Theological Musings

t’s been a long time since I posted on here (last July, I think, so almost nine months).  And the title of this first-in-a-long-time post is meant to be  somewhat tongue-in-cheek. The reality is that I was fully aware that today was Easter. But what struck me the most today was that today was not really that different from any other day.

Since leaving the traditional institutional expression of “church” about six years ago, there have been so many changes in my thinking and perspective. Things that used to be so important to me ceased to seem that important. And other things that seemed to be so trivial or unimportant before suddenly took on new meaning.

Easter is one of those things that ceased seeming to be so important. No, I do not mean that the resurrection of Jesus ceased to have any importance for me! But what I mean is that the single day of celebrating that changed dramatically for me.

When I was working in the institution, Easter was one of the biggest days of the year work-wise. It usually involved quite a bit of musical preparation (perhaps a cantata, or just extra-big congregational music). We would celebrate the resurrection and all that it meant to us like we would never have the chance to do so again.  At least we wouldn’t really get that chance for another year…

So what has changed for me? The resurrection now seems significant to me every day of the year. It’s no longer something to be singled out one day a year, but rather is a life-changing, life-altering, life-encompassing thing for me now.

For me, the resurrection “tops off” the work that was done on the cross. Jesus gave his life to ransom us from the power of sin and death. And because of his sacrifice in this regard, the Father rewarded him by bringing him back to life after he had done the work necessary to purchase us back from the powers of darkness.

So, the resurrection is important to me because it means death is not the end of the story. As Paul wrote, and I paraphrase here, since Jesus was resurrected, we have hope for life beyond the grave as well.

Today, I was aware that many churches were putting their all into celebrating the resurrection. And I think they should. I just think it shouldn’t be a one-day-a-year event. As for me, it was pretty much just another day. Another day of living in gratitude for the resurrection of Jesus. Just like every other day.

Until next time,

steve

s it just me, or does it really seem to others like there is a huge upswing in the level of paranoia and fear in our country?  And I’m not talking about just people in general. I’m talking about Christians!

The other day on Twitter, someone decided to unfollow me (and actually blocked me) because I challenged them on the need to address concerns with integrity and truthfulness.  They seemed, unfortunately, to be more content to play into the fear and paranoia that comes from misrepresenting the facts about pending legislation.

Here’s what concerns me: Christians should be the ones demonstrating peace, no matter what the circumstances are.  And Christians should be the ones leading the way to finding out truth.  Even our own holy book says, “Come let us reason together”, yet we throw reason out and instead argue on hyperbole and exaggeration.

The newest controversy surrounds a bill in Congress (H.R. 20) right now that is referred to as the “Melanie Blocker Stokes MOTHERS Act”.  The way this act is described in the emails that are racing around the country, the bill (if it became law) would mandate a test of competency be given to all mothers when they give birth. If the mother is deemed to be “incompetent”, they will not be allowed to take their baby home from the hospital.

Sound insane? I thought so, too.  Yet, according to this post, that’s exactly what the bill is alleged to say.  And my guess is that many are just taking that information and running with it.

But did you know that you can actually read the text of the bills that are being debated in Congress?

OK, I’ve spent some time reading the bill (if you all don’t know, you can go to http://www.opencongress.org and look up any bill, see its status, read its text, etc.  Here’s a link to the bill in question.)  I’ve also examined the information on the dailypaul.com link that I mentioned above (which, by the way, is a website INSPIRED by Ron Paul, but is NOT Ron Paul — if that matters to anyone. I found it a bit misleading).

I have a couple of thoughts, but first a couple of disclaimers.

Dislaimer #1: I’m extremely conservative, and am very opposed to government intrusion.  My political views are probably close to that of the Libertarians. I voted for Ron Paul (as a write-in) in the last presidential election.

Disclaimer #2: My comments are not meant to defend this legislation (which I oppose), but rather to provide some different insight into WHY we should oppose it.

Disclaimer #3: These are just my non-expert opinions, and I’m very open to differing views or different reasoning as mine here.  My desire, however, is to focus on FACTS and not allow ourselves to a) get caught up in hype, or b) simply take someone else’s word for what we think about something.

With those disclaimers in place, allow me to offer my insight here:

1. Having read the entirety of this bill (fortunately, it is not a lengthy one like the stimulus package was!!), I do not see any indication that the claims on dailypaul.com are correct that there is a test given that will cause them not to allow you to take your child home with you if you fail.  The exact quote on dailypaul.com says, “The Mother’s Act, if passed, will mandate that all new mothers be screened by means of a list of subjective questions that will determine if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home from the hospital.”  This is simply nowhere to be found in the bill!

2. The focus of the bill is research regarding postpartum depression.  Now, I don’t have any strong feelings one way or the other about PPD (as to its legitimacy, or not) because I simply don’t have enough information, and certainly no experience (!) in this area.  However, in an effort to look at the facts of the bill and not 3rd party statements like dailypaul.com, it must be acknowledged that this bill is geared toward research and resource, not “determin[ing] if each mother is mentally fit to take their newborn home….”

3. Does this mean that new mothers might have to be “educated” at the hospital about PPD?  It does appear to be quite possible.  But does it have anything to do with not allowing mothers to take their children home after birth?  Again, I find absolutely no basis for this claim.

Now, having said that, if you’re still reading, I would like to share why I DO oppose this bill, and give my reasons for concern:

1. Section 101.a.4 concerns me greatly.  It states that the research appropriated by this bill would include “[c]linical research for the development and evaluation of new treatments.”  The reason this bothers me is that there have been uncovered some situations in our nation’s past (and present) where studies are performed on subjects WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT.  So, this area does pose some grave concern.  I would see the possibility here for new mothers to be given medication in the hospital as part of this research about which the new mother neither knows or understands, nor to which she gives consent.

2. Section 330G-1.b.2 has similar concerning language: “Delivering or enhancing inpatient care management services that ensure the well-being of the mother and family and the future development of the infant.”  My concerns raised in #1 above apply here, too.

3. Section 330G-1.b.4.B.ii also states that there should be an effort “ensuring that training programs regarding such education are carried out at the health facility.”  This does sound to me like it would be possible for a mother to have to stay at the health facility during whatever training might take place before being able to return home with their new infant.  That concerns me, as well.

So, having said all that, I think there are several reasons to oppose this legislation, or at least to express concern about it.  However, I am concerned that there seems to be a trend in our conservative circles to misrepresent the actual facts and promote a culture of fear.

For those of you who are believers in Christ, as am I, we have nothing to fear!  There is nothing our government can do that 1) is outside the hands of our Father, or 2) that can do anything to us of eternal consequence.  Let us not fear!

I would encourage each of you to actively pursue information about these topics when you hear these alarming alerts sounded.  But in the process, make sure that you don’t get caught up in the fear and hype surrounding certain topics.  There is a good chance that the alarms being sounded by many are misdirected and misguided.

Is there reason for concern in this bill?  Yes, I believe I have made that clear in my analysis above.  But I do not believe that the fear that is circulating and perpetuated by sites such as dailypaul.com is rooted in reality.  It simply makes us appear “ignorant” to anyone with a different viewpoint because we look like we don’t know what we’re talking about.  Let us fight these battles with integrity, truthfulness, and — above all — love, in the spirit of Christ!

Until next time,

steve

K, so I realize it’s been over three months…three months!…since I’ve posted here. And there are many reasons for that dry spell. I could make all kinds of excuses, but I won’t. I’ll just say that I’m back for this post, and who knows how long it will be until the next one!

This week, we obviously held a very important election here in the United States. And I noticed something leading up to the election, and it became very obvious as the election results came in Tuesday night.

I have a Facebook account (look me up on there if you’re not already my Facebook friend), and my friends list is very, very diverse. I have some of my blog readers, some “in real life” friends, high school classmates, college classmates, co-workers from the theatre where I have been working these past few months, high school kids whom I accompanied this summer at a music camp — all different types of people. Some very liberal, some very conservative. Some Christian, some not. Some straight, some gay. Some old, some young. Anyway, you get the picture.

Well, if you’re not familiar with Facebook, there’s this little thing on Facebook called “status” where you can say what you’re doing at the moment, what you’re feeling, or whatever you want to put in there.

And so, election night, I was logged into Facebook, and I was following the status changes of all of my Facebook friends. And I noticed a very disturbing trend.

I could have divided my friends into two groups that night. One group was jubilant. “YES, WE DID!!!” read some statuses (stati?). “Change is coming!” read others. “I am sooo happy,” read still more.

And then, there were the evangelical Christians and more conservative types in the other group. “I’m feeling very scared.” “I’m scared, but I know God’s still in control.” “I’m worried about our country.”

Now, would I expect everyone to be happy about the election results? Of course not. Millions voted for John McCain.

But fear? Acting like the world was about to go to hell? The funny thing is, I seem to recall very similar comments from friends and family back in 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected as President.

Seriously, Christianity is supposed to be about hope. About life. About victory. About peace. And we’re going to let the results of a Presidential election override all of that??

I just don’t get it. What are you afraid of?

Until next time,
steve

am pro-life. Big surprise there, right? But there is something that has been bothering me about the whole topic of pro-life as it pertains to politics. And I would like to open up the comment thread here for discussion/input without much of a post here. Since we just had our primary election here in North Carolina yesterday, this is much more front-and-center on my mind.

Perhaps I’ll post more thoughts on the topic in a fuller treatment later on, but for now I’m just curious and need to ask the burning questions. So here goes:

Is there anyone who is willing to say that they are pro-life in every situation, without exception? I have heard many references to the following exceptions to what I would consider to be a truly pro-life position:

• An exception in the discussion about abortion is almost always stated (very matter-of-factly, I might add) for “rape, incest, and the life of the mother”. Are there people who are anti-abortion who do not hold to these exceptions? And my question for those of you who do hold to those exceptions: Why?
• The idea of “pro-life” to me goes beyond the abortion debate, although it is often seemingly limited to that. In light of that, I would say that many people who call themselves “pro-life” are pro-death penalty. So this seems to be another exception. Pro-life except the lives of certain criminals.
• Yet another area that seems to be a large exception is in the area of military action. From a political standpoint, it seems that the ones most opposed to abortion because they are “pro-life” are also “pro-war” in many cases. So an exception seems to be made for killing one’s enemies.

I’m not trying to start a huge debate, but I am very curious. If you hold to any/all of the exceptions I’ve noted, how do you reconcile that with a pro-life position?

Sorry for the heavy topic, but this has been on my mind for several years and I’ve never had the courage to really ask the question of anyone. Now that it’s fresh on my mind again, I thought I’d take the chance here.

Just to let you know, I was brought up believing every one of those exceptions. It’s been a way of life for me for my whole life. But I’m questioning now.

n response to my “You Might Be Misrepresenting God” post, Scott Roche and I have been engaged in what is turning out to be the continuation (no pun intended, Scott!) of an unfinished conversation from earlier in the fall.

Scott’s a good online friend, and I appreciate the engagement with him anytime it presents itself. We differ on some interpretations of scripture (who doesn’t?!), but I never feel like Scott is questioning our fellowship as brothers. For that, I am very appreciative. (And Scott, we need to hit up Starbucks in Winston together sometime soon, bro. I’d love to chat about stuff in person with you.)

So anyway, Scott responded on his blog about miracles. You can read the post, simply called “Miracles”, here.

I started to respond on Scott’s blog, but as often happens with me, my comment became quite lengthy, and I decided to put it here as a post instead of taking up Scott’s bandwidth with it.

Scott mentioned a great statement of Jesus as part of the discussion, and then offered his commentary:

Christ said “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father.” Does that mean that next week I can raise someone from the dead? No, I don’t think so. What I think it means is that this week I can talk to people about my faith. It means that I can love the people in my community sacrificially. What does he mean by “greater works”? Frankly, I don’t know. I think that greater might mean greater in scope. We have the opportunity to take the message of God’s love into places unheard of in Jesus’ time. I’m more than willing to admit that I could be wrong though. If you are hardcore one way or the other I’d be curious as to know why.

In response to some of the things that were said in the post, I’d like to address the “greater things” part first. I don’t necessarily consider myself “hard core one way or the other” on what the “greater things” are, but I’ll try to give my thoughts.

While I have no trouble saying that the “greater things” are not explicitly stated (and therefore subject to some interpretation at least), we still need to wrestle with the fact that Jesus didn’t just say we would do “greater things”. He first said that we would do the same things he was doing. Regardless of what the “greater things” might be, are we doing the same things that Jesus did?

Take a look at the examples in the book of Acts. The disciples, in fact, did do the same things Jesus was doing. They healed the sick, raised the dead, etc. Furthermore, when Paul talks about spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians, he includes healing and miracles as two gifts that the Spirit gives to the body.

I’m not as troubled by the argument from silence on the cessationist side as I am the inability to adequately explain away the stuff that’s not silent. And “troubled” is not actually a good word. It just doesn’t make sense to me, I guess.

How did Jesus heal people? And how did his disciples heal people?

1. The people receiving the miracle believed it was possible, and
2. The person facilitating the miracle (or at times, someone on their behalf) believed it was possible. That seems to be an incredibly common factor throughout. Enough of a factor that I don’t think we can dismiss it too easily.

Scott also said:

I don’t think that we’re seeing fewer miracles today because of the state of faith in our world. Miracles are by definition rare things.

If scripture draws a strong parallel between the state of faith (either in individuals or in a region) and miracles (and I believe it does), should that not be taken into consideration? On what basis, then, do you think that doesn’t apply? Furthermore, when the kingdom was proclaimed by Jesus, were they really “rare” things? Does scripture itself define miracles as “rare”?

So to have this thing occupy a major portion of your theology and to go around in circles looking for support one way or another is indeed wasting cycles, if that’s all you’re doing.

I hope you can understand at this point that it’s not occupying “a major portion” of my theology, but rather I’m trying to assess what place it should. So I don’t see it as wasting cycles at all.

My point and repeated question basically come down to this: We see Jesus doing miracles as part of his gospel proclamation. Jesus tells us that those who believe in him will do the same things he did, and even greater things. The disciples go on to do the same things Jesus did, and even greater things (in terms of scope, for certain). So, if we are not to expect to do the same things, on what basis do we draw that conclusion?

Here’s a poor analogy: There is a light switch that I always use to turn on our dining room light. If I flip the switch one day and the light doesn’t come on, I can either conclude that the switch no longer is intended to operate that light, or I can conclude that something is not working properly and needs to be corrected for the switch to operate the light again. In a very basic way, the cessationist position seems to be saying that the switch is no longer intended to operate the light, whereas the continualist position is saying that the intent is still there, but something is not working properly.

Thoughts from Scott or anyone else?

Until next time,

steve