I SAW IT ON TV!

As I watched television Sunday afternoon and evening, I was struck by how much the various and diverse programs seemed to strike a common theme.

First, there were the news and sports broadcasts and especially the scenes of NFL players kneeling or locking arms as the National Anthem was played, accompanied by the rants and name calling by our President , who claimed that any SOB who did not honor the flag should be fired (apparently forgetting that Melania more than once had to push him to place his hand over his heart as the National Anthem was played). Many athletes and even team owners shot back.

Then I watched "60 Minutes."  In one segment Oprah Winfrey had gathered 14 people to discuss our President and their thoughts on how he was doing in office.  Seven of these had voted for Trump and seven had voted against him.  Though there was a bit of civility, especially at first, it didn't take long before the discussion grew pretty heated.  Oprah seemed amazed! It seemed to me that she  must have been of the conviction that if we could just get folks together to air their opinions we would somehow achieve some sort of unity.  Such was not the case!  However, we were later given the assurance that some of the participants continued to stay in touch with each other.

Then I watched the 6th episode of the PBS series on the Vietnam War, entitled "Things Begin to Fall Apart."  This one was about events in the first half of the year 1968. The news coverage of the horrible violence and bloodshed of the two Tet offensives was changing the thinking of the American people and opposition to the War was growing.  General Westmoreland, whose solution to the conflict was simply to send in more and more troops, was relieved of his command.  President Johnson was in a quandary as to the solution.  He of course blamed the divisions in America over the War on negative press coverage.  (Sound familiar?)

The saying in the 1960's and '70's was, "America is more divided now than at any time since the Civil War!" The saying in 2017 is, "America is more divided now than at any time since the Civil War!" I don't know which "now"  saying is more correct; the divisions and divisiveness in our nation are hard to quantify.

During the First World War (the "War to End all Wars"), this phrase was coined, "The first casualty, when war comes is truth" (Senator Hiram Johnson).  I've seen this in the wars that were fought in my lifetime, including the current ones.  But while war may trigger bigger and bolder untruths, we now live in an age when truth seems to be no longer relevant, when "truth" is whatever anyone wants it to be, when "truth" and "opinion" are synonyms.

Oprah's - or anyone's - desire for "unity" is an impossible dream as long as people hold to their own versions of what is true.  I could see her amazement, almost hear her bafflement as she questioned her panel.  Some of the participants seemed to have little regard for facts; their opinions and feelings had become truth for them.

And we have a President who makes up "facts" and even contradicts himself in the same sentence.  I believe Mark Shields, the political commentator hit it right, "I mean, it was said that George Washington was the president who could never tell a lie, and Richard Nixon was the president who could never tell the truth.  Donald Trump is truly the president who can't tell the difference."  And not only is he "truth-challenged," he spouts out hateful racist and misogynist remarks, and calls people whom he doesn't like or who threaten his ego by derogatory labels.

Yes, untruth and divisiveness have always been with us; America has always been divided, but today we have these traits and actions promoted as virtues by many - from the President on down.  Even Lyndon Johnson agonized over the divisions in our country; Donald Trump revels in them.

What I've been saying is nothing new; it's been said before.  I have no solution for the problems in our nation, nor does anyone else.  But I believe that we who know and claim to follow Jesus Christ are hit with a great challenge - the challenge to really be "a city on a hill," to be "the Light of the world."

We need to pull ourselves away from political parties and cease identifying ourselves with them or with certain political viewpoints.  We need to cease giving our allegiance to a man - to stop defending and endorsing the indefensible rants and actions of Donald Trump.  We need to seek to ascertain what is really truth - the facts - not simply to accept as truth whatever agrees with our personal feelings and prejudices.

Above all, we must seek to live as followers of Christ.  We must seek to build our behavior on the standards of the New Covenant as revealed in the Bible.  We must seek to build our ethics and our politics on Biblical standards.  We must be different.

Will this bring about unity? It can! Not unity of the people of America, but of Christ's church.  Will we all agree politically?  It's doubtful.  But we should be able to discuss our differences and together seek to bring them under the Lordship of Christ.  And maybe others "will see your good works and glorify your Father in Heaven" and we might become agents of change.

WE'LL MISS YOU JON

For years, Uni and have followed The Daily Show, a satirical "news" program, hosted by comedian Jon Stewart.  When Stewart announced he was going to leave his program, we asked each other, "Where will we go for our news?"  Though there are plenty of news programs on the air, we felt that there will be a huge gap in coverage.

An article in The Week magazine (2/27/15, page 16) gave various views on the program's demise, and I suppose these comments are an honest sampling.  Though some recognized the contribution Stewart made, many seemed to be simply saying "good riddance."

Stewart was a master of satire, skewering not only politicians, but also other news coverage and commentary (and Arby's).  One of his favorite, and I believe most effective routines was to take some self-righteous pronouncement of a politician or pundit and to throw on the screen the many totally contradictory (but just as righteous) pronouncements they had made previously.  Of course, most of his attacks were on those of the right but he especially loved to attack Fox (Faux) News, whose "newspersons" seem to always have something stupid to say.  Some have even wondered if Fox News was really set up just to supply him with material.

He clearly hated pomposity and hypocrisy and loved shredding those who were masters of those arts - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity.  And he enjoyed airing their "defenses" against him.

One commentator who claims to be "one of those liberal Millennials" quoted in The Week article said he was "glad to see Stewart go."  He said that "Stewart's sneering dismissal of all politicians was a form of 'anti-politics' in which sophisticated debate over genuine ideological differences take a back seat to snark, and the only correct response to our national dysfunction is cynicism."  Apparently this person failed to watch whole programs, every one of which always included an interview with some well-known person.  Though many movie stars and comedians had their place, as often as these, Stewart was visited by leading people of America and the world - authors, congressmen, presidents, presidential candidates, many with "genuine ideological differences."  And there was "sophisticated debate."

I don't always agree with Jon Stewart.  There are many times I that wince at his criticisms of opinions that I hold closely.  But they are usually fair, even to religious people.  And I also wince at his crude language and his 5th grade level sexual and bathroom humor.

Another complaint in the article was that Stewart's audience is small and includes mostly "young, East Coast liberals" or "Millennials."  However there are a few of us mid-American old geezers who watch.  We certainly won't get this kind of coverage on the networks or 24-hour "news" channels.

We'll miss you Jon!!!

THEOLOGEEKS

My favorite TV sitcom is The Big Bang Theory.  I crack up every time I watch the show, which I do religiously (i.e., once a week).  Also, if there's nothing else on TV, one can usually find a Big Bang rerun somewhere.  Big Bang reruns are even easier to find than MASH, Seinfeld or Cheers.

For those few who are uninformed, the program is about the escapades of four brilliant young scientists who are seemingly clueless about "real life."  (Think:  The Three Stooges plus one, with Ph. D's.)  Across the hall from two of them lives their foil, Penny, a beautiful blond who is as clueless about their interests as they are about hers.  Throw in a growing cast of fellow geeks and nerds of both sexes.
 

[Disclaimer:  I am not recommending this show to anyone who might take offense at the constant sexual and scatological references.]

I do have to ask myself, however, why I enjoy this show so much.  I've come up with a couple of possible answers to this question.

One possible reason is that I, along with many other fans take a sort of sadistic delight in seeing brilliant people do and say stupid things.  I suppose that many, maybe most of us have this deep underlying suspicion of the "experts" -- those who are regarded as so much more intelligent and learned than we are.  We like to think that they're really not, and this program confirms our suspicion:  we're really smarter than they are!
 

Another possible reason is that this program speaks to my own inner geek.  As a kid I was always the bookish type with little interest in sports (still am).  I can identify with these guys to some extent, except that I wasn't bullied as much as they were as kids.  If you're a geek it helps to be big.  And as they do, I tend to over-think many situations -- why else would I even be writing this post? 

Anyway, a while back, while discussing a group of guys who got together to study, discuss and debate theology, I referred to them as "theologeeks."  I  didn't know where the term came from.  I didn't intend for it to be a derogatory term and I suppose that there are some who would place me in that category.

 

Though I thought at first that I had coined an original term, I decided to Google "theologeek" and lo, I found 61 results.  One site defined it as:  "Someone who sees theology as an end in itself rather than as a way of growing in treasuring God for ourselves and others."

I didn't like that definition, though I believe it could be descriptive of many in that group.  So I decided to come up with my own and started by looking up the word "geek" in my Webster's (11th Collegiate).  I found three definitions:

      1.  (1914) a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake.
      2.  a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked.
      3.  an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity.

As I have never met anyone of a theological bent who was known to bite the heads off of chickens or snakes, I eliminated definition number 1.  (I'd suppose that those involved in such activities today would be known as musicians.)  And as I do not necessarily dislike those with theological interests, I decided to use definition number 3 (with a little bit of definition number 2 thrown in), as a basis for my definition of a theologeek as:  "A person of an intellectual bent who is an enthusiast or expert in the field of theology."
 

I have stated elsewhere that I believe that we are all theologians, that everyone has their own concept of God or reality which colors all of their thinking.  A theologeek then would simply be one who went beyond the norm, perhaps even a professional in their field.
 

Those of us who laugh at the social blunders of the characters on the Big Bang may forget that geeks perform useful, even necessary functions in society, and that without these brilliant people our lives would be the lesser.
 

And so it is with our theologeeks.  Our concepts of God and His work, while not requiring the input of experts would without those, be extremely limited and would also be much more easily subject to error.  Perhaps theologeeks are those who have what Paul refers to as "the word of wisdom" and/or "the word of knowledge."  Nearly 2000 years of theologeekdom has brought us where we are today in our theological understanding.
 

But theologeeks, like those geeks on TV are I believe, in danger of being so wrapped up in their field of expertise, of becoming so involved in the study of theological minutiae that they have no "street smarts."  Perhaps this is not as grave a danger in physics or biology as it is in theology.
 

We must study theology, not as an end in itself, nor simply as an arena for debate.  Rather, we must study theology so we can better know about God, and study to know about God so that we can better know Him.  Geekery that just studies truths and theories about God without coming to an intimate relationship with Him is just that -- geekery.

And Christianity is all about communication.  We must not only know Him, we must be able to relate these truths to "real life."  And to those non-geeks around us.

 

See:  DOING THEOLOGY

 

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).

THE BIBLE’S BURIED SECRETS?

About 6 weeks ago I received a forward from a friend. It was an e-mail from an organization that sends out warnings about looming crises in our nation. I don’t remember the name of the organization.

This e-mail was warning us about a program soon to be broadcast on PBS attacking the Bible and attempting to shake our faith. We the readers were urged to write or petition our congressmen to remove this danger by pulling the plug on PBS funding.

My first reaction was anger! I wanted to write back to all concerned and express my views: PBS is the only TV network that has consistently decent programming. It is the only network that provides good entertainment AND balanced news. If PBS were removed I’d be stuck watching all the sex and violence or the sensationalist news coverage on the networks. Yes, PBS programming expresses many of the current scientific views that clash with my Christian beliefs. But God gave us brains to discern.

Well my conscience and my wife restrained me from doing anything rash. I merely decided to watch the TV guide for the appearance of this “blasphemous” program. Trouble was I deleted the e-mail and forgot both the name and the date for this program.

At last it appeared! Tuesday evening there it was: “The Bible’s Buried Secrets.” It was touted as showing archaeological sites and inscriptions that would shed light on the origins of monotheism. This must be it, I thought and settled in to watch.

Well, it was a disappointment. Though it was slickly produced and narrated as if it were some unsolved mystery, it really gave little, if any new information. Its basic thesis seemed to be that man had created God somewhere around the 10th century BC.

Most of the information given was not new, but was arranged so as to raise doubts in the minds of believers. I don’t know if this was deliberate on the part of its producers or not. I suspect not.

Some of the information given:
-- There is evidence from archaeology and contemporary history that verifies the overall biblical story as far back as 1000 BC, the time of David. True!
-- There is little inconclusive data from farther back than 1000 BC that verifies the Bible. Well … ?
-- There is no archaeological evidence of the exodus. True, as far as we know.
-- The archaeological evidence for the conquest of Canaan is still being debated. True!
-- The Israelite people continued to worship idols and multiple deities long after the establishment of the Temple of the One God in Jerusalem. True! Anyone who reads the books of Kings knows this. Archaeology merely verifies it.

Beyond this it gets a bit weird, with the experts using words like “perhaps” and “probably” quite a bit. Hypotheses are presented as though they were facts. The implication was that if we can’t verify a story in the Bible then we can dogmatically assert that it didn’t happen. This allows us to dismiss all biblical history up to 1000 BC, and better yet, to make up our own.

And so we have an alternative history which itself is unverified and unverifiable:
-- There was no mass exodus from Egypt. There were only a few slaves who escaped Egypt and headed for Canaan.
-- There was no covenant with Yahweh made at Mount Sinai. The escaped slaves picked up the name of Yahweh from a Midianite deity on their way to Canaan.
-- The “so-called” conquest of Canaan was really a peasant revolt apparently instigated by the escaped Egyptian slaves.
-- The Torah (the five books of Moses) was not written by Moses because he probably didn’t exist. It was really a composite of four different strands of tradition and these strands were composed at various times during the kingdom period. They were finally pasted together into a whole during the Babylonian captivity. When Ezra read the Torah to the returned exiles (Nehemiah 8:1-8), he was reading from a “hot-off-the-press” new edition – the final draft of the freshly composed work. [For a good and biting rebuttal of the 200 year-old “documentary theory” of the composition of the Torah, read the note on chapter 14 of Herman Wouk’s This Is My God, pages 272-280 in the paperback edition.]

So what are we to make of all this? I think it all comes down to this: if one begins one’s studies with the presupposition that the God of the Bible does not exist, then one will probably come to a conclusion that agrees the presupposition (apart from a work of the Spirit of God). And of course, then there must be a “scientific” explanation to account for the Bible and its claims for the existence of one God who created the universe.

“And even if our gospel is hidden, it is hidden in those who are perishing, in whom the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the Image of God should not shine on them” (2 Corinthians 4:3, 4).

By the way, I’ll keep watching PBS.

Bill Ball
11/19/2008