some quick thoughts concerning Philippians 1:3-11

3 I thank my God every time I remember you. 4 In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy 5 because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now, 6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.
7 It is right for me to feel this way about all of you, since I have you in my heart and, whether I am in chains or defending and confirming the gospel, all of you share in God's grace with me.
8 God can testify how I long for all of you with the affection of Christ Jesus.
9 And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, 10 so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, 11 filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God.

I'm guilty - first some confession (it's supposedly good for the soul) - because for some time now - at least three weeks - I've only picked up and read my Bible during Sunday morning worship. So today, after several well-meaning thoughts, I realized that the only way I was going to "pick up" a Bible and read it while it is still called 'today' would be if I went online to www.BibleGateway.com, and, well, read.

So I thought I would "open" to the apostle Paul's letter to the Christians in Roman colony of Philippi. One only need read the first several verses to get a true sense of just how much Paul loved these brothers and sisters in the faith. When I read these words, I feel encouraged. And something else... I want to pray like this. I want to pray like this for the Christians I know; for the Christians that I've met; for the Christians I've done ministry with; for the Christians that I read or hear about through news articles, emails, or conversations. I want to regularly pray with this kind of passion, and mean it.

I know what it's like to pray with this kind of passion and purpose. When one so prays in the very Spirit of God, there is no care for time, and no temptation to want to bring it all to an end. In the end, it's about praying in love, God's love, that is the very power that first brought us into such a relationship as we have, first with God, and second with one another. I thank God for these writings. I thank God for pouring His Holy Spirit out upon and into Paul, and for Paul's joyful obedience, even in the midst of persecution and pain. May we pray with such love and thanksgiving, even as we praise the God who made all of this possible.

Go ahead... pray Paul's words above... just insert one or more names of fellow Christians, brothers and/or sisters in the faith, whom you give thanks for everytime you think of them... go ahead and pray for them right now... I am.

the passing of a Saint

While I've not formally read any of his publications, I've read a few journal articles by Brevard Childs. Last December I had read 'Invitation to Dogmatic Theology' by Paul McGlasson, which caught my attention, giving me great food for thoughts - McGlasson had been a student under Childs at Yale, and it was Childs who had penned the forward to the book. And with these thoughts in mind, I was greatly saddened to find out that a few weeks ago Brevard Childs died after some illness.

Rather than give you the run myself, you can go to D. R. Driver's site and understand the significance of Child's work: http://homepage.mac.com/dnadriver/research/bschilds.html. Needless to say, Childs did for Biblical Studies in the early 1970's what Karl Barth did from 1918 on. His biblical theology, while having declined in "popularity" in the last ten plus years, recaptures for those of us who understand the tension inherent when we pick up the Scriptures - words of mere men, while at the same time the radical revelation of God in Jesus Christ. Childs Canonical Approach to reading and interpreting Scripture had caused consternation among some, and appreciation among others. May the Lord raise up more faithful men and women to serve His glory!

mid-July already???

Okay, they say the older you get the faster time flies by... this is true, which is to say, you've experienced this for yourself. Time is tick, tick, tickin' away, time's just tickin' away.

There's so much I want to say - er, write. This past week I started my studies in intro to Hebrew - the reading and writing right to left thing is pretty cool for this lefty! - got to see my oldest brother-in-law, Rex (yes, he's 51 jahren!), home on R&R from serving with the U.S. Army on a NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) peace-keeping mission (doesn't that sound kind of paradoxical?) in Kosovo - spent time with my third oldest brother-in-law, Rob, his wife, Sunmi, and their nine children, ranging in age from 20(?) to four(?) - hung out with some friends from Narb Pres I've not seen in a few weeks as part of a birthday party for a woman in our small group. And what else??? There's got to be more... I've continued to read Barth's Church Dogmatics, I/1, as well as Chesterton's Orthodoxy. I'm reminded that I've got to dust off and finish David Well's God in the Wasteland, as well as restore my self-respect and complete Augustine's City of God. A couple of weeks ago, I gave in to the need to read something that was neither for a class, nor about God/Bible/Theology, etc., etc., ad nauseaum - can't remember what it was titled, but it was a Harry Turtledove sci-fi/alternate universe book about Earth being invaded by reptiles known as 'the Race', all during 1942 World War Two. It was interesting, but I have to say, it had the weakest ending - I was disappointed. But the book was entertaining enough. I was going to read Luther's Table Talk, but I decided if I was going to take Hebrew seriously, Luther had to go back to the township library, to be picked back up at a later date.

Regarding blogging, I've had a most interesting time dialoging with someone who read my posts - 'homosexuality is not "gay"'. What was encouraging most was not that I convinced this person that I was right - they did not agree with my position or arguments - rather, it was a good, respectful dialog. While I totally feel and believe that what I understand about this particular issue is both biblically/theologically correct, I definitely don't feel any real responsibility to convince this person of the merits of my argument. In fact, I believe in a sovereign God, who will reveal Himself to whom He chooses. Now, don't read a caveat into what I'm saying. I also believe that each and every believer needs to be ready to give a reason for the truth we hold to. We are not to be milk-toast believers, door-mats eagerly waiting to be stepped on and walked all over. We are to be ready to engage in, and argue in a respectful manner, the realities of the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Most times, either one side or the other (insert any issue or group) lets it get ugly; and when it's the Christians who are getting ugly, it ends up distorting or ruining the message of Jesus. While we are stewards of the divine mystery, we are not the arbiters of truth, justice, and the American way, so to speak. If we have any power, it is purely and only derived from God - it is God's power - and therefore, it is our responsibility to use or wield it as He directs, and never to purposely blow anyone out of the proverbial water. The dialog I shared with my anonymous conversation partner was an encouragement to me to keep on sharing my thoughts, and to make sure I know full-well what I believe and why.

And so, here it is ... mid-July already. And there's so much I want to blog about, and don't have the time... I'm trying to get all the "paper-work" ready for my two master's theses for Palmer, which I will begin research and reading for come the beginning of September. I'll also be T.A.ing again for Dr. Don Brash in his Systematic Theo 1 class - which he has shared will include some more lecturing time. Very happy to hear that! Anyhow... fam is coming from Reno in the last days [of August, that is]. My tour-guide-barbie sister, happy-go-lucky brother-in-law, moody teenage angst-filled nephew, and barbie-wanna-be neice. For a week. Sounds like the recipe!!! Did I mention last days?!?

homosexuality is not "gay" responses

I wanted to give some time for responses in order to see how to proceed. In all, two responses showed up; both giving different angles on the issue. It's my thought that both provide us with good places to dialogue, so here goes...

Respondent #1 was to the point, saying something along the lines of, "I think [homosexuals] would just prefer you to leave them alone." The unstated point was leave them alone as opposed to my position, which I believe my first respondent might (I say might because he/she did not say) label as me "attacking", "challenging", or "harrassing" them? For the sake of discussion, I would have preferred they had made known to me what exactly they interpreted as my point, but be that as it may, it's okay. They were civil, and for that I thank respondent #1. But here's my rebuttal to this comment of homosexuals wanting to be left alone. I am not one for witch trials by any measure. However, when a particular group chooses to push both their life style and the sense of priviledge for special rights upon our culture at large, I find there to be a need to stand up and challenge such assumptions. And for any of us, God's Word is the only place we can stand. Anything else, inspite of what extreme deconstructionists might demand, is purely subjective. While we may read God's Word and come away with different opinions, it is the erroneous reading that states that God is okay with homosexuality as a lifestyle choice. It is from God's Word that we find homosexuality to be in opposition to both God's ideal (as stated in Gen. 1, for starters), as well as incompatible with God's call upon humanity in Jesus Christ (as revealed in Jesus Christ, and further commented upon by the apostle Paul). While I would agree with anyone who stated that homosexuals have been unfairly marked as the worst of all sinners, and have been unfairly mistreated (the point of the pendulum having been so far to one extreme for so long), I would say at best it is poor logic to state that this therefore makes it okay for our culture to seek penance in the form of traveling to the other extreme, whereby we accept homosexuality out of some warped sense of guilt. We are doing no one, not the least of whom are the homosexuals, in culturally embracing homosexuality than were we to condone and okay pedophilia. My fear here is that just as have already done for divorce (making it highly accessible and culturally "okay"), we are doing for homosexuality, and will do with the likes of sexual child abuse. I think the slippery slope principle is accurate in this case, and I believe the likes of Ockham's Razor supports such a point. So to respondent #1, I say that were the homosexual agenda not so in our cultural face, I would not make it such a point to challenge it.

Respondent #2 was equally to the point, expressing some concern that we are, in a sense going after homosexuality because it is a sin that we ourselves don't happen to struggle with. At the same time he states, quoting a piece from Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz (an excellent book, if you've not read it), that we should be more concerned with overeating, or the sin of gluttony, which seems to be the problem for most American Christians in the United States. Because respondent #2 is a friend, and therefore left their email for me to respond back to them, I was able to say that whole-heartedly agree with part of Miller's point. As Christians, we should be seeking to pull the plank out of our own eye (or at least ask for some help), even as we seek to address the splinter in our neighbor's eye. When Jesus spoke those words, he was addressing the person who is so full of self-righteousness that they are ignorant of, or just plain ignore their own sin. Where I am guilty of that, I do apologize. I do have my own struggles with sin, and I can honestly say that gluttony to some extent is one of my sins. However, I think it again poor logic to say that until I have self-control over my own sins, I have no right to challenge anyone else's sin. In fact, I was not addressing any particular person in my previous article. Purposefully, I challenged a particular lifestyle, a specific sin. I sought, however imperfectly, to keep the spot light on the sin, and not blind the eyes of any particular sinner; after all, but for the grace of God go I. What would Donald Miller's take on the sin of homosexuality be had Jesus uttered a few statements in clear opposition to it? Many people, Christians and non-Christians, take such silence to be in the least Jesus' lack of judgment, and at most His silent but tacit approval for that choice. But that's just the problem with such logic, it is an argument from silence. This is where we need to read Jesus within the context of his being Jewish, and therefore, we have to understand Judaism's disapproval of homosexuality [inspite of the exegetical attempts of people like Mel White to prove the contrary]. There are many things that Jesus doesn't come out and spell out or say directly. Why? Because His followers and hearers were from the same religio-cultural background. Homosexuality was not an issue for the Jews of Jesus' day because it was plainly understood to be wrong. Were there men and/or women who practiced homosexuality? Honestly, I don't know. But I can very much tell you that they would very much be in the minority, and would have understood that their behavior was against what they knew and were taught from Tanak. My point to respondent #2 is that we must challenge the advocation of any sin in our culture. Last I saw or heard, no one is pushing over-eating as a justifiable life-style choice. Do people suffer from it, or gladly give into it? Yes. It is certainly one sign of a culture that is over-indulgent and too self-focused.

All in all, I think we as Christians need to approach and oppose homosexuality wisely. Too much recent history shows so-called Bible believing Christians falling into extremes of either demonizing homosexuals on one hand, or denying the godlessness of the practice, or even trying to advocate its propriety in the case of those homosexual relationships which show fidelity and are monogomous at the other end. Both of these extremes show a number of problems in the Church today. First, we overall a very biblically illiterate Church. We read only those passages we like, and we ignore those passages we either don't understand, or that we don't agree with. Second, we are poor biblical exegetes, both in the pulpit and in the pew. We don't do the background and contextual homework that we should we read and seek to interpret and apply God's Word to our context and day. Third, we disdain the importance of doctrine, confusing it with demonizing dogmatism. There is a point to doctrine. Whether we understand it or not, every Christian holds to some form of doctrine or another. Unfortunately, too many hold to a doctrine that is formulated in the "Iacademy" - sounds like something from Apple - where "I" decided on what is right, good, and godly. The problem of each of these is that each of these three problems results when we both assert ourselves overagainst God's Word, and when we put greater stock in our own humanly abilities to tease out and/or discern what God's Word says or doesn't say. We ignore both the leadings and witness of the Holy Spirit, and the Church Univseral, both historic and beyond our borders.

We are called, first and foremost, to live as Witnesses of Jesus Christ. Jesus challenged those issues which served as obstacles between humanity and God. We are called to do nothing less, and all of that through the power of the Holy Spirit, all to the glory of the Father.

Any thought? Leave me a response.

why there's nothing "gay" about homosexuality

I realize in opining this topic I'm opening myself up to a lot of criticism. In this so-called "englightened" age, we are supposed to bow to the wonders of science, which in the minds of some, has "proven" that homosexuality is genetic, and therefore, it's entirely natural. Even some Christians who are Biblical claim that homosexuality today is far different from the misunderstood "sin" of the so-called Bible times, and therefore, we should embrace those whose orientation is different from the heterosexual majority.

I want to say that it is not my intent to "gay bash". I will be the first to admit that historically, homosexuals have unjustly suffered particularly hard line prejudice and punishment, treated as if their sin were worst than anyone elses. But while the cultural/social pendulum has swung to the other extreme of blessing, if not out right embracing homosexuality (pardon the pun), it would be a mistake on the account of Christians, people I would define as God-fearing, Bible-believing, faithful followers of Jesus Christ, to think that because of this historical problem, we should think that trying to go to the other extreme would actually be the best solution.

In fact, taking hold of that pendulum and holding it to the middle would be the most Biblical solution.

What would that look like, you might wonder? First of all, we need to repent of our own sins. If that's treating homosexuals as modern day lepers, than so be it. If it's hating or despising them because we think their sin more gross than our own in the sight of God, then that, too, must be repented of. And yet, for us to misconfess homosexuality as alright is to not only misread the Bible, but to misrepresent the God who created us all. And that means understanding that to say that science has proven homosexuality as natural and therefore we should allow it is on the line of saying that AIDS is natural, and therefore we shouldn't treat it - after all, the AIDS virus is a life form. I think you see the poor logic that both arguments are built on. In fact, we can view any scientific "proof" for homosexuality on the same lines as proving that alcoholism is genetic, or pathological lying, a tendency toward violent behavior, etc. Just because we can prove the "nature" of these behaviors has not meant that society has therefore embraced them. Rather, it was the first step in some cases to properly treating them.

The greater problem in my mind, however, is the false hope that some Christians have given to the homosexual movement, whereby some brothers and sisters insist on discrediting all past interpretations of Scripture that hold to homosexuality as a sinful behavior. These people have sought to prove that the true sins in the case of these biblical stories are really such things as inhospitality, a great sin in the Ancient Near East. But what such a simplistic interpretation ends up doing is losing its credibility upon closer examination of the whole context of the Old Testament specifically and the whole Bible in general. These accounts are inter-connected with the moral guidelines found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to mention the creation accounts of Genesis, which are ultimately affirmed by Jesus Himself. No doubt, such critics will claim that Jesus never taught against homosexuality. Neither did he teach against atomic weapons, slavery, or the death penalty, but I think its safe to assume that He would have had they been issues in His particular context. And that's just the point, homosexuality was not a flash point of culture in Jesus' day because culturally/socially/religiously it was understood to go against the very character and nature of who God was.

In saying homosexuality is okay, we are, in fact, going against the very grain of who God is, as the Triune God of grace. And we can see this on a number of levels. First, naturally speaking, the way human beings are made, it is just plain common sense that men and women were sexually designed for one another. I have heard homosexual men claim that anatomically, the anus can function the same way - considering that the anus is for waste removal, I don't think one can claim equality in that regard. Second, the totality of Scripture testifies to the ideal of God as sex being for the context of marriage between one man and one woman. This is not a penalty upon homosexuals, much to some arguments I've heard. This holds all people to God's standard, hetero and homosexual. If sex is for marriage between one man and one woman, then it meant that when I was a single guy, it was wrong for me to seek out sexual activities. Now that I'm married, it means that I must limit my sexual behavior to my wife. Lust is a problem for all people, regardless of their sexual orientation. Abstinence is God's ideal, not giving into our lusts. Third, when we grasp the import of a Trinitarian understanding of who God is, we can see that homosexuality as a particular sin goes against God's character. This is illustrated for us through the imagry of the Economic Trinity, where Father, Son, and Holy Spirit participate in the life of the other through self-giving love that is the very essence of what it means to create. While I would never say that sex between a husband and wife is purely for procreation, I submit that when one enters into marriage, there must be an openness to children. That is, procreation is the quintessential expression of love between a husband and wife whereby through their physical union, that self-giving love is expressed through the very dynamic of creating a new life. Only through sex outside of marriage, artificial insemination, or adoption can homosexual couples have children. One might weakly protest what about heterosexual married couples who cannot naturally conceive of children - isn't this the same issue? To hide behind such an argument is to muddy the waters. The heterosexual married couple, having failed to conceive for any number of reasons, is encouraged to seek after adopting a child. The point is that homosexuality cannot naturally create. It is also based on the selfish love that does not wait for the proper parameters of marriage. Ah, but you might protest that such a problem as that would be removed if our culture would merely allow for homosexuals to "marry". But this goes back to the core issue that such a union goes against God's ideal as set forth in the Old Testament, as well as the New Testament through Jesus and Paul.

This is not an easy issue. There is more to say. To project homosexual rights onto the same level as gender or race is so ridiculous that I will not even waste space here. But needless to say, we as Christians must learn how to love homosexuals, even as we claim to love all sinners, and seek to demonstrate that love in a manner that accepts them while seeking to minister to them as they will accept. In living in this manner, we demonstrate respect for the divine image in everyone.