The Danger of Being One-sided

One the the things I see widely on Facebook is that people who are passionate about politics and speak out about it, seem to be doing so from a very one-sided perspective. The means that those are are commenting about issues are only reading and listening to people the agree with them.  To be well-informed, one needs to read and listen to people on all sides of the issues as well as all positions in politics be they right, center or left. Only then can we keep the wool from being pulled over our eyes by ideologues (like talk show hosts and syndicated columnists) who make their money by catering to the certain base of people with a certain base of belief.

This is how good biblical exegesis is done. You look at the full-view of writers down through history when seeking views of how a passage should be interpreted. The helps the interpreter deal with his or her own bias. Ultimately of course, good biblical exegesis allows the the text to speak and the meaning is established by the intention of the text (which was inspired by God and therefore we seek God's original intention). But lots of very bad biblical interpretation happens when we don't deal with our own bias. So reading and studying widely is important. It is the same when interpreting the times.

As I continue to read through Eric Metaxas' book "Bonhoeffer" I'm struck by how Hitler used one-sided, single perspective information to to control the hearts and minds of the people he got to follow him. That is the danger of only listening to one side or our favorite commentators. We get very polarized information. Now it's easier to only listen to people who believe like us. But it is ultimately dangerous. That's why I try to read very widely and not let others make my decisions for me. That's why I don't stop with people like Mark Levin (who says some very interesting things) and other radio commentators. He is convinced he is right and he wants you to be convinced he is right. But do we do the hard work of fact checking his pronouncements? Do we try to get to the other side of what he is saying as a check on his own bias?

In interpreting the times and interpreting the Bible, the only way to not have the wool pulled over our eyes is to be vigilant not to be one-sided in our research. Only then can we ask enough questions to arrive at a proper interpretation of both.

A Response to Senator Obama

In 2006 then Senator Obama said this when addressing a Sojourner’s meeting…

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

Yes, deciding how to apply Scripture present day life is a challenge.

One of my favorite moments in the "Westwing" is when Bartlett addresses Dr. Jacobs on her selective reading of the Old Testament. Take a look...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eD52OlkKfNs

But Bartlett doesn't really deal with the bigger issue of when Old and New Testaments speak of an issue. 

I think the answer to Christian Hermeneutical (thanks to Vince Morris for bringing this up)  problem centers on several linchpins (if that is possible).  First we need to view  all passages of scripture in the context of the Bible's overall purpose, i.e. to reveal God and his path of redemption for mankind.  Then we need to remember that on path of redemption are the two covenants that God made with mankind to bring about redemption.  God made the "old" covenant with Abraham which brought about the nation of Israel.  The chosen one or the Messiah who would be the savior of the world comes from Israel. Then the Messiah, who fulfills all the righteous demands of the old covenant makes a new covenant with all people, Jews and Gentiles alike. 

Thus, the civil and ceremonial laws that Israel was responsible to keep are fulfilled in Christ.  But the moral law defined through the 10 commandments and the "royal law" of loving God and neighbor, are the laws that Jesus said were still important for people of faith. 

So when applying God's word, both old and new covenants, we must be comfortable with the saying "that was then, this is now."   This helps us in dealing with the issues of continuity and discontinuity of the old and new covenants. God expects new covenant people not to have to live according the old covenant societal (civil and ceremonial).  But the moral laws that describe God's character and defines the redeemed life are part of the path of sanctification.   Christians who are new covenant people are to follow the words of Jesus who through his death began the new covenant.  He and his followers like Peter and Paul, never required dietary, civil or ceremonial laws.  Paul says that new covenant people are set free from both the condemnation of the old law and free from having to live legalistically according to it. On some of the ceremonial laws, Paul would say that there was freedom to follow them or not.  But living life legalistically according to the Old Covenant is not required.   Jesus said, "when the son sets you free, you shall be free indeed."  While this refers to being set free from  sin, still he seems to infer that being set from from sin also implies being set free from the law that defined sin.

So, what about shellfish?  They are considered "unclean" and therefore "inedible" for Israel.  But since that idea comes from the old covenant societal (dietary and ceremonial) law, the Christian has freedom in this area.  You can eat them or not.   What about stoning your child?  Since that is OT civil law and since  Jesus wouldn't stone an adulteress who broke the old law, then we don't stone our children who don't follow Jesus. However, this doesn't help us completely when dealing with homosexual behavior.

On one hand homosexual behavior was not acceptable for the nation of Israel.  On the other hand Paul says in Romans and 1 Cor. that it is still not acceptable.  So here we are, on the horns of a dilemma.  But since we don't the stone adulteress, we don't stone people for homosexual behavior.  But we are still to keep in mind the issue of "uncleanness."  It was a major Old Covenant theme.

Uncleanness does seem to touch the issue of holiness and sanctification.  We are to grow in holiness and therefore keep from things that make us "unholy."  So both adultery and homosexuality are not on that path of sanctification. But, they are not the unforgivable sins.  Therefore we are to forgive as Jesus forgave the woman in adultery.  And we are to "go and sin no more" as Jesus commanded.  There gain, as concerns homosexuality, we are on those dilemma horns. Today people want to say homosexual behavior is not morally wrong, like many people say that adultery is not immoral.  So how to we instruct those who think homosexual behavior is not immoral?  First, we must remember to first love.  Our job is not to condemn but to point people to the source of all love.  The as peace makers, we must condemn all violence based sexual preference.  Tolerance, true tolerance (not acquiescence or political correctness) must rule. 

But what about homosexual marriage?  The Christian desiring to follow the Bible still needs to affirm homosexual behavior is not acceptable.  So to sanction it by affirming same sex-marriage would seem to be a line to draw. Since we do need to protect the rights of people, same-sex contract or "unions" would seem a reasonable way to that. But it sends a message of tolerance.  Of course, if churches are required by law to practice same sex marriage, then civil disobedience is a proper option.

As for requiring the defense department to be governed by the Sermon on the Mount, it might seem strange to you, but I think it already is.  Words like restraint, proportionality, precision guidance, etc are all values that our government has put in place which, I think, reflect the values of the Sermon on the Mount.  While all of our defensive actions are not successful in bringing peace, that is the goal.  As Christians we need to always insist that our military not go beyond what is necessary to defend the country so people can live in peace.  

  

Don't "take back our country?"

Those who want to "take back the country," be they Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal are perpetuating a dangerous schism that will never be resolved. You can't take back what you never had in the first place. There have always been opposing opinions. Only when people reach out to each other and resolve to move the country forward in cooperation, will the split among Americans healed.

This battle cry "take back our country" is just that, a battle cry. In the culture wars in the U.S. we hear it often. Those who want to go back to the values that they hold dear and that they thought once guided us and were practiced in the U.S., use it to rally support.

But it will never work. You can't go backward. You an only go forward. There are always people on both sides of an issues. You can't take back what you never had. But, you can bring your values to the discussion table. For example, attitudes about abortion have changed drastically since the 1970's. At first the pro-abortion upswell was obvious. But then as the years went by and people began to realize that they were actually ending the lives of their children, the pro-abortion opinion went down. Not, many people would say that they pro-abortion, but rather pro-choice. And for two decades, the rate of abortion has dropped. The activism has worked. But villainizing the opposition doesn't. Only when we respect each other and debate civilly are minds changed for the long-term. Sure, show the horror of the issues, but don't be judge and jury over the other's thoughts and opinions. Convince them with reason, not condemnation.

The same goes for homosexual marriage, fiscal responsibility, religious freedom. All these must be debated freely and civilly in the spiritual of cooperation and respect. Only when people are presented with good reasons, will they change their minds.

So, let's not take back the country. Let's build the country's future, together, hand in hand!

Legalism and Liberalism

I recently read an article by the leader of a large Christian organization where he says that “Legalism and Liberalism are not the design of” the Gospel. The article, which was in reality a weekly letter meant for the inspiration and encouragement of members of the organization, likens the extraordinary design of the Tower bridge London to the form and function of the Gospel. He says the all the aspects of Jesus message such as “Humility, mercy, brokenness and peacemaking embrace righteousness, holiness, courage and zeal are all in balance.” Like the bridge whose form and function allow the bridge to be a “strong and sure” means of transmitting vehicles and people over the bridge as well as an aesthetically striking landmark, so the Gospel is balanced in it’s beauty and power. Others have said in the Gospel, “Love and justice embrace.” It is a very good analogy. But, in a further point, the author says that the Gospel and is not legalistic or liberalistic. The phrase goes nicely in the author’s chain of alliterating phrases. I believe with all my heart that the Gospel is not legalistic. But is the Gospel not liberalistic? A look at various definitions of liberal and liberalism show a range of meeting: 1. "Open to new behavior and opinions, willing to discard traditional values" If this is the meaning of liberal then I believe it is wrong to say the Gospel is not liberal. Jesus was a "liberal" of his time. He definitely challenged the traditional values and was openly professing new behavior and opinions. As a preacher of the Gospel I hope I help people discard their traditional values that are not in accord with the Gospel. 2. "favorable to individual rights and freedoms" If this is the meaning of liberal then I believe it is wrong to say the Gospel is not liberal. Jesus upheld the rights and freedoms of individuals. This one of the watch words of the Reformation which contributed to the formation of "liberal democracies". The United States is a liberal democracy, meaning that is favorable to individual rights and freedoms. Freedom of religion is one of the great watchwords or our liberal society. Would we have it any other way? Would Americans tolerate the persecution and restrictions of the beliefs of others? Would we prohibit, Muslims to bury their dead in the United States because they are Muslim and not Christian? 3. "concerned with broadening a person's general knowledge and experience rather than technical or professional training" If this is the meaning of liberal then I believe it is wrong to say the Gospel is not liberal since it is indeed concerned with broadening a person's knowledge through the Spirit-led journey of searching for truth. The Gospel is about bringing people New Life and not turning them into religious encyclopedias. John Piper said something like "Brothers, we are not professionals." But if liberalism refers to theological liberalism which does not hold to the inspiration and authority of Scripture and therefore denies that the Bible is God's word, then I could say that yes, the Gospel is not liberal. Salvation of the people God loves depends on “conserving” the reality of the truth of the Scripture and the truth about the Scriptures. If liberal means that the death of Jesus on the Cross is "cosmic child abuse" instead of an atoning sacrifice the redeems a fallen world, the the Gospel is not liberal. If liberal means the libertine throwing off the morality of Jesus concerning such aspects of like as monogamous marriage, the sanctity of life, living with integrity, loving another through taking care of the poor, the Gospel is not liberal. My reason for taking up this issue I am very concerned that Christians turn their back completely on the word liberal. We should not always be conservative as being conservative is not always in keeping with the message of the Gospel. I am a liberal when it comes to the Christian traditional value of not taking care of the environment. I am a liberal when it comes an end-times theology which does not promote good and right treatment of people and the world in the here and now. I am a liberal in challenging the current tradition of tolerance that does not allow Christians to live and be Christian in all theatres of their life. Most of all I am liberal with regard to the habit of many American Christians who always make conservative and liberal black and white categories. I am not always conservative. I am often liberal. But I am not always a liberal and I am often conservative. It all depends on whether being liberal or conservative is in accord with the Gospel. Christians need to be careful in always thinking that the word liberal is a dirty word. It’s not. Thankfullly, the Gospel is liberal in it’s outlook on the life and freedoms of people. It is liberal in that God wants all people to be saved. I am tenaciously conservative in holding on to the liberality of the Gospel.

American Election Day 2006

Aren’t elections wonderful! Don’t they stimulate us! Don’t they make us think! We have the privilege of helping to choose those who govern us. Democracy, government by the people.

And how interesting! Elections are polls of opinion. We get to see some broad opinions. Yes it is difficult to see the individual opinions, and individual reasoning but the broad sweeps are interesting and instructive.

I hope you’ll excuse me for sounding so wide eyed, but I purposely chose to recapture a sense of awe of what is going on.

This American election seems to have been a multiple referenda:

On the many issues of the war in Iraq
On the content and style of the President Bush
On the American economy
On the environment

It seems that abortion and gay marriage, where there are strong majorities against each, have not been the issues people where most concerned about.

But what about the weightier issues of
fairness of economy for all peoples of the world
social injustice all around the world
helping the poor and dealing with poverty and hunger
drug addiction and the horrors it creates for user and producer countries
and the list goes on. How do we know what is priority?

As Christians we are to be in submission to the laws and rulers of a land. But we are also to live and promote righteousness, that is, we are to promote the values of God. So when we live in democratic countries, we need to promote the values of God. God wants us to act in a loving way toward everyone. He want justice for everyone, helping the down trodden. He wants people have the opportunity to seek him. God’s priorities are found all through the preaching of the prophets, the teaching the Jesus and the writings of his followers.

When we have elections, these must be the guiding lights to be our priorities. Fortunately, we can do much of that in the public arena. But the issues of righteous that involve personal and corporate faith must be lived in communities. Faith is a matter of the heart and not something we can legislate. But the values that come from faith, which are the values of God, can be.

At election times, we need to work hard to help people realize that we are voting our conscience and not forcing faith on people. Faith cannot be forced. Moral values however can be agreed upon and enforced. Elections need to continue to be referenda on values. For it is the values that we put in place that will guide us, and our elected officials, in how to govern a country and a world

And thanks be to God, that we have him to guide us as we sort through the difficult issues of picking elected leaders and the values that govern us.

A Coroner Decides a Soldier's Guilt, but is it Justice?

Journalists in war zones run a great risk of being killed. They know this. They take the risks for the purpose of getting accurate news as well as for a paycheck. But when they are killed on a battlefield in order to gather information one must ask, who killed them: the bullet of the combatants, or their own will to be on the field of combat? It seems clear the answer is the latter. But this logic is being question by British courts.

Today we are seeing the relatives of slain reporter Terry Lloyd wanting to blame the death on American forces who in during a battle in the Iraq war, "illegally" fired on vehicle that witnesses said was carrying the wounded Lloyd from the scene to a place where he could get treatment. A British "coroner has ruled that a British journalist who died in Iraq at the start of the war was unlawfully killed by American forces." (CNN report Oct. 14, 2006)

This is a troubling perspective, one that comes from people who are grieving the loss of their loved one, wanting "justice" for his death. But it's a perspective that comes from a detached point of view. In spite of videos and testimonies, a civilian court is in error to think that battle conditions can be put on hold so that everyone who is wounded in battle can be evacuated. The stress, confusion and chaos of a battlefield cannot preclude the possibility that a vehicle, not clearly part of a side in a fight, and not flying a flag of truce, be fired upon.

What is more troubling is that there seems to be an effort to use the death of this British citizen, by his family members and others, to make a value judgement on the behaviour of the American troops as well as a cultural statement about America, not to mention political statement condemning America's and Britain’s action in Iraq. Notice this quote from a report by CNN:

"The evidence of how Terry Lloyd was unlawfully killed has shown that this was not, I wish to stress, a friendly fire blue on blue incident or a crossfire incident. It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act, particularly as it came many minutes after the end of the initial exchanges in which Mr. Lloyd had been hit by an Iraqi bullet."

... "U.S. forces appeared to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys in an area in which there were civilians travelling on a highway, both Iraqi and European."

How is it known that the soldiers acted deliberately to kill a journalist and that with the motive of vengeance? How is it known that the commanders of the soldiers permitted them to act as "trigger-happy cowboys", a statement itself that has a cultural slur as well as calling into question the training and professionalism of the commanders and soldiers?

These two statements imply value judgements that go far beyond the facts of Lloyd having been killed on a battlefield by American soldiers. It brings judgement on the motives and methods of the soldiers, judgements that are not supported by the evidence given. Unfortunately, statements such as these are not helpful in a cross-cultural situation and should be apologized for.

Has justice been served? This is not a war crime covered under international law. The accidental killing in, which must be emphasized, the midst of a battle cannot be seen as illegal or unlawful.

The death of Mr. Lloyd is a sad and tragic thing. Condolences are to be offered to the family and friends. But to blame soldiers in the heat of battle for the illegal death of journalist who willingly entered and manoeuvred on a battlefield between warring sides, is not to be accepted as justice.