Matt W Cook

I found a children’s catechism the other day. I decided to see what Joe could do with it. He’s been good with questions in the past. He can tell you his name and age and stuff like that. So we figured a little catechism should be easy for him.

Question 1: Who made you?
Answer: God

Simple enough, and after a few tries Joe mastered it. He was pretty excited about it, too. Everyone in the family was impressed, all day asking him who made him. It was great.

The next day Paul wanted to know if he knew his own name.

Paul: What’s your name?
Joe: God

I’ve been interested in Bertrand Russell these days. I recently found his popular lecture Why I Am Not A Christian. It would be a good idea to read it over before continuing, it’s not that long.

Let’s consider this post to be a response to Russell’s lecture. I’ll use his own headings.

What Is A Christian?
Russell defines a Christian as someone who believes in God and immortality and considers Jesus Christ at least the best and wisest of men. I agree with Russell in that finding a definition of Christian is a very difficult exercise and made much harder in the present age with the plethora of religions, sects and philosophies that are common throughout the world. However, I really think his definition is lacking. It seems that for Russell Christianity is an intellectual assent to a set of dogmas. Perhaps for some who bear the name Christian that is enough, but I still think it’s lacking. I would call a Christian someone who follows Christ, but I suppose that definition is even harder to work with. For now let’s use Russell’s definition and treat it all like an intellectual question rather than a worldview and life walk.

The First Cause Argument.
Russell is not a Christian because he does not believe God exists. He first attacks the First Cause argument which basically states that since every effect must have an independent and antecedent cause therefore God must be the prime cause of everything. Russell quotes John Stuart Mill to disarm this argument: “My father taught me that the question, who made me? Cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?” Russell states that this sentence showed him the fallacy of the First Cause argument. I don’t think he gives the argument the treatment it deserves. It seems manifest to me that nothing can come from nothing. ex nihilo nihil fit. If there was, at any time in history, nothing in existence, then it is irrational to suppose that the nothing would suddenly and independently become something. Something, therefore, must have always been. Materialists call it matter. I call it God. Russell’s comparison to the Hindu view of the world being supported on the back of an elephant is out of place and smells like a straw man. While the First Cause argument may not specifically point to the God of the Bible, it certainly does point to something that has always been, whether mindless matter that eventually morphed into life, or a creative and powerful being that sparked the universe.

The Natural-Law Argument
I’ll grant that the idea of Laws being put in nature by God is fallacious. We use words like ‘law’ to describe things that happen in a certain way under certain conditions. Certainly these things are not laws, but rather observations on the way the universe seems to behave. The Natural-Law Argument is indeed a weak one.

The Argument From Design
Here I think Russell has put up a straw man. No self-respecting theist would claim that rabbits have white tails so that they can be shot at easier. When I consider the argument from design I think more about the higher aspects of human consciousness. Things like beauty, honor, love and joy. These things that separate us from the rest of creation and suggest a designer rather than blind fate. I wonder what is the evolutionary benefit of being able to appreciate a sunset or being emotionally moved when certain sounds and tones are produced by certain voices and instruments.

Russell makes the point that if the universe was created by an omniscient and omnipotent being it would probably be much nicer than it is. He points out all the troubles and evils that seem inherent in the world and believes it is illogical to assume a perfect being created it all. I would answer that it is difficult to judge the world from our limited vantage point. We can judge an apple because we are greater than the apple and we are independent of the apple. It’s not like that with the universe. We are inside and a part of the universe. Every sensory input we have comes from the world we live in. The universe, I think, is far to complex to allow us to point at one section or another and say ‘This is good’ or ‘This is bad’. We make the same mistake Russell accuses Newton of when we try to put the universe under a microscope and judge it. It’s far too complex for us (though I’m certainly not suggesting that we shouldn’t try to understand it). A real response to this argument by Russell is going to require a detailed look at the problem of evil. I’ll save that for another post.

The Moral Arguments For Deity
Kant suggested that although man cannot prove or disprove the existence of God he should live as though he did exist. I suppose that’s a decent social restraint but Russell is right in rejecting this as a solid argument for God. I think Russell errs, however, when gives his two options for the relationship with morality and God. He asks whether objective morality (if it even exists) is due to God’s command or not. If it exists because of God’s command that must mean that God is above it and it is now meaningless to say things like ‘God is good’. If it in not from God’s decree then we must accept that it exists outside of God as a part of nature, which is an equally unstable foundation for a Christian as it supposes something that exists independent of God. I think there is a third option, though. I see natural morality as a reflection of the character of God. It’s not so much that God said such and such is right or wrong that makes it so. Rather it is God’s character that brings about morality. God delights in love, therefore love is a part of natural morality.

The Argument For The Remedying Of Injustice
Here Russell is right. This argument is weak and useless. I’ll also agree that many people believe in God for weak reasons like upbringing and comfort. This abuse, however, does not weaken any argument for God as far as I see.

The Character Of Christ
Russell is on the ball when he points out the good sayings of Christ and how Christians don’t obey them.

Defects In Christ’s Teaching
The texts he quotes here are certainly troublesome to many people. Again I think I should justify his points with a fuller post in the (hopefully) near future.

The Moral Problem
Russell criticizes Christ on his anger and abuse to the people who ‘did not like his preaching’. I think he’s over simplified things here. Christ did not use his harsh words for people who didn’t accept what he said. He used his harsh words for those who led people astray, devoured widow’s houses for a pretense and made a total mockery of the noble system they claimed to follow. He wasn’t dealing with critics. He was dealing with shepherds claiming to love sheep while selling them to the wolves.

And then there’s Hell. Indeed it sounds disgustingly severe that a loving God could ever send people to exist forever in a state of pain and misery. If we in any way trust the Biblical documents we have to concede that Christ believed in hell. But what is hell? I don’t think the picture Dante paints in accurate, nor do I think he really meant it to be taken literally any more than Lewis did in The Great Divorce. For a long time the doctrine of Hell was a huge stumbling block for me. As I sit here I view hell in this way: I reject the idea that hell is a place of physical fire. I believe that Christ presented the idea of fiery judgment so that his listeners would pay attention and realize the awfully high stakes. I believe that the state of existence for those who have died are too hard for us flesh-bound critters to understand. I’m not trying to make hell sound tolerable, mind you. In fact, I would think that if Jesus was using metaphors to describe hell it would actually turn out to be worse that his better, rather than better. I apply the same thing to heaven. When Revelation talks of streets paved with gold I don’t actually think about the idea of walking atop gold when I go down the street. Again I think that God gives us a metaphor to help us understand. The basic idea he is trying to get across is this: Hell is very, very bad. Heaven is very, very good.

But I’m almost off topic. What about hell? How can a loving God send people to this place so that they suffer for eternity? Especially when most people in the world haven’t seen a true picture of the Christian faith and are living difficult lives as it is. I think the main problem with humankind is depravity. I think that deep down inside we are all focused on possessing things and bettering ourselves. Humans do not naturally think about better others or striving for holiness or things like that. We want stuff. If this taint is not cured in us before we leave this world heaven will be of no interest to us. Lewis points out that in the end there will be two kinds of people. Those who say to God ‘Thy will be done’ and those to whom God says ‘Thy will be done.’ I believe that those who are wrapped up in themselves and possessions (be they physical or intellectual) will not have the ability to appreciate heaven. Indeed, if the glory of heaven is to see God with unveiled faces then hell might even be preferable for them. I think that the only way we can be free of the taint within us and the disease that makes our heart sick and suicidal is through Christ. Otherwise our heart will continue to pull us toward that which kills us, even after we are dead.

I also don’t think that Russell is right to say that belief in hell is a moral defect. Believing that hell exists is not a moral choice, but an intellectual one. If we concede that belief in hell is a moral fault then I think belief in any bad thing must also be a moral fault.

The Emotional Factor
Russell argues here that Christianity is not a moral restraint on society. I suppose he may be right, because many horrible injustices have been committed in the name of Christianity. It’s true that the established, mainstream church has frequently stood in the way of science and philosophy and progress. Russell also points out that the people who are extremely religious are usually also extremely wicked. He implies, I think, that Christianity has damaged these people. I think his argument is a little off base. While no one can deny the truth of what he’s saying I think it’s a poor argument to reject a system of belief because of the bad attitudes of those who subscribe to it. Remember at the beginning of the lecture Russell defined a Christian as someone who believes in God and immortality and who considers Christ to be the best and wisest of all men. If this is all it is to be a Christian then his argument doesn’t work because being a Christian is not a question or morals, but of intellect and belief.

However, if there is more to Christianity than dogma, perhaps Russell might have a point. If Christianity is, as I suggested, the act and being of following Christ then a bad person who truly emulates Christ would seem to prove the entire system wrong. This is where the modern system of cheap grace has shot the Church in the foot. When we claim that following Jesus means praying a prayer and signing a card we turn the faith of Christ into a ridiculous laughingstock. In fact, if that is Christianity I would also be willing to write a lecture with the same title as Russell’s. But if Christianity is the act and being of following Jesus then we must concede one of two things. Either the Christian faith is as useless and damaging as Russell suggests, or there is something seriously wrong and false in the life of a man who professes to follow Christ and yet follows his passions instead.

Russell makes the serious accusation that “the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.” I agree that the organized church has committed horrible atrocities in the name of Christ, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that she actually did it on his behalf. While the organization we call church has, historically, been a major enemy to moral progress individual Christians have been a great help. I think of people like Wilberforce who helped remove slavery from England and Carmichael who exposed the religious child-prostitution in India. There are many who followed Jesus who have changed the world in good ways. Their faith certainly did not damage them. On the contrary, it gave them the drive they needed to change things for the better.

How The Churches Have Retarded Progress
Russell points out that the church generally considers obscure moral codes to be of more importance than happiness. I only wish to make the point that the Bible seems to suggest that holiness (true holiness) is the happiest state a man can be in. The Christian life does not consist in following a set of rules and dogmas (though morality and doctrine certainly are a big part of it as they lead to the next step); rather it is concerned with personal holiness and the pursuit of a living God. God commands us not to murder for two reasons. The obvious one is that murder does harm (duh). The other reason is that when I murder I do something that is against the character of God and that drives me away from him and sears my conscience and severely hinders my progress in finding God. This is why Christ was able to say that the law and prophets can be summed up in the two greatest commands. Because every command is designed to protect or help our fellow man and facilitate our progress toward knowing God.

Fear, The Foundation Of Religion
Again, Russell makes a true point but draws a shaky conclusion from it. It is true that religion is often based on fear. But even if popular religion is fear-founded it doesn’t follow that all religion and religious ventures are based on fear. Russell claims that science and our own hearts can be our teachers. But what can they teach us? Science can teach us how to make nuclear power, but it cannot teach us how to use it properly. Our hearts tell us what we want, but they can’t tell us if what we want is right or wrong because they seem sick. I agree that science and conscience are teachers, and useful teachers at that. But they are not absolute teachers because they can only tell us what they know. Science observes. The heart feels. But neither truly knows justice and holiness.

What We Must Do
If Russell is right, then his conclusion is sound. If he is wrong and Christianity is a viable, living worldview with power for man today, then his conclusion is arrogant. Man cannot conquer the world. If science has taught us anything over the past five hundred years it has taught us that that natural order of things cannot be tamed or perfectly harnessed because it is far too big, complex and violent. Humans don’t rule the world, we survive on it. Weather is a good example of this. For a thousand years we have been trying to predict the weather and we have made very little progress because the system of weather is so incredibly complicated. The idea of humans going forth and conquering the world is about as silly as a flea trying to run and manage the various life processes of the cat they live on.

Russell presents a witty, easy-to-understand attack on Christian theism. I’ve not read much of Russell’s works but what I have read I mostly like. I think he is a little too hasty in his dismissal of theism and the Christian faith. I also notice that this lecture is only responsive. I don’t think we should assume any burden of proof on either party in the argument on the existence of God because it is a question that is practically impossible to prove either way. Russell stays very passive in his arguments and has a tendency to simplify complex things. We see this in his definition of a Christian and the way he glosses over the supposed moral defects in Christ.

Thoughts?

PS – Pakistan seems to be in some trouble these days. We’re fine, but pray for this nation.

I’ve been interested in Bertrand Russell these days. I recently found his popular lecture Why I Am Not A Christian. It would be a good idea to read it over before continuing, it’s not that long.

Let’s consider this post to be a response to Russell’s lecture. I’ll use his own headings.

What Is A Christian?
Russell defines a Christian as someone who believes in God and immortality and considers Jesus Christ at least the best and wisest of men. I agree with Russell in that finding a definition of Christian is a very difficult exercise and made much harder in the present age with the plethora of religions, sects and philosophies that are common throughout the world. However, I really think his definition is lacking. It seems that for Russell Christianity is an intellectual assent to a set of dogmas. Perhaps for some who bear the name Christian that is enough, but I still think it’s lacking. I would call a Christian someone who follows Christ, but I suppose that definition is even harder to work with. For now let’s use Russell’s definition and treat it all like an intellectual question rather than a worldview and life walk.

The First Cause Argument.
Russell is not a Christian because he does not believe God exists. He first attacks the First Cause argument which basically states that since every effect must have an independent and antecedent cause therefore God must be the prime cause of everything. Russell quotes John Stuart Mill to disarm this argument: “My father taught me that the question, who made me? Cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question, Who made God?” Russell states that this sentence showed him the fallacy of the First Cause argument. I don’t think he gives the argument the treatment it deserves. It seems manifest to me that nothing can come from nothing. ex nihilo nihil fit. If there was, at any time in history, nothing in existence, then it is irrational to suppose that the nothing would suddenly and independently become something. Something, therefore, must have always been. Materialists call it matter. I call it God. Russell’s comparison to the Hindu view of the world being supported on the back of an elephant is out of place and smells like a straw man. While the First Cause argument may not specifically point to the God of the Bible, it certainly does point to something that has always been, whether mindless matter that eventually morphed into life, or a creative and powerful being that sparked the universe.

The Natural-Law Argument
I’ll grant that the idea of Laws being put in nature by God is fallacious. We use words like ‘law’ to describe things that happen in a certain way under certain conditions. Certainly these things are not laws, but rather observations on the way the universe seems to behave. The Natural-Law Argument is indeed a weak one.

The Argument From Design
Here I think Russell has put up a straw man. No self-respecting theist would claim that rabbits have white tails so that they can be shot at easier. When I consider the argument from design I think more about the higher aspects of human consciousness. Things like beauty, honor, love and joy. These things that separate us from the rest of creation and suggest a designer rather than blind fate. I wonder what is the evolutionary benefit of being able to appreciate a sunset or being emotionally moved when certain sounds and tones are produced by certain voices and instruments.

Russell makes the point that if the universe was created by an omniscient and omnipotent being it would probably be much nicer than it is. He points out all the troubles and evils that seem inherent in the world and believes it is illogical to assume a perfect being created it all. I would answer that it is difficult to judge the world from our limited vantage point. We can judge an apple because we are greater than the apple and we are independent of the apple. It’s not like that with the universe. We are inside and a part of the universe. Every sensory input we have comes from the world we live in. The universe, I think, is far to complex to allow us to point at one section or another and say ‘This is good’ or ‘This is bad’. We make the same mistake Russell accuses Newton of when we try to put the universe under a microscope and judge it. It’s far too complex for us (though I’m certainly not suggesting that we shouldn’t try to understand it). A real response to this argument by Russell is going to require a detailed look at the problem of evil. I’ll save that for another post.

The Moral Arguments For Deity
Kant suggested that although man cannot prove or disprove the existence of God he should live as though he did exist. I suppose that’s a decent social restraint but Russell is right in rejecting this as a solid argument for God. I think Russell errs, however, when gives his two options for the relationship with morality and God. He asks whether objective morality (if it even exists) is due to God’s command or not. If it exists because of God’s command that must mean that God is above it and it is now meaningless to say things like ‘God is good’. If it in not from God’s decree then we must accept that it exists outside of God as a part of nature, which is an equally unstable foundation for a Christian as it supposes something that exists independent of God. I think there is a third option, though. I see natural morality as a reflection of the character of God. It’s not so much that God said such and such is right or wrong that makes it so. Rather it is God’s character that brings about morality. God delights in love, therefore love is a part of natural morality.

The Argument For The Remedying Of Injustice
Here Russell is right. This argument is weak and useless. I’ll also agree that many people believe in God for weak reasons like upbringing and comfort. This abuse, however, does not weaken any argument for God as far as I see.

The Character Of Christ
Russell is on the ball when he points out the good sayings of Christ and how Christians don’t obey them.

Defects In Christ’s Teaching
The texts he quotes here are certainly troublesome to many people. Again I think I should justify his points with a fuller post in the (hopefully) near future.

The Moral Problem
Russell criticizes Christ on his anger and abuse to the people who ‘did not like his preaching’. I think he’s over simplified things here. Christ did not use his harsh words for people who didn’t accept what he said. He used his harsh words for those who led people astray, devoured widow’s houses for a pretense and made a total mockery of the noble system they claimed to follow. He wasn’t dealing with critics. He was dealing with shepherds claiming to love sheep while selling them to the wolves.

And then there’s Hell. Indeed it sounds disgustingly severe that a loving God could ever send people to exist forever in a state of pain and misery. If we in any way trust the Biblical documents we have to concede that Christ believed in hell. But what is hell? I don’t think the picture Dante paints in accurate, nor do I think he really meant it to be taken literally any more than Lewis did in The Great Divorce. For a long time the doctrine of Hell was a huge stumbling block for me. As I sit here I view hell in this way: I reject the idea that hell is a place of physical fire. I believe that Christ presented the idea of fiery judgment so that his listeners would pay attention and realize the awfully high stakes. I believe that the state of existence for those who have died are too hard for us flesh-bound critters to understand. I’m not trying to make hell sound tolerable, mind you. In fact, I would think that if Jesus was using metaphors to describe hell it would actually turn out to be worse that his better, rather than better. I apply the same thing to heaven. When Revelation talks of streets paved with gold I don’t actually think about the idea of walking atop gold when I go down the street. Again I think that God gives us a metaphor to help us understand. The basic idea he is trying to get across is this: Hell is very, very bad. Heaven is very, very good.

But I’m almost off topic. What about hell? How can a loving God send people to this place so that they suffer for eternity? Especially when most people in the world haven’t seen a true picture of the Christian faith and are living difficult lives as it is. I think the main problem with humankind is depravity. I think that deep down inside we are all focused on possessing things and bettering ourselves. Humans do not naturally think about better others or striving for holiness or things like that. We want stuff. If this taint is not cured in us before we leave this world heaven will be of no interest to us. Lewis points out that in the end there will be two kinds of people. Those who say to God ‘Thy will be done’ and those to whom God says ‘Thy will be done.’ I believe that those who are wrapped up in themselves and possessions (be they physical or intellectual) will not have the ability to appreciate heaven. Indeed, if the glory of heaven is to see God with unveiled faces then hell might even be preferable for them. I think that the only way we can be free of the taint within us and the disease that makes our heart sick and suicidal is through Christ. Otherwise our heart will continue to pull us toward that which kills us, even after we are dead.

I also don’t think that Russell is right to say that belief in hell is a moral defect. Believing that hell exists is not a moral choice, but an intellectual one. If we concede that belief in hell is a moral fault then I think belief in any bad thing must also be a moral fault.

The Emotional Factor
Russell argues here that Christianity is not a moral restraint on society. I suppose he may be right, because many horrible injustices have been committed in the name of Christianity. It’s true that the established, mainstream church has frequently stood in the way of science and philosophy and progress. Russell also points out that the people who are extremely religious are usually also extremely wicked. He implies, I think, that Christianity has damaged these people. I think his argument is a little off base. While no one can deny the truth of what he’s saying I think it’s a poor argument to reject a system of belief because of the bad attitudes of those who subscribe to it. Remember at the beginning of the lecture Russell defined a Christian as someone who believes in God and immortality and who considers Christ to be the best and wisest of all men. If this is all it is to be a Christian then his argument doesn’t work because being a Christian is not a question or morals, but of intellect and belief.

However, if there is more to Christianity than dogma, perhaps Russell might have a point. If Christianity is, as I suggested, the act and being of following Christ then a bad person who truly emulates Christ would seem to prove the entire system wrong. This is where the modern system of cheap grace has shot the Church in the foot. When we claim that following Jesus means praying a prayer and signing a card we turn the faith of Christ into a ridiculous laughingstock. In fact, if that is Christianity I would also be willing to write a lecture with the same title as Russell’s. But if Christianity is the act and being of following Jesus then we must concede one of two things. Either the Christian faith is as useless and damaging as Russell suggests, or there is something seriously wrong and false in the life of a man who professes to follow Christ and yet follows his passions instead.

Russell makes the serious accusation that “the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.” I agree that the organized church has committed horrible atrocities in the name of Christ, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that she actually did it on his behalf. While the organization we call church has, historically, been a major enemy to moral progress individual Christians have been a great help. I think of people like Wilberforce who helped remove slavery from England and Carmichael who exposed the religious child-prostitution in India. There are many who followed Jesus who have changed the world in good ways. Their faith certainly did not damage them. On the contrary, it gave them the drive they needed to change things for the better.

How The Churches Have Retarded Progress
Russell points out that the church generally considers obscure moral codes to be of more importance than happiness. I only wish to make the point that the Bible seems to suggest that holiness (true holiness) is the happiest state a man can be in. The Christian life does not consist in following a set of rules and dogmas (though morality and doctrine certainly are a big part of it as they lead to the next step); rather it is concerned with personal holiness and the pursuit of a living God. God commands us not to murder for two reasons. The obvious one is that murder does harm (duh). The other reason is that when I murder I do something that is against the character of God and that drives me away from him and sears my conscience and severely hinders my progress in finding God. This is why Christ was able to say that the law and prophets can be summed up in the two greatest commands. Because every command is designed to protect or help our fellow man and facilitate our progress toward knowing God.

Fear, The Foundation Of Religion
Again, Russell makes a true point but draws a shaky conclusion from it. It is true that religion is often based on fear. But even if popular religion is fear-founded it doesn’t follow that all religion and religious ventures are based on fear. Russell claims that science and our own hearts can be our teachers. But what can they teach us? Science can teach us how to make nuclear power, but it cannot teach us how to use it properly. Our hearts tell us what we want, but they can’t tell us if what we want is right or wrong because they seem sick. I agree that science and conscience are teachers, and useful teachers at that. But they are not absolute teachers because they can only tell us what they know. Science observes. The heart feels. But neither truly knows justice and holiness.

What We Must Do
If Russell is right, then his conclusion is sound. If he is wrong and Christianity is a viable, living worldview with power for man today, then his conclusion is arrogant. Man cannot conquer the world. If science has taught us anything over the past five hundred years it has taught us that that natural order of things cannot be tamed or perfectly harnessed because it is far too big, complex and violent. Humans don’t rule the world, we survive on it. Weather is a good example of this. For a thousand years we have been trying to predict the weather and we have made very little progress because the system of weather is so incredibly complicated. The idea of humans going forth and conquering the world is about as silly as a flea trying to run and manage the various life processes of the cat they live on.

Russell presents a witty, easy-to-understand attack on Christian theism. I’ve not read much of Russell’s works but what I have read I mostly like. I think he is a little too hasty in his dismissal of theism and the Christian faith. I also notice that this lecture is only responsive. I don’t think we should assume any burden of proof on either party in the argument on the existence of God because it is a question that is practically impossible to prove either way. Russell stays very passive in his arguments and has a tendency to simplify complex things. We see this in his definition of a Christian and the way he glosses over the supposed moral defects in Christ.

Thoughts?

PS – Pakistan seems to be in some trouble these days. We’re fine, but pray for this nation.

I haven’t forgotten about you guys. I’m hanging in Sanghar right now and plugging away at a few projects. I promise I’ll muse real hard tonight and get you a good blog to make up for lost time, okay?

It’s been a while, I know. And I’m sorry about that.

I was digging around the innards of my computer and I stumbled across a little Bible study I was working on while in Canada. I went through the Bible and found every occurrence of the word ‘blessed’ when it referred to a person or nation. I tried in every case to find the reason for the blessing and I put it into a list. When I found it last week it was pretty rough, but I cleaned it up and here it is (in no particular order). Enjoy.

Blessed are…
Those with many children. – Psalm 127.05

Those with clear consciences. – Romans 14.22

Those whose strength is in God. – Psalm 84.05

Those whose God is the Lord. – Psalm 144.15, Psalm 33.12

Those whose eyes and ears are open. – Matthew 13.16

Those who weep. -Matthew 05.04, Luke 06.21

Those who wash their robes – Revelation 22.14

Those who walk in the light of God’s face. – Psalm 89.15

Those who wait for God. – Isaiah 30.18

Those who trust in the Lord. – Psalm 21.03-07, 40.04, 84.12, Proverbs 16.20, Jeremiah 17.07

Those who take refuge in God. – Psalm 01.12, 34.08

Those who stay awake and work until the master comes. – Matthew 24.46, Luke 12.37, 12.38, 12.43, Revelation 16.15

Those who share in the first resurrection. – Revelation 20.06

Those who serve the Lord. – Exodus 23.25

Those who separate themselves from sin. – Psalm 01.01-02

Those who seek God’s testimonies. – Psalm 119.02

Those who see Christ. – Luke 10.23

Those who repay good for evil. – 1 Peter 03.09

Those who rebuke sinners. – Proverbs 24.25

Those who read aloud the words of this prophecy. – Revelation 01.03

Those who praise God. – Psalm 84.04

Those who obtain wisdom. – Proverbs 03.13, 03.18, 08.32, 08.34

Those who observe the Sabbatical year. – Leviticus 25.21, Deuteronomy 15.01-06

Those who obey God’s commands. – Deuteronomy 11.26-27, 30.16 Psalm 119.01, 02

Those who love God’s word. – Psalm 01.01-02, 112.01

Those who lend without interest. – Deuteronomy 23.20

Those who know the festal shout. – Psalm 89.15

Those who keep the words of the prophecy of this book. – Revelation 22.07

Those who keep the Sabbath. – Isaiah 56.02

Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness. – Matthew 05.06

Those who hope in the Lord. – Psalm 146.05

Those who hear or know the word and do it. – Deuteronomy 07.13-14, Proverbs 29.18, Luke 11.28, John 13.17, James 01.25

Those who have the highways to Zion in their heart. – Psalm 84.05

Those who have not seen, but believe. – John 20.29

Those who have no deceit in them. – Psalm 24.04-05

Those who have no deceit in them. – Psalm 34.08, 45.02

Those who have Christ revealed to them from heaven. – Matthew 16.17

Those who God loves. – Deuteronomy 23.05

Those who God chooses. – Psalm 65.04, Isaiah 44.03, Ephesians 01.03-06

Those who give to the poor. – Deuteronomy 14.29, 24.19, Psalm 41.01-02, Proverbs 11.25, 26, 14.21, 22.09, Luke 14.14, Acts 20.35

Those who give of their substance to God. – Ezekiel 44.30, Malachi 03.10

Those who get vengeance on Babylon. – Psalm 137.08-09

Those who fear the Lord. – Psalm 112.01, 115.13, 128.01-04, Proverbs 28.14

Those who faithfully obey the voice of God. – Deuteronomy 28.01-14

Those who eat bread in the kingdom of God. – Luke 14.15

Those who deal with sin as God commands. – Exodus 32.29

Those who come in the name of the Lord. – Psalm 118.26

Those who care for God’s holy things. – 2 Samuel 06.12, 1 Chronicles 13.14

Those who bless the blessed. – Genesis 12.03, Numbers 24.09

Those who ask for it. – Genesis 32.26-29, 1 Chronicles 04.10

Those who are taught by God. – Psalm 94.12

Those who are steadfast. – Job 42.12, Proverbs 28.20, James 01.12, 05.11

Those who are righteous. – Psalm 05.12, 106.03, Proverbs 03.33, 10.06, 07, Isaiah 56.01-02

Those who are pure in heart. – Psalm 24.04-05, Matthew 05.08

Those who are prayed for. – 2 Corinthians 01.11

Those who are poor. – Luke 06.20

Those who are poor in spirit. – Matthew 05.03

Those who are peacemakers. – Matthew 05.09

Those who are of faith. – Galatians 03.09

Those who are not offended by Christ. – Matthew 11.06, Luke 07.23

Those who are near to God. – Psalm 65.05

Those who are merciful. – Matthew 05.07

Those who are meek. – Matthew 05.05

Those who are just. – Psalm 106.03, Isaiah 56.01-02

Those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb. – Revelation 19.09

Those who are insulted or persecuted for Christ. – Matthew 05.10, 11, Luke 06.22, 1 Peter 03.14, 04.14

Those who are hungry. – Luke 06.21

Those who are forgiven. – Psalm 32.01, Romans 04.07

Those who are disciplined by God. – Job 05.17, Psalm 94.12

Those who are dead in the Lord. – Revelation 14.13

Those who are blameless. – Psalm 119.01

Those who are associated with the godly. – Genesis 17.20, 25.11, 26.03, 24

Those to whom God does not count sin. – Psalm 32.02, Romans 04.08

The nations. – Genesis 26.04, 28.14

The nations that God strikes and heals. – Isaiah 19.24-25

I found this scattered across the net and figured it might fit in with our recent discussions.

STOP Sign Hermeneutics

Suppose you’re traveling to work and you see a stop sign. What you do depends on your implicit hermeneutics.

A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (i.e., he knocks it over with his car), thus ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.

Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.

A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn’t take it too seriously, he doesn’t feel obligated to take it too seriously either.

An average Christian doesn’t bother to read the sign but he’ll stop if the car in front of him does.

A Fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and then waits for it to tell him to go.

A traffic apologist looks up “STOP” in his lexicon of English and discovers that it can mean either: 1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; or 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his argument on the Traffic Debate Forum on this issue is his conclusion: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.

A scholar from the Jesus Seminar concludes that the passage “STOP” undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the Gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.

A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark Street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called “Q”. There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs
and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar’s commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the commentary, however: the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.

An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage “STOP”. For ample, “ST” contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas “OP” contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes at the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the “O” and the “P”.

Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.

Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar amends the text, changing “T” to “H”. “SHOP” is much easier to understand in context than “STOP” because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because “SHOP” is so similar to “STOP” on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.

An Orthodox Jew does one of two things: Takes another route to work that doesn’t have a stop sign so that he doesn’t run the risk of disobeying the halachah (Jewish Law); or stops at the stop sign, says “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop,” waits 3 seconds according to
his watch, and then proceeds .

A Lubovitcher Hasidic Jew stops at the sign and reads it very carefully in the light of the Rebbe’s teachings. (In former times he would have used his cell phone to call Brooklyn and speak to the Rebbe personally for advice, but this is no longer possible, may the Rebbe rest in peace.) Next, he gets out of the car and sets up a
roadside mitzvah mobile [outreach booth], taking this opportunity to ask other Jewish drivers who stop at the sign whether or not they have put on tefillin today [male ritual] or whether they light Shabbos candles [female ritual]. Having now settled there, he steadfastly refuses to give up a single inch of the land he occupies until Moschiach [the Jewish Messiah] comes.

A Reform Jew sees the stop sign, and coasts up to it while contemplating the question “Do I personally feel commanded to stop?” During this internal process he edges into the intersection and is hit from behind by a car driven by a secular Jew who ignored the sign completely.

A Conservative Republican reacts by calling his lawyer and asking him whether stopping at this sign is required by unanimous ruling of the SEC. While waiting for the answer he is ticketed by a policeman for obstructing traffic. He blames activist
judges for overturning years of common sense traffic laws.

A Liberal Democrat stops at the sign, but feels that the community would be better served if this was a through street, and the cross street had the stop. He hires a lobbyist to ensure this change is adopted. A month later, when driving on the cross street, he stops for the new stop sign and blames the Republicans for subsidizing
the stop sign industry and making him late for an interview.

The Zodiac-aware Jesus Freak meditates on whether the STOP sign applies in all Four Worlds [Mental-Emotional-Physical-Energy] or only in some of them, and if so which ones? Is her sun sign in the Stop house? While fumbling out her Tarot cards for a quick reading, a Southern Baptist behind her takes personal offense at about ten of her thirty two bumper stickers, and gets out to scream the word of God at her until she rolls up her windows and drives off.

An atheist examines the legality of the stop sign in reference to his personal standards of morals and acceptable social dogmas, determines that there are sufficient justifications to stop in view of enlightened self interest, and halts his vehicle.

A militant atheist feels that the civic official that determined the stop sign arrangement at this intersection was probably working to inflict his personal standards of traffic onto the population in general and blows the stopsign in an act of civil disobedience. But he tells the paramedics, as they cut him out of the wreckage, that he never saw the sign.

An agnostic stops, but only to examine the validity of the stop sign with reference to the traffic laws that apply to all the streets that travel through this intersection. Is it a four way stop? A three way? How can anyone not think that traffic is designed? But how can anyone think a system this screwed up is the result of intelligence?

A libertarian drives past the sign, but stops around the corner. He gets out, and starts telling everyone that does stop that there are no stop signs in the constitution, and the Supreme Court has never had a chance to uphold the free-motion rights of the individual.

An NRA member points out to his friend where he drilled three shots out of five inside the ‘O’ on the sign.

Just a few family pics to distract you all.

A good point was brought up in the comments. It was suggested that fundamentalists do not take the Bible at face value. After thinking about it for a second I realized that is completely true. If fundamentalists really did take the Bible for what it was meant to be they would be just about the most radical, revolutionary and loving people in the world. As it is fundamentalists are usually dry, boring and rather spiteful.

So how, then, is the Bible to be read? Joey’s right that there are loads of difficult, complex and even seemingly contradictory things in that big book. Because of this we can’t just call our interpretation of the Bible ‘taking it at face value’ even though I’d like to. This is basically how I think the Bible should be read:

1. With a focus on what is focused on. Major in major points. Those things that are repeated the most and stressed the most and given the most place in Scripture should be given the most place in deciding how to interpret it. The things that I see repeated most are issues about the glory of God, the waywardness of man, the benefits of following God, the supremacy of Christ and the radical demands placed on the life of a believer. I see these things stressed again and again and so I give them high place.
2. Literally. I do not mean that every single word in the Bible has a corresponding physical meaning. If that were the case then Jesus would be a physical, wooden door. When I say I read the Bible literally I mean that I try to take it the way the author intended it. So when things are obviously meant in a spiritual way I take them spiritually. When they are meant in a physical way I take them physically. It’s hard to figure out which one is which, but I don’t believe it is necessary to take something as purely spiritual just because it involves the miraculous.
3. Prayerfully. If we believe in any way that the Bible is God’s book and God is alive and active then we’d be fools to read it on our own. Our reading must be saturated with prayer so that the Spirit will guide us into the meaning He meant for us. Reading the Bible without praying is kinda like taking your vitamins without eating any food. It looks good, but you’ll starve to death anyway.
4. Honestly and self-critically. Let’s face it, we’re sorely influenced by the way we’ve been brought up and our education. Regardless of our background and convictions we all need to realize that we are influenced by our families, teachers, favorite books and movies and everything else we’re come in contact with. Try to limit how much influence all this has over the way you read. Not that this influence is bad, because it is by influence that we learn. We cannot teach ourselves everything. It’s just that when trying to figure out how to read the Bible it’s best if we do it without presuppositions.
5. With a focus. People read the Bible for different reasons. If you read the Bible purely for interests’ sake then I suppose it doesn’t really matter much how you choose to read it. But if you read the Bible to change your life and understand God better then the way you read it matters very much. It’s pointless to read the Bible if you have no reason to read it. Find out what your reason is.

My little list here is born out of my convictions on what the Bible is. If you think the Bible is something different you’ll certainly end up reading it differently. Of course, all this stuff is useless if the Bible doesn’t change our lives. It’s true that fundamentalists have failed miserably here by studying the Bible intently and trying to find the right way to ‘think’ instead of allowing the Bible to change and challenge them to the right thing to ‘be’. I realize I may have worded things a little off in my last post. Joey’s right on that the people who read the Bible to gain fuel to attacking others and insisting all those different from them are on their way to hell are scary. In my reply I didn’t really mean to say that those who consider the Bible literally and inerrantly the Word of God are scary. I meant that those who claim these things had better be living radically obedient lives. The Bible, though certainly concerned with thinking rightly about God, seems more concerned with being holy before him.

A dear friend of mine words it better than I could:

And the reason why “fundamentalism” goes sour is that people are able to believe right and revolutionary things that don’t make sense and then completely divorce them from their lives. Or they take no prisoners on doctrine but then let huge concessions go in lifestyle. In their speech and worldview they make their own concessions as well. They take up causes that don’t cost them anything, like being anti-gay or fighting for the ten commandments monument to remain standing in the supreme court or to bring back prayer at the start of the school day. And then they completely ignore their own theology of the poor, or of hell. They believe that everyone is condemned and they reflect the wrath of God to the world, and yet make no expression in their life of the compassion that God/Jesus burn with. This is truly something that doesn’t make sense.

And what [Matthew is] saying is that if we really believe in what the bible has revealed, and actually do warp our lives to it, then we don’t make sense at all. We don’t make sense to liberals, we don’t make sense to fundamentalists. We don’t make sense on the planet. And that is the call.

I’m writing this partially in response to a post by my friend Joey. Maybe you should read it up before you continue.

I want to clear up a few things about the relationship between what we popularly call liberal Christianity and fundamental Christianity.

Joey makes a few pertinent points that fundamentalist Christians need to think about. The most obvious is the general idea that we fundamentalist folks have a sort of ‘think like me or you’re going to hell’ mindset. It’s true that most of us seem to think that way. I suppose it creeps in when we start identifying ourselves with a particular school of thought, theology or denomination. We feel like we’re part of a good club and the membership requirement is the acceptance of a statement of faith in doctrine. They will know we are Christ’s disciples by our love, eh? Not by our statements of faith. Not that I consider doctrine to be a fringe issue or unimportant, it’s just that perfect doctrine without love is useless.

But I have a few disagreements and maybe a few clarifications in regards to Joey’s post. One is his view of Bible college. I went to the same place as Joey, though a couple years later. I imagine the teaching I got was pretty much exactly the same as his. I even got my big, healthy serving of Piper like he did. But my experience was very different from his. For me Bible college served as a beginning to many changes in my life and worldview. I know there were many people who walked into KLBC’s doors with a blank slate that they seemed aching to fill with whatever the teachers wanted to shove in there. It wasn’t really like that for me. Let’s face it, kids, if you are willing to believe anything you’ll end up being brainwashed by whoever you listen to, whether a Brethren Bible College, a secular university, a liberal seminary or a wacky pastor. If you don’t have a discerning mind you’ll end up getting screwed because pretty much everyone you come across is gonna have an agenda, even if they think that agenda is God’s honest truth. Fundamentalists get a bad rap because we’re accused of trying to force our opinion on others. But guess what, every book you read and every lecture you listen to is designed to convince you of the truth of the opinion of the writer or speaker, regardless of whether that person is evangelical, atheist, Muslim, liberal or whatever. Everyone in the world is convinced they’re right. If we thought we were wrong we’d try to figure out of was right and believe in that instead…and then we’d be convinced we were right. If you go into it with the right mindset Bible college, like almost any educational institution, can help a lot. It can prod you to challenge what you’ve been brought up with and it gives to a chance to examine things for yourself, if you’re willing to do that. If you’re not willing to do that then it’ll just turn you into your favorite professor. I recommend Bible college, but only to those willing to use their brains for themselves.

But I’ll agree with one thing wholeheartedly. Piper followers, and pretty much everyone who takes the Bible and believes it at face value, are scary people. It’s true. Listen to a Piper sermon if you don’t believe me. That guy is nuts, eh? It actually sounds like he believes that stuff he’s preaching about. I just read over a few of my posts over the last year. I guess a bunch of them are pretty scary, too. I suppose the reason we sound so scary is because our worldview makes us that way. Realize this: if we believe that the Bible is God’s true word to man and inerrant (and we should check that stuff out before jumping on board and screaming ‘Yes! And death to all who disagree’) then we will find ourselves living scary lives. If we believe that seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness is the way to go then we will be living lives that look totally foolish. If we believe that living is Christ and death is gain we will be very different people than most. I actually appreciate a lot of things about liberal Christians, though I disagree with much that they claim. I appreciate that they live lives relatively consistent with what they claim to believe. The people who scream that the Bible is totally inerrant and that everyone is going to hell but them and their crew, yet live like average, selfish, worldly folks are idiots or liars.

In the end we find that most of the things we hold to touch on the subjective. Liberal and conservative scholars can argue their heads off all day long and both have really convincing points, but few people ever really change their views because of a public debate. For a while I held a very liberal view of the Bible. I started leaning toward a more conservative interpretation right before Bible college. In recent years I started to test my conservative interpretation, because the fundamentalists who claim to have the almighty power of God on their side had better be willing to prove it. So I tried to prove it. I took Jesus at his word when he told me to give up all for him, to give a bunch of money away and seek first God’s righteousness. So far everything’s been taken care of and the promises of God have held true.

And what if it is all true? What if the Bible really is what it claims to be? What if the foolishness of God is indeed wiser than the wisdom of man? There is a heavy charge on all of us. Find out what is true. Find it and value it because truth, above all things, is important. Don’t let your presuppositions and desire to be ‘right’ rob you of the truth. And once you start finding out what the truth is, live according to that knowledge. There’s nothing worse than a man who claims to know a truth yet lives as if that truth is a fable.

Also check out the bottom half of Jerry’s post for more on this.

And because I love you all, I’ll throw in a few pictures today.

This is me making some yummy, homemade butter and the boys raiding it before anyone else gets to it. Also included are the ever-important Joseph pics. He’s pretending to cry in the third shot. I dunno why.

We all face those times when the physical seems to attack the spirtual. Sometimes we just seem too tired, hungry, hot or uncomfortable to hear or obey the Spirit. So what do we do? Do we give up and say ‘Oh well, I’d love to love God but my durned sinful body won’t let me.’? No. We fight the good fight. If the body worked for us then the spiritual struggle wouldn’t be all that big of a struggle, would it?

So what do we do when the moment of truth comes and we find that we just don’t care? What do we do when we know we should do our duty but can’t muster up the joy or will to do it? I have a few ideas and I’ve broken them down into dos and don’ts

DO

• Pray about it.
• Duh. When you feel crappy and don’t want to obey then pray, ‘God, I feel crappy and I don’t want to obey.’ You won’t catch him off guard, he knows how you feel. Be honest. Ask for help. Pray hardest when you don’t feel like praying because that’s when you’re in the most danger. And remember, he who bought you is faithful and he won’t let you fall to the uttermost. Get close to that vine.
• Get a drink.
• Okay, maybe this one shouldn’t head the list, but I think the concept behind it should stand. When I wake up in the morning I look and feel like the zombies out of Heroes 5. I can hardly walk or speak, let alone commune with the ruler of the cosmos, and I’d hit anyone who crosses my path with a big, rusty knife. In Canada I prepare the coffee maker before I go to bed and just flip the switch as soon as I wake up. Some people don’t like the idea of caffeine being used as a spiritual help. I figure that drinking coffee to help my time with God is about the best use of coffee I can think of. This suggestion isn’t really about coffee, but whatever it is that wakes you up, be it tea, juice, or quick exercise. There are a few words of warning, though. Don’t do anything that takes more than three minutes. That’s coming close to distraction. If all you need is a stiff, black coffee don’t fire up the cappuccino machine. Also don’t make the mistake of thinking you absolutely need whatever help you’re using. If you can’t get your coffee you’ll still need to suck it up and pray.
• Write.
• This one is more focused on personal times of prayer and meditation than other spiritual duties. Writing helps you to stay focused and remember what you’re doing. How many times have you been tired while praying and suddenly found that you stopped praying and were thinking about a movie you saw last week? Writing keeps you on track and it gives you a great record of what you’ve been reading and praying about.
• Organize.
• Opening the Bible to wherever you feel the Spirit leads is usually not so helpful. A Bible reading plan is great. I use something called The Discipleship Journal Bible Reading Plan. You can find it on the Internet. It suggests four separate readings a day (I only do three). It’s helpful because you get a better picture of scripture and you can see yourself making progress. A Prayer plan would also be helpful. Make a document on your computer or in your journal or on a whiteboard. A list of thins to pray for daily and weekly. Don’t listen to the goons who call it legalistic. It’s only legalistic if you make it that way. It’s a help.
• Be regular.
• Don’t miss a day. I don’t care if you’re staying at a friend’s house or in an airplane or whatever. Don’t miss a day. There are few things harder than trying to re-establish a habit that was messed up once. One time is all the flesh needs to get away from its medicine. Don’t miss a day.
• Be willing to break the rules.
• Not legal rules, social ones. Be willing to cut a meeting short because you have to go pray. Be willing to give that homeless guy a hundred bucks instead of a quarter. Be willing go to bed a little earlier for the sake of a good morning. Be willing to be looked at funny for the sake of Jesus. Imagine no one is looking, and do the right thing.
• Pay attention to all the disciplines.
• I’ve had my prayer life hurt by lack of evangelism. I’ve had the Bible seem to dry up in my hands because of lack of prayer. Marital problems have, in the past, caused me to shudder at the suggestion of prayer. Every part of your life is connected. When you have felt dry for an extended period of time examine yourself. Where is your life in trouble? What do you need to pick up again to get it going? Prayer? Bible? Fasting? Service? Giving? Meditation? Preaching? Evangelism? Examine yourself hard.
• Get out.
• Of your comfort zone, that is. We toss that phrase around a lot but few know what it really means. Do something good that’s uncomfortable. Go visit a sick person or widow. Get down to Jane and Finch and give out the Gospel. Pray in public. Something good that hurts.
• Just do it.
• Duty sometimes leads to desire. Just do it, soldier.

DON’T

• Follow your heart.
• Christians have forgotten that the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately sick. When you know what you should do you often hear that little desire in the back of your mind telling you to do something else that seems so much easier and rather innocent. Your heart will try to get you to do anything other than your duty because duty and truth are generally odious to your sinful little heart. Be wary of the suggestions of the heart, they point to a very easy path.
• Do what’s easy.
• The easy road is almost never the right one. If the easy road was the right one then I would think that most people in the world would be happy, holy and generally satisfied with life. As it is most people are miserable, profane and generally pissed with everything that crosses their path. Usually you will find duty and help to be off the beaten track, outside the camp.
• Get distracted.
• Don’t take a nap. Don’t go for a walk to clear your head. Don’t play that game just for five minutes. Stay focused! When people think of the devil they usually think of some demon possessing people or drawing them to nasty, blatant sins. I picture a man selling candy. Don’t buy that crap. Stay on target.