kata Drew

I wrote this some time ago and just now decided to publish it. I’ve been making corrections since publishing which means I should have read carefully before publishing. In fact, I’m adding these introductory lines after publishing! Oops. Let me know if it strikes a chord. Let me know if I’m heretical, ’cause that’s one thing I’m not interested in.

===

In heaven a mighty council convened
seeking one capable of humans redeem.

Approaching the throne, asking each one,
“Send I, I can get the job done.”

“Yes, you, I am able to raise
for it’s by my Spirit and to garner my praise.

“You, however, are unable to bear
the sins of the many and the wrath poured out there.

“There is none other who can open the scroll
than my Son incarnate, Messiah foretold.

“The task is one of putting to death
so that through death the many may resurrect.

“Let the One who is perfect be given for all;
a remedy applied, a consequence of the fall.

“Let the One who will be raised be given for them;
lest they die in vain a propitiation for sin.

“Let the One who will be raised die for them;
Zimri approached but burning with sin.
‘Atone for your own’ is where he was told to begin:
impotent in guilt, impotent others to win.

“The One for the many is where he was told to begin:
bearing the burden without, shielding the elect within.

“Let the One who is perfect be given for them,
a matchless sacrifice presented to make many his kin.”

Therefore let the One capable be given for us
not that we can demand or imply that God must
but he has created us modeled after his being
thus it pleases him us to be freeing.

By far the most comprehensive review and treatment of The Shack is that of Tim Challies. He’s got it in a professional looking PDF which is designed better than most Christian books for crying out loud. I would almost recommend just reading his little PDF rather than actually reading the book, but I think the book is helpful on several counts. But, in a pinch, read the PDF.

I don’t really wish to combat the theology of The Shack, and believe me this novel is heavily theological, but I would like to encourage one thing: caveat lector. Why should the reader beware?

Caveat Lector

The biggest problem I see with reading The Shack and really divesting oneself in the story is that the theology of The Shack will find its way into your theology surreptitiously. In other words, the danger is that your view of God will become that of The Shack. God is not Sarayu (the name adopted by the Holy Spirit meaning “wind” in Sanskrit). God the Father is not a buxom black lady.

But, you might say, that surely this critique could leveled against any book, that one musn’t allow the view of God presented in that book to become their view of God. The difference, however, is that the God presented in The Shack is not built explicitly and solely from Scripture, but is born out of one man’s experience.

This is the conclusion of Kevin O’Connor in his article Did Christianity generate a culture of lies in Uganda? published online today in Uganda’s national paper The Monitor’s Sunday edition Sunday Monitor. Known for his observations of Ugandan society, the “acclaimed [British] newspaper columnist” in today’s article writes of a culture of lies that has come to life in Uganda not by the sinfulness of people but by the overlaying of Christianity with its monogamous ideal. All in all the article while treating serious material is misguided, especially coming from a professional observationist; but let’s leave ad hominem execrations behind us and look closely at his argument which he believes arrives at the truthful conclusion of a Christian-generated culture of lies in this east African nation.

First Source: Corruption

First, O’Connor admits that “lies are told in every country of the world,” which he follows up by saying, “but I have been told more lies in Uganda than in any other country I have lived.” He continues by noting one cause of lies, corruption, by way of illustration:

“[T]he road engineer says, ‘I have inspected the road. Its construction meets the required standards.’ But the engineer has been bribed by the contractor and tells a lie. The road has not been built to the required standards and a few months later, potholes begin to emerge.”

Second Source: Christianity

Our interest lies primarily in his proposed second source of lying in Uganda which he “controversially” argues is Christianity.

“If the telling of lies finds its way into most aspects of life in Uganda, it begs the question - why? What is the source of such wide-spread lying? Of course, there may be more than one source. But on this Sunday, let me controversially argue that an important source of deception in Uganda is Christianity.”

Biblical Source: Sin

Before examining his argument more closely, I find it meet to first address his initial question from a biblical standpoint. Said plainly, there is confusion in his observation. Ultimately, the source of lying lies even farther behind corruption, his first offered source. The source of lying and corruption in the view of the Bible is sin; corruption is merely a manifestation of both lying and sin. “A lying tongue hates its victims, and a flattering mouth works ruin” (Proverbs 26:28). Corruption does not explain lying for it is in itself a form of lying. Sin, however, is the clear biblical answer for, Whence cometh lying? Jesus speaking of Satan said that “When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). What then is Satan’s character but sinfulness which breeds lying and corruption. This is the biblical answer to O’Connor’s question, an answer which may catch a non-Christian unawares.

The Argument

What leads O’Connor to his controversial conclusion that Christianity, among other sources, breeds lying in Ugandan culture? It is a rather easy argument to follow. Being in the country for numerous years, O’Connor observes that “before the coming of Christianity, Uganda was a truthfully polygamous society [sic] i.e. when a man had more than one wife, the co-wives would know of each other’s existence.” What effect then did Christianity have? “But Christianity overlaid traditional polygamy with monogamy and the result was an untruthful polygamous society i.e. polygamy continued, but became based on deception.”

An example resulting situation is the following: “Thus, a husband might say to his ‘official wife’, ‘Darling, I will be working late at the office tonight.’ But it is a lie. He will not be working in his office, but will be having sex with his kyana [girlfriend] in a lodge.”

Assumptions

The above argument is interlarded with several easily distinguished assumptions. First, Uganda before Christianity was a truthfully polygamous society. This conclusion follows naturally from his assertion that Christianity is the source of lying. No Christianity, no lying. Insert Christianity, insert lying. However, as has been demonstrated above, the ultimate source of lying is sin. Based on the biblical assertion of the sin source, the polygamous society was by no means wholly truthful but veracious and mendacious. Lying follows sin, not Christianity, therefore before Christianity, there were disingenuous polygamous relationships in addition to truthful. Consequently, to characterize the entire society as truthful is an incorrect observation. It cannot be easily demonstrated or argued to any satisfaction that there were no disingenuous polygamous relationships prior to Christianity. Moreover briefly, extra-marital affairs happen in both polygamous and monogamous societies. To maintain otherwise is to fail to understand the male libido.

Secondly, the assumption that the presence of Christianity results in untruthfulness is misguided. Sinful human beings produce untruthfulness; Christianity provides the very categories which O’Connor uses to observe true and false which in turn define actions in relation to God’s character as either true or false, holy or sinful. In other words, Christianity either identifies Ugandan sexual actions as true or false, it, however, does not result in nor produce sinful actions.

Allow me to search for an analogy. If I have been observing rainbows for years without identifying and naming the individual colors present but one day have a swatch upon which are represented and named the colors of the rainbow, I cannot conclude that the swatch with its representations and names has produced the rainbow. Whether I noticed rainbows prior to possessing the swatch or not, rainbows existed, for they exist apart from swatches. The swatch gave definition to the rainbow, not life. Leaving the imperfect but hopefully accessible and serviceable analogy, O’Connor is incorrect in positing Christianity as a source of lying, for lying exists irrespective of Christianity. Christianity gives definition to lying, not life. This, that is definition, is one of many results of the growth of Christianity and its monogamous ideal.

Good Observations

O’Connor’s accurate observations should not be missed for the misguided propositions above. His motivation for identifying Christianity as source of lying is honorable for he recognizes the sanctity of marriage when he writes, “The relationship between a man and his wife is one of the most important, if not the most important, in human society. Once lies are introduced into it, something very special is destroyed.” Ironically, it could be argued that monogyny, not polygyny, provides for better stability in marriage; but that question is beyond the scope of this short critique.

Additionally, he rightly notes that “The biggest influence on children’s behaviour and values are the behaviour and values of their parents. Growing up in an environment of falsehood, it is easy to see how sons and daughters are shaped into becoming liars.” Agreed.

Solution?

O’Connor surprisingly does not offer a solution to the problem of lying caused presumably by the two C’s: corruption and Christianity. Perhaps he finds it desirous to have the influence of Christian removed from Ugandan society? He doesn’t admit as much in his concluding paragraph where he summarizes, “Nevertheless, while Christianity brought many good things to Uganda, it also caused the replacement of truthful polygamy with untruthful polygamy, and thereby damaged the country’s social fabric so greatly that it never fully recovered. And one result has been lies, lies and more lies.” No solution, just observation.

The Solution

A biblical solution is not less Christianity, but less nominal Christians. True Christians, those within whose hearts the Holy Spirit is actively working after their repentance of sin and faith in Christ, do not go on willingly sinning. This is the thrust of 1 John 3 which is worth quoting at length (1 John 3:4-9):

“Everyone who makes a practice of sinning also practices lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he [Jesus] appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.”

John’s address to his dear ones is fitting: “let no one deceive you.” If a “Christian” goes on sinning extra-maritally with his girlfriend against the biblical mandate, the best conclusion is that he is not a Christian; not that his self-professed Christianity is at fault. For one has only to peruse the pages of the Bible to see that it upholds a higher marital ideal than the polygyny of Uganda or the monogyny of America. “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband” (Ephesians 5:25, 33). The biblical ideal of marriage requires deep committed expressions of mutual love and service and respect over against self-centered, self-serving sinfulness of any sinful, Christ-less society.

What then is at hand in Uganda and observed by O’Connor are the sinful actions of sinful men and women apart from the guiding direction of the Holy Spirit. Christianity is not the cause, but most certainly offers the solution: Jesus Christ. At the time when Ugandans are truly transformed by Christ the Redeemer, their lives will begin to reflect the biblical ideal of marriage and lying, corruption, and extra-marital affairs will begin to abate. What then is in Uganda is not a failure of Christianity but a failure of those who profess to be followers of Jesus.

Overhearing random conversations is always intriguing.

“So, I was talking to my friend who grew up Catholic and I told her that she could have a relationship with God.”
“She said ‘No way. Really?’”
“‘Yeh,’ I replied, ‘He’s like a person and stuff.’”

Missy, not only is he a person, but he’s three persons and stuff. What are we going to do about this lack of articulation, Al?

The event was advertised as the Fire Conference at which Pastor Benny Hinn would share powerful insights from God’s Word. Being a seminary student, curious Christian, and interested interlocutor of the Word, “powerful insights from God’s Word” is something I am most definitely interested in. However, attending the Fire Conference proved to shed light not on God’s Word but the fundraising techniques of popular televangelist Benny Hinn.

The evening started a few minutes off schedule with a video featuring orphanages from Mexico and the Philippines for which Benny Hinn Ministries and their partners graciously provide with money and prayer support. The overarching theme of the video was that peoples’ money has gone to establishing orphanages and spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Repeatedly the number 45,000 was given as the total number of orphans who are currently benefiting from the work of Benny Hinn Ministries.

After the video, a financial advisor turned financial redeemer, entered the stage to share the twofold gospel: Jesus’ person and his principles. “Why do men such as Bill Gates who are not Christians but extremely wealthy prosper like they do?” Todd contends that it is because they follow Jesus’ fixed principles of wealth of which anyone, Christian or otherwise, can take advantage. In essence, the god who emerges is not that different from his Son’s principles: know the principles, apply the principles, and reap the benefits of the principles automatically. It is turns out rather mechanistic and impersonal. God is the transcendent wish dispenser who will grant all your wildest dreams when you insert the coinage of faith as in a soda machine. As impersonal principles like gravity automatically respond so too does God. “Your faith decides divine timing” quickly became a popular maxim of the conference. Said plainly, you receive from the mechanistic god what you will when you insert what he wills: faith.

Moreover, characteristic of the god who emerges is not an interest in personal holiness and sanctification but an interest in providing wealth. Why then is that? “For you can’t preach the gospel without money.” The gospel cannot go out without money therefore God desires all to be wealthy so that the gospel can proceed. And we’re not talking metaphorically and symbolically of being wealthy in love for God and others; we’re talking cash. “I’m not going to be the one to tell you to be satisfied with what you have.” But God might.

Insights from God’s Word?

So, for a conference which promised to share insights from God’s Word, which passages were preached? That’s kind of a difficult question to answer because only short Scripture snippets were quoted randomly as opposed to a particular passage being worked through in an expository fashion. But, let me now try to remember which passages made the headlines. On an interesting note, before turning to the passages themselves, it is worth noting that all Scripture quotations and references were taken from what sounded like the King James Version. It would be interesting to find out if the speakers feel that this translation in particular adds additional emphasis to Scripture. In other words, if they feel it sounds more authoritative; how they most definitely would want to sound given that they’re encouraging the audience to hand their money over into their care. Now the verses.

The first that I can recall is “seedtime harvest shall always be on the earth” which was said to be from Genesis 8. Indeed it is Genesis 8, verse 22 to be exact, which in the English Standard Version reads: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.” The context into which this passage was imported had to do with Jesus’ principle of sowing (inserting the coinage of faith) which I mentioned above. With this passage the speaker was corroborating his understanding that the principle(s) which God has fixed concerning wealth will always yield, not just generic wealth but especially that for which you specifically ask. I think this notion is known as Seedtime Theology. The biblical context of this passage will most likely be familiar to many: Noah’s ark and the flood. Indeed, God is speaking here of promise. In verse 21 he says “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the intention of man’s heart is evil from his youth. Neither will I ever again strike down every living creature as I have done.” The Lord’s promise here loudly bespeaks his gracious dealings with sinful humanity in that even though our intentions are evil from youth, he will allow time and space for us to repent. Further, he will never again curse the ground because of man, but will punish man because of man in the judgment. His promise is not only to man but also concerns the earth. What then is herein emphasized is not wealth from impersonal principles but the gracious of God juxtaposed to the radical depravity of man. In conclusion, we should be forced to our knees to beg for mercy from the Lord from this passage not led to demand material wealth. He is providing for us in allowing the earth to continue to do its thing (grow seeds, yield harvest, heat up and cool down, etc.) even while our sinfulness wrecks his creation. While most assuredly more is going on in this chapter of Genesis, what I have described shouldn’t be missed, and to leave the context behind is to reinforce unbiblical presuppositions of wealth gaining.

The second Scripture that I can recall is Luke 10:2 which says “And he said to them, ‘The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Therefore pray earnestly to the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest.’” This was imported with the simple phrase “He is the Lord of the harvest,” here again meaning that to sow to him by sowing a “thousand dollar seed of faith” is to insure a harvest because he is the “Lord of the harvest.” The context of Luke 10 is vital to uprooting such extra-biblical thinking for here Christ is speaking of salvation and laboring to that end, not wealth or planting seeds of faith. Frightening (lack of) exegesis.

Fundraiser

It is for these reasons and more that I refer to Benny Hinn’s Fire Conference as Benny Hinn’s Raleigh fundraiser. Powerful insights from God’s Word were not shared. The audience was, in the main, exhorted to give, to sow a seed of faith while the preaching of the gospel was neglected.

Tip of the Ice Berg

Lamentably, more could be said: the undoubted morning-after crisis of faith by many givers, the ease with which the audience was duped, the shame of having a packed out auditorium and not exhorting sinners to turn to Christ in faith for the forgiveness of sins, poor theology proper presented (the mechanistic god), and more; but I shall draw to a close here.

Most often the phrase “the great exchange” is associated very specifically with the obedience of Christ on the Christian’s behalf as part of his redemptive work whereby he took on our sin (2 Cor. 5:21) and we consequently are able to be clothed in his righteousness (Isaiah 61:10). The great exchange in the New Testament is Jesus takes our sin and we get his righteousness imputed to us. He gets sin, we get God. O glorious gospel! Trust in him now!

Well, the great exchange of Deuteronomy is very similar but less specifically and explicitly about the redemptive work of the Messiah. Deuteronomy 29:10-15 (ESV) magnificently preaches exchange when it reads,

You are standing today all of you before the Lord your God: the heads of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. It is not with you alone that I am making this sworn covenant, but with whoever is standing here with us today before the Lord our God, and with whoever is not here with us today.

The bolded portions are to help trace the line of thought amidst the enumerating of persons present (elders, lumberjacks, water boys, etc.). The people are standing before God in order to cross (over) into the covenant of YHWH (לעברך בברית יהוה), a covenant which he is making in order to establish them as his people and he as their God ( לעםוהואיהיה־לך לאלהים למעןהקים־אתך היום לו). The “exchange” is that we become his people and he becomes our God. He gets us, we get him.

The ל (lamedh) prepositions here (ל+עם and ל+אלהים), though functioning differently syntactically, remind me of Song of Songs 6:3 where quite famously it is asserted that “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine.” Here also are ל prepositions, though attached simply to object pronouns masculine and feminine rather than nouns. Again there is a certain amount of what I think can be called exchange or reciprocity which reflects, albeit dimly, the great exchange which is the gospel revealed in the work of Christ and the New Testament Scriptures.

Respond

Take a moment to read Deuteronomy 29. Think about all of God’s provisions for sinful, rebellious laid out throughout the Scriptures. Think on what it means for you, as a Christian, to be part of God’s people. Think on God becoming your God when you at one time were alienated from him and without him in the world (Ephesians 2). Now, rejoice at the thought of the gospel!

If you’re not a Christian, trust in Christ as God’s provision for sinful humanity to be brought back into communion with him after being separated by our sin and rebellion. Now, rejoice in the gospel!

Hebrew Help

What’s the best way to blog Hebrew? I just copy and pasted from e-sword. No vowels. Hopefully, everyone who cares will be able to read it. Sorry if it shows up garbled. Read the English. It’s not a bad translation.

photo credit: Lance McCord

Baptists are going to insist that the proper mode of baptism is immersion; however, when it comes to the taking of communion, we are not equally insistent on the mode. Grape juice is often taken in place of wine despite the biblical usage of wine.

I guess one could argue, as is often done in matters of teetotalism, that first century “wine” was more akin to juice anyways, but I don’t really wish to go that route and honestly find that apologia silly. Juice doesn’t inebriate. Wine watered down is still wine. (On an interesting note, Justin Martyr points to a tradition of diluting the wine with water representing God, the pure wine, mixing/having communion with the faithful, the water.)

Concerning communion, have we baptists trumped a scriptural precedence of a communion with the fermented fruit of the vine with communion of fermented tradition? Does a cultural prohibition-driven aversion to alcohol prevent biblical communion? Does it even matter? Or should we, more consistently it seems, insist on a scriptural mode of communion as we insist on a scriptural mode of baptism? Or is juice scriptural and this string of questions silly?

Or, shall we just stick with the Welch’s? Welch’s is cheaper after all, isn’t it? But so might be sprinking or pouring compared with filling up a baptistry.

Respond

Go on. You know you want to.

School started back up the end of this week…which means that the quotables will now start rolling in. Dr. McDaniel reminded us this morning (at 7:30am!) that during Jesus’ temptation, he pulled directly from Deuteronomy to combat the Adversary

“If your struggle against sin depended on your knowledge of Deuteronomy, how well would you do?”

It might be fair to say that our struggle against sin should include a working, quotable familiarity with Deuteronomy. Nonetheless, point taken.

…ordering one of my required textbooks for a seminary class from a popular online retailer, I notice that the first line of the book is the following:

“I did not plan to be a heretic. It just happened.”

Great! Let’s go Fall 2008: The Year Seminarians Become Heretics Unawares.

What I took away most from the evening with Shane Claiborne (Jesus for President Afterthoughts) was that Christians should be the change that we oftentimes rely upon a secular government to achieve, especially when there’s a divine mandate in Scripture to not only do but be those things. I agree with this. And when taken in conjunction with Claiborne’s pointing out elsewhere (Irresistible Revolution) that we have distanced ourselves from the poor by erecting intermediaries between us and them, I think we have a strong case for actively living out the Scripture’s call for social justice personally, that is with our person. Me doing without intermediary. What he points out is that we oftentimes solely deposit monies in the offering plate and rely on the institution of church to fulfill Christian mandates to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for widows and orphans instead of actually, personally doing those things directly with our persons. The church and other organizations become a buffer between us and them and, in a way, personally and directly we don’t fulfill the mandate.

Illustration

An example presented itself this week. There’s a woman who can be seen walking around Wake Forest and in the parking lots of Southeastern asking for money or a ride. She goes by the name Mindy…or Rita. I’ve been approached by her numerous times as I live, work and study in Wake Forest. I’ve given her food before when see asked for money to buy food. I’ve not given her money, but this past week, she approached a classmate of mine who entered the parking lot up ahead of me asking for money. He declined, apologizing that he didn’t have any cash. After I was in my car, she hurriedly came up to the window asking for a ride to Food Lion. Since she’s approached me many times before I feel like we’re developing a bit of a relationship. So, I greet her and ask if she remembers my name. (I re-introduce myself every time and ask if she remembers me.) She always heartily nods that she remembers me with a sort of glazed, whatever-you-say kinda look. (I’m not quite sure she’s all there.) I declined giving her a ride this time, apologizing that I couldn’t because I had to get to work. (My summer class lets out at noon and I was supposed to be at work at noon.) Though I couldn’t give her a ride to Food Lion this week, I did last week.

So, same scenario but last week I was approached by her asking for a ride. I agreed. (I was late for work.) We met each other again for the first time on the 6 minute drive to Food Lion. On that ride, as with our other encounters, she was quick to show approval to anything I would say or ask, which several times didn’t fit the context of the “conversation” reinforcing my suspicion of a mental handicap. She concurred with the minute gospel message I shared with her saying, “Jesus is our savior.” I asked what she needed from Food Lion. She nodded approvingly. I asked if she was getting food and she interjected rapid-fire yes’s. I asked if she was buying drink or tobacco (I don’t run no no-fare direct flight to cheap smokes!) and after a few rapid-fire approving yes’s, no’s started coming out. Oh well. Anyways…

Next, with glee I asked her if she had heard about the new Wake Forest bus system that was free until the end of the year which just happened to have a stop downtown, by the seminary and at Food Lion. She hadn’t. The nascent bus system was only a few weeks old anyways. That was understandable. I dropped her off and that was it. She got a ride, gospel, and bus info.

Back to this week, after apologizing that I couldn’t offer a ride, I asked her if she had checked out the new bus system which was free. She said no. Curious. I reminded her that it was free and where the stops were. Off she went.

The Point

What does this have to do with Jesus for President? My tax dollars pay for the new bus service which is free until the end of the year. I pay for my car and gas. She can either get a ride with me (sometimes) or get a ride on the free bus service. Am I paying twice for her trip to Food Lion by giving her a ride in my car when she could take the bus which is free, but supported by tax dollars? Can I rely on the bus as an intermediary to give Mindy/Rita a ride? Am I still fulfilling my social dues as a Christian by not giving her a ride but reminding her to catch the free bus? Or, is it wrong to rely on the bus (my government) to do what I should do? Can I respectfully decline giving her a ride and still feel like I’m helping her by mentioning the free bus?

I feel like I can, not because I can’t be bothered to give her a ride (which some days I don’t mind), but because I’ve honestly got to get to work and there is a free bus service. This may sound harsh but I’m going to print out a brochure from the bus’s web site and keep it with me and give it to her the next time she approaches me for a ride.

Conclusion

So while I feel like Christians should deal as much as possible directly with social justice issues (…at what point does someone not having a car become a social issue? We had one car for the longest time and when my wife had the car, I walked. I didn’t think of myself as a social problem which others were indebted to fix…), there are oftentimes good means set up to assist people of which they should take advantage. In conclusion, I feel like I have done both in this situation: (1) helped directly and (2) encouraged societal/governmental help.

Respond

Is it immoral to decline a ride, but hand out a bus brochure? Is it safe to rely on the bus to fulfill what might be my duty? Is it good to encourage society (the government’s bus) to deal with social “problems” by having her ride the bus? Am I loving her appropriately hereby? Did anyone actually read all one thousand eighty-three words of this?