Is it more Christian to be a socialist or a capitalist?
A Christian argument for socialism would emphasize caring for our neighbors; a Christian argument for capitalism would emphasize the freedom and dignity of individuals.
I'd like your thoughts on whether either of these is right, wrong, or other.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Greek: why bother?
Evangelicals have a fetish for New Testament Greek, and the more I think about it, the less sense that it makes.
Usually, the rational goes something like this: certain ideas just don't come across in the English translation, and so in order to really understand what's being said in the New Testament, one needs to learn the language in which it was written. An English translation misses some of the nuanced meaning of the original Greek. (It's also related to the idea of Innerrancy, which suggests that there are secret codes to be cracked in the jots and the tittles of the original text).
I understand that languages don't translate perfectly, and I'm all for scholarly translation that fleshes out meaning. But I'm just doubtful that my local pastor, who did three semesters of Greek at seminary, can obtain a better translation than that which is already available to me in any regular English language Bible.
The reason for this is because my Evangelical pastor would have to understand NT Greek better than the team of Phd translators who gave me my version of the Bible; and this just can't be the case.
For an example from another context, I took NINE (count 'em) semesters of Spanish in college, and I lived in Spain. I can speak Spanish fairly well. But if I tried to translate the poems of Pablo Neruda for you, it's going to sound bad. It'll sound like the poetry of a 12-year-old, at best.
So this is why I don't understand why people learn Greek in order to interpret the Bible.
I mean, I'm as happy as the next guy that there are "four words for 'love' " in the Bible; but you didn't need to slave over the aorist tense to tell me that; C.S. Lewis covered it pretty good in his book, 'The Four Loves.'
As a side-note, the felt need to learn Greek also plays into a perspective of radical subjectivism and/or cultural relativism because it suggests that a cultural artifact (language) is inscrutable to the outsider. This suggests that truths are not universal, because if they were, they would be translatable to any culture (and therefore language). Personally I am a great believer in transcendent truth, natural law, essentialism, and all things that suggest that the existence of God and God's requirements are written on everyone's heart. Therefore, universal truths will be translatable from any language to any language. The idea that one needs to learn Greek to understand the NT is based on the sense that there are ideas, concepts, etc that are in the Greek that you can't understand in the English. I doubt it.
But, I know there are at least a couple of Greekophiles out there who might be able to dispute this point...
Evangelicals have a fetish for New Testament Greek, and the more I think about it, the less sense that it makes.
Usually, the rational goes something like this: certain ideas just don't come across in the English translation, and so in order to really understand what's being said in the New Testament, one needs to learn the language in which it was written. An English translation misses some of the nuanced meaning of the original Greek. (It's also related to the idea of Innerrancy, which suggests that there are secret codes to be cracked in the jots and the tittles of the original text).
I understand that languages don't translate perfectly, and I'm all for scholarly translation that fleshes out meaning. But I'm just doubtful that my local pastor, who did three semesters of Greek at seminary, can obtain a better translation than that which is already available to me in any regular English language Bible.
The reason for this is because my Evangelical pastor would have to understand NT Greek better than the team of Phd translators who gave me my version of the Bible; and this just can't be the case.
For an example from another context, I took NINE (count 'em) semesters of Spanish in college, and I lived in Spain. I can speak Spanish fairly well. But if I tried to translate the poems of Pablo Neruda for you, it's going to sound bad. It'll sound like the poetry of a 12-year-old, at best.
So this is why I don't understand why people learn Greek in order to interpret the Bible.
I mean, I'm as happy as the next guy that there are "four words for 'love' " in the Bible; but you didn't need to slave over the aorist tense to tell me that; C.S. Lewis covered it pretty good in his book, 'The Four Loves.'
As a side-note, the felt need to learn Greek also plays into a perspective of radical subjectivism and/or cultural relativism because it suggests that a cultural artifact (language) is inscrutable to the outsider. This suggests that truths are not universal, because if they were, they would be translatable to any culture (and therefore language). Personally I am a great believer in transcendent truth, natural law, essentialism, and all things that suggest that the existence of God and God's requirements are written on everyone's heart. Therefore, universal truths will be translatable from any language to any language. The idea that one needs to learn Greek to understand the NT is based on the sense that there are ideas, concepts, etc that are in the Greek that you can't understand in the English. I doubt it.
But, I know there are at least a couple of Greekophiles out there who might be able to dispute this point...
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Against Ministry Gimmicks
I hate it when Christians try to lure non-Christian into the faith with food, folks, and fun. I once heard a minister say to a struggling fellowship that what was really needed to get the group energized was a logo and a rock band. More typically it involves offering free food. Other times it's Christians agonizing over what clever activity they can concoct that would make non-Christians want to attend.
All of these are wrong ways to draw people to Christ.
First, it doesn’t work. The Cross is an offense, and when Christ calls a man, He calls him to die. Nobody’s going take insult and injury for a pony ride.
Second, only the Spirit can draw people. We know this. So what’s the point of drawing people in with gimmicks? If they’re only drawn by the gimmick, then they won’t respond to the Spirit. And if they’re drawn by the Spirit, the gimmick is superfluous.
Third, these efforts distract from the real challenge of getting out and preaching Christ. Instead of taking on the work of testifying to Christ, we plan pizza parties. Our efforts mollify our consciences that tell us we should be shouting the Gospel from the roof tops.
Fourth, it’s vaguely deceptive. “Hey non-believer, why don’t you come to this low-pressure quasi-Christian social event. We’ll watch movies, eat chips, drink cola from 2-liter bottles (cuz we’re cheap)….and then WHAM we’ll sneak up our stealth evangelist ninja on you and KA-BLAMO! You’ll get SAVED!” If we ultimately want people to come to faith in Christ, it doesn’t seem totally honest to pretend otherwise on the front-end. Drawing people by anything other than God is pretending otherwise.
Fifth, when Christ fed people, He did so out of compassion for them. But He explicitly rejected using food to draw followers. Large crowds came to him for another meal after the feeding of a multitude, and instead he preached a bizarre message in which he criticized their coming to him for a meal. This drove away the masses. See John 5 & 6.
What are they teaching our seminarians? A bunch of cheesy marketing is my guess.
It might be argued that these are techniques for being 'all things to all people that we might save some,' but I think instead that these amount to using worldly sales techniques instead of relying on the power of the Holy Spirit and truly embodying godliness oursleves. Further, I bet you can hardly learn me a soul who was saved by a gimmick. But I bet you can learn me a whole bunch of events where you had a buncha Christians milling about, eating pizza and drinking pop, and wondering 'where are the non-Christians? How come they never come to our cheesy events.'
I hate it when Christians try to lure non-Christian into the faith with food, folks, and fun. I once heard a minister say to a struggling fellowship that what was really needed to get the group energized was a logo and a rock band. More typically it involves offering free food. Other times it's Christians agonizing over what clever activity they can concoct that would make non-Christians want to attend.
All of these are wrong ways to draw people to Christ.
First, it doesn’t work. The Cross is an offense, and when Christ calls a man, He calls him to die. Nobody’s going take insult and injury for a pony ride.
Second, only the Spirit can draw people. We know this. So what’s the point of drawing people in with gimmicks? If they’re only drawn by the gimmick, then they won’t respond to the Spirit. And if they’re drawn by the Spirit, the gimmick is superfluous.
Third, these efforts distract from the real challenge of getting out and preaching Christ. Instead of taking on the work of testifying to Christ, we plan pizza parties. Our efforts mollify our consciences that tell us we should be shouting the Gospel from the roof tops.
Fourth, it’s vaguely deceptive. “Hey non-believer, why don’t you come to this low-pressure quasi-Christian social event. We’ll watch movies, eat chips, drink cola from 2-liter bottles (cuz we’re cheap)….and then WHAM we’ll sneak up our stealth evangelist ninja on you and KA-BLAMO! You’ll get SAVED!” If we ultimately want people to come to faith in Christ, it doesn’t seem totally honest to pretend otherwise on the front-end. Drawing people by anything other than God is pretending otherwise.
Fifth, when Christ fed people, He did so out of compassion for them. But He explicitly rejected using food to draw followers. Large crowds came to him for another meal after the feeding of a multitude, and instead he preached a bizarre message in which he criticized their coming to him for a meal. This drove away the masses. See John 5 & 6.
What are they teaching our seminarians? A bunch of cheesy marketing is my guess.
It might be argued that these are techniques for being 'all things to all people that we might save some,' but I think instead that these amount to using worldly sales techniques instead of relying on the power of the Holy Spirit and truly embodying godliness oursleves. Further, I bet you can hardly learn me a soul who was saved by a gimmick. But I bet you can learn me a whole bunch of events where you had a buncha Christians milling about, eating pizza and drinking pop, and wondering 'where are the non-Christians? How come they never come to our cheesy events.'
Monday, October 16, 2006
Fretting sheep; faithful Shepherd
I often worry that I’ve lost my way on my spiritual journey. Much of my time is spent doing things that don’t seem particularly meaningful. Maybe I took a wrong turn somewhere, and God intended me to be somewhere else doing something else. This is a discouraging line of thought, as discouraging as being lost in an unfamiliar city.
But this morning I was reminded that I am not responsible for guiding myself to the right path. That’s God’s job. He is the Shepherd; I am the sheep. The sheep doesn’t choose the means or the ends of his life. No one expects him to do so. The ability and responsibility to do so are the Shepherd’s. And this must be the case with God and us. The most important aspects of the course of our lives are determined by Him, not us. Our responsibility is to obey His guidance, but even in the event that a sheep fails to do this, the Good Shepherd tells us that He would leave the flock and come and find the lost individual.
This thought made me see that I don’t need to stew and worry about whether I’ve taken the right course with my life. The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not be in want. Even if I were lost, He promises to find me and bring me back to the flock. I don’t need to worry about yesterday or tomorrow. All I need to do today is to follow His voice when I hear it.
I often worry that I’ve lost my way on my spiritual journey. Much of my time is spent doing things that don’t seem particularly meaningful. Maybe I took a wrong turn somewhere, and God intended me to be somewhere else doing something else. This is a discouraging line of thought, as discouraging as being lost in an unfamiliar city.
But this morning I was reminded that I am not responsible for guiding myself to the right path. That’s God’s job. He is the Shepherd; I am the sheep. The sheep doesn’t choose the means or the ends of his life. No one expects him to do so. The ability and responsibility to do so are the Shepherd’s. And this must be the case with God and us. The most important aspects of the course of our lives are determined by Him, not us. Our responsibility is to obey His guidance, but even in the event that a sheep fails to do this, the Good Shepherd tells us that He would leave the flock and come and find the lost individual.
This thought made me see that I don’t need to stew and worry about whether I’ve taken the right course with my life. The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not be in want. Even if I were lost, He promises to find me and bring me back to the flock. I don’t need to worry about yesterday or tomorrow. All I need to do today is to follow His voice when I hear it.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Sometimes I felt overwhelmed by all that life entails. I seek solace, but I’m tempted to do so in the wrong places:
I may throw myself against my trials, trying to overcome them by my own strength. But soon I find I’m too weak to do so.
I may seek the repose of sleep, but I awake crabbier, more internally desiccated, and an hour older.
I may lose myself in the escapism of entertainment, but I emerge on the other side still consternated and pained.
I may stimulate myself with food or drink or pleasure, but the result is that though I’ve bloated myself, my hunger and thirst remain.
But then, having exhausted my options, I turn to God. And if I connect with Him in prayer for just 15 minutes, my feelings are made joyful, my mind is restored, my thoughts become clear, and my anxiety is unknotted. Whenever I lack anything, I’m learning that God, and nothing else, will satisfy me.
I may throw myself against my trials, trying to overcome them by my own strength. But soon I find I’m too weak to do so.
I may seek the repose of sleep, but I awake crabbier, more internally desiccated, and an hour older.
I may lose myself in the escapism of entertainment, but I emerge on the other side still consternated and pained.
I may stimulate myself with food or drink or pleasure, but the result is that though I’ve bloated myself, my hunger and thirst remain.
But then, having exhausted my options, I turn to God. And if I connect with Him in prayer for just 15 minutes, my feelings are made joyful, my mind is restored, my thoughts become clear, and my anxiety is unknotted. Whenever I lack anything, I’m learning that God, and nothing else, will satisfy me.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Hasn’t the overall influence of Christianity been negative?
A balanced response to this old question has been given by Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor, Yale University:
Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World.
Wars have often been waged in the name of Christianity. They have attained their most colossal dimensions through weapons and large–scale organization initiated in (nominal) Christendom. Yet from no other source have there come as many and as strong movements to eliminate or regulate war and to ease the suffering brought by war. From its first centuries, the Christian faith has caused many of its adherents to be uneasy about war. It has led minorities to refuse to have any part in it. It has impelled others to seek to limit war by defining what, in their judgment, from the Christian standpoint is a "just war." In the turbulent Middle Ages of Europe it gave rise to the Truce of God and the Peace of God. In a later era it was the main impulse in the formulation of international law. But for it, the League of Nations and the United Nations would not have been. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature.
http://leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/questions.html
A balanced response to this old question has been given by Kenneth Scott Latourette, Sterling Professor, Yale University:
Christianity has been the means of reducing more languages to writing than have all other factors combined. It has created more schools, more theories of education, and more systems than has any other one force. More than any other power in history it has impelled men to fight suffering, whether that suffering has come from disease, war or natural disasters. It has built thousands of hospitals, inspired the emergence of the nursing and medical professions, and furthered movement for public health and the relief and prevention of famine. Although explorations and conquests which were in part its outgrowth led to the enslavement of Africans for the plantations of the Americas, men and women whose consciences were awakened by Christianity and whose wills it nerved brought about the abolition of slavery (in England and America). Men and women similarly moved and sustained wrote into the laws of Spain and Portugal provisions to alleviate the ruthless exploitation of the Indians of the New World.
Wars have often been waged in the name of Christianity. They have attained their most colossal dimensions through weapons and large–scale organization initiated in (nominal) Christendom. Yet from no other source have there come as many and as strong movements to eliminate or regulate war and to ease the suffering brought by war. From its first centuries, the Christian faith has caused many of its adherents to be uneasy about war. It has led minorities to refuse to have any part in it. It has impelled others to seek to limit war by defining what, in their judgment, from the Christian standpoint is a "just war." In the turbulent Middle Ages of Europe it gave rise to the Truce of God and the Peace of God. In a later era it was the main impulse in the formulation of international law. But for it, the League of Nations and the United Nations would not have been. By its name and symbol, the most extensive organization ever created for the relief of the suffering caused by war, the Red Cross, bears witness to its Christian origin. The list might go on indefinitely. It includes many another humanitarian projects and movements, ideals in government, the reform of prisons and the emergence of criminology, great art and architecture, and outstanding literature.
http://leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/docs/questions.html
Monday, October 09, 2006
I can't seem to pray for myself. I feel as if every thing I would say smacks of either subtle pride (Lord, lead me to the great works I am capable of...) or hapless incomprehension (Lord, let me get this job, or do that thing, if its your will, which I have no reason to think it is...or isn't). I feel better about praying for others, which maybe is a hint.
Also, perhaps it represents progress. I used to think that I knew how to pray, that I prayed apt, godly prayers. Perhaps realizing I don't have a clue what I'm doing and that I often shouldn't open my unclean lips is a sign of growth.
Also, perhaps it represents progress. I used to think that I knew how to pray, that I prayed apt, godly prayers. Perhaps realizing I don't have a clue what I'm doing and that I often shouldn't open my unclean lips is a sign of growth.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Should a Christian ever lie?
Key passages:
God hates lying. Proverbs 16:6.
Jesus suggested that it was appropriate to break the "rules" if it involved a greater good or need. Mark 2:23-28 (Jesus' disciples are eating grain on the Sabbath, and Jesus cites David eating the priests' consecrated bread when he and his men were hungry to justify the practice).
I've heard a pastor go so far as to say that if the Nazis came to your door, and you were hiding Jews, you would be obligated as a Christian not to lie about it. I've also read Bonhoeffer say that this thought is 'grotesque,' and that you should tell a 'robust lie.'
Key passages:
God hates lying. Proverbs 16:6.
Jesus suggested that it was appropriate to break the "rules" if it involved a greater good or need. Mark 2:23-28 (Jesus' disciples are eating grain on the Sabbath, and Jesus cites David eating the priests' consecrated bread when he and his men were hungry to justify the practice).
I've heard a pastor go so far as to say that if the Nazis came to your door, and you were hiding Jews, you would be obligated as a Christian not to lie about it. I've also read Bonhoeffer say that this thought is 'grotesque,' and that you should tell a 'robust lie.'
Monday, October 02, 2006
Amazing Grace:
Zechariah 3Clean Garments for the High Priest
1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." Then he said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you."
Some notes:
1. I was amazed to read this passage because despite 10 years of reading the Bible, I have no recollection of ever encountering it.
2. Here, it's the high priest who is clothed in iniquity. This is something like it being the Pope or Billy Graham: all have sinned and fallen short.
3. 'Joshua' here is 'Yeshua,' which of course is where we get 'Jesus.' It seems hard to discount the coincidence.
4. Hebrews 4:15 describes Jesus as a high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses.
Amazing passage:
Zechariah 3Clean Garments for the High Priest
1 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." Then he said to Joshua, "See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put rich garments on you."
Some notes:
1. I was amazed to read this passage because despite 10 years of reading the Bible, I have no recollection of ever encountering it.
2. Here, it's the high priest who is clothed in iniquity. This is something like it being the Pope or Billy Graham: all have sinned and fallen short.
3. 'Joshua' here is 'Yeshua,' which of course is where we get 'Jesus.' It seems hard to discount the coincidence.
4. Hebrews 4:15 describes Jesus as a high priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
