Pages
Categories
Archives
March 23, 2011
Over at Wesdraws.com there’s another interesting conversation happening. (It seems as though Wes is determined to keep me updating by compelling me to answer his questions!)
Recently, Dan Haseltin of Jars of Clay fame wrote an article discussing whether or not offensive art can be Christian. It’s really an interesting read and you should check it out here.
This article led Wes to ask a slightly different question: Should Christianity art offend?
It’s probably one of the largest discussions I’ve seen at the site, having over 70 responses as of this writing. The topics have ranged from what is offensive, to the question of why nudity is wrong and violence is ok, and the point of ‘showing it all’, being “real” or just “trying to be cool”.
It’s clearly a heated topic with a variety of opinions, and it really got me thinking.
Should Christian Art offend? Should Christian anything offend? Are we allowed to be offensive, or are we called to be perfect paragons of light, shining only peace and love while never skating on the edge of unruliness or offensiveness?
As always, when faced with such questions, I feel compelled to turn to the Word and the Man that I believe in. The Man who IS the Word in fact. Jesus.
And so I have to ask, was Jesus ever offensive? And you know what? I think He was. Several occasions come to mind where I believe He most likely offended people. I remember reading when Jesus called people hypocrites, Herod a fox, and even when He turned down a disciple for not giving up everything immediately to follow Him.
But one occasion especially comes to mind: Matthew 21. Let me quote the verses for you.
12 Jesus entered the Temple and began to drive out all the people buying and selling animals for sacrifice. He knocked over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves. 13 He said to them, “The Scriptures declare, ‘My Temple will be called a house of prayer,’ but you have turned it into a den of thieves!”
Whoah. Jesus walked into a temple and kicked people out. He turned over their tables and chairs. He called them little more than a den of thieves. And these were the guys working in the Temple! That would be akin to me walking into my church, knocking over the Secretary’s desk and then kicking her out.
I’m pretty sure the money changers were offended. But Jesus had a very real point to make that day. (And it’s a good one, but I’ll save that for another post)
These people were doing something very wrong, and doing so in the Temple no less. And Jesus was going to say the truth, no matter how forcefully it needed to be said, no matter how offensive it might come to those who needed to hear it.
Jesus wasn’t going to let the fear of offense dilute the power of truth. And we shouldn’t either as Christians.
There is a fine line to walk. Jesus didn’t turn over those tables and chairs for the sake of the point. He turned over the tables and chairs as He made the point. He didn’t offend to tell the truth. He told the truth even if it offended. And there’s a large difference.
Allow me to put it this way. Imagine you know two people for ten years. One who cursed and swore every other word of every sentence. And one who never once uttered an expletive. If on the tenth anniversary of meeting these two individuals both spoke an expletive would you react to the first? Would you react to the second?
I would hazard a guess that to the first it would be business as usual. But to the second you might do a spit take. Because it was so out of character and place it took you by surprise.
When it comes to offense we must ask ourselves why we are doing what we are doing. To glorify God first? Or to grab attention in the hopes that it might eventually glorify God.
If you offend for the sake of offending just to elevate your message, you only dilute it.
But if you dilute your message for the sake of not offending you have done equal harm to your words.
Should Christian Art (or anything) offend? Yes if necessary. Just not by default. Not as a go to tool. But should it avoid offending at all costs? No. Christianity is about God first and the world second. Not the other way around. It is better to offend with truth than to make peace with a lie.
March 16, 2011
Over at Wesdraws, Wes posed a few very interesting questions in his latest post.
He asked:
“Do you think there is a difference between a “believer” and a “disciple”?
If so, what differentiates the two?
Which is more important?”
I read through the answers, all very well stated and clearly explained. But I found myself disagreeing with them to a small extent.
What most commenters said was basically, “Yes, there is a difference. (Although maybe there shouldn’t be) Believing is something anyone can do, but discipleship is growing/learning/etc. therefore it is better.”
But it’s not. Not necessarily. I’d like to take a look at a few verses of the Bible before getting into more of my answer. Because I do believe there is a difference between a disciple and a believer.
John 6:
53 So Jesus said again, “I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you cannot have eternal life within you. 54 But anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise that person at the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Anyone who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57 I live because of the living Father who sent me; in the same way, anyone who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 I am the true bread that came down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will not die as your ancestors did (even though they ate the manna) but will live forever.”
59 He said these things while he was teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60 Many of his disciples said, “This is very hard to understand. How can anyone accept it?”
61 Jesus was aware that his disciples were complaining, so he said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what will you think if you see the Son of Man ascend to heaven again? 63 The Spirit alone gives eternal life. Human effort accomplishes nothing. And the very words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. 64 But some of you do not believe me.” (For Jesus knew from the beginning which ones didn’t believe, and he knew who would betray him.) 65Then he said, “That is why I said that people can’t come to me unless the Father gives them to me.”
66 At this point many of his disciples turned away and deserted him.
Now I want to point out something here. There are many people that Jesus is talking to. But a few of them are actually disciples. They are referred to specifically as that. In fact, the text goes so far as to say he said to THEM (the disciples).
A disciple is someone who is learning. Whether it be teaching, methods, philosophy, or something else. They are a learner. These people followed after Jesus because he had something interesting to say, something they may not have heard before, and they wanted to learn from Him.
But what Jesus decided to say and teach that day was very difficult to understand and even more difficult to accept. Many of the disciples did not understand. But even more than that, the text tells us they did not BELIEVE Jesus’ words. So they left him. Turned away from him.
My point today is that discipleship is great. It’s important. Very important. Some of the commenters at wesdraws pointed out Paul’s writing that mentions even demons believe in Jesus. That we strive for more.
But to the opposite point, anyone can learn. Anyone can listen. But without belief, and therefore application of that belief, you can walk away from Jesus having truly gained nothing.
Many people stood before Jesus one day and heard his words. They were disciples of Christ But they walked away from him because in the end they weren’t believers of Christ. How much did their learning do?
So to answer Wes’ questions:
There is a difference between a believer and a disciple.
A disciple is someone who strives to learn from another.
A believer is someone who puts their faith in another.
But neither is more important than the other.
In fact, each is broken without the other.
A believer who does not learn and grow is stagnant.
A learner who does not believe is lost.
March 14, 2011
This is a short article I think, one born from a conversation I was having earlier.
You see, they were talking of some people out there who claim the Christian name but don’t live up to it. These people apparently say the current tragedy in Japan is some sort of divine punishment from God. And this friend were talking about how bad this makes Christians look to others.
And I agree in principle. But in loudly complaining about these people in many ways my friend only served to draw more attention to them. And they clearly don’t deserve it.
The problem for my friend is they know people who only see the ugly side of Christianity.
But it’s good to know these sorts of people. In fact, that brings me to the main point of this post. You see, I think every Christian should have at least one (if not many) atheist friend(s).
I had a co-worker at one point who was atheist. I still remember the first day it really came out. That he was absolutely completely convinced that there is no God. And that I was absolutely convinced there is. The best description for this occasion would be two cats meeting for the very first time. Our backs arched, we circled, each ready to claw the other, waiting to see who would strike first.
I don’t remember who struck first, but I do remember there was a lot of back and forth for nearly an hour.
But the first day wasn’t our best day for argument and debate. It was merely a beginning. Because we were co-workers and we did have to speak to each other often. So we had to see each other as more than just that Atheist/Christian guy. We saw our strengths, weaknesses, likes, and dislikes. And we found we had many things in common. In fact, outside of our spiritual beliefs we were more alike than unalike.
My co-worker challenged me everyday. On what I believed, why I believed, how I believed. And I too challenged him. He sometimes told me that I was the first real Christian he had ever met. This was both heart-warming and heart-breaking. After all he had been in church as a younger man. For me to be the first is a sad fact.
And while I had known that Atheists can be and are good people, there is always the prejudice… the temptation to believe that they aren’t really. That they’re different from Christians somehow. Less moral.
And while it was true that my co-worker and I disagreed on certain points of morality I can say with a strong confidence that he is a good good man. One I am glad to call friend.
We are no longer co-workers, and we don’t communicate as much as we did before. And I can’t say that he became a Christian because of me. But I think I can say he knows more of what a real Christian is because of what God did in my life and in his.
And while he could never convince me that God isn’t real, he taught me many things through his actions and words. He challenged me to look at my spirituality, my beliefs, in new ways that I might never have done on my own.
Every Christian should have at least one Atheist friend. And the other way around too. Through such relationships we can challenge our preconceptions. And our faith can grow.
July 6, 2010
This will be a multitopic letter, with sidebars and asides and so on, I can feel it now.
Evangelism has been on my heart alot lately. I’ve been hit with it in classes, challenged on it in my worklife, and even (albeit without truly meaning to) had it thrown my way in my online dealings.
Evangelism is a really sticky topic in America. You will often hear anymore that “faith should be a personal thing, kept to one’s self.”
It saddens me that this is said. It saddens me even more that Christians are ACTUALLY buying into it. They shouldn’t. It’s a lie.
The ability to evangelize, to preach, to tell others of your belief, no matter what that belief is, is one of the most important fundamental rights any American has and should exercise. (Side note, the ability to walk away from those doing said evangelism is equally important, respect is always to be maintained and if someone wants to leave and not hear anymore, they should be allowed to do so ALWAYS.)
Telling someone about the truth of Jesus Christ is one of the most important things any Christian can ever do. Even if it’s awkward. Even if it’s unsuccessful. Even if it doesn’t seem to amount to anything. (If often does and we don’t know it).
But why?
Because of what we believe.
Recently, while speaking with others online, I was asked innocent questions. How were my classes towards accreditation as a minister coming along, and what denomination would I be preaching for? The answer to the second led to another question. Does that denomination preach fire and brimstone sermons?
My answer was simply that we do not regularly preach about Hell (we focus more on the love of Jesus), but if I were asked straight out if I believe a non-believer who does not hold Jesus as a personal savior will go to hell when they die I would answer yes.
That answer offended someone. Someone I do consider a good person, and would gladly call a friend.
Am I sorry for the offense? Yes. Am I sorry for my answer? No.
Because I would rather risk offense to even a good friend, then commit the greater offense of lying. Of sanitizing the truth. Of trying to create some pseudo “more friendly” religion in the hope to draw other people in with that deception. That to me is more offensive, any day of the week.
Do not misunderstand me. My denomination and I very much, believe that Christianity is a religion of love. Not hate. And it is far too often being used as a means of hate. And THAT is offensive too. Hating others is not the example Jesus set at all. He spent his time with sinners. Loving those sinners. He told them the truth. That sin is bad, what the consequences of sin are, but he always showed love. He never spoke in hatefulness to those sinners. And the church as a whole needs to start setting THAT example, instead of the one we are all too often known for.
I believe the vast majority of Christians actually fall in line with that. Unfortunately a very loud minority has set a bad image for us. And it’s our fault. Because we aren’t out there, being just as loud, only in a good way. It should come to no surprise that when the world sees only one set of Christians acting in a very non-Christian manner, it has come to believe that all Christians are like this.
It’s too easy to sanitize Christianity. But that’s the worse thing we can do. Because then all we accomplish is someone joining under false pretenses and leaving disillusioned. I encourage people to be honest in what they believe, but love at the same time. It is possible. If you aren’t sure how, just read about Jesus. He was the very model of truthful loving. Watch a parent. Parents will, in all lovingness, tell their child they are making a mistake. They will do it gingerly, tenderly, but with the proper sense of admonishment. This is less of a contradiction that we make it out to be.
There is a lot of WRONG teaching on what Hell is. And that’s the only reason I believe the topic of Hell needs to be addressed in church. A reeducation. It isn’t a threat, but it is a truth. The point of Hell is too often misunderstood. The reason for it completely lost.
But at the end of the day, if you are a Christian, you must decide something. Do I believe in Hell or not? Do I believe in everlasting life or not? If I do, how important is it that I tell others of Jesus? And I have found a worthy answer to that second question. Given by an atheist. Penn Gillette, of Penn and Teller.
There’s something that truly struck me about Penn’s words too. He kept saying, “He was a good man.” And it hit me so hard the first time I saw this. It has been so long since I have heard the phrase, “He was a good Christian man.” You don’t hear that anymore. And some would believe that’s because Christianity isn’t synonymous with good. But it should be.
I believe you don’t hear that anymore for another reason. The good Christians are keeping to themselves. This allows a minority to represent the majority to the world. We have held back too long, and allowed an image to encompass us.
Evangelism is important. It’s the most important thing you will ever do. Because it can change a person’s life. Even if you don’t see them come to salvation. The good book tells us (in the new Canterrain paraphrase version), that some plant the seeds, some water them, some harvest that which grew, but God gets the glory. Sometimes your ‘failure’ in evangelism isn’t a failure at all. But the seeds that were needed so someone else could do the harvesting.
And evangelism is like any other skill in life. The more you do it, the better you will get. The less you do it, the worse you will get.
From personal experience I have found that my closest times with God have been where I was speaking about God, for God, because of God.
Evangelism has another side effect that is all too important. It will challenge your faith, and grow it. Strengthen it like the fires do to a sword.
I encourage you, if you believe… TELL. It’s the most important thing you will ever do.
June 20, 2010
This will probably be my last response to NFQ. (More on that as we go along)
Recently (ok, recently in the context of writing things on the internet) she asked me a question about the story of Adam and Eve on my site. I found it an interesting question, and posted the start of the response.
I admitted up front that I had commented on the article, that I felt my comment was too long, and I also had to cut it short. I wasn’t satisfied with whether I had actually answered her question or not. I stated that maybe I would make it a multipart topic. In other words, I didn’t really say everything I wanted to say yet.
Maybe NFQ missed that comment (it happens), but she doesn’t treat me as though I said any of that in her response. I’ve said more than once that NFQ has been polite in her communications with me, and I’ve always appreciated that. But in her response post I suddenly can’t find myself saying that anymore.
I’ve suddenly come to realize, among other things, that NFQ is not in fact a critical thinker. She’s an internet debater. (Debate is not always critical thinking. In fact, it’s often NOT critical thinking. It’s just competition.)
I can see this by the way she unjustly half commented on half my post, glossing over one section while completely ignoring another. To read her post, one would think that I: agree English interpretations of the bible are bad, agree only biblical scholars can really read the bible, and that I forgot what the central aspect to her post was, and etc.
Now that’s me glossing over her post, and it’s really not that fair is it?
Let’s get in to what she had to say.
First, she comments that it is strange I even get into the topic of God lying when it has little to do with her central point of her post.
I’ll agree to the second part, partially, but not the first. NFQ stated in no unclear terms that God lied.
Call me a strange Christian, but when I see those words I have to back up and take a moment to examine them and wonder where it came from, how it came to the conclusion, and then address it. If I stated right now NFQ lied, she’d probably do the same over her own words. Now I’m not God, but I do believe in God (this very site is about God) so how should it really come to a surprise that I would feel the need to address the point?
I started to address this by getting into the fact that English interpretations of the Bible often end in the unfortunate but unavoidable fact that meaning can be missed, left out, or unclear. NFQ calls this a common excuse.
Well of course it’s common. It’s true. That doesn’t make it an excuse. That makes it true. This is the case of any sort of interpretation. Things do not always interpret well. Culture influences slang, importance, word choice, and more. Try to tell a joke in a different language to a different culture and you’ll quickly find out what I mean.
Small bodies of work that are interpreted often lose something in the process. So why should it come to a surprise that the Bible is no different?
What really shocked me though is what NFQ went on to suggest. I’ll quote that section just for clarity.
“The fact that most of the people reading the Bible today are reading a translation of a translation of a translation is definitely a problem, as far as conveying the (alleged) word of God is concerned.
If we agree on this much, (Canterrain’s note: I don’t actually agree on that assessment) though, we should move on to the next natural question: why is anyone reading the books of the Bible in anything other than the languages in which they were originally written? Teaching people the contents of the Bible in their own native languages seems like asking for trouble; you’re bound to misrepresent things and give them the wrong idea about God. Is it ever okay for me to read the Bible without the oldest known texts in front of me, and without years of training in ancient cultures and their languages’ idioms? It would seem not. It seems that only a very small percentage of people on the planet, real Biblical scholars, are at all qualified to read the Bible.”
This strikes me as funky, because NFQ comes off as the same person who probably would decry the church for at one point keeping the bible out of the common’s person hands by refusing to allow it to be interpreted into a language the common person could understand. (In fact, she has stated that “…religion was obviously fabricated in order to control people (sometimes for good and sometimes for bad).”)
Maybe NFQ is ok with the idea of the bible being kept out of the people’s hands by never being interpreted to English, but if she’s note I’d really feel compelled to ask for her to pick a side.
Are only Bible Scholars qualified to read the bible? No. That’s as absurd and ridiculous as NFQ probably means for it to be. But it also completely destroys her point.
Just because anyone should be able to read the bible, doesn’t mean that interpretation becomes an excuse. With any interpretation, things will get sticky and therefore when confusion comes out of it will need to be addressed. But that’s better than not interpreting at all, or over interpreting to a point it can’t be understood anyways. (Funnily enough, there is a bible interpretation that seems to want to do exactly that. It’s called the Amplified Bible, and not so surprisingly it can be very hard to read, and impossible to teach from)
NFQ goes on to point out that I commented on one particular line of the bible that doesn’t get interpreted exactly for all the reasons I’ve just stated. It’s the last few words of Genesis 2:17, and most literally they would be rendered “… and dying you shall surely die.” NFQ says that doesn’t make sense. I would almost agree, and like to point out that for that reason I explained. Over many sentences.
Allow me to summarize what I said. Dying you shall surely die doesn’t sound like much sense in English. But in (at least biblical era) Hebrew, it’s a cultural way of placing emphases. In this case, emphases on the severity of consequence. It’s an exclamation point of sorts for a people who didn’t use punctuation.
I also went on to explain how this doesn’t mean instantly in that exact moment, citing various other uses of the exact same words in other portions of the bible, places where it clearly doesn’t mean instant. But that’s left out of her post entirely.
Now NFQ asks about the tree of life and immortality, and that’s fair. I meant to cover this topic, but the whole topic became very long. Suffice to say (and I am going to gloss over this, because it involves Hebrew again, and clearly that’s not good enough) there are lines that suggest that had man chosen differently, he would have actually been allowed to live without dying. It’s actually a topic complicated enough to be worthy of its own post, and I’d like to cover it someday.
While commenting on my pointing out how the same word for day is used in multiple ways (a case for context NFQ likes to just disregard), she points out that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 might seem to have completely separate stories containing a first time God created man and woman together, and a second time God created man and woman. Two completely different and unrelated stories.
The case here is actually closer to what NFQ is stating than what she realizes. Two different stories are being told. But they also overlap and are related.
The first story is the story of creation as a whole. God created things, in this order, and rested at the end. The second is the story of what happened when (and after) God created man. The first story is a summary of a great deal of events. The second story is a detailed description of a single arc of events.
The man and woman mentioned in Genesis 1:26 are the exact same woman mentioned in Genesis chapter 2.
If I tell you about all the things I did to get to work. Perhaps waking up, showering, and getting ready for work, getting on a subway train, making the final trek to work… then later mention things that happened while on the subway train in detail, I have not told you I rode the subway twice.
This is a case of mistaking chapter and verse markings for meaningful markings of any sort. Yes, we added the chapter and verse distinctions. The books of the bile were never really written with putting those distinctions in mind. Now NFQ might decry that as more proof that the bible is altered and etc (she might not, however, to be fair), but the fact of the matter is we work and teach out of the bible. And the numbering system is the only thing that prevents a conversation such as, “Now everyone turn to the book of John. No that book of John, the other one. The one about Jesus. Now turn to the approximate middle if you have a small print bible, but two thirds in if you have a larger print. You’re looking for a section before his crucifixion…” You get the idea. Yes, the numbering system itself can create ‘problems’. But they are generally mild, and it is a case of helps more than it hurts. There are actually bibles printed without any such numbering whatsoever, and I do encourage any bible reader to purchase one. You may read the bible in a whole new way.
I can go on, and on. The problem lies in that I DO believe context matters. I also think it’s somewhat absurd to believe that context doesn’t. Context is the very heart of every sentence written. NFQ doesn’t. And since it’s a point we can’t agree on, it means it’s a topic where we will spin round and round.
And at this point, I refuse. Because as I have gone along I have come again to the realization that I began to mention earlier. NFQ is not a critical thinker. She is a debater. She doesn’t seem to care about being right so that she is right. But she cares about ‘being right whether or not she actually is right’ for the sake of winning.
You can see this in her articles on how to better debate. Debating is all well and good. But you can debate things you don’t believe and win. (I’ve done it) I have no doubt that NFQ could take every single one of her articles, and actually post responses that not only disagree but actually defeat them.
There are two kinds of debate though.
Debate for the point of bringing critical thinking. These end in the posts where when given one set of responses you reply with another set of responses based in fact, or at the very least well supported speculation.
Then there is debate for the sake of competition. These end in posts where when given one set of responses you reply with a carefully crafted set of responses with the sole intention to demean the value of the original set of responses, no matter what their actual worth may be. Usually this means the opposing responses have little knowledge or benefit to offer themselves.
NFQ’s response to my post can be boiled down to, “Canterrain is wrong because I disagree, and I think his point is invalid because I say so.” She glosses over things that are important, while focusing in on things that aren’t (all while essentially accusing me of the same thing; this despite that I admit I hadn’t focused on the part I and she really wanted me to). I get no sense that NFQ approached my requested response with any respect. (I admit, I could be wrong, tone is very hard to read on the internet)
And unfortunately, it’s left a bitter taste in my mouth. There has been one benefit to all this though. It made me remember why I started this site. And it wasn’t to debate. So I’ll throw in the ‘towel’. Because in the end, I’m hoping to add something of substance. Not win a competition. As for NFQ, well I honestly think she’s capable of substance too. She’s shown it on more than one occasion.
I think her better articles are the ones that aren’t about “how to win”, but unfortunately, as I look through them, it just seems like it’s becoming more and more about winning on her site.
But just as my ‘biases’ dictate my leanings in thought, so do hers. And I’m failing to see the point of continuing to circle the drain. So that’s why I doubt I’ll be continuing this back and forth between NFQ. And I do wish her the best. We are both just acting on our beliefs, after all.
My only regret really, is that I thoroughly enjoyed how respectful this going back and forth had started, and how disrespectful it seemed to end.
June 17, 2010
This is an article late in coming. And it will touch alot more on exacting scripture than I really intend for Lifequill.
In a comment to my Easy Apples post, the writer NFQ asked some questions regarding the creation story, specifically regarding the forbidden fruit and the consequences of eating it. (You can see that post here )
There are a few things I’d like to address regarding the post, along with the final question asked.
In the post, NFQ states:
“God lies to Adam and Eve and tells them that eating the fruit will cause them to die that day. (We know it’s a lie, because they do eat the fruit and that’s not what happens.)”
But this is untrue, actually.
The problem herein lies in that NFQ is working from an English translation of the Bible. The phrase is rendered, “And you shall surely die.” This does lend to certain problems in understanding the text. (For reference, the section of the Bible being discussed is Genesis 2:17; “… but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”)
Two sections need to be considered. The phrasing “in the day” and “you shall surely die.” I’m going to start with the second.
If you examine the Hebrew, the wording and verbiage used would come out word for word, “…dying you shall surely die.”
It contains a few things that really matter (grammar specialists take note, everyone else feel free to skip forward a bit).
It contains the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb (you shall die) and the infinite absolute form of the same verb (dying).
What exactly does that mean, you ask? First and foremost, that there is a strong emphasis on the fact that a kind of death will happen. But to best grasp it all, one can look for other uses in the Bible.
This same basic phrase is found in Numbers 26:65. In it, God tells the Israelites that because they refused to trust Him, the adults would die over the course of 40 years. The phrase, dying you shall surely die, is used specifically. But it is clear in that context, and from the following events, that God did not mean every adult would die instantly or at once. (Hence part of the use of 40 years). But that it could be gradual, still with the same outcome.
What of the second phrase, “in the day…” doesn’t that suggest that it would happen that day? Well, no. Again if you look at the Hebrew and how it is used in the Bible it often does not mean a single day.
For instance, the same word that creates this phrase is used to describe the six day period of creation. Not a single day. (Genesis 2:4) It is also used again in Numbers 7:10-84 to describe a twelve day period of sacrifice. The word itself can either be a specific day, or a number of days, or even more, and is dependent on the context of the text it is contained within to determine the case.
There are multiple ways of interpreting the line in regards to Genesis. It seems clear that a spiritual death DID happen that day. Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden; they “hid themselves from God.” Their once close relationship was now broken. But where the earlier text suggests that they may have lived eternally before (the part about eating any other tree, actually translates more correctly as everlasting feasting), they were now cursed to toil, experience pain, and eventually die.
There is nothing in the Hebrew text to suggest that the best translation would be, “If you eat the fruit, you will die instantaneously (or even this day). Just that the death would be a grave one. (It is emphasized in seriousness, not necessarily in timeliness)
So God was in fact telling the truth. Eating the forbidden fruit led to both a spiritual, and eventually a physical death.
But there is still another important question from NFQ’s post I feel need be addressed.
In it they ask (and allow me to paraphrase), “Is it fair for God to punish Adam and Eve’s actions, when by the very text admittance, they did not know the difference between right and wrong?”
Yes. Yes it is. We as humans, more specifically parents, do exactly that every day. When we have very young children, they often begin to do something because they do not know any better. As a parent, we will see their action and warn them to stop. The child understands what the parent has said, what they wish. But chooses to do so anyways. Again, not realizing that what they are doing is ‘wrong’. Not knowing any better. Yet afterwards, we still punish them.
Why? Because even if a child did not realize what they were about to do was wrong, they do know the sound of a parent’s voice. The intention of their words. And chose to ignore it. We punish as much for that as for the wrong. Adam and Eve did not have the knowledge of right and wrong. But they did have the knowledge of what God wanted and what He did not. And they chose their own will anyways. As with a child, they were punished. They, and the child, later knew what they did was wrong. Not just because of the action being wrong, but because of the disobedience. A child may not yet have understanding of good and bad, right and wrong, but they do have an understanding of listening to a parent. And we further instill that by holding them to it.
A life without consequences equates in nongrowth.
NFQ specifically asks: “So, the story of Adam and Eve suggests either that the justice of the Judeo-Christian God runs contrary to our most basic notions of what fairness should look like, or (less likely) that the Judeo-Christian God is so arbitrary as to cross the line into antagonism. If you believe in this God and you revere the text of Genesis, please tell me: which one is it?”
The answer actually is the first. One need not look further than the Bible to see that, as stated in 1 John 1:9. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
From the beginning man has as a whole done more wrong than right. More harm than good. Given free will, we choose destruction more often than not. It is hard to find a person who is blameless. (I do not believe one exists on this earth)
From the beginning all men have sooner or later chosen their own path over God’s. Reveling in our knowledge instead of His. Man’s justice claims that all crime should be punished. Yet, as John tells us, God’s justice involves forgiveness. When is the last time a judge offered a criminal forgiveness? Yet that is God’s way.
So although NFQ was trying to get at something else, (which I admit I sidestepped entirely with my earlier answer on exactly why punishing Adam and Eve is ok), I still find the answer to the question to be a resounding yes. What we find just in this world, it seems God would try to avoid for a greater sort of justice.
NFQ also asks: “While we’re at it — why wouldn’t God want his people to know the difference between good and evil? Wouldn’t God want people to be able to choose good over evil, and doesn’t that require being able to distinguish between them? A deity that punishes his people for finding out the difference between right and wrong does not sound very benevolent to me.”
I must simply point out what man has done with his knowledge of evil. God has knowledge of good and evil. Yet He is pure, and does only good. Man on the other hand is not the same. Capable of both good and evil, man chooses evil. And though yes it can be said that not all men are “EVIL” in the large truly horrid sense of the world. No man is purely good either. And drawing a line becomes a task so large that the rolling stone of “what isn’t too evil?” will flatten even the largest city.
Without the knowledge of good and evil, man could not do evil. But God didn’t strip that knowledge from us. He forbade it, yes. But He didn’t stop us from attaining it when we made the choice. The crux of free will.
January 27, 2010
I sometimes get asked, “If God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the apple, why did He make it so easy to get?”
The question revolves around the idea that God could have just as easily put the tree on top of a mountain, or made it impossible to reach in some way.
The problem is the question misses the entire point of what God really wanted. What God wants.
God built mankind with the express intent of giving them freewill. The ability to choose. It’s one of the things that separates us from everything else in the universe. Angels know God exists. And have no choice but to worship Him. The animals, the earth, even the very rocks would call out in praise of Him if no man or woman did. (Jesus briefly touches on that fact in Luke 19)
But God wanted something more. He wanted man to be able to make a choice. To believe Him. Or not. To worship Him. Or not.
We all know to a degree why He’d want something like that. If someone does something nice for you because they have to, or because they have no choice but to, it doesn’t mean anywhere near as much as when someone does something nice because they want to, they choose to. Does it?
Angels cry out in worship every moment to God. But a single moment of Man’s worship moves Him far more.
God wanted to build a creature that would choose to believe Him. Believe in Him. Worship Him. The one downside to that is, God would have to build a creature that could choose not to believe Him. Or believe in Him. Or worship Him.
And so the very first choice came with a fruit. Mankind was told not to eat it, or else there would be dire consequences. A serpent said to eat it, and that there would not be any such dire consequences.
Now I have to ask you, my reader, if the fruit had been impossible to get would it really have been a choice?
Let me ask this way. Imagine you enter a restaurant. You are greeted warmly by your server and they ask what you would like to drink. You naturally inquire as to the choices. Imagine the server told you, “We have water. And we have soda. But the only way to get the soda is to travel to Mount Everest, ascend it, and claim it yourself.”
Is soda really a choice in that situation? No, no it is not.
For something to be an actual choice, one option must be as relatively as easy to choose as the other.
If God had made the fruit impossible to obtain, He would have chosen for Mankind. Instead of allowing Mankind the choice.
May I address something else here? Choice also involves consequence. And taking responsibility for our choices. This is the very second mistake Mankind made.
First Mankind chose to believe the serpent over God. Then Mankind chose not to take responsibility for that choice.
Eve blamed the serpent, saying “The serpent deceived me and I ate it.”
Adam blamed both Even AND God! He said, “The woman YOU put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” (emphasis mine)
Notice first he points out that Eve gave him the fruit, then he points out that God was the one who made Eve in the first place. Therefore it’s “His fault.”
That’s a pretty big mistake to make. Because let’s face it. Eve chose to believe the serpent. Adam chose to believe Eve. They were told by God there would be dire consequences. And they chose to believe otherwise.
And do you know something else? The very question this topic asks makes the same mistake. It tries to put the blame on God. “Well if God had put the fruit out of reach, then Adam and Eve couldn’t have eaten it.”
But the problem isn’t what God could have done. The problem is what mankind should have done.
Do you know something else? This very topic also proves just how much God loves mankind. He could have made it impossible to choose to eat the fruit. But He would rather be able to lose us, not have our worship, have the outcome of us choosing something other than Him… than force us to stay in His presence, and worship Him.
That’s one of the things that seem to distinguish God from so many stories of gods and goddesses. Often those gods and goddess demand worship. God really could. But all He does is ask and hope and extend His arms waiting.
But God is a parent, in so many ways. We let our children choose. But when they choose unwisely, such as misbehaving, we also hold them accountable for those decisions.
So that’s what it boils down to. Yes. God didn’t want Adam and Eve to choose to eat the fruit. But what He wanted more was for Adam and Eve to be able to choose at all.
Without free will we are no different than cows. Existing without any real choice. Unable to grow, to succeed, to triumph. But with free will we can do all that and more. At the small cost that we also can and will fail.
Thankfully, God also created forgiveness. Second chances. And growth. Our failures don’t define us. But they do refine us. And that’s important too.
December 29, 2009
Suddenly the sound of a crash careened through the room. On the ground was a small china plate, cleanly broken in two. And a lesson was about to be learned.
There are two stories I wish to write about today. But before we delve into the story of a broken plate, let’s turn to the story of some very confused men. Allow me to point you to Matthew 18: 1-5. I’ll post it here in Today’s New International Version.
1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
2 He called a little child, whom he placed among them. 3 And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Therefore, whoever takes a humble place—becoming like this child—is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.
Confusing? Isn’t it? What does it mean to become like a child? And why should we be humble? In today’s America, humble is something that is likened to a false sincerity. You don’t acknowledge out loud how spectacular you are, but everyone knows you know it, so that you act like you are less is just that. An act.
But children don’t act. They are the most honest humans of all in their actions.
Let’s return to the initial story I began telling. It is a story of me. And my daughter. She is, at the time, a beautiful and incredible three year old girl, who finds absolutely everything marvelous.
On this day she is enjoying a very special gift given to her by my mother. It is a real china tea set. Not just a plastic children’s set. I had thought it too much for her, but wasn’t going to deny such a gift after my little one saw it and fell in love.
As young girls her age are apt to do, she immediately wanted to get it out and have a tea party with dad. A request I just was not able to deny. She poured the tea for me, set out the plates with the bread. And we sat down for a little pretend lunch. And something happened. It might have been a phone ringing, or a knock at the door. But I stood up for just one moment, looked away for the briefest second, and that’s when I heard it.
Crash. Shatter. The plate fell to the ground, broken into two perfect halves. And then I heard something that nearly broke my heart.
My daughter began to cry. This is a father’s true weakness. No man can stand firm in the face of this sound.
But then my daughter did two things that surprised me.
First she exclaimed through her tears, “I am so sorry, please don’t punish me.”
I was shocked. My daughter is well behaved, and I can only think of one time when I had ever had to even spank her. I could not and still can not think of any reason why she’d believe I’d punish her for what was an accident. Little children will drop plates. How wonderful and strange is a child though. She didn’t try to hide it, or lie. She took full responsibility, almost too much responsibility. How unlike an adult.
And then she gave me my second surprise. After so quickly apologizing and seeking escape from a dreamed punishment, she lifted up her arms. Seeking to be held, comforted, seeking the one person present who could make everything better.
How often does a human seek comfort from the very person who they believe might punish them? How often is the man holding the whip also the man who holds safety?
But it was the act of a child, a lesson that I believe illustrates Jesus’ words so perfectly.
Humans, whether you believe they are born with sin or without, do sin. We’ve all done it. We’ve all done –something-. Whether it was by accident, or on purpose. The sooner we acknowledge what we’ve done wrong, the better. Then we can ask for forgiveness. And then we can seek comfort.
Because God is a parent. THE Parent. He is like a Father. And a Mother. And His love is more complete, more full, than anything any human could manage.
Do you know what I did when my daughter reached up her arms and silently asked for me to pick her up? To hold her? To make it all better? I didn’t punish her. The thought never crossed my mind. I didn’t scold her. I didn’t have a single negative word to say.
I immediately picked up my daughter and held her close. Dried her tears. And I did everything I could to make it ok. I glued the plate. I assured her over and over that it was ok. That I wasn’t mad. That I loved her.
How could I do anything else?
And THAT my dear reader is the nature of God too. He created us. He loves us. And whether your plate is literal or figurative, whether it’s your heart, your life, your sins, or anything else. I promise you. I guarantee you. If you say today “I am sorry. Please forgive me.” And reach out your arms to be taken in by Him. He won’t hesitate.
A Father never could.
December 23, 2009
There is a worship song simply titled Breathe. The lyrics, like many worships songs, are simple. Easy. Repetitive. Perfect for learning quickly and following along.
This is the air I breathe.
This is the air I breathe.
Your holy presence, living in me.
This is my daily bread.
This is my daily bread.
Your very word, spoken to me.
And I am desperate for you.
And I am lost without you.
That is essentially the entire song. So simple, elegant… and so far from the truth.
I have never known desperation. I live in a great land. The United States. And though we are going through arguably a depression, I have never known desperation.
I have been jobless. I have been poor. But there has always been a meal. There has always been a roof over my head. There has always been a safety net, the promise of a blanket.
I have never wondered if I would wake up tomorrow.
I have witnessed desperation. I’m reminded of a video showing a woman and her child. The child was in a stroller. She took her hand off of it for one moment and in that one moment the stroller went right at a set of subway tracks. And a train was coming.
This woman dove for the stroller. Not in time, but it didn’t matter. She actually started to put her hand in front of the train to try and stop the stroller when it was all too late. Her health didn’t matter; she was desperate to save her child. Thankfully by a miracle the child actually made it through the ordeal without a scratch.
For that single moment only one thing mattered. Her child. An act of desperation that fueled her very actions. She risked and probably would have suffered harm for the sake of someone she loved so much.
Am I that desperate for God? I wish I could say yes. But I don’t think I can.
Is God that desperate for me? For you?
The answer is a resounding yes.
One of the great quotes of Jesus essentially goes like this: “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” (John 13:15)
There is no greater act of love than someone who would give everything for you. Who would live for you. Who would die for you.
But Jesus was just not a man of words. He was a man who meant his words, who lived his words. After uttering those words he would go on to do exactly that. To prove exactly that. He would lay down his life for all mankind.
So we could live. Truly live.
How desperate is God for us? So desperate He would go to unimaginable lengths to be with us. Jesus was born so he could die, among other things, for us. What a choice that must have been. Imagine the conversation when that plan was formed.
“Son, I need you to do something important. Give up all your power, all your knowledge, everything you are. To be made a human. Raised a man. And killed for man. By man. The catch is, the whole point of it will only matter for each man if he chooses to let it. And it’s quite possible many won’t.”
Would you say yes to that? I don’t think I can. But God is desperate for you. God is not a God of second chances. He’s a God of second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and more chances. God is a God who would abandon the ninety-nine sheep to come find the one and bring her home.
A parent would do anything for their child. And God is a parent. He is the Father. Loves like a mother. To Him the great price of sacrifice is worth it. Is small.
I sometimes wonder if He’s actually taken a look at me. Surely if He saw me clearly He’d think that all the pain was not worth it. That all the sweat, tears, and blood was shed for someone who didn’t deserve it.
But the truth is… He knows I don’t deserve it. And He just doesn’t care. He wants me anyways. He wants me, He’s desperate for me. And the same is true for you too.
I have never felt desperation, and if I may never truly feel it. But thankfully God has.
December 21, 2009
Sometimes I get asked how I can believe when there is no evidence for a god. I get told that the meaning of faith is belief without proof.
The first question relies on a faulty assumption (in my opinion). The second is a misconception.
This is a loaded topic to be honest. One that can’t be covered by a single page, or even a single book. But I’ve come to a few conclusions.
1) Sometimes people of science and people of faith get stuck on ‘my evidence vs. your evidence’. And the truth is there is no my evidence, your evidence, his evidence or her evidence.
We all have the same exact set of evidence. And what it means ultimately comes down to a matter of opinion. Because in the end, that is how science works.
A good scientist works by forming a hypothesis, examining the available data, and then realizing that: it reaffirms the hypothesis, requires the hypothesis to be modified to more correctly fit the available data, or completely disproves the hypothesis, thus requiring a new one. Most things about science are not facts written in stone never to be changed.
Some observations we can make about this universe are obvious and easy for everyone to accept. Water is buoyant, gravity holds us to the ground, and the sun is rather bright. (At least in comparison to say a tree) Other things are harder. They’re much more open to interpretation, to opinion.
Scientists disagree on a lot of things. That’s what makes science work actually. The very emotion of it all. Some people picture scientists as Vulcan’s in lab coats serenely toiling away at discovering the secrets of the universe, always agreeing, always taking the most logical path, never once bickering on an outcome, a path, or a possibility. And the truth couldn’t be any farther away from this.
What does that have to do with this topic? Believe it or not, there are scientists who see evidence in creation. In a higher power. Maybe not a Christian god, but perhaps a god. And so do I. I don’t consider myself a trained scientist. I don’t have a degree. I don’t have college schooling in the field. But I have always had a keen interest in science, for as long as I have been alive. And everything I have discovered, everything science has taught me, has only reaffirmed my belief in the fact that there is a God.
What is faith? Is it truly something you have in the absence of proof, of logic? Let’s see what the bible says.
Hebrews 11:1 in the KJV says:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
In NASB:
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
What does that mean exactly? Again a loaded question.
Faith is a conclusion we reach through observation. In nonspirtual matters we have faith in many things.
We have faith the roof above our heads will stay where it is, because we’ve observed it did so the day before and the day before.
We can’t prove that, and the roof could fall. But that doesn’t make it an incorrect belief or observation.
We have faith that the sun will rise in the morning, as it has done every morning of our lives. We have observed that this always happens and few would doubt it will happen again. But theoretically it might not.
Even in science, many things are based on faith. We have faith that experiments can be verified through repetition. Because no matter where in the universe you go, matter acts exactly the same. Can we prove that? No. It would be impossible to travel the entire universe and test all matter to be certain it acts the same as everywhere else. It’s even unlikely to do that across the earth. But we have observed enough to rightfully come to this conclusion.
Few things are facts in the form of ‘absolutely impossible to be wrong and 100% proven true’ so much as ‘true to the best of our ability to test and observe.’
That is faith in the nonspiritual, and the spiritual.
Faith is the substance. The evidence. The assurance. The conviction. I have faith that God is real, because I have felt Him move in my life. Watched as He has moved in others’ lives. Did I literally see His hand? No. But when the wind blows open our door we know the cause from the effects.
Hebrews takes it a step further. Faith IS evidence. And that might seem contradictory, or even circular. To a small extent, that’s fair. But some circular reasoning is still correct. Our life, our world, often lives in the truth that the majority rules and is correct BECAUSE it is the majority. Nothing could be more circular.
How far have we come in science? Yet faith still persists. How much has man grown? Yet God has not left our lives. The Bible is still the #1 selling book in the world. Each day it is translated into new languages. And even in the most technologically advanced societies of today, religion has not died.
I have faith because I have all the evidence I need. I have seen the complexity of the universe, and can not come to the conclusion that it is an accident or chance.
Faith isn’t a conclusion to reach when no evidence presents itself. Faith is a belief culled by the observation of both things visible and not. It is not a tool for ‘filling gaps’ but rather a final conclusion reached by a mind who stares at the whole of the universe and can only realize that there must be more.
The only things more miraculous than a man having faith in God, is the very fact that God too has faith in man.
Canterrain