STAY IN THE PLANE!

Preach left a comment on the previous post:  “I learned my scales and chords with a little saying ... EBGDAE ... or Every Bible Gets Dusted At Easter.  I used that with my guitar playing because of those that "cherry picked."  A pericope here, a verse there.  I thought hmmmm ...  shouldn't that Bible look a bit more worn than that, or did he/she have to buy a new one?  Great read sir!  Me personally, I do not enjoy the ride on the extreme wings.  Too far is too far, right or left.  I like it in the plane, the extremist can have the wings.”

Thanks, Preach.  I always appreciate your comments.  They keep my thinking stirred up and force me to keep on thinking.

I especially appreciated your analogy about the plane.  A similar one that I heard and have used myself is, “If you keep falling off the ______ side of the horse, your tendency is to lean the other way.  But be careful; if you lean too far, you can fall off the ______ side!”  (Usually the words “right” and “left” are inserted, but I deliberately left them out.)

I am personally uncomfortable with contrasting categories like “right/left” or “conservative/liberal.”  They’re political!  Of course, we have many other political categories, but they almost all tend to divide us.  Some are those we use of ourselves, while others are those we use on those who disagree with us.  What bothers me as a follower of Christ is that we who claim His name use them to divide ourselves.

We are already divided theologically (Calvinist/Arminian, charismatic/cessationist) and denominationally (Baptist/Methodist/Catholic); why must we be divided politically as well?  And from what I have observed, politics is where we are most divided.

Divisions between God’s people, of course, are nothing new.  Probably the most notorious are the schisms in the church at Corinth, mentioned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.  They were divided into at least four different parties.  And they apparently weren’t divided over doctrine or politics or ethics or anything of importance.  They were divided over preachers!

Note what Paul says in verse 12: “Now I say this, that each of you is saying, ‘I’m of Paul!’ – ‘but ‘I’m of Apollos!’ – ‘but I’m of Cephas!’ – ‘but I’m of Christ!!’”

We can feel his indignation as he barrages them with rhetorical questions:  “Is Christ divided?  Was Paul crucified for you?  Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

I would love to just stay in the plane, or not have to be in danger of falling off the horse, and I would like to believe that’s where I am.  I suspect that’s where the party in Corinth who said, “I’m of Christ” thought they were!  But when I see the direction that much of the church is going, I have to lean in the other direction.  Perhaps “tug” would be a better word than “lean.”

Much of the evangelical wing of the church is totally identified with the Republican Party.  Republican “values” are seen as the same as “Christian values” or “family values.”  Republican candidates must identify themselves as “Christian.”  And they adopt stances and make speeches that sound an awful lot like fire-and-brimstone preachers.

As I said in my previous post, I agree with many moral positions taken by my literalist/conservative friends.  But I have to say that I do not agree with most of them.  And I must say that those positions that I agree with are not held consistently by them.  For instance:

Their “pro-life” stance.  I agree that abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.  But how can one oppose this taking of life and be pro-war, pro-death penalty?  How can one see a need for government to prevent the death of the unborn, but oppose government care for the born?

Their stance on homosexuality.  I agree that the Bible teaches that homosexual sex is sin and I question whether there actually can be such a thing as “gay marriage.”  But how can one be so vehemently opposed to this one type of sexual sin and ignore the others – many of which are part of the lifestyle of many favored political leaders.  And the hatred expressed toward homosexuals.  Didn’t Christ die for all our sins?  Isn’t His grace available for all sinners?  Do we need government regulation of our sexual behavior but not our economic behavior?

And then, of course, there are those political positions taken by the right that are completely unbiblical, especially the favoring of the rich over the poor.  Whether it’s called “trickle-down economics” or we refer to the rich as “job creators,” it seems totally contrary to the teachings of Jesus, Paul and James, as well as the Old Testament prophets.

I recognize that the left has its faults and there are plenty.  I don’t want to fall off that side of the horse either.  I believe that we who follow Jesus Christ must build our ethical systems and moral codes on the Scriptures.  We must seek to live our lives by them.  And we need to be careful not to identify too closely with any political system.  Rather we should bring all political systems under the scrutiny of the Word. 

I realize that the last paragraph of my previous post should have begun, “So my challenge to my conservative and liberal friends …”

Thanks again, Preach!

CONFESSIONS OF A LEFT-LEANING LITERALIST

I was pleasantly surprised (or should I say, blown away?) by an article that appeared in the October 2011 issue of Christianity Today.  The title was, “A Left-Leaning Text” and the note below the title said, “Survey surprise:  Frequent Bible reading can turn you liberal (in some ways)".  The author is Aaron B. Franzen, a graduate student in sociology at Baylor University.  The data used is from the 2007 Baylor Religion Survey and we are assured that the research is undergoing peer review.

In my 74+ years on this earth, I have managed to accumulate a large number of beliefs and opinions, many of which have been modified, or in some cases, thrown out.  And I am always happy when I read or hear someone who agrees with me.  Especially when they have survey or poll data to back them up!  And this was one such case.

I actually remember coming to the conclusion, at least 40 years ago, that a “conservative” (i.e., literal) interpretation of the Bible should lead to a “liberal” application of its truths.  I quickly learned, however, that I dare not share this opinion with any but Uni and a few other close friends and family members.  (Although, readers of this blog may have had their suspicions.)

But now this article/survey has freed me to come out of my liberal closet.  There are others like me.  I am not alone!

The article refers to previous polls, such as Gallup, which asked Americans how literally they took the Bible.  The conclusions usually found that the more literally one holds the Bible, the more they were apt to be moral and political conservatives.

As one who holds the Bible to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, I have for a long time been troubled by this finding.  While I agree with many moral positions taken by my literalist/conservative friends, I have found myself at odds with most of their political conservatism.

But now this new survey seems to imply that the pollsters may have been asking the wrong question.  The new question has to do with whether those polled actually READ the Bible.  And when this is the question, the results are surprisingly different.  As the author tells us, “…, reading the Bible more often has some liberalizing effects – or at least makes the reader more prone to agree with liberals on certain issues.”

And it apparently makes little difference who those readers are:  their denominational, theological or political views or even their views on biblical literalism (although they do see the Bible as authoritative).

This article goes on to describe “liberal” views held by those who read the Bible.  The readers were rated on a 5-point scale as to how frequently they read the Bible.  The more frequently they read the Bible, the more liberally they hold these views.

Some of the views mentioned:

·        Decreased support for the Patriot Act.

·        Criminal justice – less support for harsher punishment and the death penalty.

·        “More likely … to believe that religion and science are compatible.”

·        “Social and economic justice.”

·        “Reduced consumption as a part of ethical living.”

The article attempts some explanation for this phenomenon.  Why does the Bible push the reader “leftward”?

One explanation the author offers “is that readers tend to have expectations of the text prior to reading it.”  I’ll agree with that.  He goes on to say that “many people think they know what’s in it before they open it up.  But once they start reading it on their own they are bound to be surprised by something.”

I’d say a problem may be that many do not bother to open it up.  They feel they already know what’s in it, so why bother?  Their preacher or teacher, or some author, has already explained it.  Those other people have done all the hard work; I don’t need to.  There’s a big difference between believing in the literalness of the Bible and applying it literally in my life.

Look at all the nice clean new looking Bibles carried into church.  How do they stay so clean?

And then there is how people read the Bible.  For many (including literalists) it’s simply a how-to book; but even here it’s easier to read other books that tell me what the Bible says or means, than to read the Bible itself.

Another explanation given is that frequent Bible readers “… tend to read it devotionally, looking for ways in which Scripture is speaking directly to them.”  I’ll go along with that!  In fact, I’ll add that I believe much of what the Bible convicts us of occurs by osmosis.  By simply reading the text over and over, its concepts penetrate our thinking.  (I’m sure the Holy Spirit has something to do with the process.)

I can think of a lovely woman whose old worn King James Bible lies open on her kitchen table next to her ash tray, and also a few others I know who are like her.

So my challenge to my conservative friends is simply:  Read your Bible.  Then read it again.  Don’t cherry pick it.  Look for its repeated themes:  moral, ethical, political (?).  What obligations does it place on you?  You may not agree with all I’ve said, but hopefully you’ll understand where I’m coming from.

BLOODLUST?

This past Sunday, on CBS Sunday Morning, we heard Nancy Giles comment on the Republican Party debates.

She began with the statement, “I watched the two Republican Party debates and something weird is going on in the audience.”

Next the scene shifts from her to the moderator who says to Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, “Your state has executed 234 death row inmates, more than any other governor in modern times.”  The camera moves to Governor Perry and we hear the audience cheering even before he can reply.  Ms. Giles expresses her shock and dismay:  “Applause for the number of people executed in Texas?”

Next we see Congressman Ron Paul speaking disdainfully of “this whole idea that we have to take care of everybody …”  The moderator says, “But congressman, are you saying that society should just let him (the uninsured person) die?”  And before Ron Paul can even speak there are shouts of “Yeah” and light applause from the audience.

Ms. Giles declares clearly that she hasn’t been to church in years but she does remember the questions, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” and “Something about ‘Thou shall not kill.’”

She wants to know why no candidate, “some of whom claim their spirituality as a guiding force in their politics” did not challenge the audience about what she terms their “bloodlust.” ( Both candidates do, I believe, claim to be Christians.)

She remarks on her respect for freedom of speech.  She says that this has nothing to do with party affiliation, but she can’t imagine applauding the idea of death – of either sort mentioned.  She speaks of the fact that many on death row have been proven innocent – even in Texas, where there recently was a stay of execution of one man  because of racist remarks by a psychologist at his sentencing hearing.  She questions Ron Paul’s “do no harm” oath as a doctor.

She speaks of the fact that there “are more colors” in the United States than simply Red States and Blue States and wants to know what the clearance process was for the audience.  She hopes they were not representative of the entire Republican Party.

I’m sure that Ms. Giles will be renounced (or ignored) by many as simply some left-wing basher of Republican candidates (As though they don’t do enough bashing of each other. – Uni).  Or she will be criticized for not speaking up on other issues.  If we can attack her and politicize her moral pronouncements we can feel safe from the demands they place on us!

But though she was critical of the candidates, her main criticism was of the audience and of the candidates’ failure to rebuke their “bloodlust.”

And I’m sure that many of my Bible-loving friends will jump on the fact that Ms. Giles misquoted and/or misapplied both Scripture passages she used.  This will be, for some, a good excuse to ignore what she said.

Well, yes, the Bible doesn’t tell us explicitly that, “We are our brother’s keeper.”  “Am I my brother’s keeper?” was Cain’s reply to the LORD when he was questioned about the death of Abel, whom he had just murdered.  But I believe the implication is that Cain was expected to be his brother’s keeper.  And what about the command to “ … love your neighbor as yourself,” found in Leviticus 19:18 and repeated throughout the New Testament by Jesus and His followers?

And yes, the verb translated “kill” in the KJV “Thou shalt not kill” should be translated “murder” and does not apply to judicial acts or acts of war.  But the LORD Himself said, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11; 18:23, 32).  So how can we?  And Jesus told us that even anger with our brother is murder (Matthew 5:21, 22).

I fear that the reactions of the audience at those debates may be symptomatic of where the blending of politics and religion is taking us.  I fear that many of my Christian friends and acquaintances might have reacted in similar fashion had they been there.  I hope I’m wrong.

Ms Giles admits that her Christianity is at best weak, yet she can somehow see the contradictory behavior of people who claim to be followers of Christ behaving more like those who crucified Him.

Brother and sisters, it ought not to be this way.  I’m afraid though, that whether or not our behavior is similar to that of the audiences, we may be perceived this way, that (as Paul said of the Jews of his day), “The Name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of (us)” (Romans 2:24).

DANGEROUS DOCTRINES

A few Sundays ago, our pastor mentioned in his sermon that many consider the doctrine of the security of the believer a “dangerous doctrine.”  (He doesn’t.)  I leaned over and whispered to Uni that any teaching about God’s grace could be considered a dangerous doctrine.  On the way home she called to my attention that a person sitting next to her in Sunday school class had used these same words about something I had said in my teaching.  This person’s dispute was, I believe, based on his misunderstanding of the Trinity and the Incarnation that had come up in class.

Though I was (and still am) troubled by what seemed a judgmental statement, it’s not the first time I’ve been accused of teaching dangerous doctrine or some such thing.

I suppose teaching, studying or even reading the Bible might be considered dangerous for at least two broad reasons:  it challenges (or threatens) a person’s thinking; and, it challenges (or threatens) their behavior.  This is true whether they consider themselves and their fellows as Christians or not.  In fact, most of the flak I have received has been from those who consider themselves Christians.

I believe that much of evangelical Christendom has become fearful of thinking through our theology, as well as our ethical positions.  We let the “experts” dictate what we are to believe in both areas.

I understand that fear; I have taught Bible and theology for years and many times I have played the role of “expert.”  I have even “pulled rank” in some theological/doctrinal disputes.  But I have also tried to teach my students to think, to be like the Bereans mentioned in the book of Acts who “were more noble minded …, who received the Word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures every day, to see if these things (Paul’s teachings) were so” (Acts 17:11).

Some doctrines that are considered dangerous by many Christians (most of these are closely related):
·        The security of the believer (the one my pastor mentioned).  We’re told that if people believe they are eternally saved, they will feel free to live the way they want to.
·        Election.  I’ve been told that if my salvation is totally God’s choice – if He chose me before I chose Him – that makes us robots.
·        Salvation by simple faith, trusting Christ’s work alone, without a “commitment” on the believer’s part.
·        “Grace giving” – the teaching that the believer is not under the Old Testament obligation to tithe.
·        Any teaching of the believer’s freedom from the Old Testament Law.
·        Any concessions to modern science at all; any attempt to reconcile current scientific discoveries with scriptural teaching.

I’ll not attempt to deal with these issues here.  I’ve had much to say about most of them throughout this blog.

Most of these have to do with grace.  And grace is threatening to one who likes structure and order.  Grace gives us the freedom and responsibility to make choices; it doesn’t simply give us rules to live by.

Grace is also threatening to some pastors.  It’s difficult to shepherd the flock when they are allowed to think through issues on their own.  For some it’s much easier to tell people what to think and how to behave.

But it’s that danger that in many ways makes following Christ exciting!