We receive many e-mails telling us about some boycott that is being organized against a particular organization or business. Sometimes we are informed of these by friends, at other times it is by Christian organizations. We are urged to “take a stand.”
Usually those from the religious right have to do with objecting to businesses that in some way cater to or tolerate homosexuals. (Apparently businesses that cater to or tolerate fornicators are no problem.) We’ve been told to boycott among others, Levi Strauss, Disney World, and now even Ford Motor Company.
But the right are not the only ones to desire our aid in boycotting. The religious left (yes, there is such a thing), and the secular left want me to boycott those organizations that harm or exploit our environment, those that exploit the poor, those that do business with countries that disregard human rights, as well as those that disregard organized labor. Wal*Mart is frequently the target.
We could make a very long list of businesses and organizations with which we should not do business. However, there are some problems here, besides the fact that many of us have a limited income and are not able to be too choosy in where we spend our money.
My first question (as the title of this article shows) is that I cannot imagine Jesus being involved in this sort of activity. He seemed to delight in being involved with people that others would “boycott.” In fact, I could almost get the idea that he liked to rub this sort of behavior in the faces of those who “took a stand.”
He made friends with a woman who was of questionable, moral and religious behavior. This even seemed to bother his close followers. (John 4, especially verse 27, “At this point His disciples came, and they were amazed that He had been speaking with a woman, yet no one said, ‘What do You seek?’ or ‘Why do You speak with her?’”
He stood up for a woman accused of adultery (John 8:2-11). He took into His circle a man who was an official of the corrupt oppressive Roman government (Mark 2:14-17). He hung around with soldiers of the occupying Roman army, with prostitutes, with religious leaders that He disagreed with. He even commended a woman who gave to the treasury of a corrupt religious system. I can’t imagine Jesus boycotting. And I can’t imagine Him advocating our boycotting.
Paul tells the Corinthians that it is impossible to disassociate ourselves from “ ... the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world” (1 Corinthians 5:10).
I’d like to write more, but I have to slip into my Levis, jump into my Ford and drive down to Wal*Mart. There’s a new Disney DVD I want to buy. Maybe while I’m there, I can talk to someone about Jesus.
Bill Ball
4/28/2006
Bill's Thoughts on the Bible, Theology and American Culture
Friday, April 28, 2006
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
DOING THEOLOGY
Mention the word “theology” to many people today, including Christians, and you may draw a blank stare, if not an eye roll. “Theology,” and the closely related word “doctrine” are, to many, meaningless words, or even bad words. “Doctrine divides,” say some, or “I don’t worry about these things, I’m not a theologian.” But often folks who say this have a very vague (if any) definition of what theology is.
So perhaps we need to know what theology is. Some definitions are necessary.
Though there are many definitions of theology, the simplest seems to be: “the study or science of God.” This is theology in its essential meaning. But theology is usually broadened to include not only God, but also His works: “The science of God and His relations to the universe.” Often when we speak or write of theology we also add to it the description “systematic” which would imply the “collecting, … arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts … concerning God and His works.”
Is theology necessary? In a sense this is a moot question; everyone already has a theological system of sorts, though often not a very scientific or systematic one. James Sire’s definition of a worldview as a “set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world” is very close to a definition of theology. So we might say that whether we need it or not, we have already got it. Everyone, Christian or non-Christian, has a concept of God and His works, whether or not they even claim belief in Him; each sees reality (God’s works) through the lenses of his or her own particular worldview. Most have an eclectic theology, often even a contradictory one, including both true and false data from many sources.
There seems to be an imbalance among evangelicals today: not only a stress on the experiential over the intellectual, but also a stress on the practical over the theoretical, which is how theology is viewed. The first and often the only criterion used when evaluating a teaching is whether it “works,” whether it can be used to improve one’s parenting, marriage, dating, sex life, church growth, or whatever. How else to explain the proliferation of seminars and books with at best a quasi-biblical basis? But this is a false dichotomy. Practical Christian living must first be based on correct theology. All theology should be practical and all practice should be theological.
If this sounds like saying that every Christian must be a systematic theologian to live a practical Christian life, it is. To the extent that one’s theology is not both biblically based and logically consistent, it is a false theology. It is therefore imperative that every Christian be involved in the process of “doing theology.” And it is imperative that those of us who pastor and teach be involved in it too, as well as making sure that that which emanates from the pulpit and the counseling room is theologically correct and not simply moralistic or emotional dross.
But how is theology actually done? We are born theologians. We begin to construct a worldview – a concept or set of concepts of God and His creation – on the day we are born, whether or not born into a Christian home. The new birth is, among other things, a radical realignment of our theological thinking. Biblical truth, natural revelation, parental instruction, religious teachings and other factors all contribute to the theological stew so that whenever we decide to “do theology,” we are already encumbered with vast amounts of data to be classified.
And theology is not done only in a theological seminary. It is to be done throughout the lifetime of the Christian – whether a “career” minister or layperson. The pastor must do theology in sermon preparation. As his study of the Scriptures brings forward new knowledge, this must be integrated within his system. The same applies to the Sunday school teacher or the “average” Christian doing his daily devotional study. This may not always be a conscious act, but it should be part of ones’ meditation process.
But doing theology presents some very real dangers, and there are many.
The first danger that I see is that of doing theology for theology’s sake. Theology becomes an end in itself. Theology’s end should be the glorification of God, whether by leading us to praise Him for His wisdom as Paul does in Romans 11:33-36 (at the close of the most “theological” treatise in the New Testament), or by leading us to commit ourselves to Him in a life of “orthopraxis” as chapter 12 exhorts. Too often theology becomes a sort of game that theologians – whether ministers or laymen – play, without relating it to life.
Closely related to this is the problem of jargon. Technical esoteric language – “shoptalk” – is extremely helpful within any discipline or field of endeavor. Single words and short phrases can communicate a large amount of information. However, jargon can also block communication. By using theological terms on the uninitiated we obfuscate and hinder knowledge. Every theological concept can be communicated and understood in non-technical lay language. Underlying all theologizing is the desire to know and understand. Underlying the Christian’s task is the necessity to communicate.
Another great danger is that of “putting God in a box.” Every theological system, no matter how biblical, logical and practical, is of human design, and is thus imperfect. While we should seek a system which answers the most questions and solves the most mysteries, we cannot in this life (I believe) arrive at all the answers. Our system will have some loose ends and we must admit this. We must seek to fit them into the system, but not by over-subtle reasoning or semantic games. We may be required to revise our systems or even to be content with admitting our ignorance.
There is also the danger of elevating non-essentials. It seems that there is a hierarchy in doctrines – both in importance and in certainty. The person and the work of Christ are at the top of the hierarchy, both in certainty and in importance to our faith. So important are these doctrines that Paul can pronounce a curse on those who disagree, and John can call them antichrists (Gal. 1:8, 9; 1 Jn. 4:2, 3). Whether or not the church will be raptured before the great tribulation is a matter that is near the bottom of the theological pyramid, both in certainty and importance. Yet it is on areas such as this that an overabundance of theological energy is expended.
Doing theology should be the activity of every Christian. Correct theology should underlie all our experience and activity. Knowledge about God is essential for knowledge of God. Paul stated his desire and goal: “That I may know Him (Christ) and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His suffering, being conformed to His death” (Phil. 3:10). This is theology in its broadest sense: systematic and practical and experiential.
Or to quote a more recent author: “The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings and the existence of the great God, whom he calls Father” (C. H. Spurgeon, as quoted by Packer, KNOWING GOD, pg. 13)
Bill Ball
1986,
revised and condensed, 4/26/2006
So perhaps we need to know what theology is. Some definitions are necessary.
Though there are many definitions of theology, the simplest seems to be: “the study or science of God.” This is theology in its essential meaning. But theology is usually broadened to include not only God, but also His works: “The science of God and His relations to the universe.” Often when we speak or write of theology we also add to it the description “systematic” which would imply the “collecting, … arranging, comparing, exhibiting and defending of all facts … concerning God and His works.”
Is theology necessary? In a sense this is a moot question; everyone already has a theological system of sorts, though often not a very scientific or systematic one. James Sire’s definition of a worldview as a “set of presuppositions (or assumptions) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously) about the basic makeup of our world” is very close to a definition of theology. So we might say that whether we need it or not, we have already got it. Everyone, Christian or non-Christian, has a concept of God and His works, whether or not they even claim belief in Him; each sees reality (God’s works) through the lenses of his or her own particular worldview. Most have an eclectic theology, often even a contradictory one, including both true and false data from many sources.
There seems to be an imbalance among evangelicals today: not only a stress on the experiential over the intellectual, but also a stress on the practical over the theoretical, which is how theology is viewed. The first and often the only criterion used when evaluating a teaching is whether it “works,” whether it can be used to improve one’s parenting, marriage, dating, sex life, church growth, or whatever. How else to explain the proliferation of seminars and books with at best a quasi-biblical basis? But this is a false dichotomy. Practical Christian living must first be based on correct theology. All theology should be practical and all practice should be theological.
If this sounds like saying that every Christian must be a systematic theologian to live a practical Christian life, it is. To the extent that one’s theology is not both biblically based and logically consistent, it is a false theology. It is therefore imperative that every Christian be involved in the process of “doing theology.” And it is imperative that those of us who pastor and teach be involved in it too, as well as making sure that that which emanates from the pulpit and the counseling room is theologically correct and not simply moralistic or emotional dross.
But how is theology actually done? We are born theologians. We begin to construct a worldview – a concept or set of concepts of God and His creation – on the day we are born, whether or not born into a Christian home. The new birth is, among other things, a radical realignment of our theological thinking. Biblical truth, natural revelation, parental instruction, religious teachings and other factors all contribute to the theological stew so that whenever we decide to “do theology,” we are already encumbered with vast amounts of data to be classified.
And theology is not done only in a theological seminary. It is to be done throughout the lifetime of the Christian – whether a “career” minister or layperson. The pastor must do theology in sermon preparation. As his study of the Scriptures brings forward new knowledge, this must be integrated within his system. The same applies to the Sunday school teacher or the “average” Christian doing his daily devotional study. This may not always be a conscious act, but it should be part of ones’ meditation process.
But doing theology presents some very real dangers, and there are many.
The first danger that I see is that of doing theology for theology’s sake. Theology becomes an end in itself. Theology’s end should be the glorification of God, whether by leading us to praise Him for His wisdom as Paul does in Romans 11:33-36 (at the close of the most “theological” treatise in the New Testament), or by leading us to commit ourselves to Him in a life of “orthopraxis” as chapter 12 exhorts. Too often theology becomes a sort of game that theologians – whether ministers or laymen – play, without relating it to life.
Closely related to this is the problem of jargon. Technical esoteric language – “shoptalk” – is extremely helpful within any discipline or field of endeavor. Single words and short phrases can communicate a large amount of information. However, jargon can also block communication. By using theological terms on the uninitiated we obfuscate and hinder knowledge. Every theological concept can be communicated and understood in non-technical lay language. Underlying all theologizing is the desire to know and understand. Underlying the Christian’s task is the necessity to communicate.
Another great danger is that of “putting God in a box.” Every theological system, no matter how biblical, logical and practical, is of human design, and is thus imperfect. While we should seek a system which answers the most questions and solves the most mysteries, we cannot in this life (I believe) arrive at all the answers. Our system will have some loose ends and we must admit this. We must seek to fit them into the system, but not by over-subtle reasoning or semantic games. We may be required to revise our systems or even to be content with admitting our ignorance.
There is also the danger of elevating non-essentials. It seems that there is a hierarchy in doctrines – both in importance and in certainty. The person and the work of Christ are at the top of the hierarchy, both in certainty and in importance to our faith. So important are these doctrines that Paul can pronounce a curse on those who disagree, and John can call them antichrists (Gal. 1:8, 9; 1 Jn. 4:2, 3). Whether or not the church will be raptured before the great tribulation is a matter that is near the bottom of the theological pyramid, both in certainty and importance. Yet it is on areas such as this that an overabundance of theological energy is expended.
Doing theology should be the activity of every Christian. Correct theology should underlie all our experience and activity. Knowledge about God is essential for knowledge of God. Paul stated his desire and goal: “That I may know Him (Christ) and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His suffering, being conformed to His death” (Phil. 3:10). This is theology in its broadest sense: systematic and practical and experiential.
Or to quote a more recent author: “The highest science, the loftiest speculation, the mightiest philosophy, which can ever engage the attention of a child of God, is the name, the nature, the person, the work, the doings and the existence of the great God, whom he calls Father” (C. H. Spurgeon, as quoted by Packer, KNOWING GOD, pg. 13)
Bill Ball
1986,
revised and condensed, 4/26/2006
OUR COUSIN, THE FISHAPOD?
The news lately has included stories of a startling discovery, the fossil of a creature named Tiktaalik Roseae, and nicknamed the Fishapod. It is supposed to have lived about 375 million years ago. It is a fish with fingers and other features found in land animals. It is hailed by TIME magazine (April 17, 2006) as a missing link and more evidence for the evolutionists in their debate with “creationists and other anti-evolutionists.” It was gracious of the magazine to refer to the conflict as a debate. It seems that most of the secular press sees no debate here; it was over long ago. The TIME report is followed by a brief article entitled “Darwin Would Have Loved It.”
I do not wish to enter into the evolution debate with scholars on both sides, most of whom are much more learned than I am, but I believe that some issues and questions need to be addressed and, hopefully, clarified.
1. The Age of the Earth. Current scientific theory puts the beginning of the universe about 13½ billion years ago, the beginning of the earth about 4½ billion, and the beginnings of life about ½ billion years ago. The Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days, about 6,000 years ago. Even allowing a few thousand more years due to gaps in the biblical genealogies, we still have a great difference. There are many theories or hypotheses suggested by those who desire to be both scientific and biblical. Usually they boil down to either a totally literal reading of Genesis 1, with a rewriting of most modern science, or a reading of Genesis 1 as symbolism.
2. Teleology, the Theory of Purpose. The evolutionist seems to believe that evolution has a purpose, that life is driven in some way to evolve. But natural selection and the survival of the fittest, would seem to me to imply that there is some selector, some person or thing that determines which forms are the fittest. Did life in its nearly infinite variations simply happen? The evolutionist doesn’t believe so. It would seem that even the idea of evolution demands some great force (or Force) driving the process. It would seem to me that the evolutionist needs God for his theory to work (as well as for other reasons).
3. Intelligent Design. Secular thinking sees this concept as just a form of “creationism,” with a different name, snuck in by religious bigots. But the claims of Intelligent Design are that there are aspects of nature inexplicable by evolution. The cell is a “perfect machine” in that it has no parts that are redundant or lacking. There are no “transitional forms.” Of course, to the believer in God, this is obvious, even though his/her scientific knowledge may be lacking. If God is an intelligent being, then His designs would be intelligent. For one to say he believes in both God and evolution is one thing, to say one believes in God, but not in Intelligent design is another. Is the universe the product of “unintelligent design”?
4. The Genesis Account. No matter what one’s interpretation of the first few chapters of the Bible, for the Christian there are, as I see it, three non-negotiables:
-- “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). This universe, the earth and all the life on it are the work of God. John 1:1-3, 14, add to our knowledge that the Creator is the same Person who later “became flesh” and walked on the earth that He had created.
-- God put limits on reproduction. The creatures in the water, as well as birds, cattle, beasts, are all said to be “after their kind” (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25). The word translated “kind” is used again in Leviticus 11, to designate the “kinds” of animals that the Jewish people were allowed to eat. It would seem that even if evolution was part of God’s plan, He put boundaries on it. All life is not inter-related.
-- Man is unique. Man (male and female) was created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26, 27). He was formed “of dust from the ground” (Genesis 2:7). Though humans may share most of their DNA with other creatures, they are not simply animals.
My personal feeling is that we (Christians) ought to confine our arguments to these 3 non-negotiables and not to waste too much time arguing with secular evolutionists about the other details.
Bill Ball
4/26/2006
I do not wish to enter into the evolution debate with scholars on both sides, most of whom are much more learned than I am, but I believe that some issues and questions need to be addressed and, hopefully, clarified.
1. The Age of the Earth. Current scientific theory puts the beginning of the universe about 13½ billion years ago, the beginning of the earth about 4½ billion, and the beginnings of life about ½ billion years ago. The Bible says that the heavens and the earth were created in 6 days, about 6,000 years ago. Even allowing a few thousand more years due to gaps in the biblical genealogies, we still have a great difference. There are many theories or hypotheses suggested by those who desire to be both scientific and biblical. Usually they boil down to either a totally literal reading of Genesis 1, with a rewriting of most modern science, or a reading of Genesis 1 as symbolism.
2. Teleology, the Theory of Purpose. The evolutionist seems to believe that evolution has a purpose, that life is driven in some way to evolve. But natural selection and the survival of the fittest, would seem to me to imply that there is some selector, some person or thing that determines which forms are the fittest. Did life in its nearly infinite variations simply happen? The evolutionist doesn’t believe so. It would seem that even the idea of evolution demands some great force (or Force) driving the process. It would seem to me that the evolutionist needs God for his theory to work (as well as for other reasons).
3. Intelligent Design. Secular thinking sees this concept as just a form of “creationism,” with a different name, snuck in by religious bigots. But the claims of Intelligent Design are that there are aspects of nature inexplicable by evolution. The cell is a “perfect machine” in that it has no parts that are redundant or lacking. There are no “transitional forms.” Of course, to the believer in God, this is obvious, even though his/her scientific knowledge may be lacking. If God is an intelligent being, then His designs would be intelligent. For one to say he believes in both God and evolution is one thing, to say one believes in God, but not in Intelligent design is another. Is the universe the product of “unintelligent design”?
4. The Genesis Account. No matter what one’s interpretation of the first few chapters of the Bible, for the Christian there are, as I see it, three non-negotiables:
-- “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). This universe, the earth and all the life on it are the work of God. John 1:1-3, 14, add to our knowledge that the Creator is the same Person who later “became flesh” and walked on the earth that He had created.
-- God put limits on reproduction. The creatures in the water, as well as birds, cattle, beasts, are all said to be “after their kind” (Genesis 1:21, 24, 25). The word translated “kind” is used again in Leviticus 11, to designate the “kinds” of animals that the Jewish people were allowed to eat. It would seem that even if evolution was part of God’s plan, He put boundaries on it. All life is not inter-related.
-- Man is unique. Man (male and female) was created “in the image of God” (Genesis 1:26, 27). He was formed “of dust from the ground” (Genesis 2:7). Though humans may share most of their DNA with other creatures, they are not simply animals.
My personal feeling is that we (Christians) ought to confine our arguments to these 3 non-negotiables and not to waste too much time arguing with secular evolutionists about the other details.
Bill Ball
4/26/2006
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
WHY I BLOG
When a friend of mine told me I needed to have a blog, I pretty much ignored him. When he told me he had set up a site for me and even put an e-mail of mine on it to “prime the pump,” I still ignored his urgings.
Then I realized that I have a lot that I want to say, and that I believe needs to be said. I’ve been around for a long time, have had a teaching and preaching ministry for a long time. Much of this stuff I have said already, yet there are many things that I have wanted to say and haven’t said. In fact, often the very things I’ve felt needed to be said are the ones left unsaid. I didn’t want to offend people; used the “carrot” instead of the “stick” to speak to people; I was afraid I’d lose friends, or my job, or my ministry, or whatever. I’m not going to worry about that any more. My convictions should be more important than that. “nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house” (Matthew 5:15).
So perhaps I’ve written things, or will write things, that offend people. I don’t intend to offend anyone personally, but it can happen. I pray that I won’t offend the truth of God’s Word (please let me know if I do), but if I offend someone’s opinions or prejudices, that’s another matter.
I feel that we are living in an age of “dumbing down.” That American Christians are right there with, if not ahead of, the rest of the people in this country, and sometimes it seems, the most prone to dumbing down. We seem to be afraid to think on our own, unable to analyze our situations, or ethics, or politics, or world events, or whatever, from a biblical and theological worldview.
Back in the ‘50s and ‘60s there was a filter cigarette which was advertised as “the thinking man’s filter.” I’m afraid that many of us are looking for just that today – not a cigarette, but a filter. There are many on radio and TV and elsewhere, who want to tell us what and how to think. And there are all too many of us who are inclined, even eager, to let others do our thinking for us.
I don’t want to be anyone’s filter, but I do hope and pray that I will say some things that will jar my readers’ thinking (if there are any readers out there), and force them into reexamining their opinions and prejudices.
I may appear to be a curmudgeon. I suppose I meet the requirements. If so, I want to be a Curmudgeon for Christ. “ ... whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Bill Ball
4/12/2006
Then I realized that I have a lot that I want to say, and that I believe needs to be said. I’ve been around for a long time, have had a teaching and preaching ministry for a long time. Much of this stuff I have said already, yet there are many things that I have wanted to say and haven’t said. In fact, often the very things I’ve felt needed to be said are the ones left unsaid. I didn’t want to offend people; used the “carrot” instead of the “stick” to speak to people; I was afraid I’d lose friends, or my job, or my ministry, or whatever. I’m not going to worry about that any more. My convictions should be more important than that. “nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house” (Matthew 5:15).
So perhaps I’ve written things, or will write things, that offend people. I don’t intend to offend anyone personally, but it can happen. I pray that I won’t offend the truth of God’s Word (please let me know if I do), but if I offend someone’s opinions or prejudices, that’s another matter.
I feel that we are living in an age of “dumbing down.” That American Christians are right there with, if not ahead of, the rest of the people in this country, and sometimes it seems, the most prone to dumbing down. We seem to be afraid to think on our own, unable to analyze our situations, or ethics, or politics, or world events, or whatever, from a biblical and theological worldview.
Back in the ‘50s and ‘60s there was a filter cigarette which was advertised as “the thinking man’s filter.” I’m afraid that many of us are looking for just that today – not a cigarette, but a filter. There are many on radio and TV and elsewhere, who want to tell us what and how to think. And there are all too many of us who are inclined, even eager, to let others do our thinking for us.
I don’t want to be anyone’s filter, but I do hope and pray that I will say some things that will jar my readers’ thinking (if there are any readers out there), and force them into reexamining their opinions and prejudices.
I may appear to be a curmudgeon. I suppose I meet the requirements. If so, I want to be a Curmudgeon for Christ. “ ... whatever you do, do all to the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31).
Bill Ball
4/12/2006
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
TO SEE OURSELVES
“O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.”
Robert Burns, To a Louse
Burns, the 18th century Scottish poet, allegedly was inspired to write this while sitting in church behind a finely-attired lady on the back of whose well-coiffed head a louse was crawling.
I believe we all need to attempt to “see oursels as others see us,” even though we may not like it, if we are to be salt and light. There are two recent books, written by those who make no claim to Christianity, one which I have read, the other which I am presently reading, which have helped me.
The first book is THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN RELIGION by Alan Wolfe, Free Press, 2003. Wolfe makes his (non-) position very clear. “I do not write about religion out of religious conviction … I am not, and never have been, a person of faith” (pg vii). He tells us he is Jewish, but non-practicing married to a non-practicing Christian. Yet he assures us at the same time that he is not hostile to religion. He attempts to be objective as a good sociologist and his writing bears this out. If anything, rather than hostility, I almost sense a sympathy, not with God, but with religious people, and again, not because he feels that we are going the wrong way, but more that we don’t seem to know which way we are going. While he writes about most of the various religious groups in America, he devotes most of his material to evangelical Christians.
Some of his statements (pgs. 2, 3): “ … in the United States culture has transformed Christ, as well as all other religions found within these shores. In every aspect of the religious life, American faith has met American culture – and American culture has triumphed.” “More Americans than ever proclaim themselves born again in Christ, but the lord to whom they turn rarely gets angry and frequently strengthens self-esteem.”
He discusses our worship, our doctrine, our morality, even our identity and finds us to be more or less simply becoming more and more a part of a homogeneous culture. He attempts to be non-judgmental, but sometimes almost seems a little worried. Sadly, I found myself amening to much of what he said.
The last chapter, his conclusion, is entitled, “Is Democracy Safe from Religion?” Fortunately (or unfortunately), his answer appears to be yes. Liberals are wrong. Religious people are no threat to the American way. In fact religious people, especially evangelical Christians are in a sense, the epitome of the American way. Somehow, I did not find this book comforting.
The second book is AMERICAN THEOCRACY by Kevin Phillips, Viking, 2006. Phillips is a former Republican strategist, and has become something of a modern-day Cassandra (You remember her: she was the Trojan prophetess who kept warning that there’s something suspicious about that horse.).
Phillips sees three great dangers which are threatening America, and of which the Republican party has “become the vehicle.” They are what he calls “a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex.”
Because he marshals so much data, and presents such a strong argument for the existence of the first and the third threats, it would seem that he needs to be at least paid attention to on the second. And again, I sometimes found myself amening.
I know that many would simply ignore these books as the rantings of “the world” or the “far left” or just plain kooks, but if we want to see ourselves as others see us, I believe books like these and their arguments should be considered.
But these guys seem so far apart in their judgments of us. We need to ask, are they both totally wrong? Are they both partially right? Does the truth lie somewhere in between? Or in some synthesis? Certainly, they can’t both be right, can they? After all, we’re just talking about perception anyway. Or is there actually a louse crawling on the back of our collective head?
If Mr. Wolfe is correct, we are perceived as no threat because we have been nearly absorbed by the culture. The American way is the Christian way and vice versa. Certainly statistics would bear this out, as more and greater numbers of Americans profess to be born again, yet we see no great changes for the better in our culture. The “culture wars” are over. We’ve lost.
If Mr. Phillips is correct, we are perceived as a threat because we are attempting to influence the culture by force or at least by legislation. We are gradually forcing our views of evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. on America. We are winning the “culture wars” and have become a danger to our country.
Perhaps there’s some truth in both of these perceptions and one influences the other. We are so assimilated into the American culture that we live lives very little different from those around us. As has been said, “we worship our work, work at our play, and play at our worship.” We have little if any influence on our American culture. So as we see our culture going down the tubes, we want to influence it by force, to legislate morality, and morality of a particular kind. Thus, we scare those around us!
But we are to be an influence on our culture, not by our politics, but by our imitation of Christ. “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35). We are to be different from our culture, not in a legalistic way, not by forcing them to conform to us, but by our refusing to conform to them. “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect“ (Romans 12:2).
If we speak against what we perceive as the sin of this country, it should not be primarily to get people to stop sinning but to point them to their need for Christ. “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Peter 3:15, 16).
Bill Ball
4/10/2006
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
And foolish notion.”
Robert Burns, To a Louse
Burns, the 18th century Scottish poet, allegedly was inspired to write this while sitting in church behind a finely-attired lady on the back of whose well-coiffed head a louse was crawling.
I believe we all need to attempt to “see oursels as others see us,” even though we may not like it, if we are to be salt and light. There are two recent books, written by those who make no claim to Christianity, one which I have read, the other which I am presently reading, which have helped me.
The first book is THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN RELIGION by Alan Wolfe, Free Press, 2003. Wolfe makes his (non-) position very clear. “I do not write about religion out of religious conviction … I am not, and never have been, a person of faith” (pg vii). He tells us he is Jewish, but non-practicing married to a non-practicing Christian. Yet he assures us at the same time that he is not hostile to religion. He attempts to be objective as a good sociologist and his writing bears this out. If anything, rather than hostility, I almost sense a sympathy, not with God, but with religious people, and again, not because he feels that we are going the wrong way, but more that we don’t seem to know which way we are going. While he writes about most of the various religious groups in America, he devotes most of his material to evangelical Christians.
Some of his statements (pgs. 2, 3): “ … in the United States culture has transformed Christ, as well as all other religions found within these shores. In every aspect of the religious life, American faith has met American culture – and American culture has triumphed.” “More Americans than ever proclaim themselves born again in Christ, but the lord to whom they turn rarely gets angry and frequently strengthens self-esteem.”
He discusses our worship, our doctrine, our morality, even our identity and finds us to be more or less simply becoming more and more a part of a homogeneous culture. He attempts to be non-judgmental, but sometimes almost seems a little worried. Sadly, I found myself amening to much of what he said.
The last chapter, his conclusion, is entitled, “Is Democracy Safe from Religion?” Fortunately (or unfortunately), his answer appears to be yes. Liberals are wrong. Religious people are no threat to the American way. In fact religious people, especially evangelical Christians are in a sense, the epitome of the American way. Somehow, I did not find this book comforting.
The second book is AMERICAN THEOCRACY by Kevin Phillips, Viking, 2006. Phillips is a former Republican strategist, and has become something of a modern-day Cassandra (You remember her: she was the Trojan prophetess who kept warning that there’s something suspicious about that horse.).
Phillips sees three great dangers which are threatening America, and of which the Republican party has “become the vehicle.” They are what he calls “a fusion of petroleum-defined national security; a crusading, simplistic Christianity; and a reckless credit-feeding financial complex.”
Because he marshals so much data, and presents such a strong argument for the existence of the first and the third threats, it would seem that he needs to be at least paid attention to on the second. And again, I sometimes found myself amening.
I know that many would simply ignore these books as the rantings of “the world” or the “far left” or just plain kooks, but if we want to see ourselves as others see us, I believe books like these and their arguments should be considered.
But these guys seem so far apart in their judgments of us. We need to ask, are they both totally wrong? Are they both partially right? Does the truth lie somewhere in between? Or in some synthesis? Certainly, they can’t both be right, can they? After all, we’re just talking about perception anyway. Or is there actually a louse crawling on the back of our collective head?
If Mr. Wolfe is correct, we are perceived as no threat because we have been nearly absorbed by the culture. The American way is the Christian way and vice versa. Certainly statistics would bear this out, as more and greater numbers of Americans profess to be born again, yet we see no great changes for the better in our culture. The “culture wars” are over. We’ve lost.
If Mr. Phillips is correct, we are perceived as a threat because we are attempting to influence the culture by force or at least by legislation. We are gradually forcing our views of evolution, abortion, homosexuality, etc. on America. We are winning the “culture wars” and have become a danger to our country.
Perhaps there’s some truth in both of these perceptions and one influences the other. We are so assimilated into the American culture that we live lives very little different from those around us. As has been said, “we worship our work, work at our play, and play at our worship.” We have little if any influence on our American culture. So as we see our culture going down the tubes, we want to influence it by force, to legislate morality, and morality of a particular kind. Thus, we scare those around us!
But we are to be an influence on our culture, not by our politics, but by our imitation of Christ. “By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another (John 13:35). We are to be different from our culture, not in a legalistic way, not by forcing them to conform to us, but by our refusing to conform to them. “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect“ (Romans 12:2).
If we speak against what we perceive as the sin of this country, it should not be primarily to get people to stop sinning but to point them to their need for Christ. “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame” (1 Peter 3:15, 16).
Bill Ball
4/10/2006
Monday, April 10, 2006
WHAT IS TRUTH?
The question was asked of Jesus by Pontius Pilate (John 18:38), and is still being asked today by many. To others, however, the word “truth” is an empty word. It has lost its edge.
I know, because this is one of the first questions I ask my students in first semester Theology class. The answers are fascinating: “Truth is different for different people”; “Everyone has his (or her) own truth”; “There is no such thing as truth”; “Truth is relative”; “Quantum physics (or modern math) proves that there can be no certainty about anything”; or, of course, the pious answers: “God is truth”; “Only truths about God are really true, all other truths are relative.”
Troubling, isn’t it? If we’re not certain of what we mean by truth, how can we be certain that we’re proclaiming the truth? How can we say, “God is truth,” or “Jesus is the truth,” if we don’t know what truth is? We can’t turn these statements around and say “truth is God.”
The dictionaries give various definitions, but they pretty much are variants of these: (1) “The state of being the case: FACT”; (2) “The body of real things, events, and facts: ACTUALITY.” Or as one student said, “Truth IS!” She got it!
This is important. If we who know Christ concede that truth is relative, as so much of present-day thinking claims, we have nothing to offer the rest of the world. We have nothing with which to argue, to present a case for Christ.
Also, if truth is that which is the case, that which corresponds to reality, and if God is the originator of all that is – of reality, then all truth is God’s truth. That would mean that scientific truth, mathematical truth, historical truth – all are God’s truths.
So then, why are so many conservative Christians afraid of science? If the Bible is truth and science involves the search for and discovery of truth, why is “scientist” considered a bad word by many? Why is there an adversarial relationship between the two groups? I think that there are two main reasons.
First, much of modern scientific thinking is based on a false premise. The naturalistic or materialist view, that only that which is observable to the senses is real. If one begins with the presupposition that there is no God, the only possible conclusions must leave God out.
But second, I believe that there is much arrogance on the part of those of us who take the Bible as truth. We can easily grant our own personal interpretations that status of absolute truth, as though they were Scripture. The trial and condemnation of Galileo comes to mind.
I also believe that we need to choose our battles more carefully. It is not faith in a 6-day creation, or an inerrant Bible that saves, important as these truths may be. People are saved, justified, when they put their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for them.
“Every one is entitled to his own opinion – but not his own facts.”
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Bill Ball
4/10/2006
I know, because this is one of the first questions I ask my students in first semester Theology class. The answers are fascinating: “Truth is different for different people”; “Everyone has his (or her) own truth”; “There is no such thing as truth”; “Truth is relative”; “Quantum physics (or modern math) proves that there can be no certainty about anything”; or, of course, the pious answers: “God is truth”; “Only truths about God are really true, all other truths are relative.”
Troubling, isn’t it? If we’re not certain of what we mean by truth, how can we be certain that we’re proclaiming the truth? How can we say, “God is truth,” or “Jesus is the truth,” if we don’t know what truth is? We can’t turn these statements around and say “truth is God.”
The dictionaries give various definitions, but they pretty much are variants of these: (1) “The state of being the case: FACT”; (2) “The body of real things, events, and facts: ACTUALITY.” Or as one student said, “Truth IS!” She got it!
This is important. If we who know Christ concede that truth is relative, as so much of present-day thinking claims, we have nothing to offer the rest of the world. We have nothing with which to argue, to present a case for Christ.
Also, if truth is that which is the case, that which corresponds to reality, and if God is the originator of all that is – of reality, then all truth is God’s truth. That would mean that scientific truth, mathematical truth, historical truth – all are God’s truths.
So then, why are so many conservative Christians afraid of science? If the Bible is truth and science involves the search for and discovery of truth, why is “scientist” considered a bad word by many? Why is there an adversarial relationship between the two groups? I think that there are two main reasons.
First, much of modern scientific thinking is based on a false premise. The naturalistic or materialist view, that only that which is observable to the senses is real. If one begins with the presupposition that there is no God, the only possible conclusions must leave God out.
But second, I believe that there is much arrogance on the part of those of us who take the Bible as truth. We can easily grant our own personal interpretations that status of absolute truth, as though they were Scripture. The trial and condemnation of Galileo comes to mind.
I also believe that we need to choose our battles more carefully. It is not faith in a 6-day creation, or an inerrant Bible that saves, important as these truths may be. People are saved, justified, when they put their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who died for them.
“Every one is entitled to his own opinion – but not his own facts.”
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Bill Ball
4/10/2006
Saturday, April 8, 2006
LIES WE (CHRISTIANS) BELIEVE ABOUT OURSELVES
· I need to love myself (more).
· I need to forgive myself.
· I need to ____________.
· I'm only a sinner saved by grace.
· I'm only human (Gen. 1:26, 27).
· I'm an alcoholic (recovering?).
· I'm a homosexual.
· I'm a _____________.
· I carry a lot of guilt.
I've deliberately left out the "I can'ts," because they are truths (but not the whole truth) about ourselves.
I've also omitted lies we believe about God and others.
Many of our ideas are part of either the pop culture around us, and its pop psychology, or the pop Christianity around us.
I'm not saying that the people who told these things to us are necessarily liars. Most were "gossips" who believe the lies the same as we do. The ULTIMATE liar is SATAN.
We're never told in the Bible to "love ourselves," but to "love our neighbor as ourselves" (Leviticus 19:18b) which seems to assume self-love. It is the standard for measuring our love for our neighbor. I can't recall ever meeting anyone who didn't love themselves. Even those who seem to hate themselves are really involved in a perverted self-love. Even suicide is a selfish act.
We're not told to "forgive ourselves" – we're told that "He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Forgiveness has to do with releasing someone from a debt owed. We need to seek forgiveness from God and from other people, but not from ourselves, because we don't owe ourselves anything. I think our big problem is that we don't have enough faith to believe and accept God's forgiveness: “in Him (Christ) we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14; 2:13; Ephesians 4:32).
This is related to the idea some of us have, of "carrying a lot of guilt." Freudian and pop psychology has redefined guilt and made it into just a bad feeling. Biblical guilt, however, is legal guilt. We are all guilty – by nature and by practice. But Christ has taken all the guilt of those who put their faith in Him. He is our "guilt offering" (Isaiah 53:10) and our "sin offering" (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 10:12). So we can't carry any of our guilt, except to carry it to Him.
I think what we do often carry is our shame. Shame has to do with ourselves and our inadequacies. Guilt has to do with our relationship with God. Look at Adam and Eve. Before the fall they "were both naked and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25). After their sin and fall they recognized their nakedness and tried to cover it up. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ He said , “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself’” (Genesis 3:7-10). They were guilty as could be. They disobeyed God and they brought down the whole human race, but they didn't have "guilt feelings." They were ashamed of themselves not of their sin. I can't find where they ever really understood their guilt. But the neat thing is that God covered up both their guilt and their shame.
As for the lies about who "I am" – "only a sinner," "only human," etc., Romans 8:16 says, “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul tells us what we were, “unrighteous ..., fornicators ..., idolaters ..., adulterers ..., effeminate ..., homosexuals ..., thieves ..., covetous ..., drunkards ..., revilers ..., swindlers, ”but then tells us that we are not any of these anymore. We've been "washed, sanctified and justified." We are saints, children of God, new creatures, even though we don't always behave as such.
Wrong beliefs about ourselves are bad theology and bad psychology. As long as we believe we are less than we really are we will live like less than we really are.
Bill Ball
4/8/2006
· I need to forgive myself.
· I need to ____________.
· I'm only a sinner saved by grace.
· I'm only human (Gen. 1:26, 27).
· I'm an alcoholic (recovering?).
· I'm a homosexual.
· I'm a _____________.
· I carry a lot of guilt.
I've deliberately left out the "I can'ts," because they are truths (but not the whole truth) about ourselves.
I've also omitted lies we believe about God and others.
Many of our ideas are part of either the pop culture around us, and its pop psychology, or the pop Christianity around us.
I'm not saying that the people who told these things to us are necessarily liars. Most were "gossips" who believe the lies the same as we do. The ULTIMATE liar is SATAN.
We're never told in the Bible to "love ourselves," but to "love our neighbor as ourselves" (Leviticus 19:18b) which seems to assume self-love. It is the standard for measuring our love for our neighbor. I can't recall ever meeting anyone who didn't love themselves. Even those who seem to hate themselves are really involved in a perverted self-love. Even suicide is a selfish act.
We're not told to "forgive ourselves" – we're told that "He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). Forgiveness has to do with releasing someone from a debt owed. We need to seek forgiveness from God and from other people, but not from ourselves, because we don't owe ourselves anything. I think our big problem is that we don't have enough faith to believe and accept God's forgiveness: “in Him (Christ) we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" (Colossians 1:14; 2:13; Ephesians 4:32).
This is related to the idea some of us have, of "carrying a lot of guilt." Freudian and pop psychology has redefined guilt and made it into just a bad feeling. Biblical guilt, however, is legal guilt. We are all guilty – by nature and by practice. But Christ has taken all the guilt of those who put their faith in Him. He is our "guilt offering" (Isaiah 53:10) and our "sin offering" (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 10:12). So we can't carry any of our guilt, except to carry it to Him.
I think what we do often carry is our shame. Shame has to do with ourselves and our inadequacies. Guilt has to do with our relationship with God. Look at Adam and Eve. Before the fall they "were both naked and were not ashamed" (Genesis 2:25). After their sin and fall they recognized their nakedness and tried to cover it up. “Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loin coverings. They heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God among the trees of the garden. Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?’ He said , “I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid myself’” (Genesis 3:7-10). They were guilty as could be. They disobeyed God and they brought down the whole human race, but they didn't have "guilt feelings." They were ashamed of themselves not of their sin. I can't find where they ever really understood their guilt. But the neat thing is that God covered up both their guilt and their shame.
As for the lies about who "I am" – "only a sinner," "only human," etc., Romans 8:16 says, “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God.” In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Paul tells us what we were, “unrighteous ..., fornicators ..., idolaters ..., adulterers ..., effeminate ..., homosexuals ..., thieves ..., covetous ..., drunkards ..., revilers ..., swindlers, ”but then tells us that we are not any of these anymore. We've been "washed, sanctified and justified." We are saints, children of God, new creatures, even though we don't always behave as such.
Wrong beliefs about ourselves are bad theology and bad psychology. As long as we believe we are less than we really are we will live like less than we really are.
Bill Ball
4/8/2006
Friday, April 7, 2006
THE GOSPEL OF JUDAS
Yesterday, the news media brought to our attention an ancient document recently discovered in Egypt. It has been pieced together by a group of scholars and translated from its original Coptic language. In it, we are told, is contained a conversation between Jesus and Judas, in which Jesus more or less sets up Judas to betray Him. Jesus apparently, not only knew that Judas would be His betrayer, but instructed him to do so.
The document has been dated by the radio carbon method and found to be from around the 3rd or 4th century. However, that doesn’t make it “genuine,” as was claimed by one scholar on ABC. All that proves is that it’s old! I’m still uncertain as to how Judas authored this account, seeing as how he was supposed to have committed suicide soon after the betrayal.
The news media, of course, did what they do so well – taking an important bit of news and blowing it up beyond its importance into a major crisis. What will this do to our faith? What effect will it have on those who have placed their trust in the accounts in the canonical gospels? What effect will it have on our opinion of Jesus’ integrity?
Wait a minute!!! Don’t panic!!! First of all, this document is dated, we’re told, to about the 3rd century at the earliest, 200 years later than the New Testament documents (although there probably were earlier editions). Second, it is, as one scholar said, a “Gnostic” document. The Gnostics were sectarians, considered heretical by the early Christians. Third, it is only one of literally dozens (maybe hundreds) of “gospels” and other writings produced by both sectarian and “main-line” Christians. Fourth, it was known to, and rejected by early Christian writers. Irenaeus, writing toward the end of the 2nd century, says, “And furthermore – they say – Judas the betrayer was thoroughly acquainted with these things; and he alone was acquainted with the truth as no others were, and (so) accomplished the mystery of the betrayal. By him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thrown into dissolution. And they bring forth a fabricated work to this effect, which they entitle The Gospel of Judas.”
There will be many scholarly and other works dealing with this new discovery, and I will probably read some of them. In fact, I hope to get a copy of the Gospel of Judas, read it and add it to my library.
What is most troubling to me however, is that many people will take this work for what it claims, as many have done with previously discovered documents (as well as works of fiction), and at the same time they will ignore the biblical accounts. Or worse, they will accept these wholeheartedly as a refutation of the biblical accounts.
But it is the biblical accounts that tell us the truth about Jesus, the Man who was God in the flesh, who came to die for our sins.
It is really a matter of faith. We can either take the Bible for what it claims about Jesus, or we can hope for something that will refute His claims and get us off the hook – we can agree with what John Fogerty said a few years ago (tongue in cheek, I believe), “I know it’s true, ‘cause I saw it on TV.”
Bill Ball
April 7, 2006
The document has been dated by the radio carbon method and found to be from around the 3rd or 4th century. However, that doesn’t make it “genuine,” as was claimed by one scholar on ABC. All that proves is that it’s old! I’m still uncertain as to how Judas authored this account, seeing as how he was supposed to have committed suicide soon after the betrayal.
The news media, of course, did what they do so well – taking an important bit of news and blowing it up beyond its importance into a major crisis. What will this do to our faith? What effect will it have on those who have placed their trust in the accounts in the canonical gospels? What effect will it have on our opinion of Jesus’ integrity?
Wait a minute!!! Don’t panic!!! First of all, this document is dated, we’re told, to about the 3rd century at the earliest, 200 years later than the New Testament documents (although there probably were earlier editions). Second, it is, as one scholar said, a “Gnostic” document. The Gnostics were sectarians, considered heretical by the early Christians. Third, it is only one of literally dozens (maybe hundreds) of “gospels” and other writings produced by both sectarian and “main-line” Christians. Fourth, it was known to, and rejected by early Christian writers. Irenaeus, writing toward the end of the 2nd century, says, “And furthermore – they say – Judas the betrayer was thoroughly acquainted with these things; and he alone was acquainted with the truth as no others were, and (so) accomplished the mystery of the betrayal. By him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thrown into dissolution. And they bring forth a fabricated work to this effect, which they entitle The Gospel of Judas.”
There will be many scholarly and other works dealing with this new discovery, and I will probably read some of them. In fact, I hope to get a copy of the Gospel of Judas, read it and add it to my library.
What is most troubling to me however, is that many people will take this work for what it claims, as many have done with previously discovered documents (as well as works of fiction), and at the same time they will ignore the biblical accounts. Or worse, they will accept these wholeheartedly as a refutation of the biblical accounts.
But it is the biblical accounts that tell us the truth about Jesus, the Man who was God in the flesh, who came to die for our sins.
It is really a matter of faith. We can either take the Bible for what it claims about Jesus, or we can hope for something that will refute His claims and get us off the hook – we can agree with what John Fogerty said a few years ago (tongue in cheek, I believe), “I know it’s true, ‘cause I saw it on TV.”
Bill Ball
April 7, 2006
Monday, April 3, 2006
RACE, Part 1
The issue of race and racial injustice has been a problem in America ever since the settling of this land: the enslavement of African blacks, the wars against, and extermination of native Americans, the mistreatment of Mexican Americans, the mistreatment of immigrants and of ethnic minorities, especially non-whites.
The really shameful thing is that the (white) church has been complicit in these sins. It has often been those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians who have been some of the greatest advocates of racism. Frederick Douglass claimed that “Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall. For of all slave-holders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others,” (Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself, 1845, Reprint, Barnes & Noble, 2003, pg. 72).
Although matters have improved in the last 160 years, the church is still one of the most segregated places in America. But what does the Scripture teach?
There is only one human race, not many. Genesis 1:26, 27 – Adam was the progenitor of the whole human race. See also Acts 17:26 – “He has made from (EX – “out of”) one every nation of mankind to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (Later texts add the word “blood,” after “one,” but no change in thought.)
Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, Paul distinguishes between those “in Adam” and those “in Christ.” If the human race is divided, it is divided not by skin color, but between those who are Christ’s and those who are not (1 Cor. 1:18; 1 Jn. 5:19).
In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul argues that Christ on the cross, reconciled not only God and man, but also man and man. Though in this context, Paul is especially speaking of Jew and Gentile, yet in other passages, he makes it clear that this reconciliation eliminates all ethnic, national, gender and socio-economic barriers (Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28; Rom. 1:14). Paul is not stating that these differences no longer exist, as he still recognizes the various relationships, such as husband/wife, master/slave, Jew/Gentile. What he is stating is that In Christ and in the church there is essential equality and that this equality is to be lived out in the “outside” world as well.
James also argues (Jas. 2:1-13) that to practice discrimination is a violation of the Law of Love.
Arguments that need to be addressed:
“The Curse of Ham” – Genesis 9:20-27 has been used in the past (and undoubtedly is still used by some) to justify the enslavement of black Africans and to “prove” the superiority of whites. However, it should be noted:
1. The curse was not pronounced by God, but by man, and not only that, but by a man awaking from a drunken stupor. Though a patriarchal curse was effective, it does not (necessarily) imply a judicial pronouncement by God.
2. The curse Noah pronounced was not on his son Ham, but on his grandson, Canaan. It is not my purpose here to deal with the table of nations in Genesis 10 and 11, except to point out that not all of Ham’s descendants were black. The Canaanites were descended from Ham, and later passages in the Torah point out that they were the despised group, not, however, for their ethnic makeup, but their behavior. The great majority of Ham’s descendants were not under this curse.
3. The curse was undoubtedly carried out in the conquest of Canaan by Israel and possibly other conquests in what is now the historical past.
4. Even if this curse were valid today, it is not our obligation to make sure it is carried out. We often labor to alleviate the sufferings brought on by curses such as Genesis 3:16-19, which speaks of pain in childbirth and of difficult labor in farming.
5. As we saw above, Christ’s death has removed the barriers between races.
Slavery in the New Testament – How do we deal with the fact that the New Testament seems to accept the fact of slavery? Paul even urges obedience on slaves (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1, 2; Titus 2:9, 10).
1. It should be noted that neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocated the overthrow of current social systems. They spoke within their contemporary situation.
2. The slavery in the Roman Empire, while often cruel, was different from the American system. Slaves could sometimes actually purchase their own freedom. Often slaves were debtors or prisoners of war. This slavery was not based on race as the American system was.
3. The first generation African slaves were people who were kidnapped from their homes. The New Testament condemns kidnapping (1 Tim. 1:10). Even the Mosaic Law, which permitted slavery, condemned kidnapping as a capital offense (Ex. 21:16; Dt. 24:7).
4. The New Testament radically altered the slaves’ status. In Christ, he was a brother (Phmn. 15, 16). The slavemaster had an obligation to treat him with respect (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). While a slave was urged to be content with his position, he was encouraged to take advantage of freedom if he could obtain it (1 Cor. 7:21-24).
Bill Ball
4/2005
The really shameful thing is that the (white) church has been complicit in these sins. It has often been those who claim to be Bible-believing Christians who have been some of the greatest advocates of racism. Frederick Douglass claimed that “Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to that enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall. For of all slave-holders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others,” (Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, Written by Himself, 1845, Reprint, Barnes & Noble, 2003, pg. 72).
Although matters have improved in the last 160 years, the church is still one of the most segregated places in America. But what does the Scripture teach?
There is only one human race, not many. Genesis 1:26, 27 – Adam was the progenitor of the whole human race. See also Acts 17:26 – “He has made from (EX – “out of”) one every nation of mankind to dwell on all the face of the earth.” (Later texts add the word “blood,” after “one,” but no change in thought.)
Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21, 22, Paul distinguishes between those “in Adam” and those “in Christ.” If the human race is divided, it is divided not by skin color, but between those who are Christ’s and those who are not (1 Cor. 1:18; 1 Jn. 5:19).
In Ephesians 2:11-22, Paul argues that Christ on the cross, reconciled not only God and man, but also man and man. Though in this context, Paul is especially speaking of Jew and Gentile, yet in other passages, he makes it clear that this reconciliation eliminates all ethnic, national, gender and socio-economic barriers (Col. 3:11; Gal. 3:28; Rom. 1:14). Paul is not stating that these differences no longer exist, as he still recognizes the various relationships, such as husband/wife, master/slave, Jew/Gentile. What he is stating is that In Christ and in the church there is essential equality and that this equality is to be lived out in the “outside” world as well.
James also argues (Jas. 2:1-13) that to practice discrimination is a violation of the Law of Love.
Arguments that need to be addressed:
“The Curse of Ham” – Genesis 9:20-27 has been used in the past (and undoubtedly is still used by some) to justify the enslavement of black Africans and to “prove” the superiority of whites. However, it should be noted:
1. The curse was not pronounced by God, but by man, and not only that, but by a man awaking from a drunken stupor. Though a patriarchal curse was effective, it does not (necessarily) imply a judicial pronouncement by God.
2. The curse Noah pronounced was not on his son Ham, but on his grandson, Canaan. It is not my purpose here to deal with the table of nations in Genesis 10 and 11, except to point out that not all of Ham’s descendants were black. The Canaanites were descended from Ham, and later passages in the Torah point out that they were the despised group, not, however, for their ethnic makeup, but their behavior. The great majority of Ham’s descendants were not under this curse.
3. The curse was undoubtedly carried out in the conquest of Canaan by Israel and possibly other conquests in what is now the historical past.
4. Even if this curse were valid today, it is not our obligation to make sure it is carried out. We often labor to alleviate the sufferings brought on by curses such as Genesis 3:16-19, which speaks of pain in childbirth and of difficult labor in farming.
5. As we saw above, Christ’s death has removed the barriers between races.
Slavery in the New Testament – How do we deal with the fact that the New Testament seems to accept the fact of slavery? Paul even urges obedience on slaves (Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-4:1; 1 Tim. 6:1, 2; Titus 2:9, 10).
1. It should be noted that neither Jesus nor any New Testament writer advocated the overthrow of current social systems. They spoke within their contemporary situation.
2. The slavery in the Roman Empire, while often cruel, was different from the American system. Slaves could sometimes actually purchase their own freedom. Often slaves were debtors or prisoners of war. This slavery was not based on race as the American system was.
3. The first generation African slaves were people who were kidnapped from their homes. The New Testament condemns kidnapping (1 Tim. 1:10). Even the Mosaic Law, which permitted slavery, condemned kidnapping as a capital offense (Ex. 21:16; Dt. 24:7).
4. The New Testament radically altered the slaves’ status. In Christ, he was a brother (Phmn. 15, 16). The slavemaster had an obligation to treat him with respect (Eph. 6:9; Col. 4:1). While a slave was urged to be content with his position, he was encouraged to take advantage of freedom if he could obtain it (1 Cor. 7:21-24).
Bill Ball
4/2005
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)