'Tis the Season

This last Sunday I said "ass" in church. Hehehehehe!


Well, I suppose I should say that I sang "ass" in church. Yes, it's that time of year when we all get to sing "What Child is this?" including the line "Why lies He in such mean estate, where ox and ass are feeding?" I remember as a kid being consumed with fits of laughter when we sang this song. Yeah, that's right, I haven't always been this mature (please note the sarcasm).

Don't you love this "stained glass ass" (come on, it rhymes, I had to say it) that has been immortalized even though he isn't even in the bible?

When you take a good look at Christmas Carols you just might notice that many of them are a great source of inaccurate information, bad theology and simply ridiculous statements. They definitely help reinforce some of the traditions that I have attempted to debunk in the last few posts.

Anyway, I do enjoy some carols. My personal favourite is "O Come, O Come, Emmanuel". It's theologically sound and it's in a minor key... what's not to like?

The "carols" that I really can't handle are the secular ones. Any songs that have Reindeer, Santa, elves, or the like just make me want to scream!

What is your favourite carol and why?
Which carol just drives you nuts and you're going to scream if you have to sing it one more time?
What silly statements, inaccuracies, or theological errors do you see in carols?

Making Christ in our Image

OK. Take a look at each of these pictures (Click on them for larger, clearer images).

What do you think?

Is one of them any more acurate or innacurate than the others?

What similarities are there?

Is it OK that Africans or Asians would think of Jesus as being African or Asian?

... or Caucasians as Caucasian?

Check out the first "Prince Caspian" trailer!

Make sure to check out this trailer...
...but please continue the discussion from Tuesday's post below.

What Have We Done to Christmas?

Every Christmas I hear a lot of talk (and do my share of talking) about how Christmas isn't what it should be; the business and bustle, the craziness of commercialism, the madness and mayhem of materialism, the glorification of gifts, etc...



That is all true, we really have messed up what celebrating Christmas should be and the "spirit" of Christmas. But we've also messed up the Biblical story. Here's what I mean... and I know that most of this is small picky stuff, but it all adds up to give us an inaccurate picture of Christ's birth:



There was no donkey. We always see pictures or paintings, or movies, or plays with Mary riding a donkey. I've even seen a play where the donkey was the main character. There was no donkey.



Well, I suppose there may have been a donkey but it is just as likely that it could have been a horse or a camel. Or maybe Mary walked or rode on the back of a cart. The fact is that we just don't know. The bible says absolutely nothing about how Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem.



There was no inn. There was no inn and no inn-keeper. I've also seen a number of plays where the inn-keeper was a very main character. Guess what... He didn't exist.


This one needs a little explaining. First of all, there are no historical records indicating that Bethlehem had any sort of inn at this time period. Secondly, Bethlehem wasn't a big enough centre to have an inn, especially due to the fact that it was so close to Jerusalem.



But the the big reason is that there has been a gross translation error in many English Bibles every since the KJV translated the Greek word κατάλυμα (kataluma) as "inn". Kατάλυμα really means "guest room" (the TNIV, NLT, and other newer translations have corrected this error). This makes way more sense due to the fact that this was Joseph's home town. Joseph would have had family to stay with in Bethlehem. The guest room was full, so when Jesus was born they lay him in the manger that was in the entrance of every first century Jewish home. That's why the bible states this all so nonchalantly.



If you care, the real word for "inn" is πανδοχεῖον (pandocheion) as seen in Luke 10:34.



And while we're at it, let's debunk the notion that the magi showed up at the birth scene. They didn't. They came quite a bit later (possibly as much as 2 years later) and they found Mary and Jesus in a "house" (Matt. 2:11) not a barn or a cave or an inn. A house (gr. - οἰκία eng. - "oikia"... yes, this is where "Ikea" gets its name from).


And to shatter any last vestiges of what we may think the original Christmas may have been like... it probably happened in Spring. According to historical records the only time that shepherds spent the full night with their flocks (Luke 2:8) was in Spring during the lambing season. And, to back up this little theory, there was a comet reported during the spring of the year of Jesus birth.

So, somehow over the years of retelling the Christmas story we've changed a lot of things. Time-frames have been changed, characters have come in at the wrong time, some characters that weren't even there have been added, locations are wrong...

Wow, we've really messed things up! Whenever we read the actual accounts in our Bibles we need to make sure that we are seeing only what is actually there and not all of these extra traditions and tales that get added into it.

What do you think?
How different is all of this when compared to your imaginings of Christmas?
Do you know of other mistakes, misinterpretations, or misconceptions?

Here's a little task for you all: below is a Christmas card that I've scanned in. How many things are wrong with this picture?
Enjoy!

Let's Put the Chi Back in Xmas

I don't know about you but I've always been kind of ticked off when I see the word "Christmas" abbreviated as "Xmas". Now, I've always had the philosophy that I shouldn't expect non-Christians to act like Christians but to take a Christian holiday centred around the person and identity of Jesus Christ and then take His name out and replace it with a generic "X" is just going too far.

Well, I guess I should say I felt that way until the fall of '98. It was my first semester of college at Bethany and I noticed that one of my profs used X to replace "Jesus" or "Christ" whenever he was writing notes on the blackboard. Some other freshmen and I were wondering if we were being taught by a heretic when we also noticed that he replaced "God" with some sort of 'circle with slash through it' symbol. Obviously something that we didn't understand was happening.

Our prof then explained that he was using letters from the Greek alphabet as shorthand for commonly used nouns. He was using the Greek letter "theta" (Θ) as an abbreviation for "God" because in Greek "God" is Θεος (theos).

He was using the Greek letter "chi" (Χ) as an abbreviation for "Jesus" and "Christ" because in Greek "Christ" is Χριστός (Christos).

All throughout Christian history Christians have used such abbreviations. The perfect example is the ΙΧΘΥΣ or, as it is more commonly known, the "Jesus Fish". The word ἰχθύς (ichthus) means "fish" in Greek. It is also, however, an acronym for: Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour.

This is what I'm talking about:

ΙΧΘΥΣ:

Ἰησοῦς - Χριστός, - Θεοῦ - Υἱός, - Σωτήρ

Jesus - Christ, - of God - Son, - Saviour

The use of the ΙΧΘΥΣ symbol can be traced back to the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian (AD 81 - AD 96).

Another example of using Chi as a shorthand for Christ is the "Chi Rho". This can be directly traced to the Roman Emperor Constantine in the 300s. "Chi" and "Rho" are the first two letters in Χριστός (Christos) the Greek word for Christ:

XP

Χριστός

Christ

And so, my prof continued to explain, even the abbreviation for Christmas as "Xmas" is actually hundreds of years old and has it's roots, not in defaming Christ, but in a long history of religious short-hand. It's not "X-mas"... it's really "Chi-mas".

Who would have known!

But there still remains at least one question in my mind: Since most people don't know this background what do we do when people think that they are taking "Christ" out of Christmas and are doing it intentionally?

Of course, now we know better. They are really just joining in on a centuries old Christian tradition but they think they are making Christmas more politically correct.

Which brings us to "Happy Holidays" and "Seasons Greetings" and all that rubbish. How far do we take this?

I mean, if non-Christians have decided to celebrate our holiday then shouldn't they let us keep the name? I can't imagine people changing the name of Ramadan on the Muslims... that's just too politically incorrect.

What do you think?

What are we known for?

As Christians what are we known for?

What we are for?

or

What we are against?

The latest series to fall victim to the "Christian Boycott Bandwagon" (they needed something to fill the void left by the completion of the Harry Potter series!!) is Philip Pullman's trilogy of books "His Dark Materials" ("The Golden Compass", "The Subtle Knife", and "The Amber Spyglass").

The reason some people are getting all riled up about these books is because, by Pullman's own admission, he wrote them as a rebuttal to CS Lewis' "Chronicles of Narnia" which he views as 'Christian propaganda'.

Maybe he just said that to tick off a whole bunch of Christians, get lots of publicity, and sell lots of books. I don't know if that's why he did it, but if it is it's working.

Now, the reason that this is all coming to light now, (after all, the first book was published back in 1995) is that these books are finally hitting the silver screen. So, (beware the sarcasm) make sure none of you or your kids read the books or see the movie: they are likely to go straight to hell!

I suppose it needs to be said that I have not read these books (but the movie trailer looked pretty cool) so if you have please share your opinion. If there's really stuff in here that is totally harmful or heretical then set me straight.

It just ticks me off when Christians spend all of their time and energy condemning this, that, and the other thing but NEVER DO ANYTHING POSITIVE! It's no wonder people sometimes think of Christians as hate-mongers if all they see of us is endless condemnation.

After all, even if these books are evil, you don't overcome evil by abstinence. Abstinence is neutral. Instead we should, "...overcome evil with good" Romans 12:21 (ESV).

The funny thing is that people are condemning Pullman because he is an atheist. When was the last time an atheist was won back to Christ because he was boycotted and condemned by Christians? Last time I heard that wasn't one of the more effective methods. You may want to check out CS Lewis' own story for a more positive idea for converting atheists.

Anyway, Pullman's stories are full of spiritual themes and symbols. It's true (from what I've read), he doesn't view the church very positively, nor his 'god' representatives. But that shouldn't be a surprise should it?

A quick browse of wikipedia shows that Pullman grew up with a religious background. His grandfather was clergy. One of his biggest literary influences, and where he got the title for his trilogy, is John Milton's Paradise Lost, one of the greatest Christian classics. Another huge influence was William Blake, another amazing Christian artist and poet.

So, when you start reading articles and getting emails about how Philip Pullman is the devil incarnate, remember that these things are rarely black and white. For example, some Christian schools are suggesting that these books become compulsory reading to help students understand some of the secular world's justified critiques of the church. After all, Pullman clearly has some unresolved issues with Christianity in his past.

The main thing to keep in mind is that anyone reading these needs to read them carefully and cautiously. If kids are reading them, the parents need to be reading it with them and engaging them in discussion (or if the kids are too young then parents act accordingly... but that goes for "Christian" literature as well).

It just frustrates me when Christians go around boycotting everything. They boycotted Disney for years... and then Disney distributed the "Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" movie so they had to lift their ban.

What happens if Pullman is eventually reconciled to Christ. Will the boycott on his pre-conversion books continue? Or will they become classics in their own right?

So,

Have any of you read these books? What are they really like?

Are these books really that bad... ie, "worse" than Harry Potter or Disney?

Why drives some of us to ban and boycott?

Are Christians known more for what we are against than for what we are for?

Sometimes I just get really angry...

OK, so I'm not going to turn this into a current events blog or anything like that but this one was too much for me:

There's this church down in the states, Westboro Baptist Church, that is being sued. And they deserve it. They have been picketing at funerals. They travel all over the country disrupting and defacing the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. Read the whole story here. Notice some of their delightful signs:

The church's official website is "godhatesfags.com" (I would have a link for you but it appears as though the site may have been shut down). You see, this church/fundamentalist cult believes so strongly that god is punishing America for it's sinfulness that they are more than willing to joyfully desecrate a family funeral.

Oh, and check out these other catchy slogans: "You're Going to Hell", "God is Your Enemy", "Not Blessed Just Cursed", and my personal favourite (please note my extreme sarcasm) "God Hates You".

Way to spread the Good News guys!

AAAAARRG!

On their website they attempt to quote every single verse that has to do with God's anger and wrath. They blame evangelical churches with 'watering down the gospel with love'.

Yeah, love is ruining the gospel... uh huh.

Oh, just wait "GOD IS LOVE". You may recognize that phrase. It's in the Bible. Maybe you've heard of it. Apparently they haven't:

1 John 4:7-8 (ESV) Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

This "church", if you can call it that, apparently hasn't read 2 Corinthians either:

2 Corinthians 5:18-20 (ESV) 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

They're doing a great (again with the sarcasm) job of reconciliation. No, instead they choose to be a thorn in the side of those who are already mourning.

Unbelievable. I can't believe that they even call themselves Christians.

I'm not even sure what discussion prompting questions to ask for this post. Feel free to also share your outrage... or correct me if I'm wrong.

Ethical Economics

So just in this last week a sweatshop in India was discovered. According to various reports there were 14 pre-teen children working up to 16 hours a day, being beaten with rubber tubes if they misbehaved, crouching on their haunches all day because they didn't have chairs or benches to work on, the lucky ones were paid $0.12 per day; the unlucky were paid nothing. One report says that the hallways of the workplace were filled with human feces from an overflowing toilet (Here I've googled "Gap, Sweatshop" for you in google news).



The guilty employer this time around: GAP.

Now, I'm not big on boycotts and picketing and all that kind of stuff. I think that it's largely a waste of time and gives the wrong kind of publicity. However, the "Fair Trade" movement is something that I can get behind. The idea behind fair trade is that we as North Americans, the richest people in the world, should not be taking advantage of the third world nations by using them to increase our wealth.

Really, it shouldn't be a bad thing that the Gap has a workshop in India. In fact, it could be a great thing for the Gap to do... if they treated their workers humanely and paid them a good wage. If they did that they could actually be making a difference in the third world by helping to stimulate their economy and supporting local families and neighbourhoods.

Unfortunately, this is not the case.

The fair trade movement is all about making sure that workers all around the world are being paid an honest wage for an honest day's work. The easiest way to do this is to find brands that are "fair trade certified" and to create a demand for these products by buying them and excluding brands that aren't certified. By this method we can, bit by bit, make a difference in the third world economies. Look for this logo on your products.

Please check out this website: Fair Trade Concepts. A christian guy named Stacey Toewes runs this site. I've heard him speak on this topic a number of times.

Remember Psalm 82:3-43

"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;

maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.

Rescue the weak and needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

So,

How can we as Christians become "ethically responsible consumers"?

Should big issues like this be dealt with by the church or by governments?

Are there two sides to the story?

Time for Eternity

In our Small Group the last week or two we've ended up talking about Heaven, time, and eternity. We talked about a lot of things like, are the descriptions of heaven that we have in the Bible literal or figurative (how does John describe unearthly things while being limited by earthly language)?

But in our discussion of eternity, one of our group members threw out a wonderfully intriguing idea: What if time is not linear?


The modern mindset with all of it's science and logic has taught us to think of time in a very... well... chronological manner . Now, yes, our own life experience displays time to us as linear but, of course, our own life-span is very limited. So what if we're wrong?

What if time is not a "line" but a "soup" (to use her words)?

What if time is not a "stream" but an "ocean"?

For me, this may help me understand God's place both inside and outside of time. Christianity insists, rightfully so, that God acts and intercedes in human history. Yet God is also, according to Christian doctrine, "outside" of time; not subject to it as He created it.

So, if time is an ocean and our lives are but one current in it's vast expanse; if our lives are but the undertow in the unexplored depths of eternity; is not God able to swim in and out each current wherever He wishes? In this way God is fully capable of acting and interceding at any and all points of history as He wills.

CS Lewis toyed with some of these ideas in his story, "The Dark Tower". Unfortunately, he never finished the story and so it has been published (in it's unfinished form) posthumously. It's just as good as the rest of his fiction and ends just as it's getting really good.

Anyway, in this novel He plays with the concept of time as "uni-linear". What if there are parallel times (ie. in our terms multiple, parallel currents within the ocean of time)?

Do you have any other ideas, models, concepts, or analogies to offer us?

How do you think of eternal life?

How do you think God interacts throughout all history?

Does eternity make your mind hurt?

Art and Literature

I have grown to appreciate the art of Stanley Donwood. I know him best as the conceptual artist for the band, Radiohead, however his 'solo' works are equally intriguing. One of his series of paintings features city maps that he has painted over. On the top you see "London" and on the bottom, "Hollywood". Yes, very post-modern.

I think they are kind of facinating. What do you think? (click on them for a higher resolution)










On a different note, here (above) is my favourite new commercial. It makes me all warm on the inside.

Now go read a book!

Primogeniture

Recently I have been thinking about Primogeniture (firstborn rites and customs) and the theological significance of the first child born in a family unit.

Just to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, in the NIV translation of the Bible, the term "firstborn" is used 132 times. Obviously there is something of significance here. After all "salvation" (usually considered a more important Christian concept) is only said 122 times!

Most of the time we see scripture talking about firstborn rites I think we automatically write it off as mostly cultural. There's obviously some truth to this as primogeniture is not unique to ancient Israel. Most cultures of the Ancient Near East practiced very similar firstborn customs.

But then you read scriptures like Ex 34:19"The first offspring of every womb belongs to me..." or Ex 13:22 "Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether man or animal." As well, the firstborn of every family received a double inheritance when his father died.

And this isn't just a strange Old Testament thing either (not that it should be ignored even if it was). Jesus is considered by Paul to be the "firstborn among many brothers" in the family of God (Rom 8:29). Jesus is also called the Firstborn: "over all creation" (Col 1:15) and "from among the dead" (Col 1:18, Rev 1:5). In other words, being the "firstborn" is essential to the identity of the Christ.

So, is there anything to primogeniture for us today?
Is this just a cultural thing?
Is it just a theological thing?
Is primogeniture more important than salvation!?

A Post-modern view of the Modern world:

Life in the Post-modern world:

Art by Radiohead and artist Stanley Donwood.

Remedy

Hey! You there. Stop what you're doing and go buy the new David Crowder* Band album: Remedy.

"Where there is pain...

let us bring grace.

Where there is suffering, bring serenity,

for those afraid, let us be brave.

Where there is misery, let us bring relief,

let us be the remedy."

This is my son, with whom I am well pleased:
Kaleb Timothy Braun. Born Wednesday, September 26th, 2007.

Sad News for Race Fans

Orthodox box.

Thank you for indulging me in my ramblings.

While I sometimes like to think outside the box of orthodoxy, at the end of the day I usually end up back inside the box, looking out through the little oblong hole where your hand goes.


But I truly think that it is important for us to frequently analyze "Christianity". I mean, the Church is the Bride of Christ, right? So, what does Christ think about His bride? To attempt to grasp this sometimes it's worth getting outside the box and looking around.

At various times throughout history Christian Orthodoxy has included varying forms of racism, sexism, violence, ignorance, repression, oppression, and many other things that make me cringe when I think about it. We see this from our vantage point as 21st century Christians. Those poor, disillusioned Christians of ages past! If only they knew what we know now!

But what does Christ think about us? What does it mean to be His Bride now?

Will the Church of the future look back and wonder why we did so little to stem the tide of AIDS or poverty in the third world? I recently heard that if all the Christians in the world would only tithe (give 10%) then, without any help from governments or other organizations, we could end world poverty in a single generation. Just Christians... just tithing.

Or maybe it's not social justice. Maybe it's our theology. What about this push for non-denominationalism. Is this a good thing; a new ecumenical unity. Or is it a bad thing; the watering down of each denomination's distinctives into one "tame" Christianity.

What do you think?
How far can we push orthodoxy ('right thinking')?
What might Christ think of His 21st century bride?
What other things in the Church's past used to be orthodox but no longer are?

Perfection

So, this post is sort of a continuation of the comments from the previous post.

I remember being a surprised in a Genesis/Exodus class I had at Bethany College when our prof challenged our ideas of the perfection of creation. I know that this initially sounds heretical; and I also know that our prof was mostly challenging us just to get us thinking critically.

But the fact is that the Bible doesn't claim the perfection of creation... at least in so many words.

The first time "perfect" is used in the Bible is in Leviticus 22:21 (NASB). I also know that a lot of the ideas of Pre-fall Eden are a reflection of the Post-apocalyptic "New Eden" in Revelation (ie. heaven). But the fact is that the word "perfect" is not used anywhere in the book of Revelation either.

Obviously this raises a lot of questions (primarily: is "Pastor" Tim being blasphemous?).

I hope not. It is certainly not my intent. I'm trying to be a good post-modern Christian: a full plate of good intentions with a side order of scepticism.

Think of it this way: Does a "perfect" world allow the option of sin?

Eden did.

Heaven will not.

What is our definition of "perfect"?

Is Heaven simply a return to what Eden was or is Heaven something even greater? IE. if Heaven is greater then it must be "better" or "more perfect" hence Eden was "less perfect"/ not actually "perfect".

OK. I'll stop now and let you all set me straight.

...to be Human...

So, I've been reading "The Wounded Healer" by Henri Nouwen and this idea has captured many of my stray thoughts:

"When man is no longer able to look beyond his own death and relate himself to what extends beyond the time and space of his life, he loses his desire to create and the excitement of being human." (pg. 13)

Nouwen is talking about what he calls the "nuclear man". Essentially he is talking about the post-modern generation (he wrote this in '72 before our language of post-modernity was widely used). He says that the plight of the post-modern individual is caused by a Historical Dislocation, a Fragmented Ideology, and a Search for New Immortality. What I love about Nouwen's approach is that he doesn't attack Post-Modernity but acknowledges it as just another philosophy that will one day be replaced by something else; it's just what we've got to work with for now.

So, according to him, when we cease to seek immortality we cease to be fully human (ie. created in God's image).

There's a thought. What do you think?

He says that mankind's desire to extend himself beyond his own life is part of what it means to be made in God's image.

To create is to emulate the creator.

So please "create" some comments and discussion.

What Really Matters!

I know that this is what you have all been thinking about lately... it's been keeping you all up late at night: What will the new Vancouver Canucks jerseys look like?

The Original Logo (1970s):

The 1980s/90s:

The 1990s/2000s:

AND THE NEW LOGO IS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!: not much different.

The Logo isn't much different. Just some colour tweaking. But the jerseys themselves look quite a bit different. Back to the original colours:
I know that there are some Caucks fans out there that check my blog. So, what do you think?

The Bible as Literature

So last week I was talking to someone who had read my last post. They had noticed that when I quoted the verse from Judges that says the Hebrew slingers could spit hairs with their stones, I thought that this was an exaggeration.

But what about the inerrancy of scripture?

What do you think? Could these guys literally split hairs with their slings?

This is a constant struggle in interpreting scripture. The Bible is literature. Huge sections are written in various forms of poetry (be it epic, acrostic, chiastic, etc...). As such it is full of literary devices: metaphor, simile, hyperbole, personification, anthropomorphism, repetition (a Hebrew favourite), and so many more, especially if you know the original languages, cultures, and literary characteristics.

So, could these slingers actually split hairs or was it hyperbole (literary exaggeration)?

Does Jesus actually want us to hate our families (Luke 14:26)?

Is God really a rock (Deut 32:4)?

I think we need to acknowledge what the Bible is and what it is not.
The Bible is: a series of poems, letters, first person accounts, oral traditions, etc... of how God interacts with His creation. Based on this we can see who God is; God's Character.

The Bible is not: a science text-book. Some people have taken the idea of inerrancy (there is literally no errors in the Bible, everything is to be taken at word value) way too far by claiming that the "science" in the Bible is inerrant. That's why the church got into trouble with Galileo and Copernicus.

This could really be expanded... but not today. The point is that the Bible's value comes not from the words themselves but the person who those words point to. Behind every word, phrase, sentence, paragraph, chapter, book, and testament lies a God who wants to know us. A holy, awesome, transcendent... and personal God.

The Bible isn't authoritative just because "it's the Bible". It is the character of God that is authoritative. It is because that character is revealed to us in His Word that the Bible has authority to speak into our lives.

Pet Peeve

So, last week Mike Morson posted on his blog a little commentary on the encounter between David and Goliath. You should read it: here.

Now, reading Mike's blog reminded me of something that bugs me about this story (and this has nothing to do with Mike or what he said). It really irritates me when people (mostly pastors who preach on this passage from 1 Samuel 17) play up the fact that little ol' David and his tiny pea shooter of a sling took out big bad Goliath who had all of the best armament of the day.

It's just not true.

First of all, David killed Goliath with the giant's own sword: "Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it" (1 Sam 17:51 NASB). He only knocked down Goliath with the sling (vs. 49). Sunday School has so kindly edited that part of the story out... for better or for worse.

Secondly, the sling was and is an efficient and deadly weapon. Click here if you care enough to read an article on the history of the sling in warfare. The fact is that, in the ancient world, slingers had better range and accuracy than most archers. Slingers were still used in European armies after the advent of firearms. There are records of slingers in the military up until the 17th century AD!

Michael Curtis Ford is one of the better Historical Fiction writers of our day. In his book, "The Ten Thousand" he writes about the Greek cavalry officer, Xenophon, who leads a group of Greek mercenaries to Persia and back. Both Xenophon's actual account of the events(Anabasis) and Ford's book highlight the importance of slingers in the warfare of the Ancient Near East.

Anyway, the Bible itself lends credibility to what I say:

Judges 20:16 "Out of all these people 700 choice men were left-handed; each one could sling a stone at a hair and not miss" (NASB). Maybe slight exaggeration but you get the point.

1 Chronicles 12:2 "They were equipped with bows, using both the right hand and the left to sling stones and to shoot arrows from the bow" (NASB). Bows and slings on the same playing field.

So, the point is, that David knew what he was doing. He knew the capabilities of his weapon; he also knew that he didn't have a chance against Goliath up close. Also, it would seem as though Goliath knew what a sling was capable of as he sent his shield-bearer ahead of him (vs. 41) to cut off the angle. However, with God's help and a practiced hand David took down his enemy with a sling... and then killed him.

Sorry for the rant.

Please share your rants; do you have any pet peeves when it comes to the Bible, the Church, or religion?

How much should our Biblical education of children be edited?

There's a lot of violence and fornication in the Bible... what makes it and what doesn't?

What's our criteria?

We can be going somewhere.

This post is a continuation from the last post so you may want to read it if you haven't.

You may also want to read the comments from the last post...

How can we embrace a progressive theology while still remaining true to the infallible Word of God?

This question is addressed in William J. Webb's book, "Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals." In short, Webb's solution is to separate what is cultural from what is "transcultural" in Scripture. His method of doing so is to identify the "redemptive movement" of scripture. He says there is often a progression in scripture; an X-Y-Z kind of a movement. X= the culture of the world; Y= God's pre-Messianic Law; Z= God's post-Messianic rule. By identifying these we can see if there is any redemptive movement.

So with slavery: X= an abusive slavery without any rules; Y= a moderated, limited slavery; Z= "your slave is your brother" mentality were slavery is permitted but not condoned. Seeing this kind of progression in scripture leads us to see (in Webb's opinion) that the eventual abolition of slavery was likely part of God's grand plan.

With Homosexuality: X= complete acceptance; Y= complete rejection; Z= complete rejection. Here we can see that there is no movement. While the world around us accepts homosexuality there is no movement within scripture to allow for "progression" as some would like to call it. The only possible progression is that Y said homosexuality was a capital offense while Z would likely not call for stoning or anything of the like. None-the-less there is no indication within scripture that God's plan is to make any movement on this particular issue. Homosexuality is forbidden.

I like this approach because it allows us to view the overall scope of God's plan in scripture. The book I mentioned I found quite helpful but it does read like the textbook it is. He goes into extreme detail and uses literally dozens of examples: slavery, women's rights, homosexuality, primogeniture, patriarchy, circumcision, etc... almost anything in scripture that could be construed as being cultural (and thus, not trans-culturally authoritative).

So...

Does this idea of "redemptive movement" make any sense to you?

What other contemporary issues might this apply to?

Am I still on crack?

Are we going anywhere?

Throughout scripture there is an over-arching theme of "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15; Rom. 8:18-25). Something has happened to God's creation that requires "re-creation". So, throughout the story of God's people we see attempts at progress; attempts to recreate the world into the place that He wants it to be. Because of this I am fairly passionate about progressive theology... because a static (unmoving) theology cannot recreate.

In a book I read recently, John G. Stackhouse says this: "The quest is not for the perfect theory, the perfect interpretation of Scripture, the perfect theology but for the best available. The main thing in life is not to figure everything out but to rely on God to provide what we need to accomplish his Will in every circumstance -- including the best theology for the job -- and then to get on with that work."

In theory it sounds like we should be searching for the perfect theology, the perfect interpretation of scripture. However, when you look at the tradition of hermeneutics (interpretation of scripture) you witness the evidence of the impossibility of the ultimate hermeneutic. Slavery is an ideal example. Throughout the whole Bible (Old Testaments and New) slavery is either condoned or permitted if you hold to a literal, static interpretation. Because of this, theologians throughout history have endorsed slavery. Some notable pro-slavery Christians: Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Hodge.

I don't think that any Spirit guided Christian today would knowingly permit or endorse any kind of slavery. In other words... we believe that we have made progress in our theology. We now understand things differently than all of these well respected Spirit guided theologians who endorsed slavery in the past. Somehow we know better. Our interpretation is "more correct".

Now, don't get me wrong... I am not promoting liberal theology in any way. I am completely bound to God's infallible Word. However, I believe that in order for us to aid God in His recreation of our world we need to embrace a progressive theology. How this works itself out with scripture I'll talk about next week...

But until then:

Am I on crack?

Have we as Christians really been making any progress?

Can you think of any theologies in which future Christians might make more progress/change our theology?

What areas of our world need to be recreated the most (ie. environment/human rights/theology/philosophy/etc...)?

Palate Cleanser

**What follows is in no way intended to promote anti He-Man sentiment. Nor is it designed to reflect badly on anyone with positive nostalgic memories involving He-Man or any of the so-called "Masters of the Universe".**

So Mike and I have been having this very deep, profound discussion revolving our childhood heroes. Tim's Hero: Astro Boy; Mike's Hero: He-Man.

Ah, the nostalgia.

I'd like you to weigh in:
I propose that Astro Boy could kick He-Man's butt. Here is Astro's intro segment (you can view He-Man's intro on Mike's very cool new blog, "whatthefitz.blogspot.com".)

PS- Please feel free to continue the discussion on "Armor and Sword" or any other previous post.

Armor and Sword

Neil Peart has had a big influence on my life. Most of this influence has been restricted to music, drumming specifically. Neil Peart is the drummer for the Canadian progressive rock band "Rush" (he is also in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as one of the most influential drummers in history).

Neil Peart is also the writer of the vast majority of Rush's lyrics. He is an very intelligent and philosophical writer who has been through some tough times (his wife dying of cancer and his only child dying in a car accident within a year of each other).

Rush has just come out with a new album, "Snakes and Arrows". Throughout the album Peart expresses his struggles with religion specifically around the issue of faith. In an interview Peart had this to say: "... [faith] ought to be your armor, something to protect you and something to console you in dark times. But it's more often being turned into a sword, and that's one big theme I'm messing with."

This can be seen in his lyrics to the song "Armor and Sword":
Sometimes the damage is too great
Or the will is too weak
What should have been our armor
Becomes a sharp and burning sword.

This is an obvious reference to the "Armor of God" in Ephesians 6:13-17. He may have a point here. In Ephesians, faith is our "shield"; part of our armor which is defensive not offensive. The only offensive part of the Ephesians 6 passage is the "sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God" (vs. 17b). So, our offense does not depend on anything coming from us... our faith, our opinion, our convictions. Instead, our offense is dependent on God through His word.

Have we as Christians done damage by using our personal faith as a weapon instead of letting God's word (through His Spirit) be the weapon?

How can we live out our faith in the public arena without having it become a "sharp and burning sword"? (Peart's reference to the crusades... probably)

Is our faith becoming a "sword" really a bad thing?

Embarrassing Christianity

The Atheist's Nightmare..?




I seriously hope that this video is a joke... unfortunately I don't think it is.

I'm just embarrassed to be associated with this kind of "Christianity"; I'm ashamed that Christians would behave in such ridiculous ways and say such incredible things.

The fact is that as Christians we are representatives of Christ; His "ambassadors" (2 Cor. 5:20). So what happens when Christ's ambassadors foolishly represent Christ? What happens when one ambassador is ashamed by another? In Luke 9:26 Jesus says, "If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his glory..." (NIV).

All throughout history Christ's "embassy", the Church, has made unfortunate decisions and misrepresented Christ. I think specifically of the medieval Church insisting that the earth was flat ("ends of the earth" Mk 13:27) or that the sun orbits the earth (Ps 19:6) when ultimately they were completely wrong. I can't blame them too much for being wrong (I've been wrong about a lot of stuff too) but why be so insistently arrogant about it? Is it really necessary to condemn people as heretics because of their understanding of the solar system?

So I wonder...
Are there ways in which our Churches are currently behaving that misrepresent Christ?
Will future generations look back at us now and think of us with embarrassment?
Was this guy on "crack" or does a banana actually, finally, and conclusively prove God's existence?

What is Water?

If you want to know what water is don't ask a fish.

I am constantly intrigued by the concept of "worldview". I forget where I heard this statement about fish and water but I love it. It demonstrates so well our relationship to our worldview... most of the time we don't even recognize its existence. Yet our understanding of the way the world works affects absolutely every area of our lives; especially the way we view God.

James W. Sire is one of the leading authorities when it comes to understanding our worldview. In his book "Naming the Elephant", Sire tells this story to highlight the role of worldview in our lives: (I am, of course, only briefly summarizing his story)

One day a little boy come to his father and asks, "Dad, what holds the world up? Why doesn't it fall down?" The father, chuckling at this childish question, gives his son a childish answer, "A camel holds up the world, son." The boy is temporarily satisfied with this answer, after all, camels can carry all sorts of things. But soon the son comes back with another question. "Dad, if the camel holds up the world, what holds up the camel?" The dad, for lack of a good answer keeps going with his theme and says that a kangaroo holds up the camel. Again, the boy is only temporarily satisfied and soon comes back asking what holds up the kangaroo. Well, of course an elephant holds up the kangaroo. And what holds up the elephant? Now the father is done playing this little game and so he ends it by answering: "The elephant goes all the way down."

Naturally, we all ask the question, "all the way down to what? What is the bottom?" At some point each one of us has to give a similar answer; but what is it? What is our elephant? What is our way of getting to the bottom? And what is the bottom?

For years many Christians' elephant was the phrase "because the Bible says so". When they lacked any "real" answer they would simply say "God" or "Jesus" or "the Bible". Is this sufficient? When we are faced with questions that we honestly can't answer is it fair to ourselves, others, and God Himself to give quaint "Sunday school answers" like "because the Bible says so"?

While I am personally uncomfortable with these "Sunday school answers" I am comfortable resting in the fact that in Christianity God has provided us with a complete worldview. This is all explained in Sire's book "The Universe Next Door". According to Sire (and I am inclined to agree), no other worldview can satisfactorily answer the essential questions of a worldview. In Christianity, God answers all the questions of the nature of reality, knowledge (epistemology), and identity.

Is "because the Bible says so" a fair answer? Upon what basis can this statement be authoritative?

In your opinion, how aware are we of our own worldview?

How have our western worldviews effected Christianity in the west?

6x9=42

I've never claimed to be good at mathematics.

If you have never read "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams you should. Aside from the fact that it is probably the only book that I have read and laughed out loud while reading, this book is an incredibly witty look at nihilism. This is where I get my amazing math skills from.

In one of Adams' books the people of the universe decide once and for all to find out what the answer is to "the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything." So they create a supercomputer (nicknamed "Deep Thought") to solve the meaning of life. After 71/2 million years of calculation Deep Thought comes up with the answer: 42. The people of the universe then have to create another supercomputer (the planet Earth) to find out what the proper mathematical question would be. Earth comes to the conclusion that the original question was... 6x9=?

So there you have it. The meaning of life is: 6x9=42. Both question and answer are inane. One of Adams' characters (Prak) explains this mathematical and philosophical oddity by saying, "I'm afraid... that the Question and the Answer are mutually exclusive. Knowledge of one logically precludes knowledge of the other. It is impossible that both can ever be known about the same universe."

This is the conclusion that Adams reached. Douglas Adams was a life long advocate of evolution and a self-proclaimed "radical atheist." He recognized that the logical outcome of belief in Naturalism is Nihilism (a denial of the possibility of knowledge). If you believe that life happens by accident and then search for the meaning of life you have a question and answer that are mutually exclusive (6x9=? and 42). For someone that didn't believe in an answer and thought that asking the question was pointless, Adams spent a lot of time searching for both.

This is the world that we live in. Most people claim to have either the question or the answer. Many of us claim to have both the question and the answer... but do they line up?

Many people who do not believe in a "Christian" God look at Christians and are confused. In Adams' words, why would "otherwise rational... intelligent people... nevertheless take [the existence of God] seriously." I think, in situations like this, it may be that the questions and answers don't line up. But that's because Adams was either asking the wrong question or getting the wrong answer.

What are your experiences with Nihilism (there is no meaning/purpose in life)?

Do we, as Christians claim to have the question (6x9=?) or the answer (42)?

How can we bridge into an increasingly Nihilistic world?

Is "Marvin the Paranoid Android" funny or irritating?

"I do believe... help my unbelief"

As a postmodern Christian I take great comfort in Mark 9:24. In this passage a desperate father comes to Jesus with his son asking for healing. He asks Jesus "if" He can heal his son. Jesus replies that "all things are possible to him who believes" (9:23). The father, desperate to believe but unsure if he does cries out, "I do believe; help my unbelief."

Often this is the way I am in my Christian life. I know what I believe (or should believe) but when I actually deconstruct my own actions or motives my own belief/faith (same greek word; 'pistis') is questionable. I am left with the reality of my own unbelief ('apistis'). This is why Jesus' response is so comforting; he heals the man's son. Jesus accepts this man's desire to believe as belief. This is what the postmodern Christian needs to grasp. Our salvation does not solely rest on our belief/faith but on Christ's faithfulness.

In my third year at Bethany College I read a textbook in my "Contemporary Thought" class. This book was "The Myth of Certainty" by Daniel Taylor. The book wrestles with what it means to be an intellectually honest Christian in the church. At a surface level, the contemporary church has a lot for a postmodern critic to deconstruct. When some of these critiques are justified how do we as Christians respond? How do we live when we are split between in the intellectual and Christian worlds? Why are these two worlds supposedly exclusive from each other? If you've ever wrestled with these questions this is a book that you should read. I found it very helpful.

Here's where you can respond:

Have you ever gone through times of doubt? What was/is of help for you?
How can we as thoughtful, reflective Christians live in a postmodern world?
If intellectual honesty requires that we admit the possibility that we may be wrong how do we reconcile this with a life of belief/faith?

Theophile, huh?

Yeah, I know. All my friends and family are now thinking, "Tim's such a nerd." They're probably right.

But what is a "theophile"? Literally it would mean, "friend of God" or "one who loves God" but for me there is a deeper meaning. In John 21 Jesus confronts Peter and asks him if he loves Him. Jesus is wondering if Peter loves Him with an unconditional, limitless love (agape). Peter replies that he only "philo"s Jesus... that is, he loves Jesus with a friendship or brotherly kind of love. Peter's love is insufficient. Nonetheless, Jesus still loves Peter unconditionally and commissions him to "Shepherd my sheep" (vs. 15, 16, 17).

So that is why I am a "theophile". I'd love to say that I agape God but I often feel as though my love is insufficient, just as Peter's was. Nonetheless, Jesus has still called me to His ministry... and here I am.

So this blog isn't going to be your typical blog of posting pictures and keeping friends and family up-to-date. If you're looking for that you can go to Juanita's blog (there's a link on the side). This is going to be a blog for those theophiles out there who need a venue to think and express themselves outside of a Sunday morning service, or a small group.

So if you are a thinker, a lover of theology, philosophy, or abstract thought in general please continue to check in and share your thoughts.