Thinking-Christianly

A common assumption about the Bible is that it seeks to define the role and worth of women according to the culture of ancient times. If its principles are applied, women will be imprisoned in a subservient role to men. It is at odds with modern concepts of freedom, equality, and respect for the female gender.

This may apply to the Qur’an, which normalizes life to the l7th century AD culture of Mohammed. A careful reading of scripture paints quite a different picture.

When examining what scripture says, it’s important to distinguish between what the Bible prescribes and what it describes. There are many places where the Bible accurately depicts the behavior of people in ancient cultures. Some of the social framework is at odds with God’s design, but the Bible gives an accurate portrayal of what was going on at the time. For example, Abraham acted cowardly in pretending that his wife Sarah was his sister in Genesis chapter 12. This is not what someone should do, but it is what Abraham did do. David decided to copy the surrounding culture and take multiple wives, such as Ahinoam and Abigail. The Old Testament never encourages polygamy. The jealousy, rivalry, and bitterness that result are clearly depicted in scripture, as in the case of Hagar, Leah, and Rachel. When it comes to what God intended, Genesis 2:24 speaks of a wife as singular. (See also Deuteronomy 17:17 and 1 Corinthians 7:2.) So it is important to distinguish between descriptive statements and prescriptive ones in the biblical text, which is forthright about describing mankind’s defiance of God’s ways.

This morning I came across one example of the way in which the God of the Bible ignores cultural conventions when it comes to gender roles. In 2 Timothy the Spirit is guiding Paul’s words as he writes to is protégé. He urges Timothy to continue to mature in his faith, and reminds him that he is a third generation follower of God. He states that he is reminded of Timothy’s sincere faith “which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice.” In the first century, it was not credible to attribute matters of importance to women. The culture did not value their perception or solicit their testimony. The contemporary attitude was, “Who cares?” But God honors both Timothy’s mother and grandmother as spiritual heirs of significance. Paul does not flinch at honoring their spirituality and even encouraging Timothy to emulate their trust in the living God and carry the heritage forward. It’s one more illustration of how God’s word, though accurate in its depiction of the past, is trans-cultural in its teaching.

On December 27th CBS aired a feature on 48 Hours called “The Lord’s Boot Camp.” It tracked several students who attended Teen Missions International, a camp on Merritt Island. The camp trains young people for short-term evangelistic mission trips and then sends them to numerous overseas locations. Much of the footage represented this ministry as a heavy handed indoctrination that produced teens who could follow the script and manipulate conversions for Jesus. (The production company, Loki Films, also produced “Jesus Camp.”)

I know teenagers who are some of the greatest young adults you could ever meet. Teens can be energetic, exuberant, idealistic, and passionate. The teenage years can be both the best and the worst years of a young adult’s life. There is so much change, so much transition, so much finding oneself.

By being selective and focusing on teenage Christians, it is not too difficult to portray Christianity in a negative light. Those of us who look back at our teen years realize that we had zeal, but it was often without knowledge. The same teenage energy that creates infatuation with a new boyfriend or zeal for a football victory can turn evangelism into scalp hunting at a retirement home. It can morph sharing the mission of Christ into an argument with a Mormon. It can make spiritual disciplines look like mindless conformity.

Though some are mature beyond their years, some are not yet fully experienced, wise, and discerning. They don’t always come across measured, thoughtful, and balanced. Looking at Christianity through the eyes of teens also implies that the inconsistencies that surface in the life of a teen are inconsistencies of Christianity rather than byproducts of that life stage. This approach helped the producers depict Christianity as something that is not for mature, thoughtful people.

To be fair, the program did include scenes of genuine warmth and compassion as these teens came face to face with the poverty and needs of children orphaned by AIDS.

At the end of the episode there was a brief excerpt from a group assembled to assess what they had just seen in watching the production. The comments were universally critical.

I’d like to inject one note on a remark that was part of the excerpts. A young woman identifying herself as an atheist did not believe that a Christian should try to convince another of the truthfulness of Christianity. She tried to take the moral high ground in asserting that she herself did not do that. That sounds noble until you stop and think about it. When a speaker says, “Don’t evangelize me,” they are not being neutral. They are in effect saying, “Accept my value that this kind of dialogue should not occur.” It is an affirmation that their value is superior to the person they are criticizing. It ends up being a self-defeating argument, since it does what it condemns. It attempts to convince someone to a point of view while maintaining that this process of persuasion should not take place when it comes from another person’s religious convictions.

Today’s media is filled with stories of normal people who respond to tragic events with anger, bitterness, frustration, and rage. We saw those raw emotions repeatedly when Katrina pounded New Orleans. We’ve seen them in families who have lost loved ones in Iraq. We are accustomed to see them among a crowd stranded at an airport or in a cluster of workers who have lost their jobs.

Last night I watched a Dateline program that surprised me. (It was a repeat of an episode originally telecast on 3/28/08.) Two families had suffered greatly when a drunk driver killed five of nine aboard a college van. Each had a daughter aboard the van from Taylor University. One died and one lived. Whitney Cerak survived, but in her battered condition she was identified as Laura Van Ryn. Susie and Don Van Ryn believed the person behind the tubes and bandages was their surviving daughter. Colleen and Newell Cerak thought the young woman they laid to rest was their daughter. It wasn’t until weeks later when Whitney emerged from her coma and began to look normal that the mistake was apparent.

The program depicts this journey of these two families. In doing so, it does not overlook the deep faith of both. You see it in the funeral services, in the journal that Collen cites from as she tracks her journey, in Lisa Van Ryn’s blog as she tracks the progress of the survivor in the bed she believes is her sister Laura.

The astounding truth about this interview with Matt Lauer is that both families respond with grace and kindness and hope all along the way. In their sadness there is peace. In their role reversal there is tranquility. In their grief there is a sovereign God.

God does not exempt those he loves from tragedy. We see King David’s response to the death of Bathsheba’s child, and to the tragic end of Absalom’s life. We listen to Mary and Martha as they express their grief over their brother Lazarus. In our church family we have a funeral pending for a father who lost his life on icy roads, along with his only two sons. Many of us are a bit numb about this kind of news.

Following Christ does not inoculate us from such events. But it does give us an opportunity to test the degree to which we believe in the ultimate love and sovereignty of Christ over all of life. The world watches, expecting vehement anger, demands for redress, expectations of social change that will prevent such tragedies (where possible) in the future. In the midst of our unanswered questions and our grief, may it see a trust and confidence that declares that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth, and that those who follow him truly believe that his love and grace are greater than all the difficulties that we mortals may face.

This holiday season, the American Humanist Association initiated a $40,000 ad campaign which promotes humanism and challenges belief in God. The ads, which appear outside and inside of 200 Metro DC buses, declare, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

The call to be good is an admirable one. It resonates with many well-intentioned people in our culture. But the call to goodness is vague and arbitrary.

The Humanist Manifesto III, for example, maintains that knowledge is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. The scientific method can help me understand the properties of oxygen or nitrogen, but it cannot define goodness. Cultures define goodness differently. Is it purifying the race of men by exterminating those deemed inferior? Is it adding to the beauty of women by forcing them into binding their feet? Is it population control through forced abortions and infanticide? Is it preservation of the planet at the expense of human lives? Is it the removal of freedoms for the preservation of social order? What is ‘good’ varies from culture to culture and age to age.

The standard of ‘goodness sake’ as the benchmark for behavior fails because it lacks substance. What do you do when your understanding of ‘goodness’ collides with your neighbor’s perspective? There is no guarantee that what any of us see as ‘good’ should be shared by those around us.  How often have you seen workers in the same office differ as to what constitutes an acceptable work ethic? One person’s laziness is another person’s stellar performance. Or consider a football game. The majority of fans in a football stadium may decry a pass interference call, but does that make their assessment true? What exactly does incidental contact look like?

Unfortunately, without an external moral standard given by a moral God, ‘goodness sake’ becomes those set of arbitrary values that those in power impose on others around them.

I doubt that this advertising campaign will swell the ranks of dues-paying humanists. The deeper issue is not the number of those who proudly wear the humanist label. It is the illusion that humanity can somehow function well on the basis of the subjective morality of its members rather than the objective morality that flows from the character of God.

The food we call shish kabob comes from the Middle East. The description has its roots in Arabic, and perhaps Aramaic and even Akkadian. It consists of pieces of seasoned meat and sometimes vegetables roasted on skewers and served with condiments.

To see shish kabob in a picture is one thing. To have your soul look like shish kabob is another. That’s part of a metaphor the Bible uses to describe one of the consequences when you and I fall in love with money. 1 Timothy 6:10 warns us that as we strive to attain wealth, we “pierce ourselves through” with many griefs. The Bible pictures this damage is self-inflicted. It’s not something others inflict on us, but something we bring about ourselves.

The media these days is filled with stories of people who engaged in this pursuit and did not realize the number of tiny skewers they were inserting into their lives. We see not only the pain expressed by some but also the anxiety voiced by others whose lifestyle has not changed, but who are worried that it might. It is not only the reality of loss, but the threat of loss that pierces the soul. 93% of our population can remain employed, but 100% of us can be consumed with worry about tomorrow. Even in the best of times the pressure to obtain, maintain, and protect the things we value can add stress to our lives and perforate our souls. We become anxious. God becomes small. And life seems filled with privation and misery.

Followers of Christ do not need to participate in this “culture on a spit” mentality. We can train ourselves to think differently as we trust in the words of Christ. Jesus reminds us in  Matthew 6:25-27 “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes? Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they? Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life?”

Growing confidence in the character and promises of God enables us to withdraw the skewers that would imbed themselves into our hearts. The tumult that is characteristic of our culture need not reflect itself in our hearts if our trust in God and focus on him is genuine. Followers of Christ have a remarkable opportunity these days to reflect an attitude toward life—and the sustainer of life—that can showcase the person of Christ to those who are lost in the fog of grief. We can join the national lament, or reflect something supernatural in our response to current events. Which will you choose?

My wife interrupted some work I was doing last night to see part of an interview with Rick Warren. Mr. Warren has come under fire by the homosexual community for his refusal to bless their lifestyle choices. I find it interesting that anyone who dares to say that same-sex marriage is wrong is instantly labeled as someone who is controversial. Though he holds a position that has been characteristic of most societies for the last 5,000 years, political correctness now seems to dictate that he be regarded as odd or somehow antagonistic.

The interviewer challenged him regarding his understanding of the Bible’s teaching about homosexuality. Was not the prohibition against same sex relationships on the same order as the prohibition against eating some kinds of seafood?

What’s interesting about this question is that it admits that the prohibition against same sex relationships is actually in the Bible. Some would not want to admit that, redefining the terms to indicate that what we perceive as a prohibition is not one. At least the questioner did not try to use verbal acrobatics to play language games with the text.

Rick Warren’s response offered a classic look at the kinds of laws we find in scripture. Some of them, he asserted, are Jewish ceremonial laws. Some are Jewish civil laws. Some are moral laws. So what do we do with these three categories of law?

The civil and ceremonial laws were uniquely given to the Jewish people in the Old Testament as part of God’s plan for creating a distinct society that was to represent God to the world. (See Genesis 12:3.) Jesus, in declaring all foods clean, asserted that all the ceremonial laws were fulfilled in him and therefore no longer in force. With the destruction of the theocratic kingdom in 70 AD, there was no longer a nation to which these unique civil laws could apply. Modern Israel is not a theocracy, but a secular state. (Some of the principles behind these civil regulations, such as provision for the widows and orphans, are instructive for any government today.) The last category of moral law is trans-cultural. It is permanent, reflective of the desire of God for all people in all places. Much of this pre-existed the giving of the law in the time of the exodus and is reflected in the teaching of Christ.

I may not be required to put tassels on the corner of my garments, but I am commanded to remember the Lord as the one who gives me the ability to produce wealth (Deuteronomy 8:18). I may eat rabbit, but I’m not to engage in sorcery or attempt to consult the dead (Deuteronomy 18:11).  If I raise animals I do not need to set aside the firstborn, but I am expected to confine my sexual behavior to the monogamous heterosexual pattern God established.

Rick Warren’s full answer to the question was undoubtedly edited. But he handled a common challenge with admirable thoughtfulness and care.

If you have lived away from home for a few years or more, you’ve probably encountered a common phenomenon. We tend to start out adulthood with a few items belonging to us, but over time, they tend to multiply.

For some of us who can look back to college life, it was a time of relative simplicity. I could stuff everything I owned into the back of a rusty Chevy station wagon. It wasn’t much, but it allowed me great flexibility. And if it was all damaged or stolen, it would not take years to replace. Outside of clothes, your worldly goods may have consisted of articles like a souvenir cup that you picked up on a special trip, some electronic gear that played your favorite songs, and a few other items that had either functional or sentimental value.

Fast forward a few years and the amount of stuff you find yourself dragging from one place to another can mushroom. There are books, manuals, and magazines. And you probably have more electronic equipment—including computers—and DVDs or CDs. Add to that tax records, warranties, insurance policies, and other kinds of paperwork that tends to breed when no one is looking.

If you’ve crossed the threshold into marriage or parenting, then all this multiplies by a factor of five for each person in your life. (I’ve never figured out why it increases exponentially.) Double it again if you or other members in your household fit the description of a ‘packrat.’ And before you know it you find yourself enmeshed in lots of things.

It’s hard to try to simplify your life. Do I still keep a baseball glove I haven’t used for 15 years? What about copies of recipes I probably will never try? Clothes I will probably not wear again? Old magazines or newspaper clippings? Do I get rid of that heavy plastic cabinet full of screws, bolts, and other assorted stuff? What do I do with books I probably won’t re-read? And then there is always that drawer full of pens, rubber bands, paper clips, coins, and other assorted junk that might come in handy some time. Before long, we don’t own stuff. Stuff starts to own us!

The Bible puts all this in perspective. 1 Timothy 6:7 states, “For we brought nothing into the world, and we can take nothing out of it.” That’s a refreshingly simple statement. The wealthiest billionaire, the neighbor with the greatest wardrobe or the most complete workshop, the pastor with the greatest library—they all take the same amount of material goods into the next life—nothing. The smallest thing we can conceal in the palm of our hand is still more than what we take out of this life. We don’t travel light, we travel empty.

We take into the next life what we have become in this life, and nothing more. Our loves, or loyalties, our character, our faith, and our spiritual maturity go with us. The vacation pictures, recognition certificates, collectibles, iPod downloads, and Christmas decorations stay.

This simple statement has challenged me to loosen my grip on the stuff that tends to creep into my life. I can’t quite go back to the days when everything would fit into a station wagon, but I’d sure like to get much closer to that place. It brings freedom, flexibility, and a greater potential to focus on the eternal things that are more lasting and valuable.

When you are faced with an opportunity or a choice, it’s not uncommon to ask God to show the direction you should take by orchestrating the circumstances. If the circumstances are favorable, you may conclude that God is leading. When they are unfavorable, you may believe God wants you to go a different direction.

One of the critical problems with this form of decision making is that circumstances are not self-authenticating or self-interpreting. You and I can view them through a lens that imposes all kinds of meaning into the realities of the moment. If my car does not start on a cold morning, do I conclude God wants me to stay home from work? If my mate encourages me to purchase that Caribbean cruise we both want, but cannot afford, is this a sign from the Lord? If I have a marginal score on the GRE exam, does that mean I should stop my formal education? If people profess faith in Christ more quickly in Brazil than in Russia, should we devote all resources to Brazil?

Sometimes favorable circumstances should not be the deciding factor. For example, Paul describes in 2 Corinthians 2:12 ff. that he arrived in Troas “and found the Lord had opened a door for me.” We don’t know what this looked like, but it appears to be a circumstantial indication that Paul could have been effective there. But because Titus was not there, Paul decided to leave Troas and travel to Macedonia instead. Some favorable circumstances were not sufficient in themselves for Paul to deem it wise to minister in Troas.

There are occasions when God calls us to move forward in adverse circumstances. This was true for Paul in his ministry to the community of Philippi. In 1 Thessalonians 2:2 he writes, “We had previously suffered and been insulted in Philippi, as you know, but with the help of our God we dared to tell you his gospel in spite of strong opposition.” Some would have looked at this situation and concluded that Philippi was not ready for the gospel, and that investing in this community would be a waste of time and effort. But Paul chose to persevere in spite of the adversity.

Sometimes obstacles are placed in front of us to make us more reliant on God. Other times they are roadblocks to deter us. (See Balaam’s encounter with a stubborn donkey in Numbers 22.) For that reason, it’s wiser to make circumstances a small factor in our decision making grid. Our penchant for self-deception is too great to put them at the center of the major decisions of our lives. That spot belongs to the moral will of God. As we grow to know God’s character and his expressed will for our lives, we will be more apt to make wise choices apart from circumstances rather than allowing circumstances—and our interpretation of them—to dictate our decision making.

The law of non-contradiction maintains that A cannot be non-A at the same time. For example, these words will be recorded on this blog on a day of the week that is either Monday or not on Monday according to the calendar posted here.

This law has profound implications for the Christian faith. The critical issue focuses on the identity of Christ. Either Jesus is the messiah promised in the Old Testament or he is not.

Some contend that this argument puts logic above scripture or that it puts biblical truth in an inferior position to some imaginary law. Though the law of non-contradiction is assumed in scripture rather than articulated, it is nevertheless essential for both thought and communication.

Even the statement, “The law of non-contradiction is irrelevant to faith,” cannot be understood without applying the law of non-contradiction. Either the statement is true, or it is not. Intelligible communication of any kind requires assessment of what is said. Even the statement, “This law applies some of the time,” invites the application of the law. That generalization itself is either true, meaning that the law applies some of the time, or it is false, meaning that the law does not apply some of the time.

Whenever we hear almost any statement about life, purpose, meaning, values, or truth, we unconsciously apply this law in assessing what we hear or read. It’s such a part of our thought process that we often are not aware of how often we apply it.

So when you interact with someone either in print or in person who makes questionable statements about how truth and values are relative, stop and consider how the expressions of skepticism require some understanding of the law of non-contradiction to be understood and applied.

How do you reflect the heart of God when your heart is breaking, when your circumstances feel like God is pushing you to your limits? Demonstrating the grace of Christ in a painful world is not easy. I believe it requires a supernatural work of the Holy Spirit to enable us to give grace in challenging circumstances.

Today I read an online story of someone who I suspect was given that kind of strength through Christ. His name is Dong Yun Yoon. I don’t know if he is a Christian, but his behavior certainly reflects a Christian world view. The news story about him mentions his pastor and his family’s participation in the Korean United Methodist Church in San Diego.

Dong’s world was shattered Monday when a twin-engine F/A-18D Hornet crashed into his home, killing his wife, two children, and his mother-in-law. In the pain of grief he told reporters, “I don’t have any hard feelings. I know he [the pilot] did everything he could.” He added, “Please pray for him not to suffer from this accident.”

That kind of response amazes me. It is so unlike the natural response that threatens to overtake us in times of loss, fear, or uncertainty. It condemns my own tendency to bellyache about the small irritations in everyday life. Contrast Dong’s response with the multi-million dollar lawsuit that is pending because a greedy crowd trampled a worker at Wal-Mart on Black Friday.

To be battling with a horrific loss and concerned about the feelings of another person in the midst of the emotional fog of your own grief is an amazing display of faith. It is the kind of grace you and I are called to appropriate when we face our own dark times. It’s a reminder of the kind of difference that a living faith in a sovereign gracious God can make in our lives.

If you are a Christ follower, challenge yourself to display this kind of grace in the adversities of your life. And pray for Dong and his church family. This is not the end of what God plans to do.