This morning I got a spam e-mail from a friend of mine asking me to forward it on if I think that In God We Trust should be kept on our money and One Nation Under God kept in the pledge - if I think the word God should be kept in American culture. Also this morning, some idiot wrote to our local paper about a lawsuit over North Carolina's "I believe" license plates.

First, I want to know what the people down in North Carolina are claiming to believe in? Jesus? Krishna? Muhammed? Buddha? UFO's? Seriously, what purpose do those license plates serve other than looking cheesy?But, more importantly, it seems to me that some people think that things like having, "In God We Trust" on our money or license plates that say, "I believe" will somehow act as a lucky rabbit's foot and prevent bad things from happening to us as a nation. But, where in the world does the Bible give the impression that God gives a rip about these things? The Bible says that God wants "mercy not sacrifice." The Bible says that God wants us "to love as I have loved." The Bible says that God wants us to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, visit the prisoner, clothe the naked, etc (Matthew 25). The Bible says that the sin of Sodom was NOT homosexuality or sexual license, it was, ""arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy." (Ezekiel 16:49) Matthew 25 makes it clear that THIS will be the standard by which Christians will be judged. Note that in this parable both the sheep and the goats call Him Lord- they're ALL Christians- but half don't make the cut. The Bible tells us that Jesus will tell the goats, "Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Wilberforce says, "We attempt to paint God in such a way that He could never be so harsh. This was the same error made by Adam and Even in the Garden."

William Wilberforce said, "Those who hold the biblical doctrines of the work of Christ as the basis of acceptance tend to take the Bible's instructions concerning righteous living more seriously. Those who have created a system of their own tend to water down what is required in the practice of their faith. They also tend to create standards of behavior that fit their own lifestyles; standards they know they can meet without the need of supernatural assistance. They outcome is a way of life that is characterized by ignorance and conceit." He then goes on to say, ""When a society defines its own morality and then applies it to itself, that society can justify its own serious breaches of character. It is able to lower the standard to the detriment of all."

Rich Mullins said, "Jesus said whatever you do to the least of these my brothers you’ve done it to me. And this is what I’ve come to think. That if I want to identify fully with Jesus Christ, who I claim to be my savior and Lord, the best way that I can do that is to identify with the poor. This I know will go against the teachings of all the popular evangelical preachers. But they’re just wrong. They’re not bad, they’re just wrong. Christianity is not about building an absolutely secure little niche in the world where you can live with your perfect little wife and your perfect little children in a beautiful little house where you have no gays or minority groups anywhere near you. Christianity is about learning to love like Jesus loved and Jesus loved the poor and Jesus loved the broken."

James Madison said, "Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

This is the response someone gave to me on Internet Monk (not Internet Monk, himself)

aliasmoi re:“NASB apparently mistranslated Rom. 16:7 to
make Junia a male. They not only refer to her as Kinsmen, but call her Junias -
a name that didn’t even exist at the time of Paul.”
Though the Greek text does list Junia as female, it also lists “kinsmen”, and “fellow prisoners”, as male. Furthermore, it is not necessary or even desirable to interpret the verse to suggest that she was an apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ on par with the
twelve or Paul. There is neither a Biblical, historical nor textual basis for that assumption. Please note the following verse;2Co 8:23;“Whether any do
enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our
brethren be enquired of, they are the “messengers” of the churches, and the
glory of Christ.” In this text, the word translated “messengers” could just as
well have been translated “apostles”.
In the Bible, the Greek word “apostolos” is used and translated in numerous ways. There were both;1) The twelve Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.2) Paul, an Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ to the Gentiles.3) Messengers of the churches. Number three is like a missionary sent by the churches. There were and are many female missionaries.

My response back to him was:

But, in my translation (NASB) it says apostle. As a matter of fact, I think it says apostle in ALL of the translations. Most of the entirely too many articles I’ve read about this now, say apostle is what they meant. But, even supposing that it meant messenger - that would still have her being a preacher which according to a lot of these male types simply could not have been since she committed the unforgivable sin of being born with a uterus.

I would also add that I only know enough Greek to be a pain in the neck at church. But, in Latin and Spanish - if there is both male and female together - then the male form is automatically used. Hence, the desription “kinsmen” in Greek. However, English doesn’t work like that, and translators that were worth their salt should know that.

Internet Monk just had to piss in my cornflakes this morning by blogging about women in ministry. Now, this is a subject that hasbeen debated to death. I sincerely doubt that either side really hears the other. They just lob theological bombs at eachother. But, for too many women, myself included, this subject is nothing short of soul killing. Once upon a time people used to Bible to justify slavery, segregation, and any number of things we now acknowlege are not just wrong but evil.

Here's something I never knew before today. Romans 16:7 makes reference to two people named Andronicus and Junia, and says they're both apostles. Here's what I never knew before today: Junia is a female name. Here's why I never knew it before today: The New American Standard, my prefered translation since I was in college, deliberately mistranslates this passage and changes her name to the masculine Junias, and refers to and Andronicus as Paul's kinsmen - again implying that they're both male. Other translations say either kin or relatives. I mean even the King James says relatives. In his sermon on women in ministry, N.T. Wright aludes that there was a dust-up in the translation of the NIV because those translators wanted to mistranslate and make Junia male. But, apparently they did the right thing. I might have to switch back to NIV. This link blames the perversion of Junia's name on Pope Boniface VIII. I don't buy it. Sorry. The translators of all the assorted translations claim to have translated from original Greek/Hebrew manscripts - that predate Boniface by hundreds of years. The verse is mistranslated because the translators CHOSE to mistranslate it because their doctrinal understanding of women in ministry - based on TWO comments by Paul - was more important to them than getting it right. I feel downright deceived and betrayed by the translators of the NASB.

For those of you who care here's my comments to Imonk's post.

I really think that slamming my head into my desk repeatedly would be a more
productive use of my time than taking part in this conversation. But, I must point out that the Greek word diakonos, which is translated as deacon or minister for men is translated servant for women. Oh gee - some deliberate distortion of the original text by translators? Maybe.

Young’s Literal Translation translates Romans 16:1 as, “And I commend you to Phebe our sister — being a ministrant of the assembly that is in Cenchrea”
Also, let the record show that Mary Magdeline was, in fact, the firt person to preach the Gospel (the news that Jesus was raised from the dead), and all those know-it-all men did not believe her.

Furthermore, I thought SBC claimed to believe in the WHOLE Bible, not just a
few references by Paul that were written to a specific time and place, and
honestly probably wasn’t meant to be for all time. Paul was writing to people
who came from one of the most misogynistic societies in the ancient world. He was
not going to let a women’s movement in the church hinder the spread of the
Gospel - which is EXACTLY what would have happened.

So, I give to you Deborah - a judge and a leader of Israel. I give to you Phoebe a deacon/minister in the church. I give to you Prisca - Acts 18:26
tells us that she and Aquilla BOTH taught Apollos the ways of God. Anytime, Paul
mentions Aquilla he mentions Prisca. Their names are always in tandem, and she
is credited as doing all of the things her husband did. They were a team.

Finally, these never ending discussions about the role of women in the
church is nothing short of soul killing for many women. As someone pointed out,
it sounds more like a discussion worthy of the Taliban. How many women either 1)
won’t come to Christ because you all portray the church as a misogynistic boys
club, or 2) have left the church because of it? Wasn’t there a post a while back
from a former woman pastor who now says she is camping in the yard of the
church?

You base your entire world view on TWO verses by Paul when the entire
rest of the Bible - including other writings of Paul’s - would support the idea
that - Yeah, women can be in these roles. Really, this rates up there with when
certain denominations (SBC included) used scripture to justify slavery. You need
to feel superior to someone. It can’t be blacks anymore, so you’re going to demean women.

I’m going to go bang my head on my desk for awhile

Roger said:
Theodicy, in other words – the attempt to reconcile God’s perfect goodness with the manifest evils of His world – has arisen from the waves. On the retro, fundamentalist side, various clergymen of the cloth announced that the tsunami was the rational act of a deity enraged by (take your pick): the suppression of Christianity in South Asia, pornography and child trafficking in that same locale, or, in the view of some Muslim commntators, the bikini-clad tourists at Phuket. [Aside - this makes as much sense as the Kansas Westboro nutjobs connecting Iraq and homosexuality. I also find it a gross offense to presume that all those flying a fundamental or literal banner would figure that the tidal wave was some sort of just punishment.] On the more liberal end of the theological spectrum, God’s spokespeople hastened to stuff their fingers in the dike even as the floodwaters of doubt washed over it. Of course God exists seems to be the general consensus. And of course He is perfectly good. It’s just that His jurisdiction doesn’t extend to tectonic plates. Or maybe it does and he tosses us an occasional grenade like this just to see how quickly was can mobilize to clean up the damage. Besides, as the Catholic priests like to remind us, “He’s a ‘mystery,’ “ . . .

I love the word Theodicy. For one thing, it's fun to say. For another thing, although it means, A vindication of God's goodness and justice in the face of the existence of evil, it sounds like it could mean theological idiocy, which is what I often think when I read explanations like the ones above. God doesn't need the likes of us to vindicate or justify him. He's God. His ways and his thoughts are highter than mine (Isaiah 55:9) More theological idiocy. I won't say God doesn't punish people because the people of Sodom and Gomorah would probably beg to differ, and as Wilberforce said thinking God could never be so cruel as to do ....... is the mistake that Adam and Eve made in the garden. But, when Jesus died on the cross, he took the punishment for all the sins of all the world onto himself. I really don't think (I could be wrong) that the world has seen God's wrath since Jesus did that. God doesn't need to give us a big holy whack because Jesus already suffered His ultimate holy whack for us all. Like I said in my other post, I think what we have seen is God allowing us to suffer the consequences of our actions. But, that's not the point of today's theological pothole. My point is that when the fundies come up with these brilliant explanations for why God didn't stop the tsnami - that the real reason that they do that - is because then they don't have a share in the guilt.

Every manjack one of us is responsible for global warming - without exception. I don't care how many indulgences carbon credits you buy. We're all guilty. But, those fundy goof balls want to be all smug and holy, and not accept their part in the guilt. Well, that's wrong, and it is a sin in and of itself. It is 1) lying, 2) pride. Bonhoeffer said, "Jesus took upon Himself the guilt of all men, and for that reason every man who acts responsibly becomes guilty. If any man tries to escape the guilt in responsibility he detaches himself from the ultimate realtiy of human existence, and what is more he cuts himself off from the redeeming mystery of Christ's bearing guilt without sin and he has no share in the devine justification which lies upon this event."

Roger's got a post on his blog about God owing humanity an apology because he *allows* or causes bad things to happen. His most recent example was the thousands of lives lost in the Tsnami, the goat f'k that was Katrina, etc. To begin my theological position, you have to accept that The Fall happened, and when The Fall happened it was not just human beings that fell. All of Creation fell. The book of Romans says that all of Creation groans to be set free from the curse of the fall/the return of Christ. See also Jeremiah 12.

But, back to the point at hand - I believe that when God *allows* bad things to happen what He's really allowing is for us to have to deal with the consequences of our own actions? Who caused The Fall? The Serpent had a really slick argument to entice them, but ultimately it was their choice to chomp on the apple. So, human beings caused The Fall, and all of creation suffered for it. In response to the increase in the frequency and ferocity of natural disasters, Al Gore tells us that Global Warming is causing this. Who causes Global Warming? We do. We didn't have to. For as far back as I can remember, scientists have been warning about Global Warming. But, until recently, has anyone really been doing anything to cut down on our greenhouse emissions? Nope. We exercised our own freewill to ignore all the warnings - to not recycle, to not conserve, to drive gas guzzling tanks, build a city below sea level and then have no real plan of evacuation for those people living there, etc, etc. We did it. Not God, us.

I don't think there's a single one among us who seriously wishes God hadn't given us Free Will. But, when we rage at God for allowing us to suffer the consequences of exercising our Free Will, isn't that exactly what we're saying? That we wish He hadn't given us Free Will? Or, are we saying that we just don't want to take the consequences of Free Will? We want to sow our wild oats, and then get mad at God for not giving us a crop failure. Isn't that 1) unbelievably ungreatful, 2) unbelievably arrogant? Who the heck do we think we are to judge God? If God stopped paying attention to us for one nano-second, we would cease to exist.

C.S. Lewis said: "The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. He is a quite kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence forbeing the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God in the Dock."

"No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit." 1 Cor 12:3. In other words, the Holy Spirit is so important to the enlightened understanding of the true Christian that he cannot so much as affirm that Jesus is Lord without the Spirit's assistance. This it is insinuated that even though the things of the gospel are true in themselves, they are as lies if they are not uttered in and by that primciple and Spirit which should properly activate and direct the mind in such matters. When they are uttered without the Spirit, they are like the words of actors upon a stage or the prattling of a parrot who has been taught a few words. A parrot can even learn to utter a rational sentence, just as the intellect of a man can learn the words or writings of spiritual men. But these words are not true unless they come from the spiritual rather than the rational principle." - Robert Barclay, Apology

Son, I Have Failed You....

Not long ago Imonk made the point of how pervasive the properity gospel is in American evangelical churches. He said most evangelicals buy into this rot at least to a certain extent. Really, I can't argue with him. I bought into it a little when I was young, but then my bullshit meter kicked in. And, I knew that every now and then it would rear it's ugly head in church, but no church is perfect right? Having a working brain means that it's my responsibility to filter out the crap. What never crossed my mind is what were they teaching my beautiful boy down in children's church. Well, I did. I worried about what they were teaching him regarding "The End Times." I've had many conversations with Spawn about that when they would show the kids movies meant to scare them. I looked at the art work he was bringing up from children's church. I trusted in the youth leaders as good people. What didn't ever cross my mind for some stupid reason was that the youth leaders so desperate to get the kids to say The Prayer were pushing the name it and claim it prosperity gospel on the kids harder than they were with the adults. Some of Spawn's faith issues appear to stem from the fact that he's tried to name and claim things, and of course he didn't get them. He didn't understand why his whole world was wrong when he'd prayed some prayer. I can't help but wonder if this isn't part of his ongoing problems with depression, and his current rebellion in the form of saying he's going to join the Marines.

Last night I went to EMU's library and checked out a DVD documentary about Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I hijacked my own television - usually under the control of Spawn and Pretty Girl - and demanded Spawn put it on. To my surprise, Spawn actually paid attention. At the end, I mentioned that one of the things I read online was that when the Nazis hanged Bonhoeffer that instead of a traditional hanging that Bonhoeffer was hanged with a piano wire that was pulled tight gradually. It would have taken about half an hour for him to die. At that point Spawn scoffed and said, "I bet he was so glad God was looking out for him." I was about to lob a couch pillow across the room at him, but instead said, "Son, God didn't spare His own Son from being crucified! Eleven out of the twelve apostles (counting Mathias and not Judas) were martyred. Peter was crucified upside down! What gives you this idea that just because you say you believe in Jesus, you won't have any problems? He's not a lucky charm!" Then, I semi-quoted Bonhoeffer and said, "When He calls you, He calls you to die." Spawn was speechless because what I said - Bonhoeffer's entire life testimony - was completely contrary to things he'd heard in church.

Spiritual or Relgious?

I'm on a mailing list for "Conservative Friends." Someone in England sent out a message saying some Anglican priest he knows just got back from here and made the very broad statement of America is the most religious country in the world but also the least spiritual, and he wanted to know what we thought of that.

My first thought was, "Your priest friend can kiss my American behind." But, then I started thinking about it. What do you mean by religious or spiritual? Here in The States my observation of people who say they are not religious but consider themselves spiritual is either that they've got a very New Age approach to religion - which is sort of like God's greatest hits. That or they don't seem to have any concrete belief at all - take great pride in the fact that they don't have any concrete beliefs because having them is politically incorrect, and the only thing they believe about God is that he's "nice," and "all-loving." Which basically means as long as you're not a murdering baby rapist, you're okay with God. The problem is I've known murdering baby rapists who could sit in my office and tell me all day long about why he's not a bad person because he's not as bad as that other guy over there.

Most of you know I went to Catholic School through 10th grade. I didn't know my family wasn't Catholic until my class went to First Common, and I was told (two days before) that I would not be going with them. For better or worse, the Catholic Chuch shaped my earliest impressions of Christianity. We (the whole school) went to Mass at least once a month, and I sometimes even went voluntarily on Sunday when I was old enough to go alone. To this day, there is something deeply comforting and dare I say it - spiritual - about a Catholic Mass for me. Most Evangelicals and Friends would poo-poo learning to recite prayers from memory. They'd dismiss it as religious as opposed to spiritual. But, here's the thing - in times of great stress - fear, sickness, whatever - it's the prayers I learned as a young child that jump to my mind. In late 1997/early 1998 when I had pneumonia, a temperature of 105, and absolutely no doubt that I was going to die, one of the few things I can remember is laying on the bed in the ER whispering, "Oh my God I am sorry that I have sinned..." The night before I went for that surgical biopsy, and I couldn't sleep, it was the same thing. When my mind wants to wander off in Meeting, I mentally recite the Our Father (the Lord's Prayer to most of you) over and over to bring it back. At home, I STILL have a set of rosary beads. I don't count out my prayers on them. There's something very soothing and calming about moving the beads back and forth in my hands, and something about looking down at them with that cross on the end that helps my mind stay focused on my prayers. I do NOT bring them to church or to meeting because of the offense they would cause to some. To this day, I still say (at least mentally) the same blessing I learned in 2nd grade, "Bless us, O Lord in these thy gifts..." To me, it just feels wrong to eat without it, and even if someone else says a grace that they thought up on the spot my brain is still saying, "Bless us, O Lord..."

Now, some of you are thinking, "But, it has no meaning. It's just something you memorized as a child. It doesn't come from the heart!" Nonsense! Deuteronomy 6 says: These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. In other words have them memorize it. Does anyone think that they actualy had me memorize these prayers and didn't try to explain what they meant? They were impressed upon my heart when I was still a child. So, in times of extreme stress, fear, sickness - in other words - in times when the mind shuts down and you couldn't possible think up the words on your own - these are the words that will bubble up out of your heart.