Us Versus Them

If you're been following the news much lately, you've surely heard about the "Occupy Wall Street" protest that's ongoing. Thousands of people are taking to the streets of Manhattan to protest...something or other. I wasn't sure of their goals until I read their statement. A related trend is stories from "The other 99%" from people struggling to get by in life, implicitly contrasted against the luxury the top 1% of America's wealthy presumably live in.

First, a quick aside from what I remember from economics class. Much of the protest is about decrying the perceived selfishness and greed of "Wall Street". (A convenient geographical metaphor for faceless corporations) The OWS statement specifically mentions "corporations which place profit over people, self-interest over justice..." They expect too much from businesses. We expect businesses--and individuals--to act in their own self-interest. The purpose of businesses is, first and foremost, to make money, not to improve their community or the environment or anything. (Unless this is what they're making money for doing)

Obviously there are countless ways for this to go wrong, as we've seen, which is why business needs regulation, so that we can expect corporations to also behave ethically and legally, which is often not the case. But the simple pursuit of profit is to be expected from businesses, not decried. Companies aren't beholden to public opinion but to their stockholders and their profit margin--the best way to make a statement to a corporation isn't a protest, but a boycott.

But that's just a minor correction. What really troubles--even frightens--me is the "us versus them" mentality I see behind both of these protests. It's an incredibly explicit, even objectively decidable division--"us" is the bottom 99% of earners in America, "them" is the top 1%. As history has shown over and over, painting the situation like this is one of the best ways to motivate people. Forget trying to learn and understand the complicated economic truth behind the recession--the super-rich are bleeding this country dry!

Occupy Wall Street is an example of the anger that blaming your problems on an external source can foster. I'm afraid of how ugly having all these disgruntled people in one place could become. If you're concerned about the direction America is going like the OWS protesters, know that positive change can only come if people start thinking rationally, compassionately, and above all, constructively. As one wise Jedi Master said, "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering."

Why the Old Testament?

I'm super exited, interblag. This post is the beginning of what I plan to turn into a 3-part series in the next week or so. (Yeah, I'm moving up in the blogosphere) I'm going to pour out my thoughts on what has become a surprisingly thorny issue for Christians: the Old Testament. Yes, the first four-fifths of the Bible that so often get skipped over for the New Testament. This series was inspired partly by a conversation I had with my church's head pastor a few weeks ago (actually mostly just the third and final post) and partly by conversations I've seen between uninformed Christians and semi-informed atheists. A common pattern in these conversations I've seen is that atheists like to cite some...shall we say, "difficult" passages from the Old Testament in order to mock (no offense, but that really is what you're doing, and it's not very nice) them and demonstrate how absurd the Christian faith really is. Passages like these:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do." - Exodus 21:7

 "Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death." - Exodus 30:15b

"You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made with two kinds of material." - Leviticus 19:19

Or, of course:

"And all the cities of those kings, and all their kings, Joshua captured, and struck them with the edge of the sword, devoting them to destruction, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded." - Joshua 11:12

You get the idea. What I can't stand isn't so much this, but the common response to such attacks: many Christians are willing to abandon the Old Testament rather than defend it--admit that maybe it isn't as authoritative as the New Testament, or that it's just a collection of stories not to be taken literally, or just ignore it altogether. If I may issue a call to the church, this is unacceptable. The rest of this post will be devoted to arguing why Christians can't just abandon the Old Testament if it has parts we or others don't like, and what we stand to lose if we do.

First, though, I want to explore some of the purposes of the Old Testament (OT hereafter). God's purposes for revealing Himself as He has are obviously beyond anyone's understanding, but I'll share the things that I've gotten from the OT.

First, the OT obviously provides a good deal of historical context. It really is a bunch of helpful stories--it's also much more than that, but it certainly isn't less. It teaches us that God created the heavens and the earth, the amazing stories of faith in the patriarchs' lives (Genesis), how the Israelites claimed (Joshua) and lived in the land God promised to them (Kings and Samuel), the decline and captivity of Israel (later in Kings), and how they came back afterward. (Ezra and Nehemiah). This is an incredibly quick summary and I skipped a lot, but the historical context provided by the OT is value. But if that's all you have, it isn't necessarily integral to our faith today--it's understandable that people who view the OT as "a collection of stories" are so willing to let it go.

But that isn't all the OT is. The main character of the OT isn't Abraham, or Moses, or David, or Isaiah, or even the Israelite nation as a whole--it's God. God is the one who got everything started, God who calls Abraham and promises to make him into a great nation, God who saves Joseph from his family and his family from famine, God who delivers the Israelites from Egypt and leads them for 40 years in the desert, God who enables their string of victories in claiming the promised land, God who leads and judges kings, God who casts the disobedient Israelites out of their land and brings them back again. In literary terms, God is the driving force behind the entire plot of the OT. And through it we get a picture of a God who is the same everywhere in the Bible--unbelievably holy and unable to tolerate evil, but loving, merciful, and compassionate nonetheless.

Another role the OT plays in the gospel message is that the Israelites are God's ultimate proof that it is impossible to be saved by works. (More on this concept next post) The Israelites are given an elaborate law and promised that anyone who does the things written in it will live (Leviticus 18:5) rather than die by the curse man lives under because of his sin. (Genesis 3:19) God performs countless signs and wonders in front of the Israelites, calls them "my people" (Exodus 7:16), turns them from a nation of slaves to a mighty nation, and continues to speak to and guide them through prophets for hundreds of years. They get a temple where God's presence resides and where they can actually come into His presence (1 Kings 9:3-4) and worship Him. It seems like a great deal; obey God and He will bless you (Deuteronomy 6:3) and you won't die. But even with all these things going for them, the Israelites pretty much act like whiny toddlers. After seeing God perform ten miraculous plagues on the Egyptians so they can escape, the Israelites complain that they've been brought out of Egypt to be killed (Exodus 14:10-12). When He delivers them from the Egyptian army by parting the freaking Red Sea, they complain that He did it so they could just die of hunger. (Exodus 16:3) When He miraculously provides food for them, they complain that they're going to die of thirst. (Exodus 17:3) And on it goes. The constant pattern throughout the books of history and prophecy is that the Israelites keep turning from the God who did all these things to worship other nations' gods, dumb idols that had done nothing for them and could do nothing. If the Israelites who had the words, presence, and mind-blowing miracles of God failed so miserably to keep the law and live, what chance do we have?

Finally, one other reason the OT is critical is the prophecies it gives, especially the messianic prophecies (those pertaining to Jesus). Isaiah 52-53 is the densest bit of messianic prophecy in the OT, telling us of God's "servant" who will be "exalted" despite being horribly scarred and disfigured, who will be "wounded for our transgressions", die "like a lamb that is led to the slaughter", who will die despite being innocent, yet who will live and see offspring, and will "make many to be accounted righteous, and...shall bear their iniquities." That's the gospel in the Old Testament. Other prophecies predict other details of Jesus' life, like that He will come out of Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) and Egypt (Hosea 11:1), that He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), and that He would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)--all of which are fulfilled in the gospels. These prophecies give us context for the New Testament and help us appreciate the coming of Christ all the more.

Enough for now on some of the virtues of having the Old Testament--what happens when we casually abandon it, admit that it might not be scripture or just ignore it? Well, the most important thing is that we also deny the New Testament and the Christian faith. (You didn't care about those either, did you?) The gospels refer to scripture quite a few times; the Greek root γραφή (graphē) used to mean the Old Testament is also used by Peter in 2 Peter 3:16 to refer to the letters of Paul. Keep in mind that as the letter was being written the only "scripture" the Jews would have had was the Old Testament (the "law and the prophets"). In Matthew 4 Jesus rebukes the devil by quoting from the OT; in context, the "word that comes from the mouth of God" He mentions in verse 4 is understood to mean the scriptures He is quoting from. Earlier in Matthew 1:22 an angel specifically says that God spoke through the words of Isaiah. Finally, in 2 Peter 1:19-21 reminds his readers that no "prophecy of scripture" (again with graphē) came about "by the will of man", but "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." In light of these verses, if the Old Testament isn't the very words of God, what is it? And why did everyone treat it with such reverence? It's ludicrous.

You also lose all the context I talked about above. Without the OT, particularly the messianic prophecies, we have no idea who Jesus the "son of man" is, or why He is going around healing people and claiming to be God. Why did He ride a donkey, for goodness' sake? And why did God have to die!? Sure, the epistles explain it, but we lose the firsthand reasons for it all--Jesus just comes out of the blue, no context. We lose the origin of the Israelite nation and the significance of Jerusalem and the temple. We lose the lineage of Christ--Matthew 1 becomes just a boring list of names rather than a testament to how God worked some of the most amazing and unlikely people into the story of His redemption. The entire OT is ramping up the excitement to the arrival of Christ.

We also have a skewed perspective of who God is by missing out on the amazing contrast between the awesome, perfectly holy, righteous just God we see in the OT and the personal, compassionate, humble, even suffering God we see in the NT--and the promise that God does not change (Malachi 3:6). These attributes aren't exclusive to the OT and NT, but God tends to show different sides of Himself in the OT and NT. Without the OT's constant reminders of God's holiness and justice, it's understandable that many Christians blindly assert their belief in a "God of love". (A true, but incomplete view) Finally, as a teaser for next time, we lose the significance of the new covenant brought about by Christ along with the old covenant that came before it. It all seems so random and arbitrary, and without the context of the OT we're likely to become ignorant of the "big picture" of God's redemptive plan and have trouble explaining the reasons between our faith and our doctrine. (Sound familiar?) Until then, may you find joy in all of God's words.

Biblical Contradictions

It's no secret that skeptics have found plenty of contradictions in the Bible. If you were unaware of this, I'll help get you started with a few examples:

• Jesus is human (Luke 2:7) and God. (Romans 9:5)
• Jesus grew weary (John 4:6), but God does not grow weary. (Isaiah 40:28)
• Jesus "grew in wisdom" (Luke 2:52), but knew all things. (John 16:30)
• Jesus died (Luke 24:36), but God is immortal. (Romans 1:23)
• There is one God (Deuteronomy 6:4-5) in three persons (Matthew 28:19), each of whom is fully God (John 17, Romans 9:5, Psalm 139:7-8).
• We are saved by our decision of faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), but God predestined those who were saved, to be saved before we existed. (Romans 8:29)
• Paul permits women to pray and prophesy in church (1 Corinthians 11:5), but does not allow them to speak in church. (14:35)
• From this past May: no one knows when the Son is coming back (Matthew 24:36), but we need not be surprised by His coming. (1 Thessalonians 5:4)
• Jesus loved Lazarus and his family (John 11:5), but He purposely allowed him to die when he could certainly have healed him. (11:6) Even more interestingly, the ESV uses "so" instead of "yet" here.
• The creation order in Genesis 1 appears to clash with the creation order in Genesis 2.
• God gives His people specific laws on what they can and cannot eat (Leviticus 11, others), which He later (in a dream) tells Peter to disobey. (Acts 10)

And of course I'm only pointing out internal contradictions of the Bible, not times where it appears to contradict science, history, or common sense.

I could go through these one by one and offer my current understanding on how they fit together (except the creation order thing...ideas appreciated). But perhaps because of my CSci habit of finding patterns and rules, I'm instead going to talk about what I've learned from learning of and working through Biblical contradictions like these and others.

So, obviously if you go looking for contradictions in the Bible, you're going to find them; I've seen several sites run by skeptics with lists far more exhaustive than mine. But if you were looking for Biblical contradictions from the start, you probably didn't have a very high view of it to begin with and your views weren't changed, only perhaps reinforced.

But if you're wondering if the Bible might in fact be true (or if, like me, you believe it is), what do you make of scriptural difficulties? Well, if the whole Bible is true, then clearly these contradictions can't really be contradictions--not on the deeper, meaning level. The challenge then becomes: to find a way to interpret the Bible that resolves all the apparent contradictions, so that every verse, every word is true. I think this is the essence of what is meant by the saying, "scripture interprets scripture"--dynamically pitting apparently contradictory passages against each other in the context of the understood parts of scripture to find a way to make sense of them both.

For example:  much of what we know of the nature of Christ can be gleaned from the first four contradictions, the fifth is the doctrine of the Trinity, and the interpretation of the sixth leads people to either side of the predestination debate (already covered in detail). The contradiction about knowing when Christ will return tells us that we ought to be ready for Christ's return, rather than unprepared and thus surprised, and Jesus' curious treatment of Lazarus offers a challenging new perspective on how He loves us. In all these examples the knowledge we gain from resolving the apparent contradiction is greater than what we find in the bare passages. Being forced to reconcile two seemingly at-odds concepts forces us to search for a narrowly defined middle ground between them, with little room for speculation in the end.

In fact, beyond this idea of using contradictory passages to interpret each other, I would go even further to say that I think it works better than if God explicitly spelled everything out for us. This would make obsolete the responsibility we have to love God with all our mind by seeking an increasing understanding of Him; masters of theology would not write theological books (what would be the point?) but would simply refer back to the appropriate passage for everything (from a Bible that would likely be at least the size of an encyclopedia and that most people couldn't imagine even holding, much less reading). Memorizing scripture has a valuable place in believers' lives, but I'm thankful that there is much, much more to loving God with all my mind than that.

But this is all rather foolish speculation, because God is infinite and far above us (Isaiah 55:9), not able to be fully comprehended even when we see Him face to face. Even in the finite amount of Words He has spoken to us, which necessarily contain a dumbed-down description of who He really is, we should expect there to be difficulties, confusion, even apparent contradictions. But as I've attempted to explain above, this should not daunt anyone really set on knowing God. Christianity is not anti-intellectual--God transforms and renews our minds (Romans 12:2)--but we should be careful not to let our opinions and conclusions get in the way of Who really matters. If He is who He says He is, then He is much smarter than you and me.

If you look for contradictions in the Bible, you will surely find them. But, if you're willing to look past the difficulties you see in the Word to the One who spoke it, He will work with you to overcome them. This is taking up saving faith--setting aside arguments of doctrine and "religion" (whatever that entails for you) and running into the arms of a God who loves you enough to die for you.

Wants vs. Needs

I've often wondered how with technology at levels that would have been unimaginable fifty, much less five hundred years ago, how there seems to be more suffering, scarcity, and hardship in the world than ever before. (At least that's how it seems) Today it occurred to me that the more developed a country is, the more energy it seems to expend pursuing wants rather than needs. So we get the situation of some people literally consuming themselves to death and others dying of starvation. Thoughts on this theory?

Gambling in God's Economy

Today I went to a poker night/fundraiser for my church's men's retreat. I was pretty excited to talk with some godly men, eat food, maybe try some beer (big mistake), and try my hand (literally) at some poker. The $20 buy-in went straight to scholarships for the retreat, but the chips still represented "dollar" amounts so we could pretend we were real high rollers. I was fairly confident going in; I had a decent grasp of the probabilities behind the hands and the last time I'd played poker with friends, I'd won everything. This time was more normal. I soon realized that I had no idea what I was doing and that the game was more about reading people (which I'm hopeless at) than reading probabilities. Eventually I just started going all in to go out with a bang instead of a whimper. The biggest reason I hate competition is that after I lose, I just feel like I wasted my time. I got much more out of the time I spent talking with and learning from some older men than I did from that game.

But I know that life isn't like that. I just finished Don Miller's latest book, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years, which challenged me to view my life as a story that God is writing, filled with real significance, real tension, real sacrifice, real fulfillment. And I realized that life is kind of like a game of poker--the more you risk, the more you're rewarded. And yet it's not in that the reward is assured, and it doesn't consist in time or money or care or whatever you put in, it's something eternal and ultimately more satisfying than anything we could achieve by holding onto our resources. The real losers aren't the ones who lose have lost everything; they are in the perfect position for the gospel to turn everything around. The real losers are those who stand to gain everything from the bottomless wellspring of life if they would just stand and claim it, and yet risk nothing, gain nothing.

Perhaps the best Biblical example of someone who risked everything for Christ and gained infinitely more was Paul. He was a big Jewish leader with power, prestige, and respect. I would compare him to a senior United States senator with serious clout over the course of the nation, a perfect image, perfect home life, perfect everything. In modern terms, Paul had it made. He gave all this up to be beaten, insulted, imprisoned, and rejected, often by the very people who had looked up to him before. But he says it was all worth it. (Philippians 3:8) I want to discover for myself how this can be true.

The truth is that in God's economy, in the end everything really does matter. The way you go through school or your job matters. The way you treat your friends or your family, today, matters. How you spend your day (and the use of 'spend' is not accidental) matters. What you do first thing in the morning or last thing at night, when no one else is watching, matters. The point isn't to live a "better" life, but a lasting one that trades the temporal for the eternal.

What is Free Will?

I was recently made aware of another open-hand issue debated among Christians: the question of Synergism versus monergism. If my epic post on predestination didn't make it clear enough, I apparently fall pretty squarely with synergism. I'm not going to answer this question further, as I'd largely be repeating myself. But this issue combined with some sermons from my church I've been listening to have made me realize that apparently not everyone had the same definition of "free will". I'm going to unpack mine. Rather than risk overcomplicating the term, I'm going to define it basically in terms of its parts.

Free: The relevant dictionary definitions of "free" are "Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes", or "Not...restrained, obstructed, or fixed; unimpeded". I don't think I can better explain the meaning of "free" here than that.

Will: This is the crucial part. Take everything in the definition of "free" and apply it to "will". I would define will as "the power to unilaterally decide to act or respond in a particular way". The will is the executor of the self. No matter how much we want to do something, we don't do it unless we will it first.

Putting them together, free will could then be defined as "the unimpeded power to unilaterally decide to act or respond in a particular way". I would say everyone has this. It is the reason we hold people responsible for their actions: whatever you do, you first will to do. Free will means nothing can damage this power, inhibit it, or take it away. (With God this is debatable, but as far as we know He graciously allows us our free will) The ability to determine our thoughts and intended actions is part of the bedrock of who we are as humans.

Now notice what this definition isn't saying. The "decide to" part is important--though we are always free to decide to take some course of action, we are not always able to carry out this decision. Freedom of will is not freedom of action, the freedom to do absolutely anything you decide on, which only God possesses. This is where my pastor and I seem to disagree on what free will is.

Another implication is that free will does not guarantee freedom of our emotions or desires. These things are all subject to countless external and internal stimuli and beyond our control. This doesn't lessen the freedom of the will: no matter how many pressures are on our hearts and minds, we still have the final say in what to do; nothing decides for us. The decision isn't always easy to see, but it is always there.

How our free will interacts with our innate sinfulness and God's sovereign will is a mystery. I just know that they are both fully able to operate at the same time in each of us--I imagine them coexisting on different levels.

Love Wins

I'm sure many of you have heard of the controversial book by Rob Bell that's been receiving so much publicity, Love Wins. If not, it's okay. Just wanted to let  the blagosphere know that Kevin DeYoung has already done with this book what I've wanted to. Enjoy.