tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62873115636594807992024-03-12T00:51:16.572-04:00Renewed in SpiritAn online interactive spiritual publication for strengthening and building up the Kingdom.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-71303955760303275062015-03-01T00:00:00.000-05:002015-03-01T00:00:01.459-05:00What Colors Do You See?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbiOAs8sp_3pH91JMp5Sxq4B08aIcW0hmCsBFyM-jMXphk7VbWMuyv135t4QHSVlw3Mj5GmfWRwBy-XMvm5hh9lrkg69aKrPicskTIBz9bBJyEM4cGJ4Wju0f_BGIvrSM5qvn4VZeOPDRC/s1600/thedress.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgbiOAs8sp_3pH91JMp5Sxq4B08aIcW0hmCsBFyM-jMXphk7VbWMuyv135t4QHSVlw3Mj5GmfWRwBy-XMvm5hh9lrkg69aKrPicskTIBz9bBJyEM4cGJ4Wju0f_BGIvrSM5qvn4VZeOPDRC/s320/thedress.jpg" /></a></div><br />
What do you think are the colors in this dress? <br />
<br />
Do you see white and gold? Or do you see blue and black?<br />
<br />
The above picture was posted <a href="http://swiked.tumblr.com/post/112073818575/guys-please-help-me-is-this-dress-white-and">on Tumblr</a> on 26 February 2015; it quickly became an Internet sensation and a source of great consternation, controversy, and distress. People convinced it is white and gold began arguing with those convinced it is black and blue. The phenomenon has genuinely disturbed many people and their understanding of reality. How can it be that different people can look at the same picture of the same dress and see entirely different colors? For that matter, how can it be that the <i>same person</i> can see different colors of the same dress in the same picture at different times? <br />
<br />
The dress "really is" black and blue. But how can it be that so many people see the dress as white and gold?<br />
<br />
Science can provide a <a href="http://www.wired.com/2015/02/science-one-agrees-color-dress/">few answers</a>. The difference is not in our eyes but in our brains: our brains are used to correcting certain color distortions which take place because of sunlight and other factors based on the environment. The dress is back-lit by the sun in the picture: some people are therefore seeing the dress as white and gold because of the brain attempting to correct for what it believes to be <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/2/27/8119901/explain-color-dress">sunlight distortion</a>. Other people, or people looking at the dress at a different time or day or in a different context, see it as blue and black because the brain is not correcting for that perceived distortion. <br />
<br />
So our brains are pretty good at correcting for color with a few exceptions, including "The Dress." <br />
<br />
But how can we trust that anything we see is true if we can't even come to a consensus understanding of what colors are in The Dress? How can we believe anything we see?<br />
<br />
As many people on the Internet are "seeing," we cannot entirely trust what our eyes see! What we see is dependent on how our brains interpret the data it receives. Many times the brain does extremely well at interpretation. But not always!<br />
<br />
As an Internet phenomenon "The Dress" will most likely be short-lived; most people are already tired of it. Yet "The Dress" provides an excellent illustration of an uncomfortable truth: different people can look at the same thing in all good conscience and sincerity and come away with different interpretations. In terms of "The Dress," some people are over-correcting based on the background; others, or the same people at other times, are not. <br />
<br />
We see this all the time with other issues. Some people look at America in all good conscience and sincerity and believe the political left has the better answers for the nation's politics; others see the same America but think the political right has the better answers; still others do not think either the left or the right has the answers. Sports fans all think their team is the best. Furthermore, in the big questions of life, philosophy, and religion--who we are, where we have come from, why we are here, where we are going--people come to a variety of conclusions despite all living in the same world. <br />
<br />
A lot of people have been shaken up by "The Dress" and its uncomfortable implications. Yet God, through Scripture, has already attested to this phenomenon: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death <cite>(Proverbs 14:12)</cite>.</blockquote><br />
According to the Scriptures God created this world and its creatures and it was very good (Genesis 1:1-31). When man sinned, however, sin and death entered the world, and corruption and decay along with it (Genesis 3:1-23, Romans 5:12-18, 8:17-25). On account of the fall of man, as Jeremiah the prophet attests, the heart of man has become corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9); the Apostle Paul calls the "old man" of the world "corrupt in sin" (Ephesians 4:22). Therefore, the human mind has been corrupted by sin; our understanding is imperfect and limited, and we are able to think we understand things that we do not understand, know things we do not know, and have confidence in ideas that are actually false. In short, our hearts are easily deceived (Jeremiah 17:9, Ephesians 4:22). <br />
<br />
According to the perspective of the Scriptures, humans cannot trust their own ways (Proverbs 14:12, Jeremiah 10:23). So how can we know anything? We have to appeal to a higher authority, the One who understands truths beyond our comprehension, who formed the world and everything in it:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Trust in YHWH with all thy heart / and lean not upon thine own understanding: <br />
In all thy ways acknowledge him / and he will direct thy paths. <br />
Be not wise in thine own eyes / Fear YHWH, and depart from evil: <br />
It will be health to thy navel / and marrow to thy bones <cite>(Proverbs 3:5-8)</cite>.</blockquote><br />
We must put our trust in God, and make sense of the world through what He has accomplished for us through Christ (Colossians 2:1-10). It may seem strange and crazy, but we do well to remember that the "foolishness" of God is wiser than the wisdom of man (1 Corinthians 1:18-29). <br />
<br />
So how can it be that so many people look at the Scriptures and the Christian faith and come away with so many different conclusions and interpretations?<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And he said, "Go, and tell this people, 'Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not' <cite>(Isaiah 6:9)</cite>.</blockquote><br />
Even in Biblical times we read of people who saw the hand of God and yet did not believe. They "saw" but did not "perceive." They looked at the world in ways which made sense to them and rejected the way God intended for them to see the world. Such happened to the Israelites whom God delivered out of Egypt (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-12); so it happened in Isaiah's day; many who saw Jesus Himself did not believe (John 12:37-41). <br />
<br />
The problem is not in God, nor the Scriptures, nor in the practice of the Christian faith; the problem, as with "The Dress," is in interpretation. People often think they see various ideas in Scripture that are not really there, and it is because of what they think is in the background: the religious tradition of which they are a part, their current cultural context, etc. <br />
<br />
The Scriptures attest to the power of God (Genesis 1:1-2:4); many secularists, on account of the "background" of Darwinism and the Enlightenment, fail to see His power and handiwork (Romans 1:18-20).<br />
<br />
The Scriptures attest to God's standards for morality (1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-24); many today, on account of the "background" of the sexual revolution, believe those standards to be bigoted and unfair (cf. Romans 1:18-32).<br />
<br />
The Scriptures attest to God's truths regarding the plan of salvation, the nature and work of the church, and the means by which Christians can be one in the faith (e.g. John 17:20-23, Acts 2:38, 1 Corinthians 1:10-11, Philippians 2:1-4, Ephesians 4:11-16); many sincere religious people, on account of the "background" of the developments in the "Christian tradition," fail to recognize the whole truth of God (Psalm 119:160). <br />
<br />
This is quite daunting! How can we be sure our understanding is accurate and that we see things the way God would have us to see them? <br />
<br />
<blockquote>For we walk by faith, not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7).</blockquote><br />
We must put our trust in God. We must ask God to give us the wisdom to understand His will according to His purposes (James 1:5-8). We must seek to conform our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to that of Jesus, and not of the world (Romans 8:28, 12:1-2). Knowledge cannot save; it puffs up (1 Corinthians 8:1). God saves people through faith in the Lord Jesus, those who live according to His love, advancing His purposes (Romans 3:23, 1 Corinthians 13:1-8, Ephesians 2:1-18, 1 John 4:7-21). <br />
<br />
On our own we may not know much, but we can at least know that we should put our trust in the God who does know. Let us trust in God in Christ and be saved!<br />
<br />
Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
March 2015Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-1079011431759799622014-06-01T00:00:00.000-04:002014-06-04T21:14:11.542-04:00God Works Through His People<blockquote>Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, was this grace given, to preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; and to make all men see what is the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God who created all things; to the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord <cite>(Ephesians 3:8-11)</cite>.</blockquote><br />
For the past two hundred years the proclamation of the Gospel has featured a very individualistic focus; it seems the ultimate goal of preaching is to "get people saved". This tendency is understandable in a post-Enlightenment and particularly American context, maintaining a strong focus on the individual and his or her autonomy and independence. Unfortunately this emphasis has led to a Christian spirituality perhaps more wide but significantly less deep. When salvation is described strictly in terms of God solving the sin problem we cannot solve on our own, it is tempting for people to prove willing to "get saved" however they are told to do so and then feel as if the problem is solved and they can get back to their lives. <br />
<br />
In such an environment we do well to get back to a fundamental premise of both theology and God's interaction with humanity throughout time: God works through His people. God has never expected to save an assortment of scattered individuals in various times and places; God intends to save a people, a nation, a people for His own possession, and those people are expected to share in community (1 Peter 2:9). <br />
<br />
God's work through His people makes sense in terms of God's nature within Himself. The New Testament speaks of God's unity not in personhood but in relationship: the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Spirit is God. Yet God is one, so unified that we can speak of God in the singular (John 1:1, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:29). This unity in relationship is described in John 17:20-23 with the appropriate conclusion: the Father is in the Son, the Son is in the Father, and since the Son is dying and being raised again so that people can be reconciled back to the Father, the Son prays for the people of God to be one, both with God and with one another, as the Father and Son are one. For God to be only concerned about the salvation of individuals without consideration for others would be a denial of Himself; as He is one in relationship, and man is made in His image, so man seeks after relationship both with God and with each other (Genesis 1:26-27, Acts 17:24-28, Romans 1:18-20). <br />
<br />
Throughout time God has first established a people for His own possession and then worked with and through them. God began by making Adam and Eve and through them all their descendants (Genesis 2:4-6:32). He began again with Noah and his family (Genesis 6:1-9:28). Yes, God chose and worked with the individuals Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but always in view of the "great nation" which He established through Jacob, called Israel (Genesis 12:1-49:33). God intended for all Israel to serve Him as priests and to bless the world through Israel, giving them His own Law to follow (Exodus 19:1-20:17), yet Israel continually chose to reflect the nations around them than the particular inheritance given to them by God. <br />
<br />
And so it is, as Paul states in Ephesians 3:10-11, that God's ultimate and eternal purpose in Jesus was to display His own manifold wisdom through the church. The church is the visible manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth, inaugurated through Jesus' life, death, resurrection, ascension, and lordship, looking forward to the promise of His return, judgment, and resurrection (Philippians 3:20-21, Colossians 1:13). Paul speaks of the church as the Body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18), and emphasizes the need for the members of that body to work both independently and together to strengthen and build up that body (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 4:11-16). It is not for nothing that as Jesus gives a vision to John of the beauty of the saved after the day of resurrection it is in terms of the "holy city Jerusalem," the "bride of Christ," that is, as the church, in unspeakable glory, forever in the presence of her God and Savior (Revelation 21:1-22:6). <br />
<br />
At no point in the New Testament do we see commendation of "Lone Ranger Christianity." To "pick yourself up by your own bootstraps" is a good Americanism but it is never found in the pages of Scripture. Instead Scripture speaks of the need to love one another, to serve one another, to care for one another, to strengthen one another, and to participate together with one another in the faith (John 13:14, 34, Acts 2:42-47, 1 Corinthians 12:26, 1 Thessalonians 5:11). Peter reminds us that the devil goes about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter 5:8); as anyone who has watched lions on a television documentary can attest, lions always like going after the loners, the isolated, the weak and ill of a group. Individualism and independence may be virtues in American society yet they prove to be vices in the Kingdom of God which values joint participation and interdependence (Acts 2:42-46, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 12:12-28). Even that which we have as individuals is to be used to serve one another (1 Peter 4:10-11)!<br />
<br />
Therefore we can see that the God who is one in relational unity works through His people, presently found in the church. God's working in and through His people has many important implications for discipleship and evangelism. <br />
<br />
First and foremost is the need to emphasize that those who are truly God's people work together in community as the church to glorify God. The Gospel is proclaimed not as the ultimate self-help fix, but to emphasize the need to be reconciled back to God and also to His people; notice in Ephesians 2:1-22 the thrust of Paul's explication of the salvation process has led to both Jews and Gentiles being incorporated into one body and to share as fellow-citizens of the Kingdom of God. How can one preach Christ without preaching His Body? How can a Gospel truly reflect God's purposes if it does not emphasize the need to join and share with the community of God's people to build up and be strengthened in turn? Those who were baptized in Acts 2:41 immediately devoted themselves not only to the Apostles' instruction but also the fellowship (the association, the joint participation, the community) of believers (Acts 2:42). The call of conversion demands not just a change of mind and heart but also a change of primary identification, no longer of the world and the various ways it divides people, but of Christ and by necessity the Kingdom of Christ, declaring one's identification with the fellow people of God (Philippians 3:20). <br />
<br />
Likewise, as we proclaim the Gospel, we cannot do so entirely independently of the people of God and expect God to bless it or for it to truly succeed. After all, what is the goal of all evangelism? Just to baptize people? That is not even the primary goal of the Great Commission, which sees baptism, along with teaching, as the means by which disciples are made (Matthew 28:18-19). The goal of evangelism is to make disciples and then to help them grow to maturity, and if nothing else, that growth process can only take place in the context of the community of God's people as it has for millennia. Such is why the members of the church are to strengthen and care for one another; that is why the members of the church assemble, to spiritually build up and strengthen one another toward maturity (1 Corinthians 12:26, 14:26, Ephesians 4:11-16, Hebrews 10:24-25). Even the most zealous and driven self-directed disciple still needs the encouragement, exhortation, and often redirection or perhaps rebuke which comes from joint participation with the people of God as we all seek to come to the appropriate understanding of God's message to us (Ephesians 4:11-16, 2 Timothy 2:15). <br />
<br />
We all are who we are because of God and His grace; yet how often has God worked through some of His people to be the sources of information, instruction, encouragement, exhortation, and perhaps even rebuke in our lives? As the Gospel was proclaimed in the first century, even if great divine effort was necessary to arrange for the hearing of the message, its proclamation was still accomplished by His people (e.g. Acts 9:1-18, 10:1-48). Since God works through His people, we must take care so as to be people in whom and through whom God can work. Are we doing our part to facilitate an environment among our fellow people of God in which disciples can grow in trust, faith, and strength? Are the parts of the body doing the functions God has given them both independently and interdependently? Are lives being transformed to better conform to the image of Jesus so that Christ's body is growing in Him? <br />
<br />
As He did in the original creation of humanity and in Israel, God now works through His people now in the church. On the final day He will glorify the saved as the collective and communal people of God. That which is not connected to the Body of Christ will not stand nor endure for eternity. Let us therefore strive to work effectively in community as the people of God, manifesting among ourselves the unity shared by God in Himself and with God so that He can work through us to make disciples and help them grow to maturity!<br />
<br />
Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
June 2014Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-15836043965611238612013-05-01T00:00:00.000-04:002013-05-04T23:15:52.040-04:00The Ever-Present Danger of "Soft" Preaching<p>One of the common jeremiads often heard proclaimed in pulpits warns against the dangers of "soft" preaching. Quite frequently this concern is discussed in terms of 2 Timothy 4:1-4:</p>
<blockquote>I charge thee in the sight of God, and of Christ Jesus, who shall judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside unto fables.</blockquote>
<p>"Soft" preaching is then associated with these teachers who tell those with "itching ears" what they want to hear and thus depart from the faith. Sometimes such "soft" preaching is defined as "all positive" preaching; many times it is negatively defined as preaching without discussing "hard" issues. Those "hard" issues tend to be defined in terms of matters of doctrinal distinctiveness: emphasis on the proper plan of salvation, proper functioning in the assemblies, and/or proper church organization and functioning. These days, "soft" preaching is extended to included unwillingness to preach against abortion, homosexuality, or other hot-button cultural and social issues.</p>
<p>These concerns are legitimate. One road to large churches and equally large church treasuries is paved with soothing self-help messages masquerading as preaching. Moralistic therapeutic deism, the belief in a god who is out there with some standards that are easily relaxed, who wants people to be happy and to have high self-esteem, and who will save all good people, is quite prevalent in our age, and is promoted vigorously with a "Christian" veneer. Meanwhile, the people of God remain tempted to dispense with that which makes them distinctive so as to be like everyone else. Israel wanted a king like the other nations (1 Samuel 8:1-22), and served other gods like the other nations (2 Kings 17:7-23). Some early Christians minimized the resurrection and promoted doctrines more consistent with Hellenistic philosophy than the apostolic Gospel (1 Timothy 6:20-21, 2 Timothy 2:17-19, 2 John 1:7-11). Today many among liberal Protestants have fully embraced cultural norms in terms of science, gender roles, and embrace of homosexuality; even among Evangelicals gender roles have become a major issue of contention. Meanwhile, many within churches of Christ have come to see themselves as just another Christian path and thus grant legitimacy to many facets of Evangelicalism at least and other Christian groups as well at most. Proclamation regarding God's plan of salvation, the proper way to edify and encourage in the assembly, and the authorized organization and work of the local congregation according to the New Testament is not appreciated in some places. We do well to show concern about these trends and to continue to preach the Gospel in its fullness.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, we also do well to consider whether it is advisable or wise to define "soft" and "hard" preaching so strictly and with such a limited application. Neither "soft preaching" nor "hard preaching" are Biblical terms. When Paul wrote to Timothy, the immediate dangers were for Jewish Christians to "turn aside" to listen to a gospel emphasizing Judaism and its cultural traditions (reflected in the "Ebionite" sect) and for Gentile Christians to "turn aside" to listen to a gospel conforming to Hellenistic philosophies and an anti-Semitic bias (reflected in Marcionism, the <i>Epistle of Barnabas</i>, and the various Gnostic sects). These "gospels" would accommodate the listeners' existing biases and grew into the heresies which were opposed so virulently during the first four hundred years of Christianity.</p>
<p>Yet this very example provides a cautionary tale: while early Christians were so fixed on opposing these heresies, changes were introduced in church organization (a bishop over the elders in a local congregation with Ignatius), and the very arguments used to defend the faith and to oppose heretics would become the basis of false doctrines: the appeal to Christians' old covenant heritage in Israel in order to gain legitimacy led to Judaizing tendencies in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy; appealing to unbroken lines of authority figures in the church in Rome to show that "orthodox" Christianity predated the "heresies" and thus was more legitimate would eventually be used to justify Roman Catholic claims to legitimacy despite the fact that what the church in Rome taught in the first century is vastly different from what the Roman Catholic church taught in 600 CE, 1000 CE, 1500 CE, and today.</p>
<p>These early Christians were very concerned about the promotion of heresy and zealously defended their faith in Christ. Yet while they stood firm on many aspects of the faith and vigorously defended them, they let other aspects of the faith slide. Unforeseen consequences involving incremental changes in church organization and the inferences drawn from arguments defending the faith would eventually overwhelm the good which had been done in the defense of the faith.</p>
<p>Hopefully this example can show us the dangers of single-minded focus on particular issues to the detriment of others and putting too much faith in our arguments versus the explicit message of the New Testament. Strict definitions of what comprises "soft" and "hard" preaching can contribute to this focus and thus its inherent danger: if "hard" preaching involves proclaiming the distinctive aspects of our faith, and we constantly emphasize those distinctive aspects in our preaching and teaching, and everyone is affirmed in those distinctive matters, we can be lulled into complacency, convinced that we are "holding firm" to the faith. Meanwhile, other, less addressed, issues may creep into the church and lead to ungodliness. If the preacher dares to preach on these new challenges, he might find the audience has developed hardened hearts on the issue. Or perhaps Christians make bad or unintended inferences from arguments to defend the truth or use those arguments in unintended ways and begin promoting distorted doctrines. In such circumstances, "hard" preaching has become "soft" preaching, what was once derided as "soft" preaching proves necessary as "hard" preaching, and false doctrine has sprouted from previous attempts to advance the truth.</p>
<p>Paul wisely did not specifically mention which lusts people would want satisfied, which myths they would accept, and what precisely these teachers would teach: specific identification would lead to apathy and complacency in terms of other issues! There are all sorts of ways in which people develop itching ears and seek teachers to satisfy their desires. Yes, it is true that some people seek teachers to talk only about positive matters and focus only on how to be good people, and want little to do with doctrine and the distinctive truths of New Testament Christianity. Yet those very issues could themselves become "soft" preaching for a group who has itching ears to feel content that they adhere to the true doctrines of New Testament Christianity but want little to do with those parts of the Gospel that demand changes in their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.</p>
<p>"Soft" preaching as preaching designed to make everybody feel better about themselves as they are without any demand for repentance has no place among the people of God (cf. Matthew 4:17, Luke 6:26, 1 Timothy 6:3-10). The preaching of the Gospel of Christ is always designed to convict the hearer of their condition before God and should always exhort toward faith, repentance, and godliness; it should always be "hard" in the sense of challenging and faithful to the standard of God's holiness (Matthew 4:17, Acts 2:37-38, 2 Timothy 4:1-4, Hebrews 4:12, 1 Peter 1:13-16). We should be wary of fixed definitions beyond these which focus upon certain aspects of the Gospel over others, for the danger always exists that the issues deemed "hard" preaching today prove to be "soft" matters tomorrow, and matters we take for granted today are considered as "hard" preaching tomorrow. Instead, we do better to proclaim the "whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). The whole counsel of God includes the distinctive doctrines of New Testament Christianity yet constantly reinforces the life, death, resurrection, and lordship of Jesus of Nazareth as the centerpiece of the faith and the basis of its standard of the righteous and holy life (1 Corinthians 15:1-58, John 2:1-6, Jude 1:3). Doctrine and praxis are to complement each other, not stand in contrast. The whole counsel of God involves positive encouragement of commendable thoughts, feelings, and actions as well as exhortation away from ungodly and unholy thoughts, feelings, and actions (Galatians 5:17-24). The whole counsel of God demands believers to speak truth to society today without romanticizing an illusory past (cf. Ecclesiastes 7:10). The whole counsel of God demands the recognition of the distinction between what God actually said and the arguments we use to defend that truth, and to never allow the latter to be used or misused to contradict the former.</p>
<p>We humans like to quantify things, and the more objective the quantification, the better. On account of this Christians have always been tempted to quantify "soft" vs. "hard" preaching, or "sound" vs. "unsound" doctrines, on the basis of certain, easily quantifiable beliefs, doctrines, or practices. As Christians, we should certainly affirm sound doctrine and encourage preaching and teaching on the distinctive doctrines of New Testament Christianity. Yet we must always be wary about limited definitions of "soft"/"hard" preaching or "sound" doctrine. Focus on certain doctrines to the neglect of others is not healthy, or sound, at all; what constitutes "soft" preaching for "itching ears" in one context may prove to be "hard" preaching in others, and what constitutes "hard" preaching to some may actually be "soft" preaching for "itching ears." After all, whoever actually, consciously believes they are departing from the truth and holding firm to myths because of their itching ears? Paul does not suggest that this problem only exists "out there"; his very concern is that it will become true of those "among us," "right here"! Let us continually check our ears to see whether they itch to hear certain things over others or whether they are always ready to listen to the truth of God in Christ Jesus no matter how much that truth may ask of us, and seek to proclaim the whole counsel of God!</p>
<p>Ethan R. Longhenry<br>
May 2013</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-80882328818972516002013-01-01T03:00:00.000-05:002013-01-01T03:00:13.366-05:00The Resurrection of the Body<blockquote>But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Brethren, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees: touching the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question" <i>(Acts 23:6).</i></blockquote>
<p>The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the cornerstone of Christianity: Paul ties the legitimacy of the faith to the fact that Jesus was raised from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12-20). Since Jesus was raised from the dead, Christians maintain the hope of the day when they also will be raised from the dead (Romans 8:18-25, 1 Corinthians 15:21-58, Philippians 3:8-14, 20-21). Yet what is this "resurrection" all about?</p>
<p>In the New Testament, this question is not an issue: all involved understood that <i>the</i> resurrection involved the resurrection of the body from the dead. Whether the dead would be raised was one of the main disputations between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, seen in Matthew 22:23-32 and Acts 23:6-9. When Paul preached to the Athenians regarding the resurrection of Jesus, some of them mocked the idea (Acts 17:30-32): in many strands of Greek philosophy, the goal was for the soul to escape the body, and so the idea of resurrection proved quite repugnant. Elijah and Elisha raised the dead bodily through the power of God (1 Kings 17:17-24, 2 Kings 4:18-37, Hebrews 11:35). Jesus did the same (Luke 7:10-17, 8:40-42, 49-56, John 11:1-45), as did Peter (Acts 9:36-42). When Jesus Himself arose from the dead, the tomb was empty, and He appeared to His disciples in bodily form (Matthew 28:1-17, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24:1-53, John 20:1-21:25).</p>
<p>Yet it seems the idea of the resurrection of the body has become misunderstood over time. Some of the confusion comes from the heritage of Greek philosophy and its emphasis upon soul over body and their expectation of life after death in terms of the soul finding bliss in a disembodied state. Some of the confusion comes from over-applying spiritual understandings of resurrection, as with baptism as a spiritual death and resurrection in Romans 6:3-7, as well as the over-emphasis of the "spiritual" nature of the "spiritual" body in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49. Yet it is the elevation of the expectation of heaven as the ultimate goal for the Christian, based on John 14:1-3, and how that expectation was enshrined in the hymns and popular devotions of many Christians, that has led to the under-emphasis on the resurrection and its importance in Christianity. As a result, the afterlife is understood in almost purely spiritual terms: the destruction of the physical realm leading to eternity in the spiritual realm in heaven. The resurrection from the dead is often re-defined to fit this particular concept of the afterlife: the resurrection becomes "life with God in heaven forever." Yet is this what is taught in the New Testament?</p>
<p>In the Bible, as seen above, resurrection involves the raising of a dead body to life: the return of the soul/spirit to the physical body. The sons of the widows of Zarephath and Nain, the son of the Shunammite, Jairus' daughter, Lazarus, and Dorcas/Tabitha had all died, their spirits/souls having departed from their physical bodies, and through the power of God, their spirits/souls returned to their bodies and they lived again. Granted, all these would again die.</p>
<p>Jesus' resurrection is considered as the paradigm for the resurrection of believers: He is considered as the firstfruits, the firstborn of the dead, under the assumption that many others will follow on the final day (1 Corinthians 15:20-28). The Gospel accounts are in complete agreement: on the day of His crucifixion, Jesus died. His spirit/soul departed from His body. On the third day, Jesus was raised from the dead: His soul (and spirit?) was restored to His body, and He presented Himself to His disciples as having flesh and bones (cf. Luke 24:39), yet He could seemingly transcend the space-time continuum. The authors of the New Testament consider Jesus to have been raised from the dead in the body, yet the body was in a transformed, glorified form (cf. Philippians 3:21).</p>
<p>The New Testament makes important distinctions that we do well to consider. In the New Testament, the afterlife is not equated with the resurrection; therefore, the resurrection is not exactly "life after death." Jesus, after all, was alive after He died: His soul did not perish on the cross, but went to Paradise (Luke 23:43-46). Paul understands that the sooner he would die, the sooner he would be with Christ, and how good that would be (Philippians 1:22-24), yet expects the resurrection to happen on the final day, the day of judgment, and recognizes that those "asleep" in Christ await the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:20-28, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). One can make a good argument based upon John 14:1-3, Philippians 1:22-24, and Revelation 6:9-11, 7:9-17, that the Christian's soul/spirit goes to heaven immediately upon separation from the physical body: that would be life after death. Yet the New Testament has a further expectation: the day will then come when the dead will be raised (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-58). Thus, the resurrection is truly life <i>after</i> life after death: the return of the soul (and spirit?) to the body, just as Jesus' soul returned to His body.</p>
<p>But why a return to the body? We do well to remember that while the Bible testifies how mankind has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and often speaks of sinfulness in terms of the desires of the flesh (cf. Romans 3:23, 8:1-11, Galatians 5:17-24), the Bible never suggests that the body is intrinsically evil. Quite the contrary: God made man and woman in His image, with body, soul, and spirit, and called that creation "very good" (Genesis 1:26-31). The Bible nowhere suggests that we would be in a better state if we were soul/spirit without a body; there is no Biblical conception of humanity as anything else but an organic unity among body and soul/spirit. As Paul explains in Romans 8:18-25, the problem with the body is the same problem that plagues the whole creation: God has subjected it to futility and decay, no doubt on account of the presence of sin and death in the world (cf. Genesis 3:1-23, Romans 5:12-18). While humans seem quite willing to give up on God's creation, God and His creation itself prove less willing: as Paul continues to explain in Romans 8:18-25, the creation groans to be freed from its bondage to futility and decay, hoping to obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Little wonder, then, that John sees the end as the beginning in Revelation 22:1-6, with God's people in the presence of God and Christ in the "new heavens and a new earth" with the river of life and the tree of life on its banks, reminiscent of the Garden of Eden from which we fell (cf. Genesis 2:1-3:22, Revelation 21:1). The New Testament, therefore, does not envision our ultimate end as disembodied bliss in heaven; it envisions a new heavens and earth, in which righteousness dwells, where humanity is restored to the position it once had before God.</p>
<p>Paul also sets up another contrast in Romans 8:18-25: the "now, not yet" nature of our salvation. In Romans 6:3-7, Paul speaks of baptism as being joined into Christ's death and resurrection: a spiritual death and a spiritual resurrection. Thus Christians are alive spiritually before God in Christ, having obtained spiritual redemption through His blood, and through Christ can be considered as adopted sons (cf. Romans 8:1-16). And yet in Romans 8:23 he says Christians wait for adoption as sons, defined as the redemption of the body, and emphasizes in Romans 8:24-25 how this is our hope and therefore not yet manifest to us. A similar construct is seen in 1 Peter 1:3-9: Christians are now saved and guarded through faith, but they are guarded for a salvation ready to be revealed on the final day. We can understand these descriptions by understanding the differing natures of soul and body. When we speak of "spiritual" death, we do not mean actual death: we speak of such a death as a separation between the soul and its Creator, and do not mean that the soul has actually, substantively, perished and has ceased to exist. When we put our trust in Jesus and begin serving Him, we are reconciled to God through Him and His blood, and have the opportunity to maintain that spiritual relationship for eternity (cf. Romans 5:6-11, 1 John 1:1-7). Yet, even with that spiritual relationship, Christians die physically. Even with this spiritual relationship, there remains more that God has promised for Christians: not only are our souls redeemed, but God will redeem the body as well. We should be in a saved relationship with God right now, but we have not obtained the fulness of salvation just yet. The physical body, which is subject to actual, substantive death, must also gain victory over death in the end.</p>
<p>How this resurrection will take place, to the extent that we can presently understand it, is set forth in 1 Corinthians 15:35-58, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, and Philippians 3:21. The translation of the terms which Paul uses has led to much confusion: he speaks of the "natural" body, and then the "spiritual" body, and then says how flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, and so many are led to conclude that the physical body must not be at all involved. Yet this is not what Paul is saying. "Natural" is the Greek <i>psuchikos</i>, and "spiritual" is the Greek <i>pneumatikos</i>. How these terms are used is made evident in 1 Corinthians 15:45. The first Adam, made from dust, "became a living soul" (soul is Greek <i>psuche</i>). The last Adam, Christ, is a life-giving spirit (spirit is Greek <i>pneuma</i>). Therefore, Paul is making a contrast between a "psychical" body, the body we now have, corruptible, perishable, and empowered/enlivened by the breath of life, or <i>psuche</i>, and the "pneumatical" body, the body in the resurrection, incorruptible, imperishable, and empowered/enlivened by our spirit or perhaps the Spirit, the <i>pneuma</i>. So how do we get from the "psychical" to the "pneumatical" body?</p>
<p>Paul describes this in 1 Corinthians 15:51-54: yes, flesh and blood does not inherit the Kingdom, but that does not mean that flesh and blood is not involved. Paul goes on to explain himself: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be <i>changed</i>. <i>This</i> corruptible must "put on" incorruption; <i>this</i> mortal must put on immortality. When that happens, the saying will be true: death is swallowed up in victory.</p>
<p>In 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18, Paul assures the Thessalonian Christians that the dead in Christ will rise, and "we who are alive" will also be caught up meet the Lord in the air. In Philippians 3:20-21 Paul speaks of our present citizenship, and thus affiliation, as in heaven, but from it we wait a Savior so that our <i>body</i> may receive the <i>transformation</i> toward conformity to the <i>body</i> of His glory.</p>
<p>Thus we can see the nature of the resurrection: the body is raised from the dead and is then transformed for immortality. Those who are alive when Christ returns will not experience death but will experience the same transformation. The dead are not raised in a transformed body: the dead are raised in their physical body, which is then transformed. Incorruption and immortality must be "put on" over this corruption and mortality; this is no doubt a figure, but it is a figure of transformation.</p>
<p>It is through the resurrection of the body that Christians obtain the victory over death. The soul does not die like the body dies; it is either connected to or separated from its Creator. If the goal of Christianity were simply a matter of spending eternity in heaven as disembodied souls, the resurrection would be entirely pointless: we could have that automatically after physical death, as Jesus also could have. Likewise, Greek philosophers would have entirely agreed with the Christian view of the afterlife; no one in Athens would mock Paul for suggesting that the afterlife featured disembodied bliss. Yet early Christians stubbornly insisted that Jesus was physically dead but made alive again and such is the hope for all who trust in Him.</p>
<p>Many good questions arise on account of the resurrection of the body. How could the body be raised if the body were deformed, cremated, or had decomposed significantly? The Bible does not directly address this question, but we are given an interesting example in Matthew 27:52-53: Matthew claims that after Jesus was raised from the dead, many of the bodies of the "saints" which had fallen asleep were raised, came out of their tombs, and appeared to many. This record of Matthew, preserved nowhere else, leads to more questions than answers. Who were they? How long were they alive? What happened to them afterwards? Nevertheless, Matthew does say the bodies of the saints came out of the tombs, and if those saints had been deceased for at least a year or more, there would have been nothing left of them but bones if even that much. We necessarily infer that God re-constituted their bodies so that they could come forth from the tombs in a form recognizable to people of the day. As God is able to make man from dust, He is able to re-make man from dust (cf. Genesis 2:7). Other details we would like to know are left entirely unaddressed.</p>
<p>What happened to Jesus in the resurrection? A common assumption is that after His ascension, Jesus returned to His pre-incarnate form. Yet the New Testament text does not justify such an assumption, and actively speaks against it. In 1 Corinthians 15:8, Paul considers himself a witness to the Risen Lord, and makes no distinction between his witness to Jesus and the witness of those who saw Him between His resurrection and ascension. He witnessed the Risen Lord in Acts 9:3-7: yes, the text there only indicates that he saw a great light, but in 1 Corinthians 9:1 he claims to have seen "the Lord," and thus we must conclude that Paul saw Jesus in His resurrection body. We also should note Paul's language in Philippians 3:21: in the resurrection we will be transformed in order to be conformed to the glory of His body. Paul speaks of Jesus having that body in the present tense; therefore, the conclusion that makes the best sense of all the evidence is that Jesus has been in His resurrected body since the day of His resurrection. In this way Jesus remains both man and God even presently (cf. 1 Timothy 2:5).</p>
<p>Much, much more could be said about the resurrection of the body. It ought to remain the centerpiece of the hope of the Christian today just as it was for Paul (cf. Philippians 3:8-14). As Jesus became flesh and dwelt among us, died on the cross, dwelt in Paradise, was raised from the dead and transformed, and remains for eternity in His resurrection body, so we can cherish the hope of the same. We live in the flesh, and unless the Lord returns quickly, will physically die. Our souls will return to God and dwell with Him until the final day upon which our bodies will be re-animated/re-constituted and transformed for eternity, ever to be in the presence of God in the new heavens and the new earth, having received the redemption of our souls and bodies as well as the creation itself, glorifying God in the form of His creation which He always intended for us to have and enjoy. Let us comfort one another with these words and wait patiently for our full redemption!</p>
<p>Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
January 2013</p> Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-60801888492913140912012-08-01T00:00:00.000-04:002012-08-01T01:00:17.584-04:00Counterfeit Sexuality: Sexuality as God<p>Sexuality remains the proverbial "elephant in the room" for a lot of people as they go through life. People think about it, participate in it, but seem rarely comfortable discussing it. To an extent, this is understandable and not entirely bad: sexuality should remain a private matter, and we should not be promoting lasciviousness. Nevertheless, sexuality is a part of life, and if it is not directed according to God's purposes for sexuality, but toward a worldly counterfeit form of sexuality, sin, pain, and misery are sure to follow. Far too many people are being devastated and destroyed physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually because of the pursuit of counterfeit forms of sexuality and the consequent loss of sexuality the way God intended it to be.</p>
<p>Many of these troubles come from the forms of sexuality promoted actively within our culture and expressed through the arts and media. At other times we have investigated the sources of these difficulties and contrasted them with a Biblical understanding of sexuality. Nevertheless, why do we see sexuality so aggressively promoted and discussed within our society? After all, it is not as if sexually deviant behavior and counterfeit forms of sexuality are a new thing; they have been around for thousands of years. Yet only recently have we seen such expressions of sexuality aggressively and actively promoted in such public ways. A lot of the reasons center on the elevation of sexuality as one of the primary gods of our society.</p>
<p>This is not terribly surprising when we consider greater societal trends. Over the past hundred and fifty years, all things supernatural have lost credibility in the public sphere. Emphasis is placed on that which is material and observable. The doctor and the scientist now have the pride of place once reserved for the clergy and the theologian. Meanwhile, individualism has run rampant, and virtues tend to be defined toward the maximum benefit for the individual even if it becomes detrimental to the group: liberty and independence are now understood more in terms of personal freedom to do as we please as opposed to any collective sense of benefit.</p>
<p>Despite (or even because of) these trends, people still feel as if something is missing in their lives. They often feel lonely, isolated, and afraid. They are concerned that no one loves them for who they are; they do not feel accepted. They surely want what is best for them as individuals, and value their freedom, and yet they still yearn for connection and relationships with other people.</p>
<p>These feelings are entirely understandable according to the message of the Scriptures. We are grasping for something beyond ourselves (Acts 17:26-28); we can perceive that we are separated from what will make us whole, described in Scripture as the recognition of the separation between man and his Creator because of sin (Isaiah 59:1-2). The Bible reveals that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27), and God Himself embodies the relational unity of the Three Persons in One (John 17:20-23, 1 John 4:8). As God is One in relational unity, so humans, as made in God's image, yearn for relationships with both God his Creator and with his fellow man (John 17:20-23).</p>
<p>Meanwhile, God has so designed human sexuality to be the physical shadow of the spiritual reality of the intimacy in relationship which should exist between God and mankind (Romans 1:19-20, Ephesians 5:31-32). Humans are made with sexual desire and are to seek one special person of the complementary gender with whom to develop a lasting relationship, and sexuality is designed to cement that relationship (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:24). This is why there is a sense of a mystical union within the sexual bond. This is all good: God created it as good (Genesis 1:31).</p>
<p>But in a society which has discredited all things supernatural, the only somewhat mystical, other-worldly dimension of life left is sexuality. And what do we see in our society but the elevation of sexuality as a god, perhaps as the ultimate god for many?</p>
<p>When we speak of idolatry, we often do so in terms of making something which was created as good the absolute purpose and goal in life. Jesus and Paul, in Matthew 6:24, Ephesians 5:5, and Colossians 3:5 speak of money and covetousness as gods or idols. They say this because many people make it their life's aim to make money, and by their actions they demonstrate that obtaining money and things is more important than anything else. They are motivated by a desire to have more above all other things. It is not as if they bow down to a statue of money or "things," or even necessarily understand their identity in terms of money. Yet since it runs their lives, it is an idol. It is in this sense we often speak of sexuality as a god or an idol, and it is sadly true: many people allow sexuality to run their lives.</p>
<p>Yet, with sexuality, it seems to go even further. As we have discussed earlier, modern man still feels the pain of separation, loneliness, and isolation, and yearns for connection. Society's answer is not to look toward God but to sex and sexuality to fill that void. Looking for connection? Have sex with people. Do you feel lonely? Find someone with whom to have sex. Do you have a hard time accepting yourself for who you are? Well, sex will make you feel better, and since someone is having sex with you, they have clearly accepted you to some degree. The only other "god" which society directs people with any similar fervor is that of consumerism, and even then, many times consumerism is promoted through sexuality!</p>
<p>The problem, of course, is that sexuality is not God. At its best, the moment of the experience of the mystical union found in healthy sexuality does not last very long. We come back to that moment again and again, and it never truly satisfies. One can maintain even a godly, proper, and healthy sex life and still feel separated, alienated, alone, unloved, and unaccepted! Sexuality can never fully satisfy; it can be good, but it can never be absolute.</p>
<p>Meanwhile there are many other consequences to this big lie. People are deluded into thinking that sexuality really can fulfill, and they seek out new and more exciting experiences to see if they can find that fulfillment. In the process they sin against themselves; ironically, as they seek fulfillment, they move further away from maintaining sexuality in a single relationship and therefore become develop an increasingly dehumanized, animalistic sexuality which can never satisfy or fulfill at all (cf. Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:13-19). Such people feel it: they feel as if sexuality has been cheapened in some way. They can tell, to some degree, that they have been sold a bill of goods. Yet so many keep pursuing it anyway.</p>
<p>We cannot begin to imagine the amount of emotional and spiritual damage, misery, suffering, and pain caused by the pursuit of sexuality as god. How many people have recognized too late that their quest for sex has led to damaged, broken relationships? How many have entered into sexual relationships to find fulfillment and end up with someone who abuses them or degrades them? How many have thought there would be a special bond with someone because of sex and that bond did not actually come to pass? How much pain and misery has existed within relationships because of pornography and adultery? And how many have turned away from seeking true satisfaction and fulfillment in life in God because they believed they would find it through sexuality? We hope and pray many repent and turn back toward God, but how many never will?</p>
<p>Such is always the problem whenever something good is taken and made absolute: it becomes a distraction, it never satisfies, whatever enjoyment which could be had does not last, and life is often spent in the futile pursuit of that fleeting moment of "happiness." Meanwhile, the rest of life does not work out as well as we would like, and we might experience great distress in mind, body, and soul. Such is the end whenever we turn away from God and seek after gods of our own creation or desire (Romans 1:18-32)!</p>
<p>So many of the challenges regarding sexuality posed by our culture are exacerbated by its thoroughgoing obsession with it. When there is no trust in God, some god must be found in which trust can be placed, and as Paul makes clear in Romans 1:18-32, obsession with sexuality and its deviant forms are often the result. This is not the way it has to be or even should be: only God is god, and sexuality, while a major part of our lives, can never truly satisfy as the ultimate pursuit of life. Sexuality was always intended to be confined to the marriage relationship between a man and a woman; it should reinforce and heighten the physical, emotional, and spiritual bond of that relationship (Genesis 2:24). When it does so, it functions as God intended, the physical shadow of the spiritual reality which ought to exist among God and mankind (John 17:20-24, Ephesians 5:31-32). Proper sexuality points to God as its Author and Creator, not back to itself as the ultimate form of satisfaction in relationship in life.</p>
<p>Yet, in the end, sexuality is like any good thing in life. When exercised properly, it can be a source of enjoyment, satisfaction, wholeness, and wellness; when indulged to excess or used outside of its proper boundaries, it becomes a source of pain, misery, suffering, resentment, even betrayal. As with any good thing, sexuality can be a healthy part of human existence; when taken out of its proper context, it leads to degradation and dehumanization. All of this boils down to the choice we have in life between honoring God as our Creator and giving thanks to Him for all the good gifts and blessings in life, finding true wholeness and satisfaction in relationship with Him and with our fellow man through Him, or we turn from God, darkened in our understanding and futile in our thinking, and end up making counterfeit gods out of the good things created for our use, finding little but pain, suffering, misery, disappointment, and failure. Let us make sure that the One True Creator God is the God of our lives, not sexuality or any other created thing, properly use all good things which He has given us, and ever give all thanks, praise, honor, and glory to Him!</p>
<p>Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
August 2012</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com10tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-39778476868031874902012-07-01T00:00:00.000-04:002012-07-02T23:49:16.440-04:00Counterfeit Sexuality: Sexuality as Reduced to Animal Impulse<p>Few topics prove as sensitive and yet as controversial as sexuality. The topic generates a lot of interest; sadly, few conversations regarding sexuality prove very profitable. Most people understand their sexuality according to the terms of their culture and the world; few challenge the perspective and the narrative they are told regarding their sexual desires and the proper exercise thereof. Unfortunately, this remains true even among God's people: they have heard all sorts of lessons about sexual purity and holiness and may have a desire to maintain sexual integrity, and yet deep down they often maintain the same prevailing assumptions and attitudes about sexuality as most of the rest of the people in our culture. The challenges with this situation are evident: Christians may profess a different standard of conduct than many other people in the world, yet they often are just as guilty of adultery, viewing of pornography, and involvement in various forms of sexually deviant behavior as those who do not hold to the Biblical standard.</p>
<p>The problem is not found in exhortations toward sexual purity and holiness, although we would do well to make it clearer that there is much more to holiness than just sexual purity (e.g. 1 Peter 1:15-16). The problem is within the conflict between the imperative of sexual purity and holiness and maintaining an understanding of sexuality informed by worldly, societal standards. This conflict exists because the understanding of sexuality promoted vigorously within our culture and society is really counterfeit: it pretends to seek to provide the mystical experience and satisfaction within sexuality but is not rooted in nor does it respect the true purpose of human sexuality as designed by its Creator. Therefore, societal concepts of sexuality are fraudulent: they suggest to offer what they cannot provide because they are incomplete, settling for physical pleasure alone when sexuality was designed to provide emotional and relational fulfillment as well (Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Ephesians 5:31-32). Of all the different ways in which society promotes counterfeit forms of sexuality, perhaps none is as detrimental, dehumanizing, and yet pervasive as the reduction of sexuality to the physical, animalistic impulse. It is very hard to seek to maintain sexual purity and holiness if one views sexuality as merely the satisfaction of a desire, akin to eating when hungry or scratching an itch!</p>
<p>The desire for sexual satisfaction does exist, and it is one of the primal, basic, and in many ways "animalistic" impulses of humanity. Many people feel the desire acutely, perhaps feeling as if the sexual desire is greater than all other desires. Yet people are different: some are not nearly driven as much by sexual desire, but may always want to eat, or are greedy for money and/or power. Few indeed are those people who do not strongly feel any of the basic impulses of humanity, and even then, much of that is due to our abundance of food, drink, and material blessings. If food and/or drink became more scarce we would learn just how powerful those desires are as well! Regardless, humans were created with sexual desire to develop and maintain a strong relationship with a member of the opposite gender (Genesis 1:26-28, 2:24). The physical impulse was placed within us not merely to be satisfied but to direct us toward relational unity with our spouse (Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Ephesians 5:31-32).</p>
<p>The emotional and relational aspects of sexuality, however, can be divorced from its physical aspect, and this is what we see done so powerfully within our society. Different forces are at work promoting this trend, whether consciously or unconsciously. The scientific establishment bears much of the responsibility: many scientists really promote scientism, a religious dogma suggesting that there is no god, no real meaning to life or the universe, and humans are just overdeveloped animals. For many scientists all things must be seen, understood, and explained through the evolutionary/Darwinist prism: sexual behavior is no different. Sexual conduct is analyzed in terms of its evolutionary implications. To this end scientists provide certain explanations for different types of behavior: adultery, for instance, is explained as men attempting to father as many children as possible with as many women as possible so as to perpetuate his lineage, and women as attempting to have children with the best genetic heritage while receiving care from the most competent male provider. Scientists can and do caution that these explanations are not meant to be justifications, but that does not stop people from internalizing these ideas as being true. Since there is no attempt at understanding adultery in moral terms, the emotional and relational consequences of adultery are not discussed; it is all about physical calculations, spoken of no differently than had baboons or squirrels been the subject of conversation. These theories and explanations leave very little room for a dignified view of man as made in the image of God (cf. Genesis 1:26-28): according to the scientific standard and viewpoint, we are just animals. In such an environment, who should be surprised to hear a song with the chorus, "you and me baby ain't nothing but mammals / so let's do it like they do on the Discovery channel"? Such is the fruit when the scientific perspective is magnified to the detriment of all others!</p>
<p>Whereas some scientists may have decent motives for their work, many other forces promote sexuality reduced to animal impulse for far baser reasons. Sexual impulses are primal and transcend all sorts of boundary markers: ethnic, linguistic, geographic, cultural, and so on. Sex, therefore, sells. But it is not true sexuality which sells; you cannot graphically display an emotional, spiritual, or relational connection. But you can graphically display the human body, and marketers, advertisers, and salesmen constantly bombard us with highly sexualized imagery in order to entice us to buy their products, remain loyal to their brand, watch a television show or movie, and so on and so forth.</p>
<p>The ultimate illustration and expression of sexuality reduced to sexual impulse is pornography. Pornography provides all of the physical aspects of sexuality without human interaction: the viewer experiences the mental and physical sensations consistent with sexual experience without any real connection at all with anyone else. Here we have sexuality reduced to its most basic self-seeking impulse toward satisfaction, little different from scratching an itch or eating when hungry.</p>
<p>Yet much more is going on. Depersonalized sexuality is inhuman sexuality. This is true even on a biological basis: human sexuality is quite different from most forms of animal sexuality. For most animals, sexuality is instinctive: when females are able to procreate, they give off visual or olfactory signals toward that end. Males may engage in all sorts of competitive behavior with other males, but when mating time has arrived, the act is rather instinctual. It requires little mental activity and need not suggest any long-term connection between the male and female. For most animals, sexual behavior is purely procreative. But this is not so for human sexuality. While we are learning that human females do give off certain signals during ovulation, humans participate nevertheless in sexual behavior at times when fertilization is unlikely or impossible. The human mind must be quite active in order to participate in sexual behavior, and both human men and women are shaped differently from animals in such a way as to foster greater connectivity in sexuality. Therefore, even on a biological level, human sexuality is different from animal sexuality: animals engage in sex for procreation, but humans engage in sex for connection.</p>
<p>Therefore, if we deny the relational aspect of sexuality, our sexuality is not truly human. We experience the disconnect when someone attempts to excuse their sexual behavior by saying that it is "just sex." They mean, of course, that their sexual behavior is not designed to lead to any sort of real relationship, and seek to deny that there is any emotional or relational consequence to their sexual conduct: "just sex" is imagined to be two people putting body parts together in order to experience physical pleasure.</p>
<p>In reality, none of this is entirely new. It is not as if the physical aspects of sexuality have been disconnected from its emotional, spiritual, and relational aspects only within the past two hundred years; the problem is likely as old as humanity. Consider what Paul says to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20:</p>
<blockquote>All things are lawful for me; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful for me; but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall bring to nought both it and them. But the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body: and God both raised the Lord, and will raise up as through his power. Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body?<br />
For, "The twain," saith he, shall become one flesh."<br />
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.</blockquote>
<p>The word the ASV translates as "fornication" is the Greek <i>porneia</i>. There is no one English equivalent which fully captures the meaning of <i>porneia</i>: it is often translated "sexual immorality," but perhaps "sexually deviant behavior" best captures the essence of the term. The word can and does refer to a range of sexual behaviors which deviate from the norm: adultery, pedophilia, homosexuality, bestiality, polygamy or polyandry, etc. Even though the word has this range of meaning, for Paul and his audience, <i>porneia</i> had one main referent: that which a man did with a <i>porne</i>, a prostitute/harlot/whore.</p>
<p>In the Greco-Roman world of Paul and the Corinthians, three expressions of sexuality were common and commonly accepted. Marriage existed, but sex with one's wife was not intended to be fun: that was for procreation and perpetuation of the family. This attitude was so ingrained that the Greek author Herodotus, writing of a Lydian ruler named Candaules, finds it worth mentioning that he had fallen "passionately in love with his own wife" <em>(Herodotus, Histories 1.8)</em>. Some Greeks in particular felt that the best sex was with prepubescent boys; such pederasty was glorified in Plato's <i>Symposium</i>. But the sex that most men would have for pleasure with women would be with the "female companions," or <i>hetairoi</i>, in drinking parties, or with the <i>porne</i> the prostitutes in town. Brothels were quite common in the ancient world; archeological evidence for them is unmistakable and abundant.</p>
<p>In 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Paul provides a critique of <i>porneia</i> with the <i>porne</i>, the prostitute. He declares that the body is not meant for sexually deviant behavior, but for the Lord (1 Corinthians 6:13); he will conclude by declaring how our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit who is present with us and how we have been bought with a price (the blood of Christ), are therefore not our own, and thus we should glorify God in our body, which ostensibly means that we should not come together with a prostitute (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). Thus, Paul does emphasize sexual purity and holiness. But what about 1 Corinthians 6:14-18?</p>
<p>Paul explains the need to flee sexually deviant behavior, declaring that the one who commits sexually deviant behavior sins against his own body. We understand the imperative to flee sexually deviant behavior, but how is it that the sexually deviant person sins against his body?</p>
<p>1 Corinthians 6:18 is ground zero in debates about sexuality and rules. Everybody seems to accept the logic of Paul's statement: every other sin is committed outside of the body, but <i>porneia</i> is against the body. Therefore, many people reason that many sexual "sins" are not really that "sinful" in comparison with murder, stealing, lying, cheating, fraud, etc., since those participating in those sexual behaviors are consenting adults, and their sins are not necessarily causing harm to others. As of this writing, this argument would not be tolerated in terms of pedophilia, bestiality, incest, or rape, since such behaviors do not involve consenting adults. Society still somewhat frowns on adultery, but its prevalence means that few speak out strongly against it. Yet society has come to fully justify premarital sex and homosexuality, and will no doubt soon also include bigamy, polygamy, and polyandry in this list as well.</p>
<p>Yet, as Paul is making clear, there is more to sin than just hurting other people. Sin, in general, degrades humanity. If God made mankind in His image, righteousness and justice are therefore truly human endeavors, while all sin thus must be inhuman and degrading (cf. Genesis 1:26-27). So what does Paul mean that <i>porneia</i> is committed against the body?</p>
<p>One answer that immediately might come to mind is sexually transmitted diseases; STDs are certainly consequences of sexually deviant behavior. Yet is this all Paul has in mind? Not likely.</p>
<p>Sexually deviant behavior here is seen mostly in terms of sex with prostitutes, and sex with prostitutes is really sexuality reduced to animal impulse: it is all about pleasure. In 1 Corinthians 6:16, Paul associates sex with a prostitute with the meaning of sex expressed in Genesis 2:24, but what does that mean? It surely does not mean that one becomes married to a prostitute: Paul is seeking to underscore the seriousness of the connection that happens during sex. The two are becoming "one flesh," but not to cement a relationship. Neither person involved would show much concern for the welfare of each other; sex here is reduced to a business transaction. It is "just sex" as much as it could possibly be, and it proves lacking in every meaningful way. By engaging in <i>porneia</i> with a <i>porne</i>, or prostitute, a man is dehumanizing his sexuality, separating the physical pleasure derived from sexual behavior from the mental/emotional/spiritual aspects which are intended to cement a relationship. When sexuality is no longer used to cement a relationship, it will be hard to use sexual behavior to cement a relationship. The conscience is seared; the man has sinned against his own body.</p>
<p>Therefore, perhaps what Paul is saying is that when we engage in sexually deviant behavior, reducing sexuality to the animal impulse, we sin against ourselves because we are dehumanizing ourselves in terms of our sexuality. In such circumstances, we are not using sex as a means by which we relate and connect with another; we are just using sex to satisfy a physical impulse, little different than satisfying hunger or thirst or scratching an itch. Unlike food, drink, and itching, however, sexuality was designed to be much more than something akin to pushing a lever in order to get the pellet. But if we treat sexuality like it is just a physical impulse, and we keep pushing down on that level to get the pellet, our consciences and minds are seared, and it becomes very difficult to be restored to a full appreciation of sexuality, not just in terms of the physical, but in terms of the emotional, spiritual, and relational aspects as well. Whether we want to admit it or not, once we engage in sex as reduced to its animal impulse, we have degraded ourselves and dehumanized and depersonalized our sexuality.</p>
<p>This is the battlefield on which so many Christians are being slaughtered by the Evil One. Christians find themselves constantly tempted to degrade their sexuality into subhuman forms: pornography, premarital sex, our modern "hookup" culture. We can emphasize sexual purity and holiness all we want, but the temptation is strong to satisfy pleasure. If Christians continue to view their sexuality in ways little different than society, then they will express their sexuality in ways little different than society. If the big concern with sin is only to make sure that we are not hurting other people, how can we make it clear that premarital sex is dangerous? How can we communicate how harmful pornography really is? Why should we be surprised to see so many men enslaved to pornography and women hurt in so many ways in marriage because of it if we do not address the root problems of the counterfeit sexuality peddled by our society?</p>
<p>True sexuality honors God and His intentions for mankind; true sexuality points to relationship, wholeness, and integrity. Any sexuality which degrades and dehumanizes is a counterfeit sexuality, and sexuality reduced to animal impulse is the worst. When sexuality is reduced to the animal impulse, humans find themselves even more separated from God and one another than before. We might yearn to find connection in sex, but its hollowness and meaninglessness exacerbates the pain. Ultimately, such behavior impacts the way we look at the world. The object of sexual desire is now judged entirely by physical and superficial concerns; their minds and feelings mean little. Pornography turns humans into mere pixels on a screen for pleasure; who the people are and what they feel are entirely irrelevant. If we succumb to these degrading and inhuman forms of sexuality, we find ourselves rather permanently scarred, for we have sinned against our own bodies. By reducing our sexuality to animal impulses, we have rejected God's purpose for sexuality in ourselves, even if only for a short time, and its impact will extend far beyond the activities in which we engaged.</p>
<p>We like to think that sexuality is just another part of life, but we all know that sexuality is special. Impacts are more severe whenever sex is involved. Perhaps this is because human sexuality was designed for such a unique and uniquely important relationship, between a husband and wife, fostering and cementing their connection. Few desires intertwine the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, and relational aspects of life like the sexual desire does. Therefore, sex can never be "just sex." Pornography can never be just a "harmless diversion." We either properly channel our sexual desires in order to connect with our spouse and experience human sexuality as intended, or we improperly channel our sexual desires, often disconnecting the physical from the mental, emotional, and spiritual, and degrade and dehumanize our sexuality in the process. Let us reject the counterfeit sexuality of sexuality reduced to animal impulse, always remembering that sex is more than just body parts coming together, and seek to honor God through our proper use of sexuality in connecting with our spouse!</p>
<p>Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
July 2012</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-68576231096466777832012-06-01T14:10:00.001-04:002012-06-01T14:10:37.494-04:00Counterfeit Sexuality: Sexuality as Identity<p>Sexuality remains one of the most sensitive and yet "hot-button" issues within our culture and among Christians today. Such a controversial issue features a lot of passion and debate regarding the surface level issues of proper and improper forms of sexuality, and in such an environment, digging deeper and finding a Biblically centered and balanced perspective can be challenging. Nevertheless, the Scriptures do provide such a view and a robust theology of sexuality: human sexuality is the physical shadow of the spiritual reality which we are to seek in communion with God in Christ (Genesis 1:26-27, 2:24, John 17:20-24, Ephesians 5:31-32). Sex is part of God's good creation, and therefore it can be good (Genesis 1:31).</p>
<p>While God made the creation good, sin has since entered the world. Humans have been corrupted by sin in their thoughts, feelings, and actions, and the creation is now subject to futility (Genesis 3:1-15, Romans 5:12-18, 8:19-23). People reject their Creator and find ways of bowing down to the creation, taking pleasure in counterfeit gods rather than serving the One True God (Romans 1:18-25). As it has happened in general with the creation, so it is with sexuality as well: consciously or unconsciously, people have rejected holy, fulfilling sexuality and have instead set up counterfeit forms of sexuality after which they seek fulfillment. Such forms of sexuality are "counterfeit" because are false, claiming to represent true sexuality but without the wholeness, holiness, and appreciation of true intimacy in mind, body, and soul which comes with the type of sexuality God established and provided for mankind. These counterfeit forms of sexuality represent the distortion of human sexuality into the various types of perversions (in every sense of the word) which we see peddled in modern society. The main forms of counterfeit sexuality include sexuality as identity, sexuality as reduced to animal impulse, and sexuality as god; for our purposes at this time, let us consider how establishing sexuality as a principal marker of identity leads to a counterfeit sexuality.</p>
<p>Identity remains a complex phenomenon. Each one of us has many identity markers, including gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, class, language, religion, generation, point of geographical origin and/or present geographical location, profession, hobbies, professional/sports/etc. affiliations, as well as sexual predilections. While all such identity markers are equally true of us, we nevertheless privilege certain markers over others when we consider who we are in relation to other people. Each person, whether consciously or unconsciously, prioritizes the relative "importance" of the different identity markers which makes up his or her existence. While many factors may influence this prioritization, it remains a free-will choice. We choose whether we will consider our gender identity over our national identity, our class identity over our linguistic identity, and so on and so forth. We tend to understand our place, our efforts, and our context in terms of the identity markers we have deemed most important in our lives, less so those we have chosen to consider less important. That narrative will change based on which aspects are deemed more important than others; this is how two people who share many identity markers may nevertheless see themselves very differently.</p>
<p>There is no doubt that we are all shaped by our identity, but we are the ones who decide what really defines who we are as human beings. In theory, we could take any physical aspect of our bodies, any work we do, any practice in which we participate, anything we believe is true, and center our identity around it. This is why Jesus constantly exhorts Christians to prioritize their relationship with God as primary: if our primary identity marker is that of being a servant of God, the proper attitudes regarding ourselves and our conduct as well as how we treat other people will naturally follow (Matthew 6:33, Galatians 2:20, etc.). If the primary aspect in our existence is our faith in God, all things will flow from our faith; if the primary aspect of our existence is another identity marker, all things will flow from it.</p>
<p>Therefore, it is possible to define ourselves in terms of our sexuality. We can understand all things we feel, think, say, and do in terms of our sexual impulses. Yet is this a good idea? What do the Scriptures teach?</p>
<P>First and foremost, we must note that the Scriptures never define anyone by their sexuality. No one in the Bible is called a heterosexual, homosexual, or asexual (in 1 Corinthians 6:9, the term sometimes translated "homosexual" is the Greek <em>arsenokoitai</em>, defined as "one who lies with a man as with a woman," reinforcing our premise). In the Bible, no one <em>is</em> their sexuality. Instead, <em>people have sexual impulses, desires, and urges, and decide whether and how they will act upon them</em>. Therefore, in the Bible, sexuality is never reckoned as a form of identity; sex involves the behavior of individuals, however appropriate or inappropriate.</p>
<p>This is not some strange concept; for most of human history, people have understood how sexuality involves practice and is not a form of identity. Ancient Greek men engaged in sexual behavior with young boys as well as women, and held men who only had sex with men in contempt; they would never define themselves as "homosexual" because at times they participated in homosexual behaviors. This type of behavior, while sinful, was not unknown in many societies. It is only in the Victorian era when people start thinking of sex as not just behavior in which they participate but as an expression of their identity. The gap between sex as "something I do" and "something I am" may seem slight but its consequences are many and significant.</p>
<p>When the modern understanding of sexuality as identity is paired with the equally modern obsession with sex as an idol, one's sexual identity easily becomes either the primary or one of the primary identity marker(s). Sexual identity becomes a toxic primary identity marker, because everything then becomes sexualized. A person for whom their sexual identity is one of their primary forms of identity defines their lives by how well their sexual life is going. Such a one will view others primarily in terms of their sexual desirability and availability. It is easy for sex to run their lives, reducing their humanity (and everyone else's humanity) down to the animalistic sexual lust, enslaved to lasciviousness at least and sexually deviant behavior at worst (cf. Galatians 5:19). This is no way to live!</p>
<p>For that matter, sexuality will be privileged as a form of identity only by a society obsessed by sexuality. This is evident in the common response to anyone who might actually decide to live asexually. Those who choose to live asexually are most often considered freakish by both "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals," (sadly) by many professing Christianity as well as those who reject Christianity. The common expectation is that every adult of the age of consent should be actively participating in some form of sexuality, and if they are not, their lives are somehow not complete or fulfilled. In such an environment, nothing seems more foolish than both Jesus' and Paul's commendations of the asexual life devoted to God and His purposes (Matthew 19:12, 1 Corinthians 7:6-7, 25-38). The existence of such people exposes the limitation of the paradigm of sexuality as identity since they are not practicing any form of sexuality. This is not a problem limited to the world: even within the church, those who are single often find themselves under constant pressure by fellow Christians to get married, and not a few of the errant doctrines regarding divorce and remarriage stem from wholesale acceptance of the premise that we "are" our sexuality and it is therefore "unjust" to expect such sexuality to not be expressed.</p>
<p>This leads us to one of the major conflicts in the "culture war": homosexuality. Those advancing the cause of acceptance of homosexual behavior have done well at convincing everyone that since sexuality is a form of identity, to do anything to discourage people with homosexual desires to not act on those desires is unjust, immoral, and highly discriminatory. The claim that acceptance of homosexual behavior is a civil rights issue, akin to equal rights for African-Americans or women can only be legitimized in an environment in which sexuality is accepted as a form of identity. This premise may be more pernicious than many think. A lot of young people experience different desires as their developing brains are going through puberty; they may have a fleeting time in their lives when they might feel attracted to members of their own gender. In an environment where sexuality is understood in terms of behavior, involving desires which we choose to act upon or not, such may either lead to (proper) rejection of such desires and a refusal to act upon them or it may lead to (improper and immoral) "experimentation," but of the sort that goes no further, and the person will later behave according to a proper channeling of desire (cf. Matthew 19:4-6). But in an environment declaring that sexuality is identity, such a young person may believe that they are now "homosexual" because they have experienced some of those desires and might begin shaping their identity around that premise and thus, by all accounts, "become" homosexual. How many people who practice homosexuality in America do so because they have bought into the premise that one "is" their sexual behavior?</p>
<p>We do well to understand how sexuality is not identity. Think about it: do we want to think of an infant or a small child as being "heterosexual," "homosexual," "bisexual," or any other kind of "-sexual"? How can deviant forms of "heterosexual" behavior, like adultery and polygamy, be considered as forms of identity? And what about those who practice pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, or other sexual practices which are (at the time of this writing) still generally confessed to be deviant? How is their sexuality any more or less a part of their identity than anyone else's? And why should any of us define ourselves by our sexual behavior or the lack thereof? There is much more to life than sex, and the value of a person's contributions to society should not be inherently measured by their sexual predilections.</p>
<p>We do well to recognize that sexuality involves the sexual desires, urges, and impulses and how we choose whether and how we will express them. Sex is behavior just like every other form of behavior: we are under no more or less compulsion to express sexual desire than we are to express any other desire we may have. Sexual desire is just like all other desires: there are proper ways to express the desire, and there are improper ways to do so as well (cf. Romans 1:18-32, James 1:12-15). Sexual behavior does have consequences; our lives are shaped in many ways by our sexual behavior and how that sexual behavior either connects us with that one special person of the opposite sex, allowing for that intimacy which is a shadow of the spiritual reality of the communion we are to share with God, or it is disfigured by improper usage, the sinning against the body, denigrating that which was made in the image of God down to the mere satisfaction of a physical impulse (Genesis 2:24, Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:12-20, Ephesians 5:32-33). But just because our sexual behavior affects who we are does not mean that we somehow "become" our sexual behavior, or that we should see ourselves in terms of our sexual behavior. If we believe in God and Jesus His Son, we "are" to be Christians, primarily identifying ourselves as His followers, defining ourselves in terms of the image of Jesus, privileging our relationship in Christ above all others (Matthew 6:33, Romans 8:29, Galatians 2:20). Sexuality as identity is a counterfeit form of sexuality, tempting in principle, but reducing all of us to be defined not in terms of our contributions to society and well-being but by what we do (or don't do) in the bedroom. Let us affirm God's view and understanding of sexuality and reject all counterfeit forms of sexuality peddled in the world!</p>
<p>Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
June 2012</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-35943181876341811072012-04-01T00:00:00.000-04:002012-04-01T00:00:03.796-04:00A Theology of SexualitySexuality remains the "elephant in the room" in most of "Christendom." Whereas many of the flash points in the struggle with culture norms involve sexuality, struggle with sexual sin remains some of the most difficult challenges facing Christianity today: in any congregation of God's people, there are struggles with fornication, lasciviousness, pornography, adultery, and/or divorce. We might exhort people to holiness, but we do not seem to provide much of a challenge to society's narrative of what sexuality is and how it should be exercised.
<br /><br />
This is a terrible tragedy, since the Bible provides a robust theology of sexuality. By understanding God's creation of sexuality and why humans are sexual beings, we can begin to critique the distorted view of sexuality peddled by modern society.
<br /><br />
A theology of sexuality must begin with the beginning.
<blockquote>And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:26-27).</blockquote>
<blockquote>And the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him."
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And the man said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Genesis 2:18-24).</blockquote>
<blockquote>And [Jesus] answered and said, "Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?' So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matthew 19:4-6).</blockquote>
God made both man and woman in His image, and from the beginning they were made with sexual desire. But proper sexuality can never be divorced from its intended context within the marriage relationship of a man and a woman. Jesus explains how this intention for marriage exists "from the beginning," when God made them "male and female" and declared that they were to cling to one another and "the two shall become one flesh."
<br /><br />
Man and woman, therefore, were made for each other. They were made with sexual parts and sexual desires. All of these declarations about the man, the woman, and becoming one flesh come <em>before</em> man's fall into sin, <em>before</em> corruption and sin entered the world. Therefore, human sexuality is part of the creation deemed by God as "very good" (Genesis 1:31).
<br /><br />
We have a natural revulsion at any attempt to associate sexuality with God. In many respects, this is good and healthy: God is spirit, and from all that has been revealed, the spirit realm is not to be sexual (Matthew 22:30, John 4:24). There is an unhealthy tendency in some parts of Christianity to understand the believer's relationship with God in terms of a "Jesus is my boyfriend" style paradigm, and we do well to resist this. There is no need to sexualize every relationship! But does this mean that sexuality has nothing to do with spirituality?
<br /><br />
The Scriptures frequently reveal parallels between sexual relationships (both proper and improper) and spiritual relationships. This parallel makes sense: both are intended to reflect intimacy and structured by covenant, or agreement (cf. Exodus 19:1-23, Malachi 2:13-16). When God seeks to communicate to Israel the severity of the transgression of idolatry and the pain which it caused Him, by what means does He frequently do so? Time after time He speaks of idolatry in terms of adultery, graphically embodied through Hosea (Hosea 1:1-3:5) and viscerally described by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:1-63). God "betrothed" Israel to Himself; she "committed adultery" or "played the whore" with other gods.
<br /><br />
The parallel is also made in a more positive way in the New Testament.
<blockquote>"For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh."
This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband (Ephesians 5:31-33).</blockquote>
All of Ephesians 5:23-33 is a "dual-track" image of Christ and the church and the husband and wife, with illustrative parallels for each. And yet, as Paul is concluding this image, he goes back to the beginning and the declaration of God's intention for the proper sexual relationship and finds spiritual application between Christ and the church.
<br /><br />
It is common to wish to speak of "the two shall become one flesh" in more romantic terms, speaking of the coming together of mind, emotions, and body. Yet this is not the case in Scripture; Paul's use of the idea in a critique of the sexual attitudes of his own day is instructive:
<blockquote>Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body?
for, "The twain," saith he, "shall become one flesh."
But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body (1 Corinthians 6:15-20).</blockquote>
There is no "romantic connection" with a whore; "the two shall become one flesh" is a referent to sex (which leaves "cleave to his wife" as the way we see the need for the mental/emotional connection; Genesis 2:24). But, as Paul says, the one who is "joined to the Lord" is "one spirit."
<br /><br />
This brings us back to the power of the metaphor. It is true that a metaphor intends for the target (in our case, spirituality) to be understood in terms of the source (sexuality), and not the source in terms of the target. Nevertheless, for the target to be understood in terms of the source, there must be some reason why the source can do so. We could say that it is a major coincidence, or it "just happened" that sexuality can help us understand some spiritual truths, but do such things really "just happen"? Or is it part of something greater? Perhaps the metaphor works because God so created the world and humanity so that the metaphor <em>could</em> work!
<blockquote>For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (Romans 1:20).</blockquote>
Paul declares how many aspects of God are evident in the "things that are made"; this is not limited to birds, rocks, trees, and the like. God's "divinity"-- His divine nature-- is most clearly exemplified in creation through those who bear the image of God, mankind (Genesis 1:26-27).
<br /><br />
We do well to remember how God is spirit (John 4:24); we should not press the parallels too far. Nevertheless, that which makes man distinct from the animals tends to reflect God's image. Of all the animals, we are conscious; we reason; we are capable of amazing creative projects individually and collaboratively. And sexuality, for humans, is far different than sexuality for animals. For most animals, sexuality is almost purely instinctual: they truly "cannot help themselves." They engage in sexual behavior for procreative purposes and at no other time. This is not the case with humans: humans can (and do) engage in sexual behavior even when conception is not possible. The pleasurable aspects of human sexuality and the feelings they engender are unique. Human sexual behavior involves the mind as much as the body (if not more so!). Human sexuality is far more than putting body parts together!
<br /><br />
As we have said, so we say again: God is not "sexual." But He made both man and woman in His own image, and He made them with sexual desires. He did not do so in order to punish us or test us; it was part of the creation before the Fall, before things went wrong, while all was "very good." We must therefore ask: why were humans created with sexual desire? What is the theology behind sexuality?
<br /><br />
<strong>I would like to suggest that the marriage relationship, and the proper expression of human sexuality inherent in that relationship, is the physical shadow of which communion with God in Christ is the spiritual reality.</strong>
<br /><br />
This may seem strong, but if we replace "human sexuality" with "intimate relationship," and again consider Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, Ephesians 5:23-33, and consider John 17:20-24 as well, it is hard to deny the connection. This is why the metaphor of idolatry or other forms of covenant faithlessness as adultery is so effective; the intended covenant between a man and a woman and the intimate union which they are to share is a shadow of the intimate, higher, and spiritual relationship between a man or woman with his/her God.
<br /><br />
This theology of sexuality explains the power of sexual desire. Sexual desire, first and foremost, is our confession of our insufficiency in ourselves. Sexual desire demands desire for <em>another</em>. God made man and woman with complementary parts; each man and each woman has a physical reminder of their lack of completeness in and of themselves.
<br /><br />
There is a reason why we declare that "no man is an island"; we are intensely social creatures, made for community, and even within that community, we are made for a special, intimate relationship with the other who is also created in the image of God. We can enjoy friendships with many people, but we still seek that one relationship where we can be completely and fully exposed and intimate with another. Sexual desire by itself cannot make a marriage, but sexual desire is the driver that leads people into seeking marriage. In our society, this search for intimacy gets perverted into being only physical, but all the brainwashing of society cannot deny the feeling people have inside of them seeking full intimacy with their partner. We want to be as emotionally and spiritually naked before one special person as physically so. There is a reason why the man is to "cling to his wife" and then "the two shall become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24): the physical sexual relationship is intended to cement the emotional and spiritual bond inherent in the covenant of marriage.
<br /><br />
To say that we are created in the image of God is to say that we are created in the image of the Three in One: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The unity of God is not based in personhood; it is based in relational unity: unity in substance, essence, purpose, will, and being (John 1:1, 17:20-24, Colossians 2:9, etc.). God is love (1 John 4:8-10): that love is first and foremost manifest within the relationship of the Three.
<br /><br />
Therefore, "one in person" is always insufficient. Since God is one in relational unity, that which is in His image is going to seek to be one in relational unity as well; this is that universal impulse to seek after God mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:26-27.
<br /><br />
Therefore, it is not surprising that man made in God's image should be seeking connection with others. He seeks connection with his fellow man who is made in the image of God as friends and associates. But humans also look for a far more intimate relationship with the one who complements them physically. It is evident that man is created for woman and woman for man; each provides for the other what is lacking, not just physically, but mentally, emotionally, and spiritually as well. Likewise, spiritually, we are to seek unity with one another as we seek unity with God in Christ (John 17:20-24, 1 John 1:4-7); nevertheless, the connections we develop with fellow Christians will never reach the depth or the intimacy of the spiritual relationship which we all should be seeking and developing with God our Creator.
<br /><br />
Furthermore, what is true of healthy relationships is also true of healthy sexuality: showing true love, finding fulfillment in seeking the happiness of and that which is best for the one whom we love as opposed to simply trying to satisfy our own desire, remembering that God is God and not to make an idol of anyone else whom we might love, being patient, kind, and so on and so forth. Healthy sexuality is never an end unto itself; it is part of the recipe of a fulfilling relationship. Sexuality may drive people into relationships, but it cannot bear the burden of making a relationship. A theology of sexuality, therefore, understands the importance of sexuality in its proper relational sphere.
<br /><br />
Yet we must always remember that sexuality is the <em>physical shadow</em> of a <em>spiritual reality</em>. As in all such comparisons, the physical shadow is always inferior. We may all have sexual desires during our lives, but as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, one does not have to be married and/or sexually active to live a fulfilled life. One can share in the spiritual reality of deep, intimate communion with God in Christ without a husband or wife or sexuality at all! We have been promised better things than sex: the eternal weight of glory awaiting the believer is far superior to any pleasure that can be enjoyed through sexual behavior (Romans 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 4:17)! The sexual connection is not the most intimate or greatest connection that man can ever know; it pales in comparison to the true fulfillment, true spiritual ecstasy, and true satisfaction that comes with "face-to-face" communion with God (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:11-12, Revelation 21:1-22:6).
<br /><br />
A theology of sexuality, therefore, understands the drive for physical union and intimacy as a physical shadow of the spiritual reality, the quest for spiritual union and intimacy with God our Creator through Jesus Christ in the communion of the saints (1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 5:22-33). As God is one in relational unity, love within Himself, seeking relationship with each person made in His image, so we have been created to be one in relational unity with others, the singularly deepest of which involves seeking an emotionally, mentally, and physically intimate relationship with that one special person who is the complement to ourselves (a man for a woman, and a woman for a man, since God made both man and woman in His image). Seen in this light, human sexuality was made as a good thing, a reminder of our individual insufficiency in ourselves and our need to give love and receive love in relationship. Human sexuality might be a powerful driver but has always been insufficient in and of itself when seeking to achieve its end; it demands not just the physical but the mental and emotional aspects of mankind as well. It is truly the giving of oneself--not just the body, but the mind and spirit as well--just as Paul said (1 Corinthians 7:3-4). As the "two becoming one flesh," sex is a mystical, ecstatic, and intimate union of a man and a woman.
<br /><br />
Human sexuality was made to be good, part of the means by which we can make that deep, intimate connection between ourselves and our respective spouses. Sex is special as a shadowy glimpse of the ecstasy that can come from full communion with another, only to be perfectly realized spiritually in our relationship with God in Christ in the day of resurrection. If we maintain a healthy sexuality, we will confess the limitations and proper exercise of sexuality, understanding that any expression of sexuality outside of its proper sphere is not just perversion but really is counterfeit, demeaning what it would theoretically exalts. Let us maintain a robust theology of sexuality so that we may be able to counter the counterfeit forms of sexuality so prevalent in the world around us!
<br /><br />
Ethan R. Longhenry<br />
April 2012Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-28207928412814952842011-07-31T21:27:00.008-04:002011-08-01T00:17:50.404-04:00God's Divinity in Creation<blockquote>For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse <i>(Romans 1:20)</i>.</blockquote><br /><br />Paul's declaration that the Creation testifies to the Creator is very encouraging to our faith. Many times we will discuss how God's eternal power is evident in the creation. From the fixed properties of the universe that facilitate life down to the functioning of DNA, we can see the hand of God in how things exist.<br /><br />But how does the creation testify to God's divinity--His "divine nature," as translated in the ESV? <br /><br />What is God's divine nature, anyway? We know that God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4), and yet we see in Scripture that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God (John 1:1, 10:30, Colossians 2:9, 1 Peter 1:2, 2 Peter 1:21). The best understanding of this mystery is to declare that God is One Being in Three Persons, for all other alternatives run into Biblical challenges. If the Three are just different manifestations of one person, how can all three testify at the baptism of the Son, or how can both the Father and the Son witness to the Son (Matthew 3:16-17, John 8:17-18)? If God the Father is really God, and the Son and the Spirit are divine but not fully God, how could Paul say that in Jesus the Godhead dwelt fully in bodily form (Colossians 2:9)?<br /><br />God as the Three in One does make some sense. John declares that God is love in 1 John 4:8; by definition, love is seeking the best interest of the object of the love (cf. John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 13:1-12, etc.). If God is but one person, that would make Him the ultimate narcissist; this cannot be. God is love because of the love that exists among the Three. <br /><br />God's divine nature, then, features the Three in One: God as one, not in person, but in nature, being, character, will (John 1:1, Colossians 2:9, Hebrews 1:3). In short, God is one in <i>relational unity</i>. The relationship amongst the Three is so deep and intimate that we can speak of God as one Being, using the singular "He" or "Him." <br /><br />So how is God's divine nature as the Three in One evident in the creation? Look no further than yourself!<br /><br /><blockquote>And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them <i>(Genesis 1:27)</i>.</blockquote><br /><br />This is not declaring that we are somehow divine or gods; far from it. Nor is it declaring that God is a man; He is spirit (John 4:24), and we are made in His image in our metaphysical properties-- we have consciousness and a soul. <br /><br />Nevertheless, what do we humans seek after in life? Different answers might be given: money, stuff, fame, power, and so on and so forth. While people might be motivated by different desires, what is at the heart of many of them? People want a comfortable lifestyle and many of the things listed above, but who wants to have them alone? People might want to be as wealthy as Ebenezer Scrooge, but who wants to <i>be</i> Ebenezer Scrooge?<br /><br />When it comes down to it, people want to be loved, known, and appreciated. In short, people are seeking <i>relationships.</i> Psychologists are discovering that we are wired for relationships-- it is one of our most fundamental needs in our existence!<br /><br />When people think of relationship, the relationship between a husband and wife often comes to mind. What happens in that situation? A man and a woman, unrelated, somehow meet each other. They get to know each other and they fall in love with each other. They commit to one another. The two become one; they are still two different humans, but it's about "us" more than it is about "me". Such is a wonderful time, full of creativity; after all, how many songs, books, and plays have been written, or paintings or sculptures or other pieces of art made, on account of the desires of love? There is a natural desire to share in love, and often there are offspring that come on the basis of that love. <br /><br />Is this not God's divine nature manifest in His creation?<br /><br />As we have seen, He is the Triune God, the Three in One. A man and his wife becoming one is analogous to the unity within God (Genesis 2:24). And just as the love between the man and the woman leads to creativity and various creative acts, not the least of which being offspring, what else motivated God to create all things but love? He wanted to share the love within Himself with the beautiful creation which He made, particularly with His "offspring," man made in His image (Genesis 1:1-2:3, Acts 17:26-28). <br /><br />There is a reason why the metaphors in the Bible all "work." The metaphors are effective because the God who created the universe intended for us to understand our need for relationship with Him and with one another within the way the creation functions. We can understand marriage between a man and a woman; we can therefore understand Israel's relationship with God, and our relationship with Christ, in a similar way (cf. Hosea 1-3, Ephesians 5:22-33). We can understand the bond between parent and child; we can therefore understand our relationship with our heavenly Father in a similar way (Luke 15:11-32, Romans 8:15-17). None of these are coincidental. <br /><br />It is not good for man to be alone; how can it be when he is made in the image of the Three in One, the God who is one in relationship? We are made to seek a relationship with our Creator who loved us and, in so doing, to maintain relationships with one another as well. The Bible testifies to it. The creation testifies to it. Let us praise and thank God that His divine nature is evident in the creation. Let us seek to maintain a relationship with the Triune God, seeking to be conformed to the image of the Son. Let us seek to be one with one another as the Father and Son are one (John 17:20-23), and let us thus honor and glorify God!<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />August 2011Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-62281498213693902412011-04-01T00:00:00.007-04:002011-04-01T01:25:08.374-04:00Jargon<p>Jargon-- it is something that you hear all of the time. When you understand it, everything is well and good. When you are not "in the know," however, it can be quite frustrating!</p>Jargon is language specific to a particular group of people, generally understood in terms of specialties. There is medical jargon--CPT codes, the many long terms from Latin and Greek for various conditions and illnesses that always sound scary, pharmaceutical names, and so on. There is also legal jargon--that legalese in contracts that is very difficult to understand. There is also plenty of jargon in the tech community--apps, HTML, CSS, PHP, Java, and all other kinds of terms that you either understand or you do not! Jargon can be found among almost every group of people, and in many cases, it serves necessary functions for those who understand it. It would be much more difficult for a lot of groups to function if they could not use terminology specific to their groups!<br /><p>There is also a lot of jargon in religion, especially in the Church. Think about it for a moment: how many terms do you use among Christians that you would probably not use in any other circumstance? Baptism, gospel meetings, faith, repentance, justification, sanctification, hermeneutics-- all these are examples of jargon. Even whole phrases like "guide, guard, and direct us," "separate and apart," "watery grave of baptism," and so forth are examples of jargon.<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Is it wrong or sinful to use jargon? No, not at all! Nevertheless, jargon can become a barrier hindering understanding for those who are not in Christ or who are not familiar with the terms. This can become a particularly acute problem when we assume that everyone else understands what we mean when we use this jargon and, in reality, they do not!<br /></p><p>For a long time it was believed that the whole New Testament was its own form of jargon-- some suggested that "Holy Spirit Greek" was its own dialect of the language. Yet papyri discoveries over the past two hundred years have painted a very different picture for us. The New Testament was not written in some special form of language that was not understood; it was written using the common language of the people. God's message was communicated to the world in a form that was designed to be understood!<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>We see this push toward understanding throughout the book of Acts. When preaching to Jews, the Apostles used language and stories familiar to the Jews (cf. Acts 2:14-36, 3:12-26, 13:16-41). When preaching to Gentiles, they used language and even quotations familiar to the Gentiles (cf. Acts 17:22-31)! Paul provides the general principle in 1 Corinthians 9:22-23:<br /></p><blockquote>To the weak I became weak, that I might gain the weak: I am become all things to all men, that I may by all means save some. And I do all things for the gospel's sake, that I may be a joint partaker thereof.</blockquote>If we are to become all things to all men so that some may be saved, should that also not mean that we should communicate to our fellow man in ways that he understands?<br /><br />The New Testament is clear: the message is to be taken to all men so that all men may understand and come to the knowledge of the truth (Matthew 28:18-20, 1 Timothy 2:4). For them to understand, the message must be presented in a way that is understandable. Yet how can the message of the Gospel be understandable if the people with whom we speak do not understand the terms that we use to describe the message of Jesus?We should give some thought to the version of the Bible we use in order to teach others. How effective will our teaching be if those whom we teach must first decipher the English in order to get to God's message?<br /><p>Our main concern must be with the language we use in presenting God's message. We must come to grips with the fact that we live among a generation of people to whom Biblical terms and concepts might as well be a foreign language. On the whole, people do not know the Bible or the terms used in its pages. For example, what do people think of when they hear "gospel"? They might think of it in terms of a genre of music as much or more as "the good news of Jesus Christ." What is "baptism" to them beyond a religious ritual that many experienced as a baby (or not at all)? For too many, "faith" is nothing more than the opposite of "science." People might know what "sin" is, but what actions are defined as sin and the consequences of sin are not as well understood. Terms like repentance, sanctification, justification, Trinity, and the like are almost entirely unknown to many of those in the world.<br /></p><p>But how can we present the message of God without using some of these terms? We really cannot, just like people in technical fields cannot describe their work without using some of their jargon. The issue is not the use of jargon in and of itself; the issue is making sure that people understand the message that is being communicated!<br /></p><p>In terms of evangelism, therefore, we should give some thought as to how to explain the terms that we use, and, whenever possible, get away from jargon and use terms people understand. For example, if one of the main evangelistic events is a "gospel meeting," let us ask ourselves: do people know what a "gospel meeting" is? Would they know what to expect at a "gospel meeting"? How can we expect anyone to attend a "gospel meeting" if they do not know what it is?<br /></p><p>Another example of this is the phrase, "the watery grave of baptism." For believers "in the know," it is a way of speaking of baptism in terms of Romans 6:3-7, making clear that it indicates immersion and what its purpose is. But if someone is entirely ignorant of Scripture and Christianity, what does "the watery grave of baptism" sound like? Does it sound like anything in which they would want to participate, or does it sound more like an event in a horror movie and therefore something to avoid?<br /></p><p>We could go on and on, but the point ought to be clear. We are supposed to take the message of Jesus Christ to all people and help them to understand who Jesus is, what He has done, and why it should be of the greatest importance to them (Matthew 28:18-20, Romans 10:13-17, 1 Timothy 2:4). Would we ever dream of going out and trying to teach the message of Jesus in Greek to Americans who speak English? Of course not! Therefore, why would we try to teach the message of Jesus to people today in terms that people do not know or understand without any sort of explanation?<br /></p><p><br /></p><p>Jargon is a part of life. It is not wrong, but we must be careful to make sure that we "make the message plain" and make sure that people understand the ideas and concepts behind the message of the good news of Jesus Christ. We cannot assume that people automatically understand the words we use, and therefore we should give consideration how to best present the Gospel of Christ to all men. Let us do so, becoming the servant of all, so that some might be saved!<br /></p><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />April 2011Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-53937140533933370172011-02-04T23:17:00.004-05:002011-02-05T00:29:20.622-05:00Diplomacy<blockquote>Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one <cite>(Colossians 4:5-6)</cite>.</blockquote>Perhaps some of the most important people who rarely receive much recognition from society are diplomats. These individuals learn all about the culture and ideas of the people with whom they speak and they try to advance their nation's causes and purposes and to defuse any crises that might arise. Many wars have been avoided because of the skilled work of diplomats; sadly, bad diplomacy is probably one of the reasons that many wars have taken place.<br /><br />Diplomacy requires a lot of sensitivity and skill. It requires a good knowledge of people and how to most effectively communicate with different people. And while diplomacy has great value among nation-states, those who believe in and follow Christ should also be working diligently on diplomacy amongst themselves and toward those who are without.<br /><br />Much of the Gospel involves interpersonal relations. The message of the Gospel is to be taught to others (Romans 10:14-17). The proclamation of the Gospel, by necessity, is an attempt to persuade others to accept the message and obey it (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:11). When believers make their defense for the hope that is in them, they are to do so in a respectful and gentle way (1 Peter 3:15). Believers are to soberly consider how they conduct themselves among those who are outside, having speech seasoned as with salt (Colossians 4:8-9).<br /><br />Paul's image there of speech seasoned as with salt is very important, for it shows the balance that we all must maintain. Food with too little salt is bland, tasteless, and not very valuable; food with too much salt cannot be stomached and is expelled. So it is with our speech. If our words have too little salt-- are entirely bland, provide no challenge and no distinctiveness from the world and its attitudes-- they have no value. They cannot persuade anyone to change their ways. But if our words have too much salt-- intentionally rough, demeaning, overwhelming, vindictive, harsh, or even just overly blunt-- they get rejected without due consideration. People are left with a bad taste in their mouths, and we have become a hindrance toward them coming to a knowledge of Jesus the Christ!<br /><br />While we must make sure that we do not compromise the message and that we focus on the message and not fancy rhetoric (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5), we must speak and act diplomatically among those who are without. Our defense must be robust but done with respect and gentleness (1 Peter 3:15). We must understand that sinners sin and that God wants them to come to the knowledge of the truth so that they can change their ways (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). What good does it do us to lecture sinners about their sin if they do not yet understand how Jesus is the Lord and Christ? How can we show them the love of Christ if the first thing they experience is cold judgment? And if our speech is disrespectful, harsh, and unloving, how will they perceive Jesus' mercy and compassion?<br /><br />We must act diplomatically because of the Lord whom we serve and of whom we are representatives, and in a sense, ambassadors (Romans 8:29, 2 Corinthians 5:20). If we speak in the name of Christ, we represent Christ, and how well are we really reflecting and properly representing Christ as we speak toward others?<br /><br />Diplomacy is not merely a concern when we are around outsiders. There are going to be times when we are going to be called upon to confront one another about weaknesses and sins (cf. Galatians 6:1-3). There will be times of immature actions, misunderstandings, and hurt feelings among fellow brothers and sisters in Christ just as in any other family (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, 1 Timothy 3:15). In these circumstances, diplomacy among believers is critical.<br /><br />We must always remember that everything we do should be done for edification-- for building up (1 Corinthians 14:26). Our words must work toward that end. We must be careful to make sure, however, that how we speak with one another matches our motivations. It is entirely possible to have the intent to encourage but speak in such a blunt, sharp, harsh, or arrogant way so as to really discourage and tear down. The more we get to know one another, the easier it is to speak more casually and with less thought, and then things tend to go wrong quickly.<br /><br />How can we speak diplomatically? We must remember what our Lord said-- do unto others as we would like them to do to us (Luke 6:31). How would we want to be approached? We must also remember that we must remain humble servants of Jesus, knowing how we have often been tempted and have proven to be weak, and knowing how unworthy we are of the grace and mercy shown to us (Galatians 6:1-6). We are no better than they-- just different. We must make sure, above all, that we are not just motivated by love but are acting and speaking in love (Ephesians 4:15-16).<br /><br />Diplomacy does not mean that we just do not address problems and let them fester or cause division or apostasy. Diplomacy does not mean that we lose any spine or backbone and just let people do or say whatever they want to do or say. Diplomacy does not mean that we must become weak about matters of sin. Instead, diplomacy demands that we are as concerned about <i>how</i> we communicate to others as much as we are concerned about what it is we are communicating. We must understand that how we say things-- our choice of words, our tone of voice, our mannerisms-- communicate just as much as what we say, if not more so! The best of intentions are quickly undermined by poor communication and a lack of concern about speaking diplomatically.<br /><br />Diplomacy, in the end, is the recognition that we must communicate in ways that win people over even when hard truths must be expressed. We must be aware of the power that exists in words and speaking, as James makes clear in James 3:1-12, and that we can repel people from Jesus as quickly as we can win them over for Him by how we speak. We have never been given license to speak harshly and sharply merely because we are commissioned to preach messages that ought to convict people of sin and encourage them toward righteousness and truth. Instead, we are to speak with others in the same manner as we would like to be addressed. Let us therefore give thought to how we speak with one another, in humility considering how our speech can be properly seasoned so as to persuade our fellow man to serve Christ the Lord!<br /><p>Ethan R. Longhenry<br />February 2011</p>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-43706586106950845912010-09-02T15:50:00.003-04:002010-09-02T18:01:22.321-04:00The Unholy TrinityFor some time now we have heard dire warnings about the "faith crisis" in America. Even though our country continues to grow in population, church membership and attendance, on the whole, remains flat or in decline. Warnings are sounded about the dangers that come from so many atheists and others in our society who seek to denigrate God and anyone who would believe in Him.<br /><br />While it is true that there are such people out there, their numbers are few-- around 2 to 9% of the population. Others may believe in God but not in Christ or Christianity and have hard feelings against Christianity and/or Christians. Yet such people are not that much more populous-- no more than 20% of the population.<br /><br />Statistics reveal that about 82% or so of Americans believe not only in God but also that Jesus is His Son. Slightly fewer (78%) agree with the premise that Jesus was raised from the dead. This is not the picture that is normally presented about America; then again, we should remember that it is conflict and sensational claims that sell books and get promoted on television and in movies, and therefore we should not be surprised that the reality does not seem to be as dire as the promoted story.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the statistics should give us pause. If over three-quarters of Americans believe in Jesus and even the resurrection, where are they? Many, no doubt, are active in denominations and their assemblies. But that still leaves plenty of people who believe and yet are not affiliated with any church and/or infrequently, if ever, attend any assemblies of churches. Considering the message of God in Christ as revealed in Scripture, how can this be? What leads to so many people professing the faith without abiding by its substance?<br /><br />At least part of the reason can be found in what we will deem the "unholy trinity." The unholy trinity represents the combination of three pernicious doctrines that have, at some level, led to the spiritual inertia and malaise that affects America today. These doctrines are faith only, ecumenism, and "once saved, always saved."<br /><br />The first doctrine is faith only. "Faith only" comes about during the Reformation as a distortion of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith. Paul did teach that since everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23), no man is able to be justified before God based on his works, merit, or attempts to keep law (Romans 1:18-3:21). Man cannot atone for his own sin. Nevertheless, Paul demonstrated that the proper response of faith in God in Christ demanded obedience to the truth (Romans 1:5, 2:5-11, 6:1-23); the Reformers distorted this into the doctrine of faith <span style="font-style: italic;">only</span>, excluding any concept of works or obedience as necessary for salvation. According to the doctrines of faith only, God is the only Actor: He provides the means of salvation in Christ, He provides believers with faith, He compels them toward righteousness through the Spirit, and so on and so forth. It is an understandable reaction against the excesses of Roman Catholicism but is a distortion of the Gospel message, and flatly contradicted by Acts 2:36-38, Romans 1:5, 6:1-23, 1 Peter 1:22, and a host of other passages.<br /><br />These days people hear preachers from Protestant and Evangelical churches in churches and on television telling them that all they need to do to be saved is to believe that Jesus is the Christ. A suggested "sinner's prayer" is often given that "converts" can pray and thus "accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior" and "accept Jesus into their hearts." Sure, most of these preachers will suggest, perhaps even strongly, that believers need to live like Christ did, avoiding sin and clinging to the good, but they would never make it an imperative. To make becoming Christlike an imperative would be adding "works" to Christ's "finished work."<br /><br />People get this message from friends and neighbors, past church experiences, or through television or other media. This "cheap grace" is very enticing and seductive-- all you need to do is believe! Accept the premise that Jesus is the Christ and Lord and you will be saved! That's all you need to do! Many prove willing to do that-- but nothing more. There is no real incentive toward growth and development as disciples of Christ because it is not made strictly necessary. No wonder, then, that people can profess Jesus Christ and yet never darken the door of any church building or actively grow in their belief system-- they do not have to! After all, if all you need to do is believe that Jesus is the Christ, why bother with anything else in Christianity?<br /><br />We then come to ecumenism. There are two strands to ecumenism: "general" ecumenism and Evangelical ecumenism. The latter seems to have come first. In the wake of the "Second Great Awakening" in nineteenth-century America, while doctrinal differences remained among groups like the Methodists, the Holiness churches, the Baptists, and the like, they began to develop an uneasy peace with each other. They would present their versions of truth without necessarily condemning one another to hell, yet most remained uneasy with Roman Catholicism and the "mainline Protestant" denominations.<br /><br />Around a hundred years ago the "general" ecumenical movement began to pick up steam as different "Christian" denominations wanted to work out whatever differences they could and to work together according to their understanding of Jesus' petitions in John 17:20-23.<br /><br />The ecumenical movement has powered through the twentieth and early twenty-first century with great steam. Now most denominations agree that the doctrinal disputations among them involve matters of "liberty," and thus they are free to "agree to disagree," while they are in agreement on "essential" matters. It is too bad that the definitions of "liberty" and "essential matters" are not based on God's definitions (cf. Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10, Galatians 1:6-9). Nevertheless, since most denominations are "on board," the voices proclaiming the need to follow the One True Faith are fewer and denigrated as divisive, contrary to the spirit of unity, and cantankerous.<br /><br />This ecumenical movement has led to greater "acceptance" and "tolerance" of members of churches of Christ. The number believing we are some kind of "cult" has diminished; many books now speak of churches of Christ as part of this "greater church" despite its distinctive doctrines. Nevertheless, ecumenical forces work to negate the call for the restoration of New Testament Christianity and the appeal to be of the same mind and judgment based in the Scriptures.<br /><br />Most people who believe do not know much about ecumenism or the ecumenical movement but they certainly believe that "we are all the same." Under ecumenism, the difference between churches of Christ, Baptist churches, the Roman Catholic church, and other churches is akin to the differences between the church in Rome, the church in Corinth, and the church in Jerusalem. Each denomination has its distinctive heritage that has "value" in the "greater church," according to this viewpoint. In such a climate, one can hear the message that, say, faith alone is not according to Scripture, and yet remain free to "agree to disagree." Evangelistic efforts are thus directed toward unbelievers, "cultists," or members of other religions; it is seen as bad form to proselytize members of other denominations.<br /><br />We should not wonder, therefore, why it is difficult to gain an audience about the importance of following God according to the New Testament. If all churches are the same, after all, why does anyone need to truly investigate New Testament Christianity?<br /><br />The final dogma in this unholy trinity is "once saved, always saved." This doctrine derives directly from faith only, as its adherents often promote: if you did nothing to obtain salvation, you can do nothing to lose it.<br /><br />In reality, "once saved, always saved" is an offshoot of the Calvinist system. In Calvinism, the idea of the perseverance of the saints follows logically from its earlier principles: man's sin and inability to seek God on his own (total depravity), God thus specifically chooses whom He will save (unconditional election), the chosen ones will come to faith (irresistible grace), and they are the select few (limited atonement). Thus, the particular chosen ones will be saved no matter what (perseverance of the saints). Calvinism has a ready answer for any who fall into sin and depart from the faith: they were never really part of the elect.<br /><br />Many evangelical preachers in the nineteenth century objected to the heart of the Calvinist system (unconditional election, irresistible grace, limited atonement), but firmly preached its bookends (total depravity, perseverance of the saints). Thus we have the modern Evangelical synthesis: man is sinful by himself. He must hear God's message, and accept Jesus into his heart through the "sinner's prayer." Once he has been saved there is nothing he can do to lose his salvation. Some will go so far as to say that people who become agnostic or atheist, explicitly rejecting and insulting Jesus, will still be saved if they believed in Him when they were younger!<br /><br />"Once saved, always saved" is a theologically half-baked argument based on faulty premises. This is evident if an adherent is questioned about what will happen to a Christian mentioned above or who is caught in some other gross sin without repentance. All kinds of answers are given, and all the answers cheapen the idea of "salvation" terribly. "Once saved, always saved" is powerfully refuted by Romans 2:5-11, Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 10:26-31, 2 Peter 2:20-22, among other passages. We must add that "if saved, barely saved" is no better a doctrine than its contrast-- believers can have assurance in their standing before God, but only when they are seeking to walk as Christ walked and to do His commandments (1 John 1:5-5:21).<br /><br />If "faith only" is a seductive and enticing doctrine, how much more the idea of "once saved, always saved!" It is a powerful narcotic-- no matter what you do or what happens to you, you will be saved. This doctrine is greatly cherished by its adherents, and the truth of the matter is a bitter pill to swallow in comparison.<br /><br />Many people hear about "once saved, always saved" through preachers on television or in churches, from friends, or in the media. It sounds quite alluring and satisfies the carnal, worldly mind. All you need to do is believe that Jesus is Lord and Christ, and no matter what happens, you will be saved! How great is that!<br /><br />"Once saved, always saved" is a powerful disincentive for true faith and discipleship. Why follow the moral guidelines of Christianity if you are saved no matter what? Why bother getting up on Sunday mornings, or why bother sitting in a stuffy auditorium when you can be elsewhere, if you are saved regardless? Why bother investing any effort into faith or Christianity when you are saved whether you do or whether you do not?<br /><br />As bad as each element of the unholy trinity is, when we put all three together, we truly have a Satanically designed monster. We find that people believe that they all they need to do is believe to be saved, and then they are saved no matter what. Furthermore, since all Christians are the same, your difference in opinion will barely impact their belief system. What can we say? If we emphasize what God in Christ teaches about baptism and obedience (cf. Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-23), we will hear the dogmas of faith only and how we cannot work for our salvation. If we proclaim the distinctive truths of the New Testament church and the need to teach the first century Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), we will hear that we are all the same, an influence from ecumenism. If we warn about the condemnation coming to those who prove disobedient to God (Matthew 7:21-23, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9), we are told that once a person is saved, they are saved no matter what.<br /><br />In such a climate the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is left unheeded because it represents an entirely different picture of faith and reality than is presented by the unholy trinity, and one fraught with far more uncertainty and challenge. The idea of mandated obedience is strange for the one accepting faith only. The importance of distinctive doctrines seems foreign to the one raised in ecumenism. Concern about the condemnation of Christians is strange to one believing in once saved, always saved. It is a lot easier to believe that we are saved by faith only, that all Christians are the same, and that we will be saved no matter what. These doctrines are much more comforting and much less controversial.<br /><br />And that is exactly what Satan, the god of this world, intends (2 Corinthians 4:4). He has blinded the eyes of millions in America and around the world. This is the environment in which we must continue to preach the Gospel from of old. Faith alone never has saved and never will save (James 2:14-26); yet faith alone sounds great and makes fewer demands than obedience. Much of the New Testament-- especially Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation 2-3-- are nonsensical if all churches are the same and doctrine does not really matter; yet ecumenism will remain popular as long as "tolerance" is the name of the game. Far too many who accepted "once saved, always saved" will learn too late that doing the will of the Father was also necessary (Matthew 7:21-23, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9); yet it remains a powerful narcotic and a most wonderful lie.<br /><br />The truth is comparatively more bitter, more challenging, and more controversial. No one has ever been saved by a lie, and that will prove true on the day of Judgment. We must accept and proclaim the truth because it is true, and because God will lead those who live according to the truth in love to eternity in the Kingdom of Christ (2 Peter 1:11, 2 John 1:5-6)!<br /><br />Perhaps it is clearer now why so many millions believe and yet do not practice Christianity. The unholy trinity provides all kinds of disincentives to believe and accept God's truths. Nevertheless, let us stand firm in God's truth despite its challenges and proclaim them to all in the world!<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />September 2010Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17945202727418737330noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-19176635830586595852010-08-02T19:34:00.002-04:002010-08-02T19:39:52.037-04:00Institutional SkepticismCurrently, the amount of institutional skepticism in our country seems to be increasing. Politically, citizens are highly skeptical of government. There seems to be a major disconnect between politicians and citizens. Citizens feel as if their voices are ignored by the government. Religiously, there are almost daily news stories about the Catholic church's involvement in the cover-up of pedophile priests. The result has been an increasing skepticism of the institution of the Catholic church. Financially, Wall Street is despised. Wall Street has been largely to blame for our country's current economic conditions. People have become extremely distrustful of the financial sector.<br /><br />One by-product of institutional skepticism has been its negative impact on religion. Religious institutions are viewed through the same cultural lens as governmental and financial institutions. They are big, powerful, corrupt, and mysterious. This negative view of religion has contributed to an increasing number of people claiming to be "spiritual" as opposed to "religious." Being religious carries the connotation of involvement with a religious institution. Someone who is considered to be spiritual has little or no involvement with religious institutions. Most polls have found about thirty-three percent of Americans describe themselves as spiritual. Using current statistics, some have predicted there will be a higher percentage of people classifying themselves as spiritual-Americans than those classifying themselves as Christian-Americans by 2050.<br /><br />Incidentally, readers may be skeptical of this statistic; however, this attitude presents a challenge for members of the Lord’s church. God has placed the responsibility of evangelizing the lost to Christians (Matthew 28:18-20, Ephesians 4). The goal of evangelism, teaching the Gospel, is to persuade people to become members of the church. Why? Paul wrote of the church,<br /><blockquote>Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power<span style="font-style: italic;"> (1 Corinthians 15:24)</span>. </blockquote><br />Following the end of the world and the final judgment, the church is going to be the single group saved from eternal damnation. <br /><br />Certainly, there is a need for people to become spiritually minded. Paul instructed us to place our affection on spiritual matters (Colossians 3:1-3). We must be spiritually centered people for our worship to praise God (John 4:24). However, we cannot be spiritually minded as God considers this mindset without being members of the Lord's church. We need the church for our eternal salvation. Without the church, we will be lost.<br /><br />As members of the Lord's church on earth, we are expected to come together to worship and work together. When this gathering occurs, a local congregation or group of the Lord’s people is formed. God has given this group structure. It is comprised of elders, deacons, preachers, and teachers (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9, Ephesians 4:11). Collectively, the group worships and works together. We cannot absence ourselves from this unit and be accepted before God. We cannot defend our absence by declaring we are spiritual, not religious.<br /><br />Much of the religious climate of our country deemphasizes the church. Generally, there the problem does not rest with what is taught. The problem rests with what is not taught and not said. Teaching and preaching focuses on how to solve the problems of life: how Jesus can make us happy. Our self-centered culture is highly reflected in the content of our teaching and preaching. When was the last time you spoke about the church to someone? When was the last time you listened to a sermon explaining the church and its purpose in eternal redemption? Paul described the church as being God's way of expressing His eternal wisdom and forethought to humanity:<br /><blockquote>And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord <span style="font-style: italic;">(Ephesians 3:9-11)</span>. </blockquote>How can any honestly believe they can be saved without the church? How dare any undermine its paramount spiritual significance.<br /><br />Unfortunately, in some regards, the institutional skepticism is warranted. Local churches have had problems with corruption of its members and leadership over the years. However, this corruption is not a reflection of the divinely established, God ordained institution: the church. Corruption is a reflection of sinful human beings. Christians, members of the church, are fallible. We can acknowledge our own fallibility. However, God expects us to keep ourselves pure (1 Timothy 5:22). If each member of the church does this, the church will collectively become pure.<br /><br />As members of the church, we have our work cut out for us. There are a number of obstacles we must help people overcome to obey the Gospel. Institutional skepticism is just another of these obstacles. People must be made aware of what the Bible teaches about the necessity of the church. Let us all do our part to persuade others to become members of the church. God will give the increase. <br /><br />David Flatt<br />August 2010Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-60266857042019976382010-07-24T11:21:00.002-04:002010-07-24T11:24:10.064-04:00BR: "America's God" by Mark NollFor those who would like to know more about the development of the theology of the United States of America, I recommend this book heartily. It is extremely eye-opening.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">America's God</span> portrays the development of American theology from Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, the great formative period that has led to so much of the current American religious landscape.<br /><br />The story begins with the state of American religion in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, demonstrating how American Christianity had not essentially changed much from European Christianity. One important facet from this period is to note the Puritans of Massachusetts, and particularly their nation-covenant theology, the idea that as God covenanted with the nation Israel, so He was now in covenant with the entire people. Jonathan Edwards was part of a great change in the Puritan belief system, closing the communion to professing Christians as opposed to leaving it open to the community, representing a shift away from that nation-covenant system to a more "evangelical," belief-based system.<br /><br />The next phase of the narrative-- the eighteenth century-- tells the simultaneous stories of the decline in American religion, with the advancement of Universalism especially among the elite that would comprise the "founding fathers," along with the beginnings of the vast "evangelical" movement that would eventually explode in the antebellum nineteenth century. This, of course, is the critical period that is so highly contested today, for the "intent of the founding fathers" is a great motivator in many a discussion about the future of America.<br /><br />What is of greater interest, at least in the history of theology, is the working out of the peculiarities of the American Christianity that developed at the end of the eighteenth and into the nineteenth centuries. The peculiarity was based on the general tenets of common-sense moral reasoning, picked up from the Scottish school, the acceptance and promulgation of republicanism and its language, and distrust of any inherited authority save the Bible. These ideas-- which seem so normative now in Christianity-- were really revolutionary. It was not believed by anyone, really, before the 1760s that Christians could live in a republican society. Even after the Reformation the majority of "churches" maintained hierarchial structures that kept the Bible and its interpretation in the hands of the elites. "Liberty," "freedom," "virtue," and many other terms had entirely different meanings than they do now.<br /><br />Against all odds, the United States experiment was working, and the first half of the nineteenth century saw the explosion of evangelicalism and conversion. Various denominations set out to convert the country, and were largely successful in their efforts. The revivals and meetings of this period led to thousands of conversions to various denominations.<br /><br />Noll then spends much time examining two particular groups-- the Calvinists and the Methodists-- and their developments and changes throughout the period between 1790 and 1860. In regards to the Calvinists, a clear progression away from the Westminster confessions and the inherited Augustinian system is perceived, all aiming towards conformity to the values of commonsense moral reasoning and the freedom of will. The Methodists provide an interesting story, beginning with an intense drive to evangelize, remaining essentially apolitical and conversion-centered, and then a period of entrenchment and conformity to the republican language of America and American denominational systems of seminaries, publications, and development in theology.<br /><br />The final part of the book examines the Civil War and how it represented the crisis of American theology. Based on the above tendencies, most American religious groups were united in a "literal, Reformed hermeneutic," taking the Bible for exactly what it said and believing all of it to be relevant to the modern day. When the matter of slavery is brought forth in this system, conflict was almost impossible to avoid: it was certainly Biblically justifiable, and therefore according to the hermeneutic of the day was a necessity. Those who opposed slavery, while holding some form of "moral high ground," could not, with the current Biblical hermeneutic, provide a truly Biblical argument against the practice. Therefore the matter was resolved with bullets, and led to the belief fragmentation that continues on.<br /><br />Noll also noted how Lincoln, despite not being one of the educated theological elite of the day, brought forth the most profound theological reflections on the Civil War, far more developed than the majority of the theologically trained citizens of the day. What perhaps would be more astounding to us was the nature of his reflections-- the idea that maybe America is not the chosen land of the chosen people, and perhaps God is not on one side or the other side of the Civil War conflict. With these observations Lincoln was able to transcend the North/South perspective difference that led to such sectarianism in not only politics but also religion.<br /><br />The above does not really do much justice for Noll's magisterial work, but it represents a very short synopsis of the story presented. It is a very engaging and profitable read.<br /><br />Based on my reading, I would like to offer the following thoughts.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Religion and perspective.</span> Noll does an excellent job of contextualizing American religion into the American culture of the day, and demonstrates well how religion both shaped the culture and was shaped by the culture.<br /><br />One major problem of religion, especially in America, is when religion and perspective get confused. The Bible was not revealed only to Americans. Many of the attitudes and perspectives we hold are not from the Bible but from the social milieu into which we were born.<br /><br />Noll's best example of this was the race question. Although in sermon after sermon before the Civil War, many evangelists spoke of the "inferiority of the black people," no one actually defended this concept Biblically. The race question drove the slavery issue, yet no perspicacious pro-slavery, or even anti-slavery, advocate, ever questioned this belief or its foundation. What society determined, religion justified, and the results were terrible and abhorrent.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. The "literal, Reformed" hermeneutic.</span> Perhaps one of the greatest fallacies-- and one that proved fatal-- of American religion of the nineteenth century was the excessive literalism and application of the Bible. It was reasoned that since the Patriarchs owned slaves and Leviticus legislated slavery, slavery was not only acceptable but was pleasing to God. Such attitudes led many to look toward the "spirit" of the Bible to get away from slavery, and has probably in large part led to the modern attitude of "spirit" to the detriment of truth. The problem is not really with interpreting the Bible literally for the most part, but more with the application of the interpretations. First and foremost, the New Testament demonstrates that the old covenant has been superceded by the new (Ephesians 2:11-18, Colossians 2:14-17, Hebrews 7-9), and so therefore what the Patriarchs did or what Leviticus said is not bound upon Christians. Secondly, distance must always be preserved between the text and the reader, made necessary by the fact that the New Testament was written to first century congregations. This separation should not lead us to forsake the practices commanded of Christians, but should help us to recognize that certain social paradigms of the first century need not be replicated in the twenty-first. The New Testament presents an apoliticial and asocial message: it does not call for political or social change, but that all people in whatever circumstance they find themselves in should seek the spiritual kingdom. Therefore, the Biblical acceptance of the Roman slave system is more about not violating social norms than it is about establishing how later societies should be run. It is one thing to say that the Bible shows that there can be masters and slaves; it is entirely another thing to say that the Bible commands, or that God desires, such systems.<br /><br />This should be a warning to all Christians to not be so excessive in interpretation that one is found advocating something that God is not concerned about in the least, or saying that God desires something that God merely accepts as existing. It is tragic that the result of the problems with this particular hermeneutic has led many to go the other way and not respect the authority of the Scriptures, yet the abuses of the previous system cannot go overlooked.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Covenant</span>. A major theme of American religious consciousness in the discussed period, as it is even now, is the idea of America as the Promised Land and its people as God's chosen people. This concept began with the Puritans and their nation-covenant theology, and while in practice it did not continue, as an ideology it is still pervasive.<br /><br />This belief system is based on a far-too-close parallel with Israel of old, and, in truth, America probably parallels Israel's history far too closely. Regardless, Christ on the cross negated this system and the physical covenant system. The new covenant is a spiritual covenant with spiritual people toward spiritual ends. The greatest fault in denominationalism through the millennia has been the physicalizing of the covenant based on the previous covenant with Israel.<br /><br />The New Testament is clear: Christians are members of a spiritual kingdom (John 18:36, Colossians 1:3), and Christians are citizens of Heaven (Philippians 3:20). There is no hint of any nation covenant or any particular nation being God's people from the New Testament, yet plenty of lands and countries have claimed as much.<br /><br />Lincoln's ideas were more toward the truth: America is not the Promised Land, and Americans are not God's chosen people. Yes, many Americans seek the promised land of Heaven, and many Americans are God's chosen people, but not because they are Americans in America. It is because they are Christians obeying their Lord and seeking His promise.<br /><br />America could use the humility inherent in recognizing that it's not inherently a promised land or a chosen people. We can only hope denominations begin to make that clear.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. American Language and Christian language</span>. Another matter of great consequence has been the appropriation of American language in Christian theology. In America, the parallel between the two is assumed and not greatly questioned, and this has led to what is, in the end, an unholy synthesis.<br /><br />Before America, "freedom" in Christianity was spoken of in terms of "freedom from", as it ought to be. In the New Testament, Christians are not set free to license. Christians are set free from death, from sin, from the Law of Moses, from bondage. Romans 6 presents the truth of the matter succinctly: Christianity allows one to be freed from the shackles of sin to serve righteousness. It is not a license to do whatever, but freedom from evil.<br /><br />America, however, defined "freedom" in terms of license. The Revolution was fought in the spirit of Lockean and Enlightenment concepts of freedom, virtue, and liberty. Freedom from British oppression was gained by blood; freedom was enshrined in the founding documents of the nation. In America, you were free to do as you pleased as long as it did not injure any person or the state. This concept of freedom entered into Christianity, and voila: we now have plenty of denominations advocating the American concept of freedom in religious matters and act as if they are using Biblical language. "Freedom" certainly is a concept in the New Testament; whether "freedom" there is as Americans have defined the term is far more debatable.<br /><br />Similar things are true with "liberty," which in America is fought for and highly prized, yet in Christianity is to be sacrificed at a whim for the unity in the faith (Romans 15:1-2, 1 Corinthians 10:24, Philippians 2:1-4). To fight for a liberty is honorable in America; in Christianity, it is deplored as selfishness.<br /><br />We must always be concerned about our language to make sure that we do not corrupt the truth of God based on our societal values.<br /><br />It is not my intent to make America look bad or act as if our freedoms in this country are evil; far from it. Nor is it my desire to make it seem as if America hopelessly corrupted religion; again, far from it. If you take the long view, looking over the entire history of Christianity, America in many ways allowed for Christianity to return to its original state, since for the first time in over 1500 years the state did not impose one denominational concept upon all the people, and Christianity could get away from the hierarchialized, world-conforming forms it had taken for the majority of the medieval and early modern periods. Christianity again could be a politically and earthly disinterested group of spiritual people striving for Heaven by obeying their Master, the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, as with all societies, America and its freedom poses certain stumbling-blocks that are unique to its experience. While we ought to be thankful for the benefits our country provides us, we ought not be so naive or delusional to think that American cultural and social beliefs are precisely like New Testament beliefs. America's God can help us see what is culture from what is religion in America, and can assist us in holding fast to the latter while being wary of the former.<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />May 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-773841259346940132010-07-24T11:17:00.002-04:002010-07-24T11:19:34.980-04:00BR: "The Rapture Exposed" by Barbara RossingWhen reality is not good enough- or not persuasive enough- realistic fiction will often be used to convince people of a position. This tendency has worked wonders for those who espouse premillennialism with the Left Behind series written by LaHaye and Jenkins. The premillennialists have certainly seemed to gain a major victory with those books over the past few years, and even though they loosely claim to be fiction, not a few have followed after the premillennial view on account of the influence of these books. Even those who are not convinced are asking many questions because of the contents of these books, and often these people receive entirely unsatisfactory answers and therefore buy in to the premillennial view of Revelation and other texts.<br /><br />In this climate it is good to see challenging responses to this premillennialist trend, and Barbara Rossing's <span style="font-style: italic;">The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation</span> in many ways does a great service in combating the spread of premillennialism.<br /><br />While I have many disagreements with some of what the author has said, and such will be discussed later, I am pleased to report how she has done very well at refuting many of the claims of the premillennialists and has done well to expose premillennialism for the recent fabrication that it is. She spends the first couple of chapters speaking about the dangerous consequences of premillennialism and its origins. She demonstrates clearly how premillennialism is not two millennia old but two centuries old- originating in the thought patterns of John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren and receiving popularity from the Scofield Bible. Far from being a harmless oddity, premillennialism is also exposed for how it has governed American foreign policy in the highly factious area of Israel, has led to apathetic attitudes toward maintenance of the environment, and, most importantly, has posited a return of Christ that is entirely inconsistent and incompatible with the presentation of Jesus Christ throughout the rest of the New Testament.<br /><br />She spends those chapters and the next two chapters analyzing the Biblical claims of the premillennial position. She rightly demonstrates how the idea of the rapture, time gaps in the prophecies of Daniel, and the seven-year tribulation are not present in the Scriptures, and also demonstrates how the hodgepodge interpretive methodology of the premillennialists is inherently flawed.<br /><br />While those refutations are well and good, perhaps the best thing about Barbara Rossing's work is how she does not just show why premillennialism is false but also presents an alternative view of Revelation that is, on the whole, more consistent with the rest of the New Testament than the standard premillennial view, as she does in the rest of the book. As opposed to wrenching the book of Revelation out of the first century Asia Minor context in which it was written, as premillennialists are wont to do, Rossing firmly keeps the context in view and posits how John presents a message of hope to the persecuted Christians of Asia Minor in the late first century. Furthermore, Rossing demonstrates the limited view of the nature of prophecy as believed by premillennialists- prophecy is not a fixed view of what must come, but a warning to repent so that what is prophesied will not come upon the people. She uses the persuasive example of Jonah, who prophesied a message that did not come to pass because of the repentance of the Assyrians; I would add also the prophesyings of Paul in Acts 27. When the purpose of the book of Revelation is considered- to encourage the saints of Asia Minor in the late first century- and the understanding of the nature and purpose of John's vision as just explained are combined, it becomes extremely clear why premillennialism is a dangerous fallacy.<br /><br />Rossing also works with the details of the imagery along with parallels in the Old Testament prophets to present some viable views on what exactly John is talking about. John constantly uses language and imagery from the prophets of old, and his message against Rome is spoken in many of the same terms as Isaiah's against Assyria and Babylon. Rossing particularly focuses on John's reversal of the idea of <span style="font-style: italic;">nike</span>, victory. The idea of victory and conquering by military prowess was deified in Rome, and Rossing explains how John uses the idea of victory to show how the victory will really be God's in the end. While Rome may vaunt in their current victories, God will be the end victor against Rome. Likewise, Rossing focuses on John's quick change in Revelation 5 from referring to Jesus as the Lion to Jesus as the Lamb, and how from then on Jesus is not portrayed as the Lion but the Lamb. The image of the Lamb as the powerful ruler of the universe overthrows normal conceptualizations of power, just as Jesus' teaching of the last being first overthrew standard conceptions of power in the Gospels (cf. Matthew 19:30). Overall, Rossing presents many views of Revelation that are more consistent with the New Testament and the first century Mediterranean world than what the premillennialists would posit.<br /><br />Unfortunately, however, Rossing's strong disagreement with the premillennialist view has led her to go to the opposite extreme. Rossing stands in the liberal Protestant tradition, and such is made evident by many of her positions. In the first chapter she rejects any notion of the destruction of the world, emphasizing God's promise to Noah in Genesis 8:21, rejecting any harmonization of the two statements of God, first promising to not destroy the world and then qualifying it by saying "not to destroy with water" in Genesis 9:11, and casually dismissing any references to 2 Peter 3:9-10. The destruction of the earth and the transformation of mankind is made evidence from 2 Peter 3:9-10 and 1 Corinthians 15, and Rossing does not provide suitable evidence to lead to the conclusion that we should dismiss the fact that God qualifies the promise in Genesis 9:11 and also that 2 Peter 3:9-10 cannot mean what it says it means. Furthermore, while she does well in emphasizing and demonstrating the fact that Revelation is a vision when exegeting chapters 4 through 20, her approach suddenly becomes much more literal when speaking of chapters 21 and 22. Her belief of a "New Jerusalem" on earth, the idea that the end of time will see the renewal of the earth we are presently on, and that such will be our home (as it would seem from the Epilogue), run afoul of the vision of the Judgment and then Heavenward trip of the redeemed in Matthew 25:31-40 and the reward of Heaven waiting for us as indicated in 1 Peter 1:4. Rossing would do well to continue to see Revelation 21-22:6 as part of the visions that John saw, resist the temptation to interpret them on a more literal plane than the previous chapters, and to use the reference points of Revelation 21:2 and 21:9 which indicate that the vision of the new Jerusalem is indeed a picture of the Kingdom of God, the Bridegroom of Christ, manifested on earth as His church. The Bible makes it clear that while the creation is good, man has corrupted the earth, and the Kingdom of God cannot be established on the earth in any physical way (Romans 1-5, Colossians 1:13, John 18:36, Revelation 1:6).<br /><br />Despite these difficulties, The Rapture Exposed does a good service in pointing out many of the problems with the premillennialist viewpoint and can be of some assistance in determining a more consistent and Biblical view of Revelation. It is unfortunate that Barbara Rossing's liberal Protestant heritage has led her to go toward the opposite extreme and deny the impending destruction of all matter and the glorification of the saints to Heaven. In the end, a great service has been done to counter the claims of premillennialism, but yet the Bible be true, and let us consider its message for us.<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />February 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-12140222274626278712010-07-24T11:14:00.001-04:002010-07-24T11:15:24.138-04:00Revelation and the Mark of the BeastThe book of Revelation and the imagery contained therein is a popular subject in our society, as it has been ever since John penned his visions. One of the most popular of the visions involve the "beast" and the "mark of the beast", concerning which there has been no end of speculation. The "mark of the beast" derives from Revelation 13:16-18:<br /><blockquote>And he causeth all, the small and the great, and the rich and the poor, and the free and the bond, that there be given them a mark on their right hand, or upon their forehead; and that no man should be able to buy or to sell, save he that hath the mark, even the name of the beast or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man: and his number is Six hundred and sixty and six.</blockquote>For two thousand years people have been trying to establish what the "mark of the beast" is. It has been almost universally interpreted to be something present in society, be it from the fifth century, fifteenth century, or now in the twenty-first century. Is this what John (or Jesus) intended with the Revelation?<br /><br />There are some important things for us to establish. First of all, the "Antichrist" is never mentioned in the Revelation; the concept is imported from 1 John 2. He is also identified with the "son of perdition" in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, never mind that the "mystery of lawlessness" was already at work in the first century (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Revelation is just that-- a revelation, a vision which John saw while "in the Spirit" (Revelation 1:10, 9:17). We do not doubt that John "literally" saw the images he describes; the question, however, is what the images represent.<br /><br />In order to be good Bible students, we must first understand the context and purpose of anything written in the New Testament. We must establish who is writing, to whom they are writing, and the purpose of the writing.<br /><br />This is as true with Romans and Hebrews as it is with the Revelation which John received. We see in Revelation 1:1, 4 that the author of the Revelation is John, and it represents the revelation that Jesus gave him. It is addressed to seven churches in the Roman province of Asia. While there is some dispute over when it should be dated (whether before 70 or in the 90s), there is no doubt that it is written in the first century to first century Christians in Asia. The purpose of writing is first to send specific instructions to the churches (Revelation 2-3), and secondly to inform them about what will "shortly" take place, so that they may stand firm (Revelation 1:3, 19; Revelation 22:7, 20).<br /><br />We can know for certain, therefore, that whatever the "mark of the beast" is, or whoever the "beast" represents, that it is directly relevant for the life of Christians in Asia in the first century. How can events in the twenty-first century be thus relevant to such persons? Why would God reveal a message to these Christians that would have nothing to do with them, or with anyone else in the first century, but would only be relevant to Christians almost two millennia later?<br /><br />One could come up with many different possibilities for the "mark of the beast": something bearing Caesar's inscription and profession of godhood, a certificate indicating that someone sacrificed to the gods of Rome and cursed Christ, or something else involving Rome against Christians. The "beast" has been variously interpreted as any Roman emperor, Nero in particular, Diocletian, Julian the Apostate of the fourth century, the pope, and so on and so forth. Whatever the specifics, we can be confident that it involves the relationship between Christians of the day and Rome, the power that arose in persecution against them. There is no good interpretive basis to project the beast or his mark as a present-day phenomenon, as has been true for almost 1600 years.<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />October 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-23927767562664202010-07-24T11:08:00.001-04:002010-07-24T11:11:30.018-04:00"The Lost Tomb of Jesus": A ReviewTelevision these days thrives on sensationalism: if it gets ratings, it is good for business. Over the past few years, especially on channels formerly known for their integrity and commitment to the increase of knowledge, we have seen a trend of degeneration-- sensationalism and hype now trump truth and facts. No more do we see documentaries focusing on what can be known; instead, we see special after special based on fictional books like The <span style="font-style: italic;">da Vinci Code</span> and radical theories presented by fringe individuals trying to make a name for themselves. Then along comes the new special by The Discovery Channel by famous filmmaker James Cameron along with Simcha Jacobovici entitled "The Lost Tomb of Jesus". We could only hope that the sensationalist trend would end; unfortunately, this television program only perpetuates it. When most of Biblical archaeology is even against the show, it should tell us something!<br /><br />The television program makes the following assertion: a family tomb found south of Jerusalem in Talpiot in 1980 contained ten ossuaries, of which at least six have inscriptions. The inscriptions include "Jesus, son of Joseph," "Jose", "Maria", "Mariamne Mara", "Matthew," and "Judah son of Jesus". Since many of these names are parallel to names in the Gospel narratives, this could be the family tomb of Jesus. The hypothesis continues that the recently publicized "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" ossuary actually came from this tomb, being perhaps the one missing ossuary (10 were discovered, but only 9 cataloged), and based on ancient documents, Mariamne Mara actually refers to Mary Magdalene. The connection is then made between Jesus and Mary Magdalene as married with this Judah as the son. The hypothesis is bolstered by statistical analysis that would claim that there is either 1 in 600 or 1 in 30,000 chance that the tomb is not the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.<br /><br />As one can imagine, these are all stunning claims, and when presented by a scholar or two may gain great credibility in the public sphere. It is important, therefore, that we understand these claims and be able to provide a defense for our faith (1 Peter 3:15), giving an answer to people who may perhaps ask regarding its claims.<br /><br />First and foremost is the idea that the family of Jesus would have a family tomb near Jerusalem. While it is conceded within the film that Joseph most likely died in Nazareth, no one ever questions the idea that Jesus' family would have a family tomb near Jerusalem. While it is true that Jesus died in Jerusalem according to the Gospel accounts, and that many of His family members were present in Jerusalem after His death (cf. Matthew 27, Acts 1:14). Nevertheless, Jesus' family was from Nazareth. If Jesus' family were to have a family tomb, would it not begin or at least include that of Joseph himself, and therefore be in Nazareth? Even if we were to posit a family tomb in Judea, would it not be in Bethlehem, the ancestral home of Joseph (Luke 2:4)? These possibilities are never raised or discussed at all.<br /><br />Another question would involve whether Jesus' family would have the resources to have such a tomb. Joseph was a carpenter (Matthew 13:55); it is not likely that he or the family could afford such a luxury. This possibility is never raised or discussed at all.<br /><br />Furthermore, if Jesus was known to have a family tomb in the area of Jerusalem, why would we expect Joseph of Arimathea to obtain the body and feel the need to place the body in his own prepared tomb (Matthew 27:57-60)? If the family of Jesus had a tomb near Jerusalem, Joseph himself or His mother or some other person would likely obtain the body and place it within the family tomb. This possibility is never raised or discussed at all.<br /><br />"Jesus, son of Joseph" itself is rather controversial. We know that Mary and the brothers of Jesus were believers (cf. Acts 1:14); if they believed that Jesus was the Son of God, they would know for certain that Jesus was not in truth the son of Joseph. The difficulty with considering Joseph the father of Jesus is also not raised or discussed at all.<br /><br />Very early in the show, the possibility is raised that the story in Matthew 28:11-15 could actually be true:<br /><blockquote>Now while they were going, behold, some of the guard came into the city, and told unto the chief priests all the things that were come to pass. And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave much money unto the soldiers, saying, "Say ye, 'His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.' And if this come to the governor's ears, we will persuade him, and rid you of care."<br />So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying was spread abroad among the Jews, and continueth until this day.</blockquote>The idea is actually presented that the disciples took the body of Jesus and put it into His family tomb, and then claimed that He arose. The show would then claim that it is believable by "some Christians" that Jesus could have been resurrected and dispensed with His physical body at the ascension, and therefore the actual body could be buried and kept until now. A fantastic tale, to be certain, and one that strains belief! Are we to believe that twelve dispirited disciples somehow got beyond a Roman guard that knew that it would be put to death if it failed, took the body of Jesus, <span style="font-weight: bold;">only to move it into another tomb</span>? No discussion is given regarding the motive, and the fantastic claim is never defended. Regarding the ascension of Jesus, Paul establishes in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44, 51-54:<br /><blockquote>So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: it is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body...Behold, I tell you a mystery: We all shall not sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory."</blockquote>If such is the resurrection for which we wait, would the resurrection of Jesus be any different? Shall we not expect that at the ascension, Jesus' mortality put on immortality, and the perishable imperishable?<br /><br />Finally, if it were the family tomb of Jesus, we would expect to see Jesus' family members within it. This is the very claim explicated by the show itself, and the show even provides a list of who would be in it: Joseph and Mary; Jesus, His sisters Miriam and Salome (Matthew 13:56; names provided by tradition), His brothers James, Joseph (or Jose/Joses), Jude (or Judas), and Simon (cf. Matthew 13:55). Out of these eight persons, the tomb itself only would present three (Jesus, Jose, and Mary) and claims a fourth that was removed (James). Nothing is mentioned about the presence of the other four. Even if we were to assume that the sisters would be buried with any husbands that they would have, we still do not have any knowledge of where Jude and Simon are. On top of all this, there are additional ossuaries (bone boxes; in the first century, bodies decomposed and then their bones were collected in boxes called ossuaries) with names of Mariamne Mara and Matthew, names not explicitly in the family. Therefore, two people are missing and two more are added. While it could be assumed that the missing persons are part of the three or four uninscribed ossuaries, but this remains an assumption, along with the stated assumption that Matthew was part of the family, for which there is not a shred of evidence. The "resident scholar", James Tabor, tries to establish that since variants of the name Matthew are often present in the genealogy of Luke 3:23-28, it is "likely" that there would be a Matthew in the family sometime near Jesus. This is sheer assumption with no good evidence for it.<br /><br />None of this takes into account that normally family tombs include ossuaries from multiple generations, and that it would be rather odd to find all these ossuaries involving only one or two. It is more likely that whatever this family is that the ossuaries are more spread out than the family of Jesus.<br /><br />Much is made regarding statistics in the show, because the most significant historical argument against the show's hypothesis is the commonality of the names involved. Indeed, Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and James are some of the most popular names in first century Judea. The show would try to posit, however, that all these names showing up in the same family tomb drastically increases the odds that it is the family of Jesus. The final numbers seem striking: 599 out of 600 chances, or 29,999 out of 30,000 chances, that the tomb is the family tomb of Jesus. These numbers, however, pose some problems. While the statistician did not take "Matthew" into account, he did not factor "Matthew" as a negative factor against the hypothesis. Furthermore, the odds are all based on Mariamne Mara being Mary Magdalene, and we will show below that the association is extremely overhyped. The statistician, in the show "The Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Review," himself admits that if Mariamne Mara is not Mary Magdalene, the odds are not nearly so stunning. The statistics, therefore, do not prove anything whatsoever.<br /><br />One of the most controversial pieces of evidence in the film is the idea that Mariamne Mara is indeed Mary Magdalene and that the ossuaries show that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married. The association between Mariamne Mara and Mary Magdalene is made on the basis of the Gnostic fourth-century document Acts of Philip, supposedly written by Mary Magdalene's brother, that explains how Mary Magdalene was a missionary. The hypothesis goes that since she was a missionary, and "Mara" can mean "Master" (somewhat equivalent to "Teacher"), the ossuary inscribed "Mariamne Mara" is of "Mary the Master," and therefore Mary Magdalene. First of all, this idea is based on an admittedly late document from a Gnostic source, and it is being used to make a story that no one in the ancient world would recognize. Gnostics rejected marriage and any form of sexuality; "orthodox Christianity" did not believe that Jesus was married to anyone. The evidence that has no credibility to begin with is being abused to suit twenty-first century sensationalist theology. Furthermore, Ben Witherington ("'The Jesus Tomb?' 'Titanic' Talpiot Tomb Theory Sunk From the Start", http://benwitherington.blogspot.com) asserts that "Mara" is an abbreviated form of "Martha," and posits that the ossuary held the bones of both a Mary and a Martha, which is a much more feasible and far less tenuous hypothesis than the many jumps necessary to make it from Mariamne Mara to Mary Magdalene.<br /><br />The connection to Jesus in marriage comes from DNA testing done on physical material found in the "Jesus son of Joseph" and "Mariamne Mara" ossuaries. The mitochondrial DNA was found to be different; the conclusion made, therefore, is that this Jesus and Mariamne, since they were not related by blood but in a family tomb, were married. The show does not take into account the difficulty that lack of evidence is not evidence. Perhaps this "Mariamne Mara" was married to Jose, or to another occupant of the tomb? Perhaps she was the sister-in-law of this "Jesus son of Joseph", or perhaps an aunt or niece. These possibilities are not raised nor discussed.<br /><br />Next we come to the missing ossuary. When the tomb was excavated in 1980, ten ossuaries were found, but only nine were cataloged. The hypothesis goes that the recently publicized ossuary saying "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus" comes from this family tomb. The evidence given is that the patina (mineral deposits on the ossuaries) from the James ossuary and the Talpiot ossuaries match quite well over and against other ossuaries discovered in other areas. There are, however, significant problems with this hypothesis. Oded Golan, owner of the James ossuary, has claimed to have purchased it before 1980, the discovery of the family tomb. When the Talpiot tomb was found, 6 of the 10 ossuaries were claimed to be inscribed, and we have 6 inscribed ossuaries: the lost ossuary was one claimed to be uninscribed. Since the James ossuary not only has the inscription but also has rosettes carved upon it, it is hard to believe that two archaeologists would have missed all or part of these details! Beyond all of that, the ancient historian Eusebius claims that when James was stoned in Jerusalem, he "was buried on the spot, by the sanctuary, and his inscribed stone is still there by the sanctuary." (Ecclesiastical History, 2.23.18). This would mean that he was not buried in Talpiot nor in any family tomb anywhere, and further discredits the claim. These possibilities are not raised or discussed.<br /><br />The final great claim of the show is that Jesus has a son-- the final inscribed ossuary reads "Judah son of Jesus". The show quickly moves to show why the New Testament would not name such a person on account of the risk of the child. The hypothesis is so bold as to claim that this child is the "beloved disciple" of John, left anonymous on account his close relation to Jesus. Such, supposedly, explains Jesus' comment on the cross:<br /><blockquote>When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold, thy mother!" And from that hour the disciple took her unto his own home <span style="font-style: italic;">(John 19:26-27)</span>.</blockquote>The claim, then, is that Jesus is commissioning His own son to take care of his grandmother. The major difficulty with this view, of course, is that it is Biblically impossible. We know that Jesus ate the Last Supper with the twelve (Mark 14:17), and the "disciple whom Jesus loved" is present at that meal (John 13:23). Furthermore, this same disciple is the one concerning whom Peter asks Jesus in John 21:20, and in verse 24 "this disciple" is identified as the author of the book. In John 20:2, this "disciple whom Jesus loved" and Peter are the ones to whom Mary Magdalene comes to announce the empty tomb. We know from the Gospel texts that Jesus set James, John, and Peter aside as special among the twelve (cf. Matthew 17:1), and we see the close association of Peter and John after the resurrection (Acts 3:1). Based on all actual evidence, John, not some "Judah son of Jesus" seems to be the "beloved disciple".<br /><br />Regardless, the entire claim is based on the house of cards built previously, and there is no evidence that indicates that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that they had a child named Judah.<br /><br />"The Lost Tomb of Jesus" is a fantastic piece of sensationalist hype, assumptions and hypotheses clothed in "science", and tenuous connections posited as fact. The show would posit a family tomb of Jesus, full of people found in the Gospel narratives; the actual evidence indicates that there is a fascinating tomb near Jerusalem of a regular family over many generations. The Talpiot tomb shows that sometime between 70 BCE and 70 CE there was a man named Jesus whose father was Joseph, and that he had a son named Judah. He had family members named Jose, Matthew, Mary, Miriamne, and Martha. This does not mean that he was Jesus of Nazareth; far from it. There is no reason to believe anything beyond what has been handed down in the Gospel accounts for two millennia: Jesus of Nazareth died, was buried, and was resurrected on the third day. His bones will not be found.<br /><br />It is tragic that the claims of the Jews in the days of Matthew persevere to this day (Matthew 28:11-15). Nonetheless, we have seen that God is true, and men liars (Romans 3:4). We will not find Jesus in a box in Jerusalem; we will find Him coming from the heavens with the angels in judgment (Matthew 25:31-46). Let us be prepared for that day!<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />March 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-69301237035407363282010-07-24T11:01:00.000-04:002010-07-24T11:03:58.203-04:00Walking WiselyThe New Testament is full of advice for the Christian to help him or her live a life pleasing to God. Christians are called upon to think in godly ways and to act accordingly (Philippians 4:8, 2 Corinthians 10:5), putting away the works of the flesh and striving to present the fruit of the Spirit for all to see (Galatians 5:17-24).<br /><br />We do this primarily so that we may be found as obedient servants of God, seeking to walk in the same paths which Christ walked, "walking in the light" (1 John 1:5-2:6). Walking in the light also means that we are the light of the world, ambassadors of Christ wherever we may go (Matthew 5:13-16). Christ is not the only one watching how we live: the unbelievers around us are also watching. We recognize this in Peter's exhortation in 1 Peter 2:11-12:<br /><blockquote>Beloved, I beseech you as sojourners and pilgrims, to abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; having your behavior seemly among the Gentiles; that, wherein they speak against you as evil-doers, they may by your good works, which they behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.</blockquote>While we should never live and act just to be seen by other people as being religious (cf. Matthew 6:1-4), these Scriptures and others demonstrate how we need to be at least conscious of how we conduct ourselves among those who are without. Paul speaks of this most clearly in Colossians 4:5-6:<br /><blockquote>Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer each one. </blockquote>Are we "walking in wisdom" toward those who are without? Are we "redeeming" the little bit of time we have to influence them for good? Can it be said that our speech is always "seasoned" with salt, making the sharp sword of God's word most effective (Hebrews 4:12)? We should keep these things in mind in many contexts. Sometimes we have the tendency to "let down our guard" when we are among a group of mostly brethren, especially in our assemblies. While it is true that the assemblies are designed for the encouragement of the brethren (1 Corinthians 14:26, Hebrews 10:24-25), we ought to make sure that we do not put stumbling blocks before any unbelievers or unconverted persons in our midst (1 Corinthians 14:23-25). When we make comments in Bible class, or preach a lesson, or even while we present announcements, do we think about how one who is not a Christian would interpret them? Can we communicate in such a way that gets the point across without being unduly offensive? We are charged to be at peace with all men as much as it depends on us (Romans 12:18). Yes, there are times when teaching the truth will cause offense to some people, but it is our responsibility to make sure that it is the truth, and not the way in which the truth is presented, that has caused the offense!<br /><br />How do you conduct yourself when speaking or writing regarding the faith? We often consider 1 Peter 3:15 in such contexts, but do we consider the end of that verse?<br /><blockquote>But sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ<span style="font-style: italic;"> (1 Peter 3:15-16)</span>.</blockquote>We are to defend the hope that is in us-- yet with meekness and fear (or gentleness and respect in other versions)! How we communicate the Gospel is just as important as communicating the actual Gospel! If we are defending the truth, but do so without gentleness and respect, we have defeated the Lord's cause. We must return to Paul's comment in Colossians 4:6 about speech "seasoned with salt." Too little salt leads to bland food; too much salt makes food intolerable. Likewise, when we speak with others about the faith, and it does not clearly communicate the truth of God, it is unproductive. If we speak with others about the faith, but our words are jarring, harsh, insulting, disrespectful, demeaning, and sanctimonious, they and the message behind it will be rejected regardless of its value. Consider a filet mignon that has been oversalted: trying to promote the precious Gospel of Christ without gentleness and respect s the same!<br /><br />It is often said, "you only get one chance to make a first impression." We might be able to provide a thousand excuses for many of our miscues that we commit before unbelievers, but if we have not walked with wisdom toward them, we have not redeemed the time as we could have. We should keep watch regarding how we communicate-- in the spoken and written word, in actions, in deed-- in any context that even remotely involves those outside. We must consider how we speak and whether the production is as God-honoring as the message.<br /><br />Let us be circumspect concerning our thoughts, words, and deeds, so that we may be the most effective ambassadors of Christ in the world!<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />February 2008Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-85556261553594687612010-07-24T10:57:00.001-04:002010-07-24T11:00:06.891-04:00The Church of Acts 2<blockquote><br />And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and they sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, according as any man had need. And day by day, continuing stedfastly with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread at home, they took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved <span style="font-style: italic;">(Acts 2:42-47)</span>.</blockquote>Thus we have the description of the early church in Jerusalem, a truly dynamic group that saw its numbers nearly double over a period of a few weeks, and eventually reach into the tens of thousands (cf. Acts 21:20). But how? Why do we not see the Gospel having the same attraction today as it did then?<br /><br />Perhaps a good part of the difference may be found within the group in Jerusalem itself. Notice verse 42: they devoted themselves to the doctrines of the Apostles, the fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers. We see here four avenues of the Christian path that are quite essential for growth: studying God's Word, associating with the saints, the Lord's Supper and/or hospitality with other saints, and communication with God.<br /><br />Verse 46 provides more insight: they continued daily in the Temple, together and with one accord, and they also "broke bread" from house to house. They are also known for "praising God". But look here in verse 47: they had favor with all the people. Why was that?<br /><br />Because the teachings of the Gospel were socially acceptable? Hardly; such teachings led to Jesus' recent crucifixion, and their promotion led the Apostles to be thrown before the Sanhedrin, and many other Christians into trouble with the authorities later (Acts 7-8:2). We have no reason to believe that the order from the life of Jesus in John 9:22: any who professes Jesus to be the Christ would be put out of the synagogue and essentially ostracized from the Jewish nation. It wasn't because of social acceptability.<br /><br />Because the teachings of the Gospel were easy for Jews? Again, hardly; Jesus demanded much more of them than did the Law (Matthew 5:20-48). Jesus demanded true adherence to the principles that God set down, not mere lip observance as so many Jews were wont to give. Commandments demanding such persons to "take up their cross and follow Him" and to "lose their lives for Him" (cf. Matthew 16:24-25) would be as challenging for them as anyone else. It was not because the teachings were easy.<br /><br />The Gospel was not socially acceptable, nor was it any easier for Jews of the first century than anyone else. Why, then, did the church grow? How did it have favor with all the people? The answer, in reality, is reflected within the passage itself: the community which they developed. They were always together. They were sharing meals with simplicity and gladness of heart. They were in the Temple, learning of God and proclaiming what He had done. They were selling what they had so that all would have their needs met. And everyone around them saw such things and saw that it was something special, something worth one's participation.<br /><br />As can be understood from 1 John 4:7-11, Christians, above all things, must be a peculiar people on account of their love for each other and for all men.<br /><blockquote>And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing <span style="font-style: italic;">(1 Corinthians 13:2)</span>.</blockquote>We often talk about the "distinctives" of the faith, and when such a conversation takes place, various doctrinal matters get brought up. While we should certainly teach the truth, note how Paul says that without love, it simply doesn't matter. We can teach "the truth" day and night, but if we don't manifest love to each other and to those without, we won't get anywhere.<br /><br />Love is to be the distinctive mark of the Christian and also the church, as seen in Acts 2. They loved each other in the faith, and they manifested that love by studying the truth of God together, associating with each other, breaking bread together, and praying together. And when other Jews saw this in the Temple, they were at least somewhat interested in the concept.<br /><br />In a world where there are many who are interested in Jesus but not in "church", the best form of evangelism is a community of Christians truly serving God-- not just according to the external observances that are quantifiable, but also in heart and soul, and most especially in love. When a group of Christians have the love for the Lord, each other, and those without that they ought to have, there you will find a dynamic and growing church!<br /><br />The fate of Jerusalem and Ephesus are before us: what shall we choose?<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />January 2008Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-41836334798983981262010-07-24T10:52:00.002-04:002010-07-24T10:56:44.810-04:00Dating the Life of JesusThe New Testament, while providing excellent accounts of events that occurred in the first century, notoriously does not provide many dates relative to the rest of history. Such an understanding is not strictly necessary; nevertheless, much can be gained, especially in terms of the history of the early church, if we consider what can be known regarding the chronology of the New Testament. Let us begin with the life of Jesus, upon which the rest of the chronology must be based.<br /><br />We do have certain historical markers that can help us in our chronology. We know that Herod the Great died in the year 4 BCE (Josephus, <span style="font-style: italic;">Antiquities of the Jews</span> 17.8.1, <span style="font-style: italic;">Wars of the Jews</span> 1.33.8); therefore, Jesus' birth, the visit of the Magi, the flight to Egypt, and the slaughter of infants in Bethlehem all date to the year 4 BCE or immediately earlier (cf. Matthew 1:18-2:23). Likewise, Luke tells us the following in Luke 3:1-2 and Luke 3:23:<br /><blockquote>Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.</blockquote><blockquote>And Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli.</blockquote>These pieces of information will be the most critical in determining our chronology, and we will return to them shortly.<br /><br />As to the duration of Jesus' ministry, it would seem from the Gospel of John that Jesus' ministry encompassed three Passover festivals. These are recorded in John 2:13, John 6:4, and John 11:55:<br /><blockquote>And the passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.<br /><br />Now the passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand.<br /><br />Now the passover of the Jews was at hand: and many went up to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to purify themselves.</blockquote>As to this first Passover, we gain an idea of when it occurred by the comment made by the Jews against what Jesus had taught them:<br /><blockquote>The Jews therefore said, "Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days?" <span style="font-style: italic;">(John 2:20)</span>.</blockquote>Let us now consider all of this evidence to see if we can gain a picture of the chronology of the events at hand.<br /><br />It seems clear enough that the Magi visited Jesus at some point well after His birth-- Mary is now in a house, and the star may have risen after His birth (cf. Matthew 2:2, 11). The death of Herod, moreover, occurs soon after he orders the death of the infants of Bethlehem (Matthew 2:13-15, 19). We can reasonably establish, then, that the visit of the Magi and the massacre in Bethlehem occurred in 4 BCE proper, and posit Jesus' birth as in 5 BCE. If this is the case, Jesus' visit to the Temple at age 12 in Luke 2:42-51 most likely occurred in 8 CE.<br /><br />The next date we are given is in regards to the beginning of John's ministry, and Luke mentions many individuals. Pontius Pilate is governor of Judea at the time; he was appointed to that position in 26 CE and was removed ten years later. Both Herod and Philip reigned from the death of their father in 4 BCE until after the time of Jesus' crucifixion. Annas and Caiaphas represented the high priesthood from 6 - 36 CE. Lysanias is known from inscriptional evidence from one of his freedman: "for the salvation of the Lord's Imperial by a freedman of Lysanias the tetrarch" <span style="font-style: italic;">(Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum</span>, 4521, quoted in Merill Tenney, <span style="font-style: italic;">Exploring New Testament Culture</span>, 158). The "Lord's Imperial" is a technical title referring jointly to Tiberius and his mother Livia. Since Livia died in 29 CE, we know that this inscription must date between 14-29 CE, which corresponds to the time-frame at hand.<br /><br />The main piece of chronological evidence in Luke 3:1 is that John's ministry begins in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar. Tiberius began to reign jointly with Augustus in 13 CE and independently beginning in August 14; that would make his fifteenth year either 27 or 28 CE. There is also a tradition in the eastern Mediterranean of fixing the reigns of monarchs by the "royal year" that began in September or October: in this reckoning, year one of Tiberius would have been August-September 14, and therefore the fifteenth year of Tiberius would have begun in September 27 (Tenney, 159). 27 represents a good correlation with Luke's statement that Jesus began when He was "about thirty years of age". In 27 He would have been about 32; any later and Luke's statement begins to strain credibility. Likewise, during the first Passover of Jesus' ministry, the Jews assert that the Temple has been being built for 46 years (John 2:20). Since it is recorded that Herod began the temple in the eighteenth year of his reign (ca. 20-19 BCE; Josephus, <span style="font-style: italic;">Antiquities</span> 15.11.1-3); 46 years from this is about 26 or 27 CE.<br /><br />We can make the following reconstructed chronology, then, from the above evidence:<br /><ul><li>5 BCE: Birth of Jesus<br /></li><li>4 BCE: Magi, Bethlehem massacre, death of Herod the Great<br /></li><li>8 CE: Jesus at 12 in the Temple<br /></li><li>27 CE: Beginning of John's ministry, early events in Jesus' ministry<br /></li><li>28 CE: First Passover (John 2:26), imprisonment of John, beginning of Jesus' independent ministry<br /></li><li>29 CE: Second Passover, feeding of 5,000 (John 6:4)<br /></li><li>30 CE: Third Passover: crucifixion, burial, and resurrection of Jesus<br /></li></ul>Jesus, then, before the resurrection, lived for about 35 years, and the concluding events of His ministry on earth were most likely in the year 30 CE. This corresponds well with the evidence from the development of the early church.<br /><br />We must stress again that this chronology is based upon all available evidence and is historically likely, but not historically or Biblically certain. Nevertheless, we can take this information and use it to the profit of our consideration of the life of Jesus.<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />July 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-89025181725241223502010-07-24T10:45:00.002-04:002010-07-24T10:47:38.618-04:00Adversities: DrugsMankind has received great blessings and yet also great consternation with the use of drugs. Many drugs are beneficial, saving the lives of millions of people, yet many millions of people are led to miserable lives because of drug abuse. Families are shattered, women are abused, both physically and sexually, and lives are even lost because of the abuse of drugs, some that are considered legal in our society, and others that are still illegal. What, then, should a Christian do about drugs and their use and abuse? Let us examine the different types of drugs available and how the Christian ought to respond to any offers they may receive to try some.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. "Recreational" Drugs.</span> I am here defining "recreational" drugs as the types that are used generally for recreational purpose, minus alcohol, which will be discussed below. Some of these "recreational" drugs include marijuana, LSD, cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, methamphetamines, and there are many others. The vast majority of these drugs are considered illegal even by our own government.<br /><br />Drugs such as these ought never even be named amongst the brethren, for not only do they violate the commands to preserve the body (1 Corinthians 6:19-20), but even run afoul of the laws of the government, which the Christian is commanded to obey in Romans 13:1-5:<br /><blockquote>Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. </blockquote>None of these drugs have proven definitively to bring any form of benefit to the body, but all of them do harm the body, causing excessive loss of brain cells and with many, the weakening of the respiratory system. The use of these drugs has no good purpose, and the Christian ought to stay far away from them.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Alcoholic beverages</span>. In the United States, alcoholic beverages are legal, although there are age limits (21 in most states) and alcohol limits for drivers (.08 in most states). The consumption of alcohol may be legal, but often the effects are painful: many of the sexual assaults that are committed in America are alcohol-related in some ways, spouse and child abuse, both physical and sexual, are also often alcohol-related, and hundreds if not thousands are killed every year because of accidents involving a drunk driver. Alcohol for many is also very addictive, and the financial, emotional, and even physical consequences of alcoholism are appalling: families are destroyed beyond repair because of alcoholism, and cirrhosis of the liver is common among alcoholics (and even those who may not be addicted).<br /><br />The problems that alcohol bring are not new to the world, but are even present in Biblical times. Many sins have been committed with wine as a reason (Noah's uncovering in Genesis 9:21, the incest of Lot's daughters in Genesis 19:33-35), and Solomon speaks of wine (the most often consumed form of alcohol) in negative ways in Proverbs 20:1 and Proverbs 23:30-32:<br /><blockquote>Wine is a mocker, strong drink a brawler; And whosoever erreth thereby is not wise.<br /><br />They that tarry long at the wine; They that go to seek out mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, When it sparkleth in the cup, When it goeth down smoothly: At the last it biteth like a serpent, And stingeth like an adder.</blockquote>The New Testament also is full of warnings about wine and other alcoholic beverages: deacons are not to drink much of it (1 Timothy 3:8), and drunkenness is condemned as a deed of the flesh in Galatians 5:21. Paul commands us in Romans 13:13:<br /><blockquote>Let us walk becomingly, as in the day; not in revelling and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and jealousy.</blockquote>It is argued by many that these verses do not prohibit the use of alcohol altogether, but only the excessive consumption thereof. Such argument is beyond the scope of this article, but it must be noted that even if we were to accept the moderate consumption of alcohol on the basis of the time of Christ, we would be forced to dispense with the alcoholic beverages of today: the Roman world did not drink wine as it is sold today, at full strength, but diluted it significantly. The alcoholic content in a glass of wine that would have been drunk in the time of Christ was negligible, and in no way compares to the alcoholic content of one glass today. Further, there is no need for the consumption of alcohol like there would have been in ancient times, where alcohol was effective at killing the germs present in their water. We can drink many beverages without alcohol and also without fear of germs, and because of the ease in which alcohol can be abused, it is best for the Christian to leave it alone, conforming to the message of 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (Note: the Greek word translated as "form" is also translated as "appearance" in many versions):<br /><blockquote>abstain from every form of evil.</blockquote>While some good may exist from moderate consumption of wine, the same benefit may be gained from unfermented grape juice and with alternative methods, leaving the Christian no good reason to consume alcohol. It is best to take the advice of Solomon and avoid alcohol as much as possible.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Tobacco</span>. The use of tobacco, either smoked or by chewing, is common in America, despite the constant warnings over the past 10-15 years about the health risks caused by its use. Tobacco is legal in the United States, and represents a very wealthy business.<br /><br />The appeal of tobacco is in the nicotine contained therein; it is this nicotine that is addictive, and the reason why people continue to smoke/chew for many years. There is no evidence that anything in tobacco or nicotine provides health benefits; in fact, only negatives can come from using tobacco: smoking has been directly linked to asthma, emphysema, and lung cancer, and chewing leads to infected gums and cancers of the mouth. Even if one does not feel these consequences of tobacco use, they still suffer from yellowed teeth and a pervasive stench of smoke or chew that does not conform to the cleanliness that should be the mark of a Christian (Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5). Therefore, having seen that much is to be lost and nothing is to be gained from the use of tobacco, do you think that using it conforms to the message of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:19-20?<br /><blockquote>Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body.</blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Medical Drugs.</span> By medical drugs, I refer to those drugs both available over-the-counter and those available only by prescription. Most all of these drugs have proven medical benefits, and ought to be used when health problems arise. As with all drugs, however, these medical drugs can be abused, and some of them can prove just as deadly as so-called "recreational" drugs when they are abused. The Christian ought to obey the orders of the doctors and pharmacists when it comes to the use of medical drugs, so that he may be restored to his health without causing harm to his body.<br /><br />Having seen many of these drugs and the problems they cause, one might wonder why anyone would be induced to use them in the first place. Unfortunately, many people are easily pressured into using drugs, and they then find themselves addicted to them. Others do so in order to "fit in" with a group of friends, or to put forth an appearance. Some do it simply to gain the pleasures derived from doing so-- why would anyone in their right mind set out to drink alcoholic beverages, for instance, in great quantity, when their taste is less than pleasing, in order to get drunk, when more often than not they know that they will be vomiting the next morning? Why would anyone do such a thing, and, more importantly, why would anyone do it again after it happened the first time? The only answer that can be given is that they have given themselves over to the pleasures that supposedly derive from being drunk or being high or whatever they are doing. This type of attitude and activity is exactly what Peter says we ought no longer do in 1 Peter 4:3-4:<br /><blockquote>For the time past may suffice to have wrought the desire of the Gentiles, and to have walked in lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries: wherein they think strange that ye run not with them into the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you.</blockquote>Even though the pressure placed upon you may be strong, if you have named Christ as your Savior and desire to please Him, recognize that the use of drugs (save for medical purposes) ends in great wickedness and unrighteousness, causing great harm physically, emotionally, and spiritually to yourself and those around you. Be strong in the Lord, and endeavor to preserve and keep your body, the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, recognizing that you are not owned by yourself but Christ. Avoid those things that derive no benefit but bring only misery and despair.<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />May 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-46849705714782264822010-07-24T10:37:00.002-04:002010-07-24T10:39:11.614-04:00Judging Righteous JudgmentAs Christians, we often have difficulties in regards to particular matters and whether they are sin or not. There are many things that most will admit present difficulties, but the Bible may not spell out whether it is to be considered sin or no. When it comes to these matters, there are some who approach some matters of sin not explicitly revealed in the Scriptures as if it were explicitly revealed in the Scriptures, and there are others who approach matters of sin not explicitly revealed in the Scriptures as somehow less sin or matters concerning which we have no right to condemn as sin.<br /><br />What should we do when it comes to matters that God has not specifically justified or condemned? We get an indication of God's intention for us in Galatians 5:16-24:<br /><blockquote>But I say, walk by the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are contrary the one to the other; that ye may not do the things that ye would. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof. </blockquote>If we fall into the trap of thinking of such things in terms of strict "legalism," attempting to establish as law that it is definitively wrong or that it cannot be condemned, misses Paul's point entirely. Paul's point is evident in verse 24: Christians have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. "Drawing lines" is entirely against the point here.<br /><br />Human beings like lines. Lines mean that it can be known just how far one can go before getting in trouble. How often do human beings "ride the line", so to speak, in their actions and behaviors? Everyone knows that there could be circumstances beyond our control (or within our control) that will lead us to cross the line, but that still does not make us think that we should stop doing so. In such circumstances, we have no one but ourselves to blame for the failure.<br /><br />As long as we look at these matters in strict terms of line drawing we will not get to that which Paul intends. As Christians we are called upon to make judgments, and to make righteous judgments based upon the Scriptures (cf. Hebrews 5:14). Paul provides a very clear means by which we can ascertain what is right from what is wrong: the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit.<br /><br />If something correlates to "sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, [or] orgies," we are to avoid them. We have crucified these desires with Christ.<br /><br />If something manifests "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control," then it is well and good for us to do them. We are to bear the fruit of the Spirit.<br /><br />Yes, dancing is not mentioned as sinful in the Scriptures. But when you consider what goes on in dancing, and you see on one side that there is "impurity" and "sensuality", and on the other side you see "goodness" and "self-control", on which side does dancing, particularly the young adult kind, fall? It is "like" sensuality, and therefore is just as much a work of the flesh as sensuality or sexual immorality.<br /><br />"But you're adding to the Scriptures!" No, we are not. We are making righteous judgment based upon the information provided in the Scriptures. We know well enough what correlates with what. We know perfectly well that while the fruit of the Spirit is a complete list, the works of the flesh are left open-- the last one is "things like these," which shows that God has not revealed specifically every little thing that is sinful.<br /><br />Gambling is another matter not mentioned in the Scriptures specifically. We see on one side "idolatry" (covetousness so defined in Colossians 3:5) and "rivalries" and "dissensions", and on the other side "peace" and "goodness" and "self-control". Honestly-- to which does gambling concord? Is the impulse behind gambling holy or carnal? We all know what the answer really is, and yet there is always this impulse to justify our own behavior or the behavior we see in others. This can even work with drinking, a matter that is often contentious. While we understand that in the ancient world there were few options beyond wine if one wanted to have a healthy liquid, we do not have that problem today. Today, which is "drinking" more like? "Drunkenness" or "peace...self-control"? If you never drink, you can never get drunk!<br /><br />Why is it that we want to argue and debate the minutiae of these issues? Because people want to do these things. But if we have crucified the flesh with its passions, why do we seek to justify some of the things the flesh wants to do? What "holy" impulse compels school dances? What godly influence leads to one gambling? What holiness and righteousness can come from drinking?<br /><br />None, none, and none.<br /><br />Those who are in Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions. Those in the world constantly draw and re-draw lines to justify their behavior.<br /><br />What will we do?<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />May 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-81137808320010747292010-07-24T10:31:00.002-04:002010-07-24T10:34:43.784-04:00Dances and the Teenage ChristianWe are again in the midst of the spring season, and all kinds of teenagers around the country are getting ready for their school prom. School dances, particularly homecoming and prom, have become American rites of passage for teenagers, and represent a particularly difficult choice for teenagers who strive to obey Christ. Should the teenage Christian have anything to do with such school dances? Let us search the Scriptures and make righteous judgment.<br /><br />The Scriptures do not speak much of dancing; Jesus uses the idea a couple of times in metaphors in His preaching, but the Scriptures never come out and authorize or condemn dancing. We know, however, that the Scriptures are complete and equip us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). We also know that if we are going to be good and mature Christians, we must train our powers of discernment through constant practice to distinguish good from evil (Hebrews 5:14). Therefore, while the Scriptures may not speak explicitly about dancing, we can surely establish what we ought to do based upon its principles.<br /><br />Perhaps the best place to seek such advice is within the listing of the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:19-23:<br /><blockquote>Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.<br /><br /></blockquote>The third "work of the flesh" listed is "lasciviousness." Lasciviousness is not a word we use often in modern English; Webster defines the term as:<br /><blockquote>1. Looseness; irregular indulgence of animal desires; wantonness; lustfulness.<br />2. Tendency to excite lust, and promote irregular indulgences.</blockquote><br />Lascivious behavior, then, is full of lust and tends to excite lust.<br /><br />We must consider "lasciviousness" in particular because of the purpose of dancing and especially in its modern forms. It is a biological given that teenagers start to become interested in teenagers of the opposite gender in sexual ways, and societies tend to provide teenagers opportunities to interact with other teenagers to see how they all "measure up". In America, this tends to be done by school dances; in Africa, there will often be tribal get-togethers with ritual dancing. According to biologists, dancing is important to this process because it allows a prospective partner to judge the physical strength, fitness, and physique so as to decide whether they want to help pass on such a one's genes. Dancing, then, has always involved the movement of the body so as to render one attractive to the opposite gender. Dancing is therefore a biological impulse to lead to the fulfillment of other biological impulses; in short, dancing exists to promote lust and desire.<br /><br />While previous generations had dances that were perhaps more "modest" according to modern standards, all stops have been pulled out in school dances today. At school dances across the country, what is being left to the imagination? When such dancing is referred to as "bump 'n grind," what do we think is going on? In large part, modern dancing involves sex-like acts done by (at least somewhat) clothed people while music is playing. If the music was not playing, and the dancers were still dancing in the same way, what would you be thinking that such persons were doing?<br /><br />The conclusion is hard to avoid: teenage dancing, especially modern teenage dancing, is designed to incite lust. Such dancing can be rightly judged as lascivious behavior, and therefore a work of the flesh akin to Galatians 5:19-21. Consider Paul's warning in verse 21: those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom!<br /><br />It is recognized that many teenagers have a hard time understanding this conclusion. Many do not see how dancing is lascivious behavior. They think of such dancing in innocent terms. While it is praiseworthy that so many teenagers are innocent in their understanding, for it means that their eyes have not yet been opened, such does not justify the behavior! Eve, before she ate of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, did not know that she was naked-- she was innocent in terms of lust and shame (Genesis 2:25). Once she ate of that fruit, however, she knew that she was naked and was no longer innocent of lust and shame and felt compelled to cover herself (Genesis 3:7-10). Teenagers, especially those who are sexually pure as they ought to be, are in many ways innocent like Eve. But once the eyes are opened to sex and sexuality, suddenly dancing and what it represents become very clear, just as the nakedness of Eve became clear to her. While many teenagers have difficulties understanding how school dances are lascivious, most twenty-somethings who are married begin to clearly understand how school dances were and are lascivious! We hope and pray that the innocence of teenagers will not compel them to be deceived and do what they ought not!<br /><br />Many teenagers resent having rules made for them and want to be able to make their own decisions; this is an understandable desire considering that stage of life. Unfortunately, despite their profession of having all knowledge, teenagers often do not fully understand the risks involved in many forms of behavior and are thus hindered from making righteous decisions. Please consider this and be honest: why do you want to go to a school dance, if you desire to? Is your desire based upon a holy impulse, on a study of God's Word, or based on your own desire? From where does this desire come?<br /><br />It is very easy to determine whether something is good to do: compare it to the fruit of the Spirit: "Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control" <span style="font-style: italic;">(Galatians 5:22-23)</span>. Does the school dance and its activities correlate with any of these? On the other hand, we have made a strong case that school dances promote lust, the definition of "lasciviousness," which is condemned as a work of the flesh. Remember that Galatians 5:21 establishes that "things like these" are also works of the flesh. Consider Galatians 5:24:<br /><blockquote>And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof.</blockquote>Is this true of you, Christian teenager? Have you crucified the flesh with its lusts? There is no comfort in trying to say that since the Bible does not explicitly condemn dancing that you should go: the Bible is not about telling you every little thing that you cannot do, but provides the way you ought to go and gives you the tools to make the right decision (Hebrews 5:14, 2 Timothy 2:15, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). All the tools at your disposal lead to one conclusion, and one conclusion only.<br /><br />If your parents have established that you cannot go, then to go is sin (Ephesians 6:1-4). If your parents have given you the opportunity to make your own decision, consider what has been said, and realize that you will stand in judgment for your decision (Romans 14:11-12). You can associate with your classmates at other opportunities. You can engage in alternatives to dances that do not promote lascivious behavior. The only reason that you "have" to go to the prom, or to homecoming, is that you are willing to be led by your fleshly desires and submit to them, when instead you ought to crucify them in Christ.<br /><br />It is not an easy decision, and it is hard to see all of your friends participate while you do not. Remember, however, that your eternal reward in Heaven will far surpass the difficulty you experience (2 Corinthians 4:17). Judge righteously!<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />April 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-43613933264540793692010-07-24T10:25:00.003-04:002010-07-24T10:33:12.170-04:00False Prophet in the NewsEven though much of "Christendom" has at least nominally accepted that the end of God's revelation occurred by the end of the first century CE, there has never been a lack of people who would claim that God has spoken to them. The twenty-first century is no exception to this. Recently, Pat Robertson, world-famous for his Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) and his failed 1988 presidential campaign, has yet again claimed that God has spoken to him. Let us consider his message according to the Scriptures and how God has spoken to the prophets of old.<br /><br />The main "message from God" that Robertson supposedly received is that the United States would suffer another terrorist attack, most likely in late 2007 ("Pat Robertson predicts 'mass killing'", AP, 01/03/07). Should we have any reason to believe him?<br /><br />First of all, let us say that it is entirely possible for us to be attacked by terrorists at any time and that God has still not spoken to Pat Robertson. We do not know nor claim to know what will or will not happen in 2007, but as we shall see, it is highly unlikely that any such event will occur because God told Pat Robertson that it would be done.<br /><br />In the Scriptures, God does not predict calamity for calamity's sake. God does not desire to have evil come upon anyone, especially for their sins; God sends calamity so that men will change their ways, as it is written in Jeremiah 18:7-8:<br /><blockquote>At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and to destroy it; if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.<br /><br /></blockquote>This truth is powerfully illustrated in the example of Nineveh in the time of Jonah. God spoke through Jonah that He would destroy the city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). The king and all the people, however, repented of their evil (Jonah 3:5-9), and on account of it, God relented of the disaster (Jonah 3:10).<br /><br />Where is this message in what God has supposedly spoken to Pat Robertson? Is there any hope for America if there is repentance, according to what Robertson has said?<br /><br />Robertson also claims that God has communicated to him that U.S. foreign policy is actually causing Israel to commit "national suicide" and that the U.S. only feigns friendship with Israel (cf. article ibid.). We should not be surprised that Robertson, a premillennialist, would be highly concerned with the nation of Israel, but where in the Scriptures do we see that God is more concerned with physical Israel than with any other nation under Heaven? The Scriptures are clear that God's people are now the spiritual descendants of Abraham (Galatians 4:28), those who are Christians, part of His spiritual Kingdom (John 18:36, Colossians 1:13).<br /><br />Furthermore, as is pointed out, last year Robertson claimed that the US would suffer from great storms and perhaps a tsunami in 2006, which in large did not happen; in previous years, Robertson has repeatedly made grand predictions of President Bush's successes in the name of God that have simply not come to fruition (see article ibid.). Should we believe that Pat Robertson hears from God?<br /><br />Robertson's own words, however, condemn him as being in truth a false prophet, one who does not hear from God. He is quoted as saying the following in the above cited article:<br /><blockquote>"I have a relatively good track record," [Pat Robertson] said. "Sometimes I miss."</blockquote>Sometimes he misses? When he "misses", who is at fault? Was God not clear in His message? Did Robertson not hear it correctly? Did mankind somehow foil God's plan? Shall we believe any of this? Perhaps in this slip of the tongue, if indeed it were a slip, we see the reality of the matter: Pat Robertson is speaking for Pat Robertson, not God. The LORD has not, in truth, spoken to him to convey a message to us.<br /><br />In the days of Jeremiah, there was a prophet named Hananiah who prophesied to the contrary of the message that God gave to Jeremiah (Jeremiah 28:1-4). Jeremiah challenged him, establishing that the prophets of old had predicted doom for idolatrous Judah, and that his words would only be established as true if the events he predicted indeed came to pass (Jeremiah 28:7-9). Because of Hananiah's impiety, daring to speak in the name of the LORD when the LORD had not spoken, he died according to the word of Jeremiah from the LORD (Jeremiah 28:16-17). As it is written in Jeremiah 28:15:<br /><blockquote>Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, "Hear now, Hananiah: the LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie." </blockquote>Many people consider Pat Robertson and his predictions to be a little matter, one of no consequence, just an interesting sideshow to which we ought not pay much attention. In reality, any false prophet gives reason for unbelievers to blaspheme (cf. 1 Peter 3:16), and, as Hananiah, would make the people trust in a lie, perhaps leading to their destruction (2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)! How does God feel about such persons? Let us hear His word again through Jeremiah in Jeremiah 23:30-32:<br /><blockquote>"Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets", saith the LORD, "that steal my words every one from his neighbor. Behold, I am against the prophets," saith the LORD, "that use their tongues, and say, 'He saith'. Behold, I am against them that prophesy lying dreams", saith the LORD, and "do tell them, and cause my people to err by their lies, and by their vain boasting: yet I sent them not, nor commanded them; neither do they profit this people at all," saith the LORD.</blockquote>Pat Robertson and his words are not innocent; he represents one who claims to have heard from the LORD and yet it is made manifest in fact that the LORD has not spoken through him. We have no reason to believe that the LORD is any less against him than He was against those who were before, who would lead Israel astray for their own purposes.<br /><br />Let us continue to hold to the Word of God, trust that God is still in control, and continue to be diligent to test every spirit and everyone who would claim to speak for God (1 John 4:1). Let us speak out and prove the truth of God against the errors of men!<br /><br />Postscript: the error of this "prophecy" is now evident three years later; 2007 went by without any significant terrorist attack in the United States. May God be true, and those who would arrogate to themselves the claim of being His mouthpiece be made liars!<br /><br />Ethan R. Longhenry<br />January 2007Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6287311563659480799.post-57049433686306856542010-07-24T10:19:00.000-04:002010-07-24T10:21:15.474-04:00Soul Savers, Not "Life Savers"It is a common belief today that the church should function as a community relief center. It is the place to go for discount clothing, day care, medical services, or a "hand out" when money gets tight. In the midst of trying to save lives, it seems many have forgotten that saving souls for everlasting life is the true mission of the church.<br /><br />While it is accurate to say that living a godly life generally leads to a good life (Psalm 1), that is not always the case. Frankly, whether or not we are comfortable in this life is not God's greatest concern. It is not as if God wants us to suffer: actually the opposite is true, but problems are just a part of life.<br /><br />Difficulties can be the result of poor decisions on our part, or that of another. God gives us free will, and allows us to decide how we are going to live. Implied in that idea is the fact that we can make bad decisions that bring pain into our lives. These choices that cause some level of suffering may or may not involve sin. If someone loses thousands in the stock market, they likely have not sinned, but they are feeling some pain over their poor investment choices. Complications from a drunk driving accident would be an example of a sin-created problem.<br /><br />Good choices do not always bring about a comfortable life. In fact, Paul told us, "all that would live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" <span style="font-style: italic;">(2 Timothy 3:12)</span>. Doing the right thing has brought about suffering for countless individuals-- even costing some their lives.<br /><br />It is a misconception that God's greatest concern, and the mission of His church, is providing physical comfort in this life. God makes it clear from the book of Proverbs that those who live righteously avoid regular problems that plague the wicked; however, to think that godliness always brings happiness is to ignore the stories in Scripture that teach differently. I do not think Paul was happy about being stoned, or beat with 39 stripes. There is a difference between happiness and joy. Though we may not be happy about specific events in life, we can still have joy. That is why James could say, "count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations" <span style="font-style: italic;">(James 1:2)</span>. It is not that the trial brings pleasure to its sufferer, but through trial faith is made stronger, and hope is made brighter (James 1:3-4).<br /><br />Not too long ago I heard a preacher speak about James chapter one. His thoughts were superb. He noted that James was able to discuss suffering in just three verses because he does not say all the nonsense often said today. His teaching was simple. Problems in life are tests of faith that produce patience. If we are patient through trials we will be made perfect and complete. James reveals to us that our faith matters most to God. Brother Mark Roberts said it this way: "God is more concerned with our character than our comfort."<br /><br />God would rather man live his life in suffering and pain, and die prepared for the judgment, than for man to live in luxury and lose his soul. Remember Jesus' story about the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)?<br /><blockquote>Then said Jesus unto his disciples, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?" <span style="font-style: italic;">(Matthew 16:24-26)</span>.</blockquote><br />God provided the joys of life for us. He wants us to find pleasure in His creation, but the riches of heaven far outweigh this world's passing pleasures.<br /><br />Rather than spending its time, effort and expense on addressing the social ills of the world, the Lord's church needs to fulfill the missions it was established for: Praising God, edifying the saints, and seeking the lost. Money was not the answer for the lame beggar in Acts 3. The spiritually crippled need-- and the church must give them-- the Gospel. The Lord's church needs to busy itself with saving souls, and let other organization worry about improving lives.<br /><br />Brent Moody<br />January 2009Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com0