This past weekend, I had the opportunity to travel south to Tennessee for a day to meet some old friends (well – “old” as in from my college days, even though they are just as “old” as me), and to go with them to see my son’s musical group in concert in Greeneville. It had been twelve or thirteen years (by my recollection) since we’d last seen one another, though we’d kept up on Facebook the past couple of years.

But it was almost like walking into a time warp.

During my three semesters at Milligan, my constant companion was Craig. We met the first day in the dorm (he was just across the hall), loved music, and shared a number of other interests as well. We also tended to “push” each other – in some ways good, and in some ways not. Musically, we grew together, learning how to cooperate in the setting of a band. We got involved in a number of practical jokes, and spent a good deal of time hiking up into the mountains, into caves, and into some intentionally dangerous situations there.

But the thing I appreciated most of all was our talks together.

Once our homework was done (and sometimes even if it wasn’t), we’d sometimes talk until three or four in the morning about most any topic under the sun. He loved the Beatles and was a russophile (illegally owning a cat named “Trotsky”, may he rest in peace). I loved Peter Gabriel imports, movies and fireworks (with a mortar launcher that could be operated from our rooftop). We also had a number of demons we struggled with.

While I didn’t know what it was at the time, I struggled a lot during the winter (January – March) with depression (something I’ve written about here before) and impulsivity, which don’t mix well. Our midnight talks certainly helped me get through this, and became some of my fondest memories of my time at Milligan.

Friday, when we met in Greeneville, I had made excellent time, which gave Craig, his wife (who I also knew from Milligan) and I some time to catch up. One of the topics we talked about was Craig’s conversion into the Eastern Orthodox church, which I found to be incredibly interesting – both because of my relative ignorance on the EOC, and because I wondered how his journey took him there. Along the way, we discussed all sorts of things, from canonization to orthopraxy to prayer to tradition to repentance. Even when we might have disagreed, it didn’t matter, because our purpose was communion and encouragement, much of what it used to be.

After the concert, we went back to their house (they were gracious enough to offer me a room for the night), and sat down to talk “for a bit”. It seemed like we’d only been talking for a few minutes when I looked down and saw the time on my iPod – 3:00 am.

My first thought was: some things never change.

Which got me to thinking. We had talked about repentance – metanoia (Gr.) or t’shuvah (Heb.) – and how it was – visually – an image of recognizing the direction you are walking, stopping, and then turning back toward God and walking toward Him. With repentance, it is we who change, not God, and when we turn to Him, He is still the same. Our relationship with Him is how it was before we turned away.

Something else we talked about was prayer – prayer as something far more than a laundry list of concerns and desires, but a basic building block of our relationship with our Father. Honestly, my prayer life sucks. My conversation with Craig, if nothing else, revealed this to me (among some other things I’m trying to right.) I’ve got some ideas on improving, with one of the basic ones being to just start doing it, even if it feels stilted…

So as I drove back, I thought through all of the things that God might have been trying to say to me over the weekend.

Pray.

Repent.

Love.

Spend time in each other’s presence.

All things I know, but I don’t do – or at least don’t do well.

God speaks in all sorts of ways, and sometimes the most tangible way He speaks to us is through His image in our brothers and sisters.

Shalom.

This past weekend, I had lunch with a good friend of many years, John, and afterward we spent some time discussing Paul and his letters to the different churches (among other things). John’s in a house with three daughters (the youngest of whom is in college) and my youngest son is a senior in HS this year, so our need for male companionship (outside of the family dog) lends itself to all sorts of interesting conversation. But I digress…

I was remembering my NT professor’s instructions that when we read any of Paul’s epistles, we need to remember that he isn’t just sending a random shout-out or bantering with the churches he’s writing to, but that he’s actually answering some questions they’ve got and giving advice on specific situations within the church. So – since we only have the answers, but not the questions, it is important that – if we want to do a deep study of any epistle – the first thing we ought to do is to try and discern the questions posed to Paul.

Somehow, John and I got onto the topic of I Corinthians, and he told me something he’d picked up in seminary regarding the questions posed to Paul that led to this particular epistle. If you read the context of this letter, and the second epistle to the church in Corinth, it becomes evident that the church in Corinth had a problem that was not all that uncommon today:

1) There was at least one – if not multiple – vocal busybodies within the church who disagreed on issues of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

2) The busybodies were calling out those they disagreed with in the church, and playing out their personal grievances in public. While some might have been legitimate, a number of them were quite petty.

3) They also were instituting somewhat of a hierarchy within the church – possibly based on social status, but more likely based on their “seniority” within the church.

4) One of the busybodies took it upon himself to write to Paul, and most likely (as possibly the first FDDM – “foot-driven discernment ministry”) hand delivered it to Paul.

John suggested I read I Corinthians as if the questions Paul was answering questions from this context, and that it would likely make the entire letter seem coherent in its entirety, rather than a collection of disconnected thoughts.

And he was right.

And what was funny (at least to a nerd like me) was this: When I got to I Corinthians 13 (the “love chapter”), it took on a whole new light. It also made me wonder if reciting this chapter at weddings, framing it and putting it on the wall, etc. as a “beautiful expression of what love is” might not be missing the point a bit. Maybe it’s a little bit more like taking a letter you received from Mom and Dad while away at college, scolding you for problems you’ve gotten yourself into and framing it for public consumption.

If you have time today – or even if you don’t – I think perhaps sitting down and reading I Corinthians with the possibility that the above context was what Paul was replying to might be a good thing for each of us today.

Grace and Peace,

Chris

OK, so for the past couple of weeks, the outrage from the “pro-choice” left increased  in decibels and shrillness in anticipation of a 30-second commercial to air in the Superbowl from Heisman Trophy-winner Tim Tebow and his mother, in support of life (when she was pregnant with Tim, as a missionary overseas, she was afflicted with a condition where the medical advice was to have an abortion – instead, she carried him to term).  For example, Joy Behar on <em>The View</em> derided Pam Tebow’s decision, as Tim could just as easily turned out to be a “racist pedophile”.

And that was one of the nicer comments.

I have been critical of Focus on the Family in the past, and hearing that they were buying a Superbowl Spot made me cringe a little bit on the inside, just because of the ham-handed way they’ve handled political issues in the US in the past.  In this case, though, I have to tip my hat to them.  In the words of the Washington Post’s pro-choice sports columnist <a href=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/01/AR2010020102067.html” target=”_blank”>Sally Jenkins</a>, to write last week:
<p style=”padding-left: 30px;”>Tebow’s 30-second ad hasn’t even run yet, but it already has provoked “The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us” to reveal something important about themselves: They aren’t actually “pro-choice” so much as they are pro-abortion.</p>

Indeed.  FotF’s strategy of not releasing the video in advance now appears somewhat brilliant in its ripping the veneer off of much of the pro-abortion left, as their rage built with CBS over its’ willingness to air the ad.  [Which is rather revealing that a group called the National Organization for Women went nuclear over CBS airing the Tebow ad, but had no similar outrage over the aired GoDaddy commercials, which - I would think - were far more offensive to women (and men).]

So, the game is over now [I really didn't want to see either team lose, though I was hoping for overtime instead of interception to end it], and the ad has aired.  So, what was all the fuss over?  Here you go…

Be prepared to be offended:

Really offensive, right?  Brilliantly played, <a href=”http://www.focusonthefamily.com/” target=”_blank”>Focus</a>. Brilliantly played, I say.

In watching this whole thing played out, it reminded me of how many times we (myself included) deride things, sight-unseen, simply because of the source or the anticipated message, only to be left with egg on our faces (and lots of “splainin’ to do” afterwards”.

A couple months ago, I wrote a review of Zondervan’s Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary (ZIBBCOT) Volume I (Genesis – Deuteronomy), part of a new 5-Volume set from Zondervan.  I was highly impressed with the insight and sources provided in the historical comparative material covered in that volume.

In late December, I received volume 5, which covers the minor prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs.  It should be no surprise that I have loved it almost as much as volume one.  In fact, my wife heard me talk about it enough that she purchased volumes two, three and four for me (to finish out the OT set) for Christmas, and the New Testament set for my birthday!

Following in the same format as Vol. 1, ZIBBCOT vol. 5 first covers the chronological placement of each of the OT books it covers, in some cases narrowing it down to 2 or 3 possibilities (where the biblical books do not give explicit time-periods).  Then, based upon the most likely time placement, it uses the architecture, literature and artwork of the period to construct the culture of Israel and the surrounding countries, as relevant to the biblical text.

Additionally, there are beautiful photographs of the geography around the setting of relevant books/passages, maps, diagrams and lots of artifacts which illustrate the subtext of man passages.

As I noted in my review of Vol. 1, the authors of this series of commentaries are very respectful of the biblical text, as they compare and contrast contemporary beliefs and practices with those of the Hebrews in Israel.  This is not done in any way to attempt to undermine the biblical text, but to help enhance it with a fuller cultural understanding.

For example, in Jonah 3, where the text indicates that God changed his mind, the authors note that the verb used here is the same one used in other OT books where it is said that God does not change His mind.  Where this is different in Jonah is that the earlier passages were in the context of covenant agreements (where God will not change His mind), whereas the one in Jonah deals with the outcome of a prophecy (in which God can change His mind in how to meet the ends of a prophetic pronouncement).

Personally, I found the chapter on Job, the oldest book of the Bible, in terms of authorship, to be the most interesting one, with interesting notes on the differences between ‘the accuser’ in Job and the proper-named ‘Satan’ later in Scripture, and in-depth discussion on the origins of ‘the behemoth’ and ‘the leviathan’.

If I have any complaint about Volume 5, it is only that it seems a little more disjointed than Volume 1, which is only to be expected, since it covers so many short books of the Bible.  All in all, though, it is an excellent resource that i will continue to go back to in my personal library.

OK, so I’m not totally connected to the goings-on in the world, and am a bit extra-cranky this week. Needless to say, I’m several days behind on the news, but apparently semi-retired Fox political commentator Brit Hume has gotten himself into a pickle:

In actuality, I thought this was pretty sage advice. It’s not something I’m used to seeing on TV, which was why (at least to me) that it seemed a bit visually jarring. I also remembered that Hume had cited Christian study as a reason he was leaving the news business back in 2008:

I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you’re not really living it.

With that in mind, his advice seems even more natural. I think it takes guts to talk about basic application of Christianity to your life in the public eye, and in the conversational manner used by Hume. What has surprised me has been the hair-trigger response by some folks on the right and left at Hume’s commentary. I’m not sure whether it was his honest assessment of forgiveness and Buddhism or his frank advice about Christianity that was most offensive to the masses. Maybe the venue wasn’t the correct one, if his only intended audience was Tiger, but I when I relisten to the clip, I think it was purposely meant for the wider audience.

On another front, a friend of mine in the community posted this link to his FB page, which surprised me a little bit (not that he posted it, but that Coulter wrote it). I’ve not read Coulter in a long time – not because I don’t agree with her politics (I generally do), but because I’m not really interested in hyperbolic political commentary from either end of the spectrum. Still, I was pleasantly surprised, but I wonder if she, too, won’t be criticized since she’s a political commentator speaking on the subject of religious belief.

The most common complaints I’ve heard have been “wrong venue” (for Hume) and “wrong person” (for Coulter). Unlike a number of examples I’ve seen of “monster shouting” on street corners, Hume’s comments are downright humble and mild. Unlike a number of simplistic, milquetoast explanations of Christianity I’ve seen/heard from famous folks (particularly those on the political front), Coulter’s is actually decent, if you can get past the political jibes.

Christianity is simultaneously the easiest religion in the world and the hardest religion in the world.

In the no-frills, economy-class version, you don’t need a church, a teacher, candles, incense, special food or clothing; you don’t need to pass a test or prove yourself in any way. All you’ll need is a Bible (in order to grasp the amazing deal you’re getting) and probably a water baptism, though even that’s disputed.

[...]Christianity is also the hardest religion in the world because, if you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies — no doing what all the other kids do.

[...]With Christianity, your sins are forgiven, the slate is wiped clean and your eternal life is guaranteed through nothing you did yourself, even though you don’t deserve it. It’s the best deal in the universe.

It makes me wonder how often I’m in the “wrong venue” to say anything, or the “wrong person” to speak.

And so I do not…

[The following is a guest post by our friend, Rick Frueh, on the topic of Christianity of Just War, from a Biblical Pacifist point of view. Chris L has written a similar post from the point of view of a Christian's support of the notion of Just War.]

Biblical Pacifism

Blessed are the peacemakers…

A Short Introduction

If I may borrow from the language of Dickens, “There is no doubt that the Old Testament has passed. This must be distinctly understood, or nothing good can come of the truths I am going to relate”. The way God did things in the Old Testament are decidedly different from the way God interacts with man in the New Covenant. The writing of Hebrews distinctly informs us that “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds…”. It is disingenuous and self serving to cull out portions of the Old Testament and suggest that they are life patterns for followers of the Lord Jesus. The Old Testament Scriptures are mainly revelatory shadows that speak of the coming Christ. The horrific violence that took place in the Old Testament must remain a mystery, but it cannot be dragged into the gospel of grace.

Christ Himself laid out principles that helped us place the Old Testament in its rightful context. “You have heard it said…but I say unto you” is one of the teachings that awaken us to the superiority of the Words spoken by the Incarnate Christ, and they clearly indicate a difference. Abraham, Moses, and Solomon are just a few of the Old Testament figures to whom Christ openly claimed to be superior. I do not believe it is necessary to present a litany of things that God did in the Old Testament that are a mystery and outside our present understanding of God through the perfect prism of the Incarnation.

If you see the Old Testament dealings by God as a partial template for us today, well then you not only have carte blanche for almost any kind of violence and revenge, you have a colossal problem with the teachings of Jesus. The Old Testament must be seen as transitional and we must by faith trust that God in His wisdom was always moving toward Christ, even though many things were violent and without mercy. How could God do what He did in the Old Testament and yet now reveals Himself in Christ? As Hammerstein once observed, “Fools give you answers, wise men never try”.

So here we are, firmly planted in the New Covenant and with the perfect revelation of God in the Person of Jesus Christ. It is His life and teachings that are foundational, and the recorded teachings of the apostles must be viewed as ancillary and a further unfolding of those same teachings. But let me suggest on the outset that any reading of all twenty-seven books of the New Testament in one continuous reading will present an overwhelmingly non-violent message. Give a New Testament to a brand new believer who has no nationalistic allegiances, place him for one year upon a secluded island, and after one year ask him if he sees Jesus’ teachings as supporting violence in any form. Read more

[The following is a post in which I am writing about Christian support for a doctrine of "Just War". My friend, Rick Frueh, has written a similar post, in support of Biblical Pacifism.]

I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell. – William Tecumseh Sherman

We support and extend the ministry of the Church to those persons who conscientiously oppose all war, or any particular war, and who therefore refuse to serve in the armed forces or to cooperate with systems of military conscription. We also support and extend the Church’s ministry to those persons who conscientiously choose to serve in the armed forces or to accept alternative service. As Christians we are aware that neither the way of military action, nor the way of inaction is always righteous before God. – The Book of Discipline of The United Methodist Church, 2004

[Please brace yourselves - this is going to be a long article. My dear friend, Rick Frueh, has requested that he and I write opposing papers on the acceptability of Christians supporting a doctrine of "Just War", with me supporting this doctrine, and him rejecting it. I would like to thank Rick for this 'challenge', and apologize in advance for so thoroughly trouncing him, here on the field of battle. ]

At Issue

Before embarking on this long road, I think it is probably best to indicate our areas of agreement and disagreement. Both Rick and I agree that war, in and of itself is abhorrent, and is something to be avoided. It is not something that we, as individuals should seek to cause, nor something that our nations should actively seek. Where we disagree, is whether or not acts of violence can be supported by Christians – on an individual or a national scale. Specifically, our disagreement is whether or not Christians should support their country in a war, or serve in that war.

Keeping this in mind, I will examine three basic concepts, which build upon one another, in regards to Christian and the use of deadly force: 1) Self-Defense; 2) Civil-defense; and 3) National-defense. As a backdrop to this, I will also quickly discuss the first century Jewish view of human life that Jesus supported, sometimes referred to as Pikuach Nefesh.

Before moving on to the meat of this article, I’d like to also make one more caveat: My purpose in laying out the case for the doctrine of just war is not to provide/denounce justification for any conflict unfolding in current events. Rather, it is to lay out the rational and theological underpinnings in such a way as to be able to have rational discussions and criteria on whether or not a conflict might be considered just or unjust. Read more

Merry Christmas to all!

Since I’m not reposting/updating the “Desanitizing Christmas” series this year (though I’ll likely do some updates next year to work in some objections an EO friend of mine has with my contention that Mary did not continue to be a virgin after Jesus’ birth, among other issues), here’s a quick ‘toon that hits on several of the issues I’ve touched upon in the past:

“Do we have the same angry, demanding gods and goddesses, who are never satisfied? Do we just call them by different names?” – Rob Bell, The gods Aren’t Angry

Like all the best religions, fear of climate change satisfies our need for guilt, and self-disgust, and that eternal human sense that technological progress must be punished by the gods. And the fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful.” – Boris Johnson

And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.” – I Kings 18:27

How should Christians react when the gods of the world receive mortal wounds? This is a question I’ve discussed recently with my wife and a number of friends – with a gamut of responses. In particular, I’m interested in the ‘god’ of warmism (part of the pantheon of secular environmentalism). Having sifted through many of the 4000 documents (emails, computer code, raw data) released in the ‘ClimateGate’ scandal, I think it is safe to say that “warmism” – as a religion – has been dealt a serious, if not fatal, blow.

I’m not going to regurgitate everything that has been written about this enlightening scandal in great detail, since many others (from across the political spectrum) have done a bang-up job. Rather, I’m first going to go far enough into it to highlight “warmism” and its key levers, briefly explore the religious angle of warmism, then move into the historical spectrum of responses we might view in Judaism and Christianity toward false religions, and finally, calculate what might be an appropriate response.

ClimateGate and the Fall of Warmism

Steven D. Levitt, in Superfreakonomics, makes a fairly convincing case that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is more of a faith than a science:

It is understandable, therefore, that the movement to stop global warming has taken on the feel of a religion. The core belief is that man inherited a pristine Eden, has sinned greatly by polluting it, and must now suffer lest we all perish in a fiery apocalypse. James Lovelock, who might be considered a high priest of this religion, writes in a confessional language that would feel at home in any liturgy: “[W]e misused energy and overpopulated the Earth . . . [I]t is much too late for sustainable development; what we need is a sustainable retreat”.

It is this same mentality among the “true believers” that fueled the Population Bomb scaremongering of the 60’s and the Global Cooling panic of the 70’s. Which touches upon the key ‘need’ of this – and other – religions: Read more