Are You a Man?

My final installment on a series of old posts from a previous blog I authored that has been shut down.

I could wait no longer.  Earlier this week I was directed to view a video on YouTube that I found to be both hilarious and sad all rolled into one.  This video is been quickly spreading around the Grace College campus, and so I decided to post some of my thoughts on the video and the beliefs behind it.

The exegesis committed by this pastor is horrendous.  He shows no regard for context and has no interest in how language functions.  He is a King James Only advocate which creates a whole other host of issues, but his arguments from his church's website are poor at best and very anti-intellectual.  I was raised in a KJO church, and at that church the arguments were at least academic in nature, so while I do not agree with the position, I at least respect their attempt at making their argument.  But those who make an argument based on strict opinion and even anti-intellectual beliefs, they earn zero respect.

What saddens me most about this is the fact that this man is standing behind a pulpit, proclaiming what he believes to be the Word of God, and thus leading a church down a treacherous path.  He also, by publishing his sermon videos on YouTube, is potentially creating a negative witness to the Gospel message and what true followers of Christ are about.  It seems he is more concerned about the judgment of God than he is the love of God.  True, even I believe the judgment of God is poorly understood and downplayed far more than it should be, but if it is not preached alongside the love of God, then the Gospel is not preached.  And the purpose of preaching is to proclaim the good news.  (side note, the word translated Gospel in the Greek literally means 'good news' and the verb is 'to proclaim good news').

So here is the video.

Ok, now some critique on it.

 
First - the issue of context.  The pastor is seeking to proclaim that only men who urinate while standing are true men, and this is whom God is seeking.  Therefore, we should also only urinate while standing if we want to be men that God seeks.  But notice that in the context God is seeking these men for one purpose: to destroy them.  The passages he is referring to are I Sam 25:22, 34; I Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:21; and II Kings 9:8.  In each one of these the phrase is used in the context of those whom God is going to destroy.  Is this message reflected in the pastor's exposition?

Second - the understanding of language.  He attacks the NKJV and NIV translators for not correctly translating the phrase, but instead translates it only as "men."  This is true, and there is nothing wrong with it.  The phrase in Hebrew is simply idiomatic. There may be some emphasis being made by using the idiom, but this does not automatically display inferiority in the newer translations. His other attacks have issues as well, but are outside the scope of this post.  And we don't even have time to get into the issues of textual criticism!

Lastly - poor understanding of canonical development.  He alludes to numerology, particularly pointing out verse referencing.  The problem with this is that the verse numbering system was not in place until well after the cannon was established.  But he uses the verse numbering system to make a theological point.  The verse and chapter divisions are in no way inspired, so on what basis can he make this argument.

There are more, but I can only spend so much time blogging.  I do have a life outside of the internet, and it is a busy one.

Just please, pay attention to II Timothy 2:15!

I Feel So Good

The third in a series of old posts from my previous blog.

Thanks to a friend, I was directed to an article in Newsweek called Happiness: Enough Already that I found to be very interesting.  Apparently too much happiness is bad for our health.  We all need a little more depression in our lives.  Imagine what would happen to love songs if the song writers paid more attention to the article... ok, scary thought!

However, there is some truth to what they are saying.  If we were all happy 100% of the time, life would be stagnant and boring.  After all, what would there be to gossip about??? But then, wouldn't that result in our being dissatisfied with life and therefore we would become unhappy?  Maybe complete happiness 100% of the time is not even possible.

Contrary to social gospel preachers, it is nice to know that while the Bible does not offer euphoric unending happiness, it does offer a sense of joy and peace that is beyond explanation.  Maybe because the weight of sin and guilt has been lifted?...

Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift.

Boot Camp

Again, this post comes from an old blog I authored that is been shut down.

Like last week, this week I am posting on something brought to my attention some time ago that I occasionally revisit to meditate on.  Whereas last week I mentioned a sociological study that got me thinking, and still does every time I visit the supermarket, this week I shall focus on a study of a single verse of Scripture.
I was directed by my Greek professor Matt Harmon to occasionally check out another blog called Hellenisti ginoskeis by Daniel J. Phillips about Greek studies.  It has been very enriching, and one particular entry consistently gets me thinking.

Hebrews 5:8 is an incredible statement of the "boot camp" Christ had to go through as he worked to be the source of salvation for us. 

The ESV reads;

Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.  And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:8-10)

Anyway, allow me to point out the beauty of verse eight, which really gets me thinking.  For ease, I'll just quote Phillips;

Then there is what I'll un-academically call the syntactic suspense. The author does not write, ἔμαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν. Rather, it is ἔμαθεν ἀφ᾽ ὧν ἔπαθεν τὴν ὑπακοήν. "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered"— learned what? The wickedness of sin? The brokenness of the world? The rough providences of God? No. "Submission." And this is held in suspense until the last, syntactically. As if to say, "Son though He was, He learned from the things He suffered—submission!"

It is amazing first of all to think that Christ learned anything.  Obviously, he did not learn in the same way we do, because he is infinite and we are finite.  But he still learned.  How to wrap this into my theological understanding is no easy task, and I have yet to do so.

Another difficult thing to grasp is how he learned - suffering.  I doubt anyone will contest that he endured suffering unlike anything any other man has ever endured.  For he, being one with God the Father, came under the weight of the full extent of the wrath of God.  Not only this, but he who enjoyed complete fellowship with the Father since eternity past was forsaken by the Father while enduring the Father's wrath.  Not one of us will ever begin to understand just how much suffering he endured.

The most difficult aspect is what he learned.  He is God, equal with the Father, and he placed himself under submission to the Father.  This is most clearly seen in the Garden of Gethsemane; "Not my will, but your's"  The one who is ruler over all submitted himself to the Father.  I struggle under my pride to submit to anything and I do not hold the position he held even before he came to this earth.

But most importantly, he did all this for us.  He did it to save us, which is astounding enough.  But here's the kicker - he did it as an example for us also.  He placed himself under submission to the will of God both for our salvation and to demonstrate to us the extent to which we should be willing to submit ourselves.  This is tough to swallow, for it is easy to submit to God's will when it gives us immediate warm fuzzies.  But what about when it calls for us to endure a little suffering for only a while.  My tendency is to shy away.  Instead, we, like Christ, should be saying "Not my will, but your's."

Too Many Choices

This is a republished blog I wrote at an old site that is now closed down.

I remember reading some time ago an article in a newspaper about the issue of America offering too many choices.  So, having been thinking about this a fair amount over these last number of days, I have decided to do some research to see if I could find the article, but alas, the choice of which research site to use was too much, so I settled with Google.   Thankfully, after a brief search, I did not have to spend much time choosing which search hit to research, for the one that caught my eye first was just what I was looking for.
Barry Schwartz wrote a book The Paradox of Choice.  He argues that having too many choices here in America is actually working towards our detriment.  We go to the grocery store and have dozens of choices of foods to buy.  Ever get stuck wondering which kind and brand of peanut butter you will choose to eat this week.  We have over 25 different kinds of bread, and the aisle I find myself stuck in most often is the breakfast cereal aisle.  I can't even begin to count how many choices there are there!

Schwartz wrote that an overabundance of choice can "produce genuine suffering."  I have to agree.  The reason is that we will spend a great deal of time trying to choose which option is the best, and in that process become what another once termed "maximizers."  The problem is that we are so overwhelmed by the potential repercussions of our possible choice that we either never make one, or we settle for less than what we desire.  These repercussions can be either significant or menial.  They could result in severe financial loss, or simply indigestion, and the fear of failure in our decision making process overwhelms us to the point of frustration, fear, and even depression.  Researchers even noted that the more choices a person is offered, the less likely they are to make a decision.  We are convinced that by having more options we will become happier, when in fact we only become more distressed.  The "what if" question plagues our conscience.

It seems God has an answer for everything (surprised??).  Christ informed us to not worry about tomorrow, or what we shall eat or drink, or where we will lay our heads tonight or even next week.  All he asks is that we concern ourselves only with what is eternal, and he will take care of all our other, temporal needs.  That we get caught up in "choice" is evidence that we are not completely relying upon him.  This is a tough lesson, one that never ceases to convict me.  And while there may not be a good answer to this problem, it is good to be aware of it and be thankful to God that in spite of our paralyzing worries about choice, he continues to care for and about us.

Community Salvation

Being part of a culture that promotes both community and individuality, I am torn at which is the better way. Consider this quote by R. Banks;

The Gospel is not a purely personal matter. It has a social dimension. It is a community affair. To embrace the gospel, then, is to enter into community. One cannot have the one without the other.

Because of this, I am forced to ask a question; is individualism truly a part of the intended nature of man, or is a focus on the individual a result of the Fall? When considering what is good, as exemplified in the Fruit of the Spirit and the beatitudes, the focus seems to be on the other, on the community and not on self. But when studying the works of the flesh in Galatians 5, and other mentions of types of sins, the focus can always boil down to a personal, self-interest. My culture tells me that the promotion of self, the looking out for the interests of the self as priority are deeply ingrained and the result is a desire to rectify any self-interested promotion. One might argue; isn’t the promotion of the betterment of self ultimately a benefactor in the interests of the community? By making myself better, am I not improving the community to which I belong as well? In the Christian context, if I make myself a better Christian personally, then I will automatically influence those in my Christian community and thus cause that community to benefit. This reasoning seems flawed, for the interests are still self-focused and therefore in some way a work toward boosting the personal ego – a move away from biblical humility.

One example I have encountered is in the learning to become and evangelistic person. Numerous hours of class time are spent studying methods and sometimes through role-playing, those methods are practiced out. But those I have met who are truly successful evangelists did not learn through class training, but “on-the-job” mentoring. They can point to someone who took them out with them witnessing, and through that example and the pressure to then try it themselves while being coached caused the person to learn and grow. The class room method is more focused on personal development through self-will, while the mentor method is focused on development within community. The methods used through communal development are more laborious, but they also tend to be more successful.

The result of examples such as these leads to the conclusion that self is in fact not the better way. God created man to operate in community. Consider this, before the Fall, is everything God creates called “good?” No, for God points out in Genesis 2:18 “It is not good for man to be alone.” Now granted this serves as the introduction to God showing man his need for marital companionship in particular, but it demonstrates a more fundamental need than even that; and that is community. Then, at the moment of the Fall, the couple became self-aware, and their focus was no longer on the relationship of the community, but on the inadequacy of the self. God, in seeing before the Fall, man’s need for a help-meet, was not merely sexual or for the sake of companionship, but communal as well. Communal interest was experienced between God, man, and woman, but when that communal relationship was destroyed, self became the primary focus.

Therefore, the primary interest of the church should not be the improvement of the self; the quest to find personal satisfaction in life based on self-developed opportunities and actions, but focused on a renewal of individuals focused on the other; i.e., the community. I am finding myself agreeing with Tom Holland in Contours of Pauline Theology when he writes;

Thus, in Christ's death, there is not only a dealing with the guilt of sin and its consequences, but also the severing of the relationship with sin, in which unregenerate mankind is involved. It is an experience that encompasses the individual, but it is much more than solitary salvation. It is the deliverance of the community by the covenantal annulling effect of death...Having been delivered from membership of 'the body of Sin', the church has been brought into union with a new head and made to be members of a new body, 'the body of Christ'. (p. 110)

Salvation’s focus is communal as well as individual. It is individual in that it deals with the sin problem in each man, and that each man must come into relationship with Christ to experience deliverance. But it is also communal in that Salvation is a bringing a person into a communal relationship with the Trinity and the body of Christ – the Church.