It’s called ‘the law of unintended consequences’ for a reason

 

    I have been tossing about a number of different things to write about for a little while, and finally settled on this one.  I will lay out one issue recently voted on, show arguments made on both sides, and what is starting to happen as the result.

     The issue I’m focusing on is Washington State Initiative 1183.  For those outside the state, Washington State has an initiative process.  From the FAQ on the Washington Secretary of State’s site on Initiatives:  ‘The Washington State Constitution reserves to the people the right to approve or reject certain state laws through the process of initiative or referendum. A registered voter, or group of voters, desiring to qualify an initiative or referendum for the ballot must gather signatures on petitions in order to do so.’  I –1183 was one of three initiatives on this year’s general election ballot.  The initiative dealt with the sale of ‘spirits’ i.e., hard liquor. 

     Prior to this, sale of spirits was controlled by the state.  Either state run stores or ‘contract liquor stores’ could sell spirits.   Some of the revenues were used to help fund alcohol and drug treatment and prevention programs.  The initiative eliminates the state run liquor stores, removes the liquor control boards power to set prices and oversee the the contract liquor stores, directs the state liquor store assets to be sold and the store locations to be auctioned.  Stores or individuals must pay a fee to obtain a liquor license.  I summarized the state Attorney General’s statement on the initiative for brevity.  You can read the full statement here.

     Arguments for the passage of this initiative (provided in the Washington State Voter’s Pamphlet) can be summarized as follows:  This will get the state out of the business of selling liquor (where it doesn’t belong).  Additional revenue will be generated through the licensing fees that can be used to pay for education, health care, and public safety.  Arguments against the initiative can be summarized this way:  This initiative will quadruple the number of stores selling liquor leading to more problem drinking to include drunk driving, which will overburden police and first responders.  The major beneficiary if this passes are the big chain stores.  Again, you can review the full statements of each side can be found with the full statement of the initiative at the link above.

     I – 1183 passed with approximately 60 percent voting for the initiative.   I did not vote for this, as one thing I did not hear mentioned (by either yes or no groups) was the cost of transitioning both in money and jobs.  Looking through the voter’s guide, the only statement regarding jobs and cost was a ‘one time cost’ for unemployment, sick leave and vacation time buyout of $28 million during 2012 and 2013’ mentioned in the impact statement.  Why would I look at jobs?  High unemployment, and a difficult economy cause me to focus on this.  My title refers to the fact people probably did not look at the potential effect on jobs. 

     I came across this article discussing the fallout from passage of I – 1183.  One of the major impacts listed is the loss of over 900 jobs next year.  Looking at which jobs are affected, it’s the store clerks, warehouse distribution workers, and store managers.  Some may say they were ‘on the public dole’ and that they need to learn to ‘find jobs like the rest of us’, but that is not how to treat people, no matter what you think of the policy behind it.  The salaries of the people currently marked to lose their jobs is between $10 and $21/hour.  Will there be additional people hired at the new stores?  Probably, but not as many, and the benefits for those people will most likely be less than the state employees.  Will stores like Albertsons, Safeway, and Costco hire additional people to deal with the additional stock and sales?  I doubt it. 

     Now, do I think the state should have been involved in the liquor sale business in the first place?  No.  What I’m getting at (or the bottom line) is:  jobs are jobs, no matter what.  Whether you are employed by the federal government (in the case of the military, bureaucrats, and federal civil servants like myself), state government (in the case of these state liquor store employees), local government or a private company, everyone tries to find the best possible employment opportunity available.  And it is an opportunity, no matter how you look at it.

     Looking at this issue caused me to ask this question:  what is the purpose of a business?  Looking back 100 – 150 years ago, stores were designed with two purposes; to provide the owner with a living, and to provide needed goods and services to the community.  I have no doubt the owners and executive boards of the ‘big chain stores’ are making a very good living.  I’m not sure, however, if those stores are providing ‘needed’ goods and services.  There’s an idea of service, of helping others found then (not that there weren’t people trying to cheat each other – that’s human nature for you) that is missing today. 

     Now, if people are willing to spend their money in those places, I’m not going to get mad at them.  Everyone’s made their choice, and making their choice, and we need to deal with it.  It would be better for everyone involved, however, if we started looking at what may occur when we make certain choices.  We just may be taking opportunities, or even a living, from our neighbors.  There are faces behind those numbers.  We would do well to remember that.

Are we that devoid of logical argument?

 

     I thought I would try and leave things alone for a while, but something has been bugging me a lot recently.  It’s something I put into the ‘pet peeve’ department, but also tends to fall into logical fallacy territory.  My title is essentially a question due to my personal observation that all argumentation seems to consist solely of personal attacks.

     Personal attacks generally speaking fall into the category of the ‘ad hominem’ attack (ad hominem is Latin for ‘to the man’).  Why is this considered a logical fallacy?  The person’s character, or personality, has absolutely nothing to do with the argument or line of reasoning they are putting forth.  When you attack the person, you are completely avoiding their argument.

    Looking at modern applications of personal attacks (I’ll use this instead of ad hominem), many people would point to Saul Alinsky.  His book ‘Rules for Radicals’ list techniques that I believe fall under the category of personal attack.  Ridicule - "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."  Also listed is the ‘rule’ of Picking the target, freezing it, personalizing it, and polarizing it  - "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When you 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...' "One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other."  Now, we can sit here in front of our computers and agree these techniques do not follow logic and avoid the argument (whatever the argument may be), however we need to keep in mind this book and rules weren’t designed for Toastmasters or debate club.  They were designed to help people attempting to change their local community or society in general.

     Some people may be nodding their head sagely at this point.  After all, I am pointing out someone they despise as an example of what personal attacks are and showing it as lacking in logical framework and generally bad.  Hang on though, here’s where I jump the tracks, go off the reservation, and become an equal opportunity alienator (is that a word?).

     You can pick any number of issues today.  No matter which one, both sides are solely relying on personal attacks (and using Alinsky’s methods) in their attempts to sway opinion.  Now I can only speak for myself, but if that is the way you are going to go, you’ve lost me.  To me, that shows you have no confidence in your argument, and I shouldn’t listen to you.  By the same token, calling your opponents stupid, ugly, smelly, ignorant, Neanderthal, or any other derogatory terms, loses me as well.  It goes back to the above paragraph.  If you can’t argue against the statement, or line of reasoning, but instead you call your opponent names, you lose me.

     Another method of personal attack (I call it that, but not sure if others would) is to twist the words of your opponent and throw it back at them.  That aggravates me almost as much as the name calling.  You can’t use your own words to challenge or refute the argument, but manipulate others?  I lose respect for you, and also lose respect for your argument or position.

What to do, what to do…..

 

     I keep telling myself I should leave government, politics, society, etc. alone because I end up getting frustrated.  But this has been on my mind and I just can’t seem to leave it alone, so here goes….

     More and more often these days, it seems to be an interesting (to say the least) time to be alive.  Looking around, there are diverging, and yet simultaneously converging stories and issues:  from the ‘Occupy Wall Street/local town’ phenomenon to bank and lending/borrowing issues, budget discussions (and the attendant hyper-rhetoric, we are coming up on election season again – or did it never go away?), to the continuing War on Terror, there are many different forces and elements working what appear on the surface to be different issues.  Many of them deal with different aspects of money and economics.  We here in the United States are currently dealing with very difficult times with no immediate indication of their end.  Generally speaking, we want to find out what went wrong and ‘fix’ it.  However, there is no agreement on the problem, and many different groups have solutions that are polar opposites of each other.  As I see it, in order for us as a country to identify the problem, we need to discuss and agree on the answer to this question:  what do we want the government to do?  How we answer this question will ultimately determine what the problem is, and what to do to fix it.

     There are those who feel the current system does not do enough for its citizens.  Generally speaking, they believe the focus and primary concerns of the state need to be adjusted in order to do more for those less fortunate and those fortunate enough to take care of themselves need to assist.  There are also those who feel the current system has been ‘hijacked’ from its original purpose and are doing too much.  They believe the focus and primary concerns of the state need to be brought back to when our country was founded.  They currently oppose each other on many fronts, and there may be some very disconcerting and distressing times ahead for everyone before this is all over.

    The economic issues we face as a nation, and the question I posed above, are not unique either in American or World history.  Nations have struggled with ‘debt’ and financing what it deems necessary since the concept of money, trade, and buying were conceived.  Most notably, ancient Rome and Greece struggled over many years (in fact it stretched over centuries) to define and determine what governments were supposed to do, what their powers were, and who should have that power.  Both societies moved from oligarchies or monarchies to representative forms of government (a republic or democracy).  At times, this struggle became strident (either in revolts or in the case of the Romans ‘secessions’) and could be classified in today’s language as ‘class warfare’.

     While there are easily recognizable differences between the issues of the ancient Romans and Greeks (hey, aren’t they having issues again?) and today’s America, there are some disturbing similarities.  Like the Late Roman Republic, who wins political office depends more on money than talent for governance.  Those who make the decisions about our country are driven more by those who paid to get them into office rather than who they are supposed to represent.  Like both ancient cultures, power seems to reside with a small contingent of the population, like an oligarchy.  Eventually, the governmental systems in ancient Greece and Rome changed because the systems in practice no longer worked or were outdated.  The direction they went (more or less freedom, using our modern definitions) depended on what system (democracy/republic or monarchy/oligarchy) was in place, if there was an invasion/war going on, and the specific subject of concern.  Are we looking at that sort of fundamental change coming for our country in the near future?  I honestly don’t know. 

     I have my own conflicting thoughts and feelings on the matter, and I’m not going to get into them.  We as a country need to address what we expect of our government to do.  I am concerned that we as a nation do not have a good track record regarding discussions (the American Civil War and the more recent ‘discussions’ regarding abortion as examples).  The ‘discussion’ turns into a conflict and the final ‘answer’ is forced on everyone.  I’d like it to be different , just once.  I’m not going to hold my breath on that one, though.

Too bad it wasn’t ‘Sinners in the hands of a merciful God’

 

    During one of my travels though the internet, I came across an article discussing the difference in understanding of salvation between Protestants and Orthodox Christians.  While I was reading the article, I was struck by a thought:  Is there something more to the word and the idea of atonement than we in modern society understand?  I decided to do a little more digging into the word atonement and how it tied into salvation.

     The first thing I decided to do was to look in the dictionary.  I did this to verify the definition.  According to Webster’s Dictionary, atonement is defined as:  1) Agreement; concord; reconciliation, after enmity or controversy.  2) Expiation; satisfaction or reparation made by giving an equivalent for an injury, or by doing or suffering that which is received in satisfaction for an offense or injury; with for.  Reading through both possible definitions, the common theme that came to me is of two people or groups now at peace after formerly being at odds. 

     What  I find interesting is, the first definition of atonement is one of reconciliation.  Being a former Protestant, I can remember the concept of substitutionary atonement, and the first definition doesn’t seem to ‘fit’ with that concept.  I decided to find out about the history of the satisfaction understanding (or theological interpretation) of atonement, to ensure my memory on the topic was accurate.  In short, Archbishop Anselm , the Archbishop of Canterbury  living in the 11th Century first wrote out the idea of ‘forensic justification’ in his work Cur Deus Homo.  Anselm described  mankind’s sin is an infinite offense to God, and only Christ was able to satisfy the infinite offense and God’s infinite wrath (by extension) through Christ’s crucifixion.  To me, this now describes salvation as something scientific.  Moreover, looking at salvation as a legal matter, it moves the essence of our individual salvation outside of ourselves.  If we are the children of God, is He going to treat us and our sins in a legal fashion?  (Maybe I shouldn’t ask that question given how many families seem to think it’s OK to sue each other.) 

     Orthodox Christianity, by contrast, views the essence of our individual salvation as inside  each of us.  Our souls and our fallen natures are healed and we are reconciled to God through Christ through His incarnation, death, and resurrection.   Going back to the idea of our being the children of God, both God’s act through Christ (involving His incarnation, death, and resurrection) and our act of repentance (along with other elements of the Orthodox faith) allows us to be reconciled to God.  This is more in line with the concept of family (at least to me).

      Moving on from the dictionary, I decided to start looking through the Bible to see where atonement was used.  The word appears 70 times.  69 of those are in the Old Testament.  I decided to look at a Jewish version/definition of Atonement.  In The Encyclopedia of Judaism, there is the following on page 86 regarding atonement:

Judaism views the sinner as one spiritually alienated from God, from his fellow-man, or from his ideal self.  Atonement, in the religious sense, means a reversal of the alienation caused by sin whereby the offending party is restored to spiritual “at-one-ment” and ultimately forgiven.  Atonement, in Jewish teaching, can only be achieved after a process of repentance which involves a recognition and admission of the sin, feelings of remorse, restitution to the offended party, and a resolve not to repeat the offense.

And later in the same entry: 

In the case of unwitting offenses against the ritual law, the Bible prescribes a sin-offering.  This is not viewed as some payment of restitution to an offended God, but rather as a sacrament intended to restore the ideal relationship between man and God, a relationship that had been impaired by man’s sin.  Confession, as an expression of repentance, always accompanied such sacrifices and offerings.  when the prophets of Israel directed harsh criticism against sacrifice, their real target was not the sacrificial system as such but insincere atonement and the perfunctory way in which the offering was made.  No sacrifices could atone for deliberate transgressions, and the concept of a vicarious sacrifice was largely alien to Judaism.    

Looking at this, the idea of someone suffering in place of another is not in the theological framework of Israel,  from which the Christian Church grew.  I did remember Leviticus Chapter 16 and the Day of Atonement, where sacrifices were made to atone for the sins of the people of Israel.  When you look at the Jewish system of atonement, the goal was for the soul of the sinner to be relieved of the burden of his sin.  This requires action from the individual committing the sin.  You can’t ask someone else to do this for you.  There also needs to be repentance in order for the relationship (whether with God or with another person) to be restored.  How many times have we seen either someone ‘apologizing’ without truly being sorry for what they did, or having a ‘spokesman’ try to apologize for them?  When we see these things happen, do we believe the person is sorry and wants to reconcile the relationship?  My answer’s no.  Why should it be any different when we are trying to reconcile with God?

     The one New Testament reference is Romans 5:11 “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.”   I decided to play ‘word substitution’, where I would substitute either ‘reconciliation’ or ‘satisfaction’ for ‘atonement’.  I’m going to type them out so you can see the results:  1) “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the satisfaction.”  2)  “And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation.” 

    The west (Roman Catholics and Protestants) treats salvation as a legal matter (where we as sinful human beings are before a vengeful God to be judged) and the east  treats salvation as a matter of the soul (where humanity, originally a perfect reflection of the image of God, is now an imperfect reflection due to sin). This polemic continues to feed  the misunderstandings between the two sides and hinders the possibility for reconciliation.

My 9/11 Story

 

     With the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, I thought I would take a minute and reflect on my memories of that day.  It’s not so much that my story is unique, but it serves as another perspective.

     I was in the Army stationed in Washington.  At that time, my unit was out in the field, participating in an exercise.  We had been out there for three days.  I was working on the night shift.  I remember it was approximately 7:30 am (so that would make it 10:30 am eastern time), and we had just finished the change-over brief with the day shift.  I was beginning to walk out of the command tent and mentally planning the next half hour:  get some breakfast (my evening meal) and go to my tent to sleep for the next six hours or so before beginning the cycle over again (wake up, get dressed, shave, make sure there was nothing serious going on before I grabbed some dinner (my breakfast) and go back to the command tent for the (final) night of the exercise and then stay awake to break everything down and go home.  Things didn’t go that way.

     A Major I knew was walking into the command tent as I was going out.  He was carrying a transistor radio and had a very serious look on his face.  I asked him what was wrong, and he said ‘they’ve attacked the World Trade Center’.  I did a 180 and followed him back into the command tent where our commander was giving directions for the days missions and activities.  The Major put the radio on a table and we all stood and listened for about 2-3 seconds before the commander said, ‘get my driver’.  I walked quickly out of the command tent and found the driver and told him to get ready to bring the commander out of the field.  Once I made sure the driver was set, I tried to eat, and go to sleep.  It was very difficult to sleep, as I didn’t have any real idea at the time of what was going on, but I knew it was something we as a country and a people had never experienced before.

     After finally getting some sleep, I got up and went through my routine (as I described it above).  But I immediately noticed there wasn’t the ‘hustle and bustle’ that had characterized the exercise up to this point.  The exercise had been halted while I was asleep.  I asked and found out about the halting of the exercise,  we were to wait until our planned time to come out of the field.  As I went to dinner, we were all discussing what had happened.  As the details were just unfolding as I went to bed, I didn’t know about the falling of the twin towers, or the attack on the Pentagon, and details were still very sketchy about a possible fourth plane.  I took it all in with a growing pit in my stomach as the enormity of it hit me.  The entire last night out in the field, all of us on night shift listened to the radio as they replayed the events of the day.  More details were coming out and of course we listened.  We listened in shock, almost numb.  For Americans, a terrorist attack on our own soil was such a foreign concept I had difficulty coming to grips with it.

     The next day we packed up and got out of the field.  The route for us to get back in was difficult as roads we had gone out on were closed due to heightened security.  Once we were back, and had done everything possible to close up and clean things up/out, we were allowed to go home.  There was only one way in and out of post.  The other gates were closed (again due to heightened security).  It took a very long time for me to get home, and once I did it was a bittersweet reunion with my family.  We were able to exchange our stories about how we heard, and discuss our fears in those first few hours. 

     The days and weeks following were a continued series of changes:  new realities, new fears, new work.  Looking back, it was as if everyone was asleep and had been jarred awake by what happened.  Many significant events afterward seemed to have its roots in that day.  It is one of those events where you can ask someone ‘where were you when you heard?’  Or, ‘where were you when it happened?’  It’s a sort of common bond with our fellow citizens.  The best way I can think of to describe it is, ‘the day we lost our innocence’.  Others may have used the same phrase, I don’t know, but it fits for me.

Do we understand this word?

 

     The word I am referring to is worship.  It is a word that is thrown about quite a bit these days, and sometimes I feel like Inigo Montoya from the movie The Princess Bride and want to say ‘you keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.’

     I went to Merriam Webster Online to find what I will use for the rest of this post as the authoritative definition:  1.  To honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power.  2.  to regard with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion.  Worship can also be used as a noun.  The idea being expressed is one of honor and respect.

     How does one worship? In Christian worship, there are songs and prayers at a minimum no matter which denomination you are.  Sermons (or homilies) are also a part of most Christian worship services.  These vary in length from 10-15 minutes to over an hour or longer.  Once you move beyond these common blocks, the services start to diverge.  Some are considered liturgical where others are not, but all churches have a pattern to their services.  Different churches vary how often communion (or Eucharist) is served.  Even the elements of communion can differ (wine, grape juice, crackers, leavened or unleavened bread).  Although songs are common, they can vary between churches as well (song types, whether or not instruments are used, type of instruments).

     Now, keeping in mind that worship has to do with honoring or reverencing the divine, our actions should reflect that honor and reverence.  We should dress like we are entering the presence of one deserving our best (not necessarily requiring we wear one particular article of clothing or another).  We should also be humble, as the person we are worshipping is greater than us. 

     The actual act of worship or the worship service should involve our entire person and include our senses (hearing, sight, etc.) Our minds must also be engaged so that our worship is not a ‘rote’ set of actions.  You can be in a wonderful worship service, but if your mind is not engaged, it is not true worship, as John states in John 4:24: “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth”.  True worship involves both our spirit (soul/mind) and our body, as illustrated in Mark 7:6 “He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”

     Having our whole person involved ensures our worship is not simply an intellectual exercise.  Worshipping God at its root is an action.  Thought is required, but it is in our actions every day and hour we show what we honor and revere.  James 2:14-26 gives a wonderful explanation of how our faith is not something just intellectual or verbal, but requires physical action on our part as well.

      What is the ‘right’ way to worship?  God is a God of order, and not chaos.  God gave direction to Israel in how to worship through Moses in the Old Testament.  The Orthodox Church was born out of that Jewish tradition and incorporated traditions regarding Christ without losing sight of its heritage.  Looking at all these things I believe I am in the Church with that correct form of worship.  You are certainly free to disagree with me.

     There is one other issue I would like to touch on.  Looking again at the definition of worship, I think people in modern western society have difficulty accepting the idea that there is someone or something that is greater or higher than ourselves, despite their acknowledgement of such.  We are taught by our schools that each individual is important, and no one is more important than another.  Most countries do not have a class of nobility, or any official designated class system for that matter (I would argue all societies have a class system, it’s just not officially acknowledged).  The ‘supremacy of the individual’ has made the concept of the Christian community or gathering as a part of a larger body more and more difficult.  It is this that causes many to (unconsciously) ‘put God in a box’ where God can only do what they say He can, because otherwise we need to give up something:  our overdeveloped sense of self, otherwise known as pride.

Careful on the Interpretation

 

     I’ve seen a number of comments recently on the earthquake in Virginia (between DC and Richmond, but most news sites say it was in DC), and of course almost as quickly as the ‘did you feel that’ comments went through, it was immediately followed by the ‘God was making a statement to our leaders in DC’ comments.  Fortunately, no one appears to be seriously injured, but there are some buildings that will need attention.  My title is aimed more at the ‘God’s making a statement’. 

     I’ve explained my view in the previous post who want to use God and what political party Christians should vote for and the dangers in doing that.  Now I guess the cute thing to do is say God’s trying to get people’s attention through natural disasters.  To me that’s even more dangerous than trying to say how God would vote in American politics.  At the very least, it’s easy to poke fun at that sentiment.  Of course, that fits in with the ‘vengeful God’ concept a lot of people have.  I’m not going to get into a long-winded discussion about that, I’ll save that for when I’m more introspective.  I will end this with a short humorous story I read in a Reader’s Digest many years ago.

‘A lawyer was making his opening statement in a civil trial.  At one point during his statement, a small earthquake shook the courthouse.  Being quick witted, the lawyer turned to the judge and said “at least someone agrees with me, your honor’.  The judge smiled, and replied, ‘earthquakes come from below, don’t they?”’

Does God vote?

 

I’m going to go on a little bit of a rant right now, because a couple of things are really setting me off.  There are multiple groups, sites, etc., that want to directly inject religion into American politics.  These groups are stating that their particular political philosophy is the one God ‘supports’ (who knew God was a special interest group?)  I am not trying to single out any one group on this (although this phenomenon does seem to exist more on one side than the other), it’s just that for me this whole thing is starting to cross over into the silly.

I have a difficult time with those who want to bring politics and religion together.  I am NOT being critical of those whose faith is a major factor in their political philosophy and decision making processes.  If their faith is a major factor in their life, I would expect it to be this way.  If one were to go digging through history, we would find multiple instances where politics and religion were made mutually exclusive.  On the individual level, this is difficult at best, and more probably impossible.  But for as diverse a country as this one, it is a necessity.  People were worried when John F. Kennedy was running for President, because he was a Roman Catholic.  (The Pope would be influencing American policy was one expressed concern) and this wasn’t the first time the situation presented itself (Alfred E. Smith in the election of 1920 was another time the Roman Catholic religion was an issue in American politics). 

One aspect of this that’s really grating on me right now are people who say Christians should support only one party.  To me, it’s insane to say that being a good baptist, catholic, etc. means you should only support party x.  In my view, not only is this insane (despite those who can give extensive theses to the contrary) it borders, if not completely goes over the line into judging other people.  I’ve already made my thoughts known about that issue, so I won’t rehash.  Suffice to say, it’s not something we should be doing (I know, I know, I’m doing what I say we shouldn’t, but I’m not judging these people’s salvation, just their sanity).

I believe a person’s faith is ultimately an individual matter.  How we express our faith and how we interact with others is something each individual has to work out on their own.  How one votes, or believes the government’s priorities should be, is really not a reflection of that person’s faith.   Everyone has their struggles, or issues where what their heart and head believe differ greatly, and create major internal conflict.  Or, it may be a case where they have accepted something that, on the surface, appears to be in conflict with the faith, but if you talk and listen to the person’s reasons, it is in complete agreement with that faith.  It would be a far better use of our time to focus on our own faith and issues instead of trying to get everyone else to think like us.  Or have we all decided to try and be like the Borg ‘resistance is futile’.  Well, I’ll resist as long as I can.

Politics? Nah, I prefer theater

     I’ve been making a concerted effort in the last few months to leave everything political alone.  Why?  The simple and short answer is that I have become so frustrated and cynical at the whole process.  It’s gotten to the point where I can hear about a particular issue or fight in our nation’s capital and pretty much predict what the end result will be without trying very hard.  I’ve honestly given up on anyone in either of the American political parties doing the ‘right thing’.  If it really fit, I think I’d call myself a political agnostic (I think that is in the same category as Calvin and Hobbes ‘math atheist’).

     Take the most recent debt ceiling drama.  I knew when the issue was first brought forward into the ‘public consciousness’ they would drag the process out until the ‘last minute’ all the while going through the motions of trying to come to an agreement and putting down the attempts of the other side (it’s at that point when both sides put up the ‘unreasonable’ and ‘ideologically pure’ suggestions, knowing they’d get shot down by the other side).  Then, when everyone watching is getting their blood pressure and nerves up, they come out with a ‘compromise’.  Of course, it falls short of what everyone wants.  Those who we turn to for leadership tell us ‘it’s the best compromise we could come up with in the limited time we had’ and that’s supposed to make everyone relax and move on to the next ‘crisis’.  Again, using the most recent event, the next act is apparently testing how screwing up our own economy will affect the rest of the world, along with an extended version of the blame game (anyone want to actually lead instead of just wanting the power that we give to leaders?) 

     As an aside, does anyone think the ‘final result’ is something all involved put together behind the scenes while the ‘drama’ unfolded?  Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it was.  In my view, politics (at least on the national level) has become almost as scripted as the best Shakespearian drama.  Apparently some people took the ‘all the world’s a stage’ line to its’ logical extreme.  It’s either that or they are trying a variation of the quote ‘you will never lose money underestimating the taste of the people’, theirs says ‘you won’t lose your elected position by underestimating the intelligence of the people’. 

Why?

     I really don’t understand.  Really.  Why must everything, every stinkin’ thing turn into something either (a) some commentary on society or social issue, (b) some commentary on politics, or (c) some other comment about ‘I’m right and you’re wrong, so there.’

     At this point, I’m willing to bet that a youtube video of bunnies bouncing on a trampoline would turn into some argument about abortion.  (I bet the video would be cool though – maybe I should search youtube for that, or better yet see if I could film it myself.  It might actually be calming).

     There are some things, yes, that do lend themselves to commentary like that.  Even some that lend themselves to vigorous debate.  But not everything.  I swear it’s worse than Godwin’s law (click the link to see what I’m talking about).  Sooner or later, every freakin’ topic turns to something ugly.

     Yes, Ook the caveman is out and angry, swinging his club.  Unfortunately when he does that, he’s not too careful about where he’s swinging and tends to cause a bit of damage, so I’ll apologize now (for those who don’t know – Ook is me, but he gets to be ugly while I have to play nice).

My rules of the road

     It’s been an interesting few weeks.  Between work and personal stuff, there just doesn’t seem to be that much time to do anything else.  But, I won’t bore you with life or what constitutes ‘crises’ around here. 

     I’ve been having some interesting conversations with different people.  The topics vary, covering both personal and general ideas and concepts.  What I have found is:  when I’m in the middle of a conversation, I don’t do very well.  I’m sure part of it is the difficulty I have putting my thoughts into words.  It takes me quite a while to get what I want to say into an understandable form (either written or spoken, more so with spoken).  I’m starting to get a little better, but there’s still a long way to go.

     Anyway, the reason for my title is that I have some basic concepts of how I look at discussions/arguments.  I’m going to lay out three.  If some of them make me a cynic, then I’m a cynic.  So, here goes.

     First:  everyone has an agenda.  I don’t care whether it’s politics, culture/society, religion, whatever.  In today’s society, it seems even the ‘scientific studies’ are started with an agenda.  If you show me a study that shows rabbits eating pine needles tend to grow wings and fly, I’m going to wonder what you and those who wrote the study are trying to prove.  One of the most important parts of the scientific method is the ability to reproduce the results.  There are some things that are more difficult to do that with than others, but if I’m a scientist in that particular field, I should be able to look at your study, and be able to do it myself with similar results.  By the way:  do you know if eggs are good or bad for you this week?  I’m just curious.  A byproduct of this (and it’s a pet peeve of some I know) is someone saying ‘I’m just saying’ when they say something they know is going to set you off.  If it’s your opinion, own it.

     Second:  persuasion doesn’t work on the stubborn.  I don’t care if you’ve got the best argument in the world that money does grow on trees.  If I’m convinced it doesn’t, you won’t get anywhere and odds are we’ll end up fighting.  I’m not suggesting that everyone should be open minded about everything, but if you’re talking to someone who’s on the opposite side of an issue, it’s better to realize that sooner rather than later.

     Third:  Don’t assume everyone who doesn’t agree with everything you say TO THE LETTER is a knuckle dragging Neanderthal (no offense to the Neanderthals).  One of the great things in this life is that our beliefs and concepts can be challenged on a daily basis.  We should not look on this with dread.  We should rather be glad for the opportunity to determine, if it’s something we’re less than certain about, the ‘correctness’ of our concepts.  It’s also an opportunity to hone our debate skills so we can better defend our beliefs.  I’ve discussed the shallowness of some debate methods. I continue to hope I can improve in the future.

     Finally:  Disagreement does NOT mean a lack of understanding.  At the same time, just because you do understand (or say you do), it doesn’t mean you agree.  There are times when people do understand the premise of what you’re trying to say and they still don’t agree with your conclusion.  I tend to think better conversations come out of situations where both sides understand where the other is coming from. 

     Do these rules work?  I sometimes tend to forget them, or I may use them to ‘opt out’ a lot quicker than I should.  I’m a work in progress, so I continue to better myself.

Informal Book Review: Reconsidering Tulip

     I just finished reading a book by Alexander Renault Reconsidering Tulip: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Historical Response to the Reformed Doctrines of Predestination.  I must admit the title interested me.  Coming from a Reformed background and generally adhering to the doctrine of Predestination, I was curious to see how someone would try to compare and contrast these doctrines to Orthodox doctrines.  In the end, I was pleasantly surprised. 

     The author, coming at predestination from a Presbyterian perspective, does an excellent job of working through each of the elements of TULIP (Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints).  Mr. Renault covers each element using the following structure:  he provides a definition (courtesy of Theopedia, a Calvinist wiki site), then he provides various philosophical, biblical, and historical problems. The philosophical and biblical areas are fairly upfront.  The historical section is comprised of quotes from Church fathers throughout history, but generally focused on the first to fourth centuries, which speak against the particular element.  The majority of the book is spent working through Total depravity, Unconditional election, and Limited atonement.  His sections on Irresistible grace and Perseverance of the saints, while shorter than the others, are not short-changed.

     The result is a generally well reasoned, balanced, and thorough examination of the five elements of Tulip.  I came out after reading this book with not only a better understanding of the history, philosophy, and theology of predestination, but also a better understanding of problems.  Overall, the book is what I would call a fairly ‘easy’ read.  It goes into detail in its’ descriptions, but the language is such that you don’t need a seminary degree to understand what he’s talking about.

     I came out of a tradition that didn’t hold to the elements of Tulip exactly as Mr. Renault described them in the book, so some of the arguments (both for and against a particular predestinarian element) he put forth didn’t resonate with me as well as others.  However, the overall themes and ideas were, in my opinion, accurately represented.

     In the end, whether or not you hold to Tulip, the ‘doctrines of grace’, or a similar theology, you will be blessed by this book.  You can purchase it online in both ebook and traditional format here.

Disclaimer:  I did not receive this book for free, and was under no obligation to write this review.

Are we prepared for the end?

I’ve been working on a different post, and am still continuing, but I decided to put together a few thoughts based on two events that happened yesterday.  You would think they aren’t related in any way, but in a way they are.

The first item, of course is the most recent version of ‘the end is near’.  Unfortunately, this is not a unique or recent phenomenon.  It has gotten to the point, in my mind, of ‘the boy who cried wolf’.  People keep coming up with these amazing calculations to determine the actual date and time of the end of the world, and then broadcasting it to anyone in earshot (not necessarily anyone who will listen).  I’m not going to waste your time or my time to explain why this person’s wrong.  If you’re reading this, it’s blindingly obvious he was wrong. 

The second item, was the death of a person who, at least to a fair portion of the population, was very well known and popular:  Randy ‘Macho Man’ Savage.  Yes, once upon a time, I did watch professional wrestling, but it was with the critical eye that said, ‘it’s not real, I know it’s an act, so I’m going to enjoy the show’, and I do remember watching him perform over a number of years.  The details of his death have been documented in the news:  he was driving in his car with his wife (married about 1 year) when he had a heart attack and crashed (yes I’m summarizing).  Since he was in his car driving, there was no indication or warning of what was about to happen.

I use ‘the boy who cried wolf’ analogy because it has dulled most everyone’s senses to the danger.  It’s not necessarily what you think.  I’m not going to start telling you that the world is going to end, and when it’s going to end.  But there is something that we are supposed to be doing:  we need to be preparing ourselves for the time when we will ‘fall asleep in blessed expectation of the resurrection’.  The constant ‘the end is near’ hysteria has caused quite a number of us to blow off the underlying message that at any time we may find ourselves before God and our life was spent in idleness instead of repentance. 

Two poles on the compass, and ‘never the twain shall meet’?

 

     I was on a closed Facebook group (the group has since been shut down).  One of the other group members posted a link to Pastor Doug Wilson’s website where he was answering a question regarding the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I was intrigued.  First, it was the first time I had come across someone from evangelical Christianity who was attempting to answer something about Eastern Orthodoxy and remain in the evangelical Christian ‘tradition’ (I’m not sure whether it was a morbid curiosity or not).  Second, in the past I had read some of his books and so he was someone I have a fair amount of respect for (it does take a certain courage to be able to put your controversial beliefs in a book and address some difficult issues as he has done).  I have to say overall I was disappointed in his answer. 

     The question asked was:  “Can you please address the idea that the Eastern Orthodox are the only true church because they alone can stake a claim on historical Christianity. I have a friend who recently converted and I have heard there are many leaving evangelical churches for orthodoxy. I understand how compelling it is that they can trace their Christian heritage back to before Roman Catholicism and Reformed churches and I cannot find a good resource addressing this issue.”  (Copied directly as is).

   I listened to Doug Wilson’s answer.  He started out by stating any claim of ‘historical Christianity’ by the Eastern Orthodox was ‘laughable’.  I can only conclude he was referring to claiming historical Christianity in a spiritual sense, because if you look strictly at Church history  the claim is very well founded. 

     On the other hand, if you look at the Bible, and particularly these two verses from Jude and Matthew.  ‘Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints. ’(Jude 3), and ‘And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.’ (Matt 16:18).  These point, not only to the church beginning in apostolic times, but to it continuing and not be overcome through the ages. Taking this into account, then the claim of historical Christianity is not only shown through history, but also spiritually in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  

     Doug Wilson closed this segment with a classic argument from the evangelical Christian perspective against Eastern Orthodoxy:  icons.  He used (earlier in the segment admittedly) a single example of iconoclasm done by Epiphanius, a bishop from Salamis in the fourth century, as proof that icons were not ‘biblical’ and therefore anyone having them or venerating them is committing idolatry.  I decided to go to one source that has helped me in my understanding of Church history (even though it is written by a protestant writer):  Phillip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church”.   Epiphanius is described by Schaff in turn as, ‘[one] who achieved his fame by his learned and intolerant zeal for orthodoxy’, ‘His good nature easily allowed him to be used as an instrument for the passions of others, and his zeal was not according to his knowledge’, and ‘at times he violated ecclesiastical order’.  Schaff concludes his overall assessment as ‘He was possessed by a boundless credulity, now almost proverbial, causing innumerable errors and contradictions in his writings.  His style is entirely destitute of beauty or elegance.  Still his works are of considerable value as a storehouse of the history of ancient heresies and of patristic polemics.’  Looking back, he was probably not the best person to use if you’re going to make this kind of argument. 

     Doug Wilson also used the ten commandments to further his argument against icons.  This showed a non-understanding of the Eastern Orthodox theology of icons at a minimum.  To put it at its’ most basic:  Orthodox Christians do not pray TO icons.  When in front of an icon, I as an Orthodox Christian see that it is an image of either Christ, the Virgin Mary, a saint, or an event from the Bible.   I understand that it is something that comes from this earth.  Why would I venerate such a thing?  Let me try and use an example to help you understand.  I have pictures of my parents and other family members.  Some are portraits, others are from events in my past.  Looking at those pictures, they bring my mind back and focus it on those people and events, and with it feelings of love.  The same thing occurs when viewing icons.  Now, to answer Doug Wilson’s use (and many protestant Christians as well)  of the ten commandments (the second commandment in particular) to say praying and having icons is idolatry, I will add a quote from the Orthodox Christian Information Center website’s page on icons:

The issue with respect to the 2nd commandment is what does the word translated "graven images" mean? If it simply means carved images, then the images in the temple would be in violation of this Commandment.  Our best guide, however, to what Hebrew words mean, is what they meant to Hebrews—and when the Hebrews translated the Bible into Greek, they translated this word simply as"eidoloi", i.e. "idols." Furthermore the Hebrew word pesel is never used in reference to any of the images in the temple. So clearly the reference here is to pagan images rather than images in general.

Let's look at the Scriptural passage in question more closely:

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (i.e. idol), or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor shalt thou serve (worship) them..." (Exodus 20:4-5a).

Now, if we take this as a reference to images of any kind, then clearly the cherubim in the Temple violate this command.  If we limit this as applying only to idols, no contradiction exists. Furthermore, if this applies to all images—then even the picture on a driver's license violates it, and is an idol.  So either every Protestant with a driver's license is an idolater, or Icons are not idols.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the meaning of "graven images" lets simply look at what this text actually says about them.  You shall not make x,  you shall not bow to x, you shall not worship x.  If x = image, then the  Temple itself violates this Commandment.  If x = idol and not all images, then this verse contradicts neither the Icons in the Temple, nor Orthodox Icons

 

     One thing in his answer did pique my interest:  his mention of a book titled ‘through western eyes’ by Robert Letham.  I may have to see if I can find it, perhaps again for that morbid curiosity.  However the title of that book gave me the title for this post.

     Having been in both the western (Lutheran, evangelical) and eastern churches, there is one thing that to me that is a common thread through the discussions/disagreements I have come across.  Both sides view salvation, grace, the church, and scripture from such different perspectives there is almost no common ground to begin any kind of agreement from.  I’ve heard this phenomenon described as follows:  ‘It’s not just the answers that are different, there are different questions being asked.’  Dismissive, argumentative statements that make no attempt to take perspective into consideration only make the situation worse.  We need to be able to try and understand those who have a different perspective than us.  Admittedly, it can be difficult to try and help someone see a different perspective, or to be able to see a different perspective ourselves.  As I see it, if there are people who can understand the perspectives of both, and articulate those perspectives so they are understood by everyone involved, then perhaps we will have a better chance of coming to a common knowledge and understanding.

Shall they know us by our love, or by our accusations?

My title comes from John 13:35 (KJV) ‘ By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. ‘ I use this because in the last month or so I have read, seen and heard things coming from multiple ‘Christian’ communities seem to be anything but loving.  These have included the tearing down of an individual’s character, and whether or not someone is a Christian based on a particular belief. I’m not going to give any details because if you’re reading this you’ve seen what I’ve seen, or you’ve come across something similar in your own experience. Besides, it takes away from the point I’m trying to make.  Lack of a loving and charitable spirit can and really has been said about most other endeavors, to include politics, and societal issues.  I’m focusing on religion at this point.  Honestly, it’s because we have been given a wonderful example and it’s being ignored.

I have a difficult time personally when I see people being mean (for lack of a better term). I find this especially true when the accusers have little or no knowledge of the person being accused.  The verse I quoted above talks of love. One doesn’t have to dig very deep into the many commentaries available that point to this love, and the example of love that Christ gave us. One commentary I have come across recently is from the Blessed Theophylact. He was Archbishop of Orchid in Bulgaria in the late 11^th century. He wrote a series of commentaries on the New Testament.  At this time, the only one we have so far is for the Gospel according to John. One of his comments on this verse struck me as particularly relevant to the topic at hand:

‘Love prevailed among the disciples, and as a result they received the power to do miracles. If they had fallen out and separated they would have lost everything; for who would have believed men who raged against one another? This was indeed a great miracle of which Christ made them worthy, that the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul. [Acts 4:32]’ (emphasis mine).

I have no doubt that those who do not believe in Christianity enjoy when Christians focus their time and energies correcting one another. Some of these arguments are part of what drove me away from evangelical Christianity and their multiplicity of ‘subcultures’. If we are trying to witness the love of Christ to others, what kind of witness is it when we see the ‘raging’ against one another going on? And unfortunately it doesn’t seem to ever stop.

We are far better off when we humbly present our opinions and other things we’ve learned to a group. To use a further section of verses from the Bible, I would turn to James 3:13-18:

‘Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your heart, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.’

The self-seeking you see mentioned is that ‘I’m better than those other people because I know better’.  Whether or not one does know better isn’t going to make a difference if they’re coming off as arrogant and boastful. For those who are trying to convince others through harsh words and tones: what good will it do if no one will listen to you? Or conversely what makes you so sure you’re right? This is especially true for those areas delving into religion.

There are those who would argue that one shouldn’t worry about whether or not they offend someone with the message of the Gospel or Christianity.  To a certain degree I would agree with that statement.  However, it does no good, and in reality probably does more harm when the message is colored throughout with superiority.  I would say it works far better when you present your position in a positive light (i.e. ‘this is why I believe x’).  If you’re asked questions as to why you don’t believe or hold the other position, you can still point to the positives without being mean-spirited.

There are quite a large number of Bible verses I could use to continue to hammer this point home but I’m just going to use two more.  I would first point out James 4:11-12:

‘Do not speak evil of one another brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. There is one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. Who are you to judge another?’

If we’re judging others, we’re putting ourselves in the position of the one who actually IS the judge.  This ties back to Matthew 7:1-2

Judge not, that you are not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged: and with what measure you use, it shall be measured back to you.

I do not judge anyone’s salvation or faith because that’s not my place. I also do not attempt to judge anyone based on their statements or actions.  In all honesty, I have way too many issues to deal with in my own life to attempt to expend any energy trying to determine the eternal state of others.

What is Tradition? Part three

Author note:  This is the third (and final for now) part to my discussion on tradition.

In the first two parts of my discussion on the topic of tradition, I started with a definition of tradition, and provided some perspectives on tradition and how it has fit into the concepts of faith and religion.  I’m going to cover one final concept, tying it into religion, and then attempt to close.

Another element of tradition is culture.  Whether you look at a community as something provided from your parents (ethnicity), or a common experience (the military might fit into this), the common tradition you share with others is what binds you together as a community.  When I look at my childhood and growing up, I can identify different traditions.  Some of them were due to society (holiday picnics/fireworks displays), some coming directly from my family (what we did for vacations).  These events, along with stories told about my siblings and parents, became a ‘tradition’.  Who I am both in family and in society has, in no small part, been driven by tradition.

Bringing this to religion in general, and Christianity in particular, this is where the concept of the ‘body of believers’ comes in.  Tradition is something that gives you a history and a lineage that goes back through time.  Whether it’s specific prayers, or statements of belief, all the different denominations have a tradition.  The continuing pattern of culture, patterns, and beliefs in the Orthodox Church is a connection with the many believers throughout the centuries and down to the present time in all the Orthodox Churches in the world today. The Orthodox Church has a tradition and line that can be shown to go back to Pentecost.  This tradition ties you as a member back to the beginnings of the church.

In looking at different protestant denominations, some of them may have a tradition that goes back as far as 1517 (the beginning of the Protestant reformation), and there are others may go back only to the last century.  Their tradition is short, or even almost non-existent.  Or it may be incomplete, as the culture, pattern, or even the belief is different now than what it was at the founding of that denomination.  When looking at them, there is ultimately no tradition that ties them back through the centuries to Pentecost or Christ.  They may claim to be true to the teaching of the apostles, but without the tradition to back it up, it just doesn’t fit the definition that we started with.

Well,I hope you enjoyed this.  It's certainly been mind-stretching for me.

What is Tradition? Part 2

Author note:  This is the second part of a discussion about tradition.  As I stated before I’m not going to apologize for advocating one perspective over another.  I am simply putting my perspective out there.  You can agree or not.

In my last post, I started to discuss tradition, and I began with a definition, and started to talk about what tradition meant in Christianity.  I finished up with discussing how tradition is discussed in the Bible.  Now I’m going to discuss some larger concepts in regards to tradition.  This may be a little confusing or uncomfortable.  Can’t help it, it’s my perspective.

You may look at what I’ve written so far and say: ‘That’s all right for oral traditions to have been used in the early Church, but we have the Bible now, those are no longer necessary.’  I would respond that we need to look back at the definition of tradition.  It’s not just beliefs, but also culture and practices.  If we are to hold on to the beliefs, culture, and practices from previous generations, then the tie that binds them must be tradition.  There are multiple examples of common current Christian beliefs (the Trinity for example) that came from the early Church and have been carried through to the present day.  Yes, the concept of Trinity is expressed in the Bible, but HOW we INTERPRET those verses and come to our belief in the Trinity is the tradition that has come through to the present day. And that is a very important point.  I have seen this concept illustrated in the context of traffic laws.  When you break one of those laws, who enforces it?  The police enforce it.  In the same vein, the church must enforce the interpretation of scripture and tradition.  Tradition gives us the guidelines we should follow within the Church as well as how we interpret the Scriptures.

Let’s use an example outside of religion.  You find a series of letters written by an ancestor.   If you sit down and try to read and understand everything said in all of those letters by themselves, you are going to have some areas that are unclear or downright confusing.  However, if you sit down with an older relative who either:  lived and talked with that ancestor, or who heard the story behind those letters from their parents/grandparents, they will be able to answer your questions about those areas and you won’t have confusion or misunderstanding.  In fact, you will probably have a wonderful history that you can pass on to your family.

Moving back to religion.  One thing I would stress is:  tradition and Scripture are inextricably intertwined.  If you attempt to remove one from the other, you will lose the meanings and definitions from what you have left.  If you go with tradition over Scripture, you will eventually end up with the ‘doctrines of men’.  However, if you go the other direction, then a common interpretation of Scripture is lost (you can see my Scripture post about that).  Both work together to provide the complete picture of the ‘Body of Christ’.


I'm going to take another break here.  The next post will hopefully cover the last element I want to cover on this topic and then I'll finish it. 

What is Tradition? Part one

Author note:  This is another religion post (actually the first of multiple, since the topic and what I’ve written is a bit too much for just one post). As I said in my Bible post, I’m not going to apologize for advocating one perspective over another.  I am simply putting my perspective out there.  You can agree or not.

Admittedly one of the more difficult things (don’t know that it was the most) that I have had to wrestle with, at least in an intellectual sense, is the idea of tradition in the Church.  How do words, ideas, actions, and so forth identified as ‘tradition’ within the Church fit with the testimony of Jesus Christ in the Bible?  What I found dealt with so much more than just the idea of man creating rules and such instead of just relying on the Scripture, and actually showed me something much richer and deeper than I had known before.

First, I think confirming the definition of tradition is important.  If we’re going to talk about this word, there needs to be a common frame of reference.  For the purpose of this discussion/blog post, I am going to use the definition of tradition from Dictionary.com.  Dictionary.com has under tradition the following:  1) the handing down on statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or practice. 2) something that is handed down.  3) a continuing pattern of culture, beliefs, or practices.  First, I’m going to make a couple of comments about the definition that we have, and then I’m going to discuss tradition and how it fits into the larger concept of religion and faith. 

Something you may or may not have noticed is:  traditions are primarily tied to a culture, or grouping of people.  Whether you are talking about a culture or grouping due to ethnicity (like Native Americans), beliefs (Christians), or a combination of both (Jewish), there are things that are shared through word or action.  This fits into tradition.  This points into something more important:  We are tied to previous generations of Christians through our traditions.  We draw our identity through the traditions we observe.  Our Christian identity is also drawn from the traditions we observe.  No matter what denomination you belong to, traditions are involved.   I mentioned this in passing when I talked about my journey of faith (in ‘What a long, strange trip it’s been part 2):   

“Also, if you think about it, we all rely upon or give ourselves over to some other authority than the Bible at some point. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Luther, Calvin, the Popes, or someone other modern (John MacArthur comes to mind, although one could put in almost anyone who is teaching), we look to their perspective and interpretation as a guide for our own understanding.”

When you look at from this perspective, traditions were extremely important in order to carry the Christian faith forward to future generations.  Keep in mind that the canon of Scripture hadn’t been compiled.  The Apostle Paul talks of tradition (particularly the faith) in a positive light in 2 Thessalonians 2:15:  ‘Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.’  Yes, there are also instances where traditions are talked about in a negative light.  If you look at the different passages, they are talking about two different things.  The negative references deal with traditions put forth by men with no tie to God or what He taught.  The positive references deal with traditions put forth that are tied to God and what He taught.

This seems about as good a place as any to call a halt.  I hope you have found this informational.  In the next post, I’ll share some unoriginal ideas about tradition in religion.

What is the Bible telling you?

Author's note:  For quite a while I have generally tried to stay away from topics that openly and specifically advocate or criticize a specific religious perspective (i.e. Catholic, Baptist, etc.).  I now feel this is 'hiding' who I am.  I should not be ashamed of my beliefs or my perspectives. You may disagree with the topic or the perspective I am advocating and that is your choice, however this is something I believe is significant and led me to where I am today.  All I would ask that if you do read this, read it with an open mind.  And now, on to the post....


This is something that has been working through my mind for some time now, and I don't know that the idea or how I am presenting it is anything 'new' or original, but perhaps it bears repeating.

As I look across all the different 'Protestant' denominations, there is one thing that really causes me to wonder.  It has to do with two 'statements'.  They may both be used together, or just one.  1) They claim they are the 'true' church or the true expression of the 'New Testament Church', and 2)The Holy Spirit has given them the correct interpretation of Scripture.  I will say that when only one of these statements are used, it's the second.

I really don't know how someone would qualify the first statement, although it does tie to the second. But I'm not going to go there (I'm not a graduate theology student anyway).  It's the second statement that really interests me.  The thoughts that continue to run through my head are:  If all of those denominations were given their (often conflicting) interpretation by the Holy Spirit, then 1) why don't they agree, and 2) since they don't agree, wouldn't it suggest either the Holy Spirit is playing a mean trick on mankind perhaps there is some other issue?

Looking at this situation, I am reminded of the verse that ends the book of Judges (Judges 21:25) "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."    All of these different denominations are following an interpretation of scripture that is 'right' to them.  What is right and true when it comes to the Bible is not for an individual to decide.  The Bible (the New Testament in particular) was gathered in approximately 382 AD (or CE if you use that method), and the deciding authority for what was in and what was out was the one 'Church'.  The Church interprets the Bible, and the Bible is part of the Church.

Here's an illustration:  I can pick up a book of economics, and read through it and attempt to apply the principles on my own.  Odds are, that I will miss some information, and misinterpret other information.  If I take that same economics book, and go an economist, or even better the economist that wrote the book, I will be able to understand and apply the principles much better.  That person will be able to show me the underlying concepts in that book.  This idea is reflected in the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:30-31 "30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31  And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."  The Church is that guide.  The Church is the one who assembled and 'canonized' the Bible, it just may know something about the content.

I know, it's not popular, or nice to point out these kinds of things.  However, I am just making a statement of what I see.

Something new to be cranky about

The internet age has provided many advances.  From the ability to talk with people all over the world to giving many different kinds of instant news and feedback.  And we also have the ability to express our opinions and engage in dialogue (not sure how meaningful it is) using blogs, email, and social networking sites.

More and more, however, I'm coming across a phenomenon that I have decided irks me: significant family (and personal) news being distributed on social networking sites.  I'm not sure what it is about it that causes that feeling.  Maybe it's the idea that I find out about things at the same time (or later depending on how often I check said site) as some non-related semi-acquaintance halfway across the world.  Or, maybe it's the idea that a person can fulfill some unspoken obligation of informing family members about a hospitalization, birth, death, whatever, without having to actually interact with that person who's on the persona non grata list.

I suppose it can be rationalized or brushed aside with some quaint little saying about 'this is how communication is done today' or even that it's 'the method of communication for the future'.  I don't care.  It still rubs me the wrong way.

I guess I will remain the curmudgeonly old caveman muttering in my cave about the telephone or email.  Yes,this is a 'vent'.  Yes, there is no logic or rationale to it.  But it feels good to say it just the same.

My own comments on the Arizona assassination

I am sure that many people have seen all the news about the recent assassination (I do believe that term applies here) attempt on the Congresswoman from Arizona.  It made me hearken back to the last time I could remember something like this happening.  I couldn't believe that to the best of my knowledge it's been since the attempt on the late President Ronald Reagan in March 1981.  I saw a special (History channel or the like) about Reagan's presidency and the assassination attempt.  One of the most striking elements was that the Speaker of the House at that time, Tip O'Neill (a Democrat from Massachusetts) went to visit Reagan while he was recovering and had a short conversation that went something like: 'we don't agree politically, but we want what is best for you personally'.

It makes me wonder.  Is it possible for people today to be able to have that kind of mentality?  It's not compartmentalization or anything like that, but a simple 'hey, I know you're doing what you think is right, and although we may not agree that what you're doing is the best method, we're both going for the same thing and that is more important than being correct.'

Those in the 'talking class' (political commentators, news people and the like) are talking about the rhetoric being too 'toxic'.  Apparently they've forgotten the Presidential assassinations of Lincoln, McKinley, and to a lesser extent Garfield were politically motivated.  This country has a long history of politics leading to violence and I don't think this incident is going to change that.  I guess the bottom line question for me is:  unfortunately this isn't the first time something like this has happened, but have we as a country changed?