Tentpegs

When I started this series, I thought it might struggle to get to 50 questions before I shut down this blog and went on with other things in my life. I am stunned that it continues to bring in questions (tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com) after all this time. Today’s question is really my re-phrasing and distilling of a long email I got from a questioner who is in discussion with a good friend of his. I thought the issue was interesting enough to share.

A lot of people deny the continued existence of the person after death, unless there is some form of special resurrection. When I bring up the case of Lazarus and the woman of Endor, they say those are just literary devices or parables. Really?

I’ve had the same thing happen to me quite a few times. Jehovah’s Witnesses are taught that the story of Lazarus was just a parable. When you die, they say, you are dead like Rover; you’re dead all over. If you have been righteous, God may raise you up in a spirit body (they also claim Jesus’ physical body was never raised). This causes them problems with Lazarus so they write it off as a parable.

Jesus certainly taught in parables, but he usually let them know it WAS a parable. When he spoke of Lazarus, however, he said “there was a man named Lazarus.” Two things leap out here if we are paying attention: instead of saying this was a parable, he said there was a man… as if this was a story he knew about personally. Second, he named the character of Lazarus, something he never does in parables. Taken the passage as read, without preconceptions, we would have to say it looks like Jesus is speaking of a real incident he knew about; something God could see that man could not. When we compare and contrast parables and true stories, this one doesn’t bear the marks of a parable.

The woman of Endor is a different issue and can only be called — if we are honest — problematical at worst, odd at best. The story is in 1 Samuel 28. Saul had been on the outs with God for some time by this point. He saw the Philistines make camp at Shunem, preparing to attack him and his army and he became very afraid. He decided it was time to talk to God again but God was done with him and didn’t reply. Saul asked for an answer in dreams, in signs, or words but… nothing. Rather than waiting on the Lord or trying to parlay with the Philistines, he sent his servants to find a woman in Endor who was known for being able to speak with the dead. Some versions call her a medium while others use the more technically literal translation and say she “had a familiar spirit.” That phrase alludes to a spirit that is known to her and who knows her. In other words, the woman had a demon.

Could she talk to the dead? I very much doubt that. Saul disguises himself and takes a couple of men with him to visit the woman. He asks her to bring up a spirit for her and tells her he will give her the name of the specific spirit he wants brought up. She is naturally suspicious of him and tells him why: King Saul has ordered people like her to be put to death. Is this a trap, she asks? Saul allays her fears by swearing the highest oath he or any Jew could make: “As surely as the Lord lives, you will not be punished by this.”

She seems to have then started her spiel, perhaps the whole shebang with arms waving, incantations, and fire because she next asks him who he wants brought up, he names Samuel, and Samuel shows up immediately. She then freaks, to put it mildly. This would indicate to me that perhaps she really didn’t talk to the dead after all. Perhaps, like all those mediums and spiritualists opposed by Houdini and embraced by Conan Doyle, she was a fake who made money off of gullible folk. When a real… uh… live dead person showed up, no one was more surprised than she. Some, however, read this differently. They believe she only became frightened when she saw Samuel pop up because, somehow, that revealed that she was in mortal danger. Their thinking goes: Samuel was a voice of the God who ordered all witches and mediums killed and now he has shown up!

Samuel gives Saul very bad news indeed but that isn’t the point of this discussion. We wonder: is this real? Did Samuel really pop back into this world for a moment to give Saul a message from or about God? Before we dismiss this as a parable we need to remember that it, like the story of Lazarus, bears no markers indicating it is a parable. It is in the middle of a historical treatise and it sounds like history. We also need to remember that if we don’t automatically dismiss the idea of a person surviving their death, this story gives us little or no problem. Moses and Elijah showed up with Jesus to help him prepare for his approaching death. He spoke to them and they with him. They weren’t literary devises but known individuals acting as living beings would act.

Some try to get around this whole thing and say the woman didn’t call up Samuel at all but a demon who pretended to be Samuel. I’ve never met someone who says this who isn’t also convinced that we are dead like Rover when we die. There is no reason to believe that this was a demon in a Samuel costume unless you are already convinced that Samuel was completely and utterly irretrievable. I’ve even heard them say “see, she calls him up from the grave, not down from heaven” which shows a stunning and terrible lack of knowledge on how the ancient world used those terms.

So does this story encourage us to go outside the boundary lines and ask mediums for information? Not even a little bit. Note that Samuel gives Saul no real new information. What he delivered was just a repeat of the sentence of doom and defeat that Samuel had already given Saul from God before the prophet passed away. Saul already knew his fate; this incident just showed him — and us — that trying to go outside of God’s channels to get more information than God is willing to give us is a futile exercise bound to end in despair.

This one is a complete change of pace. Wow — lots of posts here this week. I’ll give you a few days to catch up and comment.

I am a preacher in my early 50’s. I do not use power point, although I have enjoyed many lessons of others who do use it. I have been asked to consider how people today are learning through many different mediums other than simply didactic style preaching. Most of my preaching has always been expository, (some suppository, but I won’t go into that.) Are the ways we learned to preach in the last half of the last century becoming obsolete, and are all people really processing information entirely different than we (my generation) did growing up? I have read recent critiques of the use of power point in Sunday morning sermons and many suggest they cause the sermon to lose much of it’s passion. They say it becomes more like a class, less like an appeal from Heaven. I want to be true to an apostolic style (if it exists) however, I do not want to encourage minds to wander when God’s word could be presented more effectively. Do I need to re-tool? I am not asking about Bible classes (we use tons of video of all kinds in classes) – only the sermon to the general assembly in traditional church auditoriums.

I think that those who listen to sermons might have more insight than I do. I’m usually on the other side of the microphone. Still, learning styles have changed. If you don’t believe that, read a sermon by George Whitefield or Alexander Campbell and see if you think it would be effective in a normal congregation. One or two might be ecstatic at the lesson but the rest would be lost early on.

Is Powerpoint the answer? Not for most of us. “Death by Powerpoint” is a real problem. So many poorly done Powerpoint (or Mediashout) presentations have numbed a lot of our people to its appeal. I use it sparingly. I used to put up all the scriptures but we are now trying to get people to use their Bibles (and we have tables with Bibles on them as people enter so they can borrow one). I now primarily use it when I need some eye candy — some religious art, an aerial view of some geographical area, etc. Otherwise, I use narrative and story to get my point across. We save most of the expository work for Bible classes (what we call “time for meat on the table”).

The sermon must now be broken into bits that re-engage the fleeting imaginations and concentrations of the audience. They are a tuned in people who are used to texting while watching TV while talking to their friends. Sitting still, looking forward — and slightly up, while listening is just not the best way to process. Neither is it the way most people went to church in the early centuries before the government controlled/approved church was established. According to the few sources I’ve seen, eyewitnesses to our worship in the first two centuries reported a give and take service where a variety of people shared stories, reminiscences, songs, and scriptures and where active requests for help were made. Our service looks a lot more like a Catholic service than it does a first century service, in my humble opinion.

If the sermon is engaging, the subject vital and relevant, and the minister personable and passionate about his subject, it is hard to fail. Professorial lecture time — again, while attractive to some — has lost its power in most settings. Notice that even classes have fewer teachers and more “facilitators.” Sermons need to call people to action and also invite them into interaction with the speaker and the subject alike. I use humor, stories, and frequent switching in styles to keep the attention of my audience. Plus, I preach from the overflow of the Spirit and my study. That allows me to share with them the excitement I find when I learn from the Lord something I need in my life.

I am sure others have a lot they want to say. So… say it… and be nice.

I’m trying to post a few quickly to get my readers back to speed. Now that my travel schedule has slowed down, expect to see a couple posts a week here… as long as the questions come in.

I was having a discussion with my mother about what is essential to the Christian faith that unites us. We’ve been talking about where do you draw the line on questionable beliefs. It’s been an eye opening discussion to say the least!

We read a passage in Hebrews 6:1-2 that is quoted below. I understand the ideas such as repentance, faith and baptism, but in that passage the writer discusses “laying on of hands.” Could you shed some insight as to what this means? Is it physical touching? Gift sharing? Fellowship? What?

There are two questions here and I feel more confident with the second than the first. The question “What is essential to the Christian faith?” is one that has engaged greater minds than mine for the last two thousand years. Let me be plain: I cannot answer this for you. What I CAN do is tell you how I deal with this issue and, then, invite you to work this out for yourself in prayer and study.

If a person believes that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, that is enough for me to begin fellowship with them. From then on, we have enough to work with. It is not my job to declare them “saved” or “lost.” I am required to treat them with kindness as a fellow believer. If we are both truly dedicated to Christ, then we will most probably find quite a few other things in common. Sure, we will also find things on which we disagree. However, as soon as the discussion gets hot, we need to retreat to our common belief in Christ and then work — slowly — our way from there again.

People ask how I can be in fellowship with someone who, for example, believes the Pope has spiritual authority or, perhaps, doesn’t believe that baptism is for the remission of sins. The answer is that I am in various degrees of fellowship with everyone I meet. For some, we only agree on one thing such as “drive on the right side of the road.” For others, it is as if we were separated at birth. With my wife, I am united on enough (the meaning of covenant, mutual respect, admiration, and love) that what we disagree about (NCIS Los Angeles, art, figure skating, the need for more guitars) is entirely workable. Nowhere does God say we can only fellowship those who are 100% right. Had He done so, no one would ever be in fellowship.

When in doubt: love.

As for the laying on of hands, that was — and remains — one of the oldest signs of blessing. Fathers used it to pass along blessings to their sons. The apostles used it to pass on spiritual gifts. Elders used it to commission missionaries and deacons. As for why it was included in that list, I would venture to say it was because it was considered a basic thing that Christians did — just like they are baptized and they believe. Perhaps the writer was saying there comes a time when we need to BE the blessing rather than just talk about them.

Two unique questions came in recently from my most prolific questioner. I think they will encourage some lively discussion. Keep it nice.

I know that when I was very young I thought that the soul started in heaven, came down and became a part of a baby, and then went back up to heaven when the person died. I know this is not a Biblical idea at all, so where does it come from? Since the soul doesn’t wait for our birth in heaven is it created specially by God for each person (meaning special creation is occurring for each conception), or is the soul somehow carried by the DNA from the mother and father?

The idea that our soul is pre-existent is a common one. Everyone from Hindus to Greek philosophers posited the eternal existence of the soul. Perhaps, a skeptic would say, that reveals how much we really, really want to believe that the universe cannot “do” without us. I have read quite a bit of interesting stuff on this, but everything I have comes from non-Christian sources. That opens up a very interesting question: where were we before we were born?

God tells Jeremiah that before he was born, God knew him. The word for “knew” there doesn’t mean that they went out for ice cream together or said hello in the hallway. No, it means a deeper knowledge of the person Jeremiah was and the role he was to play. God continues to say he formed him, ordained him, and gave him a job — all before his birth. David speaks to this in Psalm 139 when he says that before we were born God saw our unformed body. David says that He knit us together in our mother’s womb and wrote a book about all of our days before one of them came to be.

Some interpret this as eternal existence, but that isn’t necessary and it seems to contradict other scriptures if we interpret these passages that way. Others see David’s “book” as proof that everything we ever do has been written about before we were born. They are not only predestinational, but fatalistic. I would suggest that the book in Psalm 139 is similar to the baby books and plans we make when we know that a baby is on the way. God has plans and dreams for us but we get a huge say in whether or not those dreams and plans come to be. For those who have a lot of time to kill and who want to investigate that further, go to www.rochestercoc.org and listen to the “God at War” series (the title was taken from Gregory Boyd’s book as was a lot of the material).

My simplest answer to “where were we before we were born?” I usually reply, “In the mind of God.” That seems to deal fairly with Jeremiah and David and it squares with what I know of reality and God.

Is the soul a special creation that takes place at each birth or is the soul a function of DNA? You can do a search here and see what I’ve written about abortion before. I have no desire to get back into that as my position is not one that makes left or right very happy. Still, in the discussions we had on that topic, quite a few of us provided a lot of scripture to indicate that we believe the soul is a gift of God given to us when we first breathe. Just as with Adam, God breathes into us and we become a living soul. God is intimately involved with life. That is why Jesus can say that a sparrow does not fall to earth without the Father. (Sadly, some versions try to explain that away by saying “without the Father’s knowledge.” The texts I have seen — and that is certainly not all of them — say simply that God is present with them when they die. That is far more meaningful and touching to me)

If you have breath, it is a gift of God. When you started breathing for the first time, the thing which is “you” came to be. That does not indicate that I believe that fetuses aren’t babies or aren’t alive — they most certainly are both. However, to be consistent with what I see in scripture, I have to ask about the point of ensoulment and that is usually said to be when that soul is breathed into us by God Himself.

Recently, a court was asked to send a father to jail for taking his daughter to a Catholic Church service. Her mother, now divorced from the father, has a court order saying he can only take her to a Jewish service. How does the state have the right to tell a father he can’t take his daughter to church?

The state has that right because we gave it to them. We elected people who established the power of the state and we continue to elect people who want to give more and more power to the state. And the state has never been shy or coy about this. It stands, it tells us, in loco parentis (in place of the parents) and parens patriae (able to intervene at any time it believes it can parent the child better than its birth or custodial parents) is a well known and very legal power of the state. In the US, you only get to parent your child as long as the state says you can. Some states will forbid you the right to homeschool your children while others place huge and cumbersome restrictions on those who want to leave the public system for any reason. How can they do this? Because we let them. We voted for them. Or we didn’t vote and let others decide who would rule us — and make no mistake: they do not serve. They rule.

Too strong? Then why is land taken away for environmental reasons that have no basis in science or fact but which, not coincidentally, give great power and money to self style public servants. Why can Pelosi spend an average of $100,000 a year on plane flights and in flight bar bills for herself and her family? Why could Bush take billions away from our grandchildren and give it to banks? You get the idea.

So, yes, what happened to that man is legal. In fact, in happens so often as to make me wonder why it made the news this time. As I’ve said time and time again, our response to this is not to resort to violence against the state. Ever. No, our response must be to love our wives and husbands, care for our children, and live faithful lives. Should we still be caught in a terrible divorce, we pray that God will remind our children of the lessons we gave them and we live lives that stand in stark contrast to those around them so that when the day comes that they get to choose — they choose God.

This question seems to be popping up more often in recent years.

What do you know about Christian Universalism? Will all people eventually be saved?

This is not a simple question. There are several versions of Christian Universalism out there, each with their own scholars and cheerleaders. It is easy to lampoon their position but they can lampoon traditional positions, too, and we end up with everyone being more entrenched in their previous position than they were before. In other words — more heat than light and we are worse off after the argument.

The most common version of Christian Universalism (according to my limited reading in the field) isn’t the one most traditionalists attack. Most traditional answers are really answering a different group — the Unitarian-Universalists. You can find those churches in most sizable towns, often called “Unity Church” but usually called Unitarian. That religion has a long and storied history especially in the United States. It used to be much more popular than it is now, but it still has its strongholds, mainly in the Northeast. I can write about it at another time but suffice it to say that most Unitarian-Universalists do not call themselves Christian and would refuse to wear the title “Christian Universalist.”

No, those who are firm believers in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and who believe that we are saved only by coming through him differ when it comes to what happens to those who sin on this earth. Will all be saved? Calvinists say that God can save all but won’t. Arminians say that God wants to save all but can’t. Universalists say God wants to save all and will. The “how” is where they differ.

I am not aware of any of them who believe that the person who rejects Jesus will be admitted to heaven directly after death. A few I’ve met believe it is almost that simple: they believe that the person will be given a chance to bow their knee after seeing Jesus and the Celestial City (to borrow a term from Bunyan). Most disagree. Most Universalists believe that the one who has not accepted Christ will enter a period of punishment. Again, here they differ. I will venture to say most believe it is a moral, not physical punishment. The unsaved person is shown the reality of good and evil, the cost of their decisions, and how they have disappointed their God. After a period of time in which they weep, broken hearted, they are admitted into the joys of the Lord. Other Universalists believe that there is some sort of fire — not literal, but metaphysical — that cleanses them like the “refining fire” of the Old Testament prophets. The length of time each individual spends in the fire or in moral punishment differs, of course. A Hitler will spend a lot more time there than your good neighbor who just never got around to thinking about spiritual matters.

I have an inbuilt prejudice here: I wish this were true. The Universalists have more good arguments than you might imagine and there is no question but that the end of life/ end of time issues are far from clear in Scripture, but there are scriptures that concern me and — to this point — I have not heard answers that satisfy me.

Three scriptures every Universalist I have met uses are:
1 Cor 15:22: “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Col 1:19-20: “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.”

Rom 5:18: “Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”

The traditional argument — which I consider a good one — is that Paul is speaking of those “in Christ” as in “all in Christ shall be made alive.” Universalists say this merely means that Christ will be the one who saves all men, not that all who are already in Christ will be saved. Traditional, orthodox Christians will respond with examples such as these:
Matthew 12:31-32 says, “And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

Luke 12:10 says, “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Mark 3:28-30 Most certainly I tell you, all sins of the descendants of man will be forgiven, including their blasphemies with which they may blasphe me (29) but whoever may blaspheme against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” (30) -because they said, “He has an unclean spirit.”

Also, think about the parable of the Ten Virgins. It makes no sense if the foolish virgins would shortly be invited into the party even though they were unprepared. In response, the Universalists will quote scriptures such as these:
And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only,
but also for those of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under
the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, “To
Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and
glory and dominion forever and ever.” (Rev. 5:13)

It is about this time in the argument that we begin discussions on the meaning of “eternal” or “everlasting.” I haven’t written a lot about it, but I believe Edward Fudge has it correct here: eternal doesn’t mean, in the original languages, what it means in our language. (NOTE: here at Rochester Church, we are going to have a series of classes on heaven and hell, looking at various views of each. I am only involved one week and will be a student the other weeks as some of our own scholars will be presenting competing views. I will be taking copious notes and praying for wisdom as I listen. I say that to remind you that I am a work in progress and I haven’t finalized everything I believe about everything! But, as of now, I must say I think the annihilationist view most fully matches scripture and the nature of God. Allow me the freedom to shift that position if and when I learn more). The universalist view of hell is not akin to the classical view of purgatory; a place where people will be punished until they have paid for their sins with their pain. Purgatory was a place (it seems to have become optional in current Catholic thought) where those who were good — but not good enough to directly enter heaven — burned off their remaining, unconfessed sins. Universalists do not teach that. They teach that the word for punishment used in Matthew 25 and elsewhere is more correctly translated “correction” (and there is a case to be made for that). When the person repents and accepts Christ, they are released from the place of correction.

By the way, I believe that Universalists believe the only permanent denizens of a fiery pit will be Satan and his angels. Perhaps, if we have a Universalist reading this, they can enlighten me on that. Will they be there for eternity, in your view, or can they be redeemed?

Scriptures are still out there that seem to make the case for both. How we justify them and come up with a consistent view would seem to me to be very important: souls are riding on this. I can’t help but think of Paul saying that some would NEVER inherit the Kingdom of God. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (CEV, 1 Cor. 6:9,10)

As of this time, I think that the classical, traditional, orthodox view of salvation and heaven and hell has a lot of work to do to make sure it is Biblical and not a collection of barnacles from early and medieval church Fathers. And I am not convinced of universalism. What I AM convinced about is that Jesus was telling the truth when he said “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except by me” and that his warning to work while it was still day (for the night is coming) gives an urgency to our mission that universalism does not.

This question comes from a couple of personal discussions with people as Rochester Church goes through a series called “A Beautiful Life.” Each week, we look at a different attribute that makes our life beautiful. When people saw both kindness and goodness on the list, the question came up:

“What is the difference between kindness and goodness? Why are they listed separately when they are basically the same thing?

Let’s leave aside the original words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and just focus on the English history of the word “Kindness.” It is related to the word used in the Creation story when God was said to have made “everything after its kind.” It still holds that meaning in the word “kin” (or, in Scottish parlance, “Kith and kin”). This is important to know.

Kindness is active caring on a personal, intimate level. It is close-in work. Giving to Haiti is good — and may even be sacrificial — but it isn’t kindness. Kindness would require you to be present with the people — within arm’s reach. Donating to a clothes or food pantry can be good, but kindness would be delivering the goods yourself, making a personal connection with the recipient. Your “kind” are those within the arc of your reach. To be “kind,” you have to look the person in the eye. Christians are to look for opportunities to be kind. We can be kind to our servers in the restaurant, to the person beside us on the plane who is struggling to stow their luggage, to the child with a tummy ache, or to the brother who is in trouble in his marriage.

Kindness matters because kindness is personal. You can’t be kind by tossing a check into the collection plate (although that certainly might be “good”). The notion of kindness seems archaic enough that the translators of the NIV removed the word in scores of instances and substituted “goodness” which is, as I’ve said, not at all the same thing. For instance, they write of the “goodness and severity of God” when the real phrase is “the kindness and severity.” Why does this matter? Because goodness and severity are not necessarily two different attributes, but kindness and severity most certainly are.

Goodness can — and often does — carry an edge to it. Jesus was good when he cleared the temple and he will be good when he brings this planet to an end. Goodness is a necessary attribute for the believer. We have to move forward with what is right and good… but that may mean we do not seem kind. When someone asks me if it is okay for them to live together without being married, being “good” means we must disappoint them with our answer. Goodness also allows us to be… well… good to those who are outside our reach. That is why I gave to Haiti even though I have no ability to go there in the foreseeable future. While I can’t be kind to individuals there, I can be good to the community by giving.

Goodness and kindness are not found in isolation in scripture. We are told to clothe ourselves not just with kindness, but also compassion, humility, gentleness, and patience. (Colossians 3:12). We need to have all the attributes present to have a beautiful life. Like a pie, the ingredients in isolation aren’t very palatable. Goodness without kindness or righteousness without kindness is too hard to bear.

I try to remember Proverbs 19:22 every day of my life. While the NIV translates it oddly and makes it sound like something totally different, most versions will say something like “That which makes a man desirable is his kindness.” Good to know.

Here are some quick ones while I work a long way from my desk and books. I’m in Louisiana, just finished with a youth rally and in the middle of a family seminar. Then, a three day Re-Imagining the Church seminar and my flight home on Saturday.

John records a part of Jesus’ prayer in the garden before the crucifixion. My question is this, if Peter, James, and John were off to the side sleeping, how did John get the words of the prayer?

The standard answer to this is that God told him. I buy it. It would seem to jive with the promise Jesus made his apostles in John chapters 14-17. God may have told him by inspiration. The Holy Spirit could have done the same… or Jesus could have told them about it after his resurrection and before his ascension.

When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil their eyes were opened and they knew right from wrong. At the same time sin entered into the world. However, before this moment they did not know good and evil. How could they be responsible for their sin when they didn’t know right from wrong before eating of the tree? Is there something I am missing here?

The phrase “knew good from evil” is a bit more complex than that. When they broke the barrier laid out by God, they became aware that rebellion was an option for them forever after. They could look at their options and see good and evil… and freely choose evil. By Genesis 6:5, everyone had chosen evil. We don’t usually spend any time in their heads before they ate that fruit. Could they have sweated and fretted about it for days or weeks before taking the bite, not knowing if it would taste good and make them gods or if it would kill them? Think about the first time you did “that” sin. It might have been a sexual sin, drunkenness, violence, or theft. Still, before you did it the first time, you were terrified. What would happen? And when you survived it… that ended up being the worst possible outcome for you began to lose your fear. “Do what you fear and the death of fear is certain.” From then on, evil became an option. And then it became a friend. And it might have led you to destruction had Jesus not come into your life.

Hi Patrick, I have a question that I don’t think I’ve seen addressed in your blog, and I hope you can shed some light on it. How was time counted “BC”? For example, we just started 2010, and the years naturally ascend in numerical order, i.e. next year is 2011. We count this in terms of “AD”, or the “Christian Era”. So is BC more of a backward reference established at some later “AD” point? How would someone living in what we consider today to be 1000 BC have referred to the year they were in, and would they have counted down to 999, 998, etc.? From our time looking back, the BC / AD system makes sense. But from their time looking forward, how would they have known their year and counted their time, particularly since it doesn’t seem they would have known the birth of Christ as a marker in time?

Even today, not every nation counts the year the same way. The next year in the Jewish calendar will be 5771 (I think I’m right. Someone will correct me if I’m not). That calendar isn’t the official Israeli State calendar, but it is the one used by all orthodox Jews worldwide. Muslims count their calendar from Mohammad, of course. It is now 1431 AH (after Hijra). Before Constantine instituted a form of Christianity as the State religion, calendars usually dated from the rule of an emperor… if you were in the Roman empire. Other societies counted time from their leaders’ ascendancy, from natural disasters, or from mythical events in the mists of time. Even our calendar has had to be adjusted radically twice and less radically a few more times to make it more stable — more accurate in its description of a solar year. Some calendars — such as the Muslim calendar — use a lunar cycle as the basis for their calendar.
Most academics no longer refer to AD and BC. They prefer to leave Christ out of it and, instead, insert ACE and BCE — after and before the Common Era. This doesn’t offend me, but it saddens me a little. Oh, and while we’re at it, the old BC and AD designations were wrong, too. We can’t be certain about the date of Jesus’ birth for a variety of reasons. While Luke puts it in a rather tight range, it is still a range. He does the same when he describes Jesus beginning his ministry (“he was about thirty”). An informal survey leads me to believe the standard answer is that Jesus was born between 4-2BC.

What exactly happened at the transfiguration? What is it exactly? Why was it needed? Thanks for answering this.

Ironically, this very other-worldly moment actually reinforces the little emphasized human nature Jesus wore. The shadow of the cross floated over the manger. Jesus knew he was going to die. How he knew this and when it became clear to him isn’t given in scripture. Whenever it was, it must have been quite a shock; something that haunted him day and night. No wonder he spent so much time alone in the wilderness in prayer! God sent the Transfiguration as a gift to Jesus. Moses and Elijah, we are told, spoke to him about the death he “was about to accomplish.” They were there to comfort him, primarily, but it cannot be doubted that their appearance locked in the faith of those few apostles who witnessed it. They saw — and somehow, miraculously, identified — two of their greatest heroes appear and serve Jesus as Lord. God’s voice came into this scene and told them to turn their adoration from Moses and Elijah and give it to Jesus from now on. In some ways, this is a foreshadowing of the message of the Book of Hebrews.

Still, I believe — and cannot prove — that the primary purpose of the Transfiguration was to get Jesus strong enough to face what he had to face in order to save us.

Sorry to be so slow in updating this site. The questions have slowed down, but there are still a dozen or so sitting in tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com so that’s no excuse. How about this: I am busier than I’ve ever been? Still, I should try a little harder. This is an interesting one we have brushed up against before.

I recently received an email from a guy who is part of the New Covenant Church of Christ. He explained that much of the division in Christianity derives from a misunderstanding of how to apply Jesus’ teachings. He explains that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John should be part of the Old Testament because they took place under the old covenant. He says we should not believe that Jesus’ teachings apply to New Testament Christianity since he was under the Old Covenant when he taught. What Jesus taught only applied to those under the Old Covenant. Is this true?

This idea has been taught by a handful of people — and only a handful. The first time I came into contact with it was in the context of a marriage-divorce-remarriage discussion. A book on this subject was advertised in the Christian Chronicle (a type of monthly newspaper for members of my religious tribe). The author is Dan Billingsley. He believes that anything done, said, or taught before Jesus’ death belongs to the Old Law and that we are only amenable to the things taught after the cross. He takes this very seriously and so do those who follow his teaching. For example, he believes that Matthew 1-27 belongs to the Old Testament and Matthew 28 belongs in the New. For those like Tony Campolo who call themselves “red letter Christians,” this must come as quite a shock! Billingsley would say it is impossible to be a Christian and live a Christian life if you rely on the letters in red to guide you.

Two quick notes: for those who don’t have a lot of church background, the “red letter” phrase refers to the words of Jesus. It became popular a long time ago to print the Bible with his words in red and the rest in black. There are many who believe Paul hijacked the Christian faith and turned it into a legal minefield. Therefore, they return to the red words and try to follow them as closely and sincerely as possible. I respect them but I do not count myself among them.

Back to the discussion. Billingsley and the few churches that follow his teaching use very sharp razors to divide the Bible. If you read to him Matthew 28’s admonition to teach those baptized “all I have commanded you” he says that only means to obey the things Jesus had said in the 40 days after his resurrection. Yikes. Why do they believe this? They go to Hebrews 9:15-17 and say — accurately — that Jesus nailed the old law to the cross. They refer to Galatians and Hebrews and other scriptures that teach that the will of a person is not in force until the death of the testator. For some reason, they don’t see the problem in harmonizing their doctrine with those scriptures.

Let me see if I can do this simply. I have a will. I wrote it with the help of the good folks at legalzoom.com and placed it in my safe. My wife and kids know it is there. I wrote it — do I need to say this? — while I was alive. I didn’t just sign something that already existed. While there was some boilerplate there, I added sections about my guitars, books, papers, insurance funds, etc. Say that I die on my way down to Louisiana in a few days — plane crash, car crash, Krispy Kreme sourced myocardial infarction… whatever. Kami goes to the safe and pulls out the will… and then declares it null and void because it was written before my death. Whaaa?

That is what Billingsley (who is probably a very good, sweet man, by the way. I in no way am trying to question his character. I’ve never met him) is saying about the will of Jesus. He spoke extensively about the way his followers should live, speak, handle money, deal with conflict, etc. THAT was his will. In Ephesians 2:17, Paul said he wasn’t just speaking to Jews, but even those who “were far away,” referring to the Gentiles. So Jesus wasn’t just teaching Old Testament law; he was creating his will to be obeyed after death. When he referred to the Old Law, he said so. But he also, in the Sermon on the Mount, repeatedly quoted the Old Testament and then said “You have heard it said… but I say to you,” clearly indicating that he was teaching something that was different from the Old Law — something new.

Jesus told his disciples that they would know they were his disciples by their love one for another. If Billingsley is right, they would only be known by love from that day until the cross. After that? Anybody’s guess.

Or how about this? Jesus spoke of his blood being poured out before it was. In other words, he was setting up the events and his will before his death. He even told his followers that he would send the Holy Spirit back to remind them of everything he had taught them (John 14:26). Why would he do that if all that teaching belonged to the Old Law and wasn’t in effect anymore? That would be like spending your life learning the extinct languages of the Russian steppes. It might be very interesting but what practical value results from that study? Why should the apostles remember the words in red if they weren’t binding?

We cannot apply modern legal procedure to the language in scripture. THAT causes a ton of division. But even if we did in this instance, it would not result in our ignoring the Sermon on the Mount, the miracles of Jesus, or his teachings about the end of time or caring for the poor. He insisted that we would, in fact, be judged on the last day by the words He gave us. Hebrews tells us that he was the express (exact) image of God. We are to read the rest of scripture through the lens of Jesus’ life and words. To treat them as “yesterday’s news” would be tragic indeed.

Gluttony and being overweight are not the same thing though they can be, of course, related. Gluttony is, as we mentioned last time, any overfilling. It includes over-buying, over-using, over-exercising, over-drinking, and over-eating. And why some people are overweight is more complex than you might think.

Being obese (not just overweight) is a risk factor for a wide variety of diseases, including some you might not think about such as Alzheimer’s Disease. One of the things that keep directors of nursing homes up at night is the huge population bubble of African Americans entering the senium (aged 60 or more) in the next thirty years. African Americans have a significantly higher rate of Alzheimer’s disease and they also have a significantly higher rate of obesity than does the general population. Sadly, the two are linked. That means that we need far more nursing homes and far more Alzheimer’s units right now to get us ready for this swelling tide of residents. (And, of course, we need far more research into the disease itself)

Why do African Americans have a higher rate of obesity? The answers might surprise you. Yes, there is a genetic component but it doesn’t appear in all African Americans. It might be dependent upon what tribe they originally came from, but that is unproven at present. All we know is that for the majority of African Americans (but the minority of those who have come here straight from Africa) it is harder to keep weight off. But that isn’t the major reason they suffer so much more from obesity.

African Americans tend to live in economically depressed areas. There are many reasons for this but the majority of blame has to be racism. Back in September or October I wrote about the Monopoly metaphor to explain this. Briefly, it goes like this: imagine nine people who have been playing a game of Monopoly for 200 years. Most of the property is gone, the money has been piling up, and alliances have been made, broken, and remade. After awhile, the Arkansas National Guard, the 101st Airborne, the Supreme Court, and the Civil Rights Act force them to accept a new player — an African American. The man enters the game with no property, no power, no money, and without alliances. He enters a game that is well established and that has already parceled out most of the available property and social standing. Looking at him and saying “you’re equal now!” is ludicrous. This isn’t a call for reparations because that is just a silly thing to design and administer. What it IS is a call for Christians to acknowledge that our brothers and sisters in that community need us to help them redeem their culture and establish them in the mainstream while recognizing and celebrating their uniqueness. That’s a hard call.

In the meantime, the areas where most of our urban based African Americans live are nearly devoid of good grocery stores and restaurants. They are littered with fast food places complete with dollar menus of very high fat, very high sodium foods. You see, fat is cheap. If a food contains a lot of it, it can be sold for less than a food that has more fiber or vitamins in it. Grocery stores in these areas are smaller, with high prices. The selection of produce is limited and usually costs from 25-100% more than it does in white areas of the same city (a ton of studies have been done on this recently). Some of this is because of higher insurance rates and higher crime rates but it seems to mainly be that way because the stores know they have a captive population. Lack of good, reliable, cheap transportation keeps the local community… uh… local. They can’t afford the time and money to get to the suburbs and, once there, they can’t afford to buy what they want. Face it — even today, unemployment is far, far higher among African Americans than it is in the white population (the government’s website says it is currently 16.2% among African Americans compared to 10% for whites and 12.7% among Hispanics).

So… less money, more economic struggle, living in an area where good food is hard to find and good restaurants even harder to find. Instead, your money goes farther if you buy fatty or starchy foods. They may pack on the pounds and be low in nutrition but it fills your children’s stomachs and makes them happy. The downside of that is increased obesity and, later, increased rates of everything from diabetes to kidney failure to heart disease to Alzheimer’s. But what are your choices? There is little you can do if you are trapped in that environment.

The same link can be made with education. One commenter brought up a friend who said that overweight people were less intelligent. That is not exactly true but there is a similar correlation to be found here. Obesity is greater in white populations that have a low educational level or who live in economically depressed areas for the same reasons that it is greater in African American urban communities. It is not a matter of intelligence, but economics and geography.

Rich people have more time and money. That allows them access to high end gyms where they can exercise year round regardless of the weather. It means they can arrange childcare so they can exercise at their own pace, using the health club as a life enrichment center. They don’t have to rush home on the bus to a small apartment with children who have been alone for hours. They don’t have to rush to get food on the table to comfort their children. They can buy the food, or go to a fine restaurant, or buy vitamins and bottled water and other expensive newly-necessary bits of modern, wealthy life. If all else fails, the rich can afford surgery to shrink their stomachs and eliminate their double/treble chins. None of this is an option to poor white or African American populations.

Before you get all upset at this and decide to blame obesity on people being lazy, sit back and think for a moment. Some poor people are lazy — no question. But many other have so little they can do. They are unskilled or uneducated for a variety of reasons, many of which might be beyond their control (many urban schools are jungles and terror centers, not learning centers). They cannot move to a better area because moving takes money. Some men abandon their families and head to other regions to look for a job. A sad percentage of them don’t find economic salvation but, instead, failure and then a descent into alcoholism or despair. Let at home, the mother and children of whatever race are given very few options other than cheap food in a neighborhood they cannot freely leave. Obesity and teenage pregnancy and drug use become common.

We are given no right to judge the obese, but we can confront our brothers and sisters who are obese with love, asking them how we can help them, and hearing their story. For some, there may be no way out of their obesity. Consider those who you often see using electric carts at Wal-Mart or the grocery store. Most are obese. You can leap to the conclusion that they are obese because they are lazy — Look! They won’t even walk! — but you would almost certainly be wrong. You see, when you hurt due to a back or leg injury, or perhaps you have a balance issue due to disease of the inner ear, you are limited in what you can do. You slow down because you have no choice. Perhaps you are given prednisone or other steroidal meds and they cause you to blow up even more. Your metabolism slows because you are unable to walk or move much. Because you then gain weight, you hurt even more and can move even less. It is a horrible, vicious cycle and there are no easy exit ramps (and, for many, there are no exit ramps at all).

None of this excuses the man or woman who puts away way too much food at each meal, who lives to eat, and who continues to overeat even though they have options such as better food, self discipline, and the capability to exercise. That is one form of gluttony and it remains a sin.

I will be slower here than I’d like, but my work load is getting heavier and heavier so bear with me. This question may prove to be one of the most difficult to deal with for many of us.

One question I have really pertains more to today’s culture but I find
reference to it in the bible as a sin (gluttony). Specifically, I speak
of being obese. First, I’m not picking on any one, I myself could stand
to lose more than a pound so this question pertains to me as much as
anyone else. I look around at so many in church and see very heavy to
morbidly obese people. Many of these same individuals condemn those who
drink or smoke while they struggle to walk or breath. Preachers pound
their bibles on the pulpit about the evils of sin, yet this is one I
don’t hear preached too often. I’ve only heard one preacher say that
eating is the Christian’s last vice. I know there some who have medical
conditions that prevent or inhibit weight loss, but what about those
(myself included) who can do something about it? Are we sinning by
being overweight?”

Are you sinning by being overweight? No. God did not write the insurance company charts that determines what weight or what body mass index is appropriate for people of different heights and/ages. Medical science is a moving target and what is considered healthy today might very well be looked upon as dangerous in a few decades.

In the Bible, “eating of the fat of the land” was a signal that God had blessed you. Studies on mortality have proven this out. Those who are 15 pounds overweight are more likely to survive a serious illness that hospitalizes them than those who are fifteen pounds underweight. It seems that a bit of fat is a helpful cushion — a portable insurance policy. Still, this writer specifically asks about gluttony and obesity and hypocrisy so let’s get to that.

The word “gluttony” in scripture means much, much more than just eating too much (though it certainly refers to that as well). It is the same word/word-root used most of the time to mean “drunkenness.” It really means over filling. Food is not wrong, but gorging yourself is. There are no passages in scripture to make us think that taking a drink of beer or wine is a sin, but there are many passages telling us that drinking to the point of drunkenness is. These words are also used when talking about surrounding yourself with too much stuff — overfilling your life with things, sitting on piles of money, owning more than you can care for. It is because I do not want to be guilty of the sin of gluttony that I have a rule about how many guitars I can own at one time. When one is purchased, one has to be sold or given away. If I find that some are getting regularly covered with dust, it is time for them to go. Why? So that, as James 5:3 warns, rust will not be used as a witness against me. Kami and I are now empty nesters and have had lots of serious discussions about the fact that we live in a 4 bedroom house with two living areas. The rooms are quite small, but we still have more space than we need. If our house was worth anywhere near what we paid for it, we would sell and move into a smaller home but the current economic crisis precludes any movement that direction. Still… it bothers us.

I, too, have always been struck by ministers who lived too large (in a variety of ways) getting into the pulpit and condemning those sins that they haven’t yet succumbed to. To hear a minister rail against the Catholics or Mormons or those who use instruments in worship or those who don’t baptize when he, himself, is morbidly obese (not just overweight — remember, those charts and cultural norms are not of God), owns more clothes than he can wear, and travels in a style that many members could never do. Hypocrisy is a sin, every bit as much of a sin as gluttony.

Medical science is still trying to figure out why we have an epidemic of obesity. We know some reasons: lots of money, fat is cheap (which is why McD’s and Wendy’s have dollar menus but healthy food restaurants don’t), portions are larger, less physical work is required of us, more free time doing nothing… you can add another half dozen if you’d like. Still, there are some other things going one that baffle us. Why do so many obese people have a certain virus in their intestinal tract? Could it be a cause of their obesity or is it an effect? What are genetic issues involved? Societal? Popular Science did a survey of current theories a few months ago. Some seem bizarre but the fact is, all of them have some evidence on their side.

There is only one way to reliably lose weight. It has nothing to do with pills or herbs. You have to burn more calories than you consume. Even if your weight is not your fault, there is that one fact out there that gives you some control over it if you will commit to giving it the time and effort it requires. We’ve learned that after seven or eight seasons of “Biggest Loser” haven’t we? My friend, Sean, who was on last season is now going around the country telling people how to get control of their lives and how to get away from overeating and sloth. And yes, sloth is yet another sin we never talk about.

Why not? Because it is tough. We would rather rail against sins that don’t tempt us and we would rather bind rules on people that are easy to do (baptism, church attendance, Bible reading) than those which require us to leave societal norms and become separate people (lay not up for yourselves treasures here on earth, love your enemy, sell what you have and give to others).

Preachers — like me — who are 10-25 pounds overweight should be aware of how some perceive us. We need to be upfront about our status, our eating habits, and the effect they have on us. We need to walk with the church, not “preach at” it. And if you are morbidly obese, know that God loves you and so do I. There are hundreds of ideas out there on how to lose weight but it all comes down to consume less than you burn. And it is a LOT easier to do that in a supportive, loving group than it is to do it on your own.

And you skinny people? Don’t think gluttony can’t touch you. What do you buy? How much do you fill yourselves with things? It might be a closet full of shoes that haven’t seen the light of day in two years. It might be leaving Blockbuster with ten videos to watch over the weekend. It might be exercising to excess, worshiping the body and gaining inordinate pride in your muscles and shape, or it might be filling yourself with talk radio, news shows, and politics. Gluttony is sneaky. But it is always sinful, for when we fill ourselves with these things, there is little room left for God.