October 2007 Archives

I decided to read through the Gospel of Matthew this week and it's been refreshing to open my Bible again after a too long hiatus. Reading the story of Jesus' birth struck me in a slightly different light than it has before now that I'm a father. First and foremost, it struck me as a particularly brutal and messy thing for an omnipotent God to go through. Having experienced birth first hand I can tell you that birth is easily the bloodiest and goriest thing I've ever experienced.

Next, the clash of culture usually takes my attention, "When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly." (Matthew 1:18b-19) To my western sensibilities that seems backward, wouldn't it shame her more not to marry her? No. Not in the culture of the time. At that time, sex out of wedlock could be a capital offense and obviously Mary had had to have sex outside of wedlock to be pregnant, at least as far as Joseph was concerned. But, rather than prosecute her openly for this betrayal, Joseph was going to call the thing off and let it just be a scandal instead.

However, God intervenes and let's Joseph know that she's not betrayed him, "'Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.'" (v. 20) God sent and angel to let him know that he would have the honor of partaking in this. I don't know how the culture then would have interpreted him continuing to marry her, but I know in my culture (i.e., as Midwestern, conservative evangelical American) it would be an admission that he'd slept with her and the child was his. In a sense, he'd be assuming guilt that wasn't his. Whether that was true in his culture or not, but since it would have been the act of a "just man" to divorce her I have to imagine that would be at least partially true.

The final part of this pericope is one that always causes a little discord within me. Joseph "took his wife, but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus." (vv. 24b-25) Americans have come to take sex for granted. It's treated as just another bodily function, but one that's particularly enjoyable. This is not my view of intercourse and would not have been for Joseph and Mary. If sex is taken in the light the Bible describes it, sex and marriage are the same thing. The "act of marriage" is even a polite euphemism used in some circles (I'm not quite that much of a fuddy duddy). But this means that Joseph and Mary were married by oath, but not by deed until after Jesus was born.

The idea that God would incarnate as a man can be difficult to swallow, even for a Christian whose faith is provided and confirmed by the Holy Spirit. Having witnessed the birth process first hand, it seems appalling, irreverent, horrifying, and more than a little comical that God would choose that messy vehicle to bring his plan to existence. Jesus held the whole nature of God within himself and yet he had to suckle, sleep, poop, and pee like any other baby. On the other hand, who can compare with a God who can simultaneously sustain and control the entire universe and yet humiliate himself to be born as a mere human. The idea fills me with dread when I think about how highly I think of myself and what things I am not willing to do that would be humiliating, but would help others.

I'm taking Todd Stewart's class on Discovering Biblical Christianity at church right now and we had our first class on Sunday. I was a little disappointed at the low attendance, but was pleased with the discussion we had. However, I'm somewhat stunned by the articles that Todd handed out for us to read as homework before the next session.

One was taken from Christianity Today and the other from the Leadership Journal (both published by the same group). I am not personally very familiar with either of these publications, but I am aware that their reputation for reliable evangelical information is not untarnished. However, both of these articles were superb and sound like just the sort of thing I would rant about (though, these were much more reserved in their tone).

The first is titled "Amusing Ourselves on Sunday," which was an editorial posted on Christianity Today October 8, 2007. The article centers around our entertainment culture and how churches no longer seek to change lives as the primary goal, but to sell Jesus as product. This has long been a complaint of mine. I'm not opposed to showing video clips in church, for example, but if you do it so frequently that people are more interested in which movie you're going to bring into the sermon this week than the substance of Christ and Him crucified and resurrected, the church is failing.

The second is titled "iChurch: All We Like Sheep" by Skye Jethani in Leadership Journal (Summer 2006, Vol XXVII, No. 3, Page 28). This article centers around the consumer church. Like the iPod, there are coming new venues for church that essentially allow you to pick your play list and tailor an individual experience. In a certain sense, I suppose, that's very attractive, but the danger is the same as the American church has been suffering for decades: growing individualism at the cost of diminished community. Jethani uses a case study of a couple that left his church because his church no longer offers the right services for their teenagers. He uses that to illustrate how Christian culture is really more oriented around shopping and T-Shirts for Jesus than it is about life-changing personal relationship with Jesus. Ultimately, he concludes, he failed as pastor convince them of the worth in engaging in the community and hopes that the pastors of their next church will do better.

In a sense, both of these articles vindicate Terri and I for choosing to stay with New Hope. We have both been fundamentally at odds with the direction the leadership seemed to be pursuing. However, we felt that it was important to stick with a church unless we had a clear opening to leave and join another community. No such opening has come. It would have been easy to seek Grace Baptist or University Christian since I have friends at both and I believe both of those churches are relative sound and solid. But I just couldn't convince myself that leaving on the basis of my own disagreement when the church we were at was just as sound and solid, just going about things in a way I didn't happen to be happy with.

It's also vindicating in the sense that the church leadership seems to be changing direction in one that would be more in line with my understanding of what a church is to be. I fervently pray that my prayers in this will be answered in that I become myself more in line with God's teaching on the subject and that the church does the same.

I'm very much looking forward to the remainder of this class.

Amen.

Don't tell anyone, but I'm heterosexual, white, male, evangelical, listen to Rush Limbaugh whenever I can, drive a rusty and fuel inefficient pickup, and I'm not vigilant about recycling. I've been around these here Interwebs for a bit and come to find out, I'm not a very popular person. Apparently, I'm a mind-numbed robot for listening to Limbaugh, I'm an oppressor for being white and male, I'm stupid for being an evangelical, I'm probably a homophobe for being heterosexual and evangelical, I'm certainly a fundamentalist whacko, and I'm destroying the environment to boot.

If I were known for publishing harsh language, I'd interject a four letter word here. If I were just talking I probably would. Here's the point: All of you "Holier-Than-Thou's" out there on the Internet and anywhere else can stuff it.

I listen to Rush Limbaugh because he's funny and I get a different point of view to set up against everything else I hear out there. I absolutely do not agree with him on several subjects and I'm no robot. If you want to write off my opinions on that basis, then you're the robot. You're the one who lives by a formula where only one point of view is acceptable and any other shouldn't even be considered.

I've never attempted to oppress anyone. I've recommended people of several different races and of both sexes (and possibly various sexual preferences, I don't usually ask about such things) for jobs I've had influence over in the hiring. I've certainly been friends with people of many different races, religions, genders, and sexual orientations. I even took a Women's Studies course while working on my undergraduate degree and thoroughly enjoyed it.

On the other hand, I absolutely do have my own opinions about what is right and wrong, but I've never managed to "force" those ideas on anyone else. I'm not sure how I can force someone to make up their mind. Just trying to persuade someone doesn't count as foisting my beliefs on others. This is free country and everyone has a right to speak their mind. I'm not going to apologize for sharing mine.

I have two degrees, which doesn't necessarily make me smart, but I'd say that it's evidence that I'm not a complete moron. My coworkers tend to tell me I'm smart, but they could be lying just to make me feel better. On the other hand, I don't think my boss would put up with me if I wasn't smart enough to produce. Christianity isn't a crutch for the dumb or the weak anymore than Atheists are automatically smarter and wiser than everyone else. There have been plenty of very smart people of all religions, it's not about intelligence or wisdom. If you assume that just because I'm a fundie, I must be a dummy, you are the one who is acting dumb or at least ignorant. You have lost your ability to see another perspective and your life is shallower.

The environment thing I just threw in for kicks. No one has ever bothered to convince me that the ecosystem needs saving. Besides, environmentalism is seriously the highest form of hubris I can imagine. The earth is really so important in the universe that we should make sure we don't waste resources or pollute? Humans are so excellent a species that we should worry about saving ourselves? Humans are so omnipotent that we can damage a truly massive environment? (I'm always surprised at how small most people think the earth is.) If someone can present an argument that doesn't sound like it's completely based on humans' thinking extra-highly of ourselves, I'll start paying attention. Not that I'm opposed to responsible use of resources or avoiding pollution for purely selfish reasons, but there's got to be a balance. (Keeping third world countries down in the disease infested, malnourished states they are currently in to save the environment should be criminal, Mr. Gore.)

Anyway, I'm just getting irritated that my opinion and the opinions of others who think like me gets written off as stupid or biased or selfish or unfair just because I or they have an opinion that isn't PC. I'm irritated for my own reasons, but realistically, if you can't listen to someone else's point of view and really try to put yourself in the shoes of someone else, you are an ignorant and weak and shallow person.

I don't change my point of view often, but I do try as best as I can to reevaluate on the basis of my experience and any attempts at persuasion I encounter. This has lead to serious doubts in my self, my faith, my abilities, my comrades, etc., but I like to hope that continually forcing myself to face these doubts and conflicting points of view has made me a stronger person in the end.

Cheers.

Americans are just extremely paranoid. This is even more true when it comes to children. At least once a month a new study comes out showing that something might be bad for us. Butter and fat are bad. Margarine is bad. Saccharine is bad. Aspartame is probably bad. Caffeine is bad. Alcohol is bad. Cough medicine is bad. Anti-depressants are bad. Cub scout badges are bad. Meat containing E. coli is bad.

To make this problem go from bad to worse, we then look to the government to make it better by telling us what we can and can't eat, which medicine we're allowed or not allowed to use, what safety features our cars, car seats, strollers, and everything else must have, etc. As if it weren't enough to be paranoid for ourselves we have to be paranoid on behalf of everyone else.

I believe there are a multitude of reasons for this, but let me outline a few key reasons Americans are so paranoid:

1. We're afraid to die. In a society that no longer accepts cultural norms that were held by Western civilization for centuries, we've lost our faith in God. That doesn't mean we don't believe in God or a god or gods or whatever. It means that we aren't really sure that he, she, or it is really going to let us move on to a happy afterlife. Many Americans cling to life and look at someone like a soldier fighting in Iraq with at least puzzlement and probably much more with scorn that they would take a chance at throwing away their chance at a long life. I'm sure there are some who would prefer a long life of fun to a short life of freedom.
2. We have a lot of free time. Americans and Europeans have more free time than any other culture in the history of earth. We've reached a level of technology whereby we can easily produce a surplus of food without even using all of the arable land. The ancients had no weekends. They worked all the day long every day to survive. The Jews added a single day of rest, but that was not necessarily because they could spare the time. Nowadays most folks have two days off every week and only work an average of 8 hours a day, we build marvelous things that rarely need repair, many people have as much as 4 weeks off from work per year. All this free time gives us time to worry about things and it grants us an especially large amount of time to worry ourselves about others, to become busybodies meddling in the affairs of others.
3. We live a long time. The life span of an American is as long as human life spans have been since before the Flood. Babies and mothers, by and large, survive birth, infancy, and childhood, which wasn't always the case. As such, many people don't even know what death is except possibly in a goldfish or a dog or other pet. Many of us do not know someone who's died for a long time and we usually don't know people who die often until we get much closer to our own. Even 200 years ago, death would have been an ever present reminder of how fragile life really is. Without this reminder, we may know we're going to die, but we can easily ignore it on the emotional level.

As I said, there are a lot of other factors, but I don't really want to drone on. Death is a reality every person faces. Even if science finds a way to eliminate disease, make the body robust to serious accidents, and stop aging, something will get us sooner or later. As the tag line for the Matrix Revolutions stated, "Everything that has a beginning, has an end." You absolutely cannot live forever in this universe.

At the very least, every person should at least be aware they may die and accept it. Not to do so is to live an unhealthy life. If you can't accept the nature of what you are, how can you possibly expect to live your life to your full potential? I hope every American would come to a point like this (though, I'm not nearly naive enough to believe it would actually happen).

This paranoia about death is getting out of hand. It's starting to lead to a restriction of freedom. It's starting even to lead to bad decisions that may even lead to shorter life spans if it is not careful. For example, eliminating products that could save lives because they might also take lives (air bags, medicines, medical treatments, etc.) is not a good idea. A one-size fits all approach to such things can lead to a decrease in the average life span we all hope to see get longer and longer.

Cheers.