A couple of recent news stories involving the Bible caught my attention.
In one, the Cincinnati Enquirer reported that a twenty-three year old woman attempted to walk out of the downtown Cincinnati public library with a copy of The Prophecy Study Bible without checking it out. She has been charged with theft. As the news story pointed out, she would have done well to heed the “Thou shalt not steal” admonition contained in the Book.
How ludicrous! How could anyone be so interested in the Bible that she would steal one when it teaches that we shouldn’t steal? To be fair, maybe she hadn’t gotten that far in her reading yet.
Yep, that’s pretty ludicrous. Of course, it’s ludicrous that so many of us Christians tote around the Book that says “Pray for your enemies” when instead we are doing all we can to do them in.
It’s ludicrous that we carry the Book that teaches us how to deal helpfully with fallen sisters or brothers when instead we talk about them behind their backs.
It’s ludicrous that we read the Book that tells us not to lie when instead we bend and even break the truth in order to further our own agenda.
It’s ludicrous that we claim to be submissive to the teachings of the Book that contains the social preaching of the Old Testament prophets and then we promote a strictly individualistic view of salvation that allows us to leave the great social ills of our time unaddressed.
It’s ludicrous that we pledge allegiance to the Book that talks about individuality responsibility, justice, and judgment and then we fail to take seriously the precarious position of so many people before God.
It’s ludicrous that we call ourselves disciples of the Teacher who is described in the Book as having no place to lay his head and who consistently taught us to pursue the treasure that lasts for eternity when instead we pursue the same materialistic lifestyle that “worldly” people pursue.
It’s ludicrous that we learn in that Book of the Prince of Peace and we are instead proponents of war.
On second thought, maybe “ludicrous” doesn’t begin to cover it.
The other story was about a street preacher in Athens, Tennessee who refused a police officer’s order to move away from the side of the road and then hit the officer with his Bible.
That’s showing him the love of Christ.
Of course, we do tend to beat people over the head with our religion. I remember a Peanuts cartoon in which Lucy said that she thought she would be a good evangelist. She was sure that she could convince others of the superiority of her religion. When asked how she would do that, she said, “I’d hit them over the head with my lunch box.”
We do more harm than good when our motivation is the exhibition of the superiority of our religion; we do more good than harm when we joyfully share the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.
We do more harm than good when our primary use of the Bible is the winning of religious arguments; we do more good than harm when our primary use of the Bible is the proclamation of God’s grace as known in Jesus Christ.
We do more harm that good when we take the symbolic literally or the literal symbolically; we do more good than harm when we take the symbolic symbolically and the literal literally.
We do more harm than good when we keep our Bibles closed so as not to have its teachings mess up our conclusions; we do more good than harm when we open our Bibles and read them so that the words contained therein can inform our thoughts, our feelings, and our actions.
They were just news stories, but they got me to thinking about how we use and misuse the Bible. Perhaps we should confess our failings in that area and try really hard to do better. After all, the way that we handle Scripture impacts the way that we deal with people, and such witness is mighty important.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Reactions and Responses to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, Pt. 13
Chapter Six is entitled “The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?”
That’s a good question. Another good question would be “Why are we bad?” and yet another good question would be “Why are we both good and bad?”
The Bible, to put it too simplistically, chalks our moral dilemma up to the presence of options in the world that require each individual in every generation to make choices that in turn build upon the consequences of all of the choices that have been made by all of the individuals in all of the generations that have gone before us. There are individual and communal factors in our goodness and in our badness, in other words.
Dawkins, to no one’s surprise, chalks our goodness up to natural selection.
Before he does that, though, he gets some more shots in at religious people by quoting some hateful diatribes penned by allegedly “Christian” people and addressed to Dawkins and other proponents of evolutionary theory. The missives that he quotes are juvenile loads of bile that, were they actually reflective of the attitudes of most Christians, should fill us with shame. I’m just irritated at his citing of them because I know that’s not how most Christians think or talk. But, to be sure, some do. Beyond taking more potshots at Christians, though, Dawkins does siphon at least one valid point from those letters: many Christians do believe that to embrace evolutionary theory is to take God out of the picture (a conclusion with which Dawkins would agree) and that removal of God eliminates the basis for human morality (a conclusion with which Dawkins would not agree).
Indeed, Dawkins champions morality (what sane person would not?) and tries to make a case for human morality emerging out of the process of natural selection. Given that his hypotheses in this area are not testable, it’s really hard to argue with him. Of course, given that my belief in the involvement of God in the creation process is also not testable, it’s really hard for him to argue with me.
Dawkins’ basic argument is that genes would “selfishly” insure their own survival by influencing their host organisms to behave in altruistic fashion. For instance, in the earliest stages of human development, we would have been inclined to be kind and helpful either to our close kin or to those who could reciprocate our kindness. In time, Dawkins says, the need to limit our kindness to our kin or to those who could reciprocate went away, but the impulse to kindness did not. He says this is a “misfiring” of the earlier survival instinct, but one that is to be seen as a “blessed, precious” “Darwinian mistake” (p. 221), much like the impulse to sexual attraction that continues even without a reproductive motive.
My response to this argument is “maybe, maybe not.” Who can know? I just don’t see how his thesis, while somewhat logical, can be tested, and where is the science in that?
Dawkins does raise an interesting philosophical question when he asks, “If there is no God, why be good?” He says that there is some evidence that people who believe in God are not more moral than those who do not. The only “evidence” he cites is a section from fellow atheist Sam Harris who wrote about the higher crime rates in “red” and thus predominantly Republican and thus allegedly more Christian states. That’s pretty weak.
Dawkins speculates that atheists may actually be more moral than theists, not because they are atheists, but because of the “possibility…that atheism is correlated with some third factor, such as higher education, intelligence or reflectiveness, which might counter criminal impulses” (p. 229). I had almost forgotten Dawkins’ belief that atheists are just smarter than people who believe in God.
The only way that Dawkins can envision a belief in God having an impact on morality is that people who believe in God think of him as a cosmic policeman who is always looking to catch us in the wrong so he can do something bad to us. Thus, our belief in God influences us negatively; if we do good and don’t do evil, it’s because we don’t want God to get us. Such is a gross mischaracterization of the motive that most Christians actually have for serving God and for following Christ and for trying to live by the Bible. We in fact love God and believe that he loves us and wants what is best for us. We believe that in being connected with him we are connected with the source of life and love. We serve him because he loves us and because we love him. I for one stopped being afraid of God a long time ago, if by “afraid” you mean “afraid of what he might do to me.”
Dawkins does seem at the conclusion of the chapter to throw religious folks a bone by saying that “it is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones” (p. 232). He says that in the course of dealing with the argument that belief in God does at least provide a standard by which what is evil and what is good can be determined. It’s a bone tied to a string, however, because Dawkins goes on to say that such moral absolutism is usually based on allegiance to a holy book. Unfortunately, he will spend his next chapter trying to dismantle the legitimacy of the Bible. I suspect that his arguments are going to sound pretty tired.
That’s a good question. Another good question would be “Why are we bad?” and yet another good question would be “Why are we both good and bad?”
The Bible, to put it too simplistically, chalks our moral dilemma up to the presence of options in the world that require each individual in every generation to make choices that in turn build upon the consequences of all of the choices that have been made by all of the individuals in all of the generations that have gone before us. There are individual and communal factors in our goodness and in our badness, in other words.
Dawkins, to no one’s surprise, chalks our goodness up to natural selection.
Before he does that, though, he gets some more shots in at religious people by quoting some hateful diatribes penned by allegedly “Christian” people and addressed to Dawkins and other proponents of evolutionary theory. The missives that he quotes are juvenile loads of bile that, were they actually reflective of the attitudes of most Christians, should fill us with shame. I’m just irritated at his citing of them because I know that’s not how most Christians think or talk. But, to be sure, some do. Beyond taking more potshots at Christians, though, Dawkins does siphon at least one valid point from those letters: many Christians do believe that to embrace evolutionary theory is to take God out of the picture (a conclusion with which Dawkins would agree) and that removal of God eliminates the basis for human morality (a conclusion with which Dawkins would not agree).
Indeed, Dawkins champions morality (what sane person would not?) and tries to make a case for human morality emerging out of the process of natural selection. Given that his hypotheses in this area are not testable, it’s really hard to argue with him. Of course, given that my belief in the involvement of God in the creation process is also not testable, it’s really hard for him to argue with me.
Dawkins’ basic argument is that genes would “selfishly” insure their own survival by influencing their host organisms to behave in altruistic fashion. For instance, in the earliest stages of human development, we would have been inclined to be kind and helpful either to our close kin or to those who could reciprocate our kindness. In time, Dawkins says, the need to limit our kindness to our kin or to those who could reciprocate went away, but the impulse to kindness did not. He says this is a “misfiring” of the earlier survival instinct, but one that is to be seen as a “blessed, precious” “Darwinian mistake” (p. 221), much like the impulse to sexual attraction that continues even without a reproductive motive.
My response to this argument is “maybe, maybe not.” Who can know? I just don’t see how his thesis, while somewhat logical, can be tested, and where is the science in that?
Dawkins does raise an interesting philosophical question when he asks, “If there is no God, why be good?” He says that there is some evidence that people who believe in God are not more moral than those who do not. The only “evidence” he cites is a section from fellow atheist Sam Harris who wrote about the higher crime rates in “red” and thus predominantly Republican and thus allegedly more Christian states. That’s pretty weak.
Dawkins speculates that atheists may actually be more moral than theists, not because they are atheists, but because of the “possibility…that atheism is correlated with some third factor, such as higher education, intelligence or reflectiveness, which might counter criminal impulses” (p. 229). I had almost forgotten Dawkins’ belief that atheists are just smarter than people who believe in God.
The only way that Dawkins can envision a belief in God having an impact on morality is that people who believe in God think of him as a cosmic policeman who is always looking to catch us in the wrong so he can do something bad to us. Thus, our belief in God influences us negatively; if we do good and don’t do evil, it’s because we don’t want God to get us. Such is a gross mischaracterization of the motive that most Christians actually have for serving God and for following Christ and for trying to live by the Bible. We in fact love God and believe that he loves us and wants what is best for us. We believe that in being connected with him we are connected with the source of life and love. We serve him because he loves us and because we love him. I for one stopped being afraid of God a long time ago, if by “afraid” you mean “afraid of what he might do to me.”
Dawkins does seem at the conclusion of the chapter to throw religious folks a bone by saying that “it is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones” (p. 232). He says that in the course of dealing with the argument that belief in God does at least provide a standard by which what is evil and what is good can be determined. It’s a bone tied to a string, however, because Dawkins goes on to say that such moral absolutism is usually based on allegiance to a holy book. Unfortunately, he will spend his next chapter trying to dismantle the legitimacy of the Bible. I suspect that his arguments are going to sound pretty tired.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Parenting through Communication
(A sermon based on Proverbs 22:6 & Ephesians 6:1-4)
The lifestyle of our families is an active, often hectic one. While the results of our efforts are often rewarding, we nonetheless pay a price for our “busyness.” Unfortunately, many times that price is paid by our family. One area that can suffer is the area of communication. How long has it been since you really talked with your child?
Let us consider some general hopes for the family communication process. It is to be hoped that:
Our children feel free to talk to us. Sometimes our children go through times in their lives when they choose to be uncommunicative. We need to understand their periodic need not to talk. But whenever they do need to talk, they should be able to come to us. For that to be the case, they must perceive a genuine openness on our part.
Some pointers: (1) Tone down the criticism. Children (and adults) make mistakes. If we are unceasingly critical, our children will not feel free to share their problems with us. (2) Adopt a posture of openness. That is, take time to talk with your children and look at them when they speak to you.
With younger children, bedtime is an important communicative experience. As you probably know, it is important to establish a bedtime routine with young children. Part of that routine could be a time of sharing with your child. Chances are that she had some interesting and/or troubling things happen that day, and they need to be talked about.
With all children, dinnertime is an excellent opportunity for communication. The family dinner is usually one of the first casualties of the wars of overtime, church activity, ballgames, hobbies, and dates. Insofar as possible, dinnertime should be a priority for every family member. Communication should take place around the table. Interspersed among the “Pass the potatoes” and the “May I have some more juices” and the “Mom, she’s looking at me agains” should come some legitimate and serious communication.
Communication is an ongoing process. While we can and should have special times of talking, our families should be always ready to share with each other. Our children need our words of support, encouragement, and correction from early on until they become adults.
An important question remains. Why is communication with our children so important? A similar question is, what is the purpose of communicating with our children?
We communicate with our children in order to know who they are
A literal translation of Proverbs 22:6 would be, “Train up a child according to his way…” The Amplified Bible states it this way: “Train up a child in the way he should go [and in keeping with his individual gift or bent]….” You see, the way any child should go must be his or her way. That does not mean that we have no influence or no hand in determining what they way should be. No, if our children know that we love them they will want (sometimes) to heed our instructions.
But if our guidance is going to be effective and informed, we must know our child and that means knowing each child. If you have ten children, each one will be different from the others. If you have one child, that child is unique. G. Campbell Morgan said that it “is God’s regular method” to break the mold: “God made you, and broke the mold. He made every child in my home and broke the mold, and there are no two alike.” Therefore, Morgan said, “You must specialize…. You must discover what the child is if you would train the child” [“The Training of Our Children,” The Westminster Pulpit, Vol. II (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1954), p. 118].
There is a great biblical truth involved in this: God made each and every one of us unique. Even identical twins are different. Obviously, God takes our differences seriously. He does not deal with me in exactly the same way that he deals with you. We may hear the same things, but we hear with different ears. The various strands of tradition in the Bible are evidence of that truth. Therefore, as parents, we must take the differences in our children seriously. We must talk with them, get to know them, and learn what makes them tick. Only as we get a grip on a child’s individuality can we guide their growth effectively.
We communicate with our children in order to help them know the truth
It is true that our children must find their own way, but two other truths are related to that one.
They must know the truth about their world. When we speak of our children finding their way, it is implied that they must find their way through something. They must find their way through this life; they must also find their way in this life.
Their world is tough. In an old country song, a father tells his son that “the world is rough, and if you’re going to make it, you’ve gotta be tough.” Therefore, this loving father named his son “Sue.” There are better ways to teach our children about the toughness of the world.
We can let them hear. That is, tell them. Tell them what the abuse of drugs and alcohol can do to them. Tell them what pre-marital sexual involvement can do to them. Tell them what being in the wrong place at the wrong time can do to them.
We can let them see. That is, we can show them. I went to Washington, D.C. on a government studies program in 1973. We rode our tour buses around to all the usual sites, the various memorials and stately buildings. But our guides made it a point to take us into the “other” Washington—the slums and run-down areas where the poor of the city lived. They could have chosen to shelter us from all of that, but they did not, and we grew. We cannot shelter our children from the suffering and evil of this world. Is it not better that they encounter it under our guidance so that we can help them to deal with it and learn from it?
We can let them fail. Life is full of challenges and our children will not be able to meet all of them successfully, at least not on the first try. Finding their way is a new experience for them. They must have the freedom to make mistakes and to learn from them. By loving them always and by supporting them always we can tell them that failure is all right as long as it is learned from.
They must know the truth about their guides. By this I mean that they should know that their parents are not superhuman. Finding their way will take patience on their part and frustration is always possible. How helpful it is to them to know that we are still finding our way, too. Moreover, parents must earn their credentials to be the ones who will “train up” our children. Maintenance of authority is something earned. We won’t earn it by trying to appear perfect. We can earn it if our children see us making mistakes and admitting our weaknesses.
We communicate with our children in order to help them know proper values
Values education should begin in the home. We as parents must talk with our children if we are going to teach them of Christian values. What do I mean by Christian values? I offer three examples.
Who you are is more important than what you have. To our children we should say, “You are special because God made you special. God wants you to become his special servant. The most important thing in the world is that you have a relationship with Jesus Christ and that that relationship controls everything you are and do. Everything else pales in comparison; who you are in Christ is the real measure of success.”
Love is our one law. To our children we should say, “The greatest gift is love and God sent Jesus to show us what love is. Love is giving of yourself until there is nothing left. Love is giving to people who don’t care. Love is everything.”
Every person is important. To our children we should say, “Be kind to everyone. Help whomever you can. Everyone in the world is God’s creation. Jesus died for every one of them, so treat them with respect and concern.”
The KJV translates Ephesians 6:4 this way: “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (emphasis mine). If we will admonish our children to have these and other Christian values, they will be better people. And this world will be a better place.
The lifestyle of our families is an active, often hectic one. While the results of our efforts are often rewarding, we nonetheless pay a price for our “busyness.” Unfortunately, many times that price is paid by our family. One area that can suffer is the area of communication. How long has it been since you really talked with your child?
Let us consider some general hopes for the family communication process. It is to be hoped that:
Our children feel free to talk to us. Sometimes our children go through times in their lives when they choose to be uncommunicative. We need to understand their periodic need not to talk. But whenever they do need to talk, they should be able to come to us. For that to be the case, they must perceive a genuine openness on our part.
Some pointers: (1) Tone down the criticism. Children (and adults) make mistakes. If we are unceasingly critical, our children will not feel free to share their problems with us. (2) Adopt a posture of openness. That is, take time to talk with your children and look at them when they speak to you.
With younger children, bedtime is an important communicative experience. As you probably know, it is important to establish a bedtime routine with young children. Part of that routine could be a time of sharing with your child. Chances are that she had some interesting and/or troubling things happen that day, and they need to be talked about.
With all children, dinnertime is an excellent opportunity for communication. The family dinner is usually one of the first casualties of the wars of overtime, church activity, ballgames, hobbies, and dates. Insofar as possible, dinnertime should be a priority for every family member. Communication should take place around the table. Interspersed among the “Pass the potatoes” and the “May I have some more juices” and the “Mom, she’s looking at me agains” should come some legitimate and serious communication.
Communication is an ongoing process. While we can and should have special times of talking, our families should be always ready to share with each other. Our children need our words of support, encouragement, and correction from early on until they become adults.
An important question remains. Why is communication with our children so important? A similar question is, what is the purpose of communicating with our children?
We communicate with our children in order to know who they are
A literal translation of Proverbs 22:6 would be, “Train up a child according to his way…” The Amplified Bible states it this way: “Train up a child in the way he should go [and in keeping with his individual gift or bent]….” You see, the way any child should go must be his or her way. That does not mean that we have no influence or no hand in determining what they way should be. No, if our children know that we love them they will want (sometimes) to heed our instructions.
But if our guidance is going to be effective and informed, we must know our child and that means knowing each child. If you have ten children, each one will be different from the others. If you have one child, that child is unique. G. Campbell Morgan said that it “is God’s regular method” to break the mold: “God made you, and broke the mold. He made every child in my home and broke the mold, and there are no two alike.” Therefore, Morgan said, “You must specialize…. You must discover what the child is if you would train the child” [“The Training of Our Children,” The Westminster Pulpit, Vol. II (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1954), p. 118].
There is a great biblical truth involved in this: God made each and every one of us unique. Even identical twins are different. Obviously, God takes our differences seriously. He does not deal with me in exactly the same way that he deals with you. We may hear the same things, but we hear with different ears. The various strands of tradition in the Bible are evidence of that truth. Therefore, as parents, we must take the differences in our children seriously. We must talk with them, get to know them, and learn what makes them tick. Only as we get a grip on a child’s individuality can we guide their growth effectively.
We communicate with our children in order to help them know the truth
It is true that our children must find their own way, but two other truths are related to that one.
They must know the truth about their world. When we speak of our children finding their way, it is implied that they must find their way through something. They must find their way through this life; they must also find their way in this life.
Their world is tough. In an old country song, a father tells his son that “the world is rough, and if you’re going to make it, you’ve gotta be tough.” Therefore, this loving father named his son “Sue.” There are better ways to teach our children about the toughness of the world.
We can let them hear. That is, tell them. Tell them what the abuse of drugs and alcohol can do to them. Tell them what pre-marital sexual involvement can do to them. Tell them what being in the wrong place at the wrong time can do to them.
We can let them see. That is, we can show them. I went to Washington, D.C. on a government studies program in 1973. We rode our tour buses around to all the usual sites, the various memorials and stately buildings. But our guides made it a point to take us into the “other” Washington—the slums and run-down areas where the poor of the city lived. They could have chosen to shelter us from all of that, but they did not, and we grew. We cannot shelter our children from the suffering and evil of this world. Is it not better that they encounter it under our guidance so that we can help them to deal with it and learn from it?
We can let them fail. Life is full of challenges and our children will not be able to meet all of them successfully, at least not on the first try. Finding their way is a new experience for them. They must have the freedom to make mistakes and to learn from them. By loving them always and by supporting them always we can tell them that failure is all right as long as it is learned from.
They must know the truth about their guides. By this I mean that they should know that their parents are not superhuman. Finding their way will take patience on their part and frustration is always possible. How helpful it is to them to know that we are still finding our way, too. Moreover, parents must earn their credentials to be the ones who will “train up” our children. Maintenance of authority is something earned. We won’t earn it by trying to appear perfect. We can earn it if our children see us making mistakes and admitting our weaknesses.
We communicate with our children in order to help them know proper values
Values education should begin in the home. We as parents must talk with our children if we are going to teach them of Christian values. What do I mean by Christian values? I offer three examples.
Who you are is more important than what you have. To our children we should say, “You are special because God made you special. God wants you to become his special servant. The most important thing in the world is that you have a relationship with Jesus Christ and that that relationship controls everything you are and do. Everything else pales in comparison; who you are in Christ is the real measure of success.”
Love is our one law. To our children we should say, “The greatest gift is love and God sent Jesus to show us what love is. Love is giving of yourself until there is nothing left. Love is giving to people who don’t care. Love is everything.”
Every person is important. To our children we should say, “Be kind to everyone. Help whomever you can. Everyone in the world is God’s creation. Jesus died for every one of them, so treat them with respect and concern.”
The KJV translates Ephesians 6:4 this way: “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (emphasis mine). If we will admonish our children to have these and other Christian values, they will be better people. And this world will be a better place.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Symmetry
(Sabbath Blog #29)
My wife Debra and I are both graduates of Mercer University; I received my B.A. in 1978 and she received hers in 1979. Our daughter Sara is a junior at our alma mater.
During her freshman year at Mercer, Debra lived in a dorm that was called, with no pizzazz but with great accuracy, Freshman Women’s Dorm. She and I started dating that year. We both attended summer school in 1977. All summer students, men and women, were housed in Freshman Women’s Dorm, with the women in one wing and the men in the other. When I got my room assignment, I was in the same room in which Debra had lived during her freshman year.
When we were students at Mercer, the Mary Erin Porter complex, always known as MEP, was the primary residence hall for sophomore, junior, and senior women. Debra lived there during her junior year. Now, MEP is the main dorm for freshman women. So, when Sara got her housing assignment for the fall of 2005, she learned that she was to live in MEP. On move-in day, I lugged the first box up to her room on the third floor. When I came back down, I told Debra, “You’re not going to believe what room Sara is in.” It was not the same room that Debra had lived in but it was the room that adjoined it.
Debra and I got married right after I graduated from Mercer; she still had a year left. We rented an apartment in an old house that Mercer owned on the edge of the campus. Our address was 1548 Johnson Avenue, Apt. 2. A few years ago, Mercer tore down that house and a lot of other buildings and built a new Greek Village. This year, Sara is living in one of the Greek Village houses. To get there, you turn down Johnson Avenue. If the house in which she’s living is not on the spot where our apartment was, it’s awfully close.
Sometimes, the pieces of your life actually do seem to fit together.
My wife Debra and I are both graduates of Mercer University; I received my B.A. in 1978 and she received hers in 1979. Our daughter Sara is a junior at our alma mater.
During her freshman year at Mercer, Debra lived in a dorm that was called, with no pizzazz but with great accuracy, Freshman Women’s Dorm. She and I started dating that year. We both attended summer school in 1977. All summer students, men and women, were housed in Freshman Women’s Dorm, with the women in one wing and the men in the other. When I got my room assignment, I was in the same room in which Debra had lived during her freshman year.
When we were students at Mercer, the Mary Erin Porter complex, always known as MEP, was the primary residence hall for sophomore, junior, and senior women. Debra lived there during her junior year. Now, MEP is the main dorm for freshman women. So, when Sara got her housing assignment for the fall of 2005, she learned that she was to live in MEP. On move-in day, I lugged the first box up to her room on the third floor. When I came back down, I told Debra, “You’re not going to believe what room Sara is in.” It was not the same room that Debra had lived in but it was the room that adjoined it.
Debra and I got married right after I graduated from Mercer; she still had a year left. We rented an apartment in an old house that Mercer owned on the edge of the campus. Our address was 1548 Johnson Avenue, Apt. 2. A few years ago, Mercer tore down that house and a lot of other buildings and built a new Greek Village. This year, Sara is living in one of the Greek Village houses. To get there, you turn down Johnson Avenue. If the house in which she’s living is not on the spot where our apartment was, it’s awfully close.
Sometimes, the pieces of your life actually do seem to fit together.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
A DVD Review and a CD Review by Josh Ruffin
Barry Bonds* Post at EthicsDaily.com
Yesterday's post about Barry Bonds appears in an abbreviated form at today's EthicsDaily.com.
Thursdays with Luke #12
Kingdom Works
Luke 4:31-44
To be liberated is to be set free. When Jesus read the Scripture and preached in the synagogue at Nazareth, he said that he had been sent to set the captives free. The stories contained in our passage show that he in fact did that. The works of the kingdom involved setting people free from what enslaved them and tormented them. In our passage we see two kinds of bondage from which people needed to be set free: spiritual bondage and physical bondage. The man in the synagogue out of whom Jesus casts a demon was in spiritual bondage, as were some of the people who came to him later in the day. Simon’s mother-in-law was in physical bondage as were others who came to him later in the day. In a sense then the man in the synagogue and Simon’s mother-in-law are specific examples of the general kinds of problems that people coming to Jesus were having. And those kinds of problems still continue.
Spiritual problems abound. People are bound by all kinds of harmful spiritual conditions. We think of the basic condition as being lost and that is certainly true. But people are crippled by all sorts of spiritual diseases. We might think of them in two categories: there are those who focus too little on themselves and those who focus too much on themselves. Paying no attention or very little attention to your own life and to your own spirit is a spiritual disease. We might compare such folks to those who have all sorts of symptoms of a physical disease but who ignore them and refuse to seek treatment. People who pay no attention to themselves just float through life and fail to recognize the fix they’re in. They are the cold or the ignorant or the deluded.
But then there are those who focus too much attention on themselves. We might compare them to those who are always finding things wrong with themselves. They are the spiritual hypochondriacs. Their disease is self-centeredness and their condition is critical. They are beset by an obsession with their standing and status. Pride might be their problem. Paranoia might be their problem. Privilege might be their problem. Or their problems might run in other directions. Excessive insecurity. Fermenting anger. Irrational bitterness. Such are some of the spiritual diseases that afflict people today, and there are many others.
Jesus also helped people who were afflicted with physical diseases. Such things come to all of us and they have many causes. Genetics and environment can conspire to gift us with a disease. Behavior and environment can contribute to others. A random germ that sneaks up on us on a lazy Tuesday might do us in. Stress and worry might bring us down. And occasionally our diseases are imaginary. But there are a lot of sick people, aren’t there?
Jesus was doing the work of the kingdom. That work involved setting the prisoners free. Here we see that it involved setting those free who were bound by spiritual or physical problems. Jesus had the same authority over both situations: he “rebuked” the demon (v. 35) and he “rebuked” the fever (v. 39). He had the same authority over spiritual and physical illnesses. And the good news is that he still does. We can turn to him for the help we need for whatever ails us.
(I think that it is important that we remember that it is possible to be made well while at the same time we have residual effects of the disease. For example, Jesus works his mighty healing sometimes in ways that make us ultimately well but we might still have the disease. Sometimes, of course, the disease is completely cured.)
There is one more thing about this passage that I want us to note. Jesus had a lot to do. He was besieged by people who came to him looking for help. But he had to leave where he was to do the works of the kingdom elsewhere. We who are the disciples of Christ have the privilege and the responsibility of continuing the works of his kingdom. As we pray and as we work we need to remember that we are surrounded by people who are beset by spiritual and physical illnesses. They need our prayers but they also need our love and concern. Let us continue the works of the kingdom by giving it to them.
Luke 4:31-44
To be liberated is to be set free. When Jesus read the Scripture and preached in the synagogue at Nazareth, he said that he had been sent to set the captives free. The stories contained in our passage show that he in fact did that. The works of the kingdom involved setting people free from what enslaved them and tormented them. In our passage we see two kinds of bondage from which people needed to be set free: spiritual bondage and physical bondage. The man in the synagogue out of whom Jesus casts a demon was in spiritual bondage, as were some of the people who came to him later in the day. Simon’s mother-in-law was in physical bondage as were others who came to him later in the day. In a sense then the man in the synagogue and Simon’s mother-in-law are specific examples of the general kinds of problems that people coming to Jesus were having. And those kinds of problems still continue.
Spiritual problems abound. People are bound by all kinds of harmful spiritual conditions. We think of the basic condition as being lost and that is certainly true. But people are crippled by all sorts of spiritual diseases. We might think of them in two categories: there are those who focus too little on themselves and those who focus too much on themselves. Paying no attention or very little attention to your own life and to your own spirit is a spiritual disease. We might compare such folks to those who have all sorts of symptoms of a physical disease but who ignore them and refuse to seek treatment. People who pay no attention to themselves just float through life and fail to recognize the fix they’re in. They are the cold or the ignorant or the deluded.
But then there are those who focus too much attention on themselves. We might compare them to those who are always finding things wrong with themselves. They are the spiritual hypochondriacs. Their disease is self-centeredness and their condition is critical. They are beset by an obsession with their standing and status. Pride might be their problem. Paranoia might be their problem. Privilege might be their problem. Or their problems might run in other directions. Excessive insecurity. Fermenting anger. Irrational bitterness. Such are some of the spiritual diseases that afflict people today, and there are many others.
Jesus also helped people who were afflicted with physical diseases. Such things come to all of us and they have many causes. Genetics and environment can conspire to gift us with a disease. Behavior and environment can contribute to others. A random germ that sneaks up on us on a lazy Tuesday might do us in. Stress and worry might bring us down. And occasionally our diseases are imaginary. But there are a lot of sick people, aren’t there?
Jesus was doing the work of the kingdom. That work involved setting the prisoners free. Here we see that it involved setting those free who were bound by spiritual or physical problems. Jesus had the same authority over both situations: he “rebuked” the demon (v. 35) and he “rebuked” the fever (v. 39). He had the same authority over spiritual and physical illnesses. And the good news is that he still does. We can turn to him for the help we need for whatever ails us.
(I think that it is important that we remember that it is possible to be made well while at the same time we have residual effects of the disease. For example, Jesus works his mighty healing sometimes in ways that make us ultimately well but we might still have the disease. Sometimes, of course, the disease is completely cured.)
There is one more thing about this passage that I want us to note. Jesus had a lot to do. He was besieged by people who came to him looking for help. But he had to leave where he was to do the works of the kingdom elsewhere. We who are the disciples of Christ have the privilege and the responsibility of continuing the works of his kingdom. As we pray and as we work we need to remember that we are surrounded by people who are beset by spiritual and physical illnesses. They need our prayers but they also need our love and concern. Let us continue the works of the kingdom by giving it to them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)