Posts
A friend recommended I read another blog site and after perusing it, I decided to link it here. It is in the side bar section titled "Blogs to Consider". It is called Jesus Creed. While I do not necessarily agree with with some of the views presented by Scot McNight, he does present some interesting ideas worth considering, if even to hone your own faith. His background is emergent, but he seems to be a little more conservative in his views than some of the other emergent folk out there.
I should mention that some of the sites linked in the sidebar are not ones that I necessarily agree with all the time, but they are ones that cause me to think, just as I ask all of us to do. The goal is zeal for the faith with a knowledge to support that zeal.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
It's All About Context
Last night I was able to watch Reverend Jeremiah Wright speak at the National Press Club on CSPAN. In his answers regarding the controversial video clips released of some of his sermons, he responded asking if the questioner knew the context of those statements. Is it safe to say Wright is concerned about context?
At one point the questioner asked; Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." Do you believe this and do you think Islam is a way to salvation. Wright's response? Jesus also said "other sheep have I who are not of this fold." He then backed away from the podium with a smirk on his face as the audience cheered. But let us consider the context of the verse he quoted. The reference is John 10:16. First, let me quote the context of this verse.
I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. ~John 10:14-16 (ESV)
The overall context of this passage is that Jesus is talking with a group of Jews (cf. vs 19). In the Jews mind, they would immediately understand that Jesus was talking about those who were not a part of Israel, namely the Gentiles. This is a religious issue, but notice that even the Jews rejected him. His point was that he was seeking to gather all those who would follow him. Allow me to quote further from the same chapter.
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." ~John 10:25-27 (ESV)
So what governs being a part of the flock is belief in the teachings of Jesus. Part of his teaching involved following him and his teachings, something the Muslims do not do. If Muslims were part of the sheep who were not of the fold in verse 16, then why do they not follow Christ? Apparently context is not as important to Wright as he desires. So he has a problem when it is his words that are taken out of context, but has no problem taking Jesus' words out of context? Where is the disconnect?
At another point in the interview he discussed America's alleged feeding of Terrorism and then experiencing terrorists attacks. In his response he quotes a portion Galatians 6:7; what a man sows, that will he also reap. It seems, with the media attacks on his sermons, that this principle is coming back to haunt him.
This serves as a prime example of the importance of context and why we must be careful to study the context of anything that is put in front of us.
At one point the questioner asked; Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but through me." Do you believe this and do you think Islam is a way to salvation. Wright's response? Jesus also said "other sheep have I who are not of this fold." He then backed away from the podium with a smirk on his face as the audience cheered. But let us consider the context of the verse he quoted. The reference is John 10:16. First, let me quote the context of this verse.
I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep. And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd. ~John 10:14-16 (ESV)
The overall context of this passage is that Jesus is talking with a group of Jews (cf. vs 19). In the Jews mind, they would immediately understand that Jesus was talking about those who were not a part of Israel, namely the Gentiles. This is a religious issue, but notice that even the Jews rejected him. His point was that he was seeking to gather all those who would follow him. Allow me to quote further from the same chapter.
Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." ~John 10:25-27 (ESV)
So what governs being a part of the flock is belief in the teachings of Jesus. Part of his teaching involved following him and his teachings, something the Muslims do not do. If Muslims were part of the sheep who were not of the fold in verse 16, then why do they not follow Christ? Apparently context is not as important to Wright as he desires. So he has a problem when it is his words that are taken out of context, but has no problem taking Jesus' words out of context? Where is the disconnect?
At another point in the interview he discussed America's alleged feeding of Terrorism and then experiencing terrorists attacks. In his response he quotes a portion Galatians 6:7; what a man sows, that will he also reap. It seems, with the media attacks on his sermons, that this principle is coming back to haunt him.
This serves as a prime example of the importance of context and why we must be careful to study the context of anything that is put in front of us.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Churches and Architecture
Here is an interesting photo essay of mega churches and architecture. I especially appreciate his comments on some of the photos, having a hint of humor and sarcasm.
This does raise an important question. What role, if any, does art and architecture have in corporate worship? Can the design of a church help create an atmosphere of worship?
When I was in a choir in college, I became keenly aware of the importance of architecture and acoustics. I vowed that if I ever had a voice during a church building project, I would seek to incorporate an acoustics engineer in the design process.
Our choir sang in numerous types of churches, most of which were very dead acoustically. The most common acoustically poor design was what one would find in most modern large-church designs; lots of carpet, comfortable padded seats, etc. What was lost in acoustics was made up for in electrical sound systems. The churches that held the best acoustics were typically cathedral-styled. We would often stop at a cathedral just to tour them and before we would leave, we would gather to sing, and it often sounded incredible. One particular time nearly every member of the choir had tears in their eyes. The beauty of the sound mixed with powerful lyrics created an incredible atmosphere for worship, and worship we did.
I was also often impressed by the artistic nature of some of these buildings. Art can create opportunities for worship. The problem though is familiarity. I believe it is possible to become so familiar with certain pieces of art that they loose their impact.
But are these things ok? Or are evangelical churches right in steering away from beauty in architecture? In the reformation process, people began to seek piety even in church structure. They departed from the Roman Catholic tradition of building majestic cathedrals and moved toward simplicity. Now many are seeking even more "piety" by removing any form of religious symbol from the church structure. Is this a positive move? Or is there another choice. Can we include art in church structure without going too far? Can our quest to build something beautiful be God-honoring?
These are not easy questions to answer, and I have yet to take a position. I do lean toward including art in church architecture, though not in an elaborate sense.
This does raise an important question. What role, if any, does art and architecture have in corporate worship? Can the design of a church help create an atmosphere of worship?
When I was in a choir in college, I became keenly aware of the importance of architecture and acoustics. I vowed that if I ever had a voice during a church building project, I would seek to incorporate an acoustics engineer in the design process.
Our choir sang in numerous types of churches, most of which were very dead acoustically. The most common acoustically poor design was what one would find in most modern large-church designs; lots of carpet, comfortable padded seats, etc. What was lost in acoustics was made up for in electrical sound systems. The churches that held the best acoustics were typically cathedral-styled. We would often stop at a cathedral just to tour them and before we would leave, we would gather to sing, and it often sounded incredible. One particular time nearly every member of the choir had tears in their eyes. The beauty of the sound mixed with powerful lyrics created an incredible atmosphere for worship, and worship we did.
I was also often impressed by the artistic nature of some of these buildings. Art can create opportunities for worship. The problem though is familiarity. I believe it is possible to become so familiar with certain pieces of art that they loose their impact.
But are these things ok? Or are evangelical churches right in steering away from beauty in architecture? In the reformation process, people began to seek piety even in church structure. They departed from the Roman Catholic tradition of building majestic cathedrals and moved toward simplicity. Now many are seeking even more "piety" by removing any form of religious symbol from the church structure. Is this a positive move? Or is there another choice. Can we include art in church structure without going too far? Can our quest to build something beautiful be God-honoring?
These are not easy questions to answer, and I have yet to take a position. I do lean toward including art in church architecture, though not in an elaborate sense.
Monday, March 24, 2008
What is Sin?
I highly recommend you read this Newsweek Article titled Has the 'notion of sin' been lost?.
What are your thoughts? Why has sin become so relative in our country? Or is sin relative?
The fact still remains that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that very problem needs to be dealt with on God's terms and not ours. Maybe the Church needs to wake up and do a better job of preaching sin and the Cross.
What are your thoughts? Why has sin become so relative in our country? Or is sin relative?
The fact still remains that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) and that very problem needs to be dealt with on God's terms and not ours. Maybe the Church needs to wake up and do a better job of preaching sin and the Cross.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Moses On Drugs
There was a news article linked from the Drudge Report yesterday titled "Moses was High On Drugs: Israeli Researcher". I recommend you first read it here.
The theological implications of this are huge. If the divine origin of the cultic practice of the Jews is falsified, then the entirety of the Bible is established on false grounds and as Paul would say, we would be the most foolish of them all to believe in such things.
What is wrong with this conclusion?
Shanon notes that he already does not believe in the possibility for the super-natural, so automatically he is going to search for another way of explaining what happened in regards to such events as the burning bush and the giving of the Law. This is a sure-fire example of how presuppositions can govern interpretation.
Another problem is that of the question of what is reasonable. The drugs explanation may be credible for the burning bush account, but to use it to explain the giving of the Law at Sinai is pressing the bounds of what is reasonable. It would require that over a million men, women, and children were all taking this drug. It would also negate the possibility for a naturalistic explanation for the complexity found in the Law. Could someone who is high on these drugs really create such a Law system in its moral/judicial and cultic systems? This stretches the bounds of reason to beyond the breaking point.
Lastly is Shanon's credibility. He said himself that he has taken similar kinds of drugs. Experience in taking them does not make him an expert of what they can do, and makes one question his ability to use proper reason in performing these sorts of studies.
The theological implications of this are huge. If the divine origin of the cultic practice of the Jews is falsified, then the entirety of the Bible is established on false grounds and as Paul would say, we would be the most foolish of them all to believe in such things.
What is wrong with this conclusion?
Shanon notes that he already does not believe in the possibility for the super-natural, so automatically he is going to search for another way of explaining what happened in regards to such events as the burning bush and the giving of the Law. This is a sure-fire example of how presuppositions can govern interpretation.
Another problem is that of the question of what is reasonable. The drugs explanation may be credible for the burning bush account, but to use it to explain the giving of the Law at Sinai is pressing the bounds of what is reasonable. It would require that over a million men, women, and children were all taking this drug. It would also negate the possibility for a naturalistic explanation for the complexity found in the Law. Could someone who is high on these drugs really create such a Law system in its moral/judicial and cultic systems? This stretches the bounds of reason to beyond the breaking point.
Lastly is Shanon's credibility. He said himself that he has taken similar kinds of drugs. Experience in taking them does not make him an expert of what they can do, and makes one question his ability to use proper reason in performing these sorts of studies.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Paying Taxes
Tonight as I was sitting in a coffee shop, I overheard an interesting conversation. Three young people were talking about the idea that people should not have to pay taxes because it is wrong. Their support? The man who was most vocal in the conversation pointed out that the only time tax collectors were presented in a positive light was when they were repentant. His argument immediately went from this point to say that because of this and the fact that all other presentations of taxes in Scripture is negative, paying taxes must be wrong.
What is wrong with this argument? The first and perhaps most obvious is the question of context. What is the nature of the repentance the tax collectors sought? Was it that they collected taxes? Of course not. Their repentance was in regard to the fact that they had collected an unfair amount of taxes above and beyond what they were told to collect for the Roman government. They repented and as one tax collector announced, he would return to the people not just what he over-charged, but even with interest. The group that was discussing this issue in the coffee shop in no way dealt with this aspect of the relevant passages.
Another obvious overlook in their argument is the debate between the religious leaders and Christ. Did not the religious leaders ask if they should pay taxes to Caesar? And what was Jesus' response? "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
This conversation serves as an extreme example of how we can allow our own wishes and desires to govern our interpretation of Scripture. We have a specific desire, such as finding an excuse to not pay taxes, then seek support for our desire, with no regard for context or message. This is considered an inductive fallacy in which evidence is left out (intentionally or not) for the purpose of proving our desired thesis. We really need to be careful when exegeting Scripture, that we are taking into account the whole counsel of God and not just what supports our personal interests.
What is wrong with this argument? The first and perhaps most obvious is the question of context. What is the nature of the repentance the tax collectors sought? Was it that they collected taxes? Of course not. Their repentance was in regard to the fact that they had collected an unfair amount of taxes above and beyond what they were told to collect for the Roman government. They repented and as one tax collector announced, he would return to the people not just what he over-charged, but even with interest. The group that was discussing this issue in the coffee shop in no way dealt with this aspect of the relevant passages.
Another obvious overlook in their argument is the debate between the religious leaders and Christ. Did not the religious leaders ask if they should pay taxes to Caesar? And what was Jesus' response? "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."
This conversation serves as an extreme example of how we can allow our own wishes and desires to govern our interpretation of Scripture. We have a specific desire, such as finding an excuse to not pay taxes, then seek support for our desire, with no regard for context or message. This is considered an inductive fallacy in which evidence is left out (intentionally or not) for the purpose of proving our desired thesis. We really need to be careful when exegeting Scripture, that we are taking into account the whole counsel of God and not just what supports our personal interests.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Church Structure
One of the important facets of understanding and interpreting the New Testament is to seek to understand how the authors used and understood the Old Testament. Often times this will enhance our understanding of the New Testament and sometimes even enlighten us on theological points we may have missed before.
I recently have been working through a book study on Titus, and while going through it, I have been seeking out cross-references for each verse. In the first chapter Paul is giving Titus instructions and lists some qualifications for leaders of the church. One curious comparison is to view Titus 1 and 2 Timothy 2 as they relate to Leviticus. Is it possible that Paul is drawing upon the qualifications and mandates made for the priests to establish his own listing of qualifications for elders in the church?
The other question this presents regards the existence and need for church structure. It seems there is a movement in today's church toward a decentralization of authority and a move away from structure. Rather than have certain men placed into a position of authority to lead and teach, we prefer to be 'conversational.' Rather than have established authority within the church, the movement is toward a more fluid understanding of church polity.
Paul is drawing on Old Testament regulations and creating regulations for the church. He is pulling something out of one culture and establishing a more general outline for church leadership. It seems that he has established something supra-cultural.
By taking away leadership within the church and becoming more 'conversational', is it possible that we are opening ourselves up for the entrance of false theology?
I recently have been working through a book study on Titus, and while going through it, I have been seeking out cross-references for each verse. In the first chapter Paul is giving Titus instructions and lists some qualifications for leaders of the church. One curious comparison is to view Titus 1 and 2 Timothy 2 as they relate to Leviticus. Is it possible that Paul is drawing upon the qualifications and mandates made for the priests to establish his own listing of qualifications for elders in the church?
The other question this presents regards the existence and need for church structure. It seems there is a movement in today's church toward a decentralization of authority and a move away from structure. Rather than have certain men placed into a position of authority to lead and teach, we prefer to be 'conversational.' Rather than have established authority within the church, the movement is toward a more fluid understanding of church polity.
Paul is drawing on Old Testament regulations and creating regulations for the church. He is pulling something out of one culture and establishing a more general outline for church leadership. It seems that he has established something supra-cultural.
By taking away leadership within the church and becoming more 'conversational', is it possible that we are opening ourselves up for the entrance of false theology?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)