Considering the Lenses I Wear

How we view events is shaped, or colored, by the lenses we wear. Those lenses can help us to see more clearly, or distort what we see.

When I lived in NH I found a pair of amber sunglasses in a store. This was before they were “tech glasses” and part of the “only sold of TV” brands that are now also sold in Wal-Mart. But I digress. I loved them because I could wear them at night due to the glare of headlights. But everything looked yellow. They helped me to see more, but also colored how I saw things.

Most of us lack self-awareness. We don’t realize the lenses we wear when we examine events. But like those amber lenses, they filter and sometimes distort. These lenses are part of our worldview, but not simply our worldview. They can reflect our experiences, and our idols. They are not simply ideological but can include that.

From the Relational Wisdom360 curriculum

I’ve written how the Covid-19 Controversy/Crisis reveals our idols. The crisis has produced controversy on a number of fronts connected to how to understand the disease, treat the disease and respond to the disease. Some people are aware of their lenses, and others …. not so much.

If we respond “You want people to die” (the new ‘you’re  Hitler’) it’s probably a good indication that we lack both self-awareness and other-awareness. We haven’t stopped to think what drives us, what is driving them, and particularly what God thinks about both.

I thought I’d lay my cards on the table. Here are the lenses I am looking through to understand this controversy/crisis.

Pastor:

I am vocationally a pastor which means I am theologically trained. I am also trained as a counselor meaning, in both cases, I see theology as something to applied to personal lives. This has a number of doctrines in view but I’ll focus on the providence of God and our creation in the image of God.

This crisis is not accidental, and not arbitrary. It happens within God’s plan and purpose for both humanity and individuals. While the prospect of death and the loss of others I love is not pleasant, I’m not scared. The fact that I can’t control it doesn’t mean it is out of control. Or that the virus is in control. It doesn’t “speak” to us, though we gain information through data compilation and analysis.

If we were to ask why God would ordain a pandemic we’d have to add the doctrine of sin into the mix. I’m not talking about personal sin but Adam’s sin and our condition as sinners in a fallen world. Adam’s disobedience as our covenant head (representative before God) brought all of us into the consequences of sin: what we call the curse while on earth, and death. Adam sinned and everybody dies.

So, I’m NOT saying the people who die are bigger sinners than those who do. We are all in the same boat. We just die differently. Therefore I see death as ordinary, though often unexpected and untimely. The process of death can be quite unpleasant.

As a pastor I’ve been with people who knew they  were dying (usually cancer), as well as with people as they die. I’ve heard death rattles, that final breath as people shed the mortal coil. I’ve had to face death up close and personal and therefore don’t live in a fairy tale land where people don’t die. They die every single day and nothing we do will stop that.

The providence of God doesn’t rule out what we call secondary means. We have responsibility to take reasonable means in the case of a pandemic. So, don’t interpret what I’m saying as “do nothing, God will take care of it.” However, someone who takes even the greatest of measures for protection can get sick.

We were made in the image of God. There are a number of aspects to this. Here are a few: we were made to live in community and we were made to both work and rest.

How do I get there? Well, in 1 John we read “God is love.” Augustine is one of the more famous theologians to use this profound statement as proof of the Trinity. The lover must have a beloved. The eternal love  must have an eternal subject and object. God has subsisted eternally as Trinity, a community of love and fellowship between Father, Son and Spirit.

Made in the likeness of this God, we were made to live in loving fellowship with God and other human beings- witnessed in the creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, as well as God’s provision of marriage as a one flesh union. Made to love, I see our prolonged stay at home orders (like solitary confinement) to be contrary to our nature, devolving the image of God and therefore destructive to our mental health. As people with bodies as well as souls love includes both body and soul, and therefore this new norm of Zoom meetings is a sad, insufficient substitute. We criticize the younger generations as the text generation, but now we are becoming people who have to rely on it. We were made to hug, hold hands, shake hands etc., not withhold ourselves from each other assuming they have a deadly plague.

In Genesis 1-2 we see God working 6 days and resting on the 7th. God works, setting a pattern for us. That this is part of the image is clarified in the 10 Commandments (Ex. 20 & Deut. 5). We are to work 6 days (we forget this part) and rest one (many seem to resent this one). There can be reasons in God’s providence we don’t work (disability or unemployment). But for an otherwise healthy person to not work is difficult psychologically because we are made in God’s image.

I’ve been through periods of unemployment and the problem is far beyond the bank account. Men, in particular, struggle emotionally with not working outside the home. A man who does not work is more prone to drug abuse, depression and suicide. Families forced to stay at home, especially if one can’t work, is dangerous. We are already seeing increases in domestic violence, child abuse (sexual, physical and emotional) and suicides.

Sorry, Governor Cuomo, some of these are death, and some of these haunt people their whole lives. Look in the eyes of sexual abuse victim, Governor, and tell them if was for the greater good.(Yes, he ticks me off)

“You just want people to die!” minimizes the real suffering we are causing by our actions. Death is inevitable, sexual abuse, suicide, drug addiction & overdose are not.

Economist:

My undergraduate degree is in Economics. I went to Boston University long before AOC went there for her PhD in Economics. When I was there in the 80’s the professors frowned upon Keynesian economics (dependence upon government intervention instead of the self-correcting market). Von Mises and Hayak were never mentioned, but they pretty much could have been. Government intervention was seen as essentially “flattening the curve”: while making the correction less intense, it also prolonged the inevitable correction. Depressions and recessions became longer, not shorter. You don’t spend your way out, in part, because you create new problems.

Right now government expenditures are going through the roof and revenues are plummeting since many people are prohibited from working. This is unsustainable as some states are teetering on bankruptcy (due to decades of financial mismanagement brought to crisis point earlier than anticipated by the crisis) and looking to a federal government deeply in debt to bail them out. Other nations are in the same boat too! But money doesn’t grow on trees, it is earned. We are creating an unsupportable debt for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren so we can not work now.

Oh, you may say, we can just print more money. Well, that makes the money worth less and eventually worthless. During Carter’s presidency we had “stagflation”, high unemployment and high inflation. People weren’t working to make money and the value of what they made (or given to them by government) was diminishing so you could buy less and less with what little you had. Eventually you hit hyperinflation. Look at Venezuela, people!

Do we really want to do that to ourselves? To our children? Grandchildren? How many livelihoods is a life worth? In other words, how many lives do we have to trash to save a life? As a pastor, I care about and for those people. They aren’t just a statistic to me.

Am I heartless? No. I am a realist. People die, every day. We assume risk every day because we can’t afford to eliminate risk. People die in car accidents every day because we can’t afford to eliminate that possibility. This is but one example. But look at the other diseases people die from daily. We could potentially eliminate them but we can’t afford to. Even when we poor tons of money into research, decades don’t always produce the cure we want (cancer, Aids, Alzheimer’s etc.). We have to think of polio as the exception, not the rule. But plenty of people still die of leprosy, malaria and measles each year despite there being vaccines and treatments.

A Parent:

I love my kids. I want to be here for my kids, but I know that is not guaranteed. I learned that as a child. On one side of my house lived the Baileys. They had 2 kids younger than me. He died of cancer when they were about 7 and 5. On the other side was my friend Jason whose father died of a heart attack when we were about 8. I can’t control whether or not I’m around to see them graduate and get married. I want to be, and don’t take unnecessary risks.

I care about how my kids will live as adults. I don’t want them living on the dole. They are healthy and productive. They should be able to provide for themselves. But the choices we make as a nation now may rob them of that. Those choice may limit educational opportunities, vocational choices and their social/emotional health.

A Son (and Grandson):

I lost both of my grandfathers when I was 5. I’m thankful that my kids know their grandfathers. They have a gift I didn’t have. Not everyone gets that gift, and we’re not in control of that.

Earlier this year my mom died. She had Alzheimer’s. Her memory faded quickly, but her body didn’t. The insurance was going to run out this year. I hated what it was doing to my father, and could do to him financially. When she died from a stroke in January we grieved, and were relieved. Those things were not mutually exclusive. I know the sorrow of death, but I also know it is inevitable. And unpredictable. I don’t want people to die, but I accept that people do die.

I don’t expect everyone to agree with my take on the controversy. I don’t want everyone to die, but I acknowledge they will. There is nothing we can do about that. We may postpone it in some cases, but even that is under the providence of God. Our (American) God-wish is a fantasy. We do need to think about the living and what this does to them, not simply the sorrow but the life we are creating for them a few years down the road. We are left with difficult choices, and those require some compromises.

Read Full Post »

Considering Women in the Church Part 3

Well, I’ve got a sinus headache and want to rip my head off. I can’t read anymore today. So I’ll wrap up my summary of Women in the Church edited by Kostenberger and Schreiner.

The 5th chapter is Progressive and Historic: The Hermeneutics of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 by Robert Yarbrough. Yarbrough is a NT prof at TEDS. He examines the trends in methods of interpreting this passage.

“In Paul’s understanding men and women, while equal in value and importance before the Lord, were not regarded as unisex components with swappable functions in home and church.”

Yarbrough begins by responding to William Webb’s criticism of the first edition of this chapter. He makes 3 points. First, Webb “mistakes the intent and outcome of my chapter.” His intention was not to develop a hermeneutic as Webb seems to allege. He did describe features of an approach that has been around for a long time, and criticize some aspects of newer hermeneutical approaches coming into vogue which lie behind the newer interpretations. Second, he admits that something like Webb’s “redemptive-movement hermeneutic” as been around for a long time. The particular form that Webb uses is much newer. A hermeneutic used to seemingly contradict the biblical teaching fails to be a “historic” method. Third, a “static” method, while sounding old-fashioned, may be great for a faith that prizes being steadfast and immovable. Doctrinal innovation is not something that excited Paul, Peter and John in a positive way. They were quite critical of novelties.

1 Timothy 2 is not an exception in Scripture, but we see parallels in 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Peter 3. He fails to include 1 Corinthians 11, however. We can’t just dismiss this passage as the result of patriarchy. Yarbrough rightly notes that the issue is not simply about exegesis but hermeneutics, the method used to interpret the text you have exegeted. You can’t rely on just grammar and vocabulary, but how you interpret that grammar and vocabulary to apply it matters. This is the bulk of the chapter.

He focuses on arguments tied to our culture’s progressive views of women, the meaning of Galatians 3:28 and the connection made between slavery and the role of women.

In terms of the first, our culture “stresses individual rights rather than social or institutionally mandated responsibilities in both civil and moral matters.” The stress on self-fulfillment is not limited to this particular question. The church has also taken up this ethos and makes similar arguments in discussing the role of women in the church. In larger society, the growth of women’s rights and empowerment has had some unexpected consequences. The tie between men and women has weakened and our children have suffered in a variety of ways. Freedom at the expense of the most vulnerable in our society is not a biblical value. Many studies indicate how poor off are kids are due to divorce, single parent households, missing fathers etc.

“From a Christian perspective both sexes have sinned grievously against each other in rampant divorce, the sexual infidelity that often attends it, the killing (abortion) and other victimization of children, and the ripple effects of drastic lifestyle changes.”

The conclusions that have been put forth on this text and topic since the late 1960’s are significantly different from those of the previous 1900 years. Yarbrough analyzes academic dissertations and papers so you don’t have to. These new views are a result of new hermeneutical principles. Stendahl tries to preserve biblical authority while simultaneously saying that when speaking of humans, its teaching isn’t authoritative for future times. Often the Bible is now called “culturally bound” when speaking about human relationships. In the NT, equality before God and relative inequality in society were held in tension. Today, this is unthinkable and modern man seemingly can’t make distinctions. Religion is part of what is culturally imbedded or relative, and therefore changes as culture changes.

He moves to slavery and the question of interpretation since some try to connect the two with regard to how Scripture handles the subjects. Scripture did not call for the end of slavery as practiced in the surrounding cultures (very different from race-based slavery and the man-stealing that were foundational to the African slave trade). Lacking political power in a culture in which nearly half of the people were slaves, it taught people how to live as Christians within slavery. We now know that slavery is wrong, the argument goes. In a similar fashion, they see Christianity as teaching people to live within the patriarchy of the surrounding culture but today would should espouse the egalitarianism of modern culture. Just as we (rightly) reject the Southern Reformed (and other) interpretations that tried to justify the African slave trade, we should reject interpretations that justify the submission of women. (And I’d say it depends on what you mean by that.)

Yarbrough notes that God did not institute slavery, but we see that God did institute marriage. In regulating slavery in Israel, there was a 6-year limit. Marriage was generally until death do us part. In the NT, Paul permits slaves who can gain their freedom (buying it) to do so. No such permission is given regarding marriage or church leadership.

Marriage is called to reflect the created order. This includes the sacrificial love a husband should express toward his wife (not every woman) and the submission a wife expresses to her husband (not every man). Adam and Eve were king and queen. She was not his slave or property. Redemption does not obliterate our creational and therefore gender distinctions.

“The Lord reigns; we gain nothing by mistrusting his counsel and taking matters into our own hands. But men must be careful not to hide their sinfulness behind the presumed privilege that pet verses seem to afford.”

Yarbrough notes that there are a wide range of options between patriarchy and feminism. We should be talking to one another peaceably to work these things out. This also calls for some self-examination by communities. “Is how we are practicing our beliefs providing legitimate ammunition for our detractors?” For instance, are we tolerating domestic violence in our families or do we discipline members for abusing their spouse? How we apply our doctrine matters. It either makes it attractive or downright ugly. How we apply our doctrine should be marked primarily by love, seeking the best for those under authority.

After a good night’s sleep, I feel better but want to wrap this up so we move on to What Should a Woman Do in the Church?: One Woman’s Personal Reflections by Dorothy Kelley Patterson. She is the professor of theology in women’s studies at Southwestern Theological Seminary.

Let’s analyze that for a moment. This is ONE woman’s reflections. We shouldn’t think this is the only way to apply the text. It isn’t “gospel”. She is a seminary professor, though she teaches (mostly) women (she notes she doesn’t throw out men as if she has authority over them). She has an academic background. This is an academic as well as personal issue for her (as it was for Kathy Keller).

“Nevertheless, that desire for knowledge is set within boundaries that will make a woman’s learning, and the outworking of that learning, most meaningful to her, most edifying to the kingdom, and above all most God-glorifying in the overall schema of the Father’s plan.”

She mentions that Scripture doesn’t give us a gender-based list, which my own denomination’s study committee should probably keep in mind. Or more likely those of us who vote on that report- we want lists. We want certainty. We want our list affirmed by golly. The Scripture is focused more on functions, she says, not the position you hold. The general guidelines of Scripture are applicable to every generation of women. But women live in a variety of contexts that may place other boundaries on them either legitimately or illegitimately.

Women may be gifted teachers and communicators. They should use those gifts. They are to exercise those gifts publicly (and privately) in ministry to children and less mature women. That is clear from Proverbs and Titus 2. What is clear, to me, is that they should not hold the office of elder. What is not as clear is the question of a Christian conference or mixed SS class or small group. Joni, Elizabeth Elliot and other conservative women have spoken to mixed audiences at conferences. There will be some differences of opinion on that question. Many of these options didn’t exist in the early church (no SS, no conferences).

“A wise woman would rather give up an opportunity to show and use her giftedness if by using that giftedness she would risk bringing dishonor to God’s Word and thus to him.”

She starts with first principles: creation. She affirms male headship of home and church. 1 Timothy 2 is, she admits, a hard word for women. Scripture does present us with a number of women who were gifted and used by God in various ways. They walked in obedience to Him. We don’t see them walking in disobedience and expecting God to use them greatly. We see this among many women in church history. Each woman, I agree, is responsible to use her gifts within biblical boundaries. But she is not alone to figure that out, but there is ecclesiastical authority (which may err in either direction) to help her. We need wisdom from the Spirit, as Paul prayed for in Colossians.

“The Bible gives basic principles, but it does not speak in specific detail to thousands of real-life situations and choices that come before a woman.”

We must all recognize our personal defaults in distorting the Scriptures. Some of us tend to be more restrictive, and others of us more prone to push the boundaries out. We are wise to recognize the role of our own prejudices and presuppositions in interpreting and applying the Scriptures.

There is a confusing paragraph in the middle of page 157. She’s wanting, rightfully, to encourage obedience. But ….

“Therefore, I am capable of understanding God’s revelation and of choosing how I will respond to him. I am dependent on God, but I have a choice as to how I will relate to him- whether in obedience or disobedience. If I choose obedience, I am forgiven and become his by adoption. “

Not the clearest gathering of sentences, and the order lends us to confusion.

1 Timothy 2 is not about a woman’s relative intelligence or giftedness. It is not about her cultural circumstances. It is about how God designed men and women to function in society. Men and women are equal in dignity and value. They are different and complementary to one another for the purpose of God’s mission. Access to God through Christ and our spiritual privileges are the same (Gal. 3:28). This does not eliminate additional biblical instruction on church officers. Women do share their faith with both sexes (the Samaritan woman for instance), and could prophesy (Philip the Evangelist’s daughters). So they can do more than some churches permit, but less than others permit.

Where she lands is applying the prohibitions to “the teaching of men by a woman and to a woman’s exercising authority over men.” The important thing is “in the church”. This doesn’t mean that a woman can’t teach men math, science, history, or even theology. The context is church order, not social order. This seems to be the point she keeps returning to, and the point with which I leave you.

Read Full Post »

Considering Guns and the Gospel

The recent tragedies, or perhaps seemingly endless series of gun tragedies, have caused many to re-consider their own view on guns. I ran across a statement that the Bible has no “theology of guns” and therefore we should be willing to view the 2nd Amendment as contrary to Scripture.

I think it bears some examination. Obviously guns aren’t in the Scriptures, but weapons certainly are. This country has a long history of gun ownership, and responsible gun ownership. These kinds of shootings, not associated with mob wars, are new.

Before we get to weapons themselves, let us consider some of the cultural shifts that may be at work in this horrible trend. The most fundamental is a shift away from a Judeo-Christian worldview. While American has never been a Christian nation, it has been dominated by the Judeo-Christian (monotheistic and moralistic) worldview as a form of civil religion. As the gospel has departed from the cultural consciousness we see the wrath of God revealed as we see in Romans 1. Often we focus on the sexual immorality, but there is also a great increase in violence as the culture, and its members begin to devalue life. We see this in abortion, domestic violence, school violence, gang life, euthanasia and more.  This leads to the breakdown of the family, and studies indicate that sons without fathers are far more likely to struggle in many ways, including a tendency toward violence.

²⁸ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Romans 1

Cain and Abel

This only makes sense when we think of life after Eden. We see that the world in rebellion to God was full of violence beginning with Cain killing his brother Abel. Abel’s great “sin” against Cain? It was actually about God because God accepted Abel’s sacrifice but not Cain’s. Pride and envy gave birth to bitterness and then hatred which resulted in Cain picking up a rock to kill his brother.

Notice God’s response. Before he did it, God confronted Cain and called him to rule over sin before sin ruled over him. Cain was mastered by sin instead. God had a measure of mercy on Cain by not having him put to death. A mark was placed on him so others wouldn’t kill him either. (As we will see in part 2, this changes after the flood.) God did not blame the rock, institute rock-free zones or rock (or whatever he used) control. The issue was not rocks but the human heart.

This cycle of violence continued with Lamech. He is the forefather of the gang mentality we often see among our disillusioned, despairing youth even if they are not in gangs.

²³ Lamech said to his wives:

“Adah and Zillah, hear my voice;
    you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say:
I have killed a man for wounding me,
    a young man for striking me.
²⁴ If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold,
    then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold.”Genesis 4

We notice here a corruption of sex and marriage as well in that he spoke to his wives. A polygamist, he perverted justice. His wounding lead him to kill another man. He then boasted about it. His “punishment” exceeded the sin committed against him (giving Lamech the benefit of the doubt).

We see here, and in the OT law, that punishments are not to exceed the crime. The “eye for an eye” code puts limits on justice. We are not to kill people for insulting us, stealing from us (except in one instance I will mention in part 2) etc.

To make an epochal adjustment, we see that we should not use guns (or any other weapon or tool used as a weapon) to commit crimes, or to retaliate against those who harm us. The problem is not the tool we use, but rather the wicked design of the person who wields it.

In the NT we see this taught in a few places. Most famously in the Sermon on the Mount.

³⁸ “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ ³⁹ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰ And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. ⁴¹ And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. ⁴² Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. Matthew 5

We see that Jesus refers to the law of talonic justice. For a personal insult (the slap) we are not to retaliate in like kind and especially not in an excessive manner (like shooting or stabbing them). The gospel helps us to forgive them instead of seeking retribution. We should rather be wronged than wrong the other person in response.

This doesn’t mean we don’t care about or want justice. It means we entrust justice into God’s hands instead of our own.

¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. ¹⁸ If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. ¹⁹ Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” Romans 12

We remember that God is just, and He has promised to make all things right. That may be in the death of His Son, or in judgment on the Last Day. But God will deal with it. It may also be through the state as Paul noted in Romans 13.

 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴ for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Romans 13

Death Wish 3

If you are a person prone to anger, or seeking retaliation, you should not own a weapon because you will be particularly tempted to use it for unjust and wicked purposes. It is not intended to be used to right the wrongs perpetrated against you.

Does this mean that a Christian shouldn’t own a weapon (unless he or she is in the military or law enforcement)? No.

We have this statement by Jesus as he prepares the send the disciples out. Previously they were to go with nothing. Now they were to bring particular items.

³⁶ He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. Luke 22

He wanted the disciples to buy a sword! Surely, therefore, it is not sinful to own and therefore use one. The issue is for what reason. We have seen the wrong reasons to use one: murder, retaliation and would include to rob others or otherwise sin against them.

Read Full Post »