Minor Thoughts from me to you

No. Numbers 23:19 reads: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" There.

But LORD knows, He (!) is referred to as such in the Bible - every reference to Him is in the masculine tense (at least in the Hebrew and Greek; some languages don't have a gender-specific third-person pronoun), and there's no escaping that there has to be a reason for this.

If you're a liberal critic of Scripture, that reason is obvious: a culture of patriarchal tyranny. Men principally wrote the Bible, hence the Good Book is skewed in their favor. Of course if the Bible is so corrupted by masculine intent, its message is logically irredeemably compromised; say that men skewed it and you can say Christians skewed it; say men skewed it and you can say Jews skewed it. The authority of the Word ceases to have any meaning.

No matter how conservative any other critic, though, saying God is literally a man is a non-starter, since physically-speaking He repeatedly proves Himself to be nothing of the sort; for crying out loud, He's a bush at one point.

So God, whatever you choose to make of Him (!), cannot have chosen to be referred to in the masculine because that's an accurate description of His totality; therefore He must have chosen masculine expression because He wishes to be related to as a masculine creature, i.e. as a Father and King, rather than as Mother and Queen. Which makes sense, since we've already had explained to us by Paul that the marital model (and indeed, the life model) is meant to resemble God's relationship with His church. Why on Earth would God be identified with the church in that equation instead of the Christ? It would screw up the symbolism completely.

To summarize, perhaps God did not make men like they are because He is a he, but chose to be known as a he because He made men and women like they are. Perhaps God is called a "He" because He wants us to understand where He directly fits in the symbolism of life (and He designed it right, didn't He? Consider that women adore their fathers and are "Daddy's girls", while men attempt to be like their father. To be a "Momma's Boy" is understood to be unnatural and stunting).

In which case, all this cawing is basically the equivalent of a row about who gets to play the main character in a staged play. Sometimes the actors who play the main character get puffed with too much pride, and sometimes the rest of the actors allow themselves to be touchy and/or bitter; both foolishly judge how important they are to the director by where the director has placed them.

The fairly evident comeback to all this is: "What about all the feminine roles that God plays? How He nurtures us? How we are fed by Him?" Indeed, Jesus at one point compares himself to a hen who wants to take all her chicklets under her wing. My reply is simply that no symbol is all-encompassing ("Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." "What if the chocolates get smashed? How's that like Life? Or what if they melt? What if...?" "Um, lighten up.").

And there's really no more reply that can be made, I think, come that point. Just as there is no Jew or Greek in the Christ, there is no man or woman. Of course we're of equal value.

I'm discussing this today, incidentally, because apparently the number of females on this planet who believe I don't respect the young lady in my life at all has apparently grown to include my best friend, who believes I am a total misogynist [she actually writes 'masochist' in the letter by accident, ironically probably a more accurate description] based on comments I made over Christmas Break. My comment was that I believe God is a man - not that I believe that literally, but I went ahead and deadpanned it. Also I joked to her that talking to my suitee's father would have been a lot easier in the old days: "I have land and cattle. What do you want for her?" (and as a minor aside, a Kenyan City Councilman recently tried this very tactic on our own President Clinton, only to be disappointed; he offered forty goats and twenty cows in exchange for Chelsea's hand.)

These comments were not, to say the least, taken well.

Which leads us to another Minor Thoughts lesson for today: watch your mouth, because not everybody has your sense of humor.

In other news, the world's first caffeinated soap has now hit the market. It's called Shower Shock, and it retails for $5.95. Thank you.

I think the Bible is packed with humor. I also think that the humor isn't always obvious. I was reading in Luke last night and read something that made me laugh. Because I paid for this mic, I'm going to share it with you.

First, the background. The story revolves around the Jewish temple and the Jewish religious calendar. The Jewish Virtual Library has an article on the temple, giving the relevant background:

As glorious and elaborate as the Temple was, its most important room contained almost no furniture at all. Known as the Holy of Holies (Kodesh Kodashim), it housed the two tablets of the Ten Commandments. Unfortunately, the tablets disappeared when the Babylonians destroyed the Temple, and during the Second Temple era, the Holy of Holies was a small, entirely bare room. Only once a year, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest would enter this room and pray to God on Israel's behalf. A remarkable monologue by a Hasidic rabbi in the Yiddish play The Dybbuk conveys a sense of what the Jewish throngs worshiping at the Temple must have experienced during this ceremony:

God's world is great and holy. The holiest land in the world is the land of Israel. In the land of Israel the holiest city is Jerusalem. In Jerusalem the holiest place was the Temple, and in the Temple the holiest spot was the Holy of Holies.... There are seventy peoples in the world. The holiest among these is the people of Israel. The holiest of the people of Israel is the tribe of Levi. In the tribe of Levi the holiest are the priests. Among the priests, the holiest was the High Priest.... There are 354 days in the [lunar] year. Among these, the holidays are holy. Higher than these is the holiness of the Sabbath. Among Sabbaths, the holiest is the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath of Sabbaths.... There are seventy languages in the world. The holiest is Hebrew. Holier than all else in this language is the holy Torah, and in the Torah the holiest part is the Ten Commandments. In the Ten Commandments the holiest of all words is the name of God.... And once during the year, at a certain hour, these four supreme sanctities of the world were joined with one another. That was on the Day of Atonement, when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and there utter the name of God. And because this hour was beyond measure holy and awesome, it was the time of utmost peril not only for the High Priest but for the whole of Israel. For if in this hour there had, God forbid, entered the mind of the High Priest a false or sinful thought, the entire world would have been destroyed.

Got it? This is serious business indeed. A priest by the name of Zechariah steps into this holy event. He and his wife were an old married couple. They'd been childless for so long that they'd given up on having children. Here's the story

Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. But the angel said to him: "Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John. He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth, for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. ..."

Wow. Huge moment here. The entire nation waits with baited breath while Zechariah talks to God on their behalf. Zechariah has probably spent his entire life telling himself "Don't screw up, don't screw up, don't screw up" -- just over the matter of praying. Now he walks into this mostly empty room and an angel's standing there. Surely a miraculous occurrence! How does Zechariah respond?

Zechariah asked the angel, "How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years."

Hah! His first response is "Dude, are you for real?" It's the angel's response that really made me laugh though.

The angel said to him, "I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. ..."

Translation: "Hi. I'm an angel. Not just any angel. I'm Gabriel. I stand before the throne in YHWH's presence. You're here on the biggest day of your life, the biggest day of the religious calendar -- and you're asking me whether or not you can trust me?"

That just made me laugh. Not so much at Zechariah as at human nature. We're not good at handling surprise and trusting God. Had I been in the Holy of Holies that day, I'm sure I would have reacted just as Zechariah did.

I think the punishment definitely fits the crime:

"And now you will be silent and not able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words, which will come true at their appointed time."

"You know what -- if you can't say anything intelligent, just don't talk at all. It's safer that way."

So true.

I was given a copy of Pastor John Piper's book -- The Purifying Power of Living by Faith in Future Grace -- for my birthday. Pastor Piper wrote the back as a series of short chapters, intended to be read one a day. I've been attempting to do so.

Over the next couple of weeks, I'd like to blog about my thoughts as I read through the book.

Chapter One -- The Debtor's Ethic: Should We Try to Pay God Back?

In this chapter, Pastor Piper addresses the popular idea that we should obey God out of gratitude for our salvation. Piper calls this the debtor's ethic:

The debtor's ethic says, "Because you have done something good for me, I feel indebted to do something good for you." This impulse is not what gratitude was designed to produce. God meant gratitude to be a spontaneous expression of pleasure in the gift and the good will of another. He did not mean it to be an impulse to return favors. If gratitude is twisted into a sense of debt, it gives birth to the debtor's ethic -- and the effect is to nullify grace.

What's gone wrong? It's not wrong to feel gratitude when someone gives us a gift. The trouble starts with the impulse that now we owe a "gift". What this feeling does is turn gifts into legal currency. Subtly the gift is no longer a gift but a business transaction. And what was offered as free grace is nullified by distorted gratitude.

Piper goes on to demonstrate that nowhere in Scripture is gratitude given as a reason for obedience. Rather, the people throughout the Bible are condemned for their lack of faith -- not their lack of gratitude. (Numbers 14:11; Deut 1:31-32; Psalm 78:15,17,22.) Rather, Piper says, we should obey God out of a faith in future grace.

Faith in future grace is the secret that keeps impulses of gratitude from turning into the debtor's ethic. True gratitude exults in the riches of God's grace as it looks back on the benefits it has received. By cherishing past grace in this way, it inclines the heart to trust in future grace. We might say that gratitude has a strong appetite for the enjoyment of looking back on the outpourings of God's grace. Since God does this future outpouring through faith, therefore gratitude sends its impulses of delight into faith in future grace. This is expressed in the words: lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord (Psalm 116:12-14). Gratitude exults in the past benefits of God and says to faith, "Embrace more of these benefits for the future, so that my happy work of looking back on God's deliverance may continue."

Chapter Two: When Gratitude Malfunctions

A Filipino Insight

Pastor Piper starts chapter two with an anecdote about encountering a missionary to the Philippines. She told about the Filipino concept of utang na loob. She said "To a Filipino, to show a lack of due gratitude is outrageous; being grateful is almost second nature to him. His sense of utang na loob defines his integrity as a person in the context of social relationships." Unfortunately, this debt lasts a lifetime -- it is difficult to measure the extent of the debt, and thus impossible to every pay the debt off. The debtor lives in a constant state of obligation and has no hope of ever being freed from the debt.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy for Christians to fall into this trap. We try to serve God out of gratitude, but know that we can never retire the debt. Thus we are always concerned about what we must do for Him, not what He will do for us.

In chapter one, Pastor Piper demonstrated that faith in future grace is the antidote to the debtor's ethic. Piper uses chapter two to demonstrate that the New Testament is even more more explicit on the subject of future grace than the New Testament is.

Romans 9:31-32; Hebrews 11:7,8,27,33; 1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11; Galatians 2:20; 2 Corinthians 5:7; Galatians 5:6; 1 Timothy 1:5; 2 Thess 2:13. None of these passages mention gratitude as an inspirtation for obedience. All mention faith. This truth liberates us forever from the need to repay God through our service. Instead, we can look forward to God providing us with what we need to service Him.

The main problem here is that the past-orientation of the debtor's ethic tends to blind us to the infinite, never-ending, inexhaustible, uninterrupted flow of future grace from this moment to eternity. This grace is there in the future to be trusted and lived on. It is there to give the motivation and power for our obedience. This infinite overflow of God's grace is dishonored when we fail to appropriate it by faith in future grace. Gratitude is not designed for this. Faith is. Past grace is glorified by intense and joyful gratitude. Future grace is glorified by intense and joyful confidence. This faith is what frees us and empowers us for venturesome obedience in the cause of Christ.

How does this play out in actual practice? Chapter three provides a clue. But more on that later.

Oy; the good folks at the Bridge-Linguatec School just sent me a packet on information concerning the CELTA certification course (Cambridge English Language Teaching Association), which - God willing - I'm taking this June. And here's an excerpt:

"...The course is very intensive. Trainees need a great deal of energy and stamina to work through the course. You will be at school every day from approximately 9 "“ 6, and your evenings will be taken up with reading, research, lesson planning, and written assignments. It is advisable not to have a part-time job or other outside distractions during this month, as it will take your focus away from the course and you will not receive as much benefit from your time here. The course is very intense and requires a great deal of time and energy. Past trainees have commented that homework takes from 3-5 hours every evening."

The failure rate among students, it goes on to say, is roughly 6-7%, and so is the class drop-out rate, for a total of round-abouts 12-14% who are accepted and find they can't hack it. As for those students who pass the course: "C" students account for 65% of the typical class, the "B" students 20-25%. "A" students: 3-4% ("These Candidates usually have a number of years of teaching experience").

I admit to slight concern.

But!: We're not here to worry about my future, now are we? No, we're here to discuss Exodus 1:1-7 some more. So, let's.

We return to the somewhat troublesome question of how seventy-five Jews become 2-3 million Jews within the seemingly absurd span of a little over four hundred years.

• Exodus 1:5: "The total number of persons that were of Jacob's issue came to seventy, Joseph being already in Egypt [and not counting Joseph's grandchildren and great-grandchildren]."

According to Plaut, this group of seventy consists of Jacob, sixty-seven male offspring, and two wives. Adding in Joseph's grandchildren and great-grandchildren, the total number of men comes to seventy-two.

• Exodus 12:40: "The length of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years..." [if you believe this verse and not Genesis 15:16, in which God says Israel shall dwell in Egypt for four hundred flat. Gen. 15:16 also says "the fourth generation" shall leave Egypt, whereas 1 Chron. 7:20-27 records ten. We won't be getting into this seeming contradiction today.]

Is it possible that a family of seventy men became a nation of two to three million, or even more? Well, mathematically-speaking, the answer is like every other answer in Judaism: "Yes, but it depends." Several questions have a great impact on the issue.

Question 1: Were the Jews still polygamists? If Jewish men can take more than one wife, the birth rate of Israel increases. Simple.

Question 2: Did Israel's children take foreign wives? Joseph's wife was an Egyptian. If Joseph's kin followed suit (at least until their enslavement), and especially if they were polygamists, then the potential for a powerful birth rate was more strong. On the other hand, Abraham clearly hated the idea of his son Isaac marrying anyone who was not of his own kind. Was this attitude passed down to Abraham's descendants as virtual law, or was it not until Mount Sinai that such rules were enshrined?

Question 3: Did Israel's children take wives of their own kin? We often think of the Hebrew race as simply beginning with "Father Abraham", but of course this isn't true; Abraham himself belonged to a people populating the Fertile Crescent.

Who were these people? A popular theory among today's scholars is that the word "Hebrew" (Ivri) shares the same roots of, or is derived from, the word "Habiru" - the name given to a people populating (you guessed it) the Fertile Crescent.

From Plaut:

"[The Habiru] may have been related by family ties; they became prominent in Mesopotamia and later spread out all the way to Egypt... Although at first they were nomads or semi-nomads, they later settled in the countries of their choice. They were, however, usually considered foreigners, which means that they succeeded in maintaining their group identity..."

This especially clicks when you consider that the word Ivri "was used only when the members of the Israelite tribes spoke of themselves to outsiders and when outsiders referred to them. Thus, Abraham is called ivri (Gen. 14:13)..." Otherwise the people referred to themselves by their tribes (e.g., Judah, Ephraim) or by their more immediate common ancestor, Israel."

Interestingly, despite the seemingly perfect fit, Plaut stops short of saying in his Commentary that the Habiru and Israelites were kin, even though others don't. He only suggests that the Israelites were identified with and/or shared familial ties with the Habiru.

If Jacob and his children were Habiru, however, then the likelihood of their having met other Habiru in Egypt - and intermarried with them - is far from remote. The Israel that left Egypt may even have absorbed some of these Habiru into its body.

The rate of procreation necessary in order, for example, for thirteen men to become three million within four hundred years isn't actually so tough to swallow when you crunch the numbers. Within the first generation, forty children would have to be born (a modest rate of less than four children per man); by the second, there would have to be one hundred and fifty-three. But if the answers to any or all of the three questions I've raised today are "yes", we find the Bible's account all the easier to accept.

That is to say, IF you were having any_ trouble_ accepting the Bible's account. I, of course, never doubted. I'm just doing this for all you faithless people.

Today we're starting our amateur exegesis of the Book of Exodus (Shemot), with W. Gunter Plaut's famous The Torah: A Modern Commentary as our guide to various Jewish perspectives on the passages we'll read. I see Plaut's book starts out with an essay by William H. Hallo, but for now let's just skip his general discussion of Exodus's themes. We'll encounter the points Hallo makes later anyway.

The Book of Genesis ended with Joseph dying at the ripe old age of one hundred and ten, having successfully moved his family down into comfortable digs in Egypt. At the end of Genesis, that family has seventy members - or seventy-five, if you count Joseph's grandkids and great-grandkids.

Not for long.

Exodus 1:7: "But the Israelites were fertile and prolific; they multiplied and increased very greatly, so that the land was filled with them."

The Church of God Daily Bible Study: "Although there is no record of the precise number that left Egypt in the Exodus, a military census taken not long after [the Jews left Egypt] listed the number of men 20 years of age and older who could serve in the army as 603,550 (Exodus 38:26). From that number, the total Israelite population of that time has been estimated at approximately 2 to 3 million."

This may seem like a lot of spawning to have accomplished within roughly 400 years, but hey, to quote Joe: "What else are you going to do after a hard day of slavery?"

I can't think of anything either, but even assuming Ancient Israel was a nation of nymphomaniacs, there are obviously a few seemingly insurmountable problems of logic with the rate of reproduction Exodus records. Especially when you consider that Exodus 6:13-30 lists only four generations between the time of Joseph's death and Moses' birth (in fulfillment of the prophecy laid out by God in Gen. 15:16, that "they shall return here in the fourth generation").

Now 1 Chron. 7:20-27 gives God's People a little more breathing room, recording ten generations' worth of slaves in Egypt, and this is, if not probable, at least mathematically feasible.

Assuming that each Jewish family had, on average, ten children, each generation would be five times as large as the one preceding. If each generation lasted, on average, 40 years (a generous number), then in 200 years a single pair of parents would result in a generation numbering 5x5x5x5x5 or 3125 persons. In 280 years the 7th generation would have increased by an additional factor of 25 (5x5) to an impressive 78,125 persons. Under these conditions the first generation sons of Jacob, with their wives, would multiply to a generation consisting of between 37,500 (12 x 3125) and 937,500 (12 x 78,125) individuals in the time frame ending 200-280 years from when the twelve brothers first entered Egypt in 1876 B.C. Those numbers would necessarily be inflated to perhaps twice their values allowing for prior generations still living at the time." - From "Displaced Dynasties".

The writers of the Hebrew Midrash, always game for adding an inane comment to any Bible verse, suggest that all the Jewish women had sextuplets during this period (and if this is so, all I can say is that those ancient women really raised the bar, and I demand to know from the safety of my remote location behind this computer screen why our women today whine so much about passing just one).

And Plaut himself, for the record, would like you all to know that "The Hebrew word [for 'multiplied'] is related to 'swarming creature' (Gen. 1:20), suggesting that the Israelites proliferated like animals."

Thanks for that, Gunther. As if I didn't feel dirty enough already writing about all this. I'm changing topics.

It is noted in the Midrash that "the roster of the names of Jacob's sons appears here in an order different from other passages. This is to teach us that the sons of the handmaidens... were not inferior to their brothers." I've heard elsewhere that the list is jumbled for stylistic purposes. Regardless, I can't see how it matters; even if you read anything into those lists other than convenient categorization of the children by their respective mothers, Joseph and Benjamin are the last sons Jacob blesses in Gen. 49:22-27.

That's it for today. Tomorrow's the day of rest for the majority of us Christians, too, so there may or may not be a post. Enjoy your Sunday without me, though, if such a thing is possible.

Also from The Best, Worst & Most Unusual, by Bruce Felton & Mark Fowler:

"In 1663 a noted orientalist presented to the French Academy a paper in which he concluded that Adam was 140 feet tall, Noah, 50 feet tall, Abraham, 40 feet tall, and Moses, 25."

There. Now at least when you read my Bible study notes here at Minor Thoughts over the next few months, you can't say there haven't been any worse.

I don't know how other people study God's Word, but I've settled into a sorta three-pronged approach; I simultaneously read through one commentary on the Old Testament and one on the New, while also just reading the Bible daily for fun, without looking up a single thing. The variety keeps me from studying pitfalls to which I've noticed I'm particularly prone, such as spending so much of my attention exploring the Hebrew legacy in the Torah that my spirit ends up horrifically starved for Jesus. So today I visited the Idaho Springs Public Library, a charmingly compact, creaky historical building in a charmingly compact, creek-y historical miner's town in Colorado ("cute", nay, "adorable", that's what the young lady would call it), and here's what I chose:

• The Torah: A Modern Commentary, by Gunther Plaut. Obviously, this is the Old Testament commentary I'll be reading, my textbook whilst I work my way again through the Humash. It's also the textbook for an entire denomination of Judaism, actually; since its publication the work has become the standard reader for Reform Jewdom. And boy howdy, am I so tickled to have it: I've already read Plaut's commentary on Genesis (Bereshit, in Hebrew), and if his respective commentaries on the remaining parts of the Pentateuch are as fairly-balanced (Plaut often includes not only Conservative and Orthodox interpretations of Scripture, but Christian as well), well-researched (he cites all his sources), and eye-opening (at least for an ignorant cuss like me), I won't be able to read this thing fast enough.

• The Gospel of Matthew, Vol. 1 of the Daily Study Bible Series, by William Barclay. This is what I grabbed off the shelf for my New Testament pick, but two chapters into it and I'm already thinking about returning it in favor of something else. William Barclay's a pretty famous theologian and his Daily Study Bible books are bestsellers, but there are plenty of good reasons to be uneasy about reading him. For one, he makes occasional references which he does not bother to cite, and makes leaps of logic (he fails to sell me on his ideas concerning authorship of the Gospels). For another, he is a heretic. Wikipedia claims him "a liberal theologian, denying both the inerrancy of scripture and the divinity of Christ. He described himself as a liberal evangelical. In his autobiography, he described himself as a universalist, believing all people will eventually be saved, an unorthodox position." Even assuming this is true, it might not be a deal breaker (I've learned more about the Old Testament from Jews, all of whom deny the divinity of Jesus, than I've learned from my pastors), but coupled with his other apparent faults... I think a second trip to the library's in order.

I was also finally going to read a book a friend of mine loaned to me eons ago, entitled The Search.. The hefty tome's authored by a Dr. Ron Charles and subtitled "A Historian's Search for Historical Jesus". It is quite possibly, to quote one Amazon reviewer, the "most informative book on the life of Jesus that has been printed in decades". But I'll never know, because despite supposedly possessing a B.A. in Theology, two M.A.s, two Ph.Ds, and one Th.D (whatever that is), Dr. Ron Charles never learned he's supposed to cite all his sources (though a Jamaican newspaper claims he used 160 of them). Either that, or he just didn't care enough to catalog them, in which case I don't care enough to read his book.

I assume the reason Dr. Charles had to self-publish his book is because every respectable book publisher agrees with me on this point. Or maybe the editors of those publishing houses just couldn't get past the frequent typos; in the acknowledgements section of The Search Dr. Charles thanks Michelle Thomas, Kim Stuckey, and Laura Wairs for their proofreading services, but it's thanks undeserved. The book's errors are numerous.

So, to review: a book published in 2003 that is supposed to summarize 33 years of research by an archaeologist with six university degrees who claims he's found Noah's Ark, had to be self-published, is full of technical errors, and has no citations. Oh, and the author's website, www.roncharles.com, is down, meaning the only mention of him Google can find is now an article in a Jamaican newspaper.

Anyone else reckon this Dr. Charles guy was a fraud who's number just eventually came up?

Anyway, I guess I should look on the bright side of all this. Hopefully my friend won't want me to send his book back now.

First Bible study entry starts tomorrow, most likely with a look at the first chapter of Exodus.

As I've been reading blogs this week, I've stumbled across various opinions of the Reverend Jerry Falwell. As you might expect from such a public figure, people have many opinions about him. Some people really liked him, some really hated him, and some had distinctly mixed feelings. Here's a sampling of what I found interesting:

Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell -- friends

My mother always told me that no matter how much you dislike a person, when you meet them face to face you will find characteristics about them that you like. Jerry Falwell was a perfect example of that. I hated everything he stood for, but after meeting him in person, years after the trial, Jerry Falwell and I became good friends. He would visit me in California and we would debate together on college campuses. I always appreciated his sincerity even though I knew what he was selling and he knew what I was selling.

Guest Post: A Remembrance of Falwell

I attended Liberty University from 1998-2000. When I started at the school, I wasn't what you would call a Falwell fan. I would here people talk about him in glowing terms and think, "Yeah right. There's no way that he's like that."

After meeting and speaking with Dr. Falwell, my opinion started change. While he made mistakes in what he would say, he would immediately seek to correct those mistakes.

Farewell Falwell

Students at Liberty University revered him. Evangelical pastors emulated him. Washington politicians courted him, and liberal elitists hated him. In all the years that Falwell fought pornography, we never opened our newspaper to read of his arrest at a peep show. For all his vehement condemnation of drug use and gay marriage, Falwell was never discovered with street-grade methamphetamines or getting sensual massages from paid male escorts. Sure he made a few verbal gaffes in this or that interview, but like the Bible says, we all stumble in many ways.

Rev. Jerry Falwell: Fundamentalist in Chief

Indeed, his religious and political views were typically, as he himself described for much of his life, fundamentalist. As such he was out of step with most American Christians, including those who described themselves as evangelical. Although later in life Falwell dropped the "Baptist fundamentalism" label in favor of "evangelical," his religious and political views remained far more fundamentalist than anything. It's no surprise then that Falwell called Billy Graham, "the chief servant of Satan in America."

On Jerry Falwell

Falwell's influence should have ended there, but just as journalists flock to Al Sharpton for the "black perspective," ignorant journalists consistently propped up Falwell as a token Christian leader.

Like reader Chuck, I think this is the key sentence from Joshua's lovely negative obituary for Rev. Jerry Falwell, who died earlier this week. If I may put a different spin on it, however, I think the piece underplays somewhat how important and influential Falwell really was.

Mixed Legacy

Many of you probably know that in the early years of his ministry Rev. Falwell was a staunch segregationist. In 1958 he said "If Chief Justice Warren and his associates had known God's word and had desired to do the Lord's will, I am quite confident that the 1954 decision [Brown v. Board of Education] would never have been made ... The facilities should be separate. When God has drawn a line of distinction, we should not attempt to cross that line."

Falwell and King: Domesticating and Sanitizing, Grace and Truth, with Condolences

As an evangelical Christian, I firmly believe in the grace of God to conform saints to the image of his Son. This is the process of sanctification. So I believe that a Jerry Falwell, though once overtly racially-separatist, could see the error of his thinking by being confronted by the word of God, repent from that sin, and learn to embrace African Americans in love, as I believe he did. However, does the work of grace mean that we who hail heroes tone down, ignore, or attempt to clean up the early picture of Falwell or anyone else?

I read this today and I found it so thought-provoking that I wanted to pass it along

It wasn't a big deal in one way. Just a small conversation that had turned a bit ugly. It wasn't a dramatic life-altering moment. It was in the privacy of my home with one of my family members. But maybe that's the point. Perhaps it's very important because that's where I live everyday. You see, you and I don't live in a series of big, dramatic moments. We don't careen from big decision to big decision. We all live in an endless series of little moments. The character of a life isn't set in ten big moments. The character of a life is set in 10,000 little moments of everyday life. It's the themes of struggles that emerge from those little moments that reveal what's really going on in our hearts.

So, I knew I couldn't back away from this little moment. I knew I had to own my sin. The minute I thought this, an inner struggle began. "I wasn't the only one at fault. If he hadn't said what he said, I wouldn't have become angry. I was actually pretty patient for much of the conversation." These were some of the arguments I was giving myself.

What's actually true is that when I come to the Lord after I've blown it, I've only one argument to make. It's not the argument of the difficulty of the environment that I am in. It's not the argument of the difficult people that I'm near. It's not the argument of good intentions that were thwarted in some way. No, I only have one argument. It's right there in the first verse of Psalm 51, as David confesses his sin with Bathsheba. I come to the Lord with only one appeal; his mercy. I've no other defense. I've no other standing. I've no other hope. I can't escape the reality of my biggest problem; me! So I appeal to the one thing in my life that's sure and will never fail. I appeal to the one thing that guaranteed not only my acceptance with God, but the hope of new beginnings and fresh starts. I appeal on the basis of the greatest gift I ever have or ever will be given. I leave the courtroom of my own defense, I come out of hiding and I admit who I am. But I'm not afraid, because I've been personally and eternally blessed. Because of what Jesus has done, God looks on me with mercy. It's my only appeal, it's the source of my hope, it's my life. Mercy, mercy me!

I've been listening to Ravi Zacharias's radio show, Just Thinking, for many months now. Several months ago, while discussing Ethics in the Workplace (part of his "Faith Under Fire" series), he laid out three rules for distinguishing legitimate from illegitimate pleasures. I found them so thought-provoking and succinct that I wanted to share them:

1. Anything that refreshes you without diminishing you, destroying you, or distracting you from your final goal is a legitimate pleasure.
2. Any pleasure that jeopardizes the sacred right of another is an illegitimate pleasure.
3. Any pleasure, no matter how good, if not kept in balance can distort reality or destroy appetite.

Before I can apply these rules, I have to ask myself a deceptively simple question: what is my final goal? After identifying my final goals, perhaps I should define several sub-goals that will help me meet my final goal. (For example: what can I do in 2006 / 2007 to help me move towards meeting my final goal?) Only after I've done that can I really identify whether a pleasure is legitimate or not.

Now that I've changed the way I look at myself, how about changing the way I look at everyone around me? Here is C.S. Lewis, from "The Weight of Glory":

Meanwhile the cross comes before the crown and tomorrow is a Monday morning. A cleft has opened in the pitiless walls of the world, and we are invited to follow our great Captain inside. The following Him is, of course, the essential point. That being so, it may be asked what practical use there is in the speculations which I have been indulging. I can think of at least one such use. It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour.

The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour's glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare.

All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics.

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization -- these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit -- immortal horrors or everlasting splendours. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind (and it is, in fact, the merriest kind) which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously -- no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.

And our charity must be a real and costly love, with deep feeling for the sins in spite of which we love the sinner -- no mere tolerance or indulgence which parodies love as flippancy parodies merriment. Next to the Blessed Sacrament itself, your neighbour is the holiest object presented to your senses. If he is your Christian neighbour he is holy in almost the same way, for in him also Christ vere latitat -- the glorifier and the glorified, Glory Himself, is truly hidden.

I found this in Jonathan Edwards' "The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners". It's not only convicting, it's changing my perspective on how I view myself.

But sinful men are full of sin; full of principles and acts of sin: their guilt is like great mountains, heaped one upon another, till the pile is grown up to heaven. They are totally corrupt, in every part, in all their faculties, and all the principles of their nature, their understandings, and wills; and in all their dispositions and affections. Their heads, their hearts, are totally depraved; all the members of their bodies are only instruments of sin; and all their senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, &c.; are only inlets and outlets of sin, channels of corruption. There is nothing but sin, no good at all. Romans. 7:18. "In me, that is, in my flesh, dwells no good thing." There is all manner of wickedness. There are the seeds of the greatest and blackest crimes. There are principles of all sorts of wickedness against men; and there is all wickedness against God. There is pride; there is enmity; there is contempt; there is quarreling; there is atheism; there is blasphemy. There are these things in exceeding strength; the heart is under the power of them, is sold under sin, and is a perfect slave to it. There is hard-heartedness, hardness greater than that of a rock, or an adamant-stone. There is obstinacy and perverseness, incorrigibleness and inflexibleness in sin, that will not be overcome by threatenings or promises, by awakenings or encouragements, by judgments or mercies, neither by that which is terrifying nor that which is winning. The very blood of God our Saviour will not win the heart of a wicked man.

And there are actual wickednesses without number or measure. There are breaches of every command, in thought, word, and deed: a life full of sin; days and nights filled up with sin; mercies abused and frowns despised; mercy and justice, and all the divine perfections, trampled on; and the honour of each person in the Trinity trod in the dirt. Now if one sinful word or thought has so much evil in it, as to deserve eternal destruction, how do they deserve to be eternally cast off and destroyed, that are guilty of so much sin!

"There's a phrase we live by in America -- 'In God We Trust'. It's right there where Jesus would have wanted it -- on our money."

So opens a segment of The Colbert Report in which Stephen Colbert recites the Nicene Creed, in its entirety. That's certainly not something you hear on television every night.

As Cynthia points out, Stephen Colbert is not your normal comedian. Here's Colbert, in his own words.

I love my Church, and I'm a Catholic who was raised by intellectuals, who were very devout. I was raised to believe that you could question the Church and still be a Catholic. What is worthy of satire is the misuse of religion for destructive or political gains. That's totally different from the Word, the blood, the body and the Christ. His kingdom is not of this earth.

We're, you know, very devout and, you know, I still go to church and, you know, my children are being raised in the Catholic Church. And I was actually my daughters' catechist last year for First Communion, which was a great opportunity to speak very simply and plainly about your faith without anybody saying, 'Yeah, but do you believe that stuff?' which happens a lot in what I do.

I have a wife who loves me, and I am oddly normative. I go to church. I would say that there would be plenty of Catholics in the world who would think of me as not that observant, but for the world I move in professionally, I seem monastic.

(Quotes from the Time Out New York, NPR, and the New York Times.)

Earlier this month, Dr. Rich Scarborough -- pastor, and founder of Vision America -- sent out an e-mail talking about the role of Christians in American government.

This past week the Republican State Convention met in San Antonio, Texas. I was invited to speak at a Values Voter Rally at 8:30 PM in the Menger Hotel, across from the Convention Center. Once again, to my great delight, hundreds gathered to hear a Gospel artist sing and a Baptist Minister speak. As I spoke about the importance of Christians being salt and light in the moral and civil arena, the crowd erupted in applause several times and at the end, they stood to applaud.

As I left, I bowed my head and thanked God that many Christians are getting it! We are the Church and in America, we are the Government. Tell me, how do you separate the two without removing all Christian influence from the public arena?

I'd like to respond to that question.

"We are the Church and in America, we are the Government." That phrase sends chills up and down my spine -- and not in a good way. True, the Church is made up of God's people. True, most of those people earnestly desire to follow after God and live lives that are pleasing to Him. That does not, however, make them saints on earth. Christians can be just as prone to hubris, arrogance, and greed as non-Christians. The fact that a person is a Christian does not, in and of itself, mean that he or she should receive my vote.

Many Christians go into government with the goal of "Cleaning up Society." The American Family Association, and the Parents Television Council, for instance, strongly dislike much of the content on prime-time television. Their preferred solution is to make it illegal to broadcast certain language, show certain images, or portray certain ideas on broadcast television. Other groups want to criminalize all homosexual behavior, criminalize certain styles of dress, certain behaviors (like smoking and drinking), or criminalize any public vulgarity.

I have a big problem with this. It is an attempt to impose Christian morality by force. It is an attempt to make the entire country live according to Christian values and display Christian behaviors. A large portion of the nation is (or claims to be) Christian. A significant percentage of the country is not. (If 70% of 300 million people are Christian, that means 90 million people are not Christian.) These laws would force everyone to exhibit Christian behavior, regardless of the whether or not they truly love God and want to please Him. I believe this is wrong, that it is nothing more than forced hypocrisy.

Rather than making Christianity appealing to non-Christians, these laws would only reinforce the impression that Christianity is about following rules and living a certain way. Rather than communicating the great Truth -- that true Christianity is a relationship with an awesome Being that wants to know me personally -- these laws would reinforce the belief that Christians are concerned only with rules and controlling people. In short, legislating morality would Christianity odious to many of the unsaved, rather than desirable.

Why should I force someone who doesn't love God, who doesn't understand God, and who doesn't want anything to do with God to live under God's rules? God Himself doesn't require that. God allows billions of people around the world to live in sin each and every day. God allows each person on earth to live their life as they will. God allows each person the freedom to accept Him or reject Him. True, God desires certain behaviors and attitudes from those who love Him. But God doesn't impose His will anyone, even Christians.

If God does not force unbelievers to live according to a certain set of rules, I don't believe I have any authority whatsoever to rule over them. If God has voluntarily relinquished control over people's lives, how dare I pick up that control and attempt to wield it myself? Such behavior is rank arrogance -- an assumption that I know the mind of God and I know exactly what penalties and punishments He wishes to impose on those who disobey Him.

God desires one thing, and one thing only, from non-Christians: that they recognize His control over the universe, submit willingly to His authority, and love Him before all others. Everything else is secondary to this. Once a person's heart is aligned with God's, right behaviors will follow. If a person's heart is not aligned with God's, no amount of laws will improve his character or bring him any closer to purity.

I believe government has a responsibility to protect its citizens against aggression and fraud. Government should be concerned with prosecuting rape, murder, theft and fraud. I do not believe government should be concerned with the behavior of its citizens -- that is rightly the role of priests, pastors, and churches.

How then should Christians behave in government? If I do not believe that they should legislate according to their moral beliefs, how should they legislate? Christians should follow the advice of Micah 6:8

He has shown all you people what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.

Over and over and over and over again throughout Scripture, God's prophets and apostles urge His people to act justly -- not to accept bribes, not to treat the rich better than the poor, not to withhold from those in need. Over and over, God exhorts His people to treat everyone equally, to deal honestly, to honor contracts -- in short, to live with integrity. How many of our Congressman and Senators truly live up to these requirements? How many of our supposedly Christian legislators live up to these requirements? This how a Christian should act while in office. Christians in government should stand up for the oppressed, deal justly with everyone, and enforce the law equally on the rich and the poor.

Being a Christian legislator should not associated with enacting Christian morals but with display Christian values while in office. Christian legislators should set the standard for honesty, integrity, and humility in government. A legislator who displayed those moral values would be far more valuable than one who simply voted to fine television stations over vulgarity or who simply voted to require certain minimum standards of dress.

"How do you separate [Church and government] without removing all Christian influence from the public arena?" You separate the two by letting the church reign supreme in matters of morality and letting the government protect people's bodies and property. If Christian government officials focus their energies on ensuring that all people are protected equally and that government conducts its operations with integrity and humility, the Christian influence on the public arena will be huge.

Ultimately Christianity does not need the support of America's government in order to survive. Whether or not the Ten Commandments are displayed in America's courthouses is not nearly as important as whether or not America's people have the Ten Commandments written on their hearts. A Christian government can do nothing to write God's law on people's hearts, but it can ensure that all people are treated as God commands -- equally, with love and honesty.

What a schmuck:

At that time Marduk-Baladan son of Baladan king of Babylon sent Hezekiah letters and a gift, because he had heard of his illness and recovery. Hezekiah received the envoys gladly and showed them what was in his storehouses"”the silver, the gold, the spices, the fine olive oil"”his entire armory and everything found among his treasures. There was nothing in his palace or in all his kingdom that Hezekiah did not show them.

Then Isaiah the prophet went to King Hezekiah and asked, "What did those men say, and where did they come from?" "From a distant land," Hezekiah replied. "They came to me from Babylon." The prophet asked, "What did they see in your palace?" "They saw everything in my palace," Hezekiah said. "There is nothing among my treasures that I did not show them."

Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, "Hear the word of the LORD Almighty: The time will surely come when everything in your palace, and all that your predecessors have stored up until this day, will be carried off to Babylon. Nothing will be left, says the LORD. And some of your descendants, your own flesh and blood who will be born to you, will be taken away, and they will become eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon."

"The word of the LORD you have spoken is good," Hezekiah replied. For he thought, "There will be peace and security in my lifetime."

Today's New International Version International Bible Society (C) Copyright 2001, 2005

If that last statement doesn't qualify him as one of the world's all-time schmucks, I don't know what would.

I received another e-mail from Dr. Rick Scarborough today. Once again, I find myself wanting to challenge something he said. He started out today's e-mail by talking about the heretical "Da Vinci Code" movie:

After a brief run of celebrated films portraying the truth about Christ, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Passion, Satan has raised is impish head and initiated the production of a movie that is blasphemous.

Full disclosure here: last week, I read the entire novel. Frankly, it's highly overrated. The writing is pedestrian, the plot is predictable, the ending is childish, etc. Secondly, I wasn't surprised by anything in the novel. Anyone who is familiar with the Gnostic heresies (info from Wikipedia, info from the Catholic church) will be familiar with most of the "revelations" in the book. Given that Gnosticism has been around almost as long as the Church itself, every Christian should be familiar with these heresies. Every Christian should be; unfortunately, most are not.

How does Dr. Scarborough recommend that Christians prepare for this movie?

It is absolutely essential that every Pastor who reads this email alert get familiar with this blasphemous film and prepare your people to refute it while exhorting them not to see it.

How can anyone properly refute something that they are not familiar with? I had read about the heresies in the book before reading the movie, but I wasn't really ready to refute it until I had actually finished reading the book. If no Christian reads the book or sees the movie, how can anyone be prepared to refute it? Obviously some Christian, at some point, had to read the book or else the Christian community wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Is Dr. Scarborough suggesting that Pastors read / watch the story, but that their congregations refrain from doing so? If that's the case, I find it highly ironic. (The central theme of gnosticism is that some people know special, "hidden" knowledge that redeems them. Those that are inducted into the "club" receive salvation, everyone else is left behind.)

Ultimately the message that Dr. Scarborough communicates is that ordinary Christians are not strong enough to face heresy and need to be protected from it. I strongly disagree. The army trains soldiers by exposing them to every hazard they'll face in battle. Soldiers study the combat doctrines of their enemy, study the enemy commanders, and practice fighting every day. What kind of "Christian soldiers" are we preparing if they must be constantly sheltered from the enemy? What kind of "Christian soldiers" do we have if one 2 hour engagement with the enemy will overwhelm their defenses? Finally, what kind of "Christian soldiers" do we have if they're not even familiar with the enemy's oldest stratagems and doctrines?

Hiding from the enemy won't help the Church and it certainly won't help those that we are supposed to be reaching. Read the book. Read The Da Vinci Opportunity (part 1, part 2, part 3). Watch the movie and be ready for the enemy.

Compare this:

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, "You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?" When Moses heard it, he fell on his face,

with this:

You arrogant jerks! How dare you go around accusing everyone of being sinners? Don't you know that most people are basically good and we're all God's children, every one us? Why do you try to make yourself better than everyone else?

That second one isn't (quite) a direct quote, but it is something that I heard a lot while in college. I'm not saying that this is likely to happen on a college campus anytime soon, but I did find the similarities in rhetoric to be interesting.

It was revealed late last month that the Da Vinci Code has some non-human admirers. In a letter to his nephew, Wormwood, Screwtape revealed his true feelings for this marvelous book:

I surmised it should be well worth the trouble of familiarising you with it, inasmuch as it contains such a precariously towering heap of our very best non-thinking that it is quite dizzying! It has the genuine potential to mislead, confuse, and vex millions! Indeed the mystical sleight-of-hand involved in shoehorning so many cubic yards of gasbag clichees, shopworn half-truths and straightfaced howlers into a single volume simply beggars belief; and if I didn't know that the author had had unwitting "help" from my former colleague, the venerable Gallstone, I simply shouldn't believe it could have been done at all!

Now, Wormwood, before you object to my calling this book "non-fiction""” since it is technically classified as "fiction""” let me say that it is essentially non-fiction, at least as far as our purposes are concerned. That's because its principle delight for our side is that in the tacky plastic shell of some below-average "fiction" the book parades as "fact" a veritable phalanx of practical propaganda and disinformation that would make our dear Herr Goebbels (Circle Eight, third spiderhole on the right) jade green with envy! Souls by the boatload are blithely believing almost all of the deliciously corrosive non-facts that are congealed everywhere in it, like flies in bad aspic, and it is that precisely which most recommends this glorious effort as worthy of our dedicated and especial study.

If you take the time to read the entire letter, you'll be able to read Screwtape's full review of this best-selling novel.

(Hat tip to Right Reason).

The hardest thing in the world can be witnessing to Americans today. Many people simply have no interest in discussing eternal issues: heaven, hell, the soul, sin, whether or not there's life after death. Having a desire to witness is well and good until one continually runs into a buzz saw of disinterest.

Fortunately, spiritual turbulence is ahead. On May 19, the Da Vinci Code movie will be released in theaters. As my pastor commented yesterday, it would be foolish to ignore this movie. It is directed by Ron Howard. It stars Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, and Alfred Molina. It's based on a book that sold 40 million copies. It's backed up by an all-star crew. This movie will make money and this movie will draw in millions of Americans.

This movie will cause spiritual turbulence because it contains many heresies, most of which the church thought were long dead. For the unprepared Christian, the attacks on Christianity may prove damaging. For the non-believer, the movie will challenge what they thought they knew about Christianity.

All of this will have two benefits: it will inspire Christians to know what they believe and whom they believe in and it will shut down the buzz saw of disinterest in spiritual matters. Many people leaving the theater will be filled with questions about Christianity. There first stop will probably be the Christians they know.

Because being forewarned is being forearmed, I wanted to pass along a resource that I've found helpful: The Da Vinci Opportunity by Dr. Mark D. Roberts. Dr. Roberts has a PhD in New Testament studies from Harvard University. During his graduate career, he spent an extensive amount of time studying the texts that the Da Vinci code references. In fact, he probably spent more time studying those texts than he did the New Testament texts themselves. As such, he is uniquely qualified to comment on the Da Vinci code and the accuracy of Scripture.

His three part series (part 1, part 2, part 3) contains 21 essays on the reliability of the Gospels, the background of Gnosticism, and the differences between the Jesus of the Da Vinci code and the Jesus of the Bible.

Read the series. Watch the movie. Stand firm in your own faith and be ready to answer the questions that are sure to come your way. That is all.

[tags]da vinci code, entertainment, culture[/tags]

Dr. Rick Scarborough in his latest "Rick Scarborough Report":

The New Testament is largely silent on the subject of immigration. However, the Old Testament has much to say on the subject of boundaries. In Genesis, the Children of Israel are invited to settle in the land of Egypt; they don't just up and move there without permission (illegally).

Well, sure. Then, 400 years, later they left Egypt, trecked across the desert, moved back to "the sacred land of our ancestors" (uninvited), and proceed to kick the stuffing out of everyone who was currently living there. Kinda makes our own reconquista problems seem minor, doesn't it?

This is a perfect example of why I get nervous when Christians get involved in politics. While Christ does say that our beliefs will make us appear foolish to the world, I'd rather not give "the world" any extra ammunition along the way. So, let's lay off of using the Bible to support any positions on immigration policy. It's just not there. It's not a subject that the Bible is concerned with. Trying to pretend that the Bible does speak on immigration is foolishness and does a disservice to the Gospel.

It turns out that Muhammed himself was actually a pretty decent guy. Yesterday, the Anchoress posted a conversation she had with Ali -- a "reformist" Muslim. She started the conversation after she became curious about this question: "Is this something Muslims are also taught to do? Is there a "turn the other cheek" component to Islam?"

The following discussion is very interesting and informative in light of what Mohammed's more ... energetic ... followers are doing.

[tags]islam, muhammed[/tags]