Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16 that “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (NASB, or otherwise translated as “All Scripture is God-breathed…”).  In the past, I have (in places on this blog) raised questions about how that verse should be treated.  Is it saying that the 66 books of the Protestant canon of Scripture are inspired?  Is it only referring (as it does in context) to the Old Testament?  Is it saying that only those books included in the Protestant canon are inspired and no others? Or is it saying something else?

This post is not about answering those questions, however. Maybe I’ll get back to those questions again in a future post, but for now I want to examine the side-effects of believing that all 66 books of the Protestant canon are completely inspired by God in their very words.

On the surface at least, I really don’t have an issue with believing that all 66 books are inspired by God.  Or maybe, to be completely accurate, I should say that I don’t have any problem with someone who does hold to that viewpoint. However, the doctrine of inspiration, especially since it is based so heavily (exclusively, even??) on this statement by Paul leads to some interesting issues.  These are, in my opinion, issues that are problematic.

Issue #1: The Doctrine of Inerrancy

The doctrine of inerrancy flows naturally from the doctrine of inspiration.  If God is actually the author (through the Holy Spirit) of the words of the Bible, then it follows rather plainly that the Bible is without error.  This raises some questions, though. For example, what about apparent contradictions in the Bible?  Well, to the strict “inerrantist”, there are no contradictions. If in one passage (2 Samuel 24) it says that God caused David to take a census, and in a parallel passage (1 Chronicles 21) in another book by another author, it says that Satan caused it, then the strict inerrantist has to reconcile those two passages.  This is usually done by saying that God used Satan (or allowed Satan, or instructed Satan, or whatever) to accomplish his (God’s) purpose in the situation.

This answer is not entirely satisfactory to some, though (myself included). It’s a bit of a circular argument.  Here’s a contradiction, but it can’t be a contradiction because the Bible doesn’t have contradictions. And the Bible doesn’t have contradictions because we’ve explained away all the contradictions!

It doesn’t really make sense, though, to say that every word of Scripture is inspired by God and then to have “errors” in the text. So you can’t really believe in verbal inspiration without going down the inerrancy path.  This, in effect, paints us in a corner, then.  It’s an unfortunate side-effect of the doctrine of inspiration that we have to then explain away any contradictions or apparent errors.

Issue #2: The “Every Verse is Equal” View

This is perhaps the worst side-effect of the doctrine of inspiration, in my opinion. Because Paul’s words are interpreted to mean that every verse of Scripture has a use for teaching, instruction in righteousness, etc., people have done two things that are detrimental to our understanding of Scripture: 1.) Pulled individual verses out of context and used them to support whatever cause the person is passionate about, and 2) Use verses to support points even though those verses are actually contradicted elsewhere in the Bible.

Recently, this became very clear to me in the wake of the murder of Osama bin Laden by a US Navy Seal special ops team.  Immediately upon announcement of the news, my Facebook feed split dramatically into those who were whooping it up in jubilant celebration and those who felt like the situation required a certain amount of sobriety.  And I’m not talking about the difference between my Christian friends and my non-Christian friends. I’m just talking about my Christian friends.

Those of us who posted messages of a more sober nature were put down by a lot of those “jubilant celebrants” because we weren’t rejoicing that “justice had been done” or that a mass murderer was finally taken out.

What surprised me, however, was that those who were rejoicing so jubilantly were quick to throw some proof-texts into the mix claiming that there was scriptural precedent for their joy and that, in fact, it was quite appropriate for believers to celebrate in that way.  And when some of us tried to counter with the teachings of Jesus regarding loving our enemies, etc., we were called “naive” by some, attacked by others as taking scripture out of context (really?!?) and put down by still others who claimed that we would gladly stand by while assailants came into our homes and raped and murdered our wives and children.

All of this came from a use of scripture that says that any verse can stand on its own as support for a position.  I could not disagree more strongly, and I think that this, as I have already said, is the worst side-effect of the doctrine of inspiration.

So what is the alternative?

Well, I certainly don’t claim to have all (or even any!) of the answers, but I think that we can look at this from a couple of angles.  Those who believe in a very conservative, strict view of inspiration claim that viewing the scripture as anything but completely inspired by God leaves us with absolutely nothing to hang our faith on.  In other words, if any of it means something other than what it says, we can’t trust any of it.

I think this is a very simplistic and faulty view.  It’s not an either/or proposition.  Much as western Christianity thrives on its “either/or” positions, truth is almost always somewhere in the middle!  Note that I am not saying that truth is relative.  But truth is not always found by contrasting two polar opposite views.  First of all, we need to recognize some things about the revelation we have been given in scripture.

Scripture itself attests to the fact that revelation is not always immediate.  It is most often progressive in nature.  Getting back to the two passages about David taking a census, rather than trying to absurdly reconcile two very different statements, it perhaps makes more sense to see that when Samuel wrote his narrative, he did not understand that actions that violated God’s principles and plan were not actually initiated by God.  But later on, when the writer of the Chronicles comes along (some estimates are that the books of the Chronicles were written approximately 500 years after the writing of the books of Samuel), some development has taken place in the understanding of the role of Satan.

This nature of progressive revelation is attested in Hebrews 1, which makes it quite clear when it says that in past times, God spoke through prophets, etc., but now he has spoken through Jesus.  In other words, the past revelation was insufficient in revealing the Father to us. This is a very important point.  It is important because it gives us a good indication of how we should approach Scripture.

I like to phrase it this way: We must read Scripture through the lens of Jesus.  In other words, we must pass everything we read in Scripture through the revelation of the Father in Jesus.

To put it bluntly, the believers in Old Testament times did not understand the Father.  They didn’t understand the battle between God and Satan.  They did not understand the character of God.  They did not understand the plan the Father had to redeem all mankind to himself.

So, when Jesus comes along and reveals the heart of the Father to us, it necessarily changes some things.  For example, Jesus addresses issues of retribution and “justice” by referencing the Old Testament law in a strange way.  He says, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye’, but I say to you, ‘Love your enemies. Do good to those who hurt you.’”

Note his choice of words: “You have heard it said.” This is highly significant.  Because when we return now to the Old Testament law and attempt to make it the standard for civil law or for even personal action/reaction toward others, we ignore the teaching of Jesus.  One cannot simultaneously love their enemy and rejoice over their demise.  When people quote Old Testament verses about rejoicing over their enemies, or wishing their enemies harm (i.e., the so-called imprecatory Psalms), they do so at the expense of Jesus’s revelation.  Why would we want to return to a “darker-glassed” view of the Father?

(A side note: Some have attempted to use Revelation 18 to defend the rejoicing over Osama bin Laden’s death, as well.  However, I think it is important to note that the rejoicing in Revelation is not over the death of a person or even a group of people, but rather the destruction of a system, referred to as Babylon–a system that stood in opposition to the character and kingdom of God.  That is very different, in my opinion.)

So, again, what are the alternatives?  The alternative is to understand first of all that we don’t know for sure what Paul was trying to say in his comment about inspiration. We know that there is value in the Old Testament in pointing us to Jesus (see Jesus’s statements in John 5).  And we do know that God, from time to time, spoke through the prophets and revealed some of his heart and passion (although they rarely understood what he was saying).  But was Paul specifically saying that every single verse of the Old Testament is still useful for teaching us how to live our daily lives? I seriously doubt it because Jesus himself had a different view of the Old Testament. (“You have heard it said…but I say to you….”)

Secondly, we must, as I have already pointed out, interpret Scripture not just with other Scripture, but more specifically with the teaching of Jesus.  If Jesus says that “an eye for an eye” is not how we are supposed to view our enemies or those who hurt us, then that verse in the Old Testament cannot bear weight on our lives anymore.

To the strict inspiration-believer, this sounds like we simply pick-and-choose what to believe in the Bible.  But I say that is a straw man.  It is a serious misunderstanding of what I am saying.  Jesus promised us that the Holy Spirit would come to us and teach us all truth.  We must recognize that interpretation of scripture comes through the Holy Spirit.  And if we listen to the voice of the Spirit, we will find that many things begin to make sense in a way different from what is traditionally taught.

In summary, I would encourage anyone who holds to a strict view of inspiration to carefully weigh the side-effects of that view. Don’t allow that view to put you in a position where you end up demeaning the teaching of Jesus or the progressive revelation that took place over 1,000′s of years. And do not quench the Holy Spirit in your use of the Bible. One need only to look at the way New Testament writers used quotes from the Old Testament to see that a strict view might not always be the way to go!

Until next time,

steve

The comment is in relation to a post regarding Rob Bell’s latest book “Love Wins”. If you’ve paid any attention to the blogosphere in the last couple of months, you’re familiar with Bell’s book, or at least the controversy surrounding it. It’s an interesting discussion to have, and one that definitely needs a lot more civility all around. But, at any rate, my former college classmate has been blogging chapter-by-chapter through Bell’s book. We have discussed this a bit on Facebook and privately, and in response to his post on Chapter 6, I have responded with the following:

Thanks for addressing the 1 Cor 15 passage that I mentioned to you privately. But I want to take the exegesis even farther and resolve this “all” issue. Your exegesis says that the “all” is defined by the context to mean something other than “all”, which I think is not entirely accurate (although I can understand why you would think that). There are some problems with that conclusion.

1. Paul draws a very clear analogy through the use of the simile comparing death in Adam to life in Christ. To define the second “all” differently than the first loses the analogy. (2 Timothy 4:17 is, in my opinion, a red herring because here we have a very clear definition of “all” dying in Adam, so the passage defines the scope of “all” in that way.) More on this in a moment.

2. Your interpretation seems to rest on the idea that “enemies” are people. However, the passage does identify the enemies as dominion, authority and power. Then, he adds the “last enemy”: death.

So, let me tease out these two points a bit. If we start with the face value of the simile, we start with an understanding that the first “all” is the same as the second “all”. This is the common sense reading of the simile. He doesn’t say “As in Adam all die, so in Christ will some be made alive.” He says that in the very same way that Adam’s sin caused death, Christ provides life. In the first case, it was pervasive to the entire human race. Therefore, it would appear that logically, Paul is saying that Christ’s life is also pervasive. (And why not?! His sacrifice is certainly greater than the sin, no?)

But, you said that the second “all” is defined by the context as those who belong to Christ. Well, besides other passages that indicate that the Father has given all things to Christ, let’s look at the progression in the passage. First, Christ is raised, then those who belong to him, and then the end comes when he hands the kingdom over to his Father. But, before he hands it to his Father, he has to defeat his enemies.

As I’ve already pointed out, though, these “enemies” are not defined by the passage as those who do not belong to Christ. Instead, it defines them as systems of man and of the power of sin. Dominion, authority, power…ultimately death itself. The very curse of sin (death) is, itself, destroyed by Christ. How can there be continued death (torment in Hell) if death itself is destroyed? (One could also ask how “enemies” could be people if God tells us to love/forgive our enemies, and then does not do so himself. That would be a double-standard, would it not?)

You said, “What places all of God’s Creation under His authority and brings it all into unity in both heaven and earth is the final reward and punishment of humanity based on their faith in or rejection of Christ.” But this passage does not support your interpretation. It doesn’t mention punishment of humanity or faith or rejection, or any of the other things that you have placed on top of the passage. Not in the least.

The clearest interpretation, allowing the passage to speak for itself, actually supports the superlative. “All” means “all” each time it is used in the passage. “All” doesn’t mean “all” in the first half of a verse and “some” in the second half. And ultimately, “all” are made alive in Christ because ultimately he defeats the very enemy that keeps them separated from the Father, namely death. And so the progression is: Christ, then those who are asleep, then those who belong to Christ, and then Christ defeats the enemies that continue to separate the rest from Him, and “all” are made alive.

This remains consistent with much of Paul’s writing. For example, in Philippians 2 when he references “Every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” that is definitely superlative. And he does not qualify it as “Every knee/tongue belonging to those in Christ.” He simply says “Every knee/tongue”. There is no qualification of that superlative.

And it’s not limited to Paul. 1 John 2 goes even further in saying that the propitiation is not for our sins only, but for the sins of the whole world. Here, John draws a distinction between those who have believed and “the whole world”.

You can say that it is simply the possible scope, but that is not the clear reading. And the point becomes really moot if the meaning is “possible scope” and yet that scope never becomes realized. Why even bother addressing it, then? But John chooses to make a point of saying that it really is for the sins of the whole world.

I’ll draw this lengthy response to a close here, but I did want to point out the problems that I see with your exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15. You’ve started with the presupposition that the second “all” can’t possibly mean “all” and have therefore used that lens to interpret the rest of the passage. Exegesis should not start with a strong presupposition such as that.

One final quick note: Bell never endorses salvation through anything other than Jesus. He may offer some thoughts on what salvation through Jesus means, but he does not indicate that salvation (even if possible post-hell) comes through anything but faith. Your post indicates otherwise, and misrepresents Bell’s book in that regard.

Until next time,

steve

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

Been Preaching for 51 years. Only 2 times felt totally satisfied. Something lacking. Spend much time thinking about it. Begins early Monday.

Until next time,
steve

As an example of trusting God, we talked about the daily provision of food.  Jesus told us in Matthew 6 that we should not worry about food or clothing, but that we should seek after the kingdom of God, and everything that we need will be provided for us.

In response to that episode, my favorite skeptic/agnostic/atheist (depending on the context in which he labels himself!) Sid Faiwu (not his real name, by the way, and it’s pronounced FAY-woo, as I have taken a long time to learn!) asked a very good question.  I will repost the entire relevant part of his comment here so that you don’t have click over if you really don’t want to…

Taking literally the idea that if one trusts God, then one will be provided with food, clothing, etc. is morally problematic. Every true statement’s contrapositive is also true. The belief you hold to be true is:

If one trusts God, then one will always have enough food.

It’s contrapositive is:

If one doesn’t [sic] not have enough food, then one does not trust God.

It means that if someone starves or is starving, then it’s their own fault for not trusting God. It blames the victim. I’d imagine this is why so few people take this part of the Bible as literal truth.

Secondly, I’d argue that such a belief is simply false. It suggests that Christians should never starve if they truly trust God. I would argue that of all the Christians who have died of starvation over the centuries, at least one of them trusted God in this way. She/He trusted God to provide and he failed to come through.

I completely understand where Sid is coming from on this.  And on the surface, I would agree that it sounds more like blaming the victim.  But I think there are some assumptions made in Sid’s argument that could use a little scrutiny.

First of all, I don’t think there’s any way to argue the actual point regarding contrapositives.  Sid is entirely correct that the contrapositive must be true.  It’s in the evaluation of that contrapositive that I think there are some problems.

Sid says that the original statement by Jesus is morally problematic.  I’m not sure about the “morally” part, because I think that putting the responsibility on someone is not necessarily “blaming the victim”.  In fact, the very phrase “blaming the victim” causes problems because it assumes victim status where none has been established.  In other words, if the words of Jesus here are, in fact, correct, then one who does not heed his words would not be a victim.  They would, in the words found elsewhere in scripture, “reap what they sow”.

So, from that standpoint, I think we need to withhold judgment on whether or not someone is a “victim”.  Let me explain a bit further.  The concept of trusting God (or “faith”) appears many, many times in the New Testament (especially, the four gospels) in conjunction with healing.  Now, I know that we’ve discussed this on this blog in the past, but I think that often we put the cart before the horse. Rather than assuming that Jesus was telling the truth, we try to find other explanations for what we see.

I’ve said it before here: Read the four gospels and make a note of anytime Jesus heals someone from a physical illness.  In those instances, note how often Jesus comments about their faith.  Statements like “your faith has healed you”, or “if you believe, all things are possible” jump out at me.  They are not isolated statements. They are woven consistently through every physical healing with very little exception.

Today, however, when someone does not get healed, and one dares to raise the question of faith, emotional responses often claim that we’re “blaming the victim”.  But if that is true, why did Jesus talk so much about faith in those situations?

From that standpoint, the passage regarding food and clothing is not anything out of the ordinary for Jesus.  In fact, I think it is entirely consistent with the rest of his teaching.  Faith is an integral part of receiving what the Father provides.

Take the story of the prodigal son.  While he was sitting in the pig pen wishing he could eat the scraps he was feeding the pigs, was he a victim?  He was the son of a man who was providing everything he needed — food, clothing, shelter — and yet he had not received what his father was providing because he left home.  He was not a victim.  He received the consequences of his own choices.

Sometimes the situation is not so clear.  One may claim they are trusting God for their provision, but maybe they are hiding their own doubt and worry.  Maybe they are seeking after their own provisions and not really seeking first the kingdom of God, as Jesus instructed.  We can’t judge their hearts, obviously, but I think it doesn’t really make sense to just throw out the words of Jesus in our own lives because of what we think is going on in someone else’s.

Let me turn, now, to the second objection Sid raises.  I have to admit that Sid surprised me with this one, because Sid is usually very concerned about empirical evidence.  Verifiable facts.  And yet here, he throws in a highly hypothetical situation, rolling the dice of history and assuming that somehow he can roll the right number.

Sid says, “…of all the Christians who have died of starvation over the centuries, at least one of them trusted God in this way.”  This pits the statement of Jesus against some “odds” that seem pretty incredible.  I would argue that this is not a logical argument, and therefore is not valid.

It’s not able to be proven or disproven because we can’t go back through history and interview those who have died.  In fact, I would say that there is stronger evidence (eyewitness, even) for the resurrection of Jesus, yet Sid rejects that account, by his own admission.  Yet, in this case, Sid is willing to pit the words of Jesus against unknown, unverifiable, unrecorded “witnesses”.

All I can offer, Sid, is my own testimony.  My own eyewitness account.  I have shared some of these accounts on this blog and on the “Beyond the Box” podcast in the past, so I won’t recount them now.  But if there are any questions, I’ll gladly share them again.  I can’t answer for anyone else, but I have found the words of Jesus — all of them that we have recorded — to be accurate, truthful, and consistent in my life.  When I have trusted my Father, I have never been disappointed.  I have never been rejected by him.  And whatever he has promised has come to pass.  When I have not trusted him, I have found that the consequences of not trusting him have borne out the very promises he made — I have, indeed, reaped what I have sown.

Now, before I close, allow me to say a brief word about “faith”.  Hebrews 11:1 defines faith for us.  I like the way the New International Version words it: “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.”  Faith is not always based on what we see or what we can touch or what we can prove with our senses.  Faith believes that truth can sometimes supercede evidence.

I know that sounds wacky to some, but I hope you can understand where I’m coming from.  Right now, in fact, we are going through another mini-financial crisis in our family.  A check that was supposed to arrive over a week ago (a substantial part of our monthly income) has not arrived.  We honestly don’t know how we will pay for stuff this week.  Bills that are due, rent that will be due on the 1st, food and gas that are needed this week — we don’t know how we will pay for all of that.

But we trust.  Why? Because of our faith.  Because we know that God has promised.  And in addition to that faith, we have the track record behind us to prove it.  Whenever I have sought the kingdom of God first in my life, all of my needs have been provided for.  Sometimes in really cool “miraculous” ways, sometimes in much more ordinary ways.  But always, always, always, my Father has kept his word.

So, does believing that faith is something we possess and exercise put blame on someone else who doesn’t?  That’s not really the point.  The point is, Jesus said that we can trust the Father for this, and I have found it to be true in my life.  That is the testimony I provide.

Until next time,

steve

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

Currently, I’m working on the musical “Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat”, a well-known musical that is loosely based on the story of Joseph in Genesis.  We’ve been in production for several weeks now, and frankly, I’m having a blast playing the show.

Involved with our production is a youth choir from the region, many of whom are from Christian homes.  It’s been interesting to see the different perspective of some of the parents.

One person sent an email out to their homeschool group mailing list telling people that, even though their child was involved in the production, they would not be inviting anyone to the performances.  And they pretty much gave the impression that they didn’t think other Christians should see the show, either.  They proceeded to explain how they felt the story was not faithful to the biblical account of Joseph, and how the treatment of the incident with Potiphar’s wife was very risque, etc.

Now, let me say up front that yes, it’s a rather suggestive scene.  But let’s face it — that’s pretty much what happened!  In fact, if I recall correctly, the Bible indicates that Joseph fled the scene less than clothed because he left his outer clothing in the hands of Potiphar’s wife!  In our staging of the show, Joesph gets his shirt ripped off, but that’s it!

Now, contrast that with the discussion I had today at intermission with another mother of a child in the choir.  She, too, is a homeschooler and Christian, and she talked to me about how much she was really enjoying the show.

Without giving specifics, I mentioned the perspective of the other mother.  The response of this mother was, “People aren’t coming to Sunday School when they come to see the show.” In other words, why expect biblical accuracy when attending a play loosely based on a biblical story?  Why should that even be something we expect or demand?

That got me thinking about the two perspectives — and how much I can identify with the second response.  Rather than judge a non-Christian theatre for performing a play loosely based on a Bible story, I’d rather take advantage of a situation which can spark dialogue.  And believe it or not, I have actually been part of several interesting discussions in the green room with cast and crew about this show.

One position says, “Stay away” and the other says, “Let’s put this in perspective.”  My question is, if our tactic is to avoid, how do we possibly shine light into darkness?  How do we possibly show Christ to a world that so desperately needs to see him and experience his love?

Did Jesus avoid the world? I don’t see how we could possibly construe his actions as anything but rubbing shoulders with people who didn’t even know how much they needed him.  And I’ve said it many times before, but his harshest words were for those who thought they were doing God favors!

So, let’s not avoid the world around us.  Let’s engage those around us. Dialogue with them. Listen to them. And by all means, if they’re doing something that doesn’t seem right to you as a believer, be mindful of where they’re at!  Should we expect someone (or an organization) that is not rooted in Christ to be consistent with Christ in its actions?

I work in theatre.  I hear all kinds of language, the roughest of profanity.  I see all sorts of lifestyle choices.  There are many things that I would not choose for myself.  But I can be myself and maybe others will ask me for a reason for the hope that lies within me.

Until next time (whenever that may be!),

steve

This new podcast is another one that I’m excited to share with you because it not only involves topics that I care about, but it’s also my lovely wife’s podcasting debut.  That’s right! Christy and I are co-hosting a brand new podcast called “It’s Really That Simple“.  And the URL to find it is “really that simple”, as well: ItsReallyThatSimple.com (just make sure you leave the apostrophe out of “It’s”, or just drop the first word altogether and go to ReallyThatSimple.com – that will work just as well!).

This podcast does not venture into the theological minefields that Beyond the Box does.  But it does address simplicity in a multitude of areas, from faith to education to nutrition.

So come on over to “It’s Really That Simple” (not available in iTunes yet, but will be soon) and take a listen to the newest husband/wife podcasting team on the ‘net!

Until next time,

steve

• I am so thankful that my Father watches over me and cares about every detail of my life.  His care for me is evident every day, and I can’t express the depth of my gratitude.
• I am so thankful for a beautiful, loving, wonderful wife who supports me in so many ways and gives me opportunities to support and show my love for her, too.
• I am so thankful for two children who bring joy to my life.  While being a parent is often tricky, I could not be happier as a dad.  The fact that both children have come into my life through adoption reminds me on a daily basis of the joy of being adopted into my Father’s family.
• I am so thankful for the recent move to Abingdon, VA.  I haven’t changed the graphic in the “About Me” section of the sidebar yet to reflect our move, but we are now officially residents of Virginia.  The details of how we ended up in Abingdon remind me of the tremendous provision of our loving Father.
• I am so thankful to be able to do things that I enjoy doing for “work”.  My work stays varied enough and interesting enough to actually be fun.
• I am so thankful that my work often gives me the ability to be home with my family.  There are stretches of time where the schedule gets difficult, but there are many more times where I can stay home and spend time with my lovely wife and children.
• I am so thankful for blog readers who often encourage me.  Especially when it’s weeks or even months between blog posts, and yet they keep coming back to read!
• I am so thankful to be a part of a podcast that is actually encouraging people.  The comments we have been receiving on our (mostly) weekly episodes humble me.
• I am so thankful to be able to minister to people through my music.  There was a time when I realized that I was nowhere near worthy of being used by our Father to touch others’ lives, but I have come to relax in the joy of knowing that I am worthy because of Christ.

These are just a few of the things that I am thankful for.  What about you?  The comments are open for you to share things that you are thankful for.  And to my brothers and sisters reading this in the United States, have a blessed and wonderful Thanksgiving day!  To my brothers and sisters outside the US, this is a good day to give thanks anyway!

steve

Barb, blogging at A Former Leader, wrote a post called “Husband Replacement“. While the major gist of the post is not what I’m trying to blog about here, she wrote a few sentences that I find really pertinent to this question about how we measure spirituality and “leadership”.

I measured [my husband] Marshall for so many years by a measuring stick that was skewed. On one stick was all the things that I thought made you a good Christian – things like being faithful to daily Bible reading, memorizing, journaling, church attendance and fulfilling all the expectations of the leader of whatever church we were in. On the other stick – (God’s stick, btw) – were things like faithfulness, kindness, loving the unlovely, willingness to help me and others, love for his kids, the ability to laugh with those who laugh and weep with those who weep. If I were to have used the right stick he was head and shoulders above any one I knew.

How often do we judge leaders (or just any Christian) based on their faithfulness to the checklist? You know the checklist I’m talking about. All those things we have been taught indicate that we’re a “good Christian”. We honor church attendance, scripture memorization, etc. Yet how often do we look at the relationships people have? How often do we look at how their heart is displayed in their life?

To paraphrase Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, you can memorize scripture, journal diligently, attend anytime the church doors are opened, etc., but if you don’t have love (or, I would add, any of the other fruit of the Spirit), it is completely worthless.

I think this goes along with a post that Alan Knox recently reposted regarding the story we usually call “the good Samaritan”. The one who didn’t have his theology “correct” becomes the hero of the story. He becomes the one Jesus offers as the model to follow. Why? Because he lived it out.

Until next time,
steve