A friend forwarded the following series of questions:

“Now here is a question. Jesus died for man’s sins. [I digress but why do people have to die to satisfy God? Wiped out a bunch in the flood because they were bad. Sodom and Gomorrah wiped off the map because they were too much like Vegas. Told Abraham to kill his son Ishmael (or was it Isaac) to test his faith. Tortured Job for the same reason. Sent His only Son to die. What's with the sacrifices? A big thank you is not enough?] Back to the original question. What sins did Jesus have to die for? Was it original sin? If you don’t buy the Adam and Eve story does the whole saved by Christ’s sacrifice go out the window? Do you have to believe A to get to Z or can you believe in bits and pieces? I am not asking to pick a fight, but I honestly don’t know the answers to these questions.”

These are important questions! And this author is not alone in asking them. A lot of people are finding the “handed down” orthodox answers to be less than satisfactory. I enter the dialogue here, not because I’ve got all the answers, but because the questions need to be pondered, not avoided. “Wrestling” with such ponderables is at the center of faith and is something of its essence. Here is my offering to the continuing conversation: (more…)

I know, it’s become a trite theological word! But I’m coming to believe that it’s also the key concept in Christianity. Somewhere I read that C. S. Lewis considered “grace” or “forgiveness” to be the single most important contribution of Christianity to the world, and that which sets Christianity apart from other religions. And for good reason. Jesus’ teachings and practice of grace were (and continues to be) a radical departure from the way of the world.

Too bad that a religion founded on the notion of grace, as expressed through its founder, could have grown so far from its practice. Philip Yancey, in his book, What’s So Amazing About Grace?, laments that the Christian church is often more likely to practice UNGRACE rather than grace! Why is that?

While Jesus taught his followers to “forgive 70 times 7,” we find it difficult to forgive even once? While Jesus taught us to “forgive (love) your enemies,” we have trouble forgiving our children and spouses and parents and best friends. While Jesus died with grace on his tongue, “Father, forgive them,” we often carry intolerance and even hatred in our hearts.

I’m trying to learn the demands of real grace. Things like . . . (more…)

I have been really studying Romans 14 a lot recently. No, I’m not thinking of becoming a vegetarian. Ever since I was a kid I could never reconcile the things I was always taught about “stumbling blocks” with the actual words I was reading in this chapter.

1) I was always taught that if a Christian did something “questionable” and a non-Christian saw them we might prevent them from becoming a Christian. As I read this chapter over and over I don’t see this. The discourse is in reference to others who are already Christians. It calls them weaker brothers, but it never once mentions someone that does not believe in Christ. As a matter of fact that stumbling referred to is that we cause someone who is already following Christ to do something they believe to be wrong because they don’t have the same freedom we have. Which in that case it says both have sinned. Sin itself points to this only being about other Christians. Why would a non-Christian view these things in terms of sin. They aren’t playing by the same rule book that we are. Sin comes from our rule book, not theirs. Which brings me to point #2

2) Of course I was also taught that a “questionable” action around another Christian that does not agree with it was also a stumbling block. I see this as only partly right. In verses 3 and 4 Paul says:
“Those who think it is all right to eat anything must not look down on those who won’t. And those who won’t eat certain foods must not condemn those who do, for God has accepted them. Who are you to condemn God’s servants? They are responsible to the Lord, so let him tell them whether they are right or wrong. The Lord’s power will help them do as they should.”
This simply says don’t condemn someone who believes differently than you. It specifically says God has accepted them. It even says each person is responsible to the Lord. There is no directive here to stop doing something just because someone else doesn’t agree with it. Read verse 10:
“So don’t condemn each other anymore. Decide instead to live in such a way that you will not put an obstacle in another Christian’s path. ”
Again, we find an admonishment here not to condemn another Christian for believing different than we do. It doesn’t say those who don’t believe in something must stop everyone else from doing it. It doesn’t say that those who do believe in it should force others to do it with them. It gives some latitude. It gives some personal freedom. It appears that the stumbling block here is not the act itself. It is condemnation of someone who does not agree with your interpretation.

3) So, am I saying I believe it is OK to do anything I want, anytime I want? No, I do think there comes a point where certain acts can be sinful even if they aren’t wrong. Read verse 21:
“Don’t eat meat or drink wine or do anything else if it might cause another Christian to stumble.”
At first glance that appears to be a blanket statement against doing anything another Christian might disagree with, although the above verses simply don’t agree with that. It is important however to understand the context. Paul is writing to the Roman believers about issues that have arisen when they gather. The issues of eating meat or drinking wine were only issues because eating is part of what these believers did when they gathered together. This was common practice. They understood this. That means Paul was not issuing a blanket condemnation. It seems he was saying if certain people believe eating meat is wrong but they can’t stop themselves from eating it when available then don’t make it available to them. Don’t give them reason to sin against their own conscience. It doesn’t say don’t have something around just because someone else thinks it is wrong. If someone believes it is wrong and is strong enough to refrain even if available then I can find no condemnation to have it around.

In conclusion, from what I read in this chapter the church has cherry picked a couple of verses to come up with a meaning that simply isn’t there. It seems that there are 2 stumbling blocks listed in this chapter:
1) Condemnation of other Christians for not agreeing with you interpretations of right and wrong.
2) Providing another Christian with the means to do something which would cause them to sin against their own conscience and morals.

Any thoughts?

One summer a few years ago, our daughter was part of an all-state orchestra event. It involved her being away from home under the supervision of others. There would be several days of learning and practicing music, followed by a short tour of performances around the state. Parents were allowed to attend to any of the performances. We chose a couple that were closest to home.

At one of those performances we introduced ourselves to the director of the orchestra. “We’re Leigh’s parents,” we said proudly. “Oh,” he replied, “she has such a disarming sense of humor.” Not sure if that was meant as a compliment we stammered some response like, “Uh . . . thanks (I think).”

We knew all about disarming humor. We had a teenage daughter and I worked with teenagers professionally. Disarming humor is also called sarcasm. Teens are experts at it! (more…)

All of my previous posts on Old Testament law have led up to this one post. The pressure is on me now to make a good point. Well, here goes.

I had the misfortune of witnessing a woman get all bent out of shape over one of these supposed Old Testament laws. She thought the youth pastor was doing something wrong by allowing a young woman to help with the youth group that has a nose piercing. She thinks the Bible teaches against this. She thought this set a bad example for all the teens in the youth group including her daughter. (more…)

Today’s law comes from Deuteronomy 24:5. This one is actually a little scary to me. Let’s read it.

If a man is newly married he must not join the army and do not pester him at home. He must be left at home, free of all obligation for one year, to cheer up his new wife.

Look at the last few words of that verse. Does it seem to you that there is an assumption made that the mere act of getting married is going to make a woman miserable? (more…)

The next Old Testament law(s) come from Leviticus 19:27-28.

Do not cut off the hair on the sides of your head. Do not trim the edges of your beard.

These verses are obviously meant for men. The first part of that says not to cut “off” the hair on the sides of your head. Does that mean you can trim it up? Can you let them grow really thick and bushy? Perhaps the most important question from this first part is this. Was Elvis trying to make a statement of faith with his mutton chops and the whole world misunderstood? (more…)

OK, for Old Testament law #2 we will be talking about one of those more mature topics. It comes from Leviticus 15: 28-30.

When the woman’s menstrual discharge stops, she must count off a period of seven days. After that, she will be ceremonially clean. On the eighth day, she must bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons and present them to the priest at the entrance of the Tabernacle. The priest will offer one for a sin offering and the other for a whole burnt offering. In this way, the priest will make atonement for her before the Lord for her menstrual discharge.

There are several verses before these three that are extremely interesting, but for today let’s just talk these three.

Can you imagine if every woman at every church had to make a special appearance eight days after her time of the month. (more…)

Over the course of the next couple of weeks I want to point out some of the laws and commandments given to the children of Israel in the Old Testament. Eventually I want to use all these to make a point. Some of them address topics that are “adult”. They are all from the Bible though.

Let’s start with Leviticus 19:19. It states ” . . Do not wear clothing woven from two different kinds of fabric.”

Can you imagine the shakeup this would cause if pastors started teaching this commandment from the pulpit. (more…)

An email question about why our church has women deacons was the start of this post. . . . BUT it’s also about how to approach/interpret scripture and so much more. Here is a sampling:

I guess I need to start with some of my fundamental assumptions (everyone has them, so we might as well be honest about it).

1) I assume that scripture cannot be taken pure, that is, without interpretation. (more…)