Thursday, April 30, 2009
Put to the Test All Things
The way is so simple and obvious - yet so many overlook it. They research, analyze, confer and argue - but the best way to prove the relevancy of the Bible today is to do what it says. "A good understanding have all those who do His commandments," advises Psalm 111:10. If you want to understand God's Word, put it into action. The Bible is God's instruction manual for living. It's not unlike the intimidatingly thick instruction book that came with the word processing program I use. As I use this program, more and more of the instruction book makes sense. Similarly, I will be able to do what the Bible says if I follow the instructions. If I decide not to follow the instructions, life isn't going to work out as I might expect. So the key to undestanding the Word of God is to put it into practice. But that is easier said than done. It demands a commitment beyond what most people are prepared to make in this permissive age. It involves changing - your habits, your routine, your priorities, the way you handle your finances, your family and your relationships with friends and neighbors. The are changes for the better, and some of them do hurt at first. But they can be made. I know hundreds of people in dozens of countries who are doing so. As they put the Bible teachings into action in their lives, they understand the intent of them more and more.
Changing The Rules
Is it really any different today? About one quarter of the world's population claims allegiance to Jesus Christ. But as the bishop of Newark pointed out, Jesus' teachings, and those of the rest of the Bible, are only acceptable to us if they agree with our own preconceived ideas. The way of life he taught, with its uncompromising emphasis on meeting God's standards, is no easier to accept in the 20th century than it was in the first. We no longer have the opportunity to physically do away with Jesus Christ, but does not standing in judgment of his teachings represent a similar attitude? It is, of course, very human to want to alter a standard we find hard to meet. Here the Bible is particularly vulnerable. It lays down the law on some very personal aspects of life-like marriage, sex and personal morality-rather differently from some modern standards. And frankly, don't even some of the easy-to-understand teachings seem a bit impractical for the real world? "Love your enemy," "turn the other cheek," "do good to those who despitefully use you" and "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Nice principles, but do you know anyone who really practices them? So come on, let's be reasonable, many no doubt say. Why not give the Bible a good going over? Throw out what is not acceptable, bring the rest into line with modern values, and pretty soon, everyone will be saying what a useful book the Bible really is after all. The fifth-century theologian Augustine rightly observed: If you believe what you want to in the Gospels, and reject what you want to, it is not the Gospels you believe, but yourself. Does this mean then, that we should embrace every word of Scripture without question, accept everything at face value just because it is there in translation? No-such a faith would be blind and simplistic, and the Bible itself does not require that. "Test all things," wrote the apostle Paul; "hold fast what is good" (I Thess.5:21, New King James Version). But how do you test?
Venerable Beads
One of the more controversial examinations of the Bible is coordinated by a group of scholars known as The Jesus Seminar. They are systematically scrutinizing the gospels to decide if Jesus really did say what the gospels claim he said.
After examining from many points of view a verse quoting Jesus, they vote on its authenticity with a system of colored beads. Black means Jesus said it, red implies he did not, while pink and gray signify varying degrees of probability. The aim is to produce a version of the Bible printed in black, red and varying shades of pink and gray.
To be fair, a red bead does not mean that the seminar believes the verse should be removed. The latest announcement from the seminar is that they don't think Jesus ever said he was going to return. This has Christians from many different persuasions concerned. We sympathize - for we believe very firmly that Jesus said he would return. When properly understood, not only the gospels but the entire message of the Bible attest to this.
However, The Jesus Seminar would seem to be a particularly difficult group to argue with. If they have decided Jesus never said he was coming back, how do you convince them that he meant it? This I fear is an argument that won't be solved unless or until Jesus does return - maybe not even then for some. Jesus Christ often found himself confronting learned and scholarly men who had painted themselves into an intellectual corner. So sure were they in their interpretation of God's Word that they could not - or would not - accept the evidence of the messiahship of Jesus.
Jesus Christ was a popular and well-accepted figure-until his teachings began to correct and undermine the personal standard of righteousness of the religious leadership. They couldn't change him, so they rejected him. "We know that you are a teacher sent from God," admitted Nicodemus, but that did not stop certain of the people he represented plotting to destroy Jesus.
After examining from many points of view a verse quoting Jesus, they vote on its authenticity with a system of colored beads. Black means Jesus said it, red implies he did not, while pink and gray signify varying degrees of probability. The aim is to produce a version of the Bible printed in black, red and varying shades of pink and gray.
To be fair, a red bead does not mean that the seminar believes the verse should be removed. The latest announcement from the seminar is that they don't think Jesus ever said he was going to return. This has Christians from many different persuasions concerned. We sympathize - for we believe very firmly that Jesus said he would return. When properly understood, not only the gospels but the entire message of the Bible attest to this.
However, The Jesus Seminar would seem to be a particularly difficult group to argue with. If they have decided Jesus never said he was coming back, how do you convince them that he meant it? This I fear is an argument that won't be solved unless or until Jesus does return - maybe not even then for some. Jesus Christ often found himself confronting learned and scholarly men who had painted themselves into an intellectual corner. So sure were they in their interpretation of God's Word that they could not - or would not - accept the evidence of the messiahship of Jesus.
Jesus Christ was a popular and well-accepted figure-until his teachings began to correct and undermine the personal standard of righteousness of the religious leadership. They couldn't change him, so they rejected him. "We know that you are a teacher sent from God," admitted Nicodemus, but that did not stop certain of the people he represented plotting to destroy Jesus.
Are We Sharpening Our Understanding? Or Missing The Point?
It was titled "Would God Re-Write the Bible?" by John Shelby Spong, Bishop of Newark, a few weeks ago, I read an item from a U.S. East Coast newspaper.
A new look at the book. Bishop Spong challenged the clergy of his diocese to undertake a thorough reexamination of the Bible. He appointed a task force to "engage scholars, scientists, evangelicals, Catholics, fundamentalists, and atheists who might have anything to tell the church about the Bible and its authority for our day."
The bishop's point is that although mainstream churches say they believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, they often don't treat them so. He writes: "Have we not come to treat the Bible dishonestly by quoting it where it buttresses our arguments and ignoring it everywhere else?" And he challenges: "Have we clergy thought about these things? Are we concerned? Do we care?"
These are good questions and the bishop must be congratulated for honestly confronting them. He told the clergy of his diocese that if done well, this study could be the most significant and controversial matter they have ever addressed.
Now, I am not sure how the bishop regards this magazine. So, if the Newark task force wants to hear from anyone who has something to say about the authority and relevancy of the Bible for our day, they might find this interesting, and perhaps even helpful.
A new look at the book. Bishop Spong challenged the clergy of his diocese to undertake a thorough reexamination of the Bible. He appointed a task force to "engage scholars, scientists, evangelicals, Catholics, fundamentalists, and atheists who might have anything to tell the church about the Bible and its authority for our day."
The bishop's point is that although mainstream churches say they believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, they often don't treat them so. He writes: "Have we not come to treat the Bible dishonestly by quoting it where it buttresses our arguments and ignoring it everywhere else?" And he challenges: "Have we clergy thought about these things? Are we concerned? Do we care?"
These are good questions and the bishop must be congratulated for honestly confronting them. He told the clergy of his diocese that if done well, this study could be the most significant and controversial matter they have ever addressed.
Now, I am not sure how the bishop regards this magazine. So, if the Newark task force wants to hear from anyone who has something to say about the authority and relevancy of the Bible for our day, they might find this interesting, and perhaps even helpful.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
U.S. - Soviet Relations
Critics among America's allies had already judged the President as one who saw the world in terms of the American Wild West. They did not see the cool realism in his policy. Mr. Reagan put pressure on the Soviet Union, while extending the hand of cooperation the solve tensions. The U.S.S.R. faced up to the fact that its Achilles' hell was economic. It could not keep up an arms race with a superpower that seemed to have almost unlimited borrowing power.
It was March 8, 1983, in Orlando, Florida, that U.S. President Ronald Reagan bluntly defined the world that then existed. The Free World, he announced, was in mortal battle with an evil empire - the U.S.S.R. "They preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the earth - they are the focus of evil in the modern world," declared Mr. Reagan.
There followed four Reagan - Gorbachev summits: Geneva, November 1985; Reykjavik, October 1986; Washington, D.C., December 1987; and Moscow, May - June 1988. The unthinkable had happened; glasnost within the Soviet Union expanded to relationships outside the U.S.S.R. And the consequent economic realisties within the Soviet Union demanded a major restructuring of the communist system if the ultimate goal of a new communist world were to be achieved.
The result is an astoundingly different world. Whereas once the leaders of the two superpowers flew to neutral nations or, occasionally, to each other's capitals, they now journey into each other's spheres of influence.
The Iron Curtain has been not just literally but politically sundered between Hungary and the West. European Community leaders have opened the door to Hungarian participation in EC affairs. All this just three short years before Europe becomes the world's largest agricultural and economic market without frontiers.
It was March 8, 1983, in Orlando, Florida, that U.S. President Ronald Reagan bluntly defined the world that then existed. The Free World, he announced, was in mortal battle with an evil empire - the U.S.S.R. "They preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples of the earth - they are the focus of evil in the modern world," declared Mr. Reagan.
There followed four Reagan - Gorbachev summits: Geneva, November 1985; Reykjavik, October 1986; Washington, D.C., December 1987; and Moscow, May - June 1988. The unthinkable had happened; glasnost within the Soviet Union expanded to relationships outside the U.S.S.R. And the consequent economic realisties within the Soviet Union demanded a major restructuring of the communist system if the ultimate goal of a new communist world were to be achieved.
The result is an astoundingly different world. Whereas once the leaders of the two superpowers flew to neutral nations or, occasionally, to each other's capitals, they now journey into each other's spheres of influence.
The Iron Curtain has been not just literally but politically sundered between Hungary and the West. European Community leaders have opened the door to Hungarian participation in EC affairs. All this just three short years before Europe becomes the world's largest agricultural and economic market without frontiers.
Surge of Religion
We ought all be familiar with the major influence Islam has on the politics of the Middle East. And the influence of Jewish spokesmen of the orthodox far right in Israeli politics. And of the evangelicals in U.S. politics. But there is another area where religion is being heard in the moral and political arena. Europe is now center stage on the political scene.
There are three major views of the future of Europe. One is of the single market of the European Community, essentially a secular economic view with vague political goals. Another is of Mr. Gorbachev who speaks of the "common European home" in which he sees the Soviet Union also residing.
Then there is a third view, unnoticed before late 1982, and unnoticed still by many who think of religion in European politics as only a historical curiosity. This third view is that of Pope John Paul II, who sees a Europe with-out spiritual frontiers. A Europe in which morals rule from Atlantic shores to the Urals. An entire continent that has rediscovered its spiritual roots, that has healed the religious disunity of centuries.
In the Pontiff's view faith in Marxism is dead in Eastern Europe, as well as faith in Christianity in much of the West. He intends to reawaken that faith in the Continent's historic Christian heritage - its roots - and build a bridge between East and West Europe. Parliamentarians, meanwhile, may concern themselves with the question of restricting the activities of sects and other religions that have come into Europe.
There are three major views of the future of Europe. One is of the single market of the European Community, essentially a secular economic view with vague political goals. Another is of Mr. Gorbachev who speaks of the "common European home" in which he sees the Soviet Union also residing.
Then there is a third view, unnoticed before late 1982, and unnoticed still by many who think of religion in European politics as only a historical curiosity. This third view is that of Pope John Paul II, who sees a Europe with-out spiritual frontiers. A Europe in which morals rule from Atlantic shores to the Urals. An entire continent that has rediscovered its spiritual roots, that has healed the religious disunity of centuries.
In the Pontiff's view faith in Marxism is dead in Eastern Europe, as well as faith in Christianity in much of the West. He intends to reawaken that faith in the Continent's historic Christian heritage - its roots - and build a bridge between East and West Europe. Parliamentarians, meanwhile, may concern themselves with the question of restricting the activities of sects and other religions that have come into Europe.
Management of World Debt
Western economists, as the decade wore on, were fearful of a collapse of the debt market. Would developing countries make their interest payments? As it turned out, some have been able to. Others, such as Argentina, have not. The nations of Western Europe have consequently decided to take the lead in the economic field. France in particular has declared there is no alternative but to forgive 1/3 of the debt of each relevant developing country.
Oil doubled in price 1979-80. The shock was too great for fragile economies. The silver market crashed in 1980. A general deflationary trend set in worldwide. By late 1982 the United States economy began a recovery. European economies only later followed suit. East Asia weathered the economic storm. But Latin America and Africa as a whole became disaster areas, with great disparities between rich and poor.
In simplest terms, much of the developing world for nearly a decade has been drowning in debt not entirely of their own making. Only a few bright spots exist. One such nation, Bhutan, in the eastern Himalayas, has managed its natural resources with great economic wisdom. A contrasting example of a nation with no debt, Romania paid off its international debt at great speed-but at the cost of reducing its people to poverty.
This European lead in proposing specific debt forgiveness policies and the decision to have Europe manage the economic rescue (an initiative launched by President Bush) of Poland and Hungary is evidence the United States has lost significant superpower status. This brings us to the last drastic change in events of the 1980s.
Oil doubled in price 1979-80. The shock was too great for fragile economies. The silver market crashed in 1980. A general deflationary trend set in worldwide. By late 1982 the United States economy began a recovery. European economies only later followed suit. East Asia weathered the economic storm. But Latin America and Africa as a whole became disaster areas, with great disparities between rich and poor.
In simplest terms, much of the developing world for nearly a decade has been drowning in debt not entirely of their own making. Only a few bright spots exist. One such nation, Bhutan, in the eastern Himalayas, has managed its natural resources with great economic wisdom. A contrasting example of a nation with no debt, Romania paid off its international debt at great speed-but at the cost of reducing its people to poverty.
This European lead in proposing specific debt forgiveness policies and the decision to have Europe manage the economic rescue (an initiative launched by President Bush) of Poland and Hungary is evidence the United States has lost significant superpower status. This brings us to the last drastic change in events of the 1980s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)