I enjoy my traditions. I can't imagine not eating turkey on Thanksgiving; I'm so glad we can still go to Grandpa and Grandma's for Christmas; even if it's just me, I still stay up to watch the new year come in. I don't quite feel like I've "done" Christmas until I've watched "It's a Wonderful Life." And remember the "good ole days" when ABC used to show "The Ten Commandments" on Easter Sunday night?
ABC seems to really have a problem with Christianity. How many specials have they aired to take a closer look at some aspect of Christianity where they have focused on not those who hold to an orthodox view but those from the liberal fringe (i.e. the Jesus Seminar folks) who look to tear down if they could the fundamentals of the Christian faith. In fact, just in time for this Easter season, ABC "News" brings us this report of a professor who thinks Moses may have actually been doing drugs. Of course, that doesn't really account for the chariots and bones at the bottom of the Red Sea.
Within the past ten years ABC has been trying to do all they can to mess up the Easter tradition of the showing of "The Ten Commandments." First, they dropped it from the Easter season completely over supposed concerns that it might be growing a little old. That resulted in quite a few phone calls to the network. Then they tried creating their own version of "The Ten Commandments," a mini-series that is perhaps a little less caricature but a little more improperly politically correct. Then they practically hid it on Saturday night to avoid having to miss an episode of "Desperate Housewives." And that is where I discovered it sits on this year's line-up. So tomorrow night, I'll be trying to watch that classic movie, but it won't be the same as on Easter night. But at least my mom won't be sending me to bed right after the parting of the Red Sea. But I may have to get my children to bed by then....
May God bless you and your family this Easter as you consider Jesus' death on the cross on this Good Friday and His victory over sin and death on Resurrection Sunday!
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
What's Wrong with This Picture?
The statement "A Southern Baptist Declaration on the Environment and Climate Change" I discussed in my last post has really stirred things up all over. There is a significant amount of secular media attention to this. And there is a whole lot of internal discussion about it within Southern Baptist ranks.
I see a whole lot about this initiative that is not good.
1. The title was poorly chosen. Despite statements by both the group behind the Declaration (Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative) and the SBC itself, calling this a "Southern Baptist Declaration" gives the false impression that this is an official statement of the Southern Baptist Convention.
2. Frank Page should never have signed this. Again, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention signing a "Southern Baptist Declaration" gives the false impression that this is an official statement of the SBC. Others, like ERLC's Richard Land, showed more wisdom in this regard.
3. Where global warming is concerned, the document presumes the existence, a human cause, and a possible human corrective, all of which are contested. As just one example, earlier this month, a group of scientists met to refute the idea of human-caused global warming. I want to look at all three of these presumptions in more detail later. But there is also the idea that the concept of human-induced global warming is not a theological issue, that the Bible has nothing to say about it. I'll get to that later as well (obviously, that implies I don't agree).
4. The Declaration as a whole does not represent a consensus of Southern Baptists. I have reasonable doubt that it would ever pass from the convention floor as a resolution.
5. Omitting the section on global warming, the Declaration is largely redundant. Southern Baptists have officially expressed ourselves regarding care for God's creation in resolutions like the one in 2007. This new statement was really not needed.
6. The Declaration has stirred up disunity within Southern Baptists. Baptists don't need trouble getting along, we can find that readily enough. We see in much of Paul's writings in the New Testament a strong concern for unity. This statement is a point of disunity, and I would think that alone would make both sides want to distance themselves from it.
Now that this Declaration is out there, I'm not sure what can be done about it. I would encourage others not to embrace it. But I know that many of those who do embrace it do so out of love for the Creator. And we should not hesitate to embrace those brothers and sisters.
I see a whole lot about this initiative that is not good.
1. The title was poorly chosen. Despite statements by both the group behind the Declaration (Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative) and the SBC itself, calling this a "Southern Baptist Declaration" gives the false impression that this is an official statement of the Southern Baptist Convention.
2. Frank Page should never have signed this. Again, the President of the Southern Baptist Convention signing a "Southern Baptist Declaration" gives the false impression that this is an official statement of the SBC. Others, like ERLC's Richard Land, showed more wisdom in this regard.
3. Where global warming is concerned, the document presumes the existence, a human cause, and a possible human corrective, all of which are contested. As just one example, earlier this month, a group of scientists met to refute the idea of human-caused global warming. I want to look at all three of these presumptions in more detail later. But there is also the idea that the concept of human-induced global warming is not a theological issue, that the Bible has nothing to say about it. I'll get to that later as well (obviously, that implies I don't agree).
4. The Declaration as a whole does not represent a consensus of Southern Baptists. I have reasonable doubt that it would ever pass from the convention floor as a resolution.
5. Omitting the section on global warming, the Declaration is largely redundant. Southern Baptists have officially expressed ourselves regarding care for God's creation in resolutions like the one in 2007. This new statement was really not needed.
6. The Declaration has stirred up disunity within Southern Baptists. Baptists don't need trouble getting along, we can find that readily enough. We see in much of Paul's writings in the New Testament a strong concern for unity. This statement is a point of disunity, and I would think that alone would make both sides want to distance themselves from it.
Now that this Declaration is out there, I'm not sure what can be done about it. I would encourage others not to embrace it. But I know that many of those who do embrace it do so out of love for the Creator. And we should not hesitate to embrace those brothers and sisters.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Knock Me Over with a Butterfly Wing
The science of meteorology is far from an exact science. That is something we have all experienced firsthand. For example, a few weeks ago, every meteorologist in town was predicting the biggest snow event of the season for us. And then, it didn't happen. Some places got a few flakes, but it was closer to the smallest snow event of the season than the biggest. It is very hard to get a good idea of what the weather is doing in one location, let alone the whole world. This is at least in part due to what is popularly called "the butterfly effect," which is the idea that a seemingly innocuous and impossible to measure event such as the flutter of a butterfly's wings in Asia might be the initial condition in a set of dependent events that results in a storm system off the west coast of North America. And yet we are being told by some people that they know for certain that there is global warming occurring and that it is a result of mankind's activities.
That's not really news, the global warming thing has been kicking around for a little while now. But what surprised me today every bit as it surprised the Associated Press was this story that says several Southern Baptist leaders, including President Frank Page, signed a document stating that Southern Baptists have a Biblical duty to stop global warming. Although it acknowledges, in slightly dismissive terms, both those scientists and those Southern Baptists who do not accept mankind-caused global warming, signers of this document "resolve to engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem." Setting aside the common sense of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," this document states in no uncertain terms that we don't care if it is true or not, we need to do something. I guess we can be thankful we didn't issue a similar statement about global cooling during the 1970's - think how foolish we would look now.
I'm sure I will have more to say later about both this document and the global warming issue, but let me say now that I do agree with some of the guiding principles involved. Christians do have a duty to take care of this world, and especially to be responsible for our own activities like littering and recycling. But we also know how it is going to end.
That's not really news, the global warming thing has been kicking around for a little while now. But what surprised me today every bit as it surprised the Associated Press was this story that says several Southern Baptist leaders, including President Frank Page, signed a document stating that Southern Baptists have a Biblical duty to stop global warming. Although it acknowledges, in slightly dismissive terms, both those scientists and those Southern Baptists who do not accept mankind-caused global warming, signers of this document "resolve to engage this issue without any further lingering over the basic reality of the problem." Setting aside the common sense of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," this document states in no uncertain terms that we don't care if it is true or not, we need to do something. I guess we can be thankful we didn't issue a similar statement about global cooling during the 1970's - think how foolish we would look now.
I'm sure I will have more to say later about both this document and the global warming issue, but let me say now that I do agree with some of the guiding principles involved. Christians do have a duty to take care of this world, and especially to be responsible for our own activities like littering and recycling. But we also know how it is going to end.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
A Winner This Week One Way or Another
The leading contender for the worst theological statement of the week by a politician (a category that isn't all that hard to find nominees for) is Senator and presidential hopeful Barack H. Obama. He actually has two contenders in one speech made Sunday in Ohio according to this article or this one, but I'll only deal with one. In defending his view that same-sex unions should be a legal right regonized by the state from a Biblical basis, he "would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans." First of all - huh? (For those of you looking for profound intellectual discussions, that last statement may feel a little like shopping for an engagement ring in a bait-and-tackle shop. But sometimes people say such outlandish things that for a few seconds at least, the only response anyone can make is, "Huh?") Where exactly in the Sermon on the Mount did Jesus address same-sex unions? Was it the part where Jesus said that He didn't come to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them and not one little part of a letter of them would pass away until heaven and earth disappear? No, that can't be it, because that would involve things like Leviticus 18:22 that explicitly forbid homosexuality. Was it where He went on to discuss those Old Testament ideas of forbidding murder and adultery and dealing with divorce and oaths? That can't be it either, because rather than declare how we've all moved beyond those Old Testament ways of thinking, Jesus taught that we need to practice these commands more thoroughly by subjecting our thoughts and not just our actions to the Lord and His commands. So if anything, Jesus was saying that passages like the one from Leviticus mentioned earlier should not just be obeyed in action but in our thought life as well. Oh, maybe it was the "don't judge" part. That's a favorite one, right? Except that to make that apply to homosexuality, which is expressly forbidden, wouldn't we also have to apply it to murder, adultery, and all those other expressly forbidden things? But if we do that, if we cannot judge any actions taken by others as wrong, we make Jesus contradict Himself, the Sermon on the Mount loses its power, and we have no basis for any law.
But second, in what way is a passage from one of Paul's most impressive letters "obscure?" It is likely that Obama was referring to Romans 1:26-27, and those two verses are neither mired in a problematical context nor worded in a convoluted manner. Paul's words are straightforward, condemning those, both male and female, who are practicing homosexuality.
So the two premises of Obama's argument, a "clear" teaching from Jesus and an "obscure" teaching from Paul, are without merit. But his real argument (if he had any premises to stand on) is that Jesus' teachings overrule Paul's. I have heard similar arguments by those who don't much care for what Paul had to say, but want to think of themselves as followers of Jesus. I've heard it stated this way: "I believe in the Word of God - those are the words in red." This is actually a full-blown denial of what the Word of God is. The Old Testament was written with the emphasis of "Thus saith the Lord." It is as if those are the first four words of the Old Testament, with a beginning quote mark before Genesis 1:1 and a closing quote mark after Malachi 4:6. And Jesus acknowledges that characterization in the Sermon on the Mount as I mentioned earlier. And the same Spirit that led the Old Testament writers is the same Spirit that led Paul and the other New Testament writers. Jesus came in a special way to Paul to have Paul represent Him to the Gentiles. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not divided. If Obama is following a Jesus that contradicts Paul, I know which Jesus that is not.
I don't know how Sen. Obama will fare on this Super Tuesday II, but he's the odds-on favorite to win my would-be contest this week.
But second, in what way is a passage from one of Paul's most impressive letters "obscure?" It is likely that Obama was referring to Romans 1:26-27, and those two verses are neither mired in a problematical context nor worded in a convoluted manner. Paul's words are straightforward, condemning those, both male and female, who are practicing homosexuality.
So the two premises of Obama's argument, a "clear" teaching from Jesus and an "obscure" teaching from Paul, are without merit. But his real argument (if he had any premises to stand on) is that Jesus' teachings overrule Paul's. I have heard similar arguments by those who don't much care for what Paul had to say, but want to think of themselves as followers of Jesus. I've heard it stated this way: "I believe in the Word of God - those are the words in red." This is actually a full-blown denial of what the Word of God is. The Old Testament was written with the emphasis of "Thus saith the Lord." It is as if those are the first four words of the Old Testament, with a beginning quote mark before Genesis 1:1 and a closing quote mark after Malachi 4:6. And Jesus acknowledges that characterization in the Sermon on the Mount as I mentioned earlier. And the same Spirit that led the Old Testament writers is the same Spirit that led Paul and the other New Testament writers. Jesus came in a special way to Paul to have Paul represent Him to the Gentiles. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are not divided. If Obama is following a Jesus that contradicts Paul, I know which Jesus that is not.
I don't know how Sen. Obama will fare on this Super Tuesday II, but he's the odds-on favorite to win my would-be contest this week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)