Voters

Should voters allow the religious affiliations of candidates to affect who they will vote for?

Should voters allow their own religious views to affect how they vote?

A Pagan Symbol in the Church?

Should we allow a Christmas tree in the church?

Both Yes’s and No’s: things to think about:

Yes

Worship is not only vertical and individual; it is also communal and social (as evidenced by unison prayer). In other words not everything or every symbol we have in the sanctuary is a part of worship in the strictest sense.

No

Presbyterians believe in Sola Scriptora. Tradition does not dictate future necessity. Simply because it has been done in the past does not mean that it should have been done or that it should continue to be done. Our worship should be based upon our understanding of scripture not our culture.

Yes and No

Symbols such as a Christmas tree, do not themselves contain specific meaning. Meaning is ascribed to them by each individual. What might be Christian to one might be pagan to another. To be fair, the Christmas tree has been closely connected to both expressions.

Yes

The sanctuary is already filled with imagery. Some of this is vertical in nature (relational between God and people) and some of it is horizontal in nature (communal). A good example of the horizontal would be the flowers placed on the communion table when someone in the church has lost a loved one. In this case the flower is not a part of worship in the vertical sense. It is however a part of community (“one body”) and is considered acceptable because it is not anti-Christian. The same argument could be made for the inclusion of a Christmas tree in the sanctuary.

No

The Christmas Tree has often been connected (with much controversy) to the “New Years Tree” or “Adam and Eve Tree” in 16^th century Germany and was a religious and cultural tradition. But it is not the same thing and one could suggest similarly that images of Santa Clause could then also be placed inside the church because of the images connection to St. Nicholas. Many people have reservations about the Christmas tree in church because they see it as a slippery slop.

Yes

Tree imagery is not new. What most people don’t realize is that trees were very likely painted on the inside of the Jewish Temple. The pillars were at times referred to as “trees” and the menorah itself witch symbolizes the burning bush. (The Jewish Roots of a Feminist Icon, Vanessa Silberman) In fact the entire Temple and surrounding court (Solomon’s porch) was said to be a reflection of Eden. Trees, flowers and fountains (not including the massive basin called “The Sea”) completed this image or the Genesis creation scene.

No

The word “holy” means “otherworldly”. When we inter into a space of communal worship we should not find a reflection of our culture. We should find something completely otherworldly; completely different. The art, the music, the message; everything should be a reflection of God and not culture.

Either Yes or No and not in our homes either

At the death of Christ the Holy of Holies was cracked. The temple has been destroyed. There is no longer a sacred space but only a sacred people (“the body” who is the temple 1Cor. 6:19). In this regard there is no difference between having a Christmas tree at home, in the sanctuary or in the Great room. Wherever “two or three may gather” becomes “the Church” in the strictest sense.

Yes

Also called “the Temple” is “all of creation” (Acts 7:49). All creation declares of God’s glory (Ps. . Certainly a tree is a part of creation and can be used to declare God’s glory.

No

Christians are called to be counter cultural and yet no separatists. We are called to be in the world but not of the world (John 17:14-19).

Yes

At many times we use the sanctuary for things other than worship. At a funeral service there is indeed worship but there is also the practicing of horizontal and communal care. At this moment we behave much as a family and the sanctuary is much like a family home. For people who hold this view, having a tree in the sanctuary is a normal expression of the family unit a church enjoys. It is a part of being “one body”.

No

Deuteronomy 12:4 says, “Do not worship God in their way”. While it specifically speaks to idol worship it does bear some light on the idea of bring secular items into the church. We should as Christians always be careful not to let cultural symbols to be confused with faith symbols or nationalism.

No

In Jeremiah 10:1-4 the prophet writes, “Hear what the LORD says to you, O house of Israel. This is what the LORD says: “Do not learn the ways of the nations or be terrified by signs in the sky, though the nations are terrified by them. For the customs of the peoples are worthless; they cut a tree out of the forest, and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel. They adorn it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so it will not totter.” While this verse is often used to condemn the adornment of Christmas Trees it is of course about idol worship. Though strikingly similar in custom we must note that the Christmas Tree is not worshiped and so is not the same thing. However this again shows us how God wishes for us to transcend cultural or “worldly” things in favor of “Holy” things.

One Modern “Solution”

Some Lutheran churches have come to a rather cleaver decision when it comes to having Christmas trees in the sanctuary. Instead of allowing for the culture of this world to claim an adored tree to be related to Christmas (Christ), they have chosen to “reclaim Christmas for Christ to whom it truly belongs”. To do this they have simply renamed the tree as “The Chrismon Tree”. This is an attempt to be “in the world” but not “of the world”. The Chrismon Tree is a highly symbolic ornament. It is decorated by the children each week with traditional Christian symbols called Chrismon.

The Nativity… in the Bible

Spoiler:  If you like the culturally popular version of the nativity, then read no further.

Picture a nativity scene in your head. Perhaps you have these figures on your coffee table at home. Most of us can quite readily offer up the details of that image without much thought. What do you see? Like me, do you see Joseph and Mary riding upon a donkey to the inn? Does the inn keeper send the pregnant couple outside to a small wooden shed called a “manger”? Is the manger out in the middle of a field somewhere? When you picture the scene, does it look like December 25^th in Canada? Are the shepherds praising God near the corner of this small wooden structure with a goodly number of sheep in tow? Has someone set Jesus down in a soft nest of hay while three well-dressed kings stand near by or sit atop the camels they rode? What do the “kings” have in their hands? Does each of these men hold a beautifully wrapped gift – one each? Well… truth be told, that picture may not be all that accurate.

From what the Bible tells us, It is true that Joseph and Mary had to travel from Galilee to the Bethlehem (the hometown of Joseph’s forefathers). But, just how they got there is actually unknown. It is however, very doubtful that Joseph could ever afford a large financial expense like a donkey. Seeing Mary on a donkey is kind of like picturing her in a new Cadillac. Most likely, the very pregnant Mary had to walk the whole way, though it is also possible that she sat in a small cart (kind of like a wheelbarrow or a rickshaw) which Joseph would have had to pull.

The popular vision of the “inn” is also not likely accurate.  Joseph would have gone first to the home of a family member as was custom in that region.  This was not the countryside but rather the city.  So, the nativity sets we have should probably include a large cluster of buildings much like a modern-day ghetto. The family might have had a guestroom for travelers upstairs, which was commonplace during that time, but it was apparently full with others from Joseph’s family.  At this point, one of Joseph’s relatives would have sent him to the backyard to use a carved-out cave (with door), or a stone structure of some kind for shelter. Usually this would be used to house one or two animals from time to time. In any case this structure was called a “stable”.

As for the manger, this word has confused a great many. Another word for “manger” is “trough” as in a food trough for animals. This would have likely been a very slim and very long structure that was attached to the side of a wall. It definitely would not have fit the baby well nor would it have been even remotely comfortable.

Now, on to other issues: the shepherds and the kings.   I highly doubt that the shepherds (who would have come from just outside town) would have taken any sheep from the sheep-fold to bring with them to the city for a baby visit. However, the “three kings” is a much bigger issue. These men were actually “magi” and not kings at all. And, they arrive quite a bit later in the story. In fact, we are told, that they visit the “toddler” Jesus, and not at a stable at all but in a “house”. As for the number three, the Scriptures do not tell us how many there were, but only that they (plural) did bring three kinds of gifts. Gold was a common gift for royalty. Frankincense had a lot of significance as anointing oil and was also an offering made in the Temple. Myrrh is the strangest of these gifts by far. Myrrh was used to dress the dead. It was a kind of embalming fluid of the day. As many see it these gifts are not that joyful at all but are more likely a kind of foreshadow for what’s to come. As far as the number of magi it has sometimes been assumed that there were three just because three distinct gifts are mentioned but that was probably not the case. It is often suggested that there would have been around seven visiting Magi but that number, like three, is just an educated guess; we actually have no clue. And, as for them wearing crowns, nice clothing, and riding on camels - the Bible simply doesn’t say. If I had to guess though, I’d say they walked like just about everyone else in their day. There are, of course, other issues like the date of the star, the historicity of the voyage, illusions to the Exodus, and the presence of a holy angel (who appeared much earlier in the story) but, all in all, I think you get the picture.

So, perhaps the image that popular culture gives us today is not that biblical.  Perhaps the scene we see should just be Mary and Joseph in a small stone building, or a cave in the backyard of a city-dwelling relative.  Perhaps no snow would be on the ground. Perhaps it was April. Perhaps the shepherds would stand about while several magi just begin their journey; not to arrive for some time. But then again… perhaps the vision we see in our heads or on our coffee tables isn’t really about the magi or the donkey. Perhaps what is really important is just the birth of Jesus, who is Emmanuel (God is with us).

Merry Christmas everyone

Considering New Ways to do Church

What is driving Christians today to engage in new ways of doing church? I’m getting a little tired of the emphasis on postmodernism. Shouldn’t the emphasis be on God and not people or worst yet specific views of people? Certainly the church growth movement had it’s chance and what became of that, other than the wholesale commercialization of worship. Still, I also realize that effective communication requires an understanding of the culture and particularly it’s youth. Make no mistake. I’m not denying the cultural shift nor do I reject the idea of being “relevant”. It’s just that I think the word of God is always relevant and that it really doesn’t need our help to be so.

This may come as a surprise to some of you younger Christians and emergent peoples but the “traditional” church has not only survived the last 500 years but has expanded the Kingdom more than any other before of since. But with that said, we do need to continually rethink and reinvent the way we express Church in this world. That is why the Reformed Church has often referred to itself as both “reformed and reforming”. Now… if it would only mean it!

Here are some things we should be thinking about:

The Church as a family – How many times have you gone to church and seen those faces. Who are they? What’s going on in their lives. Yes we have “prayer corners” and prayer meeting but how much can you know about someone from their sound bites and worries. This has certainly been an important issue to the emerging generation why is it not an issue with all of our churches. The Church should be The Church all week long and not just during potlucks. Find a way to make your church a real family.

Participation – Our people are clamoring to be involved in something worthwhile. How many churches have witnessed massive growth and intense involvement during building projects only to loose those same members once their goal has been achieved? How many ministers have fooled themselves into believing there is such a thing as a “building pastor”? Come on! If we really want to be the Church to the world; sharing the “good news”, then we should never run low on opportunities to improve the world. Find something. Better yet, find lots of things and do them.

Open doors – Why is it that most churches seem like little closed membership clubs that freak-out the day they get a visitor but then never speak to that person again? I think every single church I’ve ever been a part of extols the virtues of its own “friendliness” but how many of them really fulfill this claim? Don’t just be inviting, be keeping! And let nothing divide you. Recently somewhere around 1/8 of all the American Baptist Churches in the US split over the homosexual issue. Although this may be quite a complicated issue it certainly shouldn’t be the divisive one! Can people absolutely not stand to worship beside someone knowing that that person might hold a slightly different interpretation on 6 verses in the entire Bible. Wake up. What kind of family is that? How is that being Christ-like? Be loving, make it real and don’t stop!

The Church down the street is a Church too – Well guess what. Your church is not the only Christian church in the world and even more importantly your church isn’t really the Church at all. The Church is made up of the whole lot of you! Don’t compete; don’t worry if someone might find a different place to worship on Sunday. It’s all the same Church! Why bag on emergent churches, organic churches, cell churches, cyber-churches, traditional or charismatic churches? Why have we cut up the body of Christ in the name of tribalism? Grow up! You’re not the only one! Work together, you might actually accomplish something.

VOTE ‘EM OUT

If you were the boss of a company and you had one guy that you had hired to handle the most important work in the company, wouldn’t you watch that person closely? Well, what if that someone just simply did not work for half the year, absolutely did not do the job that you hired them to do and yet gave himself huge pay raisers while cutting the pay and programs of other workers. What if your employee almost always set things up to work for the deep pocketed leaders of other corporations rather than listening to you?

What would you do?

Would you worry that the next guy you give the job to might also be a poor representative for your company? Would it worry you so much that you’d just keep the guy you have rather than take a chance on someone else? Would you say, “but the guy I have now is experienced” even though the only experience you’ve witnessed is his experience in doing the wrong things?

From now on, FIRE anyone that does not do the job you hired them to do! If his replacement does not do the job… then fire him too! Keep firing them until you finally get someone that does the job right.

VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS!!!

Shark Legs

So I absolutly could not help it. A female fisher in Malaysia found this shark while working in Batu Maung, Penang. Although this is certainly not the first time a fisherman has come across a legged fish this is the first recorded from Malaysia and to be honest I just never get tired of seeing them.

“Youth” and the dying church”

In a world where the Bride of Christ is so hesitant to hire people under the age of 35. In a world where the mostly unwritten rule of search committees is to do little more than glace at the application of a young minister - it might be more important than ever to remember that Jesus didn’t quite make the prerequisite either. I guess in the end (though I am an anomaly) I have no right to be bitter. After all what better company could I possibly keep?

Jack Tripper

When I was younger I often ran across a syndicated show from the late seventies and early eighties entitled Three’s Company. The interesting thing was… I guess I never really understood it until recently. Still, while I now understand the plot line more accurately that doesn’t actually make it any easier; in fact it makes it even more confusing.

I you have never watched the show, the plot goes something like this: After moving into a new apartment the new tenants Chrissy and Janet find a hung-over Jack Tripper in their home; still sleeping off the goodbye party of the former tenets.  Because the two damsels in distress are apparently both helpless and foolish enough to do so, they ask Jack (whom they do not know) to move in with them to help with the cooking of all things. But here comes the plot twist. The strict landlord Mr. Roper will not allow any immoral monkey business to go on in his apartment complex and so will not allow young Jack to stay in the same apparent with two beautiful young ladies. So… to avoid the sticky business associated with Mr. Roper’s stubborn morality, Janet tells Mr. Roper that nothing smutty will be going on between them because… now get this… JACK IS GAY!

I suppose that as a small child I never would have understood the underpinnings of the show. I suppose I never really understood why it was supposed to be funny that Mr. Roper called Jack “twinkle toes” and a “fairy” as a running gag. But now that I’m a little older and a little wiser I suppose what now escapes me is how people ever found this plot line plausible. The show ran for 7 years and no one ever asked why Mr. Roper had a moral aversion to co-ed apartment living but seemed to have little problem with homosexuality?

It’s just one of those weird things I’ve been thinking about lately. Maybe it’s just me but looking back at it now I think it was probably a funnier show when I didn’t understand it at all.

Apparently not that uncommon

In what is apparently not that uncommon an instance, a convicted rapist in the Alabama state prison system is now suing an advocate for his victim.
Stanley Wilson, convicted gang rapist and ringleader in a 6 hour, multiple party, sexual assault has recently filed a lawsuit in Montgomery County Circuit Court against Miriam Shehane. The issue? Though sentenced to life in prison Wilson had hoped to get out early on parole but was denied in part due to social uproar caused by social activist Miriam Shehane. Wilson is suing the advocate for the victim for contributing to his lack of parole for two and half million dollars.  Interestingly enough, now defendant, Shehane did not even speak at the hearing but merely accompanied the victim for emotional support.
 

For that one guy… I think he goes by Ghost Salmon

Recently I read a pathetic piece of tripe. It was another one of those unlearned eisegetical blubbering’s concerning “free will”. As usual the author simply began with his own inclinations rather than the scriptures in order to solidify a belief he already held without any earnest or truthful searching. Instead the individual merely plucked two commonly misunderstood verses out from their rightful context in order to proof text himself into felling the old warm and fuzzies of his Sunday school days.

Though one can easily find a proper undertaking of these verses found in 1 Tim. 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9 in any good commentary series, it seems that taking a few moments out of his time to actually investigate his beliefs was a bit to arduous a task for my dear friend. So let us take a short moment to examine the first of these texts (though not exhaustively due to our present space as well as all of our dwindling attention spans for what should otherwise be the duty of our friend instead of our own).

The verse is 1 Tim. 2:4 which reads, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” I

ndeed the limitations of this verse should be at this point quite clear. This verse as all verses means little to nothing without its ever important context. Therefore here is the verse as it appears in a complete thought: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (1Tim. 1-4)

As it should now be clear, the verse appears amidst a request from Paul to pray for the rulers of the world (more specifically in this case for Nero who is violently opposed to Christianity). The appeal is for a “peaceable life” and so an appeal for both the salvation of the enemies of Christ and also for the “quiet” in the lives of people negatively affected by “kings” so that “peace” can come to fruition as people learn of the Christ and His gospel without the threat of persecution surrounding them and affecting their decisions. As such the context of this verse describes a people who are told that they should not “right off” anyone but should instead pray for “all men” (not knowing as God does who is elect and who is not –something near and dear to the heart of Paul no doubt). What’s more the word “all” itself that has been called into question. Though the word is often used to express a totality this is not always or even most often the case. In fact, “all” is many times used to identify categories or collectives as is sited below from the Strong’s number [3956].

pas = all or all of a particular category

1) individually

a) each, every, any, all, the whole, everyone, all things, everything

2) collectively

a) some of all types “the whole world has gone after him” Did all the world go after Christ? “then went all Judea, and were baptized of him in Jordan.” Was all Judea, or all Jerusalem, baptized in Jordan? “Ye are of God, little children”, and the whole world lieth in the wicked one”. Does the whole world there mean everybody? The words “world” and “all” are used in some seven or eight senses in Scripture, and it is very rarely the “all” means all persons, taken individually. The words are generally used to signify that Christ has redeemed some of all sorts — some Jews, some Gentiles, some rich, some poor, and has not restricted His redemption to either Jew or Gentile … C.H. Spurgeon from a sermon on Particular Redemption

As James White has pointed out “kings” make up a specific classification or collective of men. If indeed as White points out that “all” were to have been intended to mean each individual person than “all would be saved” and universalism would then become a biblical principle. Or if taken thusly as it is found in Titus 2:11 “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men” than there would be no need to pray at all for “all” men would already know the Lord. Instead what is clearly meant is that God has not shut out any particular class of men from the possibility of salvation. He has not deemed “kings” for instance to be doomed hopeless but are rather a people also in need of prayer as all are. Here Paul merely perpetuates the same decrees expounded by Mark when he writes, “And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation’”. The people are not meant only to share the gospel with a group distinguished by its birth right or gender but rather to the larger classification. The point is clear God is above making class distinctions with those of whom he chooses and as is stated here in Timothy wishes all classes of people to be prayed for… even violent “kings” such as Nero.