A Vexing Question

I've heard about Andy Stanley's recent comments about homosexuality and the church and read some of the articles on The Gospel Coalition website and heard their calls for clarification from NorthPoint and from Mr. Stanley.

Here's the question I'm struggling with: we all agree that the Church is full of sinners and while we'd like to believe that all those attending Sunday services are actively resisting sin, we know that in reality that's not true. I've heard the argument that what makes homosexuality different than other sins is that most often, those living a homosexual lifestyle are claiming that it is not sinful, or are openly promoting that lifestyle or asking others to affirm their choices. Knowing that there are others in the congregation who are leading sinful lifestyles that have nothing to do with sexuality, how can the Church tell one group that they cannot be involved while allowing the other group to stick around? Does the Church have a permissibility problem or a discriminatory problem?

So I guess that's more like 2-3 questions. Right now, I'm leaning more towards 'the church has a permissibility problem' side of things. When we are inconsistent in how we respond to and address sin, no matter its flavor, then we get into situations where we appear to be condemning some sins and accepting others. Open to having my mind changed.

Let Israel Be Israel

There have been plenty of books written about this topic within the past 25 years and I think that as time moves forward, a lot of academia is coming around to a view that in order to make sense of the Biblical storyline as a whole (inclusive of both the Old and New Testaments) Israel and the Jewish people have to still matter to God. When I was first introduced to some of these ideas a few years ago, I would have considered myself indifferent to Israel. I did not harbor any particular animosity towards the Jews, nor did I think about them much at all...as it related to my own faith, Israel and the Jewish people didn't come to mind. Now my thinking is completely different. This post is a reflection of my own desire to be able to explain, in a simple way, to a fellow Christian why I think Israel remains important and why I think we as Gentile Christians need to be a little more careful when we read our Bibles. I also want to explain why I don't think it should be threatening to recognize that we (Gentiles) are not God's chosen people.

Where It Started

A few years ago I decided to go very deliberately through the covenants, specifically the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant and the 'New' covenant. In fact, I created a post for this blog based on that exercise. One of the things that became glaringly obvious was that ALL of those covenants were made specifically with the nation of Israel. Even with the Abrahamic covenant, which is obviously made before Israel became a nation, the very first thing God says is "I will make you into a great nation" -- it is clear that through Abraham, God has the nation of Israel ultimately in mind. Every other covenant is made explicitly and specifically to Israel, including the 'new' covenant (Jeremiah 31) which starts, "Behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of mankind and the seed of animals."

Don't Be Afraid of Your Curiosity

I was thinking about my own curiosity today - specifically I was reflecting on the fact that I'm not afraid of my curiosity, but I am sometimes afraid of what other people might think of my curiosity. Here's a very recent example:

I've been doing a lot of reading/listening about psychedelics, which all started after I read the book "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test". The curiosity is specifically around LSD, DMT, and psilocybin mushrooms - not for recreational purposes, but for the potential of a spiritually significant experience; one that gets me out of my normal modes of operation. I've read a couple of books, watched a very interesting documentary called "How to Change Your Mind" by Michael Pollan and listened to interviews** with several people including Paul Stamets who is one of the leading mycologists (mushroom scientist) in the world.

After reading and listening and watching, I was curious. I started to consider the prophets and prophetic literature in general...it is often full of bizarre imagery and sounds very similar to the 'trip reports' you hear from various people who have had psychedelic experiences. Very curious.

Food for Thought: The Trinity

I'm a regular reader of Skip Moen's daily blog and highly recommend him to everyone. He is thoughtful, well-read, and clear in his writing. He is like you and me - on a journey to deeper understanding. He doesn't pretend to be an authority, he is honest with where he is at, and he likes to wrestle. I can appreciate all of these things. Yesterday, he wrote a post entitled "Evangelizing the Jews" and at the end of the post was a provocative quote about the Trinity. I understand why modern Christians hold the doctrine of the Trinity so close, but might he have a point? The Church has made this doctrine a cornerstone of theology...but no where in Scripture, Old Testament or New, is this doctrine explicitly laid out. Anyway - here's the quote:

"Perhaps you haven't thought of the far-reaching implications of a Trinitarian view of Scripture. Perhaps all that theological discussion of the dual nature of Jesus, the virgin birth, the historical background battle between Athanasius and Arius, and the equivocation over the idea of "person" was just too much to examine. But now you see that ideas have consequences, and this idea, that Jesus is God and must be acknowledged as such, changes everything about the status of the Jew. Can I be bold enough to say that the Trinity is the fundamental antisemitic doctrine of the Church, and until we deal with its divisive intent, any substantive interaction is ultimately impossible?"

 That's certainly a lot to think about...read the full post to get the context.

On Graham Hancock

Up until a couple of weeks ago, I had no idea who Graham Hancock was. There is currently a series on Netflix called "Ancient Apocalypse" and because it aligned with my interests, I watched it. If you aren't familiar, the 8-part series has been labeled a documentary, and the central character is Graham Hancock, who has spent the last 30+ years of his life traveling to ancient sites all over the world and developing a theory (which appears to be borrowed from others). The theory is that there is some kind of lost ancient civilization, pre-flood, and that certain members of that pre-flood civilization survived and passed on their advanced knowledge to the post-flood survivors throughout the rest of the World. The Ancient Apocalypse series is very well done - its a bit over-the-top in terms of production - engaging and interesting. Having said that; I was firm in my own mind, after finishing the documentary, that while I appreciate what Hancock has brought together, I can't agree with his conclusions because our worldviews very different. He is not a believer and as far as I can tell, he is firmly against the idea of a Creator God. Having said all that, the series was enough to interest me in what else Graham Hancock has put out there. He is an accomplished author as well, with several titles available for purchase, and after reviewing my options, I decided to read "Magicians of the Gods", his 2017 update to his original best-selling book, "Fingerprints of the Gods."

I had a couple of lengthy car rides over the Thanksgiving break and so I finished that book in a few days. I then listened to an episode of the Joe Rogan podcast that he did in early November (just a few weeks ago) and after taking all of that in, I decided to go and see what his opponents say. I read a lengthy critical review of his 'Magicians of the Gods' book that was particularly scathing. With that as the backdrop, I wanted to share my take on his work, from the point of view of someone with a Biblical worldview.

What is Love (Baby Don't Hurt Me)?

I've been thinking about this question a lot lately - especially in the wake of a divisive election season where there seemed to be no shortage of opinions from various Evangelicals on how Christians ought to cast their vote. You had people on the Right saying that Christians shouldn't vote for politicians that would promote the right to kill babies. You had people on the Left saying that Christians shouldn't vote for politicians who are not loving their neighbor well (i.e. voting against open-border policies, voting in favor of big business, etc).

I can't help but feel like both sides are getting it woefully wrong.

When I look at Jesus' interaction with his main 'opponent' in the Gospels, the Pharisees, I don't see the same dynamics that Evangelicals are talking about today. Jesus' disagreements with the Pharisees were all under the umbrella of obedience. Pharisaical-ism was, for better and for worse, obsessed with obedience to God. So obsessed, in fact, that they created all of these secondary traditions so as to not even come close to disobedience. So when Jesus is confronting the Pharisees, it is not because they are calling something sinful, good. Rather, the stick that they used against the people around them was that they were not pious enough. They lorded it over the people that they (the teachers and leaders) were the most pious. In other words, it became a outward-behavior competition. Who can stay the farthest away from outwardly breaking the Law? Jesus was constantly getting at the heart of a person - to that end he famously said, "you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but the inside is full of greed and wickedness."

My overall point here is that Jesus was not talking to people who were sinning and calling it good. He was talking to people who believed in God and who wanted to obey. There seems to be this on-going conversation within the broader Church about how we "love others". And that's really what I want to address with this post.

A Good Quote

Been reading the book "Electric Kool-aid Acid Test", mostly frivolous stuff, but this made me think:

"They have made the trip now, closed the circle, all of them, and they either emerge as Superheroes, closing the door behind them and soaring through the hole in the sapling sky, or just lollygag in the loop-the-loop of the lab. Almost clear! Presque Vu! - many good heads have seen it - Paul telling the early Christians: hooking down wine for the Holy Spirit - sooner or later the Blood has got to flood into you for good - Zoroaster telling his followers: you can't keep taking Haoma water to see the names of Vohu Mano - you've got to become the flames, man - And Dr. Strange and Sub Mariner and the Incredible Hulk and the Fantastic Four and the Human Torch prank about on the Rat walls of la casa grande like stroboscopic sledgehammer Cassadys, fons et origo ::::: and it is either make this thing permanent inside of you or forever just climb draggled up into the conning tower every time for one short glimpse of the horizon ::::" - Chapter 23, Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe

Its that last line that is so haunting. "either make this thing permanent inside of you forever or just climb up into the conning tower every time for one short glimpse of the horizon." So often I feel like the latter - like someone who is constantly striving to internalize this thing that I so badly want to be a part of me, but that in reality is more like a costume...something I put on rather than something that is a part of me.