Bible Snob

Being the, in my wife's words, "Bible Snob" that I am, I brought my Greek/English Septuagint to church this morning. The Septuagint (or LXX) is a Koine Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (including some Apocryphal books) used and quoted by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. If you're still reading, you might be muttering, "Who cares?"

Hang with me.

If you want to enhance your sermon-listening experience, bring a DIFFERENT translation than your pastor uses. Trust me, 30% of the time a preacher is simply repeating himself, - you'll have time to catch up. Furthermore, bring a translation that highlights textual variants (differences in the manuscripts).

Allow me to give you a simple illustration of why it can be so fascinating to bring a different version. This morning in church the pastor quoted Psalm 139:14 which reads,

"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well." NIV

Many, many translations follow (more or less) this translation - including the NASB; NLT; KJV; ESV; NKJV; HCSB.

However, check out what the Septuagint (a translation) says,
"I will give thee thanks; for thou art fearfully wondrous; wondrous are thy works; and my soul knows it well."

Did you catch the difference? What English translation also translates it this way? The NET Bible.

The NET Bible reads,
"I will give you thanks because your deeds are awesome and amazing. You knew me thoroughly."

Here's the NET note on this verse (the NET Bible has over 60,000 translator notes).
"...The text as it stands is syntactically problematic and makes little, if any, sense. The Niphal of (pala) occurs elsewhere only in Exod 33:16. Many take the form from (pala)...which in the Niphal perfect means "to be amazing" (see 2 Sam 1:26; Ps 118:23; Pro 30:18). Some, following the LXX and some other ancient witnesses, also prefer to emend the verb from first to second person, "you are amazing"...The present translation assumes the text conflates two variants...The original text likely read, ..."your works [are] awesome [and] amazing")."

This is just one of the reasons I recommend the NET version. It doesn't have study notes - it has translator notes. These notes bring issues to your attention that, had you brought the same translation as your pastor - you would have never known. It would be embarrassing to build entire arguments on this one verse, only to discover the complicated variants.

So do yourself a favor, and start bringing a different version to church. It's worth the extra effort, can be very fascinating, is highly informative, and will make you a much more cautious Theologian.

Invisible People

Butch from InvisiblePeople.tv on Vimeo.

After watching this video (and many others), I'm torn between two responses. One response blames me and rest of society for not doing more. The other response (I'm afraid to actually say it) blames the homeless person. I think to myself, "Why should I be blamed when this all could be the fault of the homeless person?"

Is finger pointing the point? Here's a guy who's lived on the street for 40 years, and I'm debating who's to blame! Is that what Christ would expect of me? I'm glad Christ did something for me when I was in need. By the way, speaking for myself, I was clearly to blame.

Romans 5:8
"But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

Certainly Not: Part Six

Using an analogy, I argued in the last post that conversation is the best way to respond to Theological Fallibility. So what exactly does it look like to "leave an access door to the foundation" of your Theology? There are two things I would mention.

1. Welcome Dialogue from Different Perspectives

Take any chance you can get to talk to someone of a different faith. I firmly believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, so why would I spend the rest of my life only talking to people who believe the same thing? As a Christian, I should not be ashamed of the Gospel, I should be going into all the world to make disciples. However, don't miss the blessing that comes from witnessing - dialogue. You can leave that access door open and re-examine your foundation. When people ask you those hard questions about your faith, it's time to perform a little maintenance. Why does God allow evil? Can I trust the Bible? Does the New Testament display antisemitism?

Is dialogue risky? Of course. You could take the "easy" way out, and just seal off your access door - just don't be surprised when nobody wants to come and visit your house.

2. Welcome Books from Controversial Authors

It can be exhausting to read something you don't agree with. Your emotions run high, and you sometimes wish you could just sit down with the author and give them a piece of your mind. However, the attitude which most troubles me is the attitude that says, "I only have something to learn from those who are orthodox (agree with me)." Truth be told, and I'm speaking from personal experience, you can learn a lot from people you don't agree with. Believe it or not, the only smart people in the world are NOT people who believe the same thing as you.

Two words of caution:

First, sin, even false ideas, can be very appealing. In your quest for truth, you must remain committed to it. If you lack wisdom, ask God who gives to all men liberally. Fear God - this is the beginning of wisdom.

Second, I am not suggesting that you must read/watch moral filth in order to be more educated. I made a commitment to my wife to stay faithful to her, I don't need to frequent pornographic websites (for example) in order to "keep the access door open". Don't forget - there is black, gray, and white areas. My commitment to my wife is one area in which I am not ashamed to say I'm, "close-minded".

As I think back about this series, I certainly realize I don't hold all the answers to our Theological Fallibility. There are still lots of unanswered questions in my mind, and dots I have yet to connect. It's funny, a small part of me honestly feels like writing a rebuttal against myself! I've done the best I can to build a foundation, but let's just say I'm leaving the access door open.

Kids, Santa's Not Real

Warning, I'm about to do some soap-box preaching (writing, actually). I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there is a deceptive pandemic spreading through American homes everywhere - it's called, Santa Claus is coming to town.

I'm not talking about the ancient Bishop of Myra, more commonly known as Saint Nicholas. Nope.

I'm talking about the widely taught belief that a plump jolly fellow brings presents for the little kiddies during the hours of whenever-they-are-asleep the night before Christmas. I'm talking about the amplification of Sir Santa by retail stores simply to sell some sure-to-break-soon merchandise. I'm talking about the blatant manipulation of a child's behavior based on the premise that someone who lives in the North Pole can actually see them throwing a fit. Ridiculous.

I can hear what you're saying, "Get real, Jason. There are far more important things you could be writing about, such as, what you'd like Santa to bring you for Christmas."

Get real, reader. Unless you can honestly argue for lying (figure that one out), I'll stay on my soap box. I can just picture the conversation some parents must be forced to have with their kids once the cat's out of the bag.

Heartbroken Child: "You mean (sniff, sniff) Santa's not.....real??"
Mommy/Daddy: "Oh Johnny, stop crying, mommy and daddy were just lying to you! That's all! I know you get in trouble for lying - but when your an adult you get to make stuff up all the time! It's really wonderful! Now, what did you want for Christmas again?"

So kids, in the rare case that you have internet access, still believe Santa is real, and actually chose to visit my blog - let me clue you in - Santa's not real.

Certainly Not: Part Five

The best way to respond to Theological Fallibility, is not blanket uncertainty, or passive humility, or perpetual openness. The best way to respond to Theological Fallibility is, conversation.

I mentioned in my last post that the response of conversation is a sort of "modified openness". To me, the risk of openness is that it lacks a solid foundation. However, the risk of being close-minded is that it leaves the foundation unexamined for large periods of time. Allow me to use an analogy.

I recently purchased a house (actually, the bank purchased a house, and I am now their slave for 30 years). Obviously, my house has a foundation. It's a solid stone/brick foundation with no major cracks, and it passed inspection with flying colors. The foundation of my house is completely sealed off except for a small access door on the south side of the house. Now, I would be an IDIOT if I said to myself, "I've got a good foundation, it's passed inspection, and I don't see any problems, so, I think I'll seal off the access door." Imagine what would happen to my home if I was unable to access the underbelly of my home for 30 years! What a tragedy!

Even though I'm glad my house has a solid foundation, I've already been down there to check things out a half-dozen times since we moved in. Why? Because good houses need maintenance. I know that the "fallibility" of a home requires constant action on my part.

Do you see the connection between houses and Theology? Someone who is perpetually open minded shoots themselves in the foot because they refuse to build a solid foundation on which they may build a house. Someone who is close minded is like the person who seals off the access door to the foundation of their house, thus leaving their foundation to rot. The position of conversation tries to build a foundation (and a good one too), but leaves an access door. This person is willing to go down with a flashlight and perform maintenance on their foundation. Make no mistake, this person has a foundation, they just know that the harsh reality of life requires constant tweaking and improving.
~~~

Part Six of this series will look at the practical outworking of a person who responds to Theological Fallibility with "conversation".

Dark

"Dark"
by Jason Hart
A seven part short story written for Twitter in December of 2009

~~~

Once upon a time, there were three acquaintances - Lift, Sara, and Dark. Sara, more than anything, wanted to be loved.

One day, Lift told Sara, "I love you, Sara. I always have, and always will. I love you no matter what. My love is free."

Sara knew she craved love, but was skeptical of the unconditional love Lift offered. "How can love be free?", Sara wondered.

A few days later, Dark told Sara, "I will love you, Sara. But, you must do what I demand. My love must be earned."

Sara reasoned, "A love that is earned must be worth more than a love that is free." So, Sara decided she wanted Dark's love.

Sara, desperate for love, asked Dark, "What must I do to earn your love?" Dark responded, "If you want my love, you must kill Lift."

After much thought, Sara concluded that it was Dark's love she desired. Sara killed Lift. She was never loved again. - THE END

Certainly Not: Part Four

I apologize for my tardiness in continuing my series on "Theological Infallibility". The basic question is this - "How should I respond to the inherent uncertainty that comes with being human while building a Theology?" I mentioned that uncertainty seemed to strong a response, and that humility was more of an attitude than a proactive response.

Another possible response is, "openness" (yes, it's a word). In today's society, if you want to insult someone just call them, "close-minded". You can bet money that everybody who's trying to be somebody is remaining "open" to all the options. But what exactly does it mean to be open. It's a little hard to define.

The idea of being open in your Theology basically means that you're unwilling to "close" the door of your mind and thus become "bias" towards a certain position. Someone who is truly open, won't build a theology based on a solid foundation, because he/she must remain open (free from commitment) even in regards to foundational issues.

However some would argue that the whole idea behind opening your mind is so that you can eventually close it. In other words, you open your mind to all the options, weigh the evidence, and make a decision - case closed (pun intended). Others find virtue in remaining perpetually open to all options, regardless of how strong the evidence points towards something.

There are a lot of things I like about the idea of being open in your Theology. (not to be confused with Open Theism which denies God's ability to know the future) However, being open comes with a lot of risks. I am much more attracted to, and will discuss in the next post, a modified position, which I call - conversation.

Certainly Not: Part Three

If you're just tuning in, I've been talking about what I call, "Theological Fallibility". Basically, the idea is this - we know, due to our imperfect nature, that we must be wrong in some area of our theology (we just don't know which area). So, how do we respond to this troubling theological pickle?

I've already dealt with the response of Uncertainty, so what about the response of Humility? Humility recognizes it's insignificant place among a sea of theological perspectives. Simply among Baptists there can be a wide divergence of views, but when you broaden this out, the artist of Evangelicalism begins painting with even wider brush strokes. Adjust your telescope, and you can see the countless stars of denominations within the galaxy of Protestantism. As your perspective broadens even more, you see the tree of Christendom branching out into Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. As if this wasn't divergent enough, you realize all the above are cheaply categorized as "Christian" and (to the western mind) it's them against Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism...the list goes on and on.

With so MANY different views, how could I possibly claim that I have somehow escaped error, and am a virtual color commentator of the acts of the almighty God (if there is one, says the Atheist). The theologian, pinned between the rock of human fallibility and the hard place of divergent opinion, is driven to his knees. We realize our tiny, insignificant place among such a significant majority.

Thus, humility isn't really a response, it's more of an attitude. It's an attitude taken by somebody who's been put in their place. However, as important as proper perspective, and an attitude of humility is in this task of building a theology - it still doesn't answer the question of how to proactively respond to our theological fallibility. Indeed, we must keep looking for a better way - a way forward.
~~~

Part Four of this series will continue our journey towards finding a proper response to our Theological Fallibility.

Certainly Not: Part Two

So basically, the idea so far is that the imperfect aspect of our humanity demands that we are wrong in some area of our theology. The problem is, we don't know what those areas are, and we'll never reach a perfectly tuned theology. I'm assuming that you're with me up to this point, the area in which we might diverge is in how to respond to this quite troubling realization of our fallible humanity. How should we respond?

There are four (probably more) ways to respond to our "theological fallibility"...

1. Uncertainty
2. Humility
3. Openness
4. Conversation

First, let's look at uncertainty. This response is a glass-half-empty, pessimistic theology. Uncertainty avoids making propositional truth claims (especially metanarratives), and can never fully define with certainty the finer (even essential) points of it's theology. Uncertainty doesn't like an ABC ducks-in-a-row theology, and is skeptical of any matter-of-fact theologian. Uncertainty revels in the mystery of God, and doesn't like to put Him in a box, no matter how over-sized. This type of person openly admits to not having everything figured out - and is perfectly content to keep it that way.

I think this response - blanket uncertainty - fails in it's inability to differentiate between black, gray, and white. For example, I KNOW my wife's name is Emily. I KNOW she's 4' 11''. I KNOW she is an interpreter, and I KNOW that she is (at this moment) sleeping soundly in another part of the house. What may not be as tangible is her love for me, respect of me, and loyalty to me. I know these latter things are true, I just know experientially as opposed to intellectually.

What's interesting to me is that the most certain things in life (e.g. that wall is blue) are the most inconsequential. It is the not-as-certain things which carry the most weight (e.g. does my wife really love me?). But I digress, the point is that there are some things which we can be certain about, and then there are other things which require a bit more caution (duh). Thus, blanket uncertainty is like pulling out a rocket launcher during a rubber band fight - slight over-reaction.
~~~

Part Three will take a look at some other ways to respond to this "theological fallibility" dilemma.

Certainly Not: Part One

I would assume, and I think this is a safe assumption, that if you asked a crowd of about 300 people to raise their hand if they thought something they believed was false - no hands would go up. Nobody thinks something they believe is wrong, otherwise - they wouldn't believe it.

However, if you asked that same group of 300 people to raise their hand if they thought they were perfect, again, not a single hand would go up. So, how do we reconcile these two commonly accepted truths, 1) we aren't perfect AND 2) as far as we know, we don't believe anything that is wrong?

The implication is this: Though I can't pinpoint it exactly, my humanity dictates that I must be categorically wrong in some area or another of my theology/belief system.

When I was a data entry clerk, I entered thousands and thousands of keystrokes into a computer. Common sense tells me that, though I didn't know it at the time, I MUST have made a few mistakes while typing. It's like that with our theology. Our humanity guarantees that we've made a mistake, we just don't know where.

Maybe our source was wrong, maybe we aren't coming at it from the right perspective, maybe we've misinterpreted a passage, maybe their is a textual variant, maybe our presuppositions are getting in the way, maybe we're thinking with wrong categories, maybe there is still more information to be discovered, maybe, maybe, maybe. How are we supposed to build a theology on a bunch of "maybes"?
~~~
Part two of this series will look at four possible responses to this dilemma - Uncertainty, Humility, Openness, and Conversation

Why Can't We be Friends?

"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow."
~ Ecclesiastes 1:18

I think, if we tried, we could learn a thing or two from pain. Maybe, if we viewed heartache, not as an enemy, but as a friend, we might be able to use pain/suffering to our advantage. You see, when pain is viewed as an enemy, it's viewed as something that must be destroyed. The most common response to pain that I hear is explanation. When someone is hurting, we try to offer them information and knowledge, thinking that this will help. We think that if we could just list the top ten reasons why God allows pain and suffering, the pain itself will be destroyed.

It is my belief that knowing the why of suffering does not ease the pain of suffering. When a child experiences pain after touching a hot stovetop, we want to ease their pain (and this is natural). How tragic, however, if all we've learned is how to ease pain, but we still haven't figured out not to touch the hot stovetop. Pain is an indication that something is wrong - so we had better stop trying to ease the pain, and start trying to figure out what went wrong. But don't always expect the pain to go away - it might not, and that's ok - maybe pain can be your tutor, or better yet - your friend.

Trustworthy Gods

A God worthy of complete trust must exhibit three qualities - Truth, Power, and Love.

In a perfect world, a child learns to trust and obey their parents. A parent has power over their child, teaches their child the truth, and shows unconditional love towards their child. It is these three qualities that lead a child to completely entrust their life into the hands of their parents.

However, each of these qualities, on their own, are not a good reason to trust someone. The government has power over a child, but they don't really love the child like a parent does. A school teacher may tell a child the truth, but a teacher has no real disciplinary power over the child. A child's best friend may show unconditional love, but really isn't yet interested in the truth, and has no power over him. Only when these three qualities - Truth, Power, Love - combine do we find it sensible for complete, absolute trust.

Just as a child entrusts their life to a parent, so too we must entrust our soul to God. But, not just any God - only a trustworthy God - a God who is Truthful, Powerful, and Loving. Power alone isn't enough to solicit trust, as even demonic activity can be quite powerful. A miracle alone is a poor reason to trust in something. If Christ had merely performed a few signs and wonders - it would not be enough to garner faith.

If Christ had only been a teacher of great truths, this too would be insufficient. Many different religious systems contain elements of truth about life, and have practical wisdom for it's followers. Just because someone tells you the truth doesn't mean you should trust them with your soul. If they have no power over you, and/or they don't love you - it renders the truth they tell you virtually meaningless - at least as far as your eternity is concerned.

Finally, if Christ had only exhibited a Mother Theresa-ish love, it would not have been enough. Cults are notorious for their relentless, welcoming love of new converts, but cults are decidely lacking in the truth department. In Christ, all three elements merge together, and beckon us to offer Him our trust. He proved His power over creation and death, He taught the truth about Man and God, and He demonstrated ultimate love by taking on the form of a man and allowing Himself to be crucified on a cross. It is for these reasons that I can comfortably trust Him.

Passing the Baton

I began reading, "The Story of Christianity: Volume 1" today, and was particularly impacted by the following excerpt from the introduction.

Justo Gonzalez comments,
"There are episodes in the course of...history where it is difficult to see the action of the Holy Spirit...it will appear to many of us that the church has forsaken the biblical faith, and some will even doubt that such a church can be truly called "Christian." At such point in our narrative, it may be well to remember two things.

The first of these is that, while this narrative is the history of the deeds of the Spirit, it is the history of those deeds through sinners such as us...

The second is that it has been through those sinners and that church - and only through them - that the biblical message has come to us. Even in the darkest times of the life of the church there were those Christians who loved, studied, kept, and copied the Scriptures, and thus bequeathed them to us." (Page xvi, bold text mine)

I am very humbled at the reminder of the faithfulness of those who, shortcomings aside, so loved the Scriptures that they dedicated their life to passing it on to the next generation. During my brief, yet (and I don't say this arrogantly) significant life, I hope to be counted among those doing the "passing".

Coping in a Post-Jackson World

I didn't believe it until Twitter told me. There I was, chatting with my friends at a cookout when, upon receiving the Tweet heard 'round the world, my phone chirped. It was the BBC just letting me know that, "Oh, by the way, Michael Jackson has left the building."

More fascinating to me than the rise and fall of a musical genius, is the reaction of that fickle entity which openly confesses to being America. I'm not sure I understand the sentiment expressed in some i-reports which (and I don't remember for sure) went something like this, "AHHHHHH! MY LIFE IS OVER!!!! AHHHHH!!!" I also don't really understand the opposite (and very un-Christian) sentiment which basically says, "Burn in you-know-where, you stupid you-know-what."

I think my sentiment more parallels what one of my friends remarked via Twitter, I am "strangely saddened my Michael Jackson's death." I'm "strangely" saddened because I have no relationship with Jackson, and I'm not convinced he made the world a better place or that his lifestyle brought glory to God. I'm strangely "saddened" because I have no reason to believe that Jackson had placed his faith in Christ for his salvation. This saddens me.

It's a sober reminder that all the riches (and he was rich), all the fame (and he was famous), and all the talent (and he was talented) couldn't stop the ready-or-not-here-I-come appointment with your enemy and mine - death.

Don't Judge Me: Part 4 of 4

Continued from, Don’t Judge Me: Part 3 of 4

~~~

If we aren’t even allowed to interpret the law, how could we hold a conviction about anything? I wouldn't be able to write this post, because I'm "passing judgment" about what James/Matthew/Paul are teaching.

If we are supposed to be a doer of the law, this automatically involves a certain amount of interpretation and application. Thus, we can approach a brother with our interpretation of the law, and try to "restore" him/her. However, if the accused won't yield, all we can do is treat them as an unbeliever.

Even in doing so however, we must remember that we aren't the one who is the lawgiver and judge. We aren't the one who is able to save and destroy. We must always be open to the fact that perhaps, we are the ones who have been interpreting the law/scripture incorrectly.

It is a wise person indeed who has the diligence to interpret the law, the courage to obey it, and the honesty to admit that he isn't the final Judge.

Do we need a Savior?

I've heard Ravi Zacharias quote this song, but never actually heard it performed until now. Very thought provoking song, well worth the listen (if you can get past the odd performance style). My favorite line is in the chorus, "If the soul is darkened by a fear it cannot name..."

~~~



Hallelujah! Hallelujah!, Hallelujah!

From the canyons of the mind,
We wander on and stumble blindly
Through the often-tangled maze
Of starless nights and sunless days,
While asking for some kind of clue
Or road to lead us to the truth,
But who will answer?

Side by side two people stand,
Together vowing, hand-in-hand
That love's imbedded in their hearts,
But soon an empty feeling starts
To overwhelm their hollow lives,
And when they seek the hows and whys,
Who will answer?

On a strange and distant hill,
A young man's lying very still.
His arms will never hold his child,
Because a bullet running wild
Has struck him down. And now we cry,
"Dear God, Oh, why, oh, why?"
But who will answer?

High upon a lonely ledge,
a figure teeters near the edge,
And jeering crowds collect below
To egg him on with, "Go, man, go!"
But who will ask what led him
To his private day of doom,
And who will answer?

(Chorus)

If the soul is darkened
By a fear it cannot name,
If the mind is baffled
When the rules don't fit the game,
Who will answer? Who will answer? Who will answer?
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!, Hallelujah!

In the rooms of dark and shades,
The scent of sandalwood pervades.
The colored thoughts in muddled heads
Reclining in the rumpled beds
Of unmade dreams that can't come true,
And when we ask what we should do,
Who... Who will answer?

'Neath the spreading mushroom tree,
The world revolves in apathy
As overhead, a row of specks
Roars on, drowned out by discotheques,
And if a secret button's pressed
Because one man has been outguessed,
Who will answer?

Is our hope in walnut shells
Worn 'round the neck with temple bells,
Or deep within some cloistered walls
Where hooded figures pray in halls?
Or crumbled books on dusty shelves,
Or in our stars, or in ourselves,
Who will answer?

If the soul is darkened
By a fear it cannot name,
If the mind is baffled
When the rules don't fit the game,
Who will answer? Who will answer? Who will answer?
Hallelujah! Hallelujah!, Hallelujah!

~~~
Lyrics taken from lyricsmode.com

Don't Judge Me: Part 3 of 4

Continued from, Don’t Judge Me: Part Two

~~~

James’ main point? "Who are you to judge your neighbor?" A difficulty arises when we try to reconcile this passage of Scripture with those that outline how to confront a fellow believer about their sin (Matthew 18:15; Galatians 6:1).

In Matthew 18:15-17, the accuser first confronts the accused one-on-one with the hopes of "regaining the brother". If that doesn't work, the accuser brings with him two or three witnesses. If the issue still isn't resolved, the issue is brought before the church. It is a thoughtfully long, and painful process, which, if unsuccessful, ends with the accused being viewed as "a Gentile or a tax collector".

In Galatians 6:1, the spiritually mature are instructed to "restore" the one "discovered in some sin". But, even the "spiritual" person is warned to confront in a "spirit of gentleness" and to "pay attention to yourselves, so that you are not tempted too." Again, this process is a humble one, with the goal of restoring Christ-likeness.

Both of these passages have a sense of inherit humility in the confrontation process. The million dollar question is, are the views of James and Matthew(Jesus)/Paul exclusive of one another? Can you follow both, or are you going to have to pick sides? If you took a both/and approach to this dilemma, the principle that emerges seems to be,

"Though we often must interpret the law (and thus make decisions, and even confront based upon it), we are not, and should not function as/pretend to be, the final judge."

~~~

Part Four of this series will attempt to expand on the above principle.

Don't Judge Me: Part 2 of 4

Continued from, Don’t Judge Me: Part 1 of 4

~~~

According to James 4:11-12, we shouldn't pass judgment upon a fellow believer because....

...you are judging the law.
James makes the point that if you are judging your believer, you are really judging the law. Thus, you aren't really "doing" the law, you're "judging" it. According to BDAG, the Greek word used here for "judge" means, "pass an unfavorable judgment upon, criticize, find fault with, condemn". James goes on to explain a second reason that this placing of oneself above the law is a big deal.

...there is only One who is Lawgiver and Judge.
James never explicitly states who this "one" is that both gives the law, and is it's judge. Hint: It isn't Judge Judy. Obviously, God is in view here, particularly because this "one" is also able to "save and destroy". In other words, there is only one who can give and enforce laws.

...who are you to judge your neighbor?
In light of the above facts, (there is only one lawgiver and judge) - what's the point of trying to pass judgment? We didn't give the law, and we can't enforce it either - so why act like we can? James also seems to be implying that, since we are all sinners, there is a certain amount of hypocrisy that goes along with passing judgment on your neighbor.

All of this seems straightforward enough, but how can James' teaching be reconciled with other passages of Scripture that outline how to confront a fellow believer about their sin? (See: Matthew 18:15; Galatians 6:1)

~~~

Part three of this series will talk about the tension between this passage and others in scripture.

Guilty as Charged

From Despair.com

Don't Judge Me: Part 1 of 4

“Do not judge so that you will not be judged.” This phrase, spoken by Jesus in Matthew 7:1, seems to be thrown around quite a bit in Christian circles. Here, Jesus is making a case against the hypocrite who tries to “remove the speck” from his brother’s eye, without seeing the “beam” in his own. Jesus warns that “by the standard you judge you will be judged”, thus taking away some of the gusto with which we so gleefully condemn our own friends.

So what’s the big deal with judging, anyway? What does it mean to judge someone? In what manner should we judge those around us? Should we even be judging those around us? Before I offer an answer to the above questions, I'd like to take a look at a passage in James.

James 4:11-12 says,
"Do not speak against one another, brothers and sisters. He who speaks against a fellow believer or judges a fellow believer speaks against the law and judges the laws. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but its judge. (12) But there is only one who is lawgiver and judge - the one who is able to save and destroy. On the other hand, who are you to judge your neighbor?"

James begins this section with an imperative - "Do not speak against one another." He quickly expands this thought into the idea of one who "speaks against" and "judges" a fellow believer. James then goes on to list several reasons as to why this passing of judgment isn't such a good idea.

~~~
Part two of this series will take a look at the reasons James lists as to why we are not to "speak against one another".

Night Light Reading

If you're in need of a good read-a-short-chapter-once-a-day-before-I-doze-off-to-sleep book, you've come to the right place. I have read this book three times, and it truly is a great read. It was originally published in 2004 as "The Passion of Jesus Christ", it was then re-published in 2006 under the title, "50 Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die". This book by John Piper is intellectually/spiritually stimulating regardless of how long you've been a Christian (or even if Christ means nothing to you).

Every chapter presents a reason why Christ came to die (...to absorb the wrath of God; ...to secure our resurrection from the dead; ...to show that the worst evil is meant by God for good), is only two pages long, and includes one or more scripture passages followed by an insightful commentary.

Here is an excerpt from chapter 28 entitled, "Christ suffered and died...to free us from the futility of our ancestry."

~~~

"You were ransomed from the futile ways inherited form your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot."

I Peter 1:18-19

Secular people in the West, and more primitive people in animistic tribes, have this in common: They believe in the power of ancestral bondage. They call it by different names. Animistic people may speak in terms of ancestral spirits and the transmission of curses. Secular people may speak of genetic influence or the wounding of abusive, codependent, emotionally distant parents. In both cases there is a sense of fatalism that we are bound to live with the curse or the wounds from our ancestry. The future seems futile and void of happiness....

~~~

Here's Your Sign

I spent a rather significant portion of time on the road this past week (27 hours to be exact), and I noticed two very interesting, and very different, road signs.

~~~
Each of these diamond-shaped metal things with writing on them is trying to warn us of the danger of icy roads, but they each do it in very different ways. The sign on the right might as well have a big flashing sign that says, "We think you are a complete moron." Are we supposed to watch for ice even if the chance of precipitation is 0% and it's 110 degrees outside? I feel dumber for just reading the sign, like I'm being spoon fed by Big Brother on how to drive. The sign on the left is more explanatory, and at least treats me like my elevator reaches the top floor. It forces me to use my brain, observe the weather conditions, and determine the possiblity that the bridges might be icy - even if the road isn't. The sign on the left offers me information I can use later on, while the sign on the right simply beats me over the head with a rule which may or may not come in handy. Ever heard the old expression, "Give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day; teach a man to fish, you've fed him for a lifetime." - that's kind of how I feel after pondering these two road signs.
~~~

So...if you've ever wondered what I think about while trapped in a car for an entire day, you can sleep at nights now.

Change Has Come Today

“Some things never change.” Usually this phrase is accompanied with a knowing chuckle after crazy Uncle Bob tells that same joke, or exhibits that all-too-familiar idiosyncrasy for the hundredth time. All joking aside however, do people change? Or, perhaps more importantly, can people change? Before you get married, people will tell you, “You can’t assume that your spouse is going to change. You have to be willing to marry them, warts and all!”

A couple of months ago, I heard a radio host say something like, “I used to think I could change people…I don’t think that anymore. I don’t try to change people, because, you are what you are. “ The latter part of that quote is rather bold - “You are what you are.” Convert it to first person and you get, “I am what I am.” Seems like somebody said that once…and it wasn’t crazy Uncle Bob. (Hint: It was God - Exodus 3:14)

You see, I’ve got to believe that people can change. If I didn’t, I'd go crazy. It’s that hope, the hope for transformed lives through Christ, that keeps me moving forward.

Comfortable?

"Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles so that we may be able to comfort those experiencing any trouble with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God."
2 Corinthians 1:3-4

I used to think of these verses strictly in terms of the so-called "problem of evil". That is, I used to think that this passage only gave a reason for our "troubles", namely, so that we can help others "experiencing any trouble". I no longer view these verses in only this context, and hope to walk you through a whole new way of looking at this Pauline teaching.

Ok, here we go...

Paul begins this section with a brief, straightforward doxology, "Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". He then focuses on a particular aspect of God's character, saying, "the Father of mercies and God of all comfort". Notice that comfort is attached to God (and again at the end of v. 4). In the Greek, the word "comfort" could be taken as a genitive of content, and would read "God is full of all comfort".

Keep that in mind because Paul is going to describe an "interaction" of comfort between God and man. Paul says that God is the one "who comforts us in all our troubles". Notice, God comforts man. But, Paul doesn't stop here, he describes another "interaction" of comfort, "so that we may be able to comfort those experiencing any trouble" This time, man comforts man.

Here's where it gets interesting, Paul says that we comfort each other, "with the comfort with which we ourselves were comforted by God." What an incredible concept. First, God comforts man, then man takes that same comfort, and comforts other men.

The implications are startling, God allows us to, how can I say this without sounding heretical, function as God towards those around us. What a humbling thought, that God would choose to use fallen human vessels for His service. Analogous to How God reveals His glory through the heavens (Psalm 19), God actually chooses to reveal Himself through the agency of human beings as well.

My question to you is this, "Can people see God in you?" When someone needs comforting, do you show them the comfort of God Himself? You might be the channel through whom God expresses his comfort. The people around you have the chance to catch a small glimpse of God's comfort through, don't miss this, you! The God of the universe, who had the bright of idea of 'comfort' in the first place, chooses to, at times, give comfort to His creation, through His creation. Amazing.

One is the Loneliest Number

Since it's inception, I've tried to make Tangential Lucidity relevant to a wide demographic. In an effort to improve TL, I've decided to make this a team blog, and have invited Stephen Archer to be a regular contributor. Stephen has run his own blog, God Restores, for about a year, and his writing always provokes thought.

Hopefully, our posts will function relatively independent of each other. We aren't on here to debate, and the topics we blog about might be quite different from each other. While we do agree on many topics, simply patting each other's arguments on the back isn't the purpose of this blog either. Our goal is to simply run an eclectic team blog that challenges people to think about current issues from a Biblical worldview.

The Standard in All things Human

If I had to pick one thing that bothers me about Christians/the Church/Christendom today, it's our lack of drive to be the absolute best. We ought to strive for nothing less than excellence in all of our endeavours. We are a reflection of the God we serve, and looking around at God's reflectors here in America, God seems pretty, well, lousy.

Jesus asks us to function as lights to society, so that they can "see our good deeds and give honor to our Father in heaven." Furthermore, in I Corinthians Paul said that we should do everything for God's glory.

If God is really so great (not to mention real) why aren't His followers great? Why aren't we producing the most talented music, running the most successful businesses, building the most efficient houses, writing the most brilliant books, developing the most advanced technology, and altogether running circles around the competition?

To make matters worse, we hypocritically condemn the "secular" pursuits of the world, only to capitalize on their developments. We use cell phones, drive cars, shop at stores, watch TV, take medication, live in houses, and enjoy other such "worldly" creations. Basically, we mooch off of society's advancements, all the while touting an I-only-pursue-God-and-I-don't-waste-my-time-on-temporary-pleasures-because-I-am-so-spiritual attitude.

We tell ourselves that anything other than Bible study and prayer is somehow un-spiritual, and so we don't pursue our interests with excellence (i.e. we aren't good "contributors to society"). If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. If you think it would be a waste of time to perform something you do with anything short of excellence, you are wasting your time. God has given us dominion over this world, and has asked us to bring honor and glory to His reputation. We are supposed to be making God famous. People should watch what we do, and see the glory of God. God has saved us from an old life of bondage to sin, and brought us into a new life of bondage to Him. We have been brought from death to life. We should want to please God, by doing our absolute best for Him. Anything else damages the reputation of God.

The problem comes when I look in the mirror. Am I an excellent writer? researcher? assistant manager? citizen? church member? husband? Do I contribute something worthwhile to others, or just leach off of other's accomplishments?

Truth is, I'm a pretty mediocre guy. Maybe the problem isn't other Christians. Maybe the problem is me.

American Theater

IMDB (Internet Movie Database) is a massive online tool for researching anything to do with movies, TV, actors, etc. On their website, they have a list of the all-time USA box office movies. Tell me if you noticed the same thing I did about the following list of the top 35 grossing movies of all-time in the USA.

Rank. Movie (Released) $Ticket Sales

1. Titanic (1997) $600,779,824
2. The Dark Knight (2008) $533,316,061
3. Star Wars (1977) $460,935,665
4. Shrek 2 (2004) $436,471,036
5. E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982) $434,949,459
6. Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999) $431,065,444
7. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006) $423,032,628
8. Spider-Man (2002) $403,706,375
9. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) $380,262,555
10. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) $377,019,252
11. Spider-Man 2 (2004) $373,377,893
12. The Passion of the Christ (2004)$370,270,943
13. Jurassic Park (1993) $356,784,000
14. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) $340,478,898
15. Finding Nemo (2003) $339,714,367
16. Spider-Man 3 (2007) $336,530,303
17. Forrest Gump (1994) $329,691,196
18. The Lion King (1994) $328,423,001
19. Shrek the Third (2007) $320,706,665
20. Transformers (2007) $318,759,914
21. Iron Man (2008) $318,298,180
22. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001) $317,557,891
23. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) $317,011,114
24. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) $313,837,577
25. Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002) $310,675,583
26. Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007) $309,404,152
27. Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) $309,125,409
28. Independence Day (1996) $306,124,059
29. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) $305,388,685
30. The Sixth Sense (1999) $293,501,675
31. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007) $292,000,866
32. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) $291,709,845
33. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980) $290,158,751
34. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005) $289,994,397
35. Home Alone (1990) $285,761,243

(Taken directly from this IMDB web page)

Even after a cursory reading of this list, it's hard to not notice the prevailing theme. All but five of these movies (Titanic, Passion of the Christ, Forrest Gump, The Sixth Sense, and Home Alone) have strong plot elements of fantasy. (Some would argue that "Passion of the Christ" and "Sixth Sense" also have elements of fantasy, I disagree). Whether it's animation (Finding Nemo), magic (Harry Potter), supernatural curses (Pirates of the Caribbean), Sci-Fi (Star Wars), aliens (Independence Day), superheroes (The Dark Knight), or people and places from a whole new world (Lord of the Rings) 81% of the top 35 all-time grossing movies in America have strong non-natural elements. Fascinating, isn't it?

It could be that these movies do so well, because, broadly speaking, they are more "family" oriented. In other words, movies that are rated 'R' can't do as well in the theater because you can't bring the whole family along and, consequently, the movie doesn't earn as much money. These Top 35 movies may have simply had the better chance of grossing high, not because of their genre, but because of their PG-PG13 content.

It could also be, and I think this is closer to the truth, that these movies fill a whole in our lives much more than a "realistic" genre, such as Drama, ever could. We want to escape from the hum drum of everyday. We want to exercise our imaginations again like we did when we were kids. We want a safe world where black is black and white is white. We want a hero we can emulate, and a villain we can conquer. We want the satisfaction of withholding impending doom from an alien attack. We want a place where our creativity can maneuver unhindered by the harsh realities of life.

Whatever your interpretation of the Top 35 list, it certainly provokes thought, and, perhaps, helps us understand each other just a little bit better.

No Harm, No Foul

I think we underestimate the tremendous impact the consequences of an action have on our judgment of the morality of that action. If we do something stupid, we quickly whip out our “Consequence Meter” and begin to gauge just how stupid said action really was in the first place. Let me offer a couple of illustrations in order to try and clarify my point.

Several months ago, I was driving through a section of downtown Chattanooga with which I was fairly unfamiliar. I was busy checking road signs, trying to get into the correct lane, and undoubtedly, (though I don’t completely remember) adjusting the radio. Suddenly, I became under the distinct impression that something wasn’t quite right. It was at this point I realized, while blowing through a busy intersection in broad daylight without a care in the world, the light - my light - was red!

Amazingly, I didn’t get into an accident, or get a ticket (I didn’t even get a ticket in the mail a few weeks later from those intersection camera thingamajigs). The only significant consequence of this bone-headed move on my part was that my heart rate increased for a few minutes. Other than that, it was business as usual for the rest of the day, and I felt very, very little guilt for running the red light. However, can you imagine if I had struck a car, and killed someone? What if I had killed a whole family? I would still be feeling absorbed with guilt, even to this day. I would have forever regretted not paying attention on that could-have-been-fateful day. The odd thing is, in either scenario (getting off scot-free vs. killing a family of five) I made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE - I ran a red-light. My evaluation of the mistake however, boiled down to the significance of the consequences.

Allow me to give a second illustration to complete the point. How many times have you said something to someone, only to wonder if maybe whatever it was you said would have been better left, well, unsaid. Confused? The other day I said something I shouldn’t have. (I’m sure that comes as a shock to all of you) I said something rude/embarrassing/insulting to a friend of mine. When I said it, I was afraid I had hurt his feelings so I asked him, “Are you mad at me? Did I hurt your feelings?” Why did I ask him that? Because I was going to judge the morality of what I said based on his response. If he had laughed it off, I would have been tempted to continue in my rude/embarrassing/insulting ways. If he had become upset or hurt, I would have felt terrible about what I had said, and judged what I had said to be wrong. In other words, I didn’t so much care whether or not I had said something rude, I only cared if HE cared. I was judging my behavior based on the consequences. (I am fully aware that in some instances, other people’s sensitivities/culture should guide what we say, that’s not what I’m talking about here).

So what’s the point? My point is, pay attention to how often you judge morality based on the consequences. There is a good deal of temporary injustice in this sin cursed world. Chances are, you might do something dreadfully bad and (don’t miss this) get away with it. Or, you might do something heroically good, only to draw the short straw.

News Flash: Sometimes good things happen to bad people. Truly mind-blowing. It’s so counter-intuitive to how we think. We think that if you’re doing the right thing, then people will respect you, you’ll have money in the bank, your boss will notice you, your friends will be loyal to you, and you’ll have a massive impact. Being a God-pleaser doesn’t always mean cake and ice-cream. At least not now. But, don’t be deceived. God is not mocked, whatever a man sows, that will he also reap. (Galatians 6:7)

When Life Kills the Dream

I have unashamedly lost count of the number of times I've watched Susan Boyle perform I Dreamed a Dream for 'Britain's Got Talent'. Apparently, I'm not the only one, last I checked her song has been collectively viewed over 90 million times on YouTube. For me, it's not because of her beautiful voice, though it is beautiful. Nor is it because of the contagious reaction of the crowd, though it is contagious. And nope, it's not even because I have nothing better to do with my time...OK that was a lie.

I think the reason I sense a magnetic pull between myself and her performance is because I strongly identify with the emotions expressed in the song. The message of the song (yes, heavy metal fans, music actually has words - they're called "lyrics"), coupled with her thoroughly brilliant performance resonates loudly with how we experience that thing known as, "life".

John Lennon once said, "Life is what happens to you when you're busy making other plans." That's how it feels sometimes isn't it? It's as if you take stock of your life and your thinking, what happened? It's not what you imagined. It's isn't what you had hoped it would be. You try, try again and then you get dealt a 3-7 offsuit. Or, you get what you want, but it fails to satisfy like you thought (or had been promised) it would. Day after day you pursue your dreams, only to find them forever escaping your grasp and replaced by dreams anew. You just want the chips to fall your way for a change. Is that too much to ask? You just want comfort, ease, and for all of your wildest (or even mildest) dreams to come true.

At the risk of coming across calculated and cold, may I say something as gently as possible to you (and myself)? The above mindset is utterly selfish. Really, it is. It's consumed with self. Like an obnoxious child completely focused on getting their own way, so too is the individual who exists for self, and self alone. Certainly, this song is a valid expression of legitimate emotions, which I have no problem with. However, taken to it's extreme, the mindset of self-pity due to lack of self-fulfillment will ultimately destroy you.

Then Jesus told his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in return for his life? If you wish to save your life, you will lose it. But if you lose your life for my sake, you will find it."

The song is a powerful one, and we identify with it's sentiment. The question is, what do we do with that sentiment? Do we take a dose of self-help and continue the all consuming fight for do ra ME? Or do we submit our lives, and will, to the One who offers us redemption?

~~~
If you haven't already, you can check out Susan Boyle here.

Non Canonical Gospel Considerations

I am fully aware that this topic might not be of much interest to many of you, and that's ok. However, one of the purposes of this blog is so that I can gather my thoughts and try to put them in writing. This blog post is simply my attempt to put in writing some of my musings about non-canonical gospels. It isn't designed to be exhaustive, and I would be embarrassed if a NT scholar, such as John Meier, Richard Bauckham, Craig Blomberg, or Ben Witherington, were to read this post. That said, here goes....

As you probably already know, the four gospels in the Christian canon (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) aren't the only ones penned about Jesus Christ. Perhaps the most well known of these other gospels is the 'Gospel of Thomas'. In fact, Robert Funk, representing the Jesus Seminar, published a book called, "The Five Gospels" in 1996 which offered a fresh look at Christ's life and used the 'Gospel of Thomas' right along with the canonical four.

If you're like me, when you first hear the word 'gospel' you picture the gospels you grew up reading. You picture a sustained narrative starting with an infancy narrative (at least in the case of Matthew and Luke), followed by Christ's being anointed by the Holy Spirit at His baptism, an earthly ministry which includes teaching about the Kingdom of God and miraculous signs, the passion week, and finally, the resurrection/ascension. You might be surprised to learn that, when compared with the four gospels found in the Bible, the non-canonical (the term I use to describe what are commonly called "gnostic" gospels) gospels have many differences to ours (e.g. time of writing; period of Jesus' life described; number of extant manuscripts; acceptance by early Christians; context within Palestinian Judaism; nature of Jesus' teaching).


I would be irresponsible if I tried to explain all of the non-canonical gospels to you because, frankly, I'm not qualified. The world of gospel studies is one of the most intricate, confusing, and intimidating subjects you could ever endeavour to learn about. However, if you are interested I highly recommend you read the source texts which can be found on Early Christian Writings (in fact, reading them for yourself is the best thing you can do if you're interested in them). The site isn't a conservative one, but it is a great tool for studying source texts.


If you are one of those interested in reading non-canonical gospels, allow me to offer you a couple of tips. First, as you enter this strange world of gospel studies, remember that scholars will sometimes talk about hypothetical documents as if they are real. For example, you can go to the above site and read the document known as 'Q' (from the German word for source, 'Quelle'). However, Q doesn't really exist, it's a hypothetical source document.


To make a long story short, Q is the material common between Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. If you look at the visual aid below, Q would be represented by the blue "Double Tradition". Scholars theorize that the only way Matthew and Luke could have material so similar, is if they borrowed from a common (and probably written) source - hence, Q. There is no surviving evidence (such as existing manuscripts) that Q ever existed, and yet in the world of NT studies, it might as well be as real as the nose on your face. To be fair, there is nothing unreasonable about Q, in fact, I too believe that some source (whether written or oral) like Q did exist.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png

I would also like to offer you some categories to help you think about the non-canonical gospels. Some of the non-canonical gospels often "fill in the gaps" of our gospels. For example, there is a period of time between Jesus' resurrection and ascension in which there is very little of his teaching recorded, some of the non-canonical gospels (e.g. Epistula Apostolorum) attempt to fill this gap (I would call this category 'Post Resurrection Revelation'). There are also gospels which are 'Pre-Infancy Narratives' which discuss, to put it generally, the time before our gospels began (e.g. Infancy Gospel of James; a.k.a. Protevangelium of James). Another category (again, as I would describe them) is the 'Post Infancy Narrative' (e.g. Infancy Gospel of Thomas) which describes Jesus' boyhood (filling in the gap between Jesus' birth and ministry). The Gospel of Thomas actually fits into the category of a 'Sayings Gospel'. If you were to read it you would think to yourself, "This reads much like the book of Proverbs.". A 'Sayings Gospel' is simply a collection of Jesus' sayings, all strung together one after the other without any contextual background information such as an audience, setting, or location (i.e. sitz im leben). Finally, there is the category of Passion Narrative (e.g. Gospel of Peter), which describes Jesus' crucifixion.

In studying the non-canoncial gospels, I have developed a much deeper appreciation and trust for Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Comparing and contrasting our gospels with the non-canonical gospels provides a priceless perspective, and helps us better understand the New Testament. The trustworthiness of the canonical gospels, evidenced by their time of writing, straightforward content, early acceptance, and textual preservation is amazing. I feel fully confident learning about my Savior from these four remarkable documents.

Wake Up, America!

Warning: I'm upset. Really upset. (cover your ears, kids) I'm upset because of all the dopey people who are whining that AIG (after receiving $173 million in bailout money from Uncle Sam) spent millions of dollars in bonuses (165 million to be exact) for their employees. Hello? That's like complaining that the drunk bum used your Abe Lincoln handout to buy some alcohol. You dopes, you. If you're gonna complain with how they used your money....don't give it to them. Hey, I've got a bright idea, let's hand out millions and millions of dollars of someone else's money, and then try and pretend like we have strong financial morals. (did I mention that I'm upset?)

It just totally blows my mind that AIG, rather than Big Government, is somehow getting blamed for this. Once you GIVE the money to THEM, it's THEIRS, and they can do whatever THEY want with it because you GAVE it to THEM. I once put about 15 bucks worth of gasoline into someone else's car because their "sister was in the hospital". Did I get ripped off? Probably. But, I knew the risk going in, so I'm not going to whine like I'm somehow naive to evil. Don't blame the guy asking for a handout just because you were foolish enough to give it to them. What did you expect AIG to do with the bailout money? Use it wisely? You dopes, you. Let's take a bunch of money, give it to a company who obviously can't handle money well (that's the claim, isn't it?), and then act like we're shocked that they waste it. As I understand it, that bonus money was part of a contract for these employees. So, Uncle Sam, how about you do your homework and stop shelling out cash to people who have made it known in writing that they plan to (say it aint so) pay their employees.

Imagine I came upon a kid who was throwing quarters, one by one, into a wishing well. Imagine that this kid, after running out of quarters, turned to me and said, "Could you bail me out of this dilemma, and give me a roll of quarters?". Imagine I give this kid a roll of quarters, and the kid takes the whole roll and throws it into the wishing well. Now, imagine that I start yelling at the "stupid" kid for throwing away an entire roll of quarters. Let me ask you, who's the stupid one?

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on The Man.

Wake up, America. You dopes, you.

Is that Ok with You?

I'm a people watcher. At any social gathering, I enjoy just sitting back and processing it all. The subtle glances between husband and wife; the business man checking his Blackberry, again; the loner staring off into space; the extrovert hamming it up, much to the pleasure of his 'audience'; and, of course, the other 'people watchers' who, like me, are taking mental notes.

I love to analyze things, peoples, events, conversations - pretty much everything. I often will memorize important conversations, and play them over and over again in my head - trying to catch something I've missed. One thing I love to do is place people into their respective "I'm Ok - You're Ok" category. If you're not aware, "I'm Ok - You're Ok" was a very popular "self-help" book in the early 1970's, written by Dr. Thomas A. Harris.

I won't try to summarize the book here, but basically (and this is an over-simplification) there are four life positions/attitudes you may embrace.

1. I'm not Ok, You're Ok (low view of self, "high" view of others)

~~

2. I'm not Ok, You're not Ok (low view of self and others)

~~

3. I'm Ok, You're not Ok ("high" view of self, low view of others)

~~

4. I'm Ok, You're Ok ("high" view of self and others)

I don't share this with you because I agree with the prescriptions of Harris (I don't), I share it with you because I find his descriptions of people quite fascinating. I find these four categories very helpful in being more aware of what makes people tick. With a little thoughtful observation, I think we could understand those around us a lot more.

While, in many instances, categorizing the behavior of someone may seem a bit trivial, there are other times when it can be very important. We should train ourselves to notice the bizarre behavior of others. If someone blows their top over some minor detail (the straw that broke the camel's back), it ought first to move us to compassion and curiosity, not condemnation. In reality, their temper tantrum, off-color comment, or startling behavior may be a symptom of something deeper. It is the loving friend who notices, and (here's the kicker) does something about it.

Endurance

While reading in Proverbs (my default devotions if I don't do my regular Bible reading), I came across a particularly challenging verse.

Proverbs 24:10 says,

"If you faint in the day of trouble, your strength is small."

I think I would have expected the ending of that verse to read a bit differently. I might have expected it to say something like, "If you faint in the day of trouble, your strength is average." or, "...it wasn't your fault." or, "...it happens to the best of us."

Really? If I fail during adversity, then I am weak? Let me throw this into a slightly different context, and then end with a challenge.

I remember during one chapel at Xenia Christian High School, one of my teachers, Mr. Holloway gave an illustration using a Styrofoam cup and some water. Mr. Holloway filled the cup to the top with water, and then gave the cup to a student. He instructed the student to hold the cup out at an arms length, and then he suddenly bumped the students arm, forcing the water to spill out. He then asked the student, "Why did water come out of the cup?" The student replied, "Because you bumped my arm." Mr. Holloway informed the student that this was the wrong answer, and the student offered several other guesses, none of which satisfied him. He finally gave the student a clue and asked, "Why didn't coffee, or tea, or something else come out of the cup?" The student replied, "Because there was water in the cup." "Exactly!" my teacher shouted. He went on to explain that what came out of the cup when it was under stress (bumped) was merely a reflection of what was inside. Water wasn't suddenly created, simply because the Styrofoam cup was bumped.

This is true for us as well. When we face "trouble", how we respond is a reflection of who we really are on the inside. Our bad attitudes, clouded thinking, and flippant speech aren't caused by poor situations, they are exposed by them.

So, if I faint in the day of adversity, it is a reflection that my strength wasn't that strong after all. Pretty humbling. Each day we are in a battle. Is your strength small?

"Finally, be strengthened in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Clothe yourselves with the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil." Ephesians 6:10

Sweet Dreams

I had this bizarre (is there any other kind?) dream last night. I usually don't remember my dreams, and the ones I do remember, aren't all that interesting. This dream was different. For some reason, I couldn't get it out of my mind while I was driving to work today. It's strange how dreams work, sorting and sifting our life while we sleep. This particular dream was the merging of several stories and I'll explain as we go along.

~~~

So there I was, sound asleep, minding my own business, when it hit me like a ton of bricks - a dream. The dream opened with me at an audition for a play. (In High School I was in several plays, and acting was a big part of my life, so it isn't that unusual for me to dream about an audition.) I'm not sure where I was in the dream, probably Ohio. (Usually the location\setting of my dreams default back to my hometown - Xenia, OH.) In the dream, I happened to notice that my parents were in the audience, waiting to watch me audition. (This was a bit odd since family members don't usually come to auditions, especially for a simple High School drama. At this point, you should also know that I've been trying to get a particular job now for several months.)

Right before I was called up on stage, I realized that, for some illogical reason, if I didn't get a part in the play, I wouldn't get the job I'd been hoping for either. Don't ask me how this dream-logic works. All I knew was that I absolutely had to get a part in the play, or it was bye-bye to my budding career. As you can imagine, this caused me a great amount of stress. However, I wasn't too worried because I've auditioned several times, and I know how it works...or so I thought. I went up on stage, was handed a script, and was told that I had to SING my lines! (In the auditions during High School, we were given the scripts in advance so that we could prepare, and we never, ever, had to sing.) When it came time for me to sing, I panicked. I couldn't find my place in the script, I didn't even know what tune I was supposed to sing, and I kept stuttering and stammering as I spoke/sang. I was devastated. I looked out at the crowd, and my parents were so embarrassed that they had quietly exited the building. (I think that this part of the dream stemmed from my need of affirmation from others. I often worry about what other people think about me, nearly to an extreme. When I realized my parents had left the audition, I felt sick.)

After a minute or two of fumbling through the script, the producer (who oddly wasn't the producer I had in High School) told me to "stop wasting my time" and get off the stage. At this point I immediately assumed that Jimmy Whalen was going to get the part instead of me. (Jimmy and I went to High School together, and he always got the lead role in our High School plays. Ironically however, Jimmy and I were, and still are, great friends.) As I took my walk of shame off the stage, I stopped and pleaded with the producer to believe that I had "tried my best".

I was absolutely heart broken. I didn't get the part, and, consequently, I didn't get the job. Once I got home, the director (who, again, was not the director I had in High School) called me and asked, "What happened? Did you just not care about getting the part?" I pleaded with the director to give me a second chance. I explained to him that he should give me the part because I had been in so many plays, and that I had just had a really, really bad day. I was explaining to the director that I had tried as hard as I could, pleading with him to let me have the part when my alarm went off and I had to get up and go to work.
~~~

So that's it. That's about as interesting as my dreams get. I hope that this glimpse into my mind doesn't leave too big of a scar on you. Maybe tonight I'll have a dream that will let me know whether or not I got the part. Oh, don't worry, if I ever dream a sequel, I'll be sure to let you know how it ends.

Pity Party

How do we deal with pain and suffering? Is this question already an oversimplification of the issue? Consider with me for a moment the following categories of pain.

~~~

"Acts of God"
Natural Disasters - This type of pain is triggered by loss experienced during floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, earthquakes, or other natural phenomenon.
Passive Operational Failure -This type of pain comes from loss experienced during unavoidable equipment accidents. (e.g. flawed farm machinery)
Erratic Animal Behavior - This type of pain comes from loss experienced when animals, wild or otherwise, attack.

"Acts of Man"
Amoral Human Error -This type of pain comes from loss experienced due to simple human mistakes.
Immoral Human Error -This type of pain comes from loss experienced when we are intentionally wronged by other human beings.
Cause and Effect - This pain is caused by loss experienced during the natural journey of life, such as moving away from friends and family, growing older, or touching a hot stove.

~~~

I have to sigh when I glance back at the categories of pain above. Have I even scratched the surface? If we pause and look around, it's everywhere. Pain. To quote Ravi Zacharias, "For many, despair is not a moment, it is a way of life." So often we blurt out an answer for pain, without really considering the depth of the pain experienced. What about the sadness that haunts us as we fall asleep at night? What about that pain which hits us at the most unexpected moments? What about the dormant feelings of guilt we hold inside? What about those times we feel so lonely, despite being surrounded by friends and loved ones? What about our feelings of insecurities that constantly threaten to destroy our confidence?

Where does all of this come from? Why are emotions so powerful? How do we cope with these internal frailties? Is some stupid Dewey Decimal Classification System of pain supposed to be of some comfort? How do I keep functioning when I feel powerless to keep moving forward? How am I supposed to help my own family when it was an accomplishment for me to just get out of bed and take a shower? How long do I have to keep this smile plastered on my face when, inwardly, I'm hurting? How long do I have to bury these emotions deep into my consciousness?

How do we cope with these, and a whole other flurry of questions? What's more, how do we deal with the pain in the above categories? At one point, while Job's "friends" were offering him round after round of "advice", Job finally responded and said,

"Have pity on me, my friends, have pity on me, for the hand of God has struck me. Why do you pursue me like God does? Will you never be satiated with my flesh?" (Job 19:21-22)

In other words, Job is saying, "Don't you even feel sorry for me? Why do you keep judging me, isn't that God's job? Aren't you satisfied that my life is in ruins? Show me some mercy!"

While I do believe that God has provided some reasons for our suffering (to mature us [James 1:2-4]; so that we may help others [2 Cor. 1:2-5]; to show His glory [John 9:3]; to chasten us [Heb. 13:6ff]), too often we forget to simply show our friends, as Job said, pity. Having "all the answers" doesn't always ease pain and suffering. Christ, who knew His purpose for coming to the earth (Luke 19:10; Matthew 16:21), still cried in the garden before His death. Pain is real, and needs time to run it's course. We must seek to show compassion and mercy, and not just bombard someone who is struggling with what we think they need to hear.

Public Opinion

I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I've always gotten the impression that Darwinian Evolution is the "origin theory" chosen by the vast majority of Americans (I would have guessed 65-70 percent). I was surprised to learn that this isn't the case.

According to a CNN article, "the most recent Gallup poll on the issue, conducted in May, found that only 14 percent of Americans believe that humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. Forty-four percent believe that God created human beings almost overnight within the past 10,000 years, and another 36 percent believe that God guided humans' evolution from animals over a much longer period of time."

These statistics (and, of course, that's all they are) really shocked me. I just always assumed that those who believed God was involved in the Creation process (a form of Young Earth Creationism; or some type of Theistic Evolution), were just a small group of people on the fringe of societal thought. Rather, 80% of those polled thought God was involved in the Creation process.

Obviously, this isn't an argument for Creation. The number of people who believe something has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not it is true. Truth can't be snuffed out by even the biggest and angriest of mobs. If an argument for Creation is to be strong, it will have to come from different means than a popular opinion poll.

Tangential What?

The title of my blog, Tangential Lucidity, is pregnant with meaning, and I chose it for two reasons. First, Tangential Lucidity is designed to approach topics in a roundabout way (tangential), in an effort to bring clarity of thought (lucidity) to various issues for you, the reader.

Secondly, Tangential Lucidity is designed to indirectly (tangentially) sharpen the thinking skills (lucidity) of me, the writer. Both of these purposes are underneath the broader umbrella of bringing Glory to God (increasing His reputation), by developing a thoughtful, Biblical worldview through the avenue of blogging.

Thanks for reading!

Taboo

"Politics and religion, are two topics we don't talk about in this office.", my boss said to me after pulling me into his office. My boss dismissed me from his office, and then pulled everyone else who works in our department into his office, one by one (six of us in all). He gave each of them the same "only-talk-about-non-controversial-stuff-at-work-like-donuts-and-the-weather" speech. Are you kidding me?

Allow me to fill you in on the nitty-gritty details which precipitated this blatant censorship of conversation.

In the south, there is already a slight racial tension in the air. This was enhanced, ironically, on the day President Obama was sworn into office. During the festivities of the day, some of the ladies in my office were discussing the dress worn by Michelle Obama. They were saying things that only make sense to a female mind like, "Oh, it just wasn't that flattering on her." and "I just can't believe she picked that style." and "She looked so much better the night of the election." SNORE.

Anyway, us guys were (smartly) staying out of the whole conversation. That is, until one of the male supervisors (who happens to be Caucasian) blurted out, "Michelle wouldn't look good no matter what she wore." Cue pin drop silence. Needless to say, this did not go over to well with one of the female supervisors (who happens to NOT be Caucasian). The whole situation escalated, with the male supervisor eventually getting accused of "racism". This little episode made it all the way to the plant manager, which prompted my boss to pull us all into his office for the afore mentioned speech.

It's really sad. Grown men and women who are actually banned from entire categories of conversation! Shame on the employees who are unable to have a mature discussion about important topics. Shame on our managers for choosing the easy way out and not allowing dialogue in the workplace. Shame on us all for choosing productivity at work over freedom of thought and discussion.

Is the truth worth fighting for or not? Are there good ideas and bad ideas or not? Will we be judged by God for our views or not? Let's keep the table open, stop this needless censorship. Let's keep the dialogue going, stop ignoring people just because we disagree with them. Let's respectfully and cordially discuss our viewpoints, stop the name-calling and combative attitudes. Let's be more informed and educated, stop being ignorant of others' views.

Jerusalem

The ability to place yourself in someone else's shoes is an important life skill. While I'm not Jewish, and while this song is certainly not Christian, I can appreciate some of the sentiment communicated in this song. I am so grateful for the Jewish people, through whom came a Messiah for the Gentiles.

This video was first introduced to me a couple of years ago by a good friend of mine. I have seen this video over a dozen times, and I still can't watch it without it having an emotional impact on me.

This song is performed by Matisyahu, a Jewish reggae musician, and is based on Psalm 137:5-6. The pictures were juxtaposed to the music by a third party, and I'm not sure if the comments at the end are accurate.

Why You Should Care about Nadya Suleman

Nadya Suleman, 33, had octuplets through fertility treatments, despite already having six children ages seven and under, with no clear source of income. This has caused an outburst of controversy, you can read more about her story here.

If you desire to keep your finger on the pulse of culture, you should care about Nadya Suleman. Here are two reasons why…

Two Words: Case Study
Catch phrase of the day? Selective Reduction. Question of the day? Why didn’t Suleman choose to abort one or more of her babies during the pregnancy, in order to give the others a better chance at survival and\or a better life? If you’re pro-choice, this case should interest you because it is a classic opportunity to further your women's-rights agenda. If you’re pro-life, this case should interest you because it offers you the chance to sharpen your views, and determine if there are ever any exceptions to a no-abortions stance. Many people have taken a keen interest in this case, and it would be foolish to miss this opportunity to strengthen and defend your convictions.

Big Brother and Reproduction
Suleman had six embryos implanted, two of which split, resulting in 8 babies (all 14 of her children were the result of in-vitro fertilization.) This relatively high number of embryos has sparked controversy, prompting some to call for limiting the number of embryos that can be implanted. It doesn't take too much imagination to envision the federal government stepping in and beginning to regulate the number of embryos which can be implanted (there may be regulation already in place - not sure). Either way, this could be the spark needed to propel us down the slippery slope of limiting the number of children per household (or limiting children based on income). Obviously, we are several steps removed from this type of drastic action, but this case at least reminds us of the possibility.

Christians must capitalize on this opportunity for constructive dialogue. We must reinforce our commitment to the sacredness of life inside the womb. We must reinforce our commitment to exercise the rights God has entrusted to us. We must keep the conversation going, and endeavor to build bridges to those who disagree.