mnphysicists theological blog

Yep, even comedians like Jay Leno are having a bit of a field day over 3 republican candidates leaving the campaign trail being that all of them said God told them to run… Some atheist friends are having a field day with this as well. Likewise, some Christians are wiggling around a bit, and saying, “Well God just told them to run, not that they were going to win” I dont see a point in continuing to raise the noise floor with speculation, but I do think its worth discussing discernment a bit.

God told me you need to do this or that!

For years, I used to hear from folks that, God is leading them to tell me to do this or that… almost always, it was something that said individual personally wanted, and much of the time, it was also contrary to the scriptures.

Personal gain + contrary to scriptures = This is not of God

Folks, be honest, dont try to invoke some type of god card to get what you want. It makes God look like a carnival rabbits foot, or some type of pawn to sway anothers opinion to their viewpoint. Jeremiah 23:16 has some words on this… it is not cool.

God is leading me to do this or that!

Ok, so how is this happening? If it was some type of supernatural blinding light Damascus road deal, God is not leading, he is telling, and you best be on it like yesterday. There is of course the issue of whether said supernatural deal is from God or from Satan. The key thing to remember… not all supernatural stuff is from God, such must be tested. 1 John 4 and 2 Cor 11 talks about this. Also bear in mind it is likely society, Christian and secular will see you as off your rocker… or at a minimum be exceedingly skeptic. Otoh, if it is really of God, doing the Jonah thing would not end well.

What if its not a supernatural blinding light deal, but it appears a still small voice in a whirlwind… Test it as above, is it in alignment with the scriptures, is it from God, or a bogus angel of light, and but also bear in mind self deception is very real. Consider St Augustine. ” Man’s love of truth is such that when he loves something which is not the truth, he pretends to himself that what he loves is the truth, and because he hates to be proved wrong, he will not allow himself to be convinced that he is deceiving himself. So he hates the real truth for the sake of what he takes to his heart in its place.”

The thing is, for most folks, Damascus road and still small voices do not occur, or when they do, they end up failing the aforementioned tests. Rather, we might consider discernment along the following lines:

• We need to be open to hearing God… not too busy, not too narrow in focus, not too encumbered to hear. The sacraments,  the daily office, the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius, and even nature/spiritual focused spiritual practices could be of much help in this regard.
• We need to consider the counsel of others. Many non-connected individuals are telling you similar messages which seem aligned or at least not in conflict with the scriptures can be a plus. Said individuals also have skin in the game, such that it is not merely human praise and good feelings, but they are willing to go to the floor with you if need be would be a real positive.
• A sense of peace occurs after significant prayer about a potential direction.
• Said peace is pointing towards God, rather than merely an internal peace blooming from within. Again refer to the self deception thing Augustine talks about.

Lastly, I think its critically important to distinguish paths of which God is leading one to paths which align with God’s will. Ie, discerning God’s lead can be a challenge, determining if a given path is aligned with God’s will, ie it is not counter to the scriptures is pretty easy. An hour on Biblegateway can provide a whole lot more guidance as to alignment or lack of alignment with God’s will than months of discerning God’s leading by other than Damascus road or still small voice in the whirlwind experiences.

Its huge… from when I first got a link to it on Tuesday and it had just under 300 views to last time I checked this afternoon when it hit 10,000,000 it’s definitely struck a nerve with a lot of folks. I think its an incredibly cool video… and it likely will bring a whole lot of seekers and folks who had wandered from the church back into it. I pray the church does receive them.

Yet, there are those who dont get it. Its sad really… folks on the one hand will take offense when Jefferson (the video’s author) brought up the bit about God not loving the single mom. No church teaches such, its not in the scriptures either… but it sure didn’t take long before Christians started bashing single moms who responded positively to this video either on youtube or on facebook, and telling them they were going to hell.

Likewise, some folks cant seem to see the difference between the church, Christ’s bride, and “false” religion, and with such a view rightfully took the video as a church bashing thing, completely missing the point where Jefferson says he loves the church. Granted, more explicit language to distinguish the two might have mitigated such… but the number of folks missing the point in this regard is small. Its pretty easy to see the false religion of legalism, hypocrisy, and related as being counter to the bride of Christ.

There were a number of folks who semantic issues. Ie the whole Christianity is, is/not a religion thing which opens up a can of worms and dictionaries fly and all sorts of poking at each other begins. Folks for whom the video was intended will see where Jefferson is going, folks outside the audience will see it as a logical inconsistency.

And of course, there are the Pelagians and other related legalists who had serious heartburn. Ie, the folks who wish to replace God’s role with their own. You could about see em sputter… “but, but, but” Pelagianism and man’s pride is alive and well in our era, then again, its nothing new. Pope Innocent I condemned it way back when on January 27, 417, it looks like Mr Jefferson Bethke is having a much needed go at it again 1600 years later. Go get em sir!!!

Lastly, like all things, it is possible to read into things, and go too far…ie Jesus and me is not the answer, we do very much need the community of faith. I address gospel add-ons, pelagianism, and the Jesus and me thing in a bit more depth in my own video response.

Special thanks are due to Cindy at undermuchgrace for permission to use the cool graphic on grace. Libby Anne in her post “How Creationism Drove me out of the Church” brought up some very good points about adding things to the Gospel.

Some questions were asked on star measurements and the age of the universe in a forum I hang out at. Being I taught observational astronomy for a bit, I figured ok I can chime in on this… So, here we go with star measurement methodologies.

1. For nearby stars one uses geometry based upon the earths rotation around the sun. The math and measurement approach is solid. It can be observed in ones own backyard with very modest equipment. The observational data is then modeled and a distance is calculated. The geocentric worldview which was derived from the scriptures was in conflict with this… It took many years for the church to accept, but the geocentric worldview was finally known to be in error. As such, the interpretation of scriptures leading to such a worldveiw was proven to be in error.

2. For more distant stars, one looks at their color distribution and brightness. A given color distribution must have a known brightness… if the brightness is lower than its color distribution would suggest, the star is further away. This too can be observed in ones own backyard with pretty modest equipment. This data is then modeled and a distance is calculated.

3. For very distant stars, one looks at their color distribution and how far it has shifted towards the redder colors, not unlike hearing the pitch of a train whistle or car horn decrease as it proceeds away from a person. This too can be observed in ones own backyard, but it takes a fair amount of work. This data is then modeled and a distance is calculated.

As Christians, what we have is the following:
A. The scriptures and how we interpret them.
B. What we can see with our own eyes, how we interpret what we see, ie observations, models, and conclusions.

This leads to the messy situation, where in your buddy sees a orange cat, and yet you tell him its white as thats what the Bible says it is. Even worse, you tell him its white with great authority, even though you have not taken the time to go look for it yourself or even consider that how you are interpreting the scriptures could be in error.

What if the cat really is white, and your buddy needs to get to an eye doctor fast?

What if the cat really is orange, and your interpretation of the scriptures is in error like the geocentrists was… Have you put a stumbling block in front of your buddy?

Does the color of a cat, or the age of the universe really matter as concerns issues of faith or practice?

If it does matter in areas of faith and practice, what will happen to your belief system should star distance measurement denial follow a similar course as geocentrism?

A somewhat recurrent them is that those young in the faith need protection. This seems to be backed up by Mark 9:42 where Jesus talks about not causing a little one to stumble and the millstone around the neck deal Many have used such a verse to such to foster indoctrination and/or sheltering from the beliefs of others. In some cases, such has even been used to justify the creation of falsehoods about others.

I’m of the opinion Mark 9;42 is connected to the rest of the chapter where in we have Jesus referencing body parts as to the cause of stumbling. I find it exceedingly interesting that the tongue is clearly absent from the adjacent text. Rather the adjacent text indicates body parts are key, the stumbling bit seems to be much more a physical thing… ie, using the eyes to lust or covet, and the foot and hands to run off and steal, kidnap or rape.

Likewise, the predecessor verses seem to indicate even others who are outside the group are not a threat… ie dudes were casting out demons in Jesus name, even though they were not “one of us”, and Jesus was cool with it, even though the disciples were not.

Going back a bit further back in the chapter, we run into Jesus coming down on the disciples for pride and arrogance as to who would be the greatest. To some extent, I wonder if ideological protectionism, sheltering, and indoctrination may be more of a power play than a anti-stumbling methodology?

Going beyond just scripture into reason and experience, it seems the practices of falsehoods, sheltering, and indoctrination more often than not does eventually cause little ones to stumble… the exact opposite of what such was intended to protect against. Such plays out every year to folks peril when overly sheltered, and indoctrinated young folks go off to college, followed there after by the casting away of their beliefs, where as other young students more often than not tend to stay the course they were taught.

I think only the bit that could be used to justify sheltering is where Jesus talks about salt loosing its saltiness in Mark 9:50 but such would be a substantial mis-interpretation. Salt in and of itself doesnt loose its saltiness. Bulk salt properties otoh are subject to change, with the greatest rates of change occurring when 99.999% sale is removed from its hermetic packaging. For background info, consider the bulk osmotic pressure differences between 99.999% NaCl and NaCl based road salt.

Granted a discussion of osmotic pressure differentials is far outside the scope of this article… but considering that we are not to put our light under a lampstand, and that hermetic seals are not forever… long term protectionism does not appear a wise course of action.

Hous was asking some questions concerning Exodus 38:8 on his facebook wall, so I just had to run with it. Its a fascinating piece of scripture, and also one that really seems way out of place with the rest of the chapter. Alas, it is in there, and just like Psalm 137:9 there likely must be some deeper meaning surrounding it.

The text of issue: Exodus 38:8 Moreover, he made the laver of bronze with its base of bronze, from the mirrors of the serving women who served at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

It seems odd that only the women at the temple entrance were singled out as a group in contrast to the 600,000 + others in the building of the tabernacle. Rabbi’s, such as Rashi seem to tie in the bit about Miriams song of the red sea, and military victory as concerning this text. Likewise Rashi presents some additional background. Mirrors were used by women to seduce their enslaved and exhausted husbands in the field for purposes of childbearing. Such was exceedingly important, as Rashi interprets Pharaohs actions in keeping the enslaved husbands exhausted, and likewise away from their families at night, as methods to foster the demise of the Jewish people in future generations.

Like Rashi, I tend to think the mirror business is sexually connected. Unlike Rashi, I’m thinking the women at the temple entrance were using mirrors and such for prostitution. The use of mirrors in the field certainly makes sense considering the Jewish focus on purity and the focus on continuation of their people for future generations.. but it seems a major stretch of the text to fit a position. Ie, these women were not at the field, they were at entrance to the tent of the meeting. In addition, if we consider the following in combination with the historical context of temple prostitution.

1 Samuel 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting.

Granted, some could likewise say such is a bit of a stretch… scripture is not explicitly clear that the women were prostitutes, and likewise, history can vary from place to place. Thus the nearly 180 degree difference in my interpretation in contrast with Rashi. Continuing on…

If we then consider that Moses originally rejected the inclusion of mirrors, it seems a bit off. Ie, the symbolism of the propagation of future generations would seemingly be a righteous thing as recognition of God’s covenant with Abraham. On the other hand, if the mirrors had been involved in prostitution, Moses would seemingly be making the right call to reject their use… yet Rashi indicates God commanded their inclusion.

This inclusion of the women’s mirrors in the construction of the basin and its base could point towards Christ’s ministry and His focus on matters of the heart rather than the purity codes. The putting aside of the old and becoming new, being washed clean. Ie in giving up their mirrors, such could be symbolism of leaving prostitution behind. Likewise, such could point to Christ’s focus on sacrifice from the heart rather than sacrificial ritual. Ie, rather than giving $320 each, like the 600,000+ did, they gave away the tools of their profession. Lastly, the aspect of not causing another to stumble. Ie, they didnt sell the mirrors to others, but in being part of the basin assembly, no one else could use the mirrors for prostitution.

Then again… there is a tendency for us to look backwards in time. Its quite likely Christ’s ministry focus was the original intent of God all along. Purity and ritual were a means to reach the heart, rather than the disguises of righteousness used by the Pharisees.

A recurrent theme by some Christians, is that the church can take care of the poor, and that it would be more compassionate and efficiency if they did rather than the govt. Certain Matthew 25 is pretty hard core that Christians should be doing so. Likewise, the cities in Ezekiel that chose not to do so did not end well. Even more so, in this Sunday’s lectionary reading, we have the parable of the 5000… just a few fish and some bread starting with the apostles multiplied to feed the entire group, and there were 12 baskets left over! Whats perhaps most interesting, is the words of Jesus. “They do not need to go away; you give them something to eat!”

As such, it is certainly a reasonable stance that the church should take care of the poor…

If one were to go back to the Old Testament rules on tithing, ie not 10%, but 23-1/3%, the church could do so somewhat. On the other hand, most Christians believe that the old testament laws no longer apply, but more so that we should give from the heart. In theory, this sounds like a much better solution. There will be some who give little to nothing, and others who give 90%+, and it would seem that giving would be even greater than the OT’s 23-1/3& figure.

Realistically, the US average church tithe ends up being only 2.43% or about $40 billion. Of that $40 billion, nearly 3/4 goes to salaries, buildings, and program expenses… thus, there is about $10 billion left for missions. If one splits the missions costs in half, ie 50% for evangelism, materials, missionaries, overhead, we end up with $5 billion/year to take care of the world’s poor by providing food, clothing, & shelter. I’m leaving off medical care, as there are differences in opinion as to the parable of the good samaritan and todays medical practices.

The US Govt spends $9.1 billion on food, nutrition, and temporary assistance for needy families each month (page 16 of the above report). So… if the church were to take care of the poor in the US, they could do so for ~2 weeks, before running out of money. In fairness though, lets assume there is a loss of efficieny, fraud, waste, etc in govt programs where in the church could do quite a bit better. For the sake of argument, lets say the church could out perform government on a 10:1 basis... fewer regs, fewer middlemen, ie farm direct to the poor with volunteer transport, better negotiations, more donations than direct purchases, more volunteer positions than paid ones, greater oversight, less fraud, better full time employment placements etc. (Ok, so I’ve way overly optimistic on this)

The church at its current budget levels, and priorities could thus provide for food, nutrition and temporary assistance for the poor in the US for 6 months out of the year…

Some have suggested, if the govt were to step away, that church folks would then donate more… some have even researched this (its behind paywall) and suggest that church giving declined as the new deal programs came into being. Then again, causation and correlation are not the same. It is how ever interesting to note the following data:

1933 Church giving 3.2%

1955 Church tithing 3.2%

2002 Church tithing 2.6%

2008 Church tithing 2.4%

If one then adds in the fact that taxes as a percentage of GDP are lower than they have been for decades… its easy to go???? Again, correlation and causation are often at odds.

Another aspect to consider, is how much the poor should be helped. Ie, govts idea of what is reasonable support. may be at odds with the values of some Christians. A Bishop of the Catholic church says one thing, those in the pew another and priests another. Likewise, Hugh, a Mennonite minister, overhears some Bible study commentary and….

“The passage was the story of the rich young ruler, who comes to Jesus for advice, and then Jesus tells him to sell everything he has and to give it to the poor. The people in the small group were having a tough time with this.

After hearing that story read, a young guy in the room – richer than 80% of the planet, born the predominant race and the most privileged gender in the wealthiest country in the world – the very epitome of a rich young ruler to the majority of our planet – it was then that this kid said,”I think the important thing to keep in mind is to have a balanced view. After all, God gives us our possessions for a reason, and—”

It was then that I lost it….”

Read the entire article at Who Sinned that these people are poor

What about Barbados, Calcutta, Guyana? If churches only help those lacking food in the US for 6 months, what about the rest of the world? What about the rest of the year?

There is corruption in government, even the most optimistic pro-government person there is can see problems with favoritism, single bid contracts, political contributions etc… but alas, the church is not immune. A fellow was kicked out of his church, as he didnt attend often enough. Imagine in todays economic climate, how many can’t attend “often enough”…now imagine said folks not only being thrown out of church, but also economically tossed out on the street. A very sad example of this is what happens far too often when folks get divorced. Imagine what would happen to the poor person who the church was helping.

The thing is, it wasnt always this way, and likewise not all churches are like the above. Back when, churches were behind the building of hospitals, the building and planning of schools. Public schools, a hundred plus years ago were rallied for, and even funded by the ELCA’s predecessor bodies. Today, churches have sold their hospitals, sold their schools, and many have become exceedingly dependent upon government to function. Ie, Lutheran social services and Catholic charities here in MN receive so much money from the state, that had the MN budget shutdown continued, they were looking to have to cancel any number of services. Likewise, when government funds church charities, hospitals etc, strings are included, and rightly so… but alas, such is often in conflict with the mission and/or values of the church.

Bottom line, its not just a math thing, a history thing, a definition thing, or even an abuse thing. Recent history is pretty clear, the church cant do it all, or even a major portion, irrespective of Matthew 25. Likewise, the government cant do it all either, as evidenced by greater and greater budget cuts, almost always impacting the least of these more so than anyone else.

This is where churches can and often do step up to the plate… and yet so many still fall through the cracks. To think that the govt should step back, and shift greater burden for poverty onto the church is beyond unrealistic….

“No real Christian would do that” seems to be a common Christian apologetic to what Breivik did. Most assuredly his actions were exceedingly evil… but whether he is a Christian or not is another story.

If we believe the words of Christ as concerns the parable of the wheat and the tares, the no real Christian phrase falls apart.

If we take the doctrinal position that all sins are equal, short of the unforgivable sin, the no real Christian argument crashes and burns. Yes, it is a hard thing to consider the lusting of the eyes of a 17 yr old with the murder of 90+ people, but either we believe what scriptures say about sin equivalence or we dont.

If all scripture is inspired and beneficial, the killing actions of Saul and David, namely the deaths of 10′s of thousands in 1 Samuel 18 and the acts of genocide commanded to Saul in 1 Samuel 15, must not be ignored.

If we look at contemporary culture, we have Francis Schaeffer, one of the founders of today’s Christian Right in the US, book “A Christian Manifesto” who states:

“There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate. . . . A true Christian in Hitler’s Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion. . . . It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God’s law it abrogates its authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation.”

Francis son, Frank, presents a really scathing analysis, which I think goes much too far, and likewise far too politicalized, but beneath it all there appears an element of truth. .

A scary deal is the following from Breivik’s 2083 Manifesto, much of which I’ve heard espoused by any number of folks who would be considered “real Christians”. Bear in mind, Breivik attributed this to another author, but must have agreed with it enough to include it in his book.

As Christianity is a way of life, and life involves power relationships, Christianity is at once a political way of life. One can not separat eout ones politics from ones faith and beliefs, they are intertwined as ones beliefs effects ones politics. Thus, within the Christian worldview, there is no separation of ‘Christianity’ and ‘politics’, as distinct spheres, ‘politics’ is but another sphere of the way of life that is Christianity. Politics is subsumed within Christianity.

Persecution of Christians and oppression of Christianity is contrary to the will of God. Thus, ‘the universal and global church on earth’ should enter into solidarity with persecuted Christians wherever they are found. The church should centre its life, not around sacraments, or dogmas, (though these should never be done away with), but on the experiences and the cause of the martyred, and the oppressed, and suffering Christian. Christians should come together and study and support one another in tackling persecution and oppression of Christians. Theology should be rooted in the experiences of the persecuted.

Perhaps whats even scarier, is its not just Breivik, case in point the following extended forum discussion from 2007 which references parts of the same document that Brevik quoted above. Its far too lengthy to cut and paste.

Lastly, in Breivik’s own words

Christian, Protestant but I support a reformation of Protestantism leading to it being absorbed by Catholisism. The typical “Protestant Labour Church” has to be deconstructed as its creation was an attempt to abolish the Church. Religious: I went from moderately to agnostic to moderately religious

My parents, being rather secular wanted to give me the choice in regards to religion.
At the age of 15 I chose to be baptised and confirmed in the Norwegian State Church. I
consider myself to be 100% Christian.

Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious
man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a
monocultural Christian Europe.

We’d like to think no real Christian would do such, but alas with scripture, church history, contemporary writings, and others actually advocating violence… it appears that some would do such. Even sadder, I’m not convinced the perpetrators are always deluded nutjobs, no matter how convenient such a label would be.

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever getteth his Christology right enough shall not perish, but have everlasting life.” is what a friend said the other day when we were having a rather indepth discussion on the trinity.

In isolation, such a comment seems pretty insane to the 21st century Christian. On the other hand, it doesnt seem too out of line when it comes to some of the writings of the early ecumenical councils. Even today, with a little bit of poking around, such a belief is a lot more common than one might think.

Where it gets really interesting, is when the above statement is a belief held by *Nestorians in regards to the other Abrahamic faiths or non-trinitarians. In a nutshell, “right enough” starts getting really crazy fast, so much so, that its pretty much impossible to resolve.

Last Sunday’s Gospel reading on the wheat and the tares seems quite applicable. Ie, as any gardener knows, when desirable plants and weeds are intermixed and young, its near impossible to tell them apart. In the case of Gospel readings, its even more difficult and dangerous, in that the weed in reference was darnal, where in its impossible to tell which is wheat, and which is a poisonous weed, until the time of harvest.

The part where Jesus goes on to explain the parable really hits home on this. The weeds and the wheat are people… the harvestors are the angels at the end of the age. Namely, the wheats role is not to pull up the weeds and cast them into the fire. Likewise, its not the wheats role to pound the suspected weed into the ground… but such is what happens far too often. My friend John in his sermon last sunday stated.

We are, in effect – no, that’s not right, it isn’t “in effect,” it’s exactly that we are ripping out the wheat along with the weeds, and doing it with wild and joyful abandon! In our passion to construct the perfect vehicle with which to express our freedom in Christ, we’ve fenced ourselves in – thirty-five thousand separate plots of theological ground. In our dedication to perfecting our walk, purifying our prayer, sanctifying our thought, we have shut out anything and everyone who does not conform to our precise expectations.

So what about the Nestorians, non-Trinitarians, and others with widely differing beliefs which we believe to be in error? Plant seeds, Love them, pray for them, and let God take care of the rest. Do bear in mind that abuse, spiritual or otherwise is a different matter… Unlike weeds and wheat that are hard to distinguish, a roaring fire in the field needs to be extinguished before it destroys everything.

*Nestorianism basically splits Christ in half, and in todays world, Nestoriansim by label primarily exists in Iran, albeit it is a very small group. By theological definition, Nestorianism is pretty rampant in US protestant circles, an informal survey some years back put the number upwards of 40%!