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?