Right Texts, Wrong Prayers? On the Prayers at the Inauguaration

Tags

Franklin Graham's prayer, inauguration prayer, Rabbi Marvin Hier's prayer, Trump inauguration

Well, well, well, the day we’ve all anticipated has finally arrived. As expected, as one of my non-Christian friends remarked, it has turned into a church service. As expected, there’s plenty to ponder in the ceremony. I’m only going to ponder on the thin slice of that event, the scriptural quotation of the rabbi Marvin Hier and the Christian leader Franklin Graham. The reason why I pick on these two isn’t because I hate them. Far from it. I love them enough to provide some corrections to their scriptural quotation to save them from divine wrath. I’m only half kidding. My concern of course is the claim by many evangelicals that Trump could be the “most Christian” of all presidents. If he’s the most Christian, at least he should surround himself with people who know the sacred scripture of the faith. Apparently, the evidence points the opposite direction.

Rabbi Hier quoted from Psalm 137. “By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept when we remembered Zion…” If you prefer the musical version, here’s one by Boney M. The problem is this. Jewish refugees and exiles wrote the psalm when they were captured by the Babylonians. Trump has already made it very clear that he doesn’t want any “illegal immigrants”, those who seek asylum in the US. His followers by and large are anti-refugees, especially those refugees from Muslim war-torn countries. For the rabbi to pray the prayer of the refugees is an insult to the suffering of his own people. The Psalm also calls a curse upon those who created the refugee crisis (and that goes for both sides of the political divide).

It ends with these harrowing imprecations,

“Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
    happy is the one who repays you
    according to what you have done to us.
 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
    and dashes them against the rocks.”

Are we really ready for that prayer? Are we ready to call that curse upon anyone who caused those crisis (including our own foreign policy makers)? PERHAPS, the rabbi inadvertently prayed this prayer appropriately for this occasion. Who knows? What irony!

Then comes Franklin Graham. He quotes from 1 Timothy 2.1-6, “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.”

Now, there’s nothing wrong with praying for kings and those in authority. I believe in that as a Christian. However, I think Graham has failed to notice that the context for that prayer is for a church service. In 1 Timothy 2.8, the author wrote, “I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.” The raised hands were the gesture of prayer in first-century church services. Did Graham notice that he really isn’t in a church service? By conducting himself in this way, he gives the impression that the inauguration is a church service. He may think that it’s quite a great marketing (i.e. evangelism) for the church, but I assure every reader that all my unbeliever friends are outright turned off by this pseudo-church service. Evangelical Christianity has mastered the art of lousy marketing. 

Well, as is fitting for this day, I’m going to add my own quote. I saw this quote from my buddy Doug Jantz. When Israel conducted its first unofficial election back in the time of David, they elected to have Saul to be their king, and that election turned out to be a disaster. This is most fitting for evangelicals who put their trust in politicians (on both sides, but especially those who say that Trump is God’s man), kings and king makers. Listen to the prophet Samuel from 1 Samuel 8.10-12, 18.

“Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, ‘These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots…And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day’.”

Let that sink in!

 

“If Any of You Are Without Sin …”: Trump and Evangelical Illiteracy

Tags

adulterous woman, Donald Trump, evangelical support of Trump, James Dobson, John 7.53-8.11, Trump lewd comments

“If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw stone …”
John 8.7 (NIV)

Today, I’m going to comment on a classically misunderstood verse that isn’t even covered in Right Texts, Wrong Meanings. I normally don’t comment on John 7.53-8.11 as this passage seems to be a late addition, but its frequent quotation has forced me to comment on it. A Christian leader no less than James Dobson says, “I do not condone nor defend Donald Trump’s terrible comments made 11 years ago. They are indefensible and awful. I’m sure there are other misdeeds in his past, although as Jesus said, ‘Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,’ I am, however, more concerned about America’s future than Donald Trump’s past. I wonder about how Bill Clinton’s language stands up in private.” This post will show how Dobson’s quotation of John 8.7 is a complete travesty of biblical hermeneutics and literacy.

The story of John 8 is simple. A woman was caught in the act of adultery, most likely in the heat of copulation, and the Pharisees wanted to stone her to death. Jesus asked whether anyone was without sin. Everyone left, and no one condemned her. Dobson and his fan base of course take this as a perfect analogy to Trump’s sexual transgressions. However, the analogy is completely misplaced in the following ways.

The nature of sexual sins is different. In the woman’s case, she was having consensual adulterous sex. While adultery is wrong, it was at least consensual. When Donald Trump says, “I’ve gotta use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful ― I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait… And when you’re a star they let you do it. You can do anything…Grab them by the pussy…You can do anything…” Trump just described sexual assault in a few short and lewd sentencet. To many, this happened more than 10 years ago, but sexual assault is the same crime 10 years, 20 years or even 100 years ago. The women gave no consent. Many would find this to be a locker room talk of macho male fantasy. The problem is, Trump has also had allegations launched against him on sexual assault, on peeping at naked underaged Miss Teen USA pageant contestants, and even one pending rape case of a 13 year old girl Katie Johnson. The pattern has never been consensual, locker room fantasy or otherwise. So, please stop analogizing the sin of the adulterous woman with that of Trump. The usage of John 8.7 is immoral!

The problem is never the allegation of sin. Some who look at Trump’s situation are saying that perhaps we should be more forgiving and not judge a man’s words so harshly. In other words, we must silence the critics using religious language. When we look at the story of John 8, Jesus never denied that fact that the woman was sinful. In fact, the language he used in John 8.11 “Neither do I condemn you” is highly legal. Jesus didn’t really pronounce forgiveness per se. He only spared her life. The real person she needed to ask forgiveness should be her husband, but the Bible doesn’t really talk about that. Many want to dismiss Trump’s talk as just locker room stuff, but the locker room stuff appears to be confession of a rape culture that shouldn’t exist in any room, locker room or otherwise. Forgiveness? How about Trump ask forgiveness from those women he groped, but no, he didn’t do that! We don’t have the right or authority to forgive Trump. We aren’t rape victims or victims of sexual harassment. The easy dismissal of a serial behavior from a future leader of the US by Christians makes mockery of all Christian ethics. This easy forgiveness is the reason why sexual abuse is so prevalent in conservative Christian circles (whether Protestant or Catholic). Jesus took sin seriously by using legal language. So should Christians. The usage of John 8.7 mocks the very God on whom this faith is found.

The power relationships between the adulterous woman and Trump are different. Remember the context of the adulterous woman. The Pharisees wanted to stone her. When I read a story like this, I always wonder where the man who committed the crime was. The absence of the adulterous man shows that she was used as a tool to test Jesus. The Pharisees here weren’t after real justice. They merely wanted to force Jesus’ hand in condemning her to death. She was a helpless victim caught in the power game of a society of unequal power between men and women. Trump is far from the status of the powerless. In fact, he’s one of the most powerful men whose accountants and lawyers are capable to help him avoid taxation while he makes millions. We should fix the tax code that enables him to do that. He also acts in a powerful role in the harassment of many women. I know someone’s going to inevitably bring up Bill Clinton. If Clinton harassed women or committed adultery, he’s also wrong, but we’re ONLY talking Trump because evangelicals aren’t using John 8 to defend Clinton at the moment. The status between the adulterous woman and Trump are as far as heaven is from hell. While she was just trying to escape with her life. She wasn’t trying to be the king of Israel.  Trump is going for the most powerful position in the free world. The usage of John 8.7 misunderstands both the worlds of Jesus and of Trump.

The situations of the woman’s and Trump are completely different. We must notice that Jesus was quite serious about the adulterous woman’s sin. He never denied it. At the same time, after he dismissed her, he didn’t come out to say that she’s now serving as the paragon of purity. No, Jesus wouldn’t say that. Trump however flippantly dismisses his own moral downfall, and then turns around and says, ” He’s ready to take on one of the most powerful political positions in the world. He isn’t going away like the adulterous woman. While he uses words of repentance, he doesn’t bear the fruits of repentance. In fact, Trump claims, “I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do.” How can we trust a man who says one thing but does another? Apparently, Trump’s evangelical supporters are asking us to do exactly that. This sort of ethical suicide is what gives evangelicals a bad name. Again, I’m not saying that Hillary is all that honest, but the evangelicals aren’t using John 8 to support her now, are they? In fact, they really want to stone her. The usage of John 8.7 is a double standard that has plagued evangelicals for ages that has now made the entire movement a running joke.

Whatever one thinks of Hillary (and I’m really not a fan), we can’t dismiss the fact that the failure of evangelical leadership in this election boils down to a kind of dire biblical illiteracy that has infiltrated its ranks. Perhaps, if they REALLY read their Bibles instead of messing about with powerful political people (on all sides), they’d do better as a moral authority. Until then, they’ve become a moral joke.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault. The interpreter is!

Christian Getting Tattoos, Piercings and Other Silly Controversies VII: But not every scriptural quotation is beneficial

Tags

1 Corinthians 10.23

Everything is permissible”–but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”–but not everything is constructive.    1 Corinthians 10.23

 

This is the last of the series on silly controversies in the church, sparked off by a discussion on someone’s Facebook on tattoos and piercings (along with smoking and drinking).  As a matter of review, we’ve dealt with the following six silly objections thus far. First, someone would say, “I don’t like it. Therefore it’s wrong.”  Second, “Maybe he’s doing it for the gospel. The problem is why someone is getting ink.”  Third, “the body is the temple of God. By inking it, the owner shows disrespect towards God’s creation.”  Fourth, “someone may stumble.” Fifth, “the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible says that getting tats is wrong.” Sixth, “It’s a cultural problem … you don’t understand what tattoos and piercings mean in our culture.”  We have now come to our seventh objection, “Everything is permissible–but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible–but not everything is constructive.”

 

This is a common (mis)quotation of 1 Corinthians 10.23 that seems to be the magical key to cover all controversial issues, often by someone who wants to forbid a certain practice in church, no matter what that practice is.

 

This is yet one ore perfect sample text for a book on exegetical fallacies. Since I didn’t deal with it in my Right Texts, Wrong Meanings book, I will deal with it here to demonstrate the utter absurdity of using scripture in this way.

 

1 Corinthians 10.23a “Everything is permissible” is often viewed (correctly) by scholars to be the voice of the agitators in Corinth. Therefore, the NIV translation puts it in quotation marks. What is everything being permissible? Within context, Paul was talking about Old Testament food laws that might have caused confusion among his converts. Certainly, none of the food was sinful in itself, but the ones used in the pagan temple ceremony where participation in the ritual occurred (10.18-20). As a result, the situation causes further confusion in the table of the Lord’s Supper (10.21).

 

The vocabulary of the wider context deserves examination. 1 Corinthians 8.1, 4, 7, and 10.19 provide the context because the “food sacrificed to idols” literally translates “idol meat”. The same word occurs in 10.28 has a different word “offered in sacrifice” to describe the food eaten. The word can be translated “set apart thing” or “sacred thing”. Most likely, the meat here that was set apart was sold. On the one hand, just prior to the 10.23 quote, 10.19 talks of meat that was part of the temple meal. The same meat required participation in temple ceremony in order to eat. Would that be ideal? Paul said, “No.” On the other hand, the imaginary dialogue partner refuted Paul by saying, “Everything is permissible.”

 

So, Paul used a different vocabulary that follows 10.23 that shows not the stuff in the temple that required participation but stuff that was possibly sold from the temple for profit in the marketplace. In order to understand the issue, we must understand the background. In the marketplace, the top grade meat ought to have come out of the temple. Due to the excessive amount of meat, the temple would sell its meat to the market to make more money. Of course, the grade of meat sold out to the market was very good. Whenever someone wanted to throw a banquet, he would go to the market and pick out the meat. As a matter of courtesy, he would pick out good meat. The problem remains however that no one could tell whether the meat had been used in the temple or not.  The safest bet of course was to take the extreme measure of being a vegetarian but no one threw a vegetarian banquet.  This was the situation of 10.23ff. The whole situation created a realistic and awkward moment for Paul’s congregation. Within context, the congregation also had regular banquet fellowship where the Lord’s Supper was part of the procedures (cf. 11.17-22, 33). Now, the church could well get the meat without asking too many questions and she was certainly free to do so. A good piece of meat surely didn’t have the magical power to curse the eater.

 

Now, the issue becomes complicated when the believer got invited by an unbeliever to eat. That was the situation of 10.23-11.1. The freedom to eat would cause someone with a bad conscience to think that the church community meal was similar to that of the temple (10.27-29). In other words, the participant at the unbeliever’s banquet was so fixated in his mind that eating this meat was the same as worshipping false gods that no explanation would do other than total refrain from eating the meat. In other words, the central core teaching of monotheism was at stark due to misunderstanding. As a result, Paul advised restraint from eating the meat.

 

Three issues surface. First, the situation directly relates to worshipping false gods. Second, the situation directly relates to a problem of causing others to misunderstand the central belief of the faith. So, when Paul said to eat and drink to the glory of God in 10.31, he meant that the believer ought not to cause others to stumble in their understanding of what the true faith was. This was not a mere case of sacrificing for the gospel without understanding what the core belief of the gospel. This sacrifice directly related to the core belief.

 

As my last six blog posts in the series demonstrate, tattoos, piercings, smoking and drinking aren’t part of the core belief of Christian faith. No monotheistic belief was violated. No morality was compromised. Even if someone disagrees with me on the exact situation Paul was addressing, tattoos, piercings, smoking and drinking cant’ fit in there. By fitting them in there, we’re trivializing Paul’s gospel and his main concern. Some people may not like it, but my exact understanding of the context of 1 Corinthians 10.23 is what the church needs. People shouldn’t quote something out of context so that they can abuse the power of scripture as a weapon against others. This is not what the church should do. So, rather than being careful of WHAT you quote, be careful HOW you quote!

 

After the demonstration of the utter fallacy of misquoting 1 Corinthians 10.23, I will say that the problem is never scripture.  The interpreter of scripture is often the problem.  A quote to apply in any situation is also an interpretation because not every situation fits that quote. The frequent hijacking and raping of scripture should stop, especially in churches that assert that they respect the authority of the Bible. The ones who claim to have the most respect often show the least.

Christians Getting Tattoos, Piercings and Other Silly Controversies V

Tags

Christian clothing, christians getting tattoos, Leviticus 19.28

This blog continues on the silliness of Christian controversies. The best place to look at the way Christians talk about tattoos is always the way they quote scripture because after all, scripture SEEMS to be the foundation for Christian practice. I said “seems” because honestly, what is apparent versus what is real is farther than a country mile.

 

 

The objections, by the way of review of previous blogs, are. First, someone would say, “I don’t like it. Therefore it’s wrong.”  Second, “Maybe he’s doing it for the gospel. The problem is why someone is getting ink.”  Third, “the body is the temple of God. By inking it, the owner shows disrespect towards God’s creation.”  Fourth, “someone may stumble.” Today, I deal with the fifth objection, “the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible says that getting tats is wrong.”

 

 

Getting the right outfit is always a challenge for me when I go out to speak. Why not? My biggest concern of course is whether my clothing matches. My other concern of course is whether through the course of the conference whether I can mix and match the right combination while minimizing luggage load. What does this have to do with Christian tattoos and piercing? Stay tuned.

 

 

Let’s see what the OT (aka the Hebrew Bible) actually says about the matter of tattoos. Leviticus 19.28 is a typical quote. It says, “Do not cut your bodies for the dead or put tattoo marks on yourselves. I am the LORD.” We know what it says, but what did it mean?

 

 

 

The cutting usually have to do with pagan mourning rituals. Surely, mourning via throwing of ashes on one’s head was allowed, but not cutting. The context of Leviticus 19.28 was in terms of worship. The verses that follow seem to talk about ritual prostitution as well. Thus, the best guess of all this discussion about body must be about pagan rituals. So such things apply to our lives today? If one says yes, then we must also apply the previous context about mixed breeding and mixed seeding. Sure, there are verses in the context that we consider relevant today such as honoring parents, but that’s because honoring parents have been repeated in NT teachings. The teaching about the body isn’t. Neither is the teaching about mixed fabric clothing.

 

Is the above discussion a bit silly? Yes. Those who quote Leviticus should make sure they wear clothing that is 100% cotton or they’d be in grave danger.

 

 

As I often say, scripture isn’t the problem, but its interpreters are. Make sure you check your clothing material label before buying next time just in case …By the way, for my image of this blog, I posed a picture of me in my Italian cotton sharkskin suit just in case anyone wants to check on whether my clothing is kosher. The shoes are also 100% Italian leather just in case… It’s silly, I know.

Christians Getting Tattoos, Piercings and Other Silly Controversies IV: Stumblers beware?

Tags

christians getting piercings, christians getting tattoos, stumbling other believers

This is part of a series of blog posts about silly controversies and the logical objections against certain practices. The ongoing debates about many such issues just demonstrate the utter biblical and theological illiteracy of many evangelical Christians.

 

Let me review the usual answers thus far, and I had already dealt with three of them in previous posts.  First, someone would say, “I don’t like it. Therefore it’s wrong.”  Second, “Maybe he’s doing it for the gospel. The problem is why someone is getting ink.”  Third, “the body is the temple of God. By inking it, the owner shows disrespect towards God’s creation.”  Today, we deal with the fourth objection, “someone may stumble.” Oh, gasp!

 

One conservative evangelical pastor was preaching one day, and afterwards, a listener told him that his tie had distracted him from his listening experience simply because of the fancy patterns. The preacher never wore that tie again in fear of stumbling someone who’s trying to listen to his sermon. This logic is alive and well.

 

“Someone may stumble” is the magical key that stops everyone from doing anything you don’t want him/her to do in a church setting. It’s a phrase the denote unspiritual disposition of the accused, albeit without trial of scripture or common logic. It’s a phrase that is bound to cause the ignorant to be completely paralyzed in fear, unless you aren’t ignorant. It’s the weapon of choice for the church police. Well, I hope my readers aren’t ignorant when it comes to this idea of stumbling.

 

In the NT, the Greek word for “stumble” is where we get our word “scandal” from, but it doesn’t have the same meaning. Although some usages seem to point towards a “positive” aspect to this word, let’s look at some cases of negative usage of that word before looking at the positive aspects. My list is brief and space doesn’t permit me to deal with each passage in exegetical details. Anyone interested in exegetical details can either read my books or other scholars’ commentaries.

 

The most negative usage of this word “stumbling” in the Greek language has to do with deliberately setting a trap, but there’re other less negative usages. In Jesus’ teachings in Matthew 13.41, 16.23, and 18.7, the word denotes something that causes sin or causing the messianic mission to fail (i.e., the failure to go to the cross). In Paul, the word could denote a kind of blindness to truth (Romans 9.33) possibly even caused by God (Romans 11.9). Hmmm, God caused stumbling? Wow, that’s a novel thought, no? In Paul’s ethical teachings in Romans 14.13, the word could mean that certain action would cause a fellow believer to sin in a religious and ritual manner (e.g., food laws) or falling on bad doctrines (Romans 16.17-18). In order for such a stumbling to happen, REAL (and NOT imaginary) sins and weaknesses had to exist first.

 

Contrary to popular Christian preaching (gosh, how I despise so much of what passes for popular preaching), stumbling can be less negative where the responsibility doesn’t fall on the one who causes stumbling but on the one who stumbles. Paul had stated in 1 Corinthians 1.23 that the gospel could be a stumbling block. The cross indeed was a stumbling block (Galatians 5.11).  In Peter’s letter, Jesus himself became the stumbling block in his mission because of the offense he caused (1 Peter 2.8). I’m by no means comparing all the people with tattoos and earrings to Jesus, but it is not enough to just appeal to stumbling as a principle to stop people from doing so. The problem isn’t whether stumbling happened, but what kind of stumbling happened and whose responsibility the stumbling is.

 

I recall meeting with leaders of this one conference who were extremely distressed by my earring. In desperation to get me to take it off, one pastor (poor guy) uttered the above magical phrase, “Someone may stumble.” Certainly, IF my wearing an earring or someone sporting a tattoo would cause someone to sin by falling into false doctrines or sexual immorality (really? Do I even need to go there? Do women ACTUALLY lust MORE towards guys with earrings and tattoos? Some are even concerned about my bald head.), the problem shouldn’t be ink or earring.  The problem ought to be solved by either psychologists or at least a heavy dose of pastoral counseling. That, in fact, was what I told the distressed pastor.

 

Well, in light of the above brief study, perhaps a bit of positive stumbling is what we need because I’m fairly sure no one was being prevented from going to the cross.  Perhaps an indignant person (or perhaps that pastor himself) ought to do a bit of positive stumbling and then examine why such a trivial matter becomes an essential of the gospel. The church doesn’t have enough positive stumbling these days.  Maybe someone’s tattoo or my earring had inadvertently become a kind of avant-garde performing art as part of our gospel preaching!  If my earring or someone else’s ink causes some positive stumbling, thank God! Maybe after the hypocrites pick themselves off the floor, they can do a little thinking with their Christian minds.

 

As I always say, scripture is not the problem but the interpreter often is. Many interpretations are possible but not all interpretations are beneficial!  As for that evangelical preacher with that fancy tie at the beginning of the sermon, I suggest that he goes tie-less next time. That would eliminate all the problems. Oh, wait! Maybe that won’t because surely someone will fault him for NOT wearing a tie and “stumbling” someone else in the process of listening. With knit-picking hypocrites in church, you simply can’t win. Church life can be a dog-eat-dog world!

 

 

Christians Getting Tattoos, Piercings and Other Silly Controversies III: Why can’t Paul say what I want him to say?

Tags

1 Corinthians 6.12-20, 1 Corinthians 6.15, 1 Corinthians 6.19

This is part of the blog series on silly controversies that really shouldn’t occupy our energy, but Christians occupy so much of their energy debating them that such topics deserve a series.  Almost all such controversies boil down to the simple objections below.

 

As a matter of review from last week’s blog, the Christian response to tattoos, piercings and other fashion controversies are as follows.  First, someone would say, “I don’t like it. Therefore it’s wrong.”  Second, “Maybe he’s doing it for the gospel. The problem is why someone is getting ink.”  Third, “the body is the temple of God. By inking it, the owner shows disrespect towards God’s creation.”  This week I will deal with the third objection.

 

Usually silly Christians would quote 1 Corinthians 6.12-20 at me.

 

¹² “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. ¹³ You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. ¹⁴ By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. ¹⁵ Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! ¹⁶ Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”¹⁷ But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.

¹⁸ Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. ¹⁹ Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; ²⁰ you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

 

Quite often they would compare smoking cigarets or cigars are parallel examples. The problem is both exegetical and logical.  First, the exegetical problem.

 

In the chapter 16 of my book, Right Texts, Wrong Meanings, I’ve dealt with this passage extensively, but I’ll apply it to the present situation. By the way of exegetical observation, 6.15 reads, “Do you know that your bodies (plural) are (should be “is” in singular) members (plural) of Christ himself?” The plural combined with singular has much to do with how each member affects the overall health of the Body of Christ. 6.19 reads, “Do you (plural) not know that your (plural) Body (singular) is a temple (singular) of the Holy Spirit, who is in  you (plural), whom you (plural)  have received from God?” The combination of the plural and singular here goes further than the affect the action of one’s body has on the Body of Christ, but the singular “body” here points to the Body of Christ being the singular temple. The whole idea that each individual Christian being a temple is total nonsense. No Christian individual is a temple. It’s the combined church Body that is the temple. So, before arguing this or that, silly Christians ought to read their Bibles (or necessarily have their pastors who know Greek explain to them the intricacies) first before quoting the text. Yet another example of using the text to further one’s morally hygienic ideology!

 

Now to the context! 1 Corinthians context deals with the situation of Corinth where one problem exists in its various forms.  1 Corinthians, at the start tells us that there’s division in the church. Thus, unity was the problem. Now, what causes disunity? Surely, not all causes of disunity are bad. For instance, Paul’s letter to the Galatians clearly told the Galatians to separate from the agitators! No, unity isn’t the absolute good. Paul in 1 Corinthians showed various illegitimate causes for disunity. One of them was having sex with prostitutes in 1 Corinthians 6.15-17. But Christians are just THIS silly in misquoting the passage and inadvertently equating tattoos, piercings, smoking and drinking with soliciting a prostitute. A little silliness isn’t harmless. A little silliness makes light of a very serious issue of degrading another human being (i.e., prostitution) via the vehicle of sexual objectification.

 

It almost sounds silly, but I think my approach to Scriptures is more conservative than many so-called conservative Christians. Sadly, the problem doesn’t end there. Let’s, for argument’s sake, say that the logic of “not harming my own body via tattoos and piercing or even smoking because the individual Christian body is God’s temple” is true. Let’s examine the utter lack of logic of such claimants.  Most people eat three meals a day. Most people eat less than optimal when it comes to sound nutrition. In Asia, there’s also the bad habit of midnight snacking. This is very true for many. In the US, there’s the habit of eating chips in front of prime time TV. All these habits do horrible harm to the body. If you’re an Asian reader and you love to eat rice, do you know that white rice does great harm to the body? How about quit eating rice? Most of us could lose a few pounds or could lose our skinny fat dad bod’s (even for young folks). I can put people on a weight training program with good diet and cardio to help them achieve their physical shape. Why don’t Christians denounce the lack of exercise in their preaching and their writings? I’ve yet to see anyone using the above logic to denounce such habits. Maybe I ought to start blogging about eating more vegetables and less McDonald’s while getting rid of white rice from our diet.  Maybe we should stipulate this or that diet for Christians to make sure they take care of their precious little temples, but we don’t. Why tattoos? Why piercings? (Certainly, my ear is fine and I’m doing great health-wise) Why those? Is it merely because we don’t like tattoos and piercings and want to use the Bible to bully those who do?

 

As I always say, Scripture is never the problem. Its interpreters are! Many interpretations are possible, but not every application is constructive!

Cheap Unity Again?: 2 Corinthians 6.14 and Occupy HK

Tags

2 Corinthians 6.14, Christian response to Hong Kong protest, Hong Kong protest, Occupy Hong Kong

14 Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? 15 What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16 What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:

“I will live with them
    and walk among them,
and I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.”

17 Therefore,

“Come out from them
    and be separate,
says the Lord.
Touch no unclean thing,
    and I will receive you.”

18 And,

“I will be a Father to you,
    and you will be my sons and daughters,
says the Lord Almighty.” 2 Corinthians 6.14-18 (NIV)

I’m going to blog about chapter 18 of my book. I’ve already blogged about it before as a negative example for how to use scripture. In my book, I’ve already established that the passage was not about marriage between believers and unbelievers. Rather, it is about unity between radically different value systems within the church possibly propagated by different parties. I believe this passage has huge implications for HK in the present climate among SOME pastors to call for unity. The Chinese Christian blog sphere also lit up with discontent and outrage.  I believe Paul’s teaching prohibits the church from a compromised unity.  In a situation where black and white are not neutralized by heavy shades of grey, perhaps, unity is not the answer, as we shall see below.

 

The passage talks about being yoked together possibly borrowing from farming practice of putting two different animals together to plow. In this metaphor, Paul was talking about working together with unbelievers, but was Paul’s writing a total prohibition on working with unbelievers? I don’t believe so. The subsequent verses show that certain anti-Christian results that came from working with unbelievers such as idolatry. In other words, you can’t work with unbelievers if the results go against the fundamentals of Christian value. For believers who may be tempted to link themselves to such anti-Christian values, they ought to separate themselves. This is the essence of Paul’s message. Let’s look at the HK situation.

 

The fault line between the two parties in the church is political where one party sides with the government and the other does not. Before we call for reconciliation and unity, let’s see what reconciliation consists of. The most successful example of recent history is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South African abolition of Apartheid. In fact, this bloodless revolution has caused other countries to form TRC’s, countries as varied as Colombia, Nigeria, Canada and so on. In reconciliation, those who are wrong do not get an easy escape. They confess that they’re wrong not because they hold a different opinion and reject others’ opinions, but because they actually hold the WRONG opinion about race and politics and must confess their falsehood. Bring that to HK. Can anyone honestly say that siding with the government that lies repeatedly to its own people is RIGHT? Is oppression and dishonesty part of our Christian value system?  We don’t need to sweep rubbish under the table right now. We need separation from lies. We need truth, even if that truth tears our church asunder.  This recent protest movement has become the mirror in the church to show where everyone stands in relation of oppression and dishonesty. We need those who have supported lies in the faith community to 1) confess their sins 2) to separate from such anti-Christian values. The preachers from those rich and large churches who have sided with governmental oppression should be the first to come out and confess their sins! I dare them to be an example to the flock by following Paul’s advice.

 

IF our church leaders are willing to take such harsh and courageous steps the way Desmond Tutu did, I’m all in favor of reconciliation and unity. Otherwise, count me out! So, if you want a Christian way to do unity and reconciliation, read, meditate and apply 2 Corinthians 6.14 for its real meaning instead of going for cheap unity because cheap unity will create more injury in the long run. So, for now, give me a break from this cheap unity talk because such unity is not just untenable; it’s immoral.

 

As I always say, the texts are not at fault. The interpreter is!

Render to Caesar … to God? Separation of Church and State in Hong Kong?

Tags

Hong Kong protest, Mark 12.13-17, Matthew 22.21, Occupy Hong Kong, Render to Caesar

It is fitting for this blog to be discussing the Hong Kong Occupy movement because that has been the hot topic right now. Hotter still is an open letter written by a head of a denominational seminary there (whose name will remain anonymous, let the readers understand) who argues for the separation of church and state as a part of the excuse for non-involvement in the dialogue on social justice. He cites Matthew and Mark on rendering to Caesar taxes as the proof texts for separation of church and state as well as political laissez faire. He basically says that due to the separation of the church and state, the church must remain completely neutral in the present state of affairs.  It is my honor and privilege to inform him that his proof text is blatantly WRONG. This blog will look at what such a text mean.

The Passage

In Mark 12.13-17, Jesus told the Pharisees and Herodians to give to Caesar what was Caesar’s and God what was God’s. The great irony of this account is the cooperation between groups that were originally not always friends. The Pharisees had led Judaism in Jesus’ day. The Herodians were the Caesar’s mid-level managers in the Judea area. Jesus’ ministries had brought potential enemies together. The passage itself shows that the two parties were trying to catch Jesus at his words. Jesus’ action was only to avoid getting caught with the words and nothing else. The Jews did not look upon Caesar’s image too kindly. Caesar was not merely the colonist who took over the Jewish land, but his image on a coin amounted to a kind of veneration given rightly to a divine being.

Although we may question whether full-blown Caesar worship existed in the time of Jesus or whether such veneration really attributed divine status to Caesar as coins seem to indicate, Jesus’ answer points out the tension without compromising either politically or religiously because Jesus’ answer can move either direction. First, He satisfied their inquiry by saying to give to the image of the coin. Second, He said to give to God what was God’s. In other words, Jesus was saying, “Why don’t you think about what is God’s? Then give accordingly.” It is an enigmatic answer that doesn’t provide a clear and direct answer.  This reply satisfied their inquiry of whether any of the money goes to God or to religious institution. We simply can’t make doctrine out of such a statement by Jesus. Its sarcasm is also quite pointed because the Pharisees surely knew that everything belonged to YHWH their God.  Yet, they themselves could not go further to state that everything ought to go to God.  The presence of Herodian would jeopardize the safety of these Pharisees.  By not going further and saying, “Everything belongs to YHWH. Does it not?  We have no king but YHWH,” the Pharisees were caught in their own trap.  The Pharisees lack of response to Jesus’ enigmatic shows their difficulty.  Jesus, by this ironic answer, actually pointed out the Pharisees’ own dereliction of duty to YHWH.  In Mark, in fact, this discussion was part of the greater conflicts with religious leaders that ran pretty much through Mark 12 climaxing with Jesus’ condemnation of the oppression of widows which I have already discussed in my previous blog post (but on the Lukan version) and book as well as my preaching. In the audience of Mark, they were faced with their own religious issues of whether to stay completely within their faith community or to move out into a more Jesus-centered form of worship. These accounts only point fingers at the guilt of the original religious leaders.  I’ll discuss more of this in my upcoming commentary on Mark in Chinese, ready to publish next winter.

Matthew 22.21 has the parallel version of the same story. Matthew’s story makes explicit what was implicit. Matthew 22.18 points out clearly that the men had evil intent in asking the question. The rest is pretty much the same with the same confrontation about other issues with the religious leaders resulting in Jesus’ woes and eschatological discourse in Matthew 23-25. Certainly, Matthew’s audience not only had to deal with separation from their own religious community but also the final destruction of the temple. Matthew showed the fault of those who plotted Jesus’ death to encourage his own readers to reach out beyond the confine of their own circles into other groups (e.g. Matthew 28.18-20). It has nothing to do with separation of church and state. To milk separation of church and state out of it is nonsensical madness. It does nothing but increase the injustice that is in Hong Kong society.

The Background of the Coin

What if, for argument’s sake, we take what this head of a seminary say seriously?  We must look at what the coin actually says.  Now, if we follow the logic that Jesus approved unconditionally of the coin and thus advocated separation of church and state, then we need to look at what inscription Jesus was referring to and whose image Jesus was talking about. In order to understand the inscription, we must examine potential inscriptions that were on coins. Two general categories of inscriptions existed in the denarius in Jesus’ time. One proclaims that Caesar is somehow “divine”. The other proclaims Caesar to be Pontifex Maximus, a Latin way of calling someone the supreme leader. The best sample would come from the Tiberius coin where Tiberius is called the son of “divine Augustus”. In other words, Tiberius was a kind of “son of god”. On the opposite side of the coin had a picture of Livia, the wife of Augustus or the goddess Roma holding some kind of scepter to demonstrate her authority with the title of Pontifex Maximus. We can’t imagine Jesus agreeing to ALL of such political propaganda in his saying now, can we? To the Gospel writers, Jesus was the true Son of God. These other political sayings on the coin effectively went against everything that Jesus stood for. If we were to adopt the literal understanding without considering that Jesus was only using a clever rhetorical ploy, we are at risk of ruining our very theology in our desperate need to find proof texts for separation of church and state. Is it worth the risk to hijack Scripture in this way? As I always said, the problem is not the text. The problem is the interpreter!

PS. I’m not in favor of lousy scripture quotes, but I’m in favor of the separation of church and state principle as it was originally framed by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Danbury Baptist Church:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.

The Making of Right Texts, Wrong Meanings: Closing of the Canon and Revelation 22.18-19

Tags

Revelation 22.18-19

I’m going to blog about chapter 28 of my book. In many older systematic theology textbooks, Rev. 22.18-19 are cited as the proof text of the closing of the canon. The idea goes something like this.   The NT is a closed canon, and this verse proves that God has pronounced a curse on those who want to add or subtract from the number of books in the Bible.

The problem of the canon is a complex one. In the early church, there are many lists of the canonical NT. We can’t be sure all the list have all the books, in fact. This goes to show that the number of books that should be included were still being debated within different Christian communities. How do we reconcile such data.

My answer to such a question is, “There is no reason to reconcile such data.” Why? It is because this text is not talking about the canon. The verse clearly says the pronouncement was about the scroll. We’re talking about John closing the scroll he’s writing. That’s very much it.

As I always say, the texts are not at fault. The interpreter is!

Reblogged Matthew 18 blog now in Chinese with an English sermon as supplement

My Matthew 18 analysis in Chinese this time.  This has been translated and published in the link below.

Thesis: before you talk about reconciliation, mind your sphere and the little one. Read more here.

http://behold.oc.org/?p=22243

The English sermon which applies what i wrote here can be found here.

http://rhccc.ca/en/images/sermons/english/2013/audio/20140323e.mp3