OBW's Blog

[OBW]

Back in late 2016, Nell started a thread introducing a book by Jane Anderson that basically takes on the alleged favor of the Bible for subjugation of women. The thread lasted for just over 225 posts. Fairly quickly, the discussion began to center around the results of the curse as described in Genesis 3. (I do not link that thread here because it does no good to resurrect some of the acrimony that went on there.)

(I confess that I found problems with the arguments made on both sides, noting that the language being put forward by both the underlying sources and of Jane’s book were sometimes more inflammatory than instructive, and at the same time seeing that what came from those who supported the status quo was as bad or worse. While I support the direction of the book (both then and now), there just seemed to be something missing.

I still disagree with the idea that there is any real problem in the translations of the verses discussed. Translation is not the problem. It is interpretation. The “big lemon” in Genesis 3 is not the translation, but the interpretation. And the act of labelling it rather than just discussing it suggests a weak position that needs rhetorical maneuvering to gain a following.

I will not respond to renewed complaints about my statements above. Suffice it to say that what I saw (and still see) as flaws did not actually diminish the importance of the overall positions being taken. The positions were sound then and remains sound now. They were just overshadowed by the rhetoric and the insistence by the source writings that there was some way to retranslate the verses to fix the problem.

In saying the above, I do not cast any aspersion upon Jane or Nell. They undertake a righteous cause. And I am sure that someone can point to where and how I have fallen prey to some of the same errors in rhetoric in making some of my points over the many years I have posted here. I know that I have allowed my anger to rule at times and have at least occasionally repented of it.)

During the past couple of weeks I read something that gave (to me) a better perspective.

It suggests that the whole account from Genesis 3, verses 14 through 19, is not a prescription for how to be godly or how God wanted things to be. It is a description of all that would be wrong as a result of the disobedience that had just occurred. It was not a statement that it should be this way, but that it was just going to be this way. Paraphrasing the essence of two of the curses included could go something like the following: “Man, expect that putting food on the table will be difficult.” “Woman, you are going to want a man and since he’s got you, he is going to be a problem for you.”

Further, those short statements were not the details, but were very summary and were relevant to life as it was at the time it was written. It was written when virtually everything was agriculture and the agricultural work was performed primarily by the men while the household was handled primarily by the woman. It makes no reference to earning a paycheck from unrighteous bosses, but such bosses are surely a result of the fall. Some think that it stands opposed to today’s “me too” movement. But the fact that there is such a movement is proof that the curse of the fall is very pervasive. It might be argued that such a movement among “heathen” is irrelevant since they have no claim upon which to rise above the curse. But to say that is to make a lie of any claim to loving neighbor as you love yourself.

And that is the important thing here. God was not establishing a way for things to be. He merely described the result of the fall. And if it is a result of the fall, then it is not “God’s ordained way.” To the extent that there is any such “ordained way,” it is found in the previous chapter when man and woman were united and became “one flesh.” And it is found in the words of Ephesians when it says that we are all to be in subjection to each other, including both wife to husband and husband to wife. And when it says that we are all of one status in Christ — not rich or poor, barbarian or cultured, slave or free, male of female . . . .

The curse is not what was ordained in the making of mankind. And if the birth, life, death (sacrifice), and resurrection of Christ is to free us from the curse, then those of us who claim faith in Christ should at least find ourselves on a journey (in this life) back to our original calling. One that had no curse. To demand the continuance of any part of the curse is to deny the fullness of the work of Christ. To fail at achieving that ultimate freedom should only be evidence that we remain imperfect — in this life. It is not because it is God’s ordained way.

Note: Comments should be either brief or undertaken in the open forum, not within my private blog.

[OBW]

Always preach the gospel; if necessary, use words. Attributed to Francis of Assisi. And someone recently suggested he might not have ever actually said it. Said he was more like a street-corner evangelist in his day.

The guy who said that may have been correct. But he may have assumed that since FofA was a street evangelist that he would never have given the rest of us the option to be otherwise. (This guy surely thought that should be the case.)

But I recall that Paul said that gifts were given to the church and that we didn’t all get everything or the same thing. And even if you want to say that evangelism is not that kind of gift, or that it is given to everybody, then Paul sort of kicked that one when he said that there are SOME evangelists (and apostles, prophets, shepherds and teachers) given to the church.

But no matter who said that “use words if necessary” thing, our lives should be a constant preaching of the gospel through the character of our living — our overt living of loving neighbor as self. It should drip off our fingertips. It should make the checkout line a little less vexing to those around us. It should hide the smell of exhaust fumes on the highway. (Don’t over-think my hyperbole.) All without saying one “preach the gospel” kind of thing. If we can’t do that, we may be damaging any witness others may have through speaking.

Yet the sermons we hear every week tend to be about piling on knowledge of things about God, not really so much about knowing the God that our lives are supposed to reflect (remember, the image of God).

We clamor for the truth. But too often it is the truth of propositions. I do not have faith in propositions. We are so quick to love grace because it covers our sins, but have nothing but disdain for anything that we DO righteously because it is “just works.”

But when we take those kinds of positions, I am not sure that we should be thinking about the prospect of “using words.” If we haven’t given someone a reason to ask, then we probably live in a manner that would argue against any words we could use.

I’m preaching to me too.

Rather than a 30+ minute, seminary-lecture-quality sermon on the (fill-in the blank with some esoteric topic), we would be better off with a 15-20 minute sermon (homily?) using the life of Christ as an example of how we should be living our ordinary life. That directs us to forget a summer missions trip and instead find out what it means to actually set our minds on the Spirit so that we actually fulfill the righteousness of the law.

Once the people have seen something exemplary in our lives, they may want to hear something. And we may decide that it is better that they “come and see” (or hear) someone else rather than feel obligated to be everything to them. I am surely not everything to anyone. But Jesus is.

[OBW]

This is one of those things that Lee used to rail on so thoroughly. He had everyone disdaining it completely. Some of us did manage to slip away from Christmas eve conferences (and eventually the trainings if you were in Anaheim or Irving) to have a late time with family. But never talked about it with any of the “saints.”

Hard to understand how “saints” could be such a condemning bunch of people.

But it is hard to say a lot in a positive way about a heavily secular holiday in which you are encouraged to spend more money than you should so that you can “give” to others, while buried in songs of the season (Winter more than Christmas) and parties that tend to be more about obnoxiousness than anything else.

In 2018, my younger son texted everyone about a new challenge. The last one to hear “Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time” would be the winner. The song is happy and upbeat, is well-done, and is fitting (in the secular sense) even if a bit trite. But it has been so overplayed that avoiding it as much as possible has become a thing. Like avoiding “My Heart Will Go On” from the movie Titanic (also very overplayed). In 2018 I won. This year I was not so lucky and was out before Thanksgiving. I was in the car and changed stations on the radio to a little-selected progressive rock station that was (unknown to me) undergoing a transformation and just playing Christmas/seasonal music until January while they make the transition. And there it was.

I will agree that it is probably unlikely that Caesar would send the Roman world on journeys during the colder part of the year, but not impossible. And all of the secular hoopla does drown out the impact of a poor Jewish couple having a baby while away from home, and it would appear away from any significant family since there was nowhere to stay besides the stable.

But it seems that the whole "assault on Christmas" mantra of late is just a more extreme example of Evangelical/fundamental Christianity being anything other than loving of their neighbors. Just proof that we are more interested in making the world behave like good Christians while the allegedly good Christian behave like Banana republic despots or Roman jailers.

(BTW, I have always been part of groups that are legitimately Evangelical — and sometimes a little fundamentalist. But it is wearing on me. I am beginning to take a look at the idea of at least spending part of my worship time in an Anglican or Lutheran assembly. Go figure. It is not about doctrines, but about practice. Evangelicals don’t practice — they mainly blunder along.)

For me, the hoopla of Christmas is too much. But the core of the Christian celebration is worthy of keeping. Probably needs to be more like the Anglican/Lutheran/RCC traditions where there is Advent for four weeks, then Christmas comes. Not a whole lot of Christmas for 4 weeks or more (or starting in October like some department stores).

Low-ley the decorations. Forgo the “season” songs in favor of those that speak to the hope of the coming Messiah, and the wonder of his arrival. Remember that there was no hoopla then. Yes, a few shepherds got quite a display — briefly. But they were the only ones. Bethlehem didn’t know. Jerusalem didn’t know.

A Christmas Eve service with scripture concerning the need for the Messiah, the prophecies of his coming, and the story of his arrival, coupled with hymns that speak to each part. The choir (if there is one) primarily to support the congregational singing. No orchestra. Ditch the praise band. Go unplugged — piano, maybe an acoustic guitar, violin if there is a member who plays, maybe an organ if desired. None of the trite songs of donkeys, reindeer, snow, camels, ships, trees, or even drummers. A short sermon/homily speaking of the darkness into which this light is born, and the birth of that life in each of us. And a quiet exit as we consider the importance of this one birth to the world — even the world that does not believe.

Remember, at one point the Kingdom was likened to leaven placed into a lump of dough until the whole was leavened. No, the leaven was not the world, but the kingdom. It does not make the whole world “Christian,” but it cannot avoid the impact of that “leaven.”

Peace on earth!

[OBW]

I occasionally go back and read through some of the more lengthy threads to see how the discussions progressed. Sometimes I find a comment or even side discussion that does not get much if any discussion. Or that is never brought to a reasonable conclusion. I was reading through a thread from back in early 2017 titled “Lee’s Trinity” and came upon the following in a reply:

. . . if you don’t know you are saved, then you are not saved. If you think Muslims are saved, then you are not saved. A truly saved person knows they are saved. A truly saved person knows that Muslims cannot be saved. If you don’t know that you are saved, then no correct understanding of the Trinity doctrine can save you.

Of these statements, only the last one is even partly correct. Correct understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity does not save you, nor does understanding it incorrectly deny you salvation. However, not knowing that you are saved is never a criteria for being saved. If that was true, then centuries of people would not have been saved at all because there was no teaching pointing them to the certainty of their salvation. Martin Luther saw this and set out to correct it. Not to get them saved, but to help them understand that they were saved.

You will find discourses by Paul in which he corrects various miss-assumptions by those in the places he writes to. Some think you need more to really be saved. Paul doesn’t say that they are unsaved because of that incorrect thought. He only refers to the foolishness of thinking it.

This reminded me of a survey that an outfit called Ligonier does every couple of years on the state of Christianity. Ligonier was founded by RC Sproul who was the pastor for many years at a church in Florida with one of the most comprehensive (and Calvinist) statements of faith of any church I have ever seen. The most recent questionnaires (2014, 2016, 2018) include, among others, variations on the following three statements to which the respondent answers their level of agreement or disagreement:

1. Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.
2. Salvation always begins with God changing a person so that he or she will turn to Him in faith.
3. A person obtains peace with God by first taking the initiative to seek God and then God responds with grace.

On the first question, while it is true that the only requirement for salvation is trust (belief) in Christ, the qualifier “alone” is not found, and to the extent that it applies, there is nothing that says that this faith must be entirely singular to be effective. Reading this statement as written would seem to insist that someone who trusts in Christ for their salvation would be presumed to be unsaved if they had any inkling that something additional that they do or believe is involved in the process — including the belief that it was their own belief that brought that salvation (see the second question). It is true that faith is the only thing that saves, but other things done, undertaken, or even believed are never stated as disqualifiers simply because they are not required. I will concede tat if any additional belief or action evidences that they are trusting in something that is called Christ but is not, then that is entirely different. But the only requirement was that upon hearing and understanding the gospel, a person believed in Christ as the one who could/would save them. So we are not talking about teaching Buddha but inserting “Christ” in the place of “Buddha.” That “Christ” is clearly not the Christ in which we believe. But simply thinking that you also need to be circumcised did not negate your salvation. It only demonstrated that you remained (voluntarily) under bondage to the law.

And adding to this argument, Paul spent a bit of time arguing against the Judaizers, eventually going to Jerusalem to take the issue up with the other apostles. But at no point was it suggested that it was unsaved persons who were pushing adherence to the law. Instead, it was insiders — believers — whether on their own or as intended emissaries from the church in Jerusalem. Otherwise, the church would have had no reason to even take up the issue. And still later, we hear of “how many” there were in Jerusalem who were believers yet still zealous for the law. No one suggested that they were unsaved, or that there was a two-tiered system whereby Gentiles didn’t have to obey the Jewish laws (or were even forbidden to do so because that violated some “Christ alone” edict) and Jews had to, or were at least permitted to.

The second question is classic Calvinism in which even being saved is predestined and God (the Holy Spirit) must cause you to seek and believe before you can seek or believe. In other words, not even a will to do so. Just absolute determinism. Paul argued that nature pointed to God and caused everyone to have some notion of God. If we want to call this the influence of the Holy Spirit, that is fine. But that obviously didn’t turn everyone into a believer, so it is not what the Calvinists are talking about.

(The survey includes self-identified demographics, including whether the respondent is Evangelical. At the end of this post, I have included the criteria by which they would determine whether a person is Evangelical. While the entire write-up on the questionnaire probably specifies, it is not clear whether the identification as Evangelical is based on the self-designation of the respondent or the determination of the surveyors based on answers to the survey. I suspect it is the former. But despite the fact that many groups that are not Calvinist are correctly included as Evangelical, the questionnaire is written from a strictly Calvinist perspective, and refers to answers that are more Arminian in character as heretical.)

The third question is read by the surveyors as indicating that anyone who responds other than “strongly disagree” means some amount of belief in an action of the “penitent” in receiving salvation, and therefore is heretical. I at least somewhat agree with the Arminian position on this one. I do not believe that my initiative to seek God saves me, but that I cannot receive salvation if I do not believe, therefore I must do something. Still, no matter what I do — whether simply believe or even undertake some additional task (something I do not believe) — it is only the saving work of Christ that saves me, therefore I am not relying on myself in any way for salvation. Christ alone undertook the only activity that causes salvation. But to receive it, I must be one of those “whosoever will may come.” The gift is there for the taking, and I must take it. But the taking does not save me. What Christ did saves me. But the Calvinist position is that I cannot even seek after God if He does not actively move me to do so, thereby negating my ability to take any initiative to even seek to find God. Therefore “whosoever believes in me” becomes “whosoever I cause to believe in me.”

This is a core difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. Both believe that only the work of Christ actually saves. Yet when you listen to the Calvinist talk about it, they assert that the Arminian is claiming that their actions are part of what saves them. But it is not true. The Arminian does not pretend that believing saves them, rather that it is the step required to take the gift of the sacrifice that only Christ can, and has, made for our redemption. Christ saves us, but we must accept it as the gift that it is.

But even if the Calvinists are right about the Arminians, what is the requirement for salvation? Belief in Christ for the forgiveness of sins? Are there actually any other stipulations? I know that Paul stated that works do not save you. But did he ever state that if you think works save you that your belief in Christ is made null and void? He told the Galatian believers that adding in old Jewish ritual laws caused them to live under the law rather than under grace. But was that because the grace of God was removed (or never granted) or because they were ignoring the grace they had received and were instead acting as if the law was necessary? Paul didn’t say they were unsaved. He wrote a letter to them and he didn’t write his letters to unbelievers.

So . . . .

• Does confessing your sins to a priest or calling him “Father” negate your salvation?
• Does doing good works refuse salvation to those who believe in Christ?
• Is knowing that a mediator other than Christ is not necessary to pray to God for you a stipulation for salvation?

I look back at the origins of the Protestant reformation and (ignoring the issues surrounding abuses of the clergy, like indulgences) find Luther as trying to help the RCC faithful realize that they were saved, not trying to help them become saved. He was much more generous with those who came and did the liturgy each week, praying, repenting, and partaking of the Lord’s table. Yes, the kind of penance undertaken after their confession may have been a kind of “work” that was not effective for salvation, or even for the forgiveness of the week’s sin, but did it deny them status as believers in Christ?

. . . .

Definition of Evangelical in Ligonier survey:

Evangelicals were defined as people who strongly agreed with the following four statements:

• The Bible is the highest authority for what I believe.
• It is very important for me personally to encourage non-Christians to trust Jesus Christ as their Savior.
• Jesus Christ’s death on the cross is the only sacrifice that could remove the penalty of my sin.
• Only those who trust in Jesus Christ alone as their Savior receive God’s free gift of eternal salvation.

My take:

#1: Sort of true. Christ is the Word and the highest authority. The Bible is the written word which reveals God/Christ, but requires interpretation, insight, inspiration, etc., and therefore cannot simply be the highest because multiple conclusions can be (and often are) reached from its pages.

#2: There are gifts given to the church and not all have the same gift/calling. We are all called to be ready if asked, but to engage in what a writer called the “wretched urgency” of personal evangelism is not a gift/calling of every believer. There is no support for a general charge to everyone.

#3: Absolutely correct. The only thing that saves is Jesus' death on the cross.

#4: There's that “alone” criteria again. I do not believe that any lack of complete and correct understanding, or belief that our faith is required as a step to receive it denies salvation. That is part of what that “alone” is refusing and I disagree.

And despite writing for so long, I probably still didn't say something quite right.

[OBW]

In the same place that I found the issue concerning baggage added to salvation for my previous post, there was a discussion concerning whether the Father was in or with Christ as he experienced the process of the crucifixion. At times it went so far as to suggest that they were still there together as one when Jesus died on the cross, though that was backed away from fairly quickly in favor of a unity that only lasted until the 9th hour when it is recorded that Jesus said, “why have you forsaken me?” (And even there someone suggested that the “God” part of Jesus separated from the body which died and remained together with the Father and Spirit.)

The verse that was provided to establish the unity of the Father and the Son was John 14:10 which says:

Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.

What followed was a short paragraph saying things like “. . . [it] is clear that the Father and the Son indwelt one another . . .” and “. . . where is the verse that indicates the essential bond was broken in the Godhead?”

In John 17, Jesus uses the in-the-Father-and-the-Father-in-me terminology again. Here he says

My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one — I in them and you in me — so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

What stands out to me is that while Jesus again says “. . . as you are in me an I am in you . . . ,” he implies that we are in the Father and the Son in the same way that they are in each other (just as . . . may they also be in us . . . ).

Since the unity (or “une” of “triune”) is more than just this one stated aspect of the oneness of the Godhead, I do not believe that I would diminish it by suggesting that we have overstated the impact of this one aspect of their unity. Why overstated? Because it is likened to how we are in unity with God and with each other. If it is the only aspect of the unity of the Godhead and we can be one with the Godhead (and therefore with each other) in the exact same manner, then the unity of the Godhead is not as significant as we like to think. I know that my unity with each of you, though significant because it is unity in Christ and not in doctrine, does not in any way suggest that I am you or you are me. In other words, if “I in you and you in me” can be applied to the unity between humans who are believers in Christ, then it cannot in any way be used to imply that the Father and the Son are “simply” the same (with or without the word “person” attached).

If it seems that I have diminished some cherished doctrine of the oneness of the Godhead, do not fear. The unity of God does not rely on a single construct of terms. But the implication on unity among believers is significant. We are connected through this same “I in you and you in me” kind of unity as the Father and Son are. The wording in John 17 does not clearly say it is directly between you and me, but because of our unity with Christ and the Father in this manner.

Because of this, I can safely say that the unity of believers is NOT:

• The right position on the permanence of salvation (Calvinism v Arminianism)
• The right mode of baptism
• A unified lexicon of terms
• The right sign (or no sign) outside a meeting place
• Whether we speak in tongues or recite a liturgy
• The teacher, book writer, or publisher that we follow
• Our “taste” with respect to any of the above

While there is surely a kind of unity among those who hold to one particular item in this list (among other possibilities), it is not Christian unity, but a unity of preference. Anyone who includes or excludes from the household of faith based on these does not understand Christian unity.

[OBW]

Go away for a few months and the landscape has surely changed. Alt groups is gone. Probably for the best.

It seems that our favorite targets — Nee and Lee — now have stand-ins who are cutting and pasting their poor work together into even worse work. And too many just buy it as if it is the chef's recommendation from the top French restaurant in town. Unfortunately, it is more like a run-down greasy spoon* about to be shut down for health violations.

(* For those of you too young to appreciate "greasy spoon," it is an old term for a diner that is of dubious quality even if frequented by locals. The idea is that the grease on the spoons is indicative of the care in washing the dishes which probably spills over into the handling and preparation of the food.)

I can agree that sometimes other places in Christianity are not necessarily better. Well, at least not in some ways. But for the most part, at least they are using good food and clean dishes, even if it is only Chilis or PF Chang and not the top French restaurant.