Minor Thoughts from me to you

Lately, there's been a lot of discussion about the Gospel of Judas in the news. From reading those who know what they're talking about (several prominent bloggers), most of the media has been remarkably uninformed about the entire topic. So, here's some links for your reading enjoyment.

First off, a vicious takedown from David Kopel at the Volokh Conspiracy:

The Judas Gospel: Suppose that sometime around the year 3,800 A.D., someone wrote a newspaper that began: "According to a recently-discovered document, which appears to have been written sometime before 1926, Benedict Arnold did not attempt to betray George Washington and the American cause, as is commonly believed. Rather, Benedict Arnold was acting at the request of George Washington, because Washington wanted Arnold to help him create a dictatorship of the proletariat and the abolition of private property."

Secondly, a bevy of Christian theologians:

• Mark D. Roberts: The Gospel of Judas: A Special Report
• Albert Mohler: From Traitor to Hero? Responding to "The Gospel of Judas"

Finally, a historical look at the Gospel of Judas, gnosticism, and the church fathers: "Judas gospel" a Yawner

I found all of these helpful in understanding what "The Gospel of Judas" really is and why it doesn't matter nearly as much as CNN and National Geographic would like us to believe.

Apparently, some modern hymnals are changing the words of Amazing Grace from "how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me" to "how sweet the sound that saved and set me free". Ugh. Apparently we are no longer wretches before being saved. Just chained up, I guess.

The Anchoress penned a marvelous response to this craziness:

But that decision has always seemed to me to be extremely short-sighted and cheap. As with what Deitrich Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace" in The Cost of Discipleship (yes, it is in The Bookshelf, it's one of my faves), these monastics are creating "feel-good" liturgy that is all-grace-and-all-light but which does not permit introspection, does not allow one to read a hard verse and stop to consider - "Lord, is that me?" If you're only looking at the positive, it's very easy to equate any negatives you do encounter as being the fault of "someone or something else." The problem can't be rooted in you, after all - you're all-positive!

At some point in every life, the ugly and dark stuff intrudes. Seems to me the best and healthiest way to deal with it, when it comes, is to have more than a passing acquaintance with it - if you're acknowleding on a daily (or weekly) basis that what is lesser, and baser, exists and resides within our own hearts right next to all of our highest and purest ideals, you're much less likely to be shocked or overwhelmed when you encounter the dark, either within yourself or within others. Or even within your town or your church or your government.

Please, do go and read the entire thing. I read it to my wife before she left for work. We both agree that sometimes spiritual growth requires being exposed to dark truths.

No, there's nothing good about "feel good Christianity". All that's good in this world comes from God. It's impossible to appreciate how good God is until you're aware of how bad this world is -- and how bad we are. Grace is meaningless without an appreciation of my own need for it. Short of God's grace, I am a wretch and can say with Paul "I am the chief of sinners".

The Anglican Church says no:

"I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories," the archbishop, the Most Rev. Rowan Williams, told The Guardian. "Whatever the biblical account of creation is, it's not a theory alongside theories. It's not as if the writer of Genesis or whatever sat down and said, 'Well, how am I going to explain all this?'"

"For most of the history of Christianity, there's been an awareness that a belief that everything depends on the creative act of God is quite compatible with a degree of uncertainty or latitude about how precisely that unfolds in creative time," he told The Guardian.

"For that matter," he said, "it's not even the same as saying that Darwinism is the only thing that ought to be taught. My worry is that creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it."

Creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation. For reasons why, check out Dr. John Walton's sermon, Why Didn't God Call the Light, Light?. The Genesis account of creation is far more interested in the purpose of the universe than it is in the material construction of the universe. Boiling the whole thing down to just an argument over physical construction misses the point entirely.

Joe, you've declared your intention to make your dissatisfaction with your native Republican Party known by aiding the Democrats' election this year.

But why should dissatisfaction with a party result in your abetting another just as bad, or worse? Why help either of them? Isn't the practical result of such action ultimately destined to be the same as that of those we so often hear say "I don't like what my party is doing, but the other people are worse"?

(And just because the thought hits me: If the Libertarian Party were to somehow come to power in America, would it evolve (or devolve)-as Republican and Democrat parties have-over time into the same sort of animal? Is a march toward centralized statism inexorable, as has been suggested by many? Hard to say, since many capitalist cultures have been nipped in the bud. What might have occurred in Hong Kong had not the British government tossed their great city to Red China?)

(And just because another thought hits me: Is it a dilution of the title of the Christ, which we hold, to associate with political parties? Which makes a greater statement: "I am fighting the Republicans and the Democrats because I am a Christian", or "I am fighting the Republicans and the Democrats because I am a classic liberal"? We seem to refer to our supposed chief alignment far more rarely than our secondary alignments.)

Let me try to see if I can make any sense of what I'm thinking here, point-by-point. And for the record, these are beliefs in an embryonic stage, at best; these are not fully-formed convictions or anything. So:

(1) Much of the Torah is given over to the LORD separating His people from other peoples as holy. The political parties of America are unholy, man-made creations; they are not the practical expression of the Christ of God on this planet Earth, as is The Church. Does aligning with them not dilute God's very own "brand name", then-first in name-recognition ("What is Adam?" "Adam's a Republican", instead of "What is Adam?" "Adam is committed entirely to his God and the Church") then later in beliefs, as cohabitation of the Promised Land with the Caananites led to dilution of Jewish beliefs (as Republican-Christian syncretism is an easily-observed phenomenon)? To summarize: By working actively in political parties, are we less obviously Christian to the maximum number of people? And don't we risk infecting ourselves with these parties' unclean worldviews?

(2) As Christians, our primary purpose is to serve others and show them the LORD's love, regardless of whether they become Christian themselves. Do we not immediately make ourselves the enemies of half the nation by registering as Republicans and Democrats, by campaigning for them? Being a Republican makes it much more difficult to witness to a Democrat, doesn't it?

(3) Despite being super-capitalists, we seem to give in to the same "zero-sum" mentality of statists. We believe that we must protect God's real work-the service of others spiritually and materially-by defending it within the political system. That is, we wish to feed the Five Thousand, so we try to keep the government from stealing our five thousand loaves of bread. But if we are, as the Christ has promised us, possessed of the ability to accomplish even greater works than He performed in His time, then what matter if the government taxes our bread and leaves us with five hundred loaves, or fifty? If we devote our full attention, our full energies, to putting out those loaves, we have God's promise that He will see to the rest.

We as human beings do have a finite amount of strength within us, but to what is that strength better put: putting out fliers for Senator Whoever, or volunteering at a soup kitchen? Walking door-to-door to speak with people about their politics, or speaking privately with people one-on-one about their problems (as one of the few people truly qualified to give the antidote to those problems: not a psychiatrist, but a Christian)?

This I know: the world is designed by the Enemy to keep us from the Master's work. Political parties are institutions of this world (they're kingdoms, which rise and fall, trying to systemitize a solution the Poor, who we shall always have with us). I see dots and I think they may connect.

Did the poor of Jerusalem put their sick under Peter's shadow (Acts) in hopes that he would tell them how to vote?

Am I now the John Galt to your Henry Rearden, Joe?

Hey, Folks: There's a great article by Marvin Olasky just published online at Townhall, listing resources for learning about the Islamic religion. If like me you're pretty ignorant on this major world religion's specifics, you might want to note a few of his recommendations.

About two weeks ago, I stumbled on to an interesting article. The founder of Domino's Pizza is planning on building a town that would be run strictly according to Catholic principles.

Abortions, pornography and contraceptives will be banned in the new Florida town of Ave Maria, which has begun to take shape on former vegetable farms 90 miles northwest of Miami.

Tom Monaghan, the founder of the Domino's Pizza chain, has stirred protests from civil rights activists by declaring that Ave Maria's pharmacies will not be allowed to sell condoms or birth control pills. The town's cable television network will carry no X-rated channels.

The town will be centred around a 100-foot tall oratory and the first Catholic university to be built in America for 40 years. The university's president, Nicholas J Healy, has said future students should "help rebuild the city of God" in a country suffering from "catastrophic cultural collapse."

Monaghan has argued that the owners of the town's commercial properties will be free to impose conditions in leases -- notably the restriction on the sale of contraceptives. But that has been challenged by Howard Simon, executive director of the Florida branch of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Simon said the U.S. Supreme Court had already ruled "ownership [of a town] does not always mean absolute dominion." "If he wants to build a town and encourage like-minded people to come and live there, that's fine. We get into problems where he tries to exercise governmental authority."

Adam and I promptly discussed this idea. Because we were using instant messenger to discuss it, you can read our thoughts.

Adam: Wow. That's fascinating. So what's your reaction?

Joe: I like it. It's going to kick up a huge mess of controversy. Probably spawn a Supreme Court case (or seven). It gets back to the roots of a lot of Constitutional areas that have gone off of the rails, freedom of contract being the most obvious. Jefferson, Washington, Madison, et. al. would have considered it to be constitutional. I'm not sure about Messrs. Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Souter, and Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer. The only person on the court that I know would rule the town legal is Justice Thomas.

Adam: And in the eyes of the LORD?

Joe: Biblically, I don't see anything wrong with it. It's basically the church, writ large. I see it as an Acts 2 type of situation. Only, more formal.

Adam: How is Ave Maria like Acts 2? Not sure I follow.

Joe: It's a bit of a stretch, admittedly. but the early church was a lot more closely knit than the modern church is. I think Ave Maria would do a lot to bring back the centrality of the church, to life. Church members would actually be required to live according to church teaching, which is a fairly radical concept right now.

Adam: But the original church was surely more closely knit because of the oppression it faced and the maturity and belief of its members, not simply because they had people looking over them more. And is centrality particularly important to the work of the Gospel? The Christian church only truly began to grow when its very head was cut off.

Also, if this is ultimately what it seems to be-a haven for Catholics-what does that say for those people's understanding of their mission here on Earth: to go ye out onto all the world and preach the Gospel to every living creature? That is, the Church is a missiological creature, not an institutional one.

Joe: The Great Commission still applies, obviously. And witness in the local town is only a part of the Great Commission. A larger part involves going out into the surrounding region: county, state, nation, etc. This town could provide a valuable (both in the material and non-material sense) base of operations for missions work. A place to raise a family and a place to return to in time of need or when spiritual renewal is needed.

Having the town literally built around a church need not necessarily involve centrality of government (although that will obviously play a role). It will, more importantly I think, emphasize how faith is supposed to be a central defining part of our daily lives. Having the entire town run along those lines will only reinforce that centrality of faith to life.

I think excommunication has always been a vital part of church discipline. Obviously, it's a last line of discipline, but I think it needs to be a valid option. In today's society being excommunicated from a local church doesn't mean a whole lot. Being kicked out of town, certainly would mean something.

I also view the aspect of "people looking over them" with a somewhat benign eye. It's true that the church would have a lot of authority in the town. On the other hand, everyone that lives there does so with the full knowledge and expectation that that will be true. Thus, the "coercive" aspects could be viewed as a form of hyper-accountability.

Adam: Hm. I take issue with the idea that there is any relief from the Commission, or that separation from mainstream society will ever ultimately service it. I am certain at the least that the raising of a man's family is not to be, as conventional wisdom would dictate, done in the most secure place possible. Every man's possession is to be given up freely to the LORD's service, and that includes his family, as horrifying a thought as I know this is (and one day, it will be all the more horrifying to me; I can't know the half of it now, quite literally). Point is: a Christian in NYC has far more opportunity to serve the Master and affect change than a Christian will in this Ave Maria, because all our knowledge and keeping of the law is ultimately of no consequence. As for excommunication, I agree that with far more individual churches out there now, many of which might not look into a new member's history, it might not mean as much-were we the full arm of God. But we discipline to our extent, I think, and should not concern ourselves with anything further. I guess what I'm saying here is that I see $400 million going to the creation of a greater structure-Catholic town for people who are Catholics-which is not an increase in the Church, which would be $400 million going to, say, church planting by Catholics for heathen. Community transformation.

Like Roberts Jr. said: If this Catholic town were wiped off the face of the planet, who would miss it? Catholics. Who does it serve? Catholics. Am I calling this foray selfish? No; but self-centered, yes. And the two are different, I think.

A friend of mine I consider a spiritual father to me has always told me that if you want to grow in Christ, in your faith, the best way to do it is to pray for others and to serve others. We might extrapolate from that and say that the best way for the Church to grow in Christ and in its faith is to pray for and serve others. I'm inclined to think that in focusing solely on such, I neglect myself and leave myself open to corruption by not 'shoring myself up', and perhaps if there is a total imbalance this is certainly the case. But might there not be point to the fact that Jesus's immediate reaction to hearing about John's death was to start ministering to others again?

That is, the recipients are not the only ones to receive. And this seems to me very characteristic of the Gospel.

Joe: Paul grew up in a devout community and learned from the best before beginning his earthly ministry. Jesus was 30 before He began to minister. Samuel grew up in the temple, before beginning his ministry. Moses lived a fairly insulated life before getting kicked out and into reality. These may be isolated exceptions to the rule, but I'm not positive that they are.

I'm also certain that I'm over-simplying the case a bit. Still, I think it's possible that Ave Maria has the potential to become a training ground for evangelists, apologists, ministers. I don't think it's a town that one should necessarily spend one's entire life in. On the other hand, I don't think that living there for a few years would be a negative experience either. I think it would be a good place to be from.

Adam: Moses may be out. He spent nearly 40 years being raised by the royal family, another 40 in Midian, which was pagan. And the royal family wasn't exactly a group of synagogue-lovers. :)

Joe: Well, yeah. My broader point was that ministry didn't always start at a young age. There is precedence for going through a long period of preparation. Of course, the opposite is true as well. Which just goes to show that the Boss likes to mix things up.

Adam: This is true, which is why I'm not outright condemning it; not sure it's possible to condemn any approach when He's that versatile.

What do you think, readers? Please hit the "Comments" link below and let us know your thoughts on this idea.

A quote I think could very well summarize what the methodology of any follower of the LORD should be:

"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." - Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

I present: Feet of Clay. This is a new feature here at Minor Thoughts. Many Biblical characters are far more interesting than we realize. With all of the familiar stories floating around, it's easy to forget just how, well, human they sometimes were.

This first edition of "Feet of Clay" grew out of a recent IM conversation between Adam and me. The ideas are Adam's. The presentation is mine. Enjoy.

Moshe was the creepiest man on Earth. Think about this, really: This was the guy with all this power, but he never spoke when he came into the courts, etc. Aaron always talked for him. Maybe Moshe whispered into his ear or something, but he was the silent big guy that gave orders to the man who talked. Plus after Exodus he always wore a veil across his face because his face was radiant -- from talking to God -- and frightened the heck out of everyone. So, really, you have this image of this old man who doesn't talk, constantly veiled but there's a glow underneath that cloth... More than intimidating as a visual image, if you ask me.

He killed an Egyptian at 40. And the rest wasn't physically strenuous, so by the time he's walking around with a stick and glowing he could just be old and thin.

I'll bet the Midianites didn't recognize him when he returned to kill them all. And isn't that the big twist at the end of the Torah, incidentally? The Midianites are all put to the sword by the Hebrews. You have to wonder how Jethro felt about that, his wife, etc. His wife didn't Moshe anyway ("you are a bridegroom of blood to me" is hardly a flattering remark), but...

Incidentally, do you think Moshe divorced his wife or just literally sent her out of Egypt? Because the Bible uses the phrase "sent her away", which is the phrase that's always used for divorce... Which makes Moshe all the more interesting. Divorced and the product of an incestuous marriage. He can hardly get more interesting. (ed: Somehow I missed the whole incestuous marriage angle. That certainly wasn't covered in Sunday School. :-) ) Oh, yeah. His father married either his sister or his half-sister. Either way. It was a marriage that Moshe would go on to condemn in the giving of laws.

Read the first two chapters of Pastor Bob Roberts, Jr.'s new book Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World today. I received an advance copy of it free of charge at the Glocal Conference in Rome back in January, due to my being so blessed as to be a pastoral intern who gets free goodies like this, but it didn't come off my shelf 'til now (which I grant you kinda defeats the purpose of having an advance copy).

Anyway, it's out now and it's very good, so I thought I'd share a few quotes from the first chapters with you here. Away we go:

"When people say the name of your church and the church you attend or in which you serve, what do they think?" (p.24)

"Being centered on Christ isn't just part of our statement of faith, but a recognized practice of that fact to which the world and community of nonbelievers can attest." (p.25)

"Someone is 'called of God' not because of the way the person lives but because of the way the person speaks!... In the Western church, few are remarking about our current leadership style, 'If only I could know Jesus as he or she does.' Neither have I heard... the performers say like Paul, 'Imitate me.' We talk about the qualifications for ministry in terms of education, ordination, rules and regulations. However, isn't the main qualification for ministry the ability for a person to say, 'Imitate me'?" (p.26-27)

Do you realize Gandhi spent an average of two hours per day meditating on the Gospels? By his own admission, Jesus's teachings in the Sermon on the Mount became the basis for a large portion of everything he did... Something is tragically amiss when a man without Christ can change a nation and Christians who possess the Holy Spirit can't." (p.33)

If the church in a local community were gone, who besides its adherents would miss it?" (p. 36)

"The kingdom means that we are committed to being salt and light whether the people we serve all become Christians or not. Today's notion of 'us against them' Christianity would be foreign to the early church." (p.36)

"During my seminary days, planting a church actually meant you couldn't land a position with a 'real' church, so you had to go start one." (p.39)

If you are sufficiently enticed, go thumb through a copy at your local bookstore and maybe plop it down on the checkout counter.

Fun fact: For about a year now, I've heavily suspected Goliath never had a chance against David, even from an atheistic perspective.

S'like this: Back in the Olden Days, killing people with a sling was actually a highly-refined art. I admittedly got this second-hand from historical novelist Michael Curtis Ford (good writer), but I'm told that we know from the Spartan mercenary Xenophon's autobiography _The Anabasis _ that a slinger could kill a sheep at 200 yards with just a rock he found lying about on the ground, 300 yards if he had one of his specially-made lead bullets handy.

Christian apologists have often spoken excitedly of the fact that modern giants' foreheads have soft spots. Personally, I don't see the reason; if David had-as he quite obviously did-skill with the slingshot, then he might as well have pulled out a .22 Magnum and capped his giant adversary. The fight wouldn't have been much more lop-sided.

So, this begs the question, of course: What's the point of the story if David just ran out onto the field and smote a hapless foe?

A few thoughts on the subject:

(1) Tactics aside, no member of the army of Israel nor the army's king challenged the blaspheming Philistine, and David did. That David then proceeded to shoot Goliath doesn't take away from the fact that he was the only person with enough conviction to do something about the problem.

(2) The one-on-one duel for the fate of Israel was the Philistines' idea, not the LORD's; indeed, the LORD never suggests such a method of solving Israel's war problems in the Old Testament, and no attempt to do so ever works out. God is not interested in having terms dictated to Him. Why should He respect the honor code devised by a bunch of pagans? From this perspective, David's response was absolutely perfect: come out onto the field for the "honor duel" and then gun down their prize fighter, sending a loud and clear message that he wasn't interested in playing the game.

(3) One of the reasons I think the Jews have throughout history held a reputation among Western peoples as "dishonest" is because Westerners had (and have) a different sense of honesty than the Bible seems to. From what I'm reading in 1st Samuel, no rule save that one warrior should face another was instituted for the battle; David simply worked creatively within that framework. To the outwitted, of course, this is always "cheating"; to those of us who prize wit and do not hold others accountable for rules that never existed, it is clever and perfectly fair. David's smarts may thus be on display here.

Something to consider. Lata.

From the Armed Liberal at Winds of Change, comes this distressing little story:

Dear Amy: My husband and I have lived in our quiet suburban Denver neighborhood for six years. About two years ago two young gay men moved in across the street. They've taken the ugliest, most run-down property in the neighborhood and remodeled and transformed it into the pride of the street.

When it snows, they shovel out my car and are friendly, yet they mostly keep to themselves.

Last month I went out to retrieve my newspaper and watched them kiss each other goodbye and embrace as they each left for work.

I was appalled that they would do something like that in plain view of everyone. I was so disturbed that I spoke to my pastor. He encouraged me to draft a letter telling them how much we appreciate their help but asking them to refrain from that behavior in our neighborhood.

I did so and asked a few of our neighbors to sign it.

Since I delivered it, I've not been able to get them to even engage me in conversation.

I offer greetings but they've chosen to ignore me.

They have made it so uncomfortable for the other neighbors and me by not even acknowledging our presence.

How would you suggest we open communications with them and explain to them that we value their contributions to the neighborhood but will not tolerate watching unnatural and disturbing behavior. - Wondering

When I read the above letter early this morning, my initial reaction was one of horror -- horror that this woman would act in this manner. As I considered it further, I began to wonder if she'd been right. After all, aren't Christians called to take a stand against sin? The more I thought about it, however, the more I returned to my initial reaction. I was finally convinced in my reaction when I remembered the story of the Woman at the Well.

The Woman at the Well is a well-known Bible story from John 4:1-42. In it, Jesus is setting at a well when a Samaritan woman comes to draw water. In the story, Jesus commits the double "faults" of speaking to an adulterous woman and speaking to a Samaritan woman. During the conversation, He makes mention of her husband and she responds "I have no husband". Jesus says "You are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true."

This conversation is significant because, according to Jewish custom, this woman would have been considered a serial adulteress. It was a massive breach of custom, decorum, and tradition for Jesus to speak to her at all. When He did speak to her, it was with love and compassion. I find it interesting that after Jesus says what He does, He makes no further reference to her husbands or her adultery. For Him, the important issue is not her sin, but her salvation.

I think this is directly relevant to the story told by "Wondering". Homosexuals are looked down on by many Christians in much the same way that the woman at the well was looked down on by good Jews. In some ways, modern Christians are more accepting of homosexuals than Jews would have been of the woman at the well.

I am horrified by "Wondering's" account because she did not show the love of Christ to the men. Rather, she attacked them in a letter. Letters are a very impersonal, passive-agressive methods of communication. (They're passive-agressive because they give the recepient no immediate avenue of response.) Furthermore, it was a letter signed by many of the other people in the neighborhood. Unlike Christ, there is no indication that she forged a relationship with these men, that she addressed her concerns to them directly, or that she approached them with love. Instead, the only emotion she relates is that of being "disturbed".

While Christ did mention the sin of the woman at the well, He did so in the context of her need for salvation. "Wondering" did not do so. Instead, she made the neighbors' sin (and her dislike of it) the entire focus of her communication. I believe it is very unlikely that these men will ever listen to her or respect her after the way she treated them. Indeed, I think it is very likely that their view of Christianity itself has been tainted by her actions.

I am indignant because this woman threw away a golden opportunity to communicate the love and forgiveness of Christ. I believe we should follow His example when dealing with people in sin: address their spiritual needs first through love and compassion. If we do that, the sin issue will be far easier to deal with.

Two weeks ago, my parents forwarded me an e-mail. It told the story of David S. MacMillan III's encounter with a biology professor at Dordt College. The conversation revolved around the the origins of the universe and the Genesis account of creation. David has posted the full story on his blog and entitled it "Minions of the Devil". I would like to respond to that story and raise some questions.

First of all, I'll state flatly that I disagree with many of his points. In this post, I will explain the background of why I disagree with his points. In a future post I'll look at his story and comment on what, specifically, I disagree with.

His argument revolved around one basic theme: because the Bible is infallible, we can (and should) use it to determine the scientific origins of the cosmos and the age of the cosmos. I think this argument is flawed. This argument makes one of two unsupportable assumptions. This argument either assumes that the ancient Israelites thought about the world the same way we do or it assumes that God communicated truth in a way we would understand and they would not.

David's argument rests on two pieces of evidence: the Creation account in Genesis 1:1-11 and the genealogies given throughout the Bible. For both pieces of evidence, David is assuming that either the ancient Israelites were as meticulous about detail as we are, or that God divinely ensured that the Biblical details were up to our meticulous standards.

Allow me to explain. Actually, I am not qualified to comment on the Genesis 1 account. Dr. John Walton, however, is so qualified. He is a Professor of Old Testament Studies at Wheaton College. He received his PhD from Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion in 1981 and taught at Moody Bible Institute for 20 years before joining the faculty of Wheaton College.

Last year he gave a sermon at my church on Genesis 1 entitled, "Why Didn't God Call the Light, Light?". In that sermon, he discusses the cultural makeup of the ancient Israelis and, through that cultural understanding, offers a more accurate interpretation of Genesis 1. I took the liberty of transcribing the sermon so that you can read it for yourself and evaluate his evidence. I would ask you to read it before continuing with this response. Much of what I'll say later references Dr. Walton's sermon.

Dr. Walton has demonstrated that the ancient Israelis did not think about creation or the origins of the universe in the same way we do. A second question remains: did they think about genealogies the way we do? We automatically assume that a genealogy contains every generation of a family -- never skipping, never rearranging, and never exaggerating. In short, a genealogy (to our minds) is a complete, factual, historical record of a group of people.

We must recognize that not all people groups understand genealogies in this way. For instance, many primitive cultures did not place a great value on the order of the genealogy -- it may, or may not, have been out of order. Sometimes a genealogy will list people in order from most important to least important. Often times, the ages of various people in a genealogy may be exaggerated. Dr. Walton discussed the fact that God communicated in methods that the Israelites would understand. Before using a genealogy to determine the age of the earth, it is first imperative to know whether or not the ancient Israelites used genealogies in the same way that we do.

In his Old Testament commentary, Dr. Walton discusses the genealogies found in Genesis. He states that:

The genealogies between Adam and Noah and between Noah and Abraham (Genesis 11:10-27) are each set up to contain ten members, with the last having three sons. Comparing Biblical genealogies to one another shows that there are often several generations skipped in any particular presentation. This type of telescoping [skipping generations] also occurs in Assyrian genealogical records. Thus, we need not think that the genealogy's purpose is to represent every generation as our modern family trees attempt to do.

Clearly, the Israelites viewed genealogies differently than we view them. Therefore I think it is dubious, at best, to use Biblical genealogies as proof of the age of the earth. I am sure that many of you will quote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to prove the veracity of the Bible: All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.

However, it is important to note what this passage does and -- more importantly -- does not say. This passage says that Scripture is useful for teaching, reproving, correcting, and training. It does not say that the Bible is useful for scientific or historical inquiries. It may be accurate along those lines, but it is not required to be accurate along those lines. God gave eternal truths to men, who then wrote them down. Those men were divinely inspired, but they were not divine type-writers. Their own cultural biases, view points, and limitations come through in the text time and time again. Why should genealogies be any different?

I agree with Dr. Walton. Scripture is written for us, but it was not written to us. We cannot blindly interpret it according to our own preconceptions and biases. We must approach it from the viewpoint of those it was written to. Furthermore, the central focus of the text is not the physical origins of the earth. The central focus of the text is God's divine authority over the earth and the divine providence and care for His people. The Genesis account of creation demonstrates the basis for God's authority over the cosmos. The genealogies demonstrate God's continual provision for his people, throughout the ages. Neither of these messages are undermined if the people writing the accounts failed to be as pedantic and detailed as our culture.

Recently I've been looking over my notes from an assisted study on the Biblical book of Galatians (The Glory of the Gospel: Studies in Paul's Letter to the Galatians is the name of this thing; I don't have the name of the author). I don't usually enjoy assisted Bible studies; the study guides almost always strike me as insipid and condescendingly vapid. I wouldn't have read The Glory but a good friend recommended it.

And thanks be t'God for him doing so, because The Glory of the Gospel doesn't mess about with peripheral nonsense; the sole subject broached is the central tenet to The Way of the Christ, and it is discussed directly and with intelligence. Which is its stated purpose: the writers of The Glory kick off their whole book with an introduction excerpted from A Passion for God, by Raymond C. Ortlund Jr., who writes,

"Imagine the evangelical church without the gospel... What might our evangelism, without the evangel, look like? We would have to replace the centrality of the gospel with something else, naturally. A number of things, conceivably. An introspective absorption with recovery from past emotional traumas, for example. Or a passionate devotion to the pro-life cause. Or a confident manipulation of modern managerial techniques. Or a drive toward church growth and success. Or a deep concern for the institution of the family. Or a fascination with the more unusual gifts of the Spirit... Or a determination to take America back to its Christian roots through political power... But not only is this conceivable, it is actually happening among us right now...

"Rather than carelessly assume the Gospel, we must aggressively, deliberately, fully and passionately teach and preach the gospel. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. If we do not intentionally search them out, we will miss them."

I'd like to share some notes and transcriptions from the first chapter of the study (concerning Gal. 1-2:10) with you here.

The Glory of the Gospel supplies as commentary on the first passage Martin Luther's own words, naturally paraphrased and abridged. The Reformer writes as follows (and I'm editing for space):

"Now it is right to be a good citizen, to be loved and respected by your social group, and to be a morally upright person. So all these may be received without danger, if we attribute to them no power to satisfy for sin, to please God, or to deserve grace... These kinds of righteousness are gifts of God, like all good things we enjoy...

"Yet there is another, far above the others, which Paul calls 'the righteousness of faith!'--Christian righteousness... God imputs it to us apart from our works--in other words, it is passive righteousness, as the others are active. For we do nothing for it, and we give nothing for it--we only receive and allow another to work--that is God...

"This 'passive' righteousness is a mystery that the world cannot understand. Indeed, Christians never completely understand it themselves, and thus do not take advantage of it when they are troubled and tempted. So we have to constantly teach it, repeat it, and work it out in practice. For anyone who does not understand this righteousness or cherish it in the heart and conscience, will continually be buffeted by fears and depression.

"Nothing gives peace like this passive righteousness... For human beings by nature, when they get near either danger or death itself, will of necesity view their own worthiness. We defend ourselves before all threats by recounting our good deeds and moral efforts. But then the remembrance of sins and flaws inevitably comes to mind, and this tears us apart, and we think: 'How many errors and sins and wrongs I have done! Please God, let me live so I can fix and amend things.'

"We become obsessed with our active righteousness and are terrified by its imperfections. But the real evil is that we trust our own power to be righteous and will not lift up our eyes to see that Christ has done it for us... So the troubled conscience has no cure for its desperation and feeling of unworthiness unless it takes hold of the forgiveness of sins by grace, offered free of charge in Jesus Christ, which is this passive or Christian righteousness...

"If I tried to fulfill the law myself, I could not trust in what I had accomplished, neither could it stand up to the judgment of God. So... I rest only upon the righteousness of Christ... which I do not produce but receive; God the Father freely giving it to us through Jesus Christ...

"It is an absolute and unique teaching in all the world to teach people, through Christ, to live as if there were no Law or Wrath or Punishment. In a sense, they do not exist anymore for the Christian, but only total grace and mercy for Christ's sake... There is no other alternative to Christian righteousness but works-righteousness; if you do not build your confidence on the work of Christ you must build your confidence on your own work... So you who would be teachers and counselors of others, I admonish to exercise yourselves continually in these matters through study, reading, meditation on the Word and prayer--that in the time of trial you will be able to both inform and comfort both your consciences and others, to bring them from law to grace, from active/works-righteousness to passive/Christ-righteousness.

"For in times of struggle, the devil will seek to terrify us by using against us our past record, the wrath, and law of God... So learn to speak to one's heart and to the Law. When the law creeps into your conscience, learn to be a cunning logician-learn to use the arguments of the gospel against it. Say: 'O law! You would climb up into the kingdom of my conscience, and there reign and condemn me for sin, and would take from me the joy of my heart which I have by faith in Christ, and drive me to desperation, that I might be without hope. You have over-stepped your bounds... You are a guide for my behavior, but you are not Savior and Lord of my heart... So trouble me not!'"

"This then is the argument of this Epistle, which Paul expounds against the false teachers who had darkened the Galatians' understanding of this righteousness by faith."

P. 78 of The Glory of the Gospel adds that "If I am saved by my works, then I can either be confident but not humble... or humble but not confidence... In other words, apart from the gospel, I will be forced to be superior or inferior or to swing back and forth between the two... So I am continually caught between these two attitudes because of the nature of my self-image. But the gospel creates a new self-image. It humbles me before everyone, telling me I am a sinner saved only be grace. But it emboldens me before anyone, telling me I am loved and honored by the only eyes in the universe that really count.

I'm not sure there's a lesson out there which we're more likely to forget or that's more important for us all to remember.

I was all set to write a blogpost about the need for Christians to tithe 10% of their income. First, let me tell you why I was going to write that. Then I'll tell you why I'm not going to write that.

I was thinking about American Christians, our wealth, and whether or not we share our money as God commanded. I looked up the U.S. population. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. population is around 296 million people. Of those 296 million, a little over ¾ claim to be Christians. The median income in the U.S. is $44,473 dollars a year. That would mean the median tithe in the U.S. should be $4,473 a year.

Let's assume that half of the people that claim to be Christian are lying. Let's assume that the other half of the people that claim to be Christian actually are dedicated church-goers. That would mean we should see 114,596,977 people tithing an average of $4,473 a year. Total tithe in the U.S. would then be somewhere above $500 billion a year. Unfortunately, total 2004 charitable giving in the U.S. only amounted to $250 billion.

Why do I bring that up? Yesterday, I read an article about Joan McCarville, a woman that had had one transplant too many. She needed a lung transplant, but couldn't get one unless she and her husband ponied up over $330,000. That sounds like a lot of money. Until you consider the fact that either a lot of people are lying about being Christians or else the church is being woefully underfunded. Just imagine what the church could do with an extra $250 billion a year! Area churches would certainly be able to help out a lot more people like this unfortunate woman.

As I say, that's what I originally planned to post. Then I went searching for information on tithing. I found an interesting dialog from Dean VanDruff about tithing. It is entitled "The Tithe, A Biblical Perspective". It really gave me a lot to think about. You really, really, really should go read the entire thing, but I'll excerpt some of it to give you a taste:

"The tithe" as part of the Law is no more applicable to us than making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem three times a year is. It is mentioned in the New Testament only a couple of times, generally in the context of rebuke to the Pharisees concerning fastidious observance of the ceremonial Law.

Christians in general reject the idea that we are "under the law", yet tithing somehow gets exempted. But it is all or nothing, when it comes to the law, is it not?

For the Jews the tithe was a "party" (or feast, if you like) and was to be "consumed in the sight of the Lord". God's command to tithe includes consuming "whatever your heart desires", including "strong drink"! Imagine using up a tenth of your agricultural increase every year in a single party! Wasteful, extravagant, and flesh mortifying; yet God's clear command. With this Jewish (and historic) perspective, no wonder the prophet Malachi (3:8-11) asks: "How have we robbed from You, Lord, by not tithing?" If you understand the Jewish idea of party-tithing, you will appreciate his question. God commands His people to enjoy themselves by bringing the bounty together so that "There may be food in my house" and then feasting and enjoying themselves in His sight.

A different perspective, no? It certainly gave me something to think about. So I'll refrain my haranguing the church about there being a clear need to tithe more. On the other hand, there's certainly nothing wrong with giving more of your income to the local body of believers. After all, there are a lot of big, legitimate needs all around us. Our individual contributions might be small, but together they could accomplish quite a lot. I'd rather give my share of the $500 billion to the church than to the government.

And Joan McCarville? Well, it turns out she'll have most of the cost of her transplant covered. There is a medical relief fund setup, if you would like to help out with the rest of the cost. Contributions can be sent to the Joan McCarville Lung Transplant Fund, Farmers State Bank, P.O. Box 145, Hollandale, WI 53544.

UPDATE: The VanDruff's have something else up that I found interesting: Bible Study: Money in Scripture. I only skimmed it earlier, but I think it's worth reading through more carefully later.