The Wild World Of Religion

Ever had a question about a religious leader? One place you can go to answer that question is Pam Dewey's newly updated Wild World of Religion. 

Here is how Pam describes her site at her StarrTrekking blog:

Since I put up the first version of the Field Guide on the Net, I’ve had over ¾ million visitors. I’ve corresponded with a number of researchers and journalists looking for information on various teachers and groups. The site has been mentioned in newspaper columns around the world as a source for info on prophetic theories. I’ve heard from people thanking me for helping them… or a loved one … escape from or avoid involvement in toxic religious groups.

This is a valuable resource worthy of a bookmark. 

Two Holes-in-One

This was from last year. This is one lucky teen: 

Three weeks after making a double eagle, Phillips, who just started his junior year of high school, had made his first hole-in-one.

The odds of a golfer making two aces in one round, according to Golf Digest's Dean Knuth, are one in 64 million, not that Phillips was aware of that when he pulled out his 9-iron and teed up the same Slazenger No. 1 on the 160-yard 16th hole.

"It was really windy, in my face, but I said, 'The heck with it, I'm going to go ahead and hit the 9-iron again," Phillips said. "There was no doubt about this one -- we saw it go in. It took one bounce, then sat down and rolled once to the left and went in."

Why am I blogging about a back to back hole-in-one from last year? Why have I tagged it as a Bible subject? It illustrates an important concept.

We humans love to make patterns where there are no patterns. Thus the late Jerry Falwell blamed the 9-11 disaster on gays in America. He saw a pattern where none existed. This is not to say that God might not be stepping back from any protection He may have given in the past. Nor is it impossible that God might intervene in history. He has done it before. But the words of Jesus tell us how to look at "bad luck" in Luke13:

1 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. 2 Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. 4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”

Yes sooner or later we will all perish. Are we ready for that time?

Odd things happen. Do not read into these events more than you should.

A Moment of Clarity

I have been talking about the templates we use to interpret the world around us. One of the templates I use is that one can use the Old Testament. While most Christians say they use it, in reality most do not. I remember the exact moment that I understood the continued validity of the Old Testament, it was

A Moment of Clarity

I remember it well. It was back in my cowboy days, and I was at my ranch in the evening reading. The carpet was green shag and the couch had earth tones. I was reading a former Seventh Day Adventist, Robert Brimsmead, who had left that denomination. His main argument against the Sabbath keeping of his former denomination was an argument against the Old Testament. Basically he was saying that the Old Testament (OT) was superseded by the New Testament (NT). He made several arguments that no doubt were convincing to some, as later he was the poster boy for the New and Improved Worldwide Church of God which also abandoned the Sabbath. In the book I was reading, Brimsmead was ranting about the Old Testament not being relevant and so on when I had my moment of clarity. I think I even said it out loud.

"Doesn't he realize that if he is right about the Old Testament, the New Testament falls by these same arguments?"

Obviously he did not.  What do I mean by this? The NT cannot stand alone because it is so infused with the Hebrew Scriptures that the two cannot be separated. If the OT is obsolete (the exact reasoning does not matter, and there are many versions), then how can another document based on it be inspired? If God's inspired word for 1400 BC is not inspired, then clearly God's inspired word for 50 AD is not inspired either.

For example, the NT in 2 Tim 3 says the Old Testament is inspired. The Message version puts it this way:

Unscrupulous con men will continue to exploit the faith. They're as deceived as the people they lead astray. As long as they are out there, things can only get worse. But don't let it faze you. Stick with what you learned and believed, sure of the integrity of your teachers—why, you took in the sacred Scriptures with your mother's milk! There's nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another—showing us truth, exposing our rebellion, correcting our mistakes, training us to live God's way. Through the Word we are put together and shaped up for the tasks God has for us.

The Scriptures referenced here are the Old Testament.  How can we claim inspiration for the NT, but reject the OT, when the NT disagrees with us? To make it even more telling this scripture tells us that we can use the Old Testament in a way that some modern theologians say we cannot--that it can be used to train and lead us. Who do we believe?

Of course the usual dodge is to claim "inspiration" for the Hebrew Scriptures but decide (in contrast to the scripture) that it is no longer useful. The advocates of this approach will often deny that this is what they are doing, but to be blunt they are lying to themselves. It is as if they are turning the words of Jesus in Mat 5 on their head, making Him say:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them.

My favorite professor in graduate school actually said this, and he smiled broadly when he said it. He was joking, but this is the exact approach many take. What Jesus said was that he came to fulfill them, not destroy them.

What happened to Brimsmead? Well, he realized his dilemma later in life, and understood that he either had to accept the Old or reject the New. He chose badly. Last I heard he was operating a New Age book store and growing avocados in New Zealand-a non-Christian by any reasonable metric.

Yet, this does not trouble Christians who still regard Brimsmead as a mentor. Brimsmead's material is still used as a source in some circles. This approach is a common malady among many people. They decide to adopt an idea or a doctrine, and they began to parrot the arguments of others in order to come to the preordained, desired conclusion. They do not stop to consider that they do not agree with the premises that the people making the argument may have. The only thing that makes is self-justification, not good theology. Ideas have consequences.

Is God Sovereign?

Chip Ingram, well-known author with a ThM from Dallas Theological Seminary, says this at Christianity.com:

"What does the phrase “God is sovereign” really mean? ... Nothing is too difficult for Him, and He orchestrates and determines everything that is going to happen in your life, in my life, in America, and throughout the world."

Thunderbirds Are Go!Is God really the divine puppet master that predetermines all things? Is this even remotely close to what the Bible teaches? To accomplish this misinterpretation, scripture must be stretched way past the breaking point. In this same article Chip says this:

Even Satan himself has to ask God’s permission before he can act (Psalm 103:19).

I wonder how many actually look the scripture up?

19The LORD has established his throne in heaven, and his kingdom rules over all.

While it is certainly possible that this is a mistaken scriptural reference, one has to wonder. My long experience with religious articles has taught me one thing, never trust that the scripture quoted actually says what the author says it says. Look it up.

Possibly Job 1 is what Chip had in mind:

9“Does Job fear God for nothing?” Satan replied. 10“Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. 11But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.”

While I personally look at Job as a story that is designed to make the point that it is God’s world and God’s rules, the idea here is not that God controls Satan. It is that God had protected Job. The implication is that there are others whom he has not protected. People actually think that God and Satan had some sort of contest where God kills (remember that God controls/causes every event) Job’s entire family, just to prove a point. Is this really the way the world works?

I will on occasion download a podcast from various religious podcasters. One that I listened to caused me to laugh. After a long spiel about how God controls everything, he told the story of the local atheist who claimed to be more moral than many Christians because he was faithful to his wife. The podcaster said that no, he was not moral, because he had rejected God. But if the previous statements of the podcaster were accurate then the atheist had not rejected God, but God had rejected him since before the foundation of the world, God had chosen this person to be an atheist. If so, then how could the atheist be responsible for his actions?

There are just too many scriptures that make no sense if God is the master puppeteer--including the entire book of Jonah, and most of the stories in Genesis.

My friend Eric Anderson blogs at Universe of Lies, usually on economic issues. But on a private religious forum he said this:

Exit Babylon Now!God is not responsible for individual choices. God is responsible for giving the ability to make those choices, which choices have consequences. Is God responsible for all those consequences? This is difficult. On a higher level, yes. Specifically and directly, no.

I agree with Eric.

If you are a fatalist then you will never leave Babylon.  God wants you to leave, but it must be your decision. He will not force you.

Who’d A Thunk It?

I can’t predict which of my blog posts will get the most traction. The one from last week that got the most comments, all of them on other venues, was on nose rings. As the noted philosopher, Mortimer Snerd, would have said, "Who'd a thunk it?”

This is a lot more of an important issue in Biblical interpretation than one would think at first glance. The reason is that it is difficult to directly apply a portion of the Bible because our customs are quite different. Nose rings are just the proverbial “camel’s nose in the tent.”

I used to be what is called a Biblicist. I wanted to directly apply the Bible to modern life. While I still fit loosely in that category, I have to acknowledge that one can’t apply the Bible woodenly to our modern society. If one wants to be a strict Biblicist, then I suggest that all the women get nose rings.

While this problem is greatest in the Old Testament, it also exists in the New Testament. Paul tells us 4 times that there is a certain activity that was integral to first century church services. The original Greek is even in the imperative mood, which for the grammatically disinclined like me means that it is a command. 1 Thessalonians 5 tells us:

26 Greet all God’s people with a holy kiss.

I had almost as much fun with this over the years as I had as an insecure teenager with "women should be silent in the church." I have pointed this scripture out in sermons and suggested that we need to kiss each other. The implication I give is that men need to be kissed by women. Of course this is not what is commanded. It was men kissing men, usually on the lips. It would have been totally culturally inappropriate for first century men and women to kiss in public. So if this command is to be obeyed without consideration of the culture of the time, we men need to greet each other with a kiss on the lips when we meet in church. I may have a French surname, but I am not that French!

Instead the proper approach is to understand what role the holy kiss played in the culture and try to suggest a way to express that same idea in a more culturally appropriate way. J.B Phillips translates the 'holy kiss" verses as "shake hands all around"-how very British of him. Eugene H. Peterson's The Message paraphrased Bible suggests a holy embrace.  The Holy Hug seems to be the appropriate cultural response for Americans. Be friendly is the general principle.

If it is difficult to apply these kind of things directly to our modern situation, how much more difficult is it in the area of economics? While the Bible is very clear that “wealth inequality” is not a good thing, it is difficult to apply the Biblical solutions. As I blog on wealth inequality starting next week, I will try to keep this in mind.