:12. Those who compare themselves with themselves are not wise … The people in this insular community - which is what the modern evangelical sub-cultural ghetto actually is - cannot see themselves. Anyone who can see them, and talks about what they are doing is ipso facto guilty of “arrogance.” Having written these words, I realize that the phrase “evangelical sub-culture” can be taken two ways. And so I guess I mean it both ways.

Ahahahahahahaha

And so this is how crass commercialism hides behind the veneer of evangelism. We have T-shirts with Christ the King designed to look like Calvin Klein. We have Tommy Hellfighter stuff. We have gospel Frisbees. We have Testamints. We have Satan stomper socks. Oppose any of this, and you are clearly deficient in evangelistic zeal. Don’t you want the message to get out? Don’t you want to see the lost won for Christ? The late Joseph Bayly wrote a delightful little book some years ago called The Gospel Blimp, which lampooned the earlier forms of this kind of evangelistic absurdity, back when inane evangelicalism was still slogging it out in the minors. It is hard to imagine what a man of his gifts would do with the embarrassment of riches he would face if he were here - trite evangelicalism has now had a long, sustained career in the majors and is now in the hall of fame. Born-againers are everywhere, and in virtually everything they touch they seek to make the holy things of the living God into a laughingstock. The faith that produced Augustine and Ambrose, Chrysostom and Calvin, Hodge and Edwards, is now busy trying to evangelize the world by acting dumber than a bag of hammers.

You realize the whole book is like this, don't you? These excerpts are just a little taste. You have to read this book. Wilson isn't just arguing that "satire" is Biblical for us to use, but he is also pointing out exactly what it is in the church that desperately needs to be satirized. Start making fun of this and make fun of it now. Making light of this crap may be one of the only weapons we have left as we are drowning in our own Christian commercialism.

Do you know what else desperately needs to be made fun of so that other Christians can see how badly we need it to change? Yes, another one of my favorite topics - Wilson has plenty to say about the church worship service -

This is how trite and superficial worship is passed off as though it were the joy of the Lord … we have picked up a notion somewhere that worship ought to be breezy, flippant, casual, and above all, fun. My wife and I were recently on vacation, and being strangers in a strange land, we sought out a place to worship while there. We picked a place that, judging by the name, seemed safe enough. But the service started out with a thumping worship band playing some up-beat pep rally songs. One of these songs had something to do with God’s love being “all around, all around” … But this was not enough. One of the song leaders taught everybody how to imitate a lawn sprinkler, spinning in place, one arm straight out and the other hand behind the head. So here we were, sitting in the back row of a strange church, watching a room of adults spinning around as though they were lawn sprinklers. One of the song leaders, flushed with enthusiasm, cried out, “Who says church isn’t fun!”

He goes on, but I'll let you get your own copy to read the rest.

Other benefits of reading A Serrated Edge include a whole number of Spurgeon quotes. In fact, Wilson gives us a whole chapter devoted to the wit and satire of Spurgeon as he railed against the church excesses of his own day.

You can almost hear Spurgeon thundering from the pulpit about some of the effeminized seeker-sensitive preachers of his own day -

“Molasses and other sugary matters are sickening to me. Jack-dandy in the pulpit makes me feel as Jehu did when he saw Jezebel’s decorated head and painted face, and cried in indignation, ‘FLING HER DOWN.’”

You also constantly hear Christians in the church saying how much we need a "revival." Revival and Reformation are two terms we love to talk about how much we wish for and pray for in church. Douglas Wilson also believes the church needs a revival, but it's not really the altar-call revival for our nation returning to a "Christian nation" that you usually hear about -

Modern evangelicalism is not the solution to America’s problems, modern evangelicalism is America’s problem … Many evangelicals think they acknowledge this, and they call what they yearn for revival. But as A.W. Tozer put it, if revival means more of what we have now, we most emphatically do not need revival. A reformation is necessary … We need to be shaken badly so that what cannot be shaken may remain. In this reformation, we will - with tears of repentance - throw away the vast machinery of parachurch organizations, our glassy magazines edited by snakes, our engineered revivalism, our holy hucksterism, our trivialization of the gospel through dumb tracts, our attempts to save America through politics, our corrupt youth ministries, and our gold-painted thrones on TBN. There are more things that could be mentioned, but a repentant mind can get the drift. In an evangelical world filled to the brim with such things, it is astonishing that some people think that satire is a problem and might invoke the displeasure of God.

Not only is satire ok. Not only is satire and humor Biblical (both the lighthearted and subtle Horatian satire, and the pummeling Louisville Slugger form of Juvenalian satire). But we NEED Christian satire to make fun of what is wrong with us in order to start changing some things in the church. Wilson argues that our modern day form of evangelicalism needs to be attacked by satire because "to whom much is given, much is required." We need it because judgment and change needs to first start in your own house before you can pretend to have any moral authority in the outside world. We need it because the sins in our church are still the same sins that were the target of satire and criticism in the Scripture. We need it if we claim that we are actually trying to live Biblically. We need it because that stupid things we do are actually "just so darn funny." And Wilson says we need it because we should be capable of profiting by it - and we really ought to start doing some things differently.

Wilson goes into detail on all these points. And this is why you need to own and read his book.

So there you go - there's Douglas Wilson. He's written a whole number of other books, but A Serrated Edge is one of my personal favorites. I don't always agree with everything he says theologically, but I do think he is a very unique voice that we all need to listen to. I wish there were more preachers and writers just like him.

(Images selected from examples provided in A Little Leaven and Kissing Suzy Kolber).

The Latest Douglas Wilson

2009-07-21T10:40:00.008-04:00

You can read Douglas Wilson, also the editor of Credenda Agenda, and the author a number of delightful books like Angels in the Architecture, here - Blog And Mablog.

This morning he shared another little story "Jokes I Like To Tell" category -
_______________________________________

A novice youth minister was given the assignment of giving a little children's message to the kids in front of the whole congregation, just before they were all released into children's church. He was a little nervous, but he had his illustration well-prepared, and thought he was set to go. So the kids came down to the front of the church, and sat on the floor in a semi-circle around him. He cleared his throat and began, "Kids, what is a little brown animal that lives up in the trees?" And all the kids just sat there, not saying a word. He started to panic, but then stopped himself. He had trained for this. "You know," he said. "It runs up and down the trunk, and has a fluffy tail." But still the kids just sat there, silent as all get out. This was bad. "Kids, I am sure you know this. It runs up and down, and gathers nuts for the winter, and chatters at the passers-by." Nobody said nothing. And the youth minister, against his training and his better judgment, decided to call on one of the kids, a solemn little fellow sitting in the back row. "Billy," he said, with pleading in his eyes, "surely you know what I am talking about."

"Well," Billy said slowly. "I know the answer's Jesus. But it sure sounds like a squirrel to me."
______________________________________________________________________________

I know this is a joke, whether it's a true story or not. But do we intentionally dumb down the children in our church? Yes, yes we do. Treat them like halfwits who can only be taught Biblical truth by tiny increments, and see what happens.

At the same age that our children are still killing their brain cells by being taught “really good moral lessons” watching Veggie Tales, yesterday’s children were being taught how to read Homer in Latin and the New Testament in Greek.
______________________________________________________________________________

Blackstone, 1 Peter 2:13, and Mala Prohibita or Mala In Se

2009-07-18T19:20:00.007-04:00

So here's something I've just been wondering about recently. I've been thinking about where it says in the Scripture that we are to "obey every ordinance of man" (1 Peter 2:13). There are some Christians who believe that we always have the Biblical duty to submit to every rule and regulation of our government (unless the government tells us to stop worshiping God of course.) Pastor John MacArthur has argued that the founders were sinning by rebelling against the British Government during the American Revolution. I have a few friends who take the "obey every ordinance of man" verse very seriously - so seriously, in fact, that I think they would say it is a sin for a Christian to drive faster than the speed limits on the highway.

And then, I ran into a new argument that I had never heard before on why a Christian shouldn't drink.
1) We are to obey every ordinance of man.
2) If you were to drink one beer, and then take a breathalyzer, you would be considered legally too drunk to drive.
3) According to the ordinance of man, one beer makes you legally drunk.
4) According to the Bible, being drunk is a sin.
5) Therefore, it is a sin to drink even one beer.

Seems like flawless logic, right? (I'm not going to spend time arguing with this one. I just sort of enjoy collecting arguments against drinking. If this sort of thing worries you, go here - http://www.got-a-dui.com/bac_calculator/ - and try chugging 3 beers in 5 minutes time and see if your blood alcohol content is mathematically too high for you to drive yet.)

What does interest me is this claim that we are obligated to obey every single regulation and ordinance of the government (local, state, or federal). Being a law school graduate makes this a little more interesting to me, particularly as I can't help remembering an interesting distinction made by Sir William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Laws of England. Blackstone says that laws can be divided into two categories - mala prohibita or mala in se. Of course, this distinction can only be made if you believe in God's natural and moral laws to begin with.

MALA IN SE - human conduct that is inherently wrong or evil by nature. It is still wrong regardless of any human regulation or ordinance. The easy example here is murder - something that is universally agreed to be wrong. (Black's Law Dictionary says - "A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson, or rape.")

MALA PROHIBITA - human conduct that is prohibited by the state for civil, political, or financial reasons under the threat of some penalty (from fines to jailtime). (Black's Law Dictionary says - "An act that is a crime merely because it is prohibited by statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral. Misdemeanors such as jaywalking and running a stoplight are mala prohibita, as are many regulatory violations.")

So is Blackstone wrong? Can he make this distinction in the light of 1 Peter 2:13? Genius that he was, there's no way I can explain this better than he can. So I'll just let him explain this more fully -

Blackstone on the Declaratory Law & Mala In Se -

"Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human law to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture. Neither do divine or natural duties (such as, for instance, the worship of God, the maintenance of children, and the like) receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be duties by the law of the land. The case is the same as to crimes and misdemeanors that are forbidden by the superior laws, and therefore styled mala in se, such as murder, theft, and perjury; which contract no additional turpitude from being declared unlawful by the inferior legislature. For that legislature in all these cases acts only, as was before observed, in subordination to the great Lawgiver, transcribing and publishing His precepts. So that, upon the whole, the declaratory part of the municipal law has no force or operation at all, with regard to actions that are naturally and intrinsically right or wrong."

This is an inherently Christian political philosophy espoused by Blackstone, Montesquieu and eventually John Locke. The government doesn't give you any rights. Your rights came from God and can't be changed by the laws of government. The government determine what's right and wrong. The moral law - what's right and wrong - has also come from God, and cannot be changed by the laws of government. Laws that are mala in se are just making into civil law what already exists, and would exist whether or not the government says that theft or murder are wrong.

More after the jump -

Then Blackstone continues, starting to get into what is mala prohibita -

"But with regard to things in themselves indifferent, the case is entirely altered. These become either right or wrong, just or unjust, duties or misdemeanors, according as the municipal legislator sees proper, for promoting the welfare of the society, and more effectually carrying on the purposes of civil life …our statute law has declared all monopolies a public offense: yet … this offense [has] no foundation in nature, but [is] merely created by the law, for the purposes of civil society … Thus, for instance, in civil duties; obedience to superiors is the doctrine of revealed as well as natural religion: but who those superiors shall be, and in what circumstances, or to what degrees they shall be obeyed, is the province of human laws to determine …"

So there are also a bunch of rules and regulations out there that have nothing to do with morality. They are simply the for the sake to society - for the sake of doing business, for the sake of maintaining the government, etc.

"It is held, it is true, and very justly, by the principal of our ethical writers, that human laws are binding upon men’s consciences. But if that were the only, or most forcible obligation, the good only would regard the laws, and the bad would set them at defiance. And, true as this principle is, it must still be understood with some restriction. It holds, I apprehend, as to rights; and that, when the law has determined the field to belong to Titius, it is a matter of conscience no longer to withhold or to invade it. So also in regard to natural duties, and such offences as are mala in se; here we are bound in conscience, because we are bound by superior laws, before those human laws were in being, to perform the one and abstain from the other. But in relation to those laws which enjoin only positive duties, and forbid only such things as are not mala in se, but mala prohibita merely, without any mixture of moral guilt, annexing a penalty to noncompliance, here, I apprehend, conscience is no farther concerned than by directing a submission to the penalty, in case of our breach of those laws: for otherwise the multitude of penal laws in a state would not only be looked upon as an impolitic, but would also be a very wicked thing; if every such law were a snare for the conscience of the subject."

According to Blackstone, we are bound to follow the natural moral law, no matter what the government's ordinances happen to be. And when the government's ordinances happen to be outside of the moral law, then you are still under the authority in the sense that you make the choice to follow the regulation or pay the penalty for not following it.

"But in these cases the alternative is offered to every man; 'either abstain from this, or submit to such a penalty;' and his conscience will be clear, whichever side of the alternative he thinks proper to embrace. Thus, by the statutes for preserving the game, a penalty is denounced against every unqualified person that kills a hare. Now this prohibitory law does not make the transgression a moral offense: the only obligation in conscience is to submit to the penalty if levied."

So what do you think of Blackstone's distinction? According to 1 Peter 2:13, is it a sin to drive 60 mph on a 55 mph highway? Just something to think about. I'll probably write more on this at some point after I've had time to give it more thought.

Here's another question - why is 1 Peter 2:13 another of those verses that gets translated so differently?

NIV
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men ...

KJV
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake ...

ASV
Be subject to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake ...

ESV
Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution ...

Notice a difference?