Recently I was reading the story of a woman who converted to Christianity. She was gay and discontinued the practice upon converting. Today she is happily married with four children. In responding to the story, one columnist suggested that she did not abandon homosexuality because of her conversion. Rather, she was living out her bisexual preference.
According the Bisexual Resource Center in Boston, “bisexuality is the potential to feel sexually attracted to and engage in sensual or sexual relationships with people of either sex." Interestingly, there are several theories about different models of bisexual behavior. J. R. Little is a psychologist whose extensive research identified at least 13 types of bisexuality.
However, none of Professor Little’s categories defined the experience of former leftist lesbian professor Dr. Rosaria Champagne Butterfield. Did Professor Butterfield transition to heterosexuality because she was bisexual, or because of conversion?
As a professor of English and Women’s Studies at Syracuse University, on the track to becoming a tenured radical, Dr. Butterfield cared about morality, justice and compassion. In her book, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert, she says, “I used my post (as a professor) to advance the understandable allegiances of a leftist lesbian professor. My life was happy, meaningful and full. My partner and I shared many vital interests: AIDS activism, children’s health and literacy and our Unitarian Universalist church, to name a few.”
“I began researching the Religious Right and their politics of hatred against queers like me. To do this, I would need to read the one book that had, in my estimation, gotten so many people off track – the Bible. While on the lookout for some Bible scholar to aid me in my research, in 1997 I launched my first attack on the unholy trinity of Jesus, Republican politics and patriarchy, in the form of an article in the local newspaper about Promise Keepers.”
According to Dr. Butterfield, “the article generated many rejoinders, so many that I kept a Xerox box on each side of my desk – one for hate mail, and the other for fan mail. But one letter I received defied my filing system. It was from the pastor of the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. It was a kind of inquiring letter. Ken Smith encouraged me to explore the kind of questions I admire – How did you arrive at your interpretations? How do you know you are right? Do you believe in God? Ken didn’t argue with my article; rather, he asked me to defend the presuppositions that undergirded it. I didn’t know how to respond to it, so I threw it away.”
“Later that night, I fished it out of the recycling bin and put it back on my desk, where it stared at me for a week. As a postmodern intellectual, I operated from a historical materialist worldview... Ken’s letter punctured the integrity of my research project without him knowing it.”
“With the letter, Ken initiated two years of bringing the church to me, a heathen...He did not mock me. He engaged. So when his letter invited me to get together for dinner, I accepted. My motives at the time were straightforward – surely this will be good for my research.”
“Something else happened. Ken, his wife Floy, and I became friends. They entered my world. They met my friends. We talked openly about sexuality and politics. When we ate together, Ken prayed in a way I had never heard before. His prayers were intimate. He repented of his sin in front of me. He thanked God for all things. Ken’s God was holy and firm, yet full of mercy. And because Ken and Floy did not invite me to church, I knew it was safe to be friends.”
Dr. Butterfield started reading the Bible. “I read the way a glutton devours. I read it many times that first year in multiple translations...I continued reading the Bible, all the while fighting the idea that it was inspired...It overflowed into my world. I fought against it with all my might. Then, one Sunday morning, I rose from the bed of my lesbian lover, and an hour later sat in a pew at the Syracuse Reformed Presbyterian Church. Conspicuous with my butch haircut, I reminded myself that I came to meet God, not fit in.”
Then, “one ordinary day, I came to Jesus, openhanded and naked...Ken was there. Floy was there. The church that had been praying for me for years was there. Jesus triumphed. And I was a broken mess...the voice of God sang a sanguine love song in the rubble of my world. I weakly believed that if Jesus could conquer death, he could make right my world. I drank, tentatively at first, then passionately, of the solace of the Holy Spirit. I rested in private peace, then community, and today in the shelter of a covenant family, where one calls me “wife” and many call me “mother”.”
Dr. Butterfield’s story reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul to the Corinthians. He was itemizing specific negative behaviors with which they were identified. With clarity he stated, “...and that is what some of you were, but you were washed...” (1 Cor. 6:11). This statement was not a description of bisexualism. Like Dr. Butterfield’s story, it was a statement of conversion and its effect on behavior.
Sunday, January 26, 2014
Monday, January 20, 2014
MLK TAUGHT US The Power of Meekness
Some people believe the words power and meekness should never appear in the same sentence. Such persons would very likely describe meekness as weakness. That view of meekness is false and the life of the late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. illustrates that.
From his sermons and his life, Dr. King attempted to demonstrate a biblical understanding of meekness. He believed the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were prescriptive and not merely descriptive. Jesus said, “Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5).
Dr. King understood that Jesus was using language, familiar to His listeners. They knew that meekness was used in the context of trainers who brought wild stallions under control. Although stallions symbolized sheer “horse” power, they could be tamed to behave as gentle animals. Hence, when one thought of meekness, one thought of power under control.
Today, horse power under control is used by physical and occupational therapists. These specialists practice hippotherapy, incorporating the movement of horses into the total care plan of their patients. In essence, controlled power can perform a different kind of powerful service.
While addressing a packed hall at the University of California – Berkley on June 4, 1957, Dr. King chose as his topic: The Power of Nonviolence. Here is a summary of his presentation:
- Non-violence is not a method of cowardice. He stressed that the non-violent resister was just as opposed to evil as the violent resister. However, non-violence should not be confused with stagnant passivity and deadening complacency.
- Non-violence does not seek to humiliate or defeat the opponent but seeks to win his friendship and understanding. The aftermath of nonviolence is reconciliation and the creation of a beloved community.
- A boycott is never an end within itself but merely a means to awaken a sense of shame within the oppressor. The end is reconciliation and redemption.
- The nonviolent resister seeks to attack the evil system rather than the individual who happens to be caught up in the system. For Dr. King, the struggle was between justice and injustice, between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
Dr. King’s display of meekness was honed by his Christian worldview of love - a love that sought nothing in return. He loved his enemies, not because they were likable, but because God loved them. He loved the person who disliked blacks but loathed the system that perpetuated hatred for others.
Dr. King was convinced that only through love one was able to really conquer injustice and violence. He felt the ultimate weakness of violence was a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it was seeking to destroy - instead of diminishing evil, violence multiplied evil.
According to Dr. King, “through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”
Today’s celebration of the birth of Dr. King provides a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the life of a pastor who knew God and sought to live-out his understanding of biblical principles.
Dr. King responded well to a rich heritage of pastoral influences. Hear his words: “I am...the son of a Baptist preacher, the grandson of a Baptist preacher and the great grandson of a Baptist preacher. The Church is my life and I have given my life to the Church.”
Today’s skewed commentaries on the life of Dr. King make very little reference to his pastoral passion. “According to Dr. Lewis Baldwin, Professor of Religious Studies and Director of African American Studies at Vanderbilt University, “Many labels were attached to him during his lifetime - Dr. King was called a civil rights activist, a social activist, a social change agent, and a world figure. But I think he thought of himself first and foremost as a preacher, as a Christian pastor. The pastoral role,” says Baldwin, “was central to everything, virtually everything Dr. King achieved or sought to achieve in the church and in the society as a whole.”
Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Dr. King responded well to the issues of his day. However, many of the issues he faced are no longer central today. We face other critical issues and we are expected to be the agents of meekness to our generation. Unlike Dr. King, I somehow fear, tomorrow’s generation may remember us more for our cowardice than for our courage.
Monday, January 6, 2014
JERUSALEM!
My prediction for 2014 – the city of Jerusalem will be in the news more than any other city in the world. At the moment, Secretary of State John Kerry is on his tenth visit to Jerusalem since assuming office one year ago. Kerry has visited Jerusalem more than any other foreign city since taking office.
What really is so significant about Jerusalem? In his book, The Fight for Jerusalem, Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, makes the point: “No city is more important to the peace of the world than Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times and captured and recaptured 44 times in its long history. Probably film producer Anthony Bourdain was correct when he said, “Jerusalem is easily the most contentious piece of real estate in the world.”
History confirms that King David subdued the Jebusites, the city's Canaanite founders, more than 3,000 years ago. Later, the Babylonians and Romans routed the Jews and Jerusalem. Muslims booted the Byzantines. Christian Crusaders mauled Muslims and were, in turn, tossed out by the Tartars.
The Ottomans followed, then Britain, then Jordan, before finally, in 1967, the city came nearly full circle when Israel annexed East Jerusalem. That sparked another cycle of violence, this time between Israelis and Palestinians.
Unlike many major cities of the world, Jerusalem is not known for any major river or coastline. The city, just about 45 square miles, with some 800,000 people, is actually situated in the heart of the Judean Mountains and is built on a hilltop. It is about the size of the city of Salem in Oregon, which borrowed its name from the biblical idea of peace.
There are no natural resources, no unifying language or attractions that would make the city of Jerusalem particularly popular. Then, what attracts an average of 3.5 million tourists to the city every year? The answer is simple – religion.
Jerusalem is home to some of the holiest sites of the world’s three major religions. The Temple Mount is the most sensitive location. A hilltop platform complex, the thirty-five acre Temple Mount is the former Mount Moriah of 2 Chronicles 3:1. There, the first Temple, built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
The Second Temple was constructed on the same site in 515 BCE, until the Romans demolished it in 70 CE. Despite this history, the Temple Mount is now largely off-limits for organized Jewish prayer. Jewish prayer is instead conducted at the Western Wall, a retaining wall from the Second Temple, located adjacent to and just below the Temple Mount. Although this history is clearly verified in various forms, some revisionists are choosing to deny the history and ultimately Israel’s right to the area.
The Temple Mount is also the third holiest site to Muslims. It is now home to two major Islamic shrines. The first of these, the Dome of the Rock, built in the late seventh century, houses the rock from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven. The second site is the al-Aqsa Mosque, the largest mosque in Jerusalem, completed in the eighth century.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands relatively close to the Temple Mount. The church was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century at Golgotha, the site where it is believed, Jesus was crucified.
So what you may ask - what if three religions want to make claim to the city of Jerusalem? What does that have to do with the prominence of Jerusalem in the news for 2014? Part of that answer has to do with the prominence of religious news from the Middle East and Jerusalem in particular during 2014.
The three major religions of the world, often referred to as the Abrahamic faiths, believe a messiah-like figure will play a major role in bringing about peace in Jerusalem. According to Islam, a messianic figure known as the Mahdi, will appear and establish his headquarters in Jerusalem. Jesus (Isa) will also appear and with the Mahdi, wage war against the Antichrist.
Based on Zechariah 12:2-3, Jews contend that Jerusalem will play a role in end-time prophecy. Among other things, the Prophet Zechariah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.”
When asked to comment on the timing of His return, Jesus said, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20-24).
In essence, the major religions believe that both Jerusalem and a messianic figure will play major roles in the future of the world. Is it just possible, that the present turmoil is indicative of apocalyptic activity? In our quest for peace, I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore that point of view.
What really is so significant about Jerusalem? In his book, The Fight for Jerusalem, Dore Gold, former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations, makes the point: “No city is more important to the peace of the world than Jerusalem.” Jerusalem is one of the oldest cities in the world and has been destroyed twice, besieged 23 times, attacked 52 times and captured and recaptured 44 times in its long history. Probably film producer Anthony Bourdain was correct when he said, “Jerusalem is easily the most contentious piece of real estate in the world.”
History confirms that King David subdued the Jebusites, the city's Canaanite founders, more than 3,000 years ago. Later, the Babylonians and Romans routed the Jews and Jerusalem. Muslims booted the Byzantines. Christian Crusaders mauled Muslims and were, in turn, tossed out by the Tartars.
The Ottomans followed, then Britain, then Jordan, before finally, in 1967, the city came nearly full circle when Israel annexed East Jerusalem. That sparked another cycle of violence, this time between Israelis and Palestinians.
Unlike many major cities of the world, Jerusalem is not known for any major river or coastline. The city, just about 45 square miles, with some 800,000 people, is actually situated in the heart of the Judean Mountains and is built on a hilltop. It is about the size of the city of Salem in Oregon, which borrowed its name from the biblical idea of peace.
There are no natural resources, no unifying language or attractions that would make the city of Jerusalem particularly popular. Then, what attracts an average of 3.5 million tourists to the city every year? The answer is simple – religion.
Jerusalem is home to some of the holiest sites of the world’s three major religions. The Temple Mount is the most sensitive location. A hilltop platform complex, the thirty-five acre Temple Mount is the former Mount Moriah of 2 Chronicles 3:1. There, the first Temple, built by King Solomon was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BCE.
The Second Temple was constructed on the same site in 515 BCE, until the Romans demolished it in 70 CE. Despite this history, the Temple Mount is now largely off-limits for organized Jewish prayer. Jewish prayer is instead conducted at the Western Wall, a retaining wall from the Second Temple, located adjacent to and just below the Temple Mount. Although this history is clearly verified in various forms, some revisionists are choosing to deny the history and ultimately Israel’s right to the area.
The Temple Mount is also the third holiest site to Muslims. It is now home to two major Islamic shrines. The first of these, the Dome of the Rock, built in the late seventh century, houses the rock from which Muhammad is said to have ascended to heaven. The second site is the al-Aqsa Mosque, the largest mosque in Jerusalem, completed in the eighth century.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher stands relatively close to the Temple Mount. The church was originally built by the Roman emperor Constantine in the fourth century at Golgotha, the site where it is believed, Jesus was crucified.
So what you may ask - what if three religions want to make claim to the city of Jerusalem? What does that have to do with the prominence of Jerusalem in the news for 2014? Part of that answer has to do with the prominence of religious news from the Middle East and Jerusalem in particular during 2014.
The three major religions of the world, often referred to as the Abrahamic faiths, believe a messiah-like figure will play a major role in bringing about peace in Jerusalem. According to Islam, a messianic figure known as the Mahdi, will appear and establish his headquarters in Jerusalem. Jesus (Isa) will also appear and with the Mahdi, wage war against the Antichrist.
Based on Zechariah 12:2-3, Jews contend that Jerusalem will play a role in end-time prophecy. Among other things, the Prophet Zechariah quotes the Lord as saying, “I will make Jerusalem an immovable rock for all the nations.”
When asked to comment on the timing of His return, Jesus said, “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near” (Luke 21:20-24).
In essence, the major religions believe that both Jerusalem and a messianic figure will play major roles in the future of the world. Is it just possible, that the present turmoil is indicative of apocalyptic activity? In our quest for peace, I believe it would be irresponsible to ignore that point of view.
Monday, December 30, 2013
I Agree With President Obama
A few days ago comedian Steve Harvey and President Obama had a non-political interview at the White House. It was refreshing to see the President in a non-combative mood.
In discussing his family, the President said he trusts his daughters to have good judgment when it comes to men. “What I’ve told them before is, as long as that young man is showing you respect, and is kind to you, then I’m not going to be hovering over every second. But, I’m counting on you to have the self-respect to make sure that anybody who you’re going out with comes correct. And hopefully they’ve seen how I treat Michelle.”
Mr. President, I strongly agree with you. Actually, I am so much more sensitive to the President’s desire for his daughters as I write this commentary from the home of my daughter in Nashville, hundreds of miles away from my home. My wife and I feel so honored to be hosted by a young woman who we love, very much like the President loves his own daughters, Malia (15 years old) and Sasha (12).
The President’s desire to want the very best for his daughters is most evident. He is concerned about their security. In the interview with Harvey, he quipped that he ran for a second term partly to keep his teenage daughters under constant supervision. “I’ve got men with guns following them around all the time. Hey, this is the main reason I ran for re-election - you know I’m gonna have ‘em covered for most of high school.”
In addition, the President would hope that any suitors would have “seen how I treat Michelle.” The President believes he models a loving relationship before his daughters. Actually, one of the best gifts we as parents can give to our children is the display of a loving relationship.
When parents spend time with each other, nurturing their relationship, resolving conflicts, investing in one another in practical ways, and enjoying one another, children see that they truly love and value one another. This security will increase the peace and joy in the home.
In this and in previous interviews, President Obama naturally refers to potential suitors for his daughters as “young men who show respect and kindness.” Here again, the President must be congratulated on his desire to see his daughters engage in relationships that are natural and are best for their development.
In expressing his desire for what’s best for his daughters, the President was expressing a sensitivity to issues of gender. One’s gender identity is the sense of one’s self as male or female. Gender role refers to the behaviors and desires to act in certain ways that are viewed as masculine and feminine in a particular culture. His position is consistent with history, with nature and science.
The President’s desire for what is best for his daughters is not readily accepted by some social scientists in today’s culture. Such scholars believe our culture labels behaviors as masculine and feminine, “but these behaviors are not necessarily a direct component of gender or gender identity.”
For me, gender and the accompanying behaviors are not determined by society. Gender is a biological, not a sociological construct. The President spoke with logical clarity, so unlike the ambiguity that’s apparent in gender experiments. Under the guise of accommodating bisexualism, some in our culture are confused and vacillate in affirming their own masculinity or femininity. I believe Malia and Sasha are in good hands if their parents continue to expect behaviors that are consistent with their femininity.
The President is correct to want heterosexual relationships for his daughters. Such relationships have always been about bringing men and women together in permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationships.
In their volume, Marriage on Trial, Stanton and Maier make the point: “No human society-not one-has ever embraced homosexual marriage. It is not a part of the tradition of any human culture” (page 22). Such unions have never been regarded as a normal, morally equal part of any society. Non heterosexual unions have been tolerated in some cultures, however, it is historically accurate to say that they have never been taken to be morally equivalent to natural marriage.
So, the President is on the right side of history to want natural relationships for his daughters. The President’s desire for his daughters is seeking to regulate sexuality, bringing gender balance to their relationships and offspring. This arrangement is consistent with the biblical position on family. Different genders allow for complementarity, a critical and historically proven component of healthy families.
In discussing his family, the President said he trusts his daughters to have good judgment when it comes to men. “What I’ve told them before is, as long as that young man is showing you respect, and is kind to you, then I’m not going to be hovering over every second. But, I’m counting on you to have the self-respect to make sure that anybody who you’re going out with comes correct. And hopefully they’ve seen how I treat Michelle.”
Mr. President, I strongly agree with you. Actually, I am so much more sensitive to the President’s desire for his daughters as I write this commentary from the home of my daughter in Nashville, hundreds of miles away from my home. My wife and I feel so honored to be hosted by a young woman who we love, very much like the President loves his own daughters, Malia (15 years old) and Sasha (12).
The President’s desire to want the very best for his daughters is most evident. He is concerned about their security. In the interview with Harvey, he quipped that he ran for a second term partly to keep his teenage daughters under constant supervision. “I’ve got men with guns following them around all the time. Hey, this is the main reason I ran for re-election - you know I’m gonna have ‘em covered for most of high school.”
In addition, the President would hope that any suitors would have “seen how I treat Michelle.” The President believes he models a loving relationship before his daughters. Actually, one of the best gifts we as parents can give to our children is the display of a loving relationship.
When parents spend time with each other, nurturing their relationship, resolving conflicts, investing in one another in practical ways, and enjoying one another, children see that they truly love and value one another. This security will increase the peace and joy in the home.
In this and in previous interviews, President Obama naturally refers to potential suitors for his daughters as “young men who show respect and kindness.” Here again, the President must be congratulated on his desire to see his daughters engage in relationships that are natural and are best for their development.
In expressing his desire for what’s best for his daughters, the President was expressing a sensitivity to issues of gender. One’s gender identity is the sense of one’s self as male or female. Gender role refers to the behaviors and desires to act in certain ways that are viewed as masculine and feminine in a particular culture. His position is consistent with history, with nature and science.
The President’s desire for what is best for his daughters is not readily accepted by some social scientists in today’s culture. Such scholars believe our culture labels behaviors as masculine and feminine, “but these behaviors are not necessarily a direct component of gender or gender identity.”
For me, gender and the accompanying behaviors are not determined by society. Gender is a biological, not a sociological construct. The President spoke with logical clarity, so unlike the ambiguity that’s apparent in gender experiments. Under the guise of accommodating bisexualism, some in our culture are confused and vacillate in affirming their own masculinity or femininity. I believe Malia and Sasha are in good hands if their parents continue to expect behaviors that are consistent with their femininity.
The President is correct to want heterosexual relationships for his daughters. Such relationships have always been about bringing men and women together in permanent, exclusive domestic and sexual relationships.
In their volume, Marriage on Trial, Stanton and Maier make the point: “No human society-not one-has ever embraced homosexual marriage. It is not a part of the tradition of any human culture” (page 22). Such unions have never been regarded as a normal, morally equal part of any society. Non heterosexual unions have been tolerated in some cultures, however, it is historically accurate to say that they have never been taken to be morally equivalent to natural marriage.
So, the President is on the right side of history to want natural relationships for his daughters. The President’s desire for his daughters is seeking to regulate sexuality, bringing gender balance to their relationships and offspring. This arrangement is consistent with the biblical position on family. Different genders allow for complementarity, a critical and historically proven component of healthy families.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
VIRGIN BIRTH: No Big Thing?
Christianity is not unique in claiming that her founder was born of a virgin. A Buddhist legend claims that Siddhartha Gautama’s (Buddha) mother, Maya, dreamt that a white elephant entered her side and that he was born miraculously from her side.
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to “big-up” the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
When one chooses to speculate on the immaculate conception of Mary, one loses sight of the depth and uniqueness of the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, to merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. And worse yet, to conclude that this remarkable story is a biblical attempt to glorify single-motherhood is tantamount to blasphemy.
Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
It is a joy to be back following another long but necessary hiatus. Thanks for your interest and concerns. Have a Blessed Christmas!
Egyptian mythology contends that the goddess Isis was a virgin when she gave birth to the god Horus. In Tibet, it is believed that goddess Indra’s mother was a virgin. Some allege the same can be said of the Greek god Adonis or of Krishna, a Hindu god.
At least one New Testament scholar shares the view that Luke presented the story of Jesus’ birth in a way that would make sense to a pagan reader. “Luke knew,” this scholar contends, “that his readers were conversant with tales of other divine beings who walked the face of the earth, other heroes and demigods who were born of the union of a mortal with a god.”
This historical backdrop leaves us with a critical question – does the birth of Jesus differ from other claims of virgin birth? I believe there are at least three reasons why Luke’s story of Jesus’ virgin birth is noticeably different.
Unlike other religions, Luke provided a story that was consistent with history, not legend. A legend is normally viewed as a story that evolved from within a community over a significant period of time. With time, such stories are believed to be factual, even though there is no tangible evidence to support that view.
History on the other hand conveys information that can be verified either through artifacts or credible documentation. In his opening verses, Luke establishes that this was done. (Luke 1:1-4). Like other Greco-Roman historians, Luke refers to the sources that were at his disposal and declares that upon careful examination of those sources, he was convinced that they were reliable.
That was the context in which Luke presented the story of the virgin birth of Jesus. No other religious claim of virgin birth matches Luke’s standard of historiography.
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with the deity of Jesus. To claim virgin birth is to make claim to an unnatural birth. With Jesus, it was more than just a claim – He lived an unnatural life. It was because of His claim of living unnaturally, He was eventually accused of blasphemy (The act of claiming for oneself the attributes and rights of God).
Interestingly, although it is alleged that the Buddha was born miraculously (of virgin birth), he was known to be “a practical person”. As he sensed his impending death, “he called his disciples and reminded them that everything must die.” So unlike Jesus who said, “Destroy this temple (my body), and I will raise it again in three days” (John 2:19).
Unlike other religions, the virgin birth of Jesus is consistent with Bible prophecy. In every other virgin birth claim that is made, no claim precedes the birth. Claims were often made by followers, following the birth and in an attempt to “big-up” the person born.
Some 700 years before the birth of Jesus, the prophet Isaiah made this prediction of the coming Messiah: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). Matthew in his gospel, was convinced that Isaiah was referring to the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23).
Both Old and New Testament texts are clear - the biblical writers were not referring to unusual births like Isaac, Samuel or John the Baptist. There was something unique, not unusual, about the birth of Jesus. Ask Simeon, the priest who was on duty when Joseph and Mary went to dedicate baby Jesus.
In Simeon’s song (Nunc Dimittis), the priest was convinced that the child he was holding was no ordinary baby. In keeping with God’s promise to him that he would not die before seeing the Messiah, Simeon declared, “Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, You now dismiss your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen Your salvation...” (Luke 2:29-30).
When one chooses to speculate on the immaculate conception of Mary, one loses sight of the depth and uniqueness of the virgin birth of Jesus. In addition, to merely see the birth in the context of existing pagan traditions is a disservice to the honor that only Jesus deserves. And worse yet, to conclude that this remarkable story is a biblical attempt to glorify single-motherhood is tantamount to blasphemy.
Amidst the noises during this festive season, please make some time to reexamine what Simeon the priest discovered – “...my eyes have seen Your salvation...”
It is a joy to be back following another long but necessary hiatus. Thanks for your interest and concerns. Have a Blessed Christmas!
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Who Shut Down The Government?
Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible for shutting down the government. Both parties are intending to get political mileage from the partial closure. How disgusting!
Originally, I was preparing to use this commentary to discuss the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I believe the Act is a noble attempt to provide health care across America. However, the nobility of the move has been overshadowed by vigorous arguments about the role of government.
Similar arguments prevailed in 1995, when the government was shut down under the leadership of President Bill Clinton. The vitriolic language was no different. However, President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich negotiated vigorously and struck several compromises. That tone of compromise is sadly lacking in Washington today.
For a moment, let us examine the response of government to shut downs under Presidents Clinton and Obama. War Memorials were kept open during the 1995 government shutdowns. However, under President Obama, the decision to barricade the Lincoln Memorial marks the first time in its history the memorial has been totally off limits to visitors during a shutdown.
Also, during the Clinton-era shutdown, World War II veterans kept the Pearl Harbor memorial open. The Associated Press on January 01, 1996, commented that “despite the federal government shutdown, tourists are still getting expert commentary about the World War II memorial at Pearl Harbor.” Administrators felt that it was their way of helping to preserve the history of the place.
That was not what prevailed last week. Barricades went up in national parks across Washington, D.C., including the Lincoln Memorial. Popular Washington spots such as the World War II memorial are now guarded by more security personnel than they are during normal operations, while federal employees have been dispatched to put up barricades on capital bike paths and other public grounds that are not usually patrolled.
During this government shutdown, the Obama administration has forced the closure of privately owned parks, stoking calls from lawyers for park owners to take legal action against the federal government.
According to Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “as a lawyer who once worked for the government, I assume there is no legal authority for this because these private tourist attractions were not shut down in prior ‘government shutdowns,’ even under Bill Clinton, who understood how to play political hardball.”
Here is a classic example of government shutdown:
Virginia’s historic Claude Moore Colonial Farm was closed by the National Park Service, despite not being financially supported by the Service or using any agency personnel; and despite the fact that the park remained open during the Clinton era government shutdown in 1995.
According to Managing Director Anna Eberly, “for the first time in forty years, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally succeeded in closing the Farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the Farm had always been exempted since the government provided no staff or resources to operate the Farm.”
Eberly went on to say that “the government sent the Park Police over to remove her staff and volunteers from the property while they were trying to set up for an event.”
In this government shutdown, the government is obviously shutting down public and privately-run facilities that have never been shut down in any previous government shut-down. Privately-run tourist operations that cost the government nothing should remain open. According to one analyst, “this is grotesque political theater.”
Although not as overt as President Obama’s administration, Republicans are equally responsible for contributing to this government shutdown and charade of compassion. However, as the governing party, the Obama administration must take primary responsibility.
The Bible teaches that governmental authority is to protect the poor in particular. Prophets were consistent and adamant in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and frequently followed their statements by requiring governments to act justly. Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well." The same cannot be said of today’s America.
In discussing the role of government, the New Testament refers to restraining evil, punishing evil doers and rewarding good behavior (Romans 13:4). The text contends, civil authority is designed to be "God's servant for your good.” Or, what we call "the common good" – that’s good governance.
Originally, I was preparing to use this commentary to discuss the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare). I believe the Act is a noble attempt to provide health care across America. However, the nobility of the move has been overshadowed by vigorous arguments about the role of government.
Similar arguments prevailed in 1995, when the government was shut down under the leadership of President Bill Clinton. The vitriolic language was no different. However, President Bill Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich negotiated vigorously and struck several compromises. That tone of compromise is sadly lacking in Washington today.
For a moment, let us examine the response of government to shut downs under Presidents Clinton and Obama. War Memorials were kept open during the 1995 government shutdowns. However, under President Obama, the decision to barricade the Lincoln Memorial marks the first time in its history the memorial has been totally off limits to visitors during a shutdown.
Also, during the Clinton-era shutdown, World War II veterans kept the Pearl Harbor memorial open. The Associated Press on January 01, 1996, commented that “despite the federal government shutdown, tourists are still getting expert commentary about the World War II memorial at Pearl Harbor.” Administrators felt that it was their way of helping to preserve the history of the place.
That was not what prevailed last week. Barricades went up in national parks across Washington, D.C., including the Lincoln Memorial. Popular Washington spots such as the World War II memorial are now guarded by more security personnel than they are during normal operations, while federal employees have been dispatched to put up barricades on capital bike paths and other public grounds that are not usually patrolled.
During this government shutdown, the Obama administration has forced the closure of privately owned parks, stoking calls from lawyers for park owners to take legal action against the federal government.
According to Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, “as a lawyer who once worked for the government, I assume there is no legal authority for this because these private tourist attractions were not shut down in prior ‘government shutdowns,’ even under Bill Clinton, who understood how to play political hardball.”
Here is a classic example of government shutdown:
Virginia’s historic Claude Moore Colonial Farm was closed by the National Park Service, despite not being financially supported by the Service or using any agency personnel; and despite the fact that the park remained open during the Clinton era government shutdown in 1995.
According to Managing Director Anna Eberly, “for the first time in forty years, the National Park Service (NPS) has finally succeeded in closing the Farm down to the public. In previous budget dramas, the Farm had always been exempted since the government provided no staff or resources to operate the Farm.”
Eberly went on to say that “the government sent the Park Police over to remove her staff and volunteers from the property while they were trying to set up for an event.”
In this government shutdown, the government is obviously shutting down public and privately-run facilities that have never been shut down in any previous government shut-down. Privately-run tourist operations that cost the government nothing should remain open. According to one analyst, “this is grotesque political theater.”
Although not as overt as President Obama’s administration, Republicans are equally responsible for contributing to this government shutdown and charade of compassion. However, as the governing party, the Obama administration must take primary responsibility.
The Bible teaches that governmental authority is to protect the poor in particular. Prophets were consistent and adamant in their condemnation of injustice to the poor, and frequently followed their statements by requiring governments to act justly. Jeremiah, speaking of King Josiah, said, "He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well." The same cannot be said of today’s America.
In discussing the role of government, the New Testament refers to restraining evil, punishing evil doers and rewarding good behavior (Romans 13:4). The text contends, civil authority is designed to be "God's servant for your good.” Or, what we call "the common good" – that’s good governance.
Monday, September 30, 2013
“PSYCHIC GUILTY!”
Jurors took just five hours to find Rose Marks guilty of masterminding a $25 million fraud. Marks told clients of her psychic business that she could foresee the future, fix the past and even control the Internal Revenue Service.
The four-week trial in South Florida featured bizarre testimony from former clients, including best-selling romance novelist Jude Deveraux, who testified that Marks and her family exploited their vulnerabilities, and their religious and spiritual beliefs, to fleece them.
The jury found 62-year old Marks guilty on 14 charges, including fraud, filing false tax returns and money-laundering conspiracies. Bond was refused and Marks was imprisoned, pending sentencing on December 09. Prosecutors told South Florida Sentinel that Marks can face up to 20 years in prison.
Deveraux, who was swindled as much as $20 million, said she went to Marks to help her get out of an abusive marriage and continued seeing her for 17 years through a series of crises, including failed relationships, several miscarriages and the accidental death of her eight-year old grandson. Following the trial Deveraux said to a reporter concerning anyone in a similar vulnerable position, “Reach out to your friends, get professional help... don’t go to a psychic.”
Upon hearing the verdict, Marks’ family members were shocked to witness the demise of the family matriarch. One family member threw a Bible in the courtroom, yelling, “I hate this Bible...I don’t want this Bible anymore.”
That behavior would seem to suggest that the Bible played a role in the family’s psychic practices. I would really like to see where in the Bible the family found endorsement for their fraudulent practices. Unfortunately, the Marks’ family will not be the last group to use the Bible to fleece others.
Nostradamus (16th century French psychic), along with clairvoyants like Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce, mediums, spiritists, and others, often make remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy. Such levels of accuracy could not satisfy the standards set for biblical prophecy.
Some scholars believe approximately 2,500 predictive prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible. Each of these prophecies must satisfy a 100% standard of accuracy set in the Old Testament: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22).
Biblical predictive prophecy can be defined as “a declaration of future events, such as no human wisdom or forecast is sufficient to make - depending on a knowledge of the innumerable contingencies of human affairs, which belongs exclusively to the omniscience of God; so that from its very nature, prophecy must be divine revelation.”
Biblical prophecy must possess sufficient precision so as to be capable of verification by means of the fulfillment. Some Christian researchers believe some 75 to 80% of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, meeting the 100% standard of verification. People are named before birth, kingdoms are outlined before their historical existence and the outcome of battles have been announced before the wars began.
In interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Daniel predicted three kingdoms that would succeed Babylon over a period of hundreds of years. Today we can confirm from non-biblical history, that Daniel was accurate in describing the kingdoms of Medo-Persia, the Greeks and the Romans.
In the New Testament, Jesus predicted that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:2). Based on the date of the writing of Mark’s gospel, we know that Jesus’ prediction was documented before the Temple was actually destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. In other words, within 40 years His prediction was fulfilled to 100% accuracy.
Furthermore, unlike the Marks’ family, biblical prophecy was never intended for the benefit of the prophet. The actual meaning of a prophet is “one who speaks on God’s behalf.” In other words, the prophet never spoke on his own behalf and for his own benefit. Peter, a disciple of Jesus understood this when he wrote, “...that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).
For this reason, it is safe to conclude, even when the Bible is used, much of what is predicted today, does not meet the standard of 100% accuracy, and should not be considered to be biblical prophecy.
The four-week trial in South Florida featured bizarre testimony from former clients, including best-selling romance novelist Jude Deveraux, who testified that Marks and her family exploited their vulnerabilities, and their religious and spiritual beliefs, to fleece them.
The jury found 62-year old Marks guilty on 14 charges, including fraud, filing false tax returns and money-laundering conspiracies. Bond was refused and Marks was imprisoned, pending sentencing on December 09. Prosecutors told South Florida Sentinel that Marks can face up to 20 years in prison.
Deveraux, who was swindled as much as $20 million, said she went to Marks to help her get out of an abusive marriage and continued seeing her for 17 years through a series of crises, including failed relationships, several miscarriages and the accidental death of her eight-year old grandson. Following the trial Deveraux said to a reporter concerning anyone in a similar vulnerable position, “Reach out to your friends, get professional help... don’t go to a psychic.”
Upon hearing the verdict, Marks’ family members were shocked to witness the demise of the family matriarch. One family member threw a Bible in the courtroom, yelling, “I hate this Bible...I don’t want this Bible anymore.”
That behavior would seem to suggest that the Bible played a role in the family’s psychic practices. I would really like to see where in the Bible the family found endorsement for their fraudulent practices. Unfortunately, the Marks’ family will not be the last group to use the Bible to fleece others.
Nostradamus (16th century French psychic), along with clairvoyants like Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce, mediums, spiritists, and others, often make remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy. Such levels of accuracy could not satisfy the standards set for biblical prophecy.
Some scholars believe approximately 2,500 predictive prophecies appear in the pages of the Bible. Each of these prophecies must satisfy a 100% standard of accuracy set in the Old Testament: "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him (Deuteronomy 18:22).
Biblical predictive prophecy can be defined as “a declaration of future events, such as no human wisdom or forecast is sufficient to make - depending on a knowledge of the innumerable contingencies of human affairs, which belongs exclusively to the omniscience of God; so that from its very nature, prophecy must be divine revelation.”
Biblical prophecy must possess sufficient precision so as to be capable of verification by means of the fulfillment. Some Christian researchers believe some 75 to 80% of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled, meeting the 100% standard of verification. People are named before birth, kingdoms are outlined before their historical existence and the outcome of battles have been announced before the wars began.
In interpreting the dream of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Daniel predicted three kingdoms that would succeed Babylon over a period of hundreds of years. Today we can confirm from non-biblical history, that Daniel was accurate in describing the kingdoms of Medo-Persia, the Greeks and the Romans.
In the New Testament, Jesus predicted that the Jewish Temple would be destroyed (Mark 13:2). Based on the date of the writing of Mark’s gospel, we know that Jesus’ prediction was documented before the Temple was actually destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. In other words, within 40 years His prediction was fulfilled to 100% accuracy.
Furthermore, unlike the Marks’ family, biblical prophecy was never intended for the benefit of the prophet. The actual meaning of a prophet is “one who speaks on God’s behalf.” In other words, the prophet never spoke on his own behalf and for his own benefit. Peter, a disciple of Jesus understood this when he wrote, “...that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).
For this reason, it is safe to conclude, even when the Bible is used, much of what is predicted today, does not meet the standard of 100% accuracy, and should not be considered to be biblical prophecy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)