Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus Christ. Show all posts

Thursday, 10 May 2018

Post 222--Boy Scouts--Mormons-- Post-Gender


The components of this post title seem like strange or, at least, unusual "bed partners," a term that in this context is kind of a pun. I don't know about you, but I love puns and frequently look for them. After you read this post, you may well appreciate this one.  

Not only does the title consist of unusual bed partners, but I may well have just coined a neologism, that is, a new word--"Post-Gender."  At least, I do not recall ever having come across the term.That's another thing I love to do: coin neologisms in my writings. Just because a word is not in the latest dictionary does  not mean it is wrong or illegitimate. Languages grow because of people like me, who create new words that then slowly gain in popularity, till even the dictionary editors agree and include it. Language is one of the most democratic entities in the world. Even the most oppressive civilizations continue to create new words and no one can stop that process--or progress!

As to the connection between these bed partners, I invite you to read the article below by Jim Denison.  Yes, it's an American story, but it will undoubtedly affect the Canadian scout movement as well. I have not done any research on the Canadian scouts and have not come across any media stories about them on the issue of this post, but I would not be surprised if they have beat the Americans to the draw, for Canadian culture is often more quickly accepting of such changes in culture, something I am not proud of. 

I am not sure of my reactions to this change in the Scouts, for I am not familiar enough with them to know what practical effect it would have.  Furthermore, I am wary of gender changes among children and teens, for apparently research is showing that tendencies at that early age are often reversed in the early twenties. I believe that we should fully accept genuine trans-gendered persons, for they are not that by choice but by factors over which we have little control and which they do not voluntarily choose.  
But I also suspect that we need to be careful of this feature in early life.  So, for me the jury is still out.

I do have some advice for my Mormon neighbours. Instead of creating your own scouting equivalent, consider joining the very successful equivalent my own church, the Christian Reformed Church, has been operating for years already.  

Nevertheless, I pass on this article to give you a feeling of the social disruption such radical changes introduce into society.  Should I say, "Enjoy the read?" Not sure.   

The Boy Scouts are dropping "Boy" from their name
Dr. Jim Denison | May 10, 2018
READ TIME: 4 minutes--plus 1 minute for my intro.
I remember fondly my years with the Boy Scouts. Overnight campouts with my father. Lessons in outdoor survival and the care of nature. Building camaraderie in an environment uniquely suited to develop boys into men.
As a teenager, I became too involved in academics and other activities to continue in the Boy Scouts, but I have always admired the Eagle Scouts I met and consider their achievement to be enormously significant. The list of notable Eagle Scouts includes President Gerald Ford, astronaut Neil Armstrong (the first man on the moon), Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, and businessman Sam Walton.
The Boy Scouts have been one of America's great cultural institutions. Five years ago, things began to change.
What the BSA has done
From their inception in 1910, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) excluded openly gay people from membership or leadership. The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that they had a legal right to continue this position.
Then companies such as UPS, drug manufacturer Merck, and the United Way began opposing the organization's policy, choosing to stop or postpone their financial support. A gay advocacy group gathered more than 1.2 million online signatures to protest the BSA's position.
In response, the BSA voted on May 23, 2013, to open the organization to openly gay individuals. On July 27, 2015, they chose to permit openly gay Scout leaders.
On January 30, 2017, the BSA announced that transgender boys would be allowed to enroll in boys-only programs, effective immediately. On October 11, 2017, they announced that girls would be allowed to become Cub Scouts in 2018 and that a separate program for older girls would begin in 2019.
To further the inclusion of girls, the BSA is now dropping "Boy" from the name of its signature program. Starting in February 2019, the Boy Scouts program for boys ages eleven to seventeen will be called Scouts BSA. The overall organization will remain Boy Scouts of America.
The organization said the decision was in response to the needs of families and because of dropping membership. The BSA has lost about a third of its members since 2000.
Why the Mormon response is important
When the BSA decided to include openly gay Scouts five years ago, a leader in the organization told me that the key reaction to watch would come from the Mormon Church.
For a century, any boy who was part of a Mormon congregation was automatically part of the Boy Scouts. As a result, more Scouts have come from Mormon churches than from any other organization.
However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has announced it will sever all ties with the BSA. Their affiliation will end on December 31, 2019.
This change will affect hundreds of thousands of Mormon boys in more than thirty thousand congregations across the country. The church will create its own youth program, to be launched in January 2020.
The church said it was "deeply troubled" by the BSA's decision to lift the ban on openly gay adult leaders in 2015. The Mormon Church opposes same-sex marriage, teaches that sex outside of marriage is sinful, and does not permit openly gay men or women to hold leadership roles.
Abandoning vital distinctives
I recently read an advance copy of John S. Dickerson's Hope of Nations: Standing Strong in a Post-Truth, Post-Christian World. Dickerson is a pastor, researcher, and award-winning journalist. His latest book is an illuminating, troubling, and inspiring look into the likely future for our culture.
In light of Dickerson's outstanding research, it is clear to me that BSA leaders are responding to a culture that should trouble us all. Dickerson notes that 89 percent of Americans believe "people should not criticize someone else's life choices." A frightening 74 percent of Millennials believe morality to be a matter of cultural consensus (compared with 39 percent of Elders who agree).
Bernie Sanders ran for president in 2016 as an overt socialist. More Millennials voted for him in the 2016 presidential primaries than for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton—combined. Clearly, the younger Americans are, the less committed they are to traditional values and biblical truth.
BSA leaders apparently believe that compromising their traditional values and distinctives by including all sexual identities and genders is the way forward in this pluralistic, relativistic day.
I would respond that they are abandoning what made them such a unique and vibrant part of our national ethos.
If a ship in a storm jettisons the cargo it was intended to protect, it fails its mission.
How to be good ambassadors
You and I are "ambassadors for Christ" (2 Corinthians 5:20). Ambassadors have three jobs: (1) understand the foreign culture where they now live; (2) represent the authority on whose behalf they serve; (3) work faithfully until they are called home.
Today, you will be the presence of Christ to those you meet. They will judge your Master by his messenger. If you ask the Holy Spirit to author your words (Mathew 10:19) and sanctify your character (Galatians 5:22–23), he will.
Jesus came "to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor" (Luke 4:18–19).
Let's join him.

Tuesday, 10 April 2018

Post 217--Resurrection Evidences


MORE
Easter 2018 is history. We've celebrated it and we're moving on to other things and other events. In the case of Jesus, we're moving on to His ascension into Heaven, which culminates shortly afterward in the coming of the Holy Spirit.  This is all very true and very significant. 
However, I've been kind of slow on the draw and did not get around to a blog on time. So, today I come across this article on the resurrection of Jesus, evidences for it. I pass it on to you for your meditative consideration.  
                                             =========
                  A Dozen Evidences for the Resurrection of Jesus
                                      By Kenneth R. Samples

1. Jesus’s Empty Tomb
According to the Gospels,1 after Jesus succumbed to death through crucifixion, some of his followers prepared his lifeless body for burial and placed it in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb. Three days later the tomb was discovered empty, for Jesus’s body had vanished. The empty tomb is a critical part of the resurrection account, for if Jesus’s body had been recovered, then Christianity would have been falsified right as it had just begun. Since Jesus predicted his resurrection (Mark 8:31Luke 9:22), if he didn’t rise from the dead, he would be a false prophet.
The report of Jesus’s empty tomb rings true, for the account emerges very early from a number of sources, and there is no good reason to doubt any of the people mentioned in the story. Furthermore, the tomb was owned by a particular person, so there is no good reason to think that Jesus’s followers had mistakenly gone to the wrong tomb. Also, the Jewish and Roman authorities had the resources to search thoroughly for the actual burial place had the empty tomb been a mere problem of mistaken identity.
It should also be recognized that the first alternative naturalistic explanation for the resurrection presupposed the truth of the vacated tomb. The Jewish authorities insisted that the tomb was empty because they planned to tell people that Jesus’s followers had come in the night and stolen the body (Matthew 28:13).
2. Jesus’s Postmortem Appearances
According to the apostle Paul’s letters as well as the four Gospel accounts, Jesus appeared alive after his death on numerous occasions. These appearances of Jesus were reported to be both physical and bodily in nature (he was seen, heard, and touched) and not purely spiritual or ghostlike. The resurrection appearances were also diverse and varied in that Jesus appeared to men and women, to friends and enemies, to single individuals as well as to small and large groups of people, to some persons on a single occasion and to others more than once, during the day and the night, as well as indoors and outdoors.
It is this diverse and varied nature of the appearances that makes it extremely improbable, if not impossible, to account for these encounters in terms of hallucinations. It may have been possible that the women who first encountered Jesus at the tomb succumbed to immense grief and experienced some kind of purely subjective and thus false vision of Jesus. But a purely psychological explanation is extremely implausible in the case of James the brother of Jesus, who was highly suspicious of his brother’s claims and even thought that Jesus suffered from mental delusion. And in the case of Saul of Tarsus, the hallucination theory is flatly impossible. Saul was an enemy of primitive Christianity and sought to imprison and even have Christians executed. Acting in a dismissive and violent manner against the early Christians and their beliefs, there is no way that Saul was susceptible to a false psychological experience.
It is also important to note that if one rejects the miraculous explanation of Jesus’s appearances, then two naturalistic alternative explanations are required—one to explain the empty tomb and another to explain the numerous appearances. But the more complex these alternative theories are, the less likely they are to be true and viable.
3. Short Time Frame between Actual Events and Eyewitness Claims
Support for the factual nature of Jesus’s resurrection from the dead comes from eyewitness testimonies that were reported soon after the events happened. The apostle Paul claims both that he saw the resurrected Christ (Acts 9:1–1922:6–1626:12–23) and that others witnessed the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3) prior to his personal encounter. Paul asserts in his writings that he received the firsthand testimony from Jesus’s original apostles who were witnesses of Jesus’s resurrection even before him.
In Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, he employs a creedal statement about the resurrection that dates to the earliest period of Christianity.2 This creed is believed, even by critical scholars (those who doubt the supernatural), to be part of the original Christian kerygma (“proclamation”—representing the earliest preaching and teaching message of Christianity). This early statement of faith that Paul relays mentions by name two of Jesus’s apostles who said they had seen the resurrected Christ. These two apostles are Peter (one of the original 12 apostles and principal spokesperson of primitive Christianity) and James (the brother of Jesus who was also an early apostolic leader).
Here is that early creedal statement as the apostle Paul wove it into his first Corinthian epistle:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.
–1 Corinthians 15:3–7
Paul’s statement gives us a fourfold formula of the primitive Christian proclamation as it relates to Jesus’s death and resurrection:
  1. Christ died.
  2. He was buried.
  3. He was raised.
  4. He appeared.
This time frame evidenced in the early creed places the original proclamation by the first apostles about Jesus’s resurrection very near to the time of Jesus’s death and resurrection. This development has led even critical New Testament scholars to be amazed at the early and reliable testimony evident in Paul’s writings. In fact, distinguished New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn states, “This tradition [of Jesus’s resurrection and appearances], we can be entirely confident, was formulated as tradition within months of Jesus’ death.”3
Therefore, given the short interval of time between the early eyewitness testimonies about Jesus’s resurrection and the actual event itself (a mere matter of months), these accounts must be considered historically credible. There was clearly no time for myth, legend, or embellishment to accrue around the initial resurrection reports.
4. Extraordinary Transformation of the Apostles
Today’s skeptics of Jesus’s resurrection sometimes state that religious people are too quick to accept reports about miracles. Those who doubt the miraculous often insist that miracle claims aren’t usually sufficiently questioned. But was this the case among Jesus’s apostles concerning the resurrection?
The New Testament describes a remarkable and enduring transformation of 11 of Jesus’s disciples. These frightened, defeated cowards after Jesus’s crucifixion soon became bold preachers and, in some cases, martyrs. They grew courageous enough to stand against hostile Jews and Romans, even in the face of torture and martyrdom. Such amazing transformation deserves an adequate explanation, for human character and conduct does not change easily or often. Because the apostles fled and denied knowing Jesus after he was arrested, their courage in the face of persecution seems even more astonishing. The disciples attributed the strength of their newfound character to their direct, personal encounter with the resurrected Jesus. In Jesus Christ’s resurrection, the apostles found their existential reason to live—and die.
According to the earliest reports concerning Jesus’s resurrection, three of the men Jesus appeared to were either initially highly skeptical of the truth of the resurrection or adamantly opposed to Jesus’s claims of being the Messiah. Those three were Thomas, James, and Saul (who would become Paul), all of whom were predisposed to dismiss the truth of the resurrection. Since Paul’s conversion will be addressed later, let’s consider the stunning impact Jesus’s resurrection had on Thomas and James.
Thomas the Doubter
While Thomas was one of the original 12 apostles, he was not among the first of Jesus’s followers to see the risen Christ. Upon hearing the report from his fellow disciples concerning Jesus’s bodily resurrection, he doubted its truth. The Gospel of John conveys Thomas’s skepticism: “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe” (John 20:25).
Though a follower of Jesus, Thomas was highly skeptical and needed direct, empirical evidence of Jesus’s actual bodily resurrection before he would believe the claim of his fellow disciples. Thomas demanded evidence of a concrete, empirical nature. He demonstrated tough-mindedness when it came to claims of the miraculous, even when the testimony came from his close friends and associates. Yet according to John’s Gospel, Thomas soon had an encounter with the resurrected Jesus that more than satisfied his doubts:
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
–John 20:26–28
If the resurrection was merely a concocted mythical story, it is highly unlikely that it would include the claim that one of the original 12 disciples seriously questioned Jesus’s resurrection.
James the Family Skeptic
The Gospels convey that prior to the resurrection, Jesus’s brothers were highly dismissive of his messianic claims (see Mark 6:3–4 and John 7:5). In fact, Jesus’s family viewed him as suffering from mental delusion (Mark 3:21, 31–35). Yet the early creed that Paul had been given by the apostles (which included James) reported that Jesus had appeared to his brother James (1 Corinthians 15:7). James then became one of the critical leaders of the early Christian church, even holding unique authority at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:12–21). Sources in church history convey that James was later martyred for his belief in Jesus Christ.
What accounts for James’s amazing change of heart from undoubtedly being deeply embarrassed by his brother’s claims to becoming a distinguished leader in the early church, and finally to even undergoing martyrdom? The resurrection seems to best account for this radical transformation in James’s understanding and perspective. James claimed to have seen his brother alive after his public execution, and that event changed everything.
So it appears that Thomas and James seriously questioned the actual truth of Jesus’s resurrection, the way skeptics demand.
5. The Greatest Religious Conversion Ever
Some people have had dramatic religious conversions. In fact, my three favorite Christian thinkers outside of the biblical authors—St. Augustine, Blaise Pascal, and C. S. Lewis—all experienced amazing life-changing conversions to Christianity. But there is one person whose conversion to the Christian faith changed the world forever. That individual said that his spiritual transformation was due to encountering the resurrected Jesus Christ.
Saul of Tarsus was a respected, first-century Hebrew scholar of the Torah (the Law), a member of the Jewish party of the Pharisees, and a Roman citizen (Acts 21:37–22:3). Fervent in his devotion to God and in his intent to protect ancient Judaism from what he perceived as false and heretical teaching, he became the central adversary of the primitive Christian church. Saul expressed his impassioned hostility toward Christians by having them arrested and inciting physical persecution and execution of believers, including Stephen (Acts 7:54–8:3Galatians 1:13–14). Traveling on the road to Damascus to further persecute the church (ca. AD 31–33), Saul underwent an extraordinary life-changing experience. According to his claim, Saul saw and spoke with the resurrected Jesus (Acts 9:1–3022:5–13). Following his dramatic conversion to the movement he once hated, he took on the Gentile name “Paul” and became the greatest advocate of the newfound Christian faith. After Jesus Christ himself, many scholars view the apostle Paul as the second most important figure in the history of Christianity. Paul went on to become the faith’s greatest missionary, theologian, and apologist as well as the inspired author of 13 New Testament books.
What caused Paul’s conversion—arguably the greatest religious conversion ever? To understand the true impact of this conversion, let’s consider what may be the modern equivalent of Paul’s first-century conversion to Christianity. Imagine the British prime minister and statesman Winston Churchill becoming a member of the Nazi party. Or the American president Ronald Reagan embracing Soviet communism. Or German Führer Adolf Hitler converting to the religion of Judaism. Whatever equivalent one rightly accepts, Paul’s conversion to Christianity was an absolutely astounding event.
But how is this extraordinary change of allegiance to be explained? According to Paul himself, the incredible transformation of one of Western civilization’s most influential religious leaders and thinkers was due to the appearance of the resurrected Christ. The conversion of the apostle Paul, not to mention his life and accomplishments, seems truly inexplicable apart from the fact of the resurrection.
It seems the only thing that could have possibly changed Saul’s incredibly negative opinion about primitive Christianity was for him to encounter its leader, Jesus of Nazareth, raised from the dead.
6. Emergence of the Historic Christian Church
Does every historic movement emerge from a specific cause? If so, what caused the Christian religion to come into being? What initiated this religious movement that within 300 years dominated the entire Roman Empire and over the course of two millennia dominated all of Western civilization? In a very short time span, Christianity developed a distinct cultural and theological identity apart from that of traditional Judaism. According to the New Testament, the unique religion of Christianity came into being directly because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
The extraordinary historical emergence of the Christian church needs an adequate explanation. According to the Christian Scriptures, the apostles turned the world upside down with the truth of the resurrection, and the historic church emerged. This is why many have called the historic Christian church “the community of the resurrection.”
But if the resurrection didn’t cause the emergence of Christianity, what did? There seems to be no other adequate natural explanation. Thus, the heart of historic Christianity is found in the remarkable happenings of Easter Sunday.
7. Emergence of Sunday as a Day of Worship
The Hebrew people worshiped on the Sabbath, which is the seventh day of the week (measured from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday). Nevertheless, the early Christian church (which was viewed initially as a sect of Judaism) gradually changed the day of their worship from the seventh to the first day of the week (see Acts 20:71 Corinthians 16:2; “the Lord’s Day,” Revelation 1:10). For the early Christian church, Sunday uniquely commemorated Jesus’s resurrection from the dead.
Sustained reflection on Christ’s resurrection to immortal life transformed Christian worship, uniquely influencing the formulation of the sacraments of the early church (baptism and communion), and thus it distinguished the Christian faith in its theology and practice from traditional Judaism. Apart from the resurrection, no reason existed for early Christians (as a sect of Judaism) to view Sunday (the first day of the week) as having any enduring theological or ceremonial significance. The resurrection of Jesus therefore set historic Christianity apart from the Judaism of its day. That same truth of resurrected life sets the faith apart from all other religions through the centuries.
So the happening of Easter Sunday—Jesus’s resurrection—explains two things well: (1) why the Christian religion emerged as a historical movement and (2) why Christians worship on a different day of the week than the Jews. And, in turn, both of these historical elements support the factual nature of Jesus’s resurrection.
8. Plentiful Early References to Jesus’s Resurrection in the Apostle Paul’s Letters
Some critics of Christianity have asserted that the four canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) appear too long after the events of Jesus’s life to carry credible testimony. There is also the concern that there are too few claims of Jesus’s resurrection made by the early eyewitnesses.
While I addressed the short time span between the events of Jesus’s life and the eyewitnesses’ claims in my third point of evidence, a little more explanation is helpful here. First, the four Gospels are much closer in time to Jesus’s life than are other ancient testimonies to both religious figures (Gautama Buddha, Confucius) and secular figures (Socrates, Caesar).
Second, not only are Paul’s references to the resurrection early (considerably earlier than the four Gospel accounts), but they are abundant in nature. Paul’s epistles contain numerous references to and descriptions of Jesus’s resurrection.
Third, some of Paul’s statements about the resurrection reflect primitive Christian creeds and hymns (see Philippians 2 and Colossians 1) that date much earlier than even his earliest written letters. For example, Paul’s earliest epistles were written about 20 years after Jesus’s resurrection. But the creeds and hymns that he wove into his writings were being recited and sung by Jewish Christians back to within a few months or years of Jesus’s resurrection.
9. The New Testament Accounts of Jesus’s Resurrection Do Not Resemble Later Apocryphal Stories
The accounts of Jesus’s resurrection came from eyewitnesses and close associates of eyewitnesses. The recollections of these witnesses involve descriptions of historical, factual events. And the narrative of Jesus’s resurrection involves his physical body being raised and empirically examined, not merely rising as a spirit as in later apocryphal stories of subjective religious visions.
The apostolic reports of Jesus’s resurrection are early, plentiful, and very different than other so-called resurrection accounts.
10. No Tomb Was Ever Venerated as the Burial Place of Jesus
The burial places of famous people were often venerated in the ancient world. However, Jesus Christ is arguably the most famous person in all of history, and yet no grave or tomb was ever said to have permanently contained his body. According to his apostles, Jesus’s tomb is empty for his body has been raised. The unique Christian truth-claim is that the one-of-a-kind Jesus, the very Son of God, conquered death.
11. A Crucified Messiah Would Have Been Viewed by All Jewish Christians as Cursed by God
If Jesus had been merely crucified with no resurrection to follow, then he would have been viewed by all Jews as a false prophet who was obviously cursed by the Lord God Yahweh. Yet the viability of Christianity as a true faith was buttressed by Jesus’s resurrection. In other words, Jesus’s glorious resurrection from the dead made sense of his ignominious death. The resurrection that followed turned Jesus’s crucifixion into a divine atonement.
12. All the Alternative Naturalistic Explanations for the Resurrection of Jesus Prove False
If the events surrounding the resurrection of Jesus didn’t involve the supernatural, then there should be a viable natural explanation to account for the data. Yet none of the many naturalistic alternative theories hold water.4 On careful inspection, all of them prove false or inadequate. So the fact that all of the natural explanations fail serves as one more evidence of the truth of Jesus’s resurrection.
I invite you to read through and study these 12 brief evidences for Jesus’s resurrection multiple times. Consult the scholarly resources listed below for more information and context. Grow in your knowledge of the resurrection. Consider sharing this list with other Christians who have doubts, and be ready to talk about this evidence with nonbelievers and skeptics.
If Jesus Christ actually rose from the dead—and there is plenty of good evidence that he did—then all of his followers who know him as Lord and Savior will also rise to eternal life on the last day.
If Jesus actually conquered death, then there is no news that is more important for all human beings to hear and to reflect upon. Easter really matters.
(Originally posted in seven parts in March and April 2017: part 1part 2part 3part 4part 5part 6part 7.)
Reflections: Your Turn
What do you consider to be the strongest evidence for Jesus’s resurrection? How would you order the evidence in making a cumulative case? Visit Reflections on WordPress to comment with your response.
Resources
Endnotes
  1. The four New Testament Gospels and various New Testament Epistles convey the historic Christian narrative concerning Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection (see Matthew 26:47–28:20Mark 14:43–16:8Luke 22:47–24:53John 18:1–21:25Acts 9:1–191 Corinthians 15:1–58).
  2. For more about these primitive Jewish-Christian creeds, see Ralph P. Martin, New Testament Foundations: A Guide for Christian Students, vol. 2 (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999), 268.
  3. James D. G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 855.
  4. For a list and critique of the common naturalistic explanations for Jesus’s resurrection, see Kenneth Samples, “Objections Examined,” chap. 2 in 7 Truths That Changed the World: Discovering Christianity’s Most Dangerous Ideas (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012).

Saturday, 31 March 2018

216--A Good Friday Poem by Jan H. Boer


A Good Friday Prayer

Jan H. Boer


Lord God, our Father;
Lord God, our Saviour,
Here we are with Jesus at the end of 33 years of living amongst us,    
          After three years of healing,
          After three years of demonstrating and teaching Your Kingdom.
                  
It all began with You wrapped in the swaddling cloths of birth,
          the cloth of life and of hope.
It seemingly all ended once again wrapped in cloth, but now the
          cloth of death.
It all began in an animal manger, fit only for the lowest of the low;
It all seemingly ended in a cave of death.

And there we leave You, our Saviour.
          An apparent end to years of teaching the Kingdom.
          In the hands of a good and upright man, who had been waiting
                   For that Kingdom
                   But now was left perplexed and shattered with a dead Jesus
                             on his hands.

And there, in that tomb, we leave You
          With a group of faithful women who had traveled Your long    
journey with You.
Apparently only to be rewarded with that onerous task of putting
Him away—for good.

Lord, we remember the words of the ancient prophet:
You were pierced for our transgressions, for mine;
You were crushed for our iniquity, for mine.
And You were buried for our sins and evil, for mine.

There, in that tomb, we leave You.
Yes, we have a more joyful hindsight than did Joseph;
Yes, we have a more hopeful scene of what’s ahead than the women.
But for now, as we go home, we leave You there…
          In the darkness of that tomb.

Monday, 26 June 2017

Post 173--To Judge or not to Judge



As far as I can recall, I have never heard of Regis Nicoll until ten minutes ago, when a friend forwarded an article written by him. Apparently, Nicoll is no slouch, judging from his association with the late Charles Colson and his BreakPoint column. Oh, oh. My title is about whether or not to judge and here I go, before I even open up the subject, making a judgment about some someone on basis of his friends.  Well, it is often said that  you can judge a person by her friends and, I guess, that's what I am doing right now. But I'll stick to it, since it is a positive judgement this time.

When you take Biblical passages about judging out of their context and just place them side by side, you could conclude that the Bible contradicts itself.  Sometimes it tells you not to judge; at other times it tells you to do so.  It's a matter of context. It all depends on the issue under discussion.  Each issue requires a different response: some need judging; others need restraint in this respect.

Well, herewith Nicoll's article taken from Crisis Magazine of June 15, 2017.  Enjoy the read and weigh the matter carefully. It surely is relevant to our lives, both individual as well as social.

The Problem with Non-Judgmentalism

It took but a few decades for the law written on the human heart, engraved on stone, and honored for millennia to be largely lost on the collective conscience. Today, instead of the Ten Commandments, there is one: “Thou shalt not judge.”
Oddly, in a time when the concept of “sin” has also lost its purchase, a person called out for judging will become a social outcast until his “guilt” is purged by the penances of public apology, diversity/sensitivity training, and reparation to the offended. Even among Christians, judging the behaviors and lifestyles of others is considered unseemly at best and unchristian at worst.
Take singer Carrie Underwood. When she came out in support of same-sex “marriage” in 2012, she credited her faith for her position stating, “Above all, God wanted us to love others,” adding “It’s not up to me to judge anybody.”
A year later when Pope Francis fielded a question about a gay subculture in the clergy, his now famous response, stripped from its context, was taken by nice people of faith and social progressives as an imprimatur on non-judgmentalism.
Despite its ever-so humble patina, non-judgmentalism has deep logical, practical, moral, and theological problems.
First, if “it’s not up to me to judge,” that applies to the wrongness of actions as well as their rightness. For which ever way we judge is a de facto judgment on the opposing view. For example, when Carrie Underwood endorsed same-sex “marriage” it was her moral judgment on the social contrivance and its supporters, as well as a moral insinuation, if not judgment, about the criticisms and critics.
Second, non-judgmentalism is self-indicting. If judgment-making is wrong, so too is the judgment against judgment-making.
Third, fidelity to non-judgmentalism requires moral neutrality on all matters—an impossibility even for the entrenched non-judgmentalist. Regardless of his religious sympathies, he will consider things like cheating, rape, and exploitation as wrong and things like honesty, fairness, and charity as good.
Fourth, the person who refrains from judging truth from falsehood and good from evil quickly will find himself a victim of those adept at parading one for the other.
Lastly and most importantly for Christians, the “who-am-I-to-judge” ethic has no biblical warrant. Quite the opposite.
In his letter to the Colossians, St. Paul wanted his readers to make a moral distinction between the traditions of men and the teachings of Jesus so that they wouldn’t be taken “captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy.” Likewise, Jesus’ instruction in St. Matthew’s gospel about “fruit” inspection was to help his disciples from falling in with bad teachers and their sophistry.
Too often, socially nice Christians focus on what Jesus says a few verses up (“Do not judge, or you too will be judged”), isolate it from the rest of the chapter, and couple it with the second half of the Great Commandment, reasoning,
Since I would be offended if my neighbor pointed out my moral failings, I’ll not point out his. That way I love my neighbor as myself and relieve us both of any awkward moments.
A win-win with undeniable appeal, but in direct conflict with Jesus’s instruction, “If your brother sins, rebuke him.”
Contra “who-am-I-to-judge” morality, Jesus expects his people to make moral judgments, confronting others and invoking discipline when necessary. In fact, Paul had some sharp words for a congregation that failed to do just that.
The occasion was an instance of sexual immorality that went unaddressed within the Corinthian church. Scolding the assembly for its moral complacence, Paul ordered the expulsion of the offender “so that [his] sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” In the same spirit, Paul told the Galatian believers, “if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.”
According to Jesus and the early Church, judgment and discipline are duties that the Church exercises for the health of the Body and the restoration and spiritual well-being of its members.
Who-am-I-to-judge Christians will demur, referencing a Pharisaical sting operation that outed an adulteress. Although the encounter nearly led to her stoning, neither the morality of her deed nor the moral authority to judge it was at issue. The woman had sinned, plain and simple, a fact acknowledged by Jesus in his parting instruction, “leave your life of sin.”
Had the religious SWAT team done the same, this biblical vignette might never have been recorded. Instead, they condemned her to death, and Jesus called into question their license to do so.
Anyone can judge the morality of an act, knowing only the applicable standard. But condemnation requires not only knowledge of the standard and the transgression, but what was in the transgressor’s mind (what did they know about the standard) and heart (what was their intent), places that no one has access to but God.
Today a common ploy to silence Christian objections to homosexualism is to point out heterosexual sin in the camp, citing Matthew 7:3 (“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?”).
Despite the stinging prose of the popular proof text, neither it nor the moral condition in the Church has any bearing on the morality of homosexualism and the novel institutions it promotes. What’s more, Jesus never said that one sinner shouldn’t judge the actions of another. Instead, in the context of Matthew chapter 7, Jesus teaches that we should be attentive to the “specks” in our eyes so that we can rightly discern the specks in others.
People who decline to do so—particularly, who-am-I-to-judge Christians—have much to answer for the moral pathologies of the church that they are quick to, uh, judge.
They are like the village physician whose patients are dying off because he doesn’t want to unsettle them with information about their life-threatening conditions. Or the best-friend-mom whose little angel has become a tyrant over momma’s fear that a “no” landing on the delicate ears of her budding prodigy would damage the sense of exceptionalness that she has worked so hard to nurture.
Love seeks the supreme good for others. Above all, love desires others to become the persons they were created to be: children of God, being transformed in the image of the Son, and enjoying unbroken fellowship with the Son and Father through the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Love means that I am my brother’s keeper, with the duty to observe, question, challenge, and, yes, judge his actions—not to condemn, but to guide, coach and encourage toward life abundant. To do otherwise is not love but indifference or cowardice.
Carrie Underwood was right. “Above all, God wanted us to love others.” However, we love others not by never having to say they’re sinning; but by helping them with their “specks” and allowing them to help us with ours.



Regis Nicoll is a Colson Center Fellow, a columnist for BreakPoint, and regular contributor to Touchstone and Salvo magazines. He also serves as the lay pastor of an Anglican church plant in Chattanooga. His new book is titled Why There Is a God: And Why It Matters.