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?