Sort of torn.

Quick post from me, and I really do want comments. Been reading up on vegetarianism, especially from a Christian perspective. Now, I understand both sides of the issue, but I really have to wonder not so much about vegetarianism so much as look at the average western diet, especially in America, where we’ve got processed this and processed that. It’s more expensive, but what about eating more organic foods? Sure, we are to use the resources that God has given us responsibly, and that goes for fossil fuels too, btw, but when those resources are fueling (no pun intended) greed and exploitation, perhaps we should find other resources that would force us to cut back and change our ways. Yeah, “human achievement” and all that, but is moving toward greed and exploitation, selfishness and arrogance, pride and “me first” really progress? Is that really “human achievement”? First of all, “human achievement”, in God’s eyes, is really another manefestation of the self-worship disorder we have inherent in all of us. A Protestant work ethic, in actuality, is far from being Protestant as the Reformers saw the term. but, back to food, same thing goes. If our addiction to McDonalds and Burger King is really a manefestation with our love of self and instant gratification, maybe it’s time we start doing other things? But there’s a problem–how to go about being in the world but not of it–using the resources we have responsibly such as scientific knowledge, which has allowed us to do things that no one in the past could have dreamed of, etc, but yet get away from exploiting others and all of that to get ahead. Nothing necessarily wrong with wanting to go places and do things in life and progress. But do we really need to compete against each other for that to occur? Competition isn’t necessarily the problem either, but when it goes awry and becomes “I wanna be first!” then we have a problem. Maybe the way to further (and truly) progress is by helping others to succeed instead of focusing on ourselves. Business isn’t all bad, and profits aren’t all problematic, but greed and “me first” (which really, if you think about it, is another form of idolatry) is problematic and sinful. As a moderate politically, I find both extremes troubling. Those who want to keep things the way they are, ignoring the huge issues of bad stewardship (regardless of who’s to blame, since there’s enough blame to go around), and those who want to regulate everything until our freedoms are stifled to the point of virtual (or perhaps real) non-existence. Capitalism, as much as it stresses the values on which this country is based, isn’t really the answer. Any other -ism really isn’t the answer either, for that matter. Every system–socialism, communism, capitalism, etc–has its good and bad points. but all of this will mean absolutely nothing when the kingdom of God finally arrives here. I think that all of us, to one extent or another, will have a huge shock when that day comes. This is why, as Christians, we need first and foremost to look for this kingdom. Political beliefs won’t matter then. All will bow the knee to Christ and acknowledge Him to be Lord, as opposed to Caesar, regardless of what form he may exist in. that’s the name of the game. It’s all about the kingdom, regardless of what we as human beings might achieve. As a Reformed Christian more specifically, it’s only by God’s grace that I’m even typing this entry right now, that I’m even alive right now. It’s God’s grace that is keeping this planet in orbit. (Common grace, for those who are interested, is what it’s referred to.)

 

Um, large paragraph–sorry! lol So, that all being said, I’m torn about the whole issue of really, while we live in a culture that’s all about “get it now now now!”, how best to say “I think not not not!” but yet not look like a complete separatist. I love Burger King, but two issues there–processed food that’s full of chemicals and other artificial compounds and what not, and anyone remember the migrant lettuce growers that they refused to pay? (Memory’s a little fuzzy on that, but I remember something like that a couple years ago.) So, paying for that crap is the same as colluding with corruption, which no one as a Christian should *ever* do, but yet we can’t avoid it. I suppose if it’s not coming out of my own pocket it would be okay … Or would it? Same thing could be said for about a zillion other things. It’s a tricky thing. Not that I’m wanting to make a big issue out of it, but it’s just something to chew on (no pun intended this time. lol) Comments?

Christian music, worship music, … etc.

You know, I hope you don’t mind me venting, but this is a good place to do so, so here we go. lol

 

I’ve noticed that what passes for “Christian” music is very much based in “encouragement”. Nothing wrong with that, if only the real meaning of encouragement were kept! See, to encourage means to build up, yes–but often building something involves tearing something down as well. What I mean is, in order, for example, to remodel a house, the existing structure needs, in some way, to be torn down, to allow for the remodeling process to happen. In my own personal life, I’ve noticed that those “valley” experiences serve just that purpose–in order for God to really shape me into the person He intends me to be, He has to knock out a wall of pride here, a cracked facade of something else there, etc.

 

So, Christian music, encouraging? If, as my experience has been, you mean “family-friendly” stuff, then please, spare me! Now granted, I’m not necessarily saying that that’s all bad. There’s some good music out there, but I’ve noticed that it either boils down to “lah lah lah lah lah” or “me me me me me me me I I I” Uh, yeah–there’s good stuff. So, now, instead of encouraging others, we’re puffing ourselves up by focusing on the individual. I mean, look, what I’m trying to get at is that when it comes to Christian music, why is it so fluffy? I mean, it’s all this warm-fuzzy crap and it’s just too happy-clappy. Whatever happened to really facing reality and saying “Ok, it’s not all about putting on a fake everything’s-okay mask”. Obviously, the exact opposite is equally just as bad, and I’m not saying that by any means. Human nature likes to go to extremes, so often the “middle” is somewhere where the “ideal” lies.

 

I mean, the thing that really got me a few years ago was, after the untimely death of a friend of mine,(and I won’t recount that here), it was like everything around me came crashing down, and I couldn’t just turn to myself and just pretend everything was fine. It was a dose of reality that really shook me to my core. It broke everything I had as a facade. Ever since then, I’ve really looked at things a lot differently than I did before. See, I had to wrestle with a lot of stuff personally–my political beliefs, my religious beliefs, … pretty much everything.

 

So, how does this effect me musically? Well, I figured that really, this whole thing of “Christian” music is really fake. If we, as Christians, are called to go out there and “redeem the time”, then what are we doing fueling and industry which comes out of a mindset of separation from the very world we’re called to redeem? I mean, we’re “in the world and not of it”, yes, but nowhere do we ever find that we should separate ourseves from it. We should interact with it in such a way that our Christian outlook shows, but that doesn’t mean we should bang everyone over th head.

 

I look at it like this. Before the aforesaid event, I was going along my merry way, minding my own business. I was very outspoken about what I believe and wouldn’t hesitate to be very loud and boisterous about it. Now though, I find myself often reminding myself that we’re called to live out the gospel, rather than just talk about it. In other words, Peter’s words to us about “be ready to give a defense … but do it with gentleness and respect” is exactly it. If someone were to ask me about what I believe, I’d gladly tell them. If someone asked me why I did or didn’t do certain things, I’d explain it. But no more can I just pound my fist and scream and yell about how right I am and how wrong everyone else is. That’s what every fundamentalist does, by the way. They’re all about “witnessing”, which in their minds means that you get out there and aggressively bang on about “going to heaven when you die”, which, by the way, is *not* anywhere in Scripture!

 

My point in all this rambling is that our art, in whatever form it takes, needs to be shaped by our Christian worldview, but yet draw from the environment around us. In other words, what I’m attempting to get at here is, for me as a musician, it’s not about “Jesus Jesus Jesus”, in such a way as to club everyone over the head, but it’s coming from that context in more interesting ways. Maybe it’s an instumental piece that might be showing in some creative way some aspect of the Christian faith–for example, my piece “Transmission”, in which I was trying to depict in sound God’s Word going forth into creation. At least, that’s what my reflection on the piece says I was trying to get at. lol See, it’s that kind of thing that we need to really get at–it’s ambiguous, as most of modern art tries to be (or is, depending on how you look at it), but yet there seems to be a static meaning to it.

 

That probably didn’t make any sense. But I really think we need to move beyond “family-friendly/positive/encouraging” whatever-it-is, to really using our brains to be more creative. I know the history of Contemporary Christian Music, and I thank God everyday for the fact that He gave those artists the ideas of taking His Word and bringing it to a culture that otherwise wouldn’t have heard it in a relevant way. But what it’s become is something that, in all honesty, sickens me. As a worship leader, I have a responsibility to make sure that the things I lead the congregation in are Biblically sound, but so much of what’s out there either is theologically shallow, or is just complete crap.

 

And that brings me to that subject. There are times I just want to crank back the clock to the days of Augustine and Justin Martyr and sing that kind of thing. It has far more depth than some of what’s being produced from Vineyard or Hillsong, but then again, I look at some of that stuff and go “You know, this really has something.” It really drives me crazy when things turn into “lah lah lah”, which I will prevent as much as possible. See, part of how I look at worship is that the congregation is there to hear the Word faithfully preached, and this preaching extends to the music. The music isn’t just tacked on for the sake of being there. It’s not there to serve as filler until the pastor gets up and opens the Scriptures.

 

It’s there because it, too, needs to bring God’s Word to His people. It does this in a little different way than the proclamation of His Word, but it’s still there for that purpose. By that I mean that, instead of just walking in, sitting down, and oh look, there’s a band up there, it’s got to be more like, oh look, there’s a band and what’s that they’re going on about? Oh “Holy, holy, holy …”–hmm, … Not “and now we’re going to scream our brains out” and then the “preaching” turns into “god loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”–something that today’s churches, especially here in the States, have become. (Can I vomit, please?)

 

Such things have become all too commonplace in the West, with our focus on the individiaul and our “Protestant” work ethic, which, may I say, is as far from Protestant, in the true sense of the way the Reformers used it, as can be! I mean, “picking yourself up by your own bootstraps” is impossible anyway in a lot of cases. I know I certainly couldn’t. And yes, I do know how to live independently and could, but especially in the current economic situation, what about a job? What about actually being able to support yourself when everywhere you look, another company lays off virtually all of its employees? What about a part time job which couldn’t support an ant, let alone you? See, it’s only by God’s grace that I even have anything that resembles a job right now, but I sure as heck couldn’t live off it–not even if I tried! So, please, stop telling me the answer is a job. You and I both know that right now, the answer is a lot more than just that. And oh by the way, what about helping the poor? What about restorative justice? Hs that somehow gone by the wayside? Do you not realize that you and I will give an account of not only those things we did, but also those things we should have done but didn’t? It’s not that I’m advocating a “social gospel” as much as I’m advocating putting action to our words. We say that we believe certain things, but then we turn around and go on with our lives as if nothing ever happened. Worship isn’t just a Sunday thing–it’s a lifestyle which involves us going out there and living out what it means to have God’s kingdom on earth. That’s what the church’s mission is–embodying God’s kingdom. The early church knew it, the Reformers knew it, Abraham Kuyper knew it, we aught to know it. but nope, “evangelicalism” has completely gone off the deep end with “soul-winning” and then wondering why it’s not working. Aligning yourself with the Republican party isn’t working, folks. Being “conservative” doesn’t work. Throwing your support behind Israel blindly as this country has for the last however many years is the wrong way to go about things. Pretending that the only country on the planet is the US is a damnable error. Responding to a terrorist attack with war-mongering is nowhere near acting in a Christian manner. No claim of “just war” can ever justify anything. We’d better wake up in this country and realize that we will give an account to God–the same God that we give lipservice to when we say the Pledge, and the same one who’s name we invoke on our currency–for every last drop of blood spilled by this nation, every other country we essentially blew to bits because we disliked their leadership, every time we’ve exploited others for our profit. So, you want to talk about American Christianity? Get your act together first. Then we’ll talk. “Judgment begins with the house of God”–in the west, we’d better get things in order. God’s kingdom will come on this earth, and I fear that, if He should tarry no longer, this country will find itself in very sad shape. And do you think the church will be any better off? Simply naming Christ’s name isn’t a magic ticket out of it.

 

What is it going to take for us to really get the point? How long can we continue going down the road we’ve been going down? How long befopre we hit the brick wall and find ourselves needing to stop and rethink things? Go on–keep going the way you’re going. Go on and scream and yell about how unpatriotic I am, but remember that when God’s kingdom comes, “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” That’s right–Jesus Christ is Lord, and Caesar, regardless of what form he takes, isn’t. The kingdom of God is what matters–who cares about what any country on this earth thinks? Who cares about what all those in this country who want to turn around and tell us we’re being treasonous think? Let me tell you about treason–everytime you open your mouth to say that we should assassinate the leader of a country because they say things that we don’t like–a leader that God has put in place and for whom we should be praying–you will be held accountable for those words, and they are nothing short of treason against the Most High God. Do you think that I’m sitting here typing out all of this because I want to stick my middle finger up at the authorities God has put in place? by no means! I certainly do submit to the governing authorities because God has put them there, and by honoring them, I honor Him. But that does not mean that I then can just blindly go along with everything this country does. No, we’re called to “test the spirits to see whether they are from God”, and that goes for political spirits as for religious ones. “but this country has freedom and justice. We’re the greatest country on earth.” Well, news flash–do you think that argument works with God’s kingdom? No. Those are the same things every empire before has said, and look at them. They’ve been reduced to just another place on the map. Every empire has said of itself that it is beginning a new age of freedom and justice, etc. Rome said it–and they did nothing short of spitting in God’s face by turning on His Son. The Caesars set themsevles up as gods, Babylon before them did the same, the Pharaohs of Egypt did as well. “but our president isn’t a god.” Virtually relying on the government to fix everything is the exact same thing as viewing them as god-like. Be careful. “but democracy is the way!” Is it? Does the word “kingdom” mean anything to you? I can guarantee you that you will not like God’s kingdom when it comes to this earth if you think that democracy is the end-all and be-all of government. It is not the will of the people that matters in the end, but the will of God. Democracy may be far more preferable to a totalitarian regime, but we’re looking for God’s kingdom to be established. It cannot be destroyed, it cannot fail, it cannot be stopped. When it comes, everything, including every country’s leadership, will be place under God’s control.

 

Anyway, after all that having been said, back to my point. In short, the art we produce needs to be creative and show God’s kingdom in ways that show what it’s like. I know I try to do this in my music, and I know others who, in their own way, do the same. We are to “seek first the kingdom of God and His righteious/justice”, and it looks radically different from “lah lah lah” and “just believe in Jesus” and “going to heaven when we die” and all the other pop theology we’ve been fed for all these years. It looks radically different than just following this or that political party/philosophy/eidiology. It looks radically different than anyone in this country, or anywhere else in the world, might think. The words of the Lord’s Prayer’s clause “Thy kingdom come–thy will be done–on earth as it is in heaven” is a radical statement. It says that everything on this earth will be made subject to God, that every political leader on this earth will bow and call Jesus Christ their Lord. It states that one’s country of origin means absolutely nothing when compared to being a citizen of the kingdom.

 

I hope that, as rambling as this post has been, it made sense. I tried to stick to my topic(s) as much as possible, but my brain does tend to wander. I do enjoy receiving comments, so feel free to, even if you disagree. Dialogue is always welcome here, even if it might not look like it. Hope my readers are doing well.

My spiritual journey in a little more detail.

So, I’ve been wanting to do this post for a good long time, and I think now’s the time to get on with putting it up. I’ve talked a little about my spiritual journey quite a while back on this blog, but I wanted to go into a little more detail than just that. Specifically, I wanted to give an example of how that happened, and the perfect example of that is baptism.

 

For years, even though I grew up in the Reformed tradition, it really didn’t make sense to me. And besides, when the only Christian presence you see outside of your immediate community is what passes for Christian radio and television, obviously, that tends to form one’s beliefs pretty early on. I, of course, was no exception to this. What I heard from said media sources was essentially that infant baptism was wrong and that believers baptism was biblical. Well, after hearing this for many years, one starts to believe it if one doesn’t understand the opposite view. Oh sure I’d been “taught” that infant baptism is biblical, but it didn’t make sense. It would make sense for a while, and then someone else would come along and sway me the other way.

 

Those last two sentences probably contradicted each other, but my point is that the teaching that I was getting from the main evangelical wing of the church and my Reformed upbringing were two different things, and, as the latter wasn’t really anything that made much sense to me or that I could actually explain, the former seemed to work well for me. That seems to be a trend, I’ve noticed–Evangelical Christianity seems to be the sort of “popular Christianity” in that it’s very simple. I mean, “Just believe in Jesus” is pretty much all the depth there is to it. So, this all lasted pretty much until college, and then only within the last two years there.

 

I started really exploring other denominations and flavors of Christianity, more for understanding and less for figuring things out. I had it all figured out anyway, or so I thought–I mean, believers baptism was biblical, etc, etc. (Again, I make reference to that b/c that’s what this post mainly is concerned with, since there were other things that either I believed then and don’t now, or I still believe in currently.) Part of this exploration led me to investigate Anglicanism and Lutheranism. By this time, I had access to a document called the “London Baptist Confession of Faith”, a derivative confession (of 1689) that was really a re-working of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646). The relevant portion of this document is as follows:

 

Chapter XXIX
Of Baptism
I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the

party baptized, a sign of his fellowship
with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of

sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through
Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3]
1. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
3. Rom. 6:4
II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord

Jesus Christ, are the only proper
subjects of this ordinance.[4]
4. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8
III. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be

baptized, in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[5]
5. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38
IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this

ordinance.[6]
6. Matt. 3:16, John 3:23

Well, not that I subscribed to that confession, but the point here is that it really summarizes what I believed back then. So, as you can see, as I explored other denominations, I naturally looked at what they believed. Obviously, most denominations believe that infant baptism is valid, whereas my baptistic understanding limited baptism to immersion and not for infants, so naturally, such confessions as the 39 Articles would need to be modifed:

 

XXVII. Of Baptism.
BAPTISM is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference whereby Christian men are

discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth,

whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the

promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Ghost

are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto

God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most

agreeable with the institution of Christ.
I would have then modified that last sentence by supplying the word “not” between is and in, for obvious reasons. It wasn’t until after college that I really started to ask myself the question of “Why is it they think infant baptism is biblical? How does that make sense?” It was then that I started to really investigate things more in depth. I went back to looking at Anglicanism, but I didn’t get any real explanation. This took me straight back to where it all began in the Reformation–straight back to Martin Luther and what he was all about.

 

Basically, the Augsburg Confession and related documents really started to make more and more sense to me. From Article 9 of the Augsburg:

 

Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the

grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism

are received into God’s grace.
They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are

saved without Baptism.
If I could explain about how I came to really get this to click with me, it was essentially from looking at various commentaries on 1 Corinthians 7:14 that really swayed me. Basically, one commentator really did it–Albert Barnes, who essentially, though he himself believed in infant baptism, wasn’t convinced by that verse as a proof. Another commentator, Adam Clark, made the case that the rain pouring down out of heaven onto the ark as it floated for those forty days in Genesis 6-9 was really a symbol of baptism. He made reference to 1 Corinthians 7:14 to bolster his case, and for some reason, I started looking into what that verse meant. So, to read Barnes, after having read Clark on that verse, I really was won over and just needed somehow to figure out how to coherently explain it.

 

The more I read the Book of Concord, the more I began to get it. The only thing that really put me off was the fragmentation of the many confessional Lutheran churches, who can’t seem to figure out a lot of things among themselves. I ranted about that on this blog as well. But basically, I then went back to Anglicanism, this time embracing it with no modification at all. I felt there was plenty of leeway for me to hold differing beliefs, while being on a firm foundation as far as a basic core set of beliefs. But, the thing that really annoyed me was that today, the Anglican communion seems to be going more and more towards an anything-goes attitude in terms of what is believed. and there really wasn’t any real binding set of belifs to begin with, so that just didn’t really fly with me.

 

And, on top of that, I started working at a local Christian Reformed church here where I live. This forced me to really go back to my Reformed roots and rediscover what it is that my ancestors, who came over here from The Netherlands, believed. The more I read the Three Forms of Unity, the more I came to embrace it fully. It just seemed to resonate with me as if I were really returning home after running away in an effort to single-handedly take on the world.

 

The rest, as you’ll know if you’ve read this blog in recent months, is history. I’m still working for that church, and quite happy there. And while I respect other traditions, I feel I’ve finally come to a place where I don’t have to keep trying to find that niche. It’s really a good feeling of security, but yet, I don’t feel trapped at all. I mean, there’s a definite foundation, but I feel I can remodel the house almost any way I feel like. I don’t have to put up with the old-fashioned structures of the past. There are things I believe that would appall the “old guard” of the Reformed faith, but hey, they held beliefs that would have shocked others before them, and in fact, the Reformers themselves held beliefs that were seen as heretical and are still seen that way in some quarters of the Catholic church. So, with that, allow me to leave you with the Belgic Confession’s article on baptism, Article 45, from the newer translation, as found on the Christian Reformed Church’s website:

 

We believe and confess that Jesus Christ,
in whom the law is fulfilled,
has by his shed blood
put an end to every other shedding of blood,
which anyone might do or wish to do
in order to atone or satisfy for sins.

Having abolished circumcision,
which was done with blood,
he established in its place
the sacrament of baptism.
By it we are received into God’s church
and set apart from all other people and alien religions,
that we may be dedicated entirely to him,
bearing his mark and sign.
It also witnesses to us
that he will be our God forever,
since he is our gracious Father.

Therefore he has commanded
that all those who belong to him
be baptized with pure water
in the name of the Father,
and the Son,
and the Holy Spirit.^76

In this way he signifies to us
that just as water washes away the dirt of the body
when it is poured on us
and also is seen on the body of the baptized
when it is sprinkled on him,
so too the blood of Christ does the same thing internally,
in the soul,
by the Holy Spirit.
It washes and cleanses it from its sins
and transforms us from being the children of wrath
into the children of God.

This does not happen by the physical water
but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God,
who is our Red Sea,
through which we must pass
to escape the tyranny of Pharoah,
who is the devil,
and to enter the spiritual land
of Canaan.

So ministers,
as far as their work is concerned,
give us the sacrament and what is visible,
but our Lord gives what the sacrament signifies—
namely the invisible gifts and graces;
washing, purifying, and cleansing our souls
of all filth and unrighteousness;
renewing our hearts and filling them
with all comfort;
giving us true assurance
of his fatherly goodness;
clothing us with the “new man” and stripping off the “old,”
with all its works.

For this reason we believe that
anyone who aspires to reach eternal life
ought to be baptized only once
without ever repeating it—
for we cannot be born twice.
Yet this baptism is profitable
not only when the water is on us
and when we receive it
but throughout our
entire lives.

For that reason we detest the error of the Anabaptists
who are not content with a single baptism
once received
and also condemn the baptism
of the children of believers.
We believe our children ought to be baptized
and sealed with the sign of the covenant,
as little children were circumcised in Israel
on the basis of the same promises
made to our children.

And truly,
Christ has shed his blood no less
for washing the little children of believers
than he did for adults.

Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament
of what Christ has done for them,
just as the Lord commanded in the law that
by offering a lamb for them
the sacrament of the suffering and death of Christ
would be granted them
shortly after their birth.
This was the sacrament of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore,
baptism does for our children
what circumcision did for the Jewish people.
That is why Paul calls baptism
the “circumcision of Christ.”^77

^76 Matt. 28:19
^77 Col. 2:11

Changes

Just needed to change some things with my profile here. Made the necessary changes, so that should fix stuff. I’m glad my user name can’t be changed, but my public one can. WordPress is great, if you know what you’re up to. Happy St. Patrick’s Day to everyone.

Well, I’m pleasantly surprised! :)

Well, folks, I never thought I’d see the day, but I just found out today that the denomination that the church I work for has, as of 2007, added the ESV to its list of translations. See, I remember visiting that page about a year ago, and the last version I remember seeing was in 2006 with the TNIV. And then I remember the page being unavailable for a good while, and now it’s back up and when I read “English Standard Version (ESV)”, I (a) did a double-take, and (b) wanted to jump up and down. I figured they’d get around to the ESV, since they have the RSV and NRSV there, as well as the NASB and older ASV, and of course, they have the KJV there. but these things take time. You know, come to think of it, I didn’t see the NKJV there–but hey, as much as it’s a loved translation, it’s probably a good thing it isn’t on that list. Basically, knowing what I know about the actual motive behind it–that of trying to keep up with the Joneses financially–uh, I think we can leave it on the shelf. Textus Receptis, favoring the Majority Text in the footnotes, making misleading statements in the preface about said footnotes, … well, you get the picture. as far as I know, the story goes something like this.

 

When they heard about the NIV coming out, the “good folks” at Thomas Nelson decided that competition and making a profit were much more important than getting the Word of God out there, so they rather quickly got the NKJV out there. No offense to them, since that was well over twenty years ago now, but it doesn’t matter what publishing company it is–just keeping an eye on your bank account really isn’t going to get you very far. Basically, if your motive for a translation of the Bible is purely financial, and then you turn around and make up something about some kid asking his granddad “Do you guys have a Bible that I can understand” (a story I can’t even find anymore on the main NKJV website, which doesn’t seem to exist anymore, btw), I’m sorry, but that’s disgusting. Not only were they greedy, they lied about it. Like I said, no offense to them, and this just serves as an example of how NOT to publish anything–let alone the Scriptures–but look, moral of the story is to be honest, especially if you represent one of the largest and longest lasting Christian publishing companies on the planet.

 

Back to the ESV. I’m seeing this translation taking off like a rocket. It’s popping up everywhere. It’s my favorite as well, but I still have to wonder about how long it’s going to last. Take, for example, the KJV. Not many ppl realize that in actuality, when it first came out, it was about the most unpopular version. It was, you could say, the “liberal” Bible of its day, since the Geneva Bible was the popular version, due to its notes, and the Puritans really hated it b/c it was the king’s translation, and we all know that eventually, thanks to him shoving it down everyone’s throats, it became *the only* Bible allowed to be printed in Britain. So, now that the Geneva Bible was essentially made illegal, the KJV was the official imperial Bible. But, point is that it took a long time before it actually was popular, and there seems to be a trend that translations that start out very popular usually end up fading into obscurity within about ten years. Why do I say that? Well, take the Living Bible as an example of this. Back when it was first published, everyone jumped on the bandwagon and endorsed the daylights out of it. and now look at where it is–oh yeah, there’s the NLT, but do you see any Living Bibles around much? Nope, ya don’t. Same goes for the RSV. Same goes, for that matter, for Goodspeed, Revised English Bible and New English Bible, Good News Translation/Bible (which is still out there and being sold, but we’re talking about popularity), and about a million other versions that showed up and everyone latched onto them and then they died.

 

So, as much as we all love the ESV, why do I have the feeling that it’s going to be a thing of the past in a short few years? Don’t get me wrong–I use it b/c it’s a good translation, even if there are some issues with it–but, someone needs to come along and ruffle some feathers to really keep it going. Look, it seems the more controversy and scorn and ridicule a translation gets, the more of a chance it has to survive. In ten years, gender-inclusive language will be no big deal b/c the old guard of the right-wing evangelicals will have either given up and found better things to do, or moved on to some other issue to criticize, and we’ll all go on our merry way with talking about “humankind” instead of “man/men”. (Won’t that be a good day for us all! ) Right now, the only thing keeping the ESV alive is loads of ppl endorsing it and using it and promoting it, but really, isn’t that what they did with the LB? The RSV and now NRSV get all the scorn heaped on them b/c of “liberal” translation choices, etc, etc, etc. And it’s usually those same ppl who won’t even touch an NRSV who are banging on about how wonderful the ESV is b/c it’s not the NRSV. Well, give that about five or so years and then get back to me on where the NRSV and ESV are. I think the reason for that is simply that when a translation comes out like the ESV, it’s usually to keep a certain current crowd pleased. Like those that can’t stand inclusive language for one reason or another. they get their translation and they are happy. all is right with the world … until someone comes along and does something to their translation that pisses them off, and then all hell breaks loose. It’s that latter revision/new translation that tends to withstand the test of time and lasts longer than the former translation. take for example the TNIV. There’s a prime example of a translation that, I think, has a chance to actually go places. Right now, you’ve got the “inclusive language is evil” crowd bitching and pissing about how horrible it is the TNIV is around, meanwhile it’s chugging along quietly and will build momentum later on. See, being forward-thinking in translation is really the way to go. Screw the current majority–when have they really ever been right? The ppl behind the RSV knew that–that’s why we’ve got the NRSV today, which goes even farther. and guess what–look at scholarship today. Do you realize that the NRSV was really the only translation in 1989 to have “Junia” in Romans 16:7? Look at most of the other English translations from around then. they all had “Junias”. And now look–the scholarly consensus is that it’s actually a woman’s name.

 

the NRSV is a fine example of a respected translation and it’s really starting–slowly but surely–to catch on with even “conservative” ppl. If there were a free download of the NRSV available, you know I’d have it in a flash. But you know, I really have to wonder where the ESV will be in about ten to twenty years. Will we all still be using it, or will we have found something else?

 

But it’s nice to see that it’s now included among the approved translations of a lot of denominations–it’s really becoming a common Bible in the sense of an ecumenical translation. Which reminds me–I keep hearing about the ESV apocrypha and how that’s supposed to show up at some point soon, but do you think I’ll be seeing that anytime soon? Um, … Yeah, that’s what I thought. Hey, just tossing my thoughts out there. No offense meant at all–just putting my thoughts down. You know how it is being a blogger. Someone comes along and reads my thoughts and comments and you never know who shows up and comments. I’ve noticed this blog tends to be found by ppl who come across it somehow and comment on a post or two. I don’t do any tags, so it’s not like there are keywords like “bible translations” that would lead to this post or the blog in general. Obviously, if you look long enough, you’ll eventually find it just via the actual phrase in a search engine. but who has time for that anyway? Not that I mind. There are things on this blog that completely get no notice at all, and then, there are things which get one or two surprising comments out of nowhere. It’s really fun to see what kind of reaction I get sometimes. this post is really all over the place, I know, but you know, that’s sometimes how my brain works.

 

I might start out talking about how my day was and end up ranting on about something. You just never know where things end up. It’s a matter, to borrow the old music video-related saying, of “following the bouncing ball”. Just try to track with it the best you can and you’ll be fine. If you have a difficult time with it, that’s ok too. It’s not for everyone. So, with that said, anyone have any comments? Oh btw, I should really try and change my user name here, since I realized that there are some ppl who might Google it and find this, and God only knows what they’d think of it. Yeah, I know, shoulda thought about that when I set this thing up, right? Well, … uh, … I didn’t. lol Hope you’re all doing well, and I’m going to, at some point, get to a future post on baptism and how that shows my spiritual journey thus far. I started collecting quotes and then stopped for some reason. but that’s not completely forgotten. Keep an eye out for that. Ttyl.

Gender equality and church leadership

More random thoughts from me. Title of this post pretty much sums up what I’m thinking about at the moment, so if this turns into a stream of consciousness post, I hope it doesn’t become so incoherent as to not make sense.

 

With that taken care of, I can move on to what I want to talk about. Just my thoughts, and I’m not an expert, but I’ve been thinking about church leadership and that whole mess of the issue of women in those positions. Now, personally, I’m for it b/c both men and women were created in God’s image (see Gen.1:26-27), but obviously, God did not create an androgenous order. See, there are two schools of thought, basically. Those who generally classify themselves as “complementarians” believe that in the marriage relationship and in church leadership, women are to be submissive, citing such passages as 1 Tim.2:11-15 and 1 Tim.3:1-13 and Eph.5:22-33. Well, ok, that’s great, but the other school, who classify themselves as “egalitarians”, says that both in marriage and in the church, men and women are equal.

 

Well, I think actually that instead of going one way or the other, the truth lies somewhere in the middle between the two. There are issues of interpreting the original language texts in question, which involves translation. Take, for example, Paul’s words in 1 Tim.3:1-2, where in v.1, he says literally “If anyone desires the office of overseer, [they] desire a good work.” and that phrase in v.2, literally translated as “… the husband of one wife …”. If he really wanted just men leading in that capacity, I must ask why he didn’t just use the Greek word “aner” in v.1, thus clearing up the matter? But on the other hand, if women are included, why did he say “husband of one wife” in v.2? Some have said that Paul’s use of that phrase there is actually a statement of brevity, and others translate it something like “married only once” (NRSV).

 

Now I can understand why some on the complementarian side would have problems with women in church leadership positions. Most of the problem actually stems from other issues they have–that, according to them, it all starts with being “liberal” in theology. Usually complementarians usually are, for lack of a better term, “fundamentalists”. Now, obviously that’s a very loaded term, but like I said, for lack of a better one. All I’m saying here is based on both my experience and the stuff I’ve read from their side. I could talk about their flawed arguments, but I’m not going to get involved in that mess. Don’t want to bite off more than I can chew, and besides, there are more important issues than that, to be honest.

 

On the other hand, I can see where the other side, the egalitarians, are coming from when they point out the issues they have with complementarians’ views. they, according to what I’ve read and my experience, will often point out that abuse by men toward women is much more likely with complementarianism. Obviously, this is regretably true. they also point out that various leaders within complementarianism seem to promote theological views, particularly of the Trinity, that actually go against the very orthodoxy they claim to support.

 

I can see both sides, but I think that really, on one hand, we have more important things to do as the body of Christ than argue amongst ourselves over who’s in charge, like, for example, working to correct the injustices we see around us. But on the other, the debate rages fiercely and refuses to be ignored. Honestly, with everything I’ve read, both sides have valid points, though I must admit that in fact, the biblical data seems to favor the egalitarian position more than the complementarian one, though one valid point of the latter’s position is that there is, indeed, a complementarity between the genders. Obviously, as a male myself, having children is physically impossible, unless I underwent a gender-reassignment surgery, which I don’t plan on doing anytime soon, thanks. lol Yes, traditionally, it was only men pretty much in the early centuries of the church who were priests and bishops, etc. But, actually, a lot of that came from later developments, from what I understand, when the church fathers basically lost touch with the New Testament’s roots. It’s crazy how such a thing like that can happen just within 100 years or so of the actual documents of the NT being written, but oh well. And then we wonder why the church today is infected with the premillennial BS, with “scholars” spouting how they “know” how “god’s time table” is laid out. Right, and you were the ones who keep setting the date for Christ’s return … oh, wait, I mean, two-phase return, that you totally forgot just what it is that the Scriptures actually teach. Remember that book about “88 Reasons the Rapture Will Occur in 1988″? Um, probably not b/c you have another date to move it to.

 

Obviously, you all can tell I’m soooo friendly toward the pre-trib lot. “but they’re our brothers and sisters in Christ”. that may be, but wrong-headed theology leads to all kinds of issues. Just imagine if they’d said that about, say, Aryanism. “Oh well, they’re our siblings in the faith, so we’ll let them be. they just believe something a little differently about the Godhead, that’s all.” Uh, yeah. that wouldn’t exactly work, now would it? So, obviously, correct doctrine has consequences for right living, as we all know. that’s why I believe what I believe, especially now that I’ve found myself at home in the Reformed tradition. At least my tradition’s confessional documents aren’t saying things like “We believe in a just war.” that would drive me crazy, as one who, b/c of my Christian faith, cannot tolerate any sort of violence. Oh sure my gut reaction is to “kick tail and take names”, but isn’t that God’s job?

 

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. for the complementarians who may read this, allow me to briefly suggest the following: Please, since you’re the ones who make a big issue of the whole issue, focus on what really is important. True, it wasn’t really an issue in the first century, and true there are “liberals” in churches where women are in leadership positions, but there are those among your ranks who promote unorthodox views and pointing fingers at the other side, as if they’re to blame for all your ulcers, isn’t ever going to solve anything. It’s perfectly fine for you to hold your opinions, since it is, afterall, a fundamental human right to have freedom of opinion, speech, and thought. But, that goes for the other side too. Sure one side wants to be the dominant position, and that goes for both sides, but at present, there are larger concerns–like the poor and the oppressed, dealing with the warfare and violence in the world, the poverty and the hunger and starvation in the world. I don’t see how arguing over gender issues really solves those problems, unless you’re in the “conservative” side of things, who believe that we can just trash God’s earth b/c we’re all going elsewhere when we die anyway. In that case, I have three very strong words directed to you, with the added plea for you to repent before you stand before the judgment seat of God: Shame on you!

 

Does it matter who’s in church leadership? In terms of doctrine, yes–if the Word is faithfully preached and sacraments are properly administered, it doesn’t matter who’s leading. If that particular church is off the rails doctrinally, then there’s a problem. Obviously, that type of thing knows no gender difference. there are unorthodox men and women. Go on–scream at me about how “liberal” I am. All you’ll get in return is screaming about how “conservative” you are. That will gain you absolutely nothing. Whatever the biblical text means in those few places of uncertainty, it in no way has regard to our mission as the church–to go out there and make disciples of the nations, and work to advance God’s kingdom. Afterall, “the earth belongs to the LORD and everything in it”.

 

there you have that from me. the quotations from Scripture are basically from my memory, so if I missed something, I do apologize. and that book title I did from memory, and there are a couple variations on it, so feel free to correct me if I screwed that up also. Regardless of that, point remains the same.

and yes, an update! :)

And you guys all thought I left for good! Nope, still here. and I’ve switched back to being a moderate, due to the same old issues of anger and rage, etc. Yes, I’ll admit to that–I do have some issues with that, though over the last couple years I’ve been working on it. So, what am I talking about? Why the change? Why the brief revert back to conservatism?

 

Well, let’s just say that I live in a very conservative area of the country, and it’s not exactly easy to maintain a biblically-based view when all you see around you is misinformation, heavy-handed opinions, and downright lies. Yes, that’s a fault of mine. I was doing so well, and then I slipped and had a hard time with getting back up. but, it’s only by the grace of God that I finally made the choice to get into His word instead of human opinion. Yes, I voted for McCain, as you no doubt know, if you’ve read the previous entries here. but, I will say that, as a moderate, I have to say that Pres. Obama has his head screwed on right when it comes to both wars, the environment in general, etc. but, I will also say that frankly, though we all should give him a fighting chance, he’s already starting to annoy a lot of ppl, on both sides of the aisle. Now, let me just say that, regardless of what anyone thinks of him or his politics, he still is our president and he has been put there by God. Some would say that we got the president we deserve–that this nation is being judged, etc. I’m not so sure of that myself, to be honest. I think to say such a thing is stretching it a little, since none of us knows what God’s purpose is, beyond what He has revealed to us.

 

Yes, it disturbs me that abortion is still a problem, but really, just plain outlawing it isn’t the answer. Nor is just making it completely legal, for that matter. The fact of the matter is that we’ll never really see true justice in every sense of the meaning of that word until the kingdom of God is established here. I pray, as we all should, that it comes soon, but it will come in God’s timing.

 

as far as my statement on global climate change, let me nuance that a bit. Did they lie about those pictures? Yes. Was that wrong? Yes. Was it to “shock” us all into action? Yes. But, it’s one thing to use such images to honestly motivate ppl into action, it’s quite another to motivate ppl into action when clearly, on closer scrutiny, said images turn out to be fake. Now, do I agree that climate change is happening and that we humans are contributing to it? Yes–doubtless there is both human contribution and natural causes to climate change. But, what the documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle” shows is that the scare tactics of “We’ll all be dead in ten years!” is the same exact thing they were saying some thirty years ago, when the “concensus” was an ice age. So, what is the true consensus?

 

I actually went to good old Google and typed in “climate change science”, and wouldn’t you know, the first search result was a very helpful EPA site on the very subject. I obviously bookmarked it, so I can refer back to it. I was actually pleasantly surprised that it was as clear as it was. Most of what I’ve come across in the past has been something like “Oh, those critics? Well, don’t pay any attention to them. Just be certain that the consensus is that climate change is going on, and oh yes, it’s going to be horrible in about ten years!” Actually, according to the EPA, the fact of the matter is that, while if the current warming trend continues, it would be horrible, we’re not really certain about what exactly will happen. So, what’s the solution?

 

I would say, just for the sake of making myself clear, that there is nothing inherently wrong with coal, oil, natural gas, etc. the problem is when a nation like ours becomes addicted to them that we get into a mess. It’s like alcohol–nothing wrong with it. In fact, I do enjoy the occasional beer now and then. but it’s when you become addicted to it that things go out of control. That’s where we’re at in this nation. Unfortunately, in the name of progress, we’ve gotten ourselves so tied to our vehicles that we practically can’t live without them. Does that mean that we should just get rid of them and walk everywhere, take our bikes, etc? Obviously not right away. The best advice is, to make a reference to the movie “What About Bob”, “baby steps”. It starts with cutting back on the amount of oil and other fossil fuels, etc that we use. So, should we drill for our own oil, since we have it? Well, yes, that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. Now, the only question I have though is, how much of that oil would then be exported to other countries? The ideal, however, is to get off of oil and to progress to “greener” forms of energy. Yes, I know–right now the technology of wind, solar, nuclear, etc is kind of not all there. but you have to admit that such technologies will develop. they just need to be given a chance–hint to conservatives. any thoughts? I welcome comments of both agreement and disagreement. I really would like to hear what you all have to say.

If you only knew …

If you only knew how upsetting the results from yesterday’s election are to me right now. I mean, I really want nothing more right now than to scream obscenities at the morons who were stupid enough to destroy this country, the state where I live, and God only knows what else they managed to yesterday. But, as I was booting up this trusty machine of mine, I suddenly had the idea of taking a different approach. sure I’m upset, and rightly so, but you know, it dawned on me that there’s definitely a reason for this. In fact, let me share Article 13 from the Belgic confession with you.

 

 

Article 13: The Doctrine of God’s Providence

We believe that this good God,
after he created all things,
did not abandon them to chance or fortune
but leads and governs them
according to his holy will,
in such a way that nothing happens in this world
without his orderly arrangement.

Yet God is not the author of,
nor can he be charged with,
the sin that occurs.
For his power and goodness
are so great and incomprehensible
that he arranges and does his work very well and justly
even when the devils and wicked men act unjustly.
We do not wish to inquire
with undue curiosity
into what he does that surpasses human understanding
and is beyond our ability to comprehend.
But in all humility and reverence
we adore the just judgments of God,
which are hidden from us,
being content to be Christ’s disciples,
so as to learn only what he shows us in his Word,
without going beyond those limits.

This doctrine gives us unspeakable comfort
since it teaches us
that nothing can happen to us by chance
but only by the arrangement of our gracious
heavenly Father.
He watches over us with fatherly care,
keeping all creatures under his control,
so that not one of the hairs on our heads
(for they are all numbered)
nor even a little bird
can fall to the ground^20
without the will of our Father.

In this thought we rest,
knowing that he holds in check
the devils and all our enemies,
who cannot hurt us
without his permission and will.

For that reason we reject
the damnable error of the Epicureans,
who say that God involves himself in nothing
and leaves everything to chance.

^20 Matt. 10:29-30

 

 

So, there it is. I have to admit I find that very hard to believe at the moment. Nothing happens–not even the election of a guy who is unqualified, a friend of terrorists, (and oh yeah, he was practically endorsed by a bunch of terrorists, btw), and is committed to “spread[ing] the wealth around”–without God having planned it. How on earth could this disgusting event be for God’s glory? I honestly don’t get it. I guess this is just one of those times where I have to just sit back and enjoy the ride, since obviously, I’ve tried the whole back seat driving thing, and He’s had to tell me, through various events and stuff, to shut up and let Him drive. Well, I guess, here we go then. that’s all I’m going to say about the election yesterday. I’m not thinking about it, I’m not talking about it, I just need a break from it. That’s how upset I am by it.

Thoughts.

So, I was thinking throughout today about how Advent is really the beginning of the church year, and I got to thinking about how my own personal devotional life could use a proper tune-up, in a sense. I say that b/c I read Scripture and think about it, but do I really spend as much time in the Scriptures as I probably should? Probably not. I got to thinking about the practice of Lectio Divina and how I perhaps could use that to really dig into God’s Word. It really is one of those versitile practices that’s fluid enough to be personal, but yet there’s a structure there that really encompasses everything from reading a passage to the application of it in one’s own life. furthermore, I could post my reflections here, thus updating this blog more frequently. fitting how it could fall at the beginning of the liturgical year, eh? talk about New Year’s resolutions! I might break this one before I get started. and I’ll be perfectly honest, if I do start, it’s going to be one heck of a struggle for me, since I tend to get to thinking “This is just too difficult, so screw it.” So, what do you all think I should do? Go for it and see what happens? If so, I’ll need at least one person to kind of keep me on track in terms of encouraging me and stuff. You know how it is when you exercise at a gym–if you’re just out there by yourself, you tend to become lazy and eventually you stop going. Well, if you have someone else there spurring you on, it tends to be quite a different story. So it would be nice to have that gentle reminder every now and again along the way. And besides, Christianity is a community thing and not just an individual thing, so it makes sense to not just jump in and go “Right. I’m just plunging in all by my lonesome. Here I go!” any thoughts from my readers?

What is science?

I did receive one comment on my last post, to which I will reply, given a proper amount of time, etc. but I wanted to deal with one issue that is related, that being, as the title states, the matter of what science is. It seems in the last few years that there has been a shift, due to the inroads that post-modernism has made, in the nature of what is considered “scientific thought”. I certainly am not an expert in science, but I can certainly look at what’s happened and come to some conclusions, based on common sense–something that apparently is lacking in today’s society.

 

for starters, the word “science” itself comes from Latin, and literally translates to “knowledge”. right off, it is obvious that, with the very concept of knowledge being attacked in post-modernism (b/c of the certainty of knowledge), we have a contradiction. How can we know something when post-modernism’s most basic assumption is that “Everything is relative”? If everything is relative, there is then no room for certainty, save when it is convenient, thus making for a system of thought that clearly plays into the attitude of today’s culture that tells us “If it feels right to you, it’s not wrong.” Since the word “science” is defined as knowledge, it is then therefore based on fact. Fact, by its very nature, is unchangeable. Fact is concerned with discerning truth from error.

 

Now, we’ve come to the main point of what I’m saying. I remember my sophomore year of high school, when I took a biology class. One of the things we were taught, (and this, btw, was a public school, wherein there was little regard for any sort of religious view), that gravity is a law. And then, there was my sophomore year in college. the story changes here, since gravity is now known as a “theory”. Now, I’m fully aware of what a theory is defined as. It is something that is repeatedly tested, but yet could possibly fail. a law, on the other hand, does not fail, no matter how much it’s tested.

 

It seems, then, that there has been a shift from that which we “know” to that which “has been repeatedly tested”, and therefore we don’t actually “know” but we “are fairly certain of, but it could fall apart at any moment”. How did we get to this point? what is so wrong with being certain? How can there be “knowledge” without being certain? that, in and of itself, is a contradiction.

 

I’ll reply to my friend’s comment at some point for sure, but I wanted to lay the groundwork here before launching into that, since I’m coming from a perspective in which we’re going off of fact instead of being provocative or saying something is fact, when it isn’t. This is all I have time to write at the present time, but I know I’ll more than likely receive at least one comment from what I’ve said. “Well, you don’t understand post-modern thought.” No, I don’t, b/c it’s so vague and imprecise, thus its absurdity. “but, you can’t be objective, since we all have biases.” So, what we’ve known for millennia is now null and void b/c you say it is then? Are we so arrogant that we can now declare that we are now smarter and more intelligent than they? “Well, the statement that everything is relative is not an absolute statement.” It isn’t? really now, you’ve made it sound like an absolute statement, and therefore, it gets interpreted as an absolute statement. We naturally operate based on fact–we are geared by our very nature to distinguish fact and error, hence the very notion of a conscience. I’ll resume this post in the future when I reply to the comment I received on my last post.