Does A Poetic Phrase Negate the Work of Jesus on the Cross?

This evening I heard a Christian minister proclaim on the radio that in the Garden of Eden, Satan’s attacked on Eve went “to her need for security, significance and strength.” Evidently it is part of the basis for his book and the phrase rolls off the tongue and who doesn’t have a need for security, significance and strength.

 

Do you resonate with the statement and agree with him?

 

In that statement in question the speaker claims that Eve was felt insecure, insignificant and threatened in some manner by the created order around her. When she yielded to the temptation Eve was seeking to satisfy those needs, those deficiencies in her nature that were designed into her by God.

 

The implication of the speaker’s theology is that the crux of Eve’s decision was much more than a moment of decision, to obey or disobey God. At that moment Satan is attacking those deficiencies, those flaws God designed into her, or could not remove from the design. In other words, Eve had designed into her some elements of a poor self-esteem.  The speaker by saying that humanity and the created order was not perfect, but flawed. He thereby stands against how the church has understood Eve, Adam and the initial basis of disobedience.

 

This position has implication for how the Garden of Gethsemane is then to be understood and salvation of humanity.

 

It means that in Gethsemane what transpired there was more than Jesus, a perfect human being, wrestling with a decision to obey or not obey God the Father. The church has held for two millennia that just like Eve and Adam Jesus too was truly human and perfect. The church has maintained that Jesus as the perfect man was faced with the temptation and a decision to obey or disobey, but that unlike Adam and Eve who disobeyed, Jesus obeyed knowing full well what was ahead. The church argues that Jesus as the perfect obedient human going to the cross therefore saved humanity, from the consequences of the Fall. But if Adam and Eve were not perfect humans, the basis of salvation and message of hope is unraveled.

 

Therefore the speaker’s statement about Eve means:

• That both Eve and Adam were defective by design, and as they were defective, the created order was not perfect.
• That Adam and Eve fell because they were not perfect. They were bound to sin because they were not perfect.
• That Jesus was perfect, unlike Adam and Eve.
• That Jesus did not sin because unlike Eve and Adam he was perfect.
• That Jesus was not like Adam and Eve, he was “human plus” and that this extra element helped Jesus not to sin. An argument then could be made that Jesus could not have truly yielded and if that were true he was not truly tempted.
• That if a “human plus” Jesus saved humanity, then the church’s theological argument of the last two millennium that only a perfect obedient human, the man Jesus could truly redeemed humanity for like Adam and Eve, Jesus was perfect human in every way. Like them Jesus was truly tempted and could have disobeyed, but he did not sin for he obeyed God. The church has maintained since its founding that if Jesus was not like Adam and Eve, that if he was a human plus and if Jesus did not face the same temptation and could not have truly disobeyed then humanity was not saved.   

 

Clergy, regardless of the denomination, must be cautious in crafting nice sounding statements for a book or a sermon so that poetic beauty doesn't undermine church dogma. This is particularly true regarding Adam and Eve, for how they are handled could readily result in impacting the work and nature of Jesus and even negating the basis of salvation through Jesus.

Gay Marriage Battle in Virginia and Conservative Christians

For conservative Christians Virginia is the latest battleground over the acceptance of gay relationships and legalization of gay marriage. The issue is a heated one, and for many conservative Christians it is a battle to be strongly waged as if the future of the Christian faith and the church depended on the result. To say that for some it is a highly emotional issue would be an understatement.

This author recognizes many evangelical and fundamentalist Christians take issue with using of the phrase “conservative Christian” to describe them and their stance against gay marriage. They argue with fervent passion that there is nothing “conservative” about them, particularly on this matter. No descriptive term is necessary for they are Christians period, Christians defending their faith against an ungodly dangerous lifestyle and to prevent such relationships from being viewed by the American culture, laws and the church as a whole, as an acceptable relationship equal to the traditional marriage between a man and a woman that has existed from the beginning of time across diverse cultures.

 

Given that evangelicalism is my faith heritage and education, I understand why many of my friends take issue with my use of “conservative Christians”. The term is used intentionally to distinguish my personal faith background against Christians from faith backgrounds in which there is are higher levels of openness to gay marriages.  I acknowledge that for some of my friends the use of the term “conservative Christian” as related to gay marriage would imply that it is possible for a true Christian, lead and sensitive to God's Spirit, and accept gay marriages at the same time. Such friends would dismiss such openness as being possible, that if these individuals Christians, then they are either deceived by Satan, or they are not being obedient to the Christ.

 

Some of those in this camp do go as far as to imply, or even state openly, that anyone who supports gay marriage that they are definitely not all Christian but individuals playing with religion. I take a different position. I will not question the depth and nature of another's faith who is not part of my congregation. On a host of issues, whether those issues be about smoking or alcohol consumption, church polity or worship structure, holding that Saturday or Sunday is the proper Sabbath day for Christians, how one dresses at church, going to restaurants or shopping on the Sabbath, views on how and who is saved or the nature of holiness, I will not, and cannot, judge those who are outside my faith tradition. I may not agree with one's beliefs but I have no standing to judge them. 

 

For decades I have held onto a significant and often overlooked teaching by Paul in I Corinthians 5. In that chapter Paul addresses the issue of a man in their church who is having an ongoing affair with his step-mother. The tense of the verb is clear, it is not a accidental lost control type of thing. Rather than a moment in time affair, it is an ongoing one that started well before and which appears will continue long into the future. After Paul condemns the church leadership for not dealing with the man, he then deals with the man. The passage is clear, the man is the member of that  congregation, the woman is not. Paul judges the man and instructs the church leadership to expel the man least his attitude infect and harm others in the congregation. At the same time Paul states this about the woman, “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church?...God will judge those outside.”

 

For Paul the congregational leadership has the right to judge their congregational members only, and not those outside their congregation. If I take that the entire Bible is God's divine Word then I cannot overlook this instruction and go forth to judge and condemn others who are not part of the congregation to which I belong. I have to resist the temptation to put myself in the roll of God. I cannot overlook or find some way to rationalize in my mind the dismissing of what these two short passages clearly state. I shall not and will not judge those who testify to being Christians but who are of a different tradition, who think, believe and live differently on a host of matters.

Freedom of Religion in Schools - Virginia SB 236

In recent days there has been consternation in some circles over Virginia’s recently elected Governor McAuliffe’s vetoing SB 236, a bill that passed the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate allowing for student driven prayer and religious meetings in public schools. At first glance it seems to be an innocuous bill. The bill’s proponents argued that it would allow for prayer, religious meetings and artwork/signs much like is allowed for other clubs, organizations and civic/athletic groups.

 

The Governor argued that though the bill allowed for religious activity by any faith tradition, functionally it would present local school administrators with an impossible mandate to give equal treatment to all without resulting in the giving of preferences to some groups over another. There is some validity to his view, particularly when conflicts for space occur or a range of activities and space are requested at a might higher rate than another. A school administration could find themselves in a difficult position when one faith seeks to put up a religious symbol in proximity to another symbol which may be viewed with anger by the other by its placement or timing.   

 

Does government not permitting the exercise of religious activity in our schools and public space turn the government into being anti-religion? McAuliffe argues that neutrality is not an anti-religion position, and for the smooth functioning of society within a civic space such as schools, that neutrality provides for least conflicts. On the other hand, the proponents of SB 236 loudly and forcefully exclaim yes to that question. They argue that the law is there to protect religion, ensuring that religious can be welcomed and take place in schools and that to bar such expression devalues the place of faith and its roll in society and the lives of a school’s students.

 

Yet is the proponent’s argument that simple? Or is their effort to position Christian expression as the most visible and dominant faith in the schools, and in at that, the more fundamentalist and evangelical understanding of Christianity? Is it that simple for schools to balance and give equal allowance for all religions?

 

When the forgers of the Constitution were shaping the founding documents they had the clear option of ingraining into the founding document an unapologetic declaration that the United States is a Christian nation. It was not a strange or uncommon notion for at the time Great Britain and several European nations were formally recognized as Christian nations in their governing documents.

 

Most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the shapers of the Constitution were men of faith. While for a few going to church may have been more a cultural or family expectation, most were sincere in their piety and earnest about practicing their faith. Some were more conservative and evangelical whereas others more liberal or even deists. A small number of notables like Franklin and Jefferson, appear to not have been of faith by any of modern definitions of faith commonly utilized by modern evangelicals, or even by even the definitions of the mainstream church of the day.

 

Though the framers were living in a highly Christian culture, why did they not take the opportunity to declare the nation as a Christian nation? It could not have been something simply overlooked. Why did these men not define the United States as a Christian nation rather than speaking in broader terms to God or a Supreme Being in their documents without any further definition? Why did they instead state “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

 

In an ideal situation in a nation where true freedom of and from religion exists there would be no need for the proposed law SB 236. Prayer and religious meetings by groups of any religion background would not only be tolerated but accepted at school as having value for both the participants and, to a degree, the overall community. Each would conduct their private and personal activity, respecting others of different faiths, and not using the school and other civic meetings and celebrations as proselytizing opportunities, and not being offended by the teachings, preaching and symbols of another.

 

In that plethora of religious expressions and acceptance would be a host of Christian denominations, ranging from those who believe that their particular denomination are the only true followers of Jesus Christ to evangelical religious streams who openly engage in sharing to the more liberal traditions who are may not be as demonstrative as other Christians. There would also be openly practicing Muslims with their various traditions with some reading and preaching from the Koran more openly and demonstratively than others. The various Hebrew traditions would also observing and talking openly about their faith without conflicts between them and the Muslims, or them and some Christians seeking to persuade them to become Messianic Jews. There would also be Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Satanists, etc, each having their religious symbols displayed as openly as Christian ones. Of course in the mix would be the meetings of professed atheists talking about why they hold that there is no God while people of their various faiths respectfully accepting and tolerating the atheists.

 

Is it possible that the nation’s founders recognized that such openness though ideal was an unrealistic expectation of their citizens to live out in every day practice? Is it possible that they readily recognized that differing religions can become that ground for civil discord, that even with the Christians traditions over the course of human existence heated feelings and disagreements existed over various points of the Christian faith they hold in common. And if Christians who then hold so much in common end up in armed conflict with one another with faith differences as part of the cause, did they then acknowledge to themselves that there was slim hope that peace across a diversity of different religions would occur if they all worked and practiced their faith in the public square at the same time?  Is it possible that in the framers accepted that the best position for government to take on religion was a neutral one, that it is better to rule and govern all its citizens equally, showing no preference to one religion over the other, promoting none of the other thereby allowing and encouraging its citizens to practice their faith privately in their homes and places of worship according to their own teachings and beliefs, and to work civilly alongside each other as the live and work together? If so, then it seems that they felt religious neutrality by government was from being anti-religion but instead became the guarantor of the freedom of all religions and the ground from which each could flourish and find expression in communities across their young land.

 

Over two centuries later has our society progressed and matured to the point where we can readily accept open expressions of divergent religions without conflict? Are the Virginia proponents of SB 236 arguing that those with whom they worship with on Sunday, that their children and grandchildren, their friends and associates are so highly tolerant of each other religions that they would not take issue with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists putting up signs in the local schools inviting others to their worship observances? Are they saying that the crowd on at the Friday night high school football game, or the college game on Saturday, would accept either Muslim or Hindu opening the game with a prayer from those religions?

 

Are they saying that there would be no controversy from amongst themselves or their constituents if a Muslim or Buddhist opened an upcoming meeting of the House of Delegates in prayer? Are they saying that the citizens in their districts would not be up in arms if the 10 Commandments were placed in front of the Legislature and within a few yards there be a statue of Buddha and a Satanist of some sort? If they have that confidence, the proponents of SB 236 are certainly a most optimistic lot with regard to their evaluation of the spirit, tolerance and nature of our citizenry.

Bell Ringer Hit

This week, outside a Phoenix Arizona a woman became actively engaged in the “war on Christmas” and firming affirming her faith by confronting a bell ringer who wished her a “Happy Holidays.” The woman confronted the bell ringer by asking, “Do you believe in God,” and then stating, “You’re suppose to say Merry Christmas.” The irate woman may well have felt that “Happy Holidays” was a threat to her faith and Christmas itself, so much so that she stood up for her faith with both her words and actions for she then proceeded to stress her point home by hitting the bell ringer in the arm, and the walking away possibly comforted by the thought she had born witness for her faith, and the child of peace.

The Babe Homeless?

If you had a home and job in town A and while traveling to point B your car broke down, and as it could not be repaired for a few days, would staying in the Greyhound bus station for a night or two (hotels all full) mean that you are now homeless? Why or why not?

Would you consider yourself homeless if you were stranded at an airport due to a storm closing down flights for the night? Why or why not?

If you traveled from home to visit another town, arrived to discover when you arrive late at night that the hotel you had booked was over-sold, and so are all other hotels, if you stayed the night in your car, would that mean you are homeless? If you were given a tent to pitch in the local campground, what would that say about your status? Are you homeless or not? Why or why not?

In neither case, would I consider myself “homeless”. Nor would I consider you “homeless” as you have a home. I doubt that most of my friends or family would see themselves or their friends in such situations as homeless. You may be without traditional shelter but your state is temporary, and you do have a home whereas those who are truly homeless lack the means or ability to secure their own permanent shelter. To count amongst the homeless those have a home but are temporarily not at home and are sleeping in alternate locations would do an injustice to understanding homelessness and addressing those who are truly homeless.

Joseph and Mary had a home in Nazareth. Joseph had a profession. Since they were looking for hotel accommodation in Bethlehem does not that suggest that they had the means to pay for room. While they could pay for a room, all rooms were full. They were not destitute per se. If none of us would see ourselves as homeless, why then do some preachers and Christian say that Joseph and Mary were homeless? Should we not allow our dramatics to push us to go beyond what the text states, that though they had the money, by the time they arrived the hotels were full that night (they may well have had a hotel room a day or two nights later)?

Further, if we twist/embellish well beyond the text, are we doing it justice and in doing so are we being faithful to it? If we are embellishing and adding over the text other teachings that are beyond the text and add incorrect elements, are we being truthful and thereby not keeping the faith with the text that we turn to teach us eternal truths?

The United Nations and the United States Being a Christian Nation

Within the American evangelical church for more than two decades there has circulated the claim that the United Nations no longer considers the United States to be a Christian nation. This claim is used to bolster the sermonic statements that the United States is in a period of moral decline, so much so as goes the argument that even the United Nations, a secular group, cannot recognize the United States as being Christian.

Any preacher or Christian leader who makes such regarding the United States is either showing that they are uninformed and are uncritically repeating false statements they have “heard” and accepted as being true. In other words, they are engaged in the same activity, spreading rumors and fear mongering, that they proclaim from the pulpit as being wrong. If the preacher/Christian leader is not uniformed and accepting uncritically the statements, and truly know what they are talking about, then they are willfully misleading their listeners. I prefer the former than the latter.

While it is true that the United Nations does not list the United States as a Christian nation, the same body does not list Iran or Saudi Arabia as Islamic nations or India as a Hindu nation. The United Nations has never changed the religious classification of any nation as it does not make such judgments. When the United Nations was being established in 1944 the founders recognized that the body should not evaluate the nature or quality of the nation’s religious activity, or make any such judgments in any form.

As to the changing religious life of the United States, it has evolved over the decades and will continue to evolve in the coming years as it does in every nation. The degree to which the general citizenry is more or less “Christian” is a highly subjective value judgment. That said, surveys over the decades by Pew Research and Faith Matters clearly indicates that the number of people claiming faith in keeping with traditional evangelical definitions is in decline.

In a few subsequent posts I will note some trends in religious life. Is there a decline in religiosity and spiritual faith? Maybe there is a decline, or it may be a shifting way of defining faith, just as the older generations in the 50s and 60s were concerned about lack of religious respect and spirituality from the teens to 30 yr olds of that era due to the manner in which they were dressing, being willing to go to movies, going out to eat at a restaurant on Sunday after church, going for a swim on Sunday or even put gas in their car…all of which the older generation felt were violations of keeping the Sabbath holy and contrary to holy living.

Burial, Cremation, Heritics and Limits on Divinity

The other day while reading James Michener’s Chesapeake there is a passage about the bodies of “heritics” being burned. The passage remined me of how archaic misbegotten religious notions are passed down uncritically from generation to generation shape today our lives and thinking. While it is diminishing in our society, there has been a strong reluctance against cremation due to an ancient religious teaching.

Burial is rooted in the belief in the resurrection of the dead. If there is no body to be resurrected, then the person cannot be resurrected to have eternal life or so goes the reasoning. Hence, for more than millennia, religious and civil leaders burned the bodies of “heretics” and major political opponents. The pronouncement that someone was to be burned served as a strong control over the middle age masses and burning protected the leaders from seeing their opponent in the afterlife if an injustice was carried out on them in this life…after all they assured that there would be no body for God to resurrect and correct the injustice. Today, the effects of such thinking linger effect in the number of people who see cremation as abhorrent.

For me, the ancient rationale for burial contradicts the Christian teachings about God being all-powerful, just and wise. It suggests that God is limited in his power by suggesting that the God who created the universe is powerless to resurrect someone if there was no physical body. Further, burning the bodies of heretics also suggests that God’s justice and power are limited in that the human activity makes it impossible for God to correct an injustice.

Over twelve years ago Evie and I have told our sons that we are to be cremated.

Say It Is Not So Tiger!

Tiger Woods confession of an affair has stunned many. Jesper Parnevik who along with his wife introduced Woods to his wife Elin said, “I really feel sorry for Elin, since me and my wife were at fault for hooking her up with him. We probably thought he was a better guy than he is. I would probably need to apologize to her.”

In preparation of this blog I read a quick sampling of about 140 comments posted by followers of the story. A good number of comments, about 25%, are saying that it is a private matter and it is none of our business what takes place within the Woods family and marriage. No doubt Tiger and his wife agree with those sentiments. Yet, he is a high profile celebrity who has not just made tens of millions of dollars by winning tournaments but from commercial endorsements and presenting a wholesome persona. He has sought to keep his family and personal life private, but when one enters a high profile position, an element of privacy disappears. The higher one’s profile becomes the less privacy one will have. And nothing like a tabloid scandal will bring attention of the press who make huge profits by covering, and even pumping up, a salacious celebrity scandal.

Few comments I have commented, far less than 10%, have argued for her staying with him. For every one who takes such a position there are eight or nine times that number who say that Elin should divorce Tiger. Many say that he cannot be ever trusted again. The assumption is that if he cheated once he will cheat on her again.

It is fair to say that a good number of people will criticize her for trying to redeem their marriage. Jenny Sanford, wife of disgraced South Carolina ex-governor Mark Sanford was commended by many in the church for asking her husband to move out of their home and for taking the first steps to divorce him. She is hailed as for taking a moral stand against wrong.

Those who commend Jenny Sanford tend to be the same voices who condemned Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Edwards for remaining with the husbands. These women raised the ire within significant segments of the conservative branch of the church for forgiving their husbands publically (and privately?), seeking to work through the rough times and to redeem their marriages.

Commending Jenney while condemning Hilary, Elizabeth, Kobe Bryant’s wife, and others who have sought to salvage their marriage bothers me. Those who condemn Hilary et al. need to not only get a life but also take a look at their own beliefs. Is there not a disconnect between what is preached in the Gospels and the Letters about redemption, forgiveness and restoration? Or are we saying that infidelity, whether by the man or the woman, is such an unforgiveable sin that all hope is lost for the marriage and that like Humpty Dumpty it is destroyed beyond repair?

If the answer to the above second question is “yes”, then why are Christian bookstores filled with pastoral aids and marital counseling aids regarding rebuilding marital relationships after infidelity? Are these books, a significant number of which are published by conservative printing houses, for show? Again, if the answer is “yes”, then let’s stop the hypocrisy by no longer publishing such books, having seminaries and other pastoral training programs training pastors for such moments, and cease expecting the clergy of the church to even attempt to salvage the unsalvageable.

If the consequences of the “yes” option are unpalatable and we say “no” to the above question and affirm that there is hope, then why do members of the conservative church (evangelical and fundamentalist branches) condemn Hilary, Elizabeth, et al. at a higher rate than do other segments of our society. Hence my personal disappointment in the conservative church and in the church’s leadership for not speaking positive of Hilary and Elizabeth who in the heat of the public eye seek to redeem their marriages. They need to be commended, not condemned.

Just under one in five men are unfaithful to their wives. Before we speak negatively about men, most of the women with whom those men are unfaithful are women who are married to other men. Infidelity happens both within and outside the church. It happens to people who claim sincere faith. It happens to pastors, and even a giant of the faith like King David was not immune. It always has happened and always will happen.

Tiger Woods has not disappointed me. Whose who say "Say it is not so Tiger" need to get a life. Though he is a fantastic golfer, Tiger is not super-human. He is not divine. Jesper Parnevik’s comment is troubling. If Parnevik thinks that there is a special plain where one becomes immune he could well be headed for trouble. There is not level of spirituality or character to makes one immune. Since the beginning of time infidelity can happen to people of any character if they do not carefully guard their heart and mind.

Woods’ statement states that he is far short of perfect. He is true on that point, neither am I or any reader of this blog. I am content to allow them privacy and space, to allow them to work through their issues. They have enough tensions without me or others being voyeurs into their home. If Elin and Tiger work to salvage their marriage, I will celebrate and commend them.

A Challenge for Every Generation

There are those in the fundamentalist and evangelical church that hold that the Bible must be interpreted as literally as possible and not reinterpreted by modern thoughts. They speak as if the Bible was a flat document that is to be adhered to down to the letter. This is type of thinking maintains that contemporary trends and thoughts should have no barring upon the eternal teachings of the church. The same faith of our ancestors must be faithfully preserved and passed down.

These traditionalist pervade every denomination, including The Salvation Army. One of thesee branches within the church are described as “restorationists” (or known as "the primitive Salvationist movement" in the Army). The restorationists seek to return the church to its early state. In the Army this movement calls for a return to the early years of the Army (1865-1895) in matters ranging from dress to confrontational evangelism to programs to utilization of resources. The assumption is that the Army has drifted and become somewhat apostate. The view continues that just as God blessed the Army and these early methods He will do so again if we but obediently and passionately return to the old ways.

Whether those thoughts are in the Army or in other denominations, such thinking is flawed. It sees the past through rose colored glasses and does not see the pains endured and mistakes made during “the glory years.” What is overlooked is that those tragic mistakes have helped the church to learn from the past. A handful of undeniable past mistakes may be hinted at or even broadly sketched in historical records in a sanitized fashion without really revealing the heart of the struggle with its gore. Rather than focusing upon mistakes, the records tend to over glorify the accomplishments and the results, and more often than not, do so in a hagiographic manner.

Such thinking forgets that society progresses and learns from the past. Though the heart of humanity remains embroiled in most of the same struggles, how those personal, interpersonal and cultural issues are worked out in the present is unique from prior generations. It is unique simply because society has evolved, because our new toys/technologies help create new issues past generations never dreamed of addressing. Add to modern technology the ongoing evolution of thinking, new laws and different societal standards and you have a context that is unlike those of the earlier generation. We cannot say with any certainty what the Booths or Wesley, or Knox or Luther or Peter or Paul or David or Moses would say about a particular contemporary issue or expression today as they could not and did envision our society.

Each generation has to confront its contemporary issues within its context. The Bible must be understood within its context, eternal truths defined and distinguished from cultural trappings. The kernel of the teaching carries forward to instruct and guide, not the trappings and the expression. Hence, each generation has to interpret and apply afresh the eternal teachings.

Christian Right's - A Fallacious Claim

The American Christian Right putting forward its agenda upon the national scene frequently argues that they have a right to do so as the United States was founded to be a Christian nation and that they are only fighting to remain true with the original intent of the Founding Fathers. I have been reading on and off the Thomas Jefferson’s autobiography. In his work I came across the statement that makes fallacious such a claim.

"The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word 'Jesus Christ,' so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it's protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination."

The Founding Fathers held that the United States should be a nation that allows freedom of religion for all religion, as well as freedom not to believe any set of religious teachings. Though they did not think through the consequences, or envision how society would evolve, they also held that government should not favor any particular religion.