Seeing both sides

I must admit that I write this blog with fear and trepidation. This is such a hugely controversial topic that I am pretty much bound to offend someone, no matter how understanding I try to be. I must also admit that I am in no way qualified to address this subject (not that qualification seems to matter at all on the internet). Still, it's a topic that's keeps coming up in my mind, and perhaps this will provoke thoughts in my small readership.

Let's start with a relatively generic scenario. There are two friends. They've probably been friends for some time, but maybe haven't talked or seen each other for a while. They've sort of gone different directions over the years, one of them heading into the conservative Christian camp and the other coming out of the closet. Imagine the conversation that takes place when they finally start to catch up with each other and the inevitable announcement comes out: "I'm gay."

It really probably doesn't take much imagination. Many of you reading this have had such a conversation, or have heard of a friend's experience, or at very least have read the debate between the two sides raging over the internet.

I was pondering this the other day, thinking about the inability of the two sides to communicate, each side incensed by the foolishness, hatred, and/or anger displayed by the other side.

The conservative Christian perspective I can understand pretty well: that's my background and, with a few qualifications, I would still consider myself to be in that camp. In their (our) minds, someone announcing that they're gay is somewhat akin to someone saying that they've decided to become a serial murderer and they took their first victim yesterday. Imagine that conversation:

"What?" the Christian would say. "You just murdered someone? On purpose? In cold blood? Do you realize how wrong that is?"

The murderer would look offended. "What's wrong with that? I just really enjoy murdering people. I can't help it. I was born liking to kill things."

The Christian looks shocked and tries to explain, "I still really care about you, but what you're doing is clearly wrong! Lots of people will be hurt, and there are some terrible consequences you might have to face. I'm going to have to call the police for your own good. I can't just sit by and watch you ruin your life."

The murderer looks even more offended. "I can't believe that you can't accept me for who I am! If you don't like what I do, you can't like me. So I like killing people. What's it to you? I won't stop you from not killing people! How dare you try to stop me or change me!"

The Christian eventually decides that he is dealing with a crazy person who won't listen to logic and gives up…or…if internet debates are any indication, he also become angry and illogical. Alas, things are not always as they should be.

Obviously, the above imaginative conversation is unlikely to ever occur (and I don't mean to equate murder and homosexuality). The point is, from the perspective of many Christians, this is almost identical to the conversation they would have with a homosexual friend. Just as murder is clearly wrong (according to the Bible, as well as current laws), so homosexuality is clearly wrong and condemned by the Bible. (1 Corinthians 6:2, 1 Titus 1:10, and Romans 1:26-27 seems fairly clear in their condemnation, for example.) Thus, to the Christian with this perspective, the response of homosexuals to the condemnation of their lifestyle is baffling. The Christian friend thinks he's trying to help his friend and is understandably hurt and stunned when he is perceived as being intolerant and hateful. Such was not his intention. (It is unfortunately true that not all Christians have good intentions and it must be admitted that some are actually being intolerant and hateful.)

The homosexual perspective is one which I do not understand as intuitively, but I assume that they must also feel that they are being the reasonable ones in the situation, so I began searching for some sort of analogy that would help me better understand.

What if there were a religious group based on an ancient religious document which made occasional remarks on the inherit sinfulness of red-heads. Though these remarks are debated in modern times ("Is it a cultural prohibition? Does it really mean what it says?"), there are still enough people who believe in this archaic document for it to become a point of contention. A movement against red-heads might be formed.

"Dye or die!" could be a slogan.

Maybe some pun about fiery hair and the fires of hell.

It might even happen that a conversation like this would occur:

"Alana, I've really been meaning to confront you on something. Red hair is a sin!" a friend might say to me one day.

"It's not like a chose to have red hair!" I would protest. "I was born with it! It's genetic! What do you want me to do? Dye it brown every few weeks and pretend to be something I'm not? Just to avoid offending you? My hair is part of what makes me who I am. You have no right to ask me to change that!"

The friend would look earnest and concerned. "But I really believe that my religious document teaches that red hair is sinful and will cause you to be eternally punished. You can choose to dye it, or even just cut it all off. I just can't bear to see you make the horrible decision to keep it."

"So you believe in a God who made me have red hair and then punishes me for it? That's hardly fair," I would retort, growing increasingly more offended.

The friend might look confused and embarrassed at this point, unsure how to either agree or disagree without compromising something.

Now back to reality. Again, a rather ridiculous scenario, and yet again, with only a couple small changes, this is roughly the sort of conversation that takes place all the time. For me, though, it helps me understand why both sides find the other ridiculous (though again, homosexuality is quite different from having red hair).

Of course, this still leaves us with a dilemma: who's right, and what is wrong? Do we condemn homosexuality, or do we abandon (or edit) the ancient manuscript that speaks against it?

You know me. As crazy at it sounds to most people today, I have to go with the book. This is becoming an increasingly uncommon view, though.


In each culture there seem to be "culturally acceptable sins." We probably notice these sins more when we look at a different culture. For example, in some countries, stealing is as natural as breathing, even among Christians. We look at that and wonder how they can justify such blatant sin. We forget just how easy it is to rationalize sin, especially when it's excused by people around us (or when it is hidden). We have our own culturally accepted sins that other cultures would condemn: we don't honor our elders, we are confrontational to a fault, we are inhospitable, we are selfish and self centered and value our individual welfare above that of the community. All of these things (and more) we have ways of excusing and explaining and justifying, and all of these things would be shocking sins to Christians from other cultures. As always, it's easier to see the speck in your brother's eye than the log in your own, and with our own 'just' standards fairly in place, we tend to build hills to die on and gather stones to throw. We would rather yell at others to fix their flaws than spend a moment looking at our own.

To come to the point, there seem to be what I will call "micro-cultures" within the American church (and I don't mean denominations). In one of those micro-cultures, homosexuality has become culturally accepted and is no longer seen as a sin, in contrast to the view of the opposite micro-culture. Each seeing the faults of the opposite culture more clearly, stones are gathered and fingers are pointed:

"You don't take the Bible seriously! How can you ignore the clear condemnations of homosexuality!"
"You are unloving and bigoted! How dare you condemn people that God loves?"

Perhaps both camps would do well to stop flinging accusations and instead take a moment to consider the accusations that have been flung at them. I would agree that homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible, but so is pride and self-righteousness. In the end, if our gospel doesn't offer hope, help, and ultimately salvation to the homosexuals, as well as to the rest of the prideful, angry, selfish, sinful people in our congregations and country, then we are failing in our mission.

Angels: Christianity vs. Judaism (part 1)

With the craziness of my life here over the last couple months there has been rather a dearth in blog postings. I propose to begin to remedy this lack with a little series on Angels and how they are seen in both Christianity and Judaism.

This last semester I took a class on Classical Rabbinic Thought and Literature, which was very helpful in trying to understand modern Judaism. Many Christians want to look at Modern Judaism, searching for the roots of Christianity. After all, Jesus was a Jew. While this sentiment may be admirable, it must be understood that modern Judaism is drastically different from what Jesus would have known. Christianity and Judaism may have started from the same roots, and similarities may still be visible in places, but they parted ways long ago.

For this class I had to write a term paper and I chose the topic of Angels in Classical Rabbinic Literature. What follows will be excerpts from that paper, comparing and contrasting common Christian beliefs about angels to what the Rabbis wrote about angels, starting in about 200AD. I think it gives a good glimpse of some interesting differences.

If you have questions about any of the terms used or the references, please feel free to ask. And now, without further ado, here is excerpt number one:

In spite of the dearth of information in the Mishna on the subject of Angels, Chazal had a number or things to say about them that can be found in others sources such as Genesis Rabbah, and the Talmud, as well as pseudepigraphal books such as Jubilees, Enoch, and various writings from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The English translation of the Tanakh itself contains over one hundred verses which specifically reference “angels” (Hebrew מלאך), in addition to places where other words may be used (such as “man” or “host”) but the context indicates that the reference is to angels. Rabbinic literature recognizes the presence of angels in scripture and then proceeds to expound upon their role, even in passages where their presence is not so readily apparent.
Angels in the Tanakh are seen as having basically two purposes: firstly they are messengers of the divine, and secondly they make up the court of heaven. (Fass, 281-282) In Rabbinic literature, angels often serve as a foil, both for man and God. They are often seen asking “unthinkable” questions or performing duties for God. They are also at times contrasted with humans.

Christianity and modern Judaism began to be developed around the same time, and thus they contain similar subjects, but often take diametrically opposed views on these topics. This can be seen in the study of angels. The book of Genesis is foundational to both faiths and contains many references to the supernatural in general and angels in specific. Christianity, with its belief that Jesus was God and its developing theology of the trinity, naturally looked to the Tanakh for earlier evidence and fastened on to Genesis 1:26 as one possible bit of support: “Let us make man in our image.” Both Judaism and Christianity want to emphasize the importance of every word recorded in scripture, and thus the plural pronoun cannot simply be glossed over without an attempt to explain and understand. Christianity argues that the pronoun is plural as God spoke to the other parts of the Godhead. Judaism has many alternate solutions, one of which involves angels: “R. Hanina [said] when He came to create Adam He took counsel with the ministering angels.” (Genesis Rabbah, VIII 4) The angels were conflicted in their opinion of the creation of man and debated among themselves. Within their debate more differences between Judaism and Christianity become apparent.

“Love and Truth fought together. Righteousness and Peace combated each other (Ps. 85:11): Love said, 'Let him be created, because he will dispense acts of love'; Truth said, 'Let him not be created, because he is compounded of falsehood'; Righteousness said, 'Let him be created, because he will perform righteous deeds; Peace said, 'Let him not be created, because he is full of strife.” (Gen. Rab., VIII 5)

The theology of modern Christianity at least, expresses a belief that when man created he was morally good, with no semblance of evil. Not until after Genesis 3 did he perpetrate falsehood and strife. This discussion among the angels, however, admits to no change in the nature of man. He has always been the same mixture of good and evil. Nevertheless, God, paying no attention to the debate, went ahead and created man.

Reflections on past thoughts

Though it's been a while since I've posted much of anything here, it's not from lack of thought. It may be from lack of coherent thought, but I'll try to lay some of my more recent thoughts in order here, for your viewing pleasure.

One thing I've been reflecting on is how much coming here has changed me. For example:

The other day I was reflecting on the time, 11 years ago this month, when I came to Jerusalem for the first time.

I remember visiting the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and one of the members of our group was yelled at by a priest because he supposed his picture had been taken. Looking back, that seems so bizarre. I have since been to the church, numerous times, with numerous people and numerous cameras and have never had any similar incidents. I think it must have been just a fluke - the priest there that day, who was probably also a tourist, was just extra sensitive about pictures or something. I remember that we as a group were a little freaked out about it, though, wondering if that was the norm, wanting not to do anything wrong.

We were so naive, both in our daringness and in our caution. Some of the things we avoided doing out of caution were just as crazy as some of the things we did out of ignorance. Of course, that was pre-intifada. Some things have changed in Jerusalem since then. Nevertheless, it amuses me to remember some of my thoughts from that time.

For another example, the other day I asked one of my friends who started in the master's program here at the same time I did, "Do you ever think about what an idiot you were?" Realizing quickly that it probably wasn't the most tactful question, I started to back-track and explain. Fortunately, he realized what I was getting at and a terrible misunderstanding was avoided. The thing is, looking back, I remember all sorts of little thoughts and expectation and ideas that I had about the world and Israel and even higher education, and slowly but surely, those ideas have been almost imperceptibly changed. Yet looking back, the change is dramatic. Ideas of what is safe and what isn't have been revised as experience has informed my knowledge. Experiences that were once new and strange have become part of daily life. Which is not to say that I feel utterly independent and capable of living here indefinitely, but I am closer.

In a similar way, it's interesting to talk to the semester students or other people who arrived here a relatively short time ago. I hear some of the thoughts that I used to think about Israel coming out of their mouth. I myself have only been here about a year, but that has been long enough to dramatically change the way I think, in some areas at least. I consider my past self rather naive, and I daresay that if I continue to stay here, my future self will think the same of my present self. So, every now and then, when I hear some of the semester students talking, I sort of shake my head and smile to myself and wonder at Dr. Wright's and Diane's great patience in putting up with the same stupid questions and actions semester after semester. I'm grateful for it, though.

I suppose this sort of process always happens when one goes to a foreign country. At first everything is new and exciting (or frightening), but after a year or two, things start to settle into a (hopefully) more proper perspective.

I wonder, though, if in some ways this process is more painfully obvious in the holy land. The people who come here are not generally of the sort who travel to learn about food and culture and see the scenery in a different land. That may be part of the package, but most tourists come here for a religious reason, a pilgrimage, more or less. I won't speak for Jews or Muslims or even orthodox Christians, but most Protestants seem to come feeling that they have a knowledge about and connection to the land, something like "This is the place where Jesus lived and I've studied Jesus all my life so I should know something about it." There is an impossibility of separating the land of Israel from the theology of the visitor. While this is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, it can often lead to erroneous views being passionately propounded. Rather than taking the time to sit and listen and learn about the land from the inhabitants (as I assume one would do in any other country one visited) people tend to take hard and fast stands, such as: "Israel has the right to exist and should push all the Palestinians out," or "Israel is an oppressive government and the Palestinians deserve their own country," or "No one in the Orthodox Church can possibly be actually saved," or "Of course Archaeology proves/disproves [you choose] the Bible!" for a few examples. Armed with these and other immutable ideas, evangelicals descend upon the "Holy Land" and wreak all sorts of havoc. It doesn't help that no matter what inflexible stance someone takes, there will be someone here with a stance that is diametrically opposed, possibly even in the same tour group.

To my shame, such opinions may have not differed so very much from my own not long ago. If nothing else, my time here has emphasized to me the importance of listening to all sides of a story before forming an opinion, and, even once some sort opinion has been formed, to be very careful, tactful, and reasonable in expressing it. I don't wish to imply that it is wrong to ever take a stand, but there are times when it is wiser to be slow to decide.

Love God with your Mind!

"Sadly, perhaps no group is more gullible to these sorts of claims than evangelical Christians." ~Todd Bolen

The unfortunate thing is he could be talking about a wide variety of claims. In this specific case he is talking about the claim a new movie makes that Noah's Ark has been found on a mountain in Iran, but the fact is that Christians are often far too willing to welcome any harebrained idea with open arms, so long as it appears to be at least mildly on "their side." Poor scholarship and a lack of discernment are rampant in the church today, and at times that seems especially true in the more conservative circles. Perhaps it is because there are so few truly conservative scholars doing work today that anything published that seems to support of conservative view is hailed as "proof that the Bible is true!", before the truth of its claims are fairly evaluated. I am, perhaps, being excessively harsh. I will not deny that there are some good, Christian scholars at work and it is possible that even some of the unscholarly "proofs" have some value in them. Nevertheless, we should be able to do better. Christians should be on the leading edge of scholarship in every field, instead of lagging behind, piggy-backing on the shoulders of people who have a different set of foundational beliefs.

This, roughly, is the topic of conversation that came up the other day as my family was talking. We came up with 3 specific areas of study where not only do we rather disagree with the general direction that "secular" scholars are taking the field, but where there is a lack of good, Bible-based scholars.

1. The study of origins (Creation vs. Evolution). This is my dad's passion, and I admit, I take more than a passing interest in it. The thing is, my dad really believes that the Bible contains the answers to the debate and that in ignoring that, both secular and (often) Christian scientists have taken a wrong turn. Unfortunately, Christian scholars often also have really bad science, making them unacceptable to both sides. With "better" (though really also far from perfect) science on the side of the evolutionists, many Christians have been enticed away from faith in the Bible and even faith in God. If only we had a few good scientists who also had good theology! (Some good rhetoric and logic skills wouldn't hurt either. I've seen too many decent scientists/theologians who lose on their presentations.)

2. Counseling and the interaction between soul, brain, and body. (Psychology and Psychiatry vs. Biblical or Nouthetic Counseling) This was brought up by my brother, but is also an area in which I am interested. The problem is that, in general, Psychology and Biblical Counseling are diametrically opposed. Secular Psychology assumes that people are basically good and the Bible says that people are basically sinful. With this very basic difference in understanding of the root of people's problems, obviously the proffered solutions will differ greatly. Psychology, as I understand it, claims to deal more with the immaterial part of a person (mind, soul, emotions, etc.) The Bible was written by the One who created the immaterial part of a person, so it seems likely that, when applied properly, it would have better answers than those made up by other fallible humans. Therefore, I think Biblical Counseling has an edge over modern Psychology. However, we are not merely immaterial beings - we have a physical part, and the two interact and are inseparable. There are times when something going on in the physical body affects the "psyche" or soul. Unfortunately, there are relatively few Biblical counselors (or even Psychologists) who know much of anything about medicine or the brain. Psychiatrists try to fill this need, but there are very few Psychiatrists with a high view of scripture. I dare say there may be some, but I've never heard of any. Think of the connections that could be made and problems that could be solved by a Biblical Counselor who also happened to be a Neuropsychiatrist. Perhaps instead of recklessly trusting drugs that we don't understand to change behavior they could actually get to the root of any physical causes while still counseling godliness for any spiritual causes.

3. Archaeology (especially as it relates to the Bible). This has been my area of consideration for the past semester, and I have probably already written about it. Oh well, at the risk of repeating myself, I'll talk about it anyway. I admit it. I've been brought up to believe the Bible. So imagine my surprise when I realized that almost no one at my school (teacher-wise, at least) believed anything in the Bible. Ok, actually, I wasn't that surprised, and it wasn't quite that bad. Many of the teachers believe parts. What did surprise me, though, was the fact that some of the harshest critics of the historicity of the Bible are theologians. I was also surprised to find that the most conservative scholars in the field didn't even take the Bible seriously. Some of the conclusions they draw, while seeming to support the Bible, in my view actually rather undermine it. Let me try to give an example to explain. The Bible says that Abraham left Haran and went into Canaan (see Genesis 12). Scholars, perhaps because they don't believe the Bible to be anything more than a rough historical remembrance of events long ago, say, "Hmm...let's look for a time when people were migrating from Mesopotamia to Canaan to try to fix the time of the Patriarchs." And if they find such a time, they say, "See, the Bible is true, in that it faithfully preserved a memory of the past. Abraham himself probably didn't exist, but people like him did!" On the other hand, I, believing Abraham to be a real person, would say, "Wouldn't Abraham's migration be rather unique at the time he left? Otherwise, why would God have to give him special instructions? And if He did, why would it take any special faith on Abraham's part to follow them? If everyone else was doing it, what was the big deal? Wouldn't it seem more likely that this movement of Abraham was very unusual at this time?" I could be wrong, but looking at the Bible, I often find that I would make fundamentally different assumptions than those that most scholars make.) At any rate, the more I learn about archaeology, the more questions I have. What is presented in class really doesn't fit with what the Bible says, which brings many questions to my mind. Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many people in the field asking those same questions. There is such a need for conservative Christians in archaeology!

I'll add a couple disclaimers here. :)
1. I by no means want to set up scientific knowledge as a sort of "savior." I do think, though, that as Christians we should pursue knowledge, both scientific and other, to the glory of God, for the furtherance of the kingdom, and to help us better understand Him. As Christians who know and worship the God of truth, I also think we are best equipped to find more truth, if we apply ourselves rightly.

2. Obviously, I believe the Bible is true, and I take a fairly literal, conservative interpretation of it. This point of view is generally scorned by researchers and scientists in the above fields. Leaving aside the question of whether or not this is the correct view of scripture, I think that science is done a great diservice by people automatically rejecting anything from this view point. If nothing else, it offers a different set of base assumptions and therefore asks different questions than pretty much everyone else in the field. I would contend that if science is to progress and stay healthy, it needs to be able to answer these questions too.

And the conclusion? I still have more questions than answers, and still have only one lifetime to try to figure things out. So, if anyone reading this has interests in any of these areas (or other areas - we need Christians everywhere!) maybe let this challenge you to pursue excellence in your field, to be uniquely Biblical in your viewpoint, and to share your findings with the world.

Matthew

This semester I've been taking a class on the book of Matthew, specifically stressing its Jewish setting. After all, it was written by a Jew to other Jew, whereas we (the church) are mostly a bunch of gentiles 2000 years removed from the story. We have much to learn. I will admit, though, that there have been times when I've been rather disappointed with the class. While the professor (a Messianic Jew) does have a fairly high view of scripture, but I still find myself differing with him (and the articles we read), mostly in that area. For example, I really don't like the idea that Matthew basically copied Mark and manipulated the stories and words of Jesus to counteract rabbinical Judaism. I would much rather think that Matthew actually remembered the stories and words of Jesus himself, and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, composed a book that would demonstrate Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Perhaps the two aren't mutually exclusive. I am trying to keep an open mind to some extent. I certainly don't know everything.

At any rate, though I have been frustrated at times, there have also been times when I have greatly enjoyed the class and/or its given me much to think about.

Monday was one of those days. For starters, I got to give about a five minute presentation on Matthew 18. I admit it. I miss teaching. So that was fun. Also, since the rest of the class was on chapters 17-19, it helped that I had already spent some extra time in them already, preparing for my presentation. What made it really enjoyable, though, was the time after class I spent talking to the teacher and a few other students.

On of the major questions of the class has been, "Did Jesus abrogate the law?" The contention of my professor and of most of the articles we've read is that He did not. He came "not to destroy the law but to fulfill it." This would mean that Jews, even Jewish believers, are still under the law. The interesting thing is that they do not expand this to Gentile believers. Most of the messianic believers I've known in the States tend to say that EVERYONE should be following the law. To the contrary, my teacher here thinks that gentiles should NOT follow the law, referencing 1 Corinthians 7:17ff. To him and his fellow messianic believers, though, the thought that the Jewish messiah would abolish the law of God is shocking. One place we considered in class was Matthew 15:1-20. In the first part Jesus condemns the Pharisees for making the law of no account by their tradition. If He then continues on and discounts the food laws (verse 17 and Mark 7:18-19), then that seems a bit hypocritical.

I have a number of thoughts and questions about pretty much everything I'm learning here, including this, but as of yet most of them are too incoherent to try to enumerate in any kind of logical fashion. Plus, right now, I'm to tired -- it's nearly bed time. So I'll close off this section with one thought. If the prophecies in the last few chapters Ezekiel refer to the "end times" (second coming of the Messiah) and not just to the return from captivity, then it seems that in the "millennial kingdom" the sacrificial system will be reinstated. Of course, this brings up a whole other bucket of worms (eschatology, replacement theology, etc...strange how related everything is!). At any rate, IF my teacher is correct and IF Ezekiel is referring to the millennial kingdom, well, that seems to fit together a little better in my mind. I've been taught that sacrifices are no longer needed because Christ was the perfect sacrifice (and therefore Jews shouldn't still be sacrificing). I've also been taught that Ezekiel is talking about a time when Christ will be reigning on earth. Those two things seem contradictory. Of course, this is all an over-simplification, and at this point I don't claim to know enough about any view to be able to argue convincingly for it. Perhaps someday I'll have time to do enough research to decide, but for now, I just think it's interesting to think about. :)

...and now for my post blog news...
We had vespers tonight. It was a Jewish man and an Arab man, both of whom have lost a family member in this conflict, who are part of an organization trying to reconcile Jews and Palestinians. Check out http://www.theparentscircle.org/ for more information.

I'm headed off to Galilee this weekend for a 4-day trip. I'm pretty excited. Galilee is an amazing place. So, expect to see reports and pictures at some point when I get back.

And now I should head to bed -- I have a 8am, 3-hour-long-no-break archaeology class tomorrow, so I should get some sleep. :)

Jerusalem Approaches

This is a combination of two impression reports. We did the first part of this field study last Saturday. Unfortunately, it was interrupted half-way through, but we finished it up yesterday afternoon, so here are my impressions from those days.

September 13, 2008
Jerusalem Approaches Field Study

Today was an interesting day in more ways than one.

We started on the Mount of Olives overlooking Jerusalem. We noticed that even though Jerusalem is surrounded by mountains, the mountains are closer on the east and west. The northern direction was probably the most open and therefore where attackers generally approached from.

We then crested and went a tiny ways down the other side of the Mount of Olives where we could look into the Judean wilderness. The contrast was stark. The trees and greenery end abruptly. The rock changed quickly from Cenomanian to Senonian limestone. Jerusalem and all places directly east are on the Dead Sea side of the watershed ridge, but Jerusalem is protected by the Mount of Olives. We talked briefly about how the prophet Jeremiah used the imagery of the dessert encroaching to warn the Judeans about approaching judgment.

From there we drove along the top of the Mount of Olives for a short way and stopped again to overlook Jerusalem. We walked down the mount, stopping at various tradition sights. The fist place was stopped is supposed to be the place where Jesus wept over Jerusalem.

Matthew 23:37-39
“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house is left to you desolate; for I say to you, you shall see Me no more till you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the LORD!’”

I’ve always like those verses. They show the love that Jesus had for His people. And there have been times when I have felt similarly, when people I love have shown no interest in Christ. I’m sure that even then my emotion was nothing compared to His. Lord, come soon!

From there we went to the Church of All Nations, one of the traditional sites of the garden of Gethsemane. I suppose these churches are built to memorialize and help us remember these important events in the life of our Savior. I have to admit, though, that it is hard for me to spend time really thinking about exactly what he went through nearly 2000 years ago, possibly at the very spot we were at. We spend so little time at most of the places we go, and there are so many people, that I don’t really spend time thinking about what Jesus went through. Perhaps I’ll need to go back someday (with any luck, when its not as busy) and spend some time meditating on these things.

From there we walked to the bus, passing some monuments/tombs that were probably around in Jesus’ day. It was interesting that the monuments are called “nephesh.” It seems to speak of the eternal human desire for death not to be the end, for there to be something more beyond this life.

Once on the bus we headed into the west bank on our way to the Herodian. Unfortunately, we never made it there.


Saturday, September 20, 2008
Jerusalem Approaches (Part 2)

This week’s field study was a vast improvement over last week’s, or at least the ending of last week’s.

We started the day at the Herodian. We were blessed by a clear sky – much clearer than last week – which enabled us to have a great view of all the surrounding area. It kind of amazes me how close everything is. In Montana we have to drive for hours to get to the next city. You can also drive for hours without having any drastic changes in scenery. It can change fairly quickly at times, but it’s pretty uniform in other places, especially eastern Montana. Here, however, you have four (plus) important Biblical sites (with their four modern day cities) all within walking distance. It especially struck me how close Jerusalem and Bethlehem are. Also here, looking off of the Herodian, you can clearly see the boundary between farmable land with the Cenomanian limestone and terra rosa soil and the wilderness of Senonian limestone and basically no soil. So much history took place in this tiny area that I can see from the top of a relatively short man-made hill, it’s almost too much for a li’l Montana girl to take!

Herod himself was an interesting man and the structure of the Herodian tells us quite a bit about him, as does his newly discovered tomb site (probably). I don’t have much to say on the subject at the moment, but it is something to ponder.

From the top we could see Tekoa (Amos’s home town), Bethlehem, numerous other towns and villages, Jerusalem (or at least the Mount of Olives), the Judean Wilderness, the Dead Sea, and even into the Trans-Jordan highlands. We looked over the area where David must have watched his father’s flock and read Psalm 23. Shepherding in that country is very different from Europe or America. I’m sure that all areas have their dangers and inconveniences, but in the Judean wilderness, “green pastures” and “still waters” are basically unknown. I’m not quite sure what (if any) difference that should make in my interpretation of the psalm, but it does give an interesting insight into David’s life and faith.

After exploring the Herodian and taking the requisite pictures of people on pillars, we went on to Bethlehem and the church of the nativity. I don’t think I’m a huge respecter of “place.” If that’s the actual exact location where Jesus was born, that’s kind of cool, but I don’t think I have the same awe and reverence that some people seem to have. Nonetheless, it’s kind of interesting to see. It’s interesting to see how (and what) people worship. I also enjoyed taking pictures – there are a lot of old and beautiful things. We didn’t have much time there, which is ok, but it would be kind of nice to go back sometime and observe people a little more and maybe have some time to stop and think instead of rushing through, taking pictures of every interesting thing I see as quickly as possible.

Our last stop of the day was at Ramat Rachel where they are excavating the remains of a Judean palace, possibly build by Hezekiah. It was a beautiful area. One of the most interesting things were the cut stones that were thought to be capitols, possibly the forerunners of Ionian capitols. That, mentioned in conjunction with the concept of the alphabet (developed here and also exported to Greece and the rest of the world), made another idea that’s been in the back of my brain come more to the front. Exactly how much did the Jewish nation contribute to world history? They are considered a “mouse” rather than a “cat” and yet so much of our Judeo-Christian culture has stemmed from here. A. W. Tozer once said, “What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us. The history of mankind will probably show that no people has ever risen above its religion, and man’s spiritual history will positively demonstrate that no religion has ever been greater than its idea of God.” Now, the Israelites did not always have a high view of God, but at least some of them did at sometimes, which is more than can be said of the cultures around them. Did this help them make advances in some that other nations could not have made? Advances that were then borrowed by other cultures? I have heard different theories propounded on this issue. Another thing to ponder in my spare time.

The way of the world...

Tonight, while I was packing and sorting, my parents were watching the Olympics (at least on and off). The last time I passed through that room they told me that the Jamaican relay team had just set a new world record. This, of course, started me thinking...

I find it rather amazing that new records of that sort are being set. Have humans changed? Are we as a race (no pun intended) getting faster? Or are we just getting better at finding the fastest? Or perhaps improving training techniques to get the most out of our fastest?

I don't know that there's any evidence for any of those options. Perhaps there is, but barring that evidence, I think the way people would answer that dilemma is based on how they would answer the following question: "Is the world getting better or worse?"

Most evolutionists, of course, would probably say that the world is getting better. At least they hope it is, for their world-view to be true. If survival of the fittest is true, then one would expect humans to be becoming slowly more "fit" (on average) over time. Since speed is likely part of being "fit", it would makes sense that humans are also becoming faster with time, thus accounting for more world records.

I suppose, though that there might be some evolutionists who would disagree. Perhaps they would say that humans are destroying the world, becoming more unfit, and will eventually become extinct. Thus they would supply a different answer for the new world records.

Also in the area of "science" (if I am including theories of origin in science, which is iffy at best) there is the evidence of genetics. Mutations in humans seem to be happening at an increasing rate, and most (if not all) of these mutations are actually harmful. Which would seem to be evidence on the side of the world getting worse.

Then, of course, there are all the natural disasters: volcanoes, floods, storms, earthquakes, even global warming. Are these really getting worse, and if so, does that mean the world in general is getting worse?

To a Christian (whatever he or she might believe about the origin of the world) this question has some pretty big theological implications involving eschatology and the "end of the world."

Most of the Christians I know look around and shake their heads and say things like, "How the world has decayed in the last few years. When I was younger things were so much better. People were moral....etc." Since I wasn't alive that long ago, I can't really say if they are right or now. Perhaps things were better then. That doesn't necessarily mean that things have continually gotten worse. What about the world at the time of Noah? So wicked that God had to destroy it. Or the tower of Babel where God confused their languages. What about some of the world empires? Syria, Rome, etc. There are many times of great evil in the world. Are we staying the same (on average) or spiraling up or down? I think many would say we are spiraling down, and they use this downward spiral to predict that Christ will soon return.

Other Christians I know say that it is our job as followers of God to help the world become better (as a whole). They may not think that the world is improving, but that it should be if Christians were doing their job. They might say that there is a lot of work to be done before the world will be ready for Christ's return.

I find the different views very interesting, though I think there are things I would disagree with from all sides. At any rate, whether the spiral is upward, downward, or just staying the same, whether athletes are getting faster or not, I figure my job is about the same: glorify God and make disciples. Lord help me do that!

Miracles

,Miracles, I suppose, are really a rather controversial subject. Certainly numerous things have been written on them -- skeptics trying to explain away recorded Biblical miracles, spiritualist trying to prove the existence of various random miracles, and everything in between.

I was thinking about miracles today, mostly because of a vague memory of Israel. I remember riding past a village or something and our tour guide explaining that this particular people group believed that the messiah would be born suddenly of a man. Now that's an odd miracle. And I was thinking that such a miracle does not seem like something the God of the Bible would do. Which made me wonder: are there some miracles that really are in some sense impossible? I don't want to put limits on God's power, but on the other hand, His nature does limit what He can and cannot do (He can't sin, etc.) It rather seems to me that having the messiah born suddenly of a man would kind of go against God's nature. Let me explain my reasoning.

I am admittedly a geek, but because of my scientific background, I do think of God as the Great Scientist. Not only that, of course, but he did create the world and holds it together. There's nothing we've discovered in science that He did not first invent and create. He made rules and put limits on the world, which are good and save us from chaos. I think He follows His own rules. Even in miracles. I don't mean to make miracles sound less miraculous because they aren't. Even if we knew all the rules by which the universe operates (which we don't) there would be no way we could apply them to make these miracles happen ourselves.

Let's take the virgin birth, for example. Mary had all the parts necessary for life in her body. For God to tweak one of her eggs just a little to turn it into a sperm, for example, would be all that was required. I don't know that we could do that today, but we definitely could see how it theoretically could be done. From then on naturally processes would be followed. This is drastically different from what would be required in the messianic birth referred to before. To have a man give birth at all goes against nature. For it to be sudden would require basically an act of creation ex nihilo by God. I don't think that's how God works (in fact, I know that's not how He worked in the birth of the messiah). Thus, I would call it an "impossible" miracle.

I'd go on with a few other examples, but I need to go to bed. Let me know if y'all have any thoughts. :)

Eternity in their hearts

Happy May Day and Rabbits and all that jazz. :)

I started (re)reading Eternity in Their Hearts by Don Richardson the other day. It's really interesting, if possibly questionable in its theology and reasoning at times. For those who haven't read it, he basically presents the idea (with supporting data from various people groups) that a large proportion of the peoples in the world believe in a creator-god from whom they've been separated. There are all sorts of stories and traditions in these various tribes which relate closely to the truth we know in scripture. It makes one wonder...

He seems to imply that all these stories and traditions come from general revelation. This is probably true for some, but others....I'm not so sure. For example:

1. He lists a lot of tribes who believed that the creator-god had written down his law on something, but through their own negligence they lost it. Most of them believed that this lost book would be restored to them by a white man someday. I dare say this much is true. My question is, if they had no contact with anyone Jewish or Christian since (presumably) the tower of Babel, how would they even know of the existence of such a book? The Bible (except maybe Job?) wasn't written until much later. It makes me wonder if perhaps they had some sort of contact with Jewish people during the Old Testament period? It's possible for God to have planted the idea of the existence of such a book without even their ancestors having seen it, but I don't really see how the belief in the existence of this book follows directly from general revelation without either knowledge of an actual book or God's intervention.

2. One tribe had a tradition where once a year they would take two chickens. They would kill one and sprinkle its blood along a river bank. The other they would tie at one end of a small boat with a lantern on the other end. Then all the members of the tribe would take turns laying their "sin" on the boat. They would then release the boat and hope that it made it down stream and far away from them without getting stuck or capsizing. This is very reminiscent of the Jewish practice of having a scape goat every year on Yom Kippur. How would they think of instituting such a practice unless they had somehow become familiar with the Jewish practice? Again, it's possible, but I have a hard time believe that its probable.

At any rate, do we really know how far Judaism or even Christianity spread? During the Babylonian captivity, for example, we know that empire spread over a large region, and we know that Daniel was a high official. Who knows how far his influence extended? Maybe an echo of the truth even reaches these distant tribes.

Well, it is food for thought. And, where ever these stories and traditions come from, they certainly can make it much easier for missionaries to share the truth.

He also mentions an Inca ruler who is given credit for writing hymns to this creator-god. I was curious and tried to find these hymns online. Here's one I found:

Oh Creator, root of all,
Wiracocha, end of all,
Lord in shining garments
who infuses life and sets all things in order,
saying, "Let there be man! Let there be woman!"
Molder, maker,
to all things you have given life:
watch over them,
keep them living prosperously, fortunately
in safety and peace.
Where are you?
Outside? Inside?
Above this world in the clouds?
Below this world in the shades?
Hear me!
Answer me!
Take my words to your heart!
For ages without end
let me live,
grasp me in your arms,
hold me in your hands,
receive this offering
wherever you are, my Lord,
my Wiracocha.

Post-modernism

This past week I have heard no less than five presentations on something relating to post-modernism (relativism, pluralism, etc.). Four of them were, of course, senior thesis presentations. The odd thing was that the fifth one (presented by Gale Heidi) was actually part of a Creation conference this last weekend. It's just kind of weird how things like that happen. It helps my thoughts fit together a bit more. (Disclaimer: This is not at all my field of expertise, so please forgive my stumbling as I attempt to explain my thoughts.)

Gale's presentation was basically on post-modernism, how it followed logically from modernism, and how both philosophies affect the way Christians defend the faith (especially as it relates to creation). He talked about the beginning of modernism with Descartes. The two pillars of modernism as presented by Gale (if I remember correctly) are the autonomy of the individual and reason. He then went through and briefly demonstrated how, even though post-modernism seems like the antithesis of modernism, in another way, it's really the logical conclusion of it. If we are all autonomous, we can all individually use our reason to decide what is right for us individually, and it's okay if our reason leads us to a different conclusion that someone else...it's all relative.

The really ironic thing is that as Christians, we often tend to fight post-modernism relativism with modernistic reason. If modernism leads logically to post-modernism, then that's like trying to fight a fire by tossing gasoline on it. This is not to say that reason itself is wrong or useless. By itself, though, it's not enough.

As Gale was talking about this, I began to realize how much of a modernist I am in much of my thinking and that it's not really the Biblical way to go. Reason is not bad, but as Christians, our basis of knowledge cannot be reason. Human reason is too shaky of a foundation to build upon. The only thing strong enough to build upon is the revealed Word of God. We can even undermine that foundation by trying to prove how "reasonable" it is. We cannot trust the word of God simply because our reason tells us to. If we do that, we will find ourselves on the path back to post-modernism.

As I was trying to digest these ideas, my mind went back to the senior thesis presentations. While the seniors all argued well and logically, at the time I remember being vaguely disappointed that none of them spent much time talking about the Bible and how it applied to their arguments. (I don't know the specific assignment, so perhaps they were required to defend their point of view without the Bible. However, for the sake of this discussing, I'll assume that use of the Bible was allowed.) They all applied the reasoning of modernism to the fallacious arguments of the post-modernist points of view they were debating. Again, I don't think this is necessarily wrong. However, I still don't think it's enough.

I was really rather disturbed by the fact that when questioned, none of the seniors really took us back to the Bible or to the character of God as revealed in the Bible. For example, the question of 'which morality is the correct one' came up a couple times. One culture does this, another culture does that. How do we know which to accept as a standard of morality? I don't think anyone gave the obvious answer: "We look at the Bible!" Perhaps that answer is seen as too simplistic, and it certainly does not automatically eliminate every disagreement between cultures. However, I think that if we correctly apply it in all areas, it will help us settle those disagreements. We are to be people of the Book. Too often we are content to take the precious treasure that God has given us in the Bible and trade it for the costume jewelry of reason.

One last note. I know that some of my students read this blog at times, and I hope that you will not be offended by this. My intention is not at all to tear you down, though I wouldn't mind urging you to make God's word more central in your life. :)

Taking responsibility

Ok, here's the situation. Let's say that you have some sort of job. I'll take an elementary example: your job is to count how many of your classmates want milk each day. You take your job very seriously because you don't want someone who wanted milk to have to go without, and you don't want to order milk you don't need and have it go to waste. One day, you are the last to get into your classroom in the morning. You aren't late, but you were just a little slower than normal. You come in, only to find that your friend Hephzibah has already taken the milk count and given it to the teacher in your name. Now you have a dilemma:

1. For one thing, you know that Hephzibah is an intelligent and responsible girl, and she probably got the milk count right. However, you know if she didn't, the teacher will still hold you responsible. Should you
• Re-take the count yourself and risk offending Hephzibah or
• Let it be and risk taking the blame if she messed up?
2. Another thought running through your mind is the issue of authority. In some sense, it seems like Hephzibah usurped your authority by taking over your job without even asking. In another sense, she has usurped the teachers authority. The teacher choose you to take the milk count, not Hephzibah, and by taking the milk count herself, Hephzibah is not following the order of leadership ordained by the teacher.
3. You also really want to be responsible and not slack on your given job. If you give this job over to Hephzibah (she continues to do it before you have the chance), are you failing to obey the authority that has given this job to you?

I realize, of course, that these are not likely to be the actual thoughts of an elementary student who's job is to take the milk count. I will admit, though, that there have been several times when I have had thoughts similar to these. I also wonder, though I've never been married, if these thought sometimes are echoed in the struggle for power between a husband and wife. It seems there are often marriages where the wife has reached for the authority which God ordained to be the husband's, and the husband chooses just to give it up without a fuss. Clearly, that is not right. I think the situations I am in are generally less clear cut, however. The authority granted to me in various jobs and situations is certainly not specifically laid out in the Bible.

This is something that I've been trying to figure out for sometime. The problem is, if you try to maintain the authority that you think you've been given, huge conflict can occur. In the example above, if you tell Hephzibah that she needs to stop taking the milk count because its the job the teacher gave you, she may well refuse to believe you. She could say things like, "Do you think you are the only person here who is smart enough to take the milk count?" or "You don't have the right to tell me what to do (or not do)." or "The teacher never really gave you that job." Or, if you tell her that you are going to be held responsible for her mistakes she may refuse to believe you. What then? How can you resolve this conflict AND do the job that you are supposed to do?

Add to this the complication that maybe you ARE mistaken in the teacher's wishes. She told you at the beginning of the year that she wanted you to take the milk count, but it's not in writing. Maybe she changed her mind. Maybe Hephzibah really is better at it any way. Or, to change the situation a little, maybe you are class president, and it is traditional for the class president to take up the milk count. However, the teacher just asked Hephzibah to take the milk count. A job that you think should have been yours was assigned else where. What now?

This blog is getting longer and more convoluted than I intended. I think my question comes down to this. When I struggle with things like this in real life, what sin do I need to watch out for? When I try to be responsible, am I doing it out of pride? Maybe there is something I should be more concerned about than the responsibility? When someone takes a job or responsibility that I think should be mine, whether "fairly" or "unfairly" what should be my response? Is there a way I should pursue getting that job back, or should I just let it go? Or does it vary? Pursuing the job will likely result in conflict, which most often is caused by (or leads to) sin. How can I personally avoid sinning here? I know I can always work on my attitude, but assuming I'm right there, is there a way I can lovingly tell someone to allow me to do my job?

Hopefully this makes some sense to anyone who might read this. And, if anyone who reads this has any brilliant ideas on how to react to these sorts of situations in a godly way, I would welcome the thoughts. :)

The Moon

I've always thought the the moon is an amazing analogy for the Christian life. When I was in eighth grade I even wrote a sort of poem to that effect. The moon by itself is a cold, dark thing. Yet, when it is fulfilling the purpose for which it was created (Genesis 1:15-16) it reflects the glory of the sun and gives light to the earth.

Likewise, when apart from God we are hopeless, helpless, condemned, slaves to sin, lost in darkness. Yet, out of His infinite grace and mercy He chooses to save us. Not only that, but then he chooses to use us: we have the job of reflecting the glory of the Son to a dark and sinful world.

However, sometimes in the life of the moon an event happens which decreases its effectiveness as a light-giver. Such an event happened last night: a lunar eclipse. During this event, the earth comes between the sun and the moon and casts its shadow over the moon.


You can, of course, still tell the difference between the moon and the rest of the night sky -- it doesn't get that dark. Nonetheless, its effectiveness is diminished.


The same thing can happen with Christians: we become enamored with the world. We let it come between ourselves and God. We find that the glory we are trying to reflect is sullied. Our witness is greatly lessened.




Fortunately for the moon, this shadowing only lasts a couple hours. Very shortly it is uncovered again and clearly reflecting all the sun's rays.


We followers of Christ, though, how long do we allow our lights to be overshadowed by our love of the world? Especially here in America where there are so many things to be distracted by, where materialism is rampant and sin is so often made to look so attractive. When will we again truly reflect the glory of the Son to a dying world?

And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. 2 Cor. 3:18

Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not of the Father but is of the world. And the world is passing away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides forever. 1 John 2:15-17

Newton quotes

I've been reading the book Mathematics: Is God Silent by James Nickel lately, and he had a couple great quotes from Newton, so I thought I'd share those.

" The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect; but a being, however perfect, without dominion, cannot be said to be Lord God... And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being; and, from his other perfections, that he is supreme, or most perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, his duration reaches from eternity to eternity; his presence from infinity to infinity; he governs all things, and knows all things that are or can be doe.... We know him only by his most wise and excellent contrivances of things, and final causes; we admire him for his perfections; but we reverence and adore him on account of his dominion: for we adore him as his servants; and a god without dominion, providence, and final causes, is nothing else but Fate and Nature.... And thus much concerning God; to discourse of whom from the appearances of things does certainly belong to Natural Philosophy."

"...The main busisness of natural Philosophy is to argue from phaenomena without feigning Hypotheses, and to deduce Causes from Effects, till we come to the very first Cause, which certainly is not mechanical.... What is there in places almost empty of Matter, and whence is it that the Sun and Planets gravitate towards one another, without dense Matter between them? Whence is it that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that Order and Beauty which we see in the World? To what end are the Comets, and whence is it that Planets move all one and the same way in Orbs concentrick, while Commets move all manner of ways in Orbs very excentrick; and what hinders the fix'd Stars from falling upon one another? How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art, and for what ends were their several Parts? Was the Eye contrived without Skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?.... And these things being rightly dispatch'd, does it not appear from Phaenomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent, omnipresent, who in infinite Space, as it were in his Sensory, sees the things themselves intimately, and thoroughly perceives them, and comprehends them wholly by their immediate presence to himself... And though every true Step made in this Philosophy brings us not immediately to the Knowledge of the first Cause, yet it brings us nearer to it, and on that account is to be highly valued."


...and that's why we study science.