Gems from Bob Lupton #3

"We need to be using the (spiritual) gift of wealth creation more often."

Gems from Bob Lupton #2

In Judaism, there are 8 levels of charity ranked from highest to lowest. 1.Enabling the recipient to become self-reliant 2.Giving when neither party knows the other's identity 3.Giving when you know the recipient's identity, but the recipient doesn't know your identity 4.Giving when you do not know the recipient's identity, but the recipient knows your identity 5.Giving before being asked 6.Giving after being asked 7.Giving less that you should, but giving it cheerfully 8.Giving begrudgingly How much of what social gospel christians do is in the lower half of the hierarchy?

Gems from Bob Lupton #1

"You can't serve people out of poverty."

More Questions

Once again, Dan continues to carp about my refusal to answer questions, so I just went through an entire comment thread and pulled out all of the questions he asked that I didn't already answer. I will try to avoid repeating his questions, although there are a multitude of examples of him asking the same question over and over. "So, if you had a married gay Christian couple, you would accept them as fellow Christians at your church?" Unfortunately, you haven't given me enough information to answer in a way you would prefer. In general, I would say that in the absence of unequivocal evidence to the contrary I would tend to take people at their word regarding whether or not they were Christian. "Or would you “accept them” insofar as you wouldn’t literally kick them out of your church, but people would tell them they’re wrong, that they’re not Christian, etc?" Again, not enough information. But in general we as a church would address any member/regular attender who was living in a manner that included open unrepentant sin. Obviously, this would not be a public castigation, but we would hope that our members are involved in relationships where they can be accountable and honest about their struggles. "I am quite sure there are moderate conservative churches out there who would absolutely not kick out even a gay couple who were married, but how would they/do you handle it?" I don't know that there is an official policy, and I'm unaware of an instance where something like this has come up, so I really don't know. I'd suggest that love, truth, gentleness, humility, and honesty would be the starting point. "Do you have any GLBT members?" Probably "If so, do you have any married GLBT couples (not that you would consider it “married,” perhaps)?" Don't know, don't really care. "If so, do you go to their houses for dinner? Invite them to your house for lunch? Hang out together?" Not up to this point. Not so far. I spend a fair amount of time "hanging out" with someone who is gay. "If so, does the topic just go ignored or do you try to lovingly broach the topic and, if so, what does that look like?" I think I've already answered this. Love, truth, gentleness, honesty, humility. "Craig, IF those numbers are sound and IF the research held up, would you be disappointed to learn that more religious folk more often kick their children out for being gay?" Yes. "Craig, John, if a transgendered woman wanted to start coming to church, would she be allowed to?" Yes "That is, if a person born male but who was dressing as a female (either transitioning or fully female), would you be in favor of your church allowing them to attend?" That is, still yes. Are you assuming that we're too stupid to know what you were talking about? "Would they be welcomed with open arms (hugs and all), even while disapproving?" I have no idea, in general we don't go around randomly hugging people we don't know. "What would that look like?" normally it looks like people build relationships with other people and greet them as people with whom they have a relationship. "So, what does that look like?" I just answered that. "Do you go visit them in their homes?" Randomly, no. Do people visit the homes of those with whom they have a relationship, yes. "Do you celebrate their anniversaries with them?" We don't celebrate anniversaries publicly. "When they try to adopt a baby, do you provide support?" Financially, no. Corporately, probably not. But that would be the same for everyone. "If they have confessed their sins and accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior, do you accept them as fellow Christians, not just fellow sinners?" What is a Christian but a sinner saved by grace? As with anyone, I would want to see if their actions lined up with their claims, but that goes for anyone. "If you don’t accept them as Christians, but do accept them into the church services, do you talk to them about their “sinful living conditions” or do you say nothing?" I'd suggest that we would treat any one engaged in an ongoing unrepentant sinful lifestyle the same in that we would (as I already answered), address any public sin withing the context of people with whom they are in relationship and accountable with. "What about the transgender woman?" What about "her"? "Do you let her into your woman’s restrooms?" Only if she passes inspection by the armed guard and get's through the X-ray machine. "Do you talk to her about her “lifestyle…”?" Sure, why would we not talk about something that is important. "Do you know WHY I am asking them?" I rarely "know" why you do many things. In this case, I suspect that you are looking for confirmation of your prejudices, or ammunition to use later. "Why balk at answering them?" I didn't balk at answering them. I gave you a general answer, and some specific reasons why I was not going into detail at that point in time. "Do you know it makes you look bad?" Actually I don't care if you think it makes me look bad to prioritize time with my family over answering your questions. "What’s the problem?" There is no problem. "You do realize, don’t you, that not all transgender folk are already “the new gender…”?" If you mean do I realize that they don't just magically switch, the answer is of course I do. "That is, some folk identifying as women and perhaps in the process of becoming biologically a woman are still a male, in their naughty bits?" Unless these folks have magically figured out how to change their chromosomal make up, their DNA, their skeletal structure, their musculature, and how their brains function, they will remain "biologically" whatever gender they started out as, no matter how many perfectly healthy body parts they remove. "Are you implying that we wouldn’t?" No "Based on what?" I've seen enough folks on the theological left who have absolutely no problem lying about any number of things when it comes to membership and ordination questions. So, I guess you could say it's based on the fact that it happens. "I’m hearing you say that they are accepted as full Christian brothers in your church?" I suspect you're hearing what you want to, rather that what I actually said. "But surely individual members get to know one another and do go out to celebrate life events like anniversaries, right?" Sure "And you all don’t announce anniversaries during the worship service, like in a prayer sharing time?" Not usually "Not even big ones like a 50th?" Not usually "Why would you not frame that response in those terms rather than in negative “sinner” terms?" If the "sinner" term was good enough for Jesus, John, Luke, Paul, etc. it's good enough for me. But why would anyone ignore the common ground we all share? We're all sinners in need of a savior. "I know part of that is the whole Calvinist “utterly depraved” attitude that many evangelicals hold to,…" I know this isn't a question, but I want to address a couple of problems. 1. The correct terms are "Calvinist" or "Reformed', not evangelical. Not all evangelicals are reformed. 2. The correct term is "Total Depravity" 3. Given our previous conversations about this, the above indicates that you still don't understand that actual doctrine. "Were you unaware of the great controversy over such a simple thing as using the bathroom?" No, and given the miniscule number of transgendered people, I suspect that the "controversy" really isn't particularly "great". "Do you understand that now?" Do I understand that there are a few churches that don't operate the way you think they should, yes. "Aha, so it IS a problem for you (and your church) if a pre-fully transistioned transgender individual wants to go to the “wrong” bathroom?" Nothing I've said would indicate that your little "gotcha" "question" is correct. "What do you suggest, instead? Filling out an affidavit prior to using the bathroom?" Armed guards and X-ray machines. "Why? What difference does that make?" If a transgendered woman, is still biologically male then she has a number of inborn physical advantages over women. "Do the physical advantages go away with the change?" Not unless the operation removes and replaces the entire skeletal/muscular system. "So, is it biology that helps us identify our gender?" Biological factors (DNA, chromosomes,skeletal systems, musculature,brain function, etc.) are not changed during the "sex change operation". Therefore other than the removal of healthy functioning tissue/organs the post op transsexual does not undergo any significant biological changes. If you can somehow scientifically separate gender from biology, then you may have a point. But, so far you haven't. "Do you think it’s wrong to ask questions about how we’re treating oppressed groups?" No "Do you think that question is an accusation?" I think that your questions are often accusations with a question mark. Whether you honestly don't know how your questions appear, or you do it in some sort of passive aggressive intentional attempt to provoke I can't say. "So, DO you think that being transgender is morally wrong?" No "What do you want me to do? Take guesses from a place of ignorance?" I'd like to see you either state your opinion, or do the research that enables you to answer the question. "Craig, what makes you a heterosexual (making that assumption)?" Biology. Heterosexuals are vital to the continuation of the species. "IS it because you have a penis, or is it the desire for/attraction to females that is in your psyche?" Neither "Is this desire “not real” since there is not a body part that can isolate that desire?" I have many desires that while "real" are not desires that I should act upon. If you would like to make the case that all desires are good, feel free. If you would like to make the case that any particular desire is good,make it. "Is heterosexuality a myth because we can’t identify it biologically?" Nope, it's a biological imperative "Or are you willing to accept that there are parts of our psyche, our Selves, that is just is real and innate as how many fingers we have on our hand or the sexual organs on our body?." Of course. But accepting the existence of these desires, does not mean that they are all equally good or valid. "It sounds as if you are saying if we can’t physically identify a physical component of our selves, then it isn’t real, but maybe I’m misreading you. Can you confirm one way or the other?" then you are wrong, as I've never said that. "What is negative about that?" That your starting prejudice is that all conservatives will behave in exactly the same way as the fringe folks you find. "Do you have other data?" Since you have given no indication that you've read the data I've provided, nor have you rebutted any of it, why would you ask for more? "…why not clarify directly?" I have. I suspect, that I won't see anything similar to this from Dan anytime soon. I will however do the same for his questions from the discussion page dialogue when I have time.

Questions

Elsewhere Dan was making a big deal of what he and his church do to help those in need. At the outset, let me say that this is a good thing. Then he made a comment to someone else along the lines of "Well why don't you just go ahead and fix things for them" or words to that effect. That comment brought back some things I've wondered about for a while when it comes to Dan and what he does for those in need. Now, before I go further, I need to clarify something. It sounds like Dan and his church do a lot of work with the those with mental health issues. I suspect that if this is a major part of what they do it probably colors Dan's attitudes and how he frames his involvement. My point is that much of what I might say does not apply to those in need of mental health services. I just needed to get that out up front. Back to Dan's comment. It seems as though he is suggesting that the way things are supposed to work is that it is a matter of fixing things for people. But is that really the right approach? It seems that there is a growing body of research that suggests otherwise. What I'd be interested in is exactly what Dan and his church do to help those in need. How they measure success, or failure. How many of the people they help are receiving help long term. How is the determination made to determine who needs help, and what type of help they need or get. Is there accountability. Whom makes the decisions. How often do they evaluate how things are going. What I'm trying to do is avoid the trap of allowing my preconceptions color my conclusions. I have no idea if I'll ever get a response, or if it will be detailed. I'd hope to, but who knows. But it's out here waiting.

Answers for Dan

I a long meandering and, at this point, fairly incoherent comment thread elsewhere I asked Dan some questions. Dan, shockingly, asked me some in return. At the time I was too busy to respond with anything more than "I'll answer your questions when I can.". Given the direction the thread took, I chose to answer said questions here so as to avoid causing any more confusion over there. This way, I can do what I said I'd do, as well as preempt the "You never answer my questions" whine. So here are the questions copied from the other thread. Dan; “Do you think it is provable that God exists?” Me; Yes, I believe that it is possible to prove to a reasonable person to a reasonable degree of certainty that God exists. I suspect that what I consider to be a reasonable degree of proof will not be acceptable to you, but I do believe it to be provable. Dan; “Do you think God sometimes commands (commanded) people to destroy whole nations, including children and babies?” Me; I believe that the OT records instances where God commanded people to do all sorts of things that seem, by our standards, to be strange or unreasonable. I believe (as do you) that God is God and that He can do what He chooses. Dan: “Do you think God created the world in six days, ~6,000 years ago?” Me; Let me preface this by saying that God is God and He is capable of engineering His creation any way He chooses to. With that said, after spending some time looking at this issue a while ago I came to the conclusion that I believe that it is possible that God literally created everything is six literal days, and that the text of Genesis supports this view. I also believe that it is possible that the six days were not 24 hour days, but undefined periods of time. Personally I believe the important phrase is “God created”, the rest is just details. I find it strange that Christians have no trouble affirming that god created everything from nothing, but quibble about how long it might have taken. To be blunt, I can live with either option, and don’t get too worked up about it. As to the age, I am perfectly comfortable with a God who can speak the universe into existence being able to create said universe with the appearance of age. I see no reason to believe that God’s power to create is somehow limited. Personally, it’s not a topic I get too worked up about. But thank you for presuming that you knew more about my views than I do. Dan; “Do you think originally there were only two people, a literal Adam and Eve?” Me; I see no reason to doubt the existence of a literal Adam and Eve. I also see no reason to presume that God stopped after Adam and Eve. I know it’s repetitive, but I believe the “God created” is the important part; I’ll quite comfortable to leave the details to God. Dan; “Do you admit there is no data to support any of that, and in fact, data which would contradict it?” Me; So Dan; “Do YOU think we can say, “I know as a matter of fact that God’s opinion on abortion, war and homosexuality are…”?” Me, I think that we can say that the Bible is the primary means for God to communicate what He wants to humanity. I further think that we can read what the Bible plainly says about topics such as sexuality, marriage, war, and life. From that I believe that one can reasonably conclude that God has given us some guidelines about how best to live in a way that pleases Him. I think we also see the results when people behave in ways that seem to be at odds with what pleases God. Given that it seems reasonable that one can discern God’s “opinions” on any number of topics. Of course it’s not demeaning at all to refer to God’s standards as “opinions”. Dan; “Do you think it is possible to know perfectly what God’s Ways are on some topics?” Me; I think that it is possible to know what God’s ways are on a number of topics. I think it is also possible to use the principles that inform the topics that are clearer, in order to come to reasonable conclusions on those which are less explicit. Dan; “Which topics?” Me; I’d suggest that there are a number of topics on which scripture is reasonably clear, and that there are principles that allow us to construct guidelines on others. As to a list, I see no reason to provide one, as it will just encourage you to nitpick about what is or is not on the list. OK, I did what I said, and answered your questions. I am pretty sure I can predict your response to my answers. So, while I may or may not allow you to post comments, don't expect much beyond the answers I've given. I know I probably can't prove any of this to your satisfaction, and I don't care. I also know that your recent stance that the Bible is NOT the primary source of knowledge about God will preclude any sort or rational conversation about any of this. So, if you expect anything more from me, I expect that you will make an actual argument to counter what I have said supported by the same level of proof you expect of others. If you won't, don't be surprised to see your opinions disappear.

Do we make things too hard?

2 Kings 5
Naaman Healed of Leprosy
1 Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram. He was a valiant soldier, but he had leprosy.[a]
2 Now bands of raiders from Aram had gone out and had taken captive a young girl from Israel, and she served Naaman’s wife. 3 She said to her mistress, “If only my master would see the prophet who is in Samaria! He would cure him of his leprosy.”
4 Naaman went to his master and told him what the girl from Israel had said. 5 “By all means, go,” the king of Aram replied. “I will send a letter to the king of Israel.” So Naaman left, taking with him ten talents[b] of silver, six thousand shekels[c] of gold and ten sets of clothing. 6 The letter that he took to the king of Israel read: “With this letter I am sending my servant Naaman to you so that you may cure him of his leprosy.”
7 As soon as the king of Israel read the letter, he tore his robes and said, “Am I God? Can I kill and bring back to life? Why does this fellow send someone to me to be cured of his leprosy? See how he is trying to pick a quarrel with me!”
8 When Elisha the man of God heard that the king of Israel had torn his robes, he sent him this message: “Why have you torn your robes? Have the man come to me and he will know that there is a prophet in Israel.” 9 So Naaman went with his horses and chariots and stopped at the door of Elisha’s house. 10 Elisha sent a messenger to say to him, “Go, wash yourself seven times in the Jordan, and your flesh will be restored and you will be cleansed.”
11 But Naaman went away angry and said, “I thought that he would surely come out to me and stand and call on the name of the LORD his God, wave his hand over the spot and cure me of my leprosy. 12 Are not Abana and Pharpar, the rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? Couldn’t I wash in them and be cleansed?” So he turned and went off in a rage.
13 Naaman’s servants went to him and said, “My father, if the prophet had told you to do some great thing, would you not have done it? How much more, then, when he tells you, ‘Wash and be cleansed’!” 14 So he went down and dipped himself in the Jordan seven times, as the man of God had told him, and his flesh was restored and became clean like that of a young boy.




Last Sunday this was the text of the sermon, and it got me thinking. I went past the obvious things to the simple.

I was struck by Naaman’s attitude toward the offer of healing; he was going to get exactly what he wanted, free for the asking, but he got angry. Why? Well, he wanted healing, but he wanted it to be difficult. Or impressive, or whatever his mind thought it should be. Instead he gets, “Go wash in the river”.

His servants tell him “If he’d asked you to do something hard you would have been done by now, go wash you idiot”

He did, and it worked.

Isn’t this like us?

How often do we pass up what’s right in front of us, because we want it to be more difficult? Is this why we have folks that think they can work their way into God’s kingdom? Is grace really too easy?

These are all good questions, but what really struck me is how this applies to how we read and interpret scripture.

How often do we skip over the plain meaning of the text, because it’s just too simple? It seems as though we just aren’t satisfied to read and accept the text as it is. We need Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries, concordances, interlinears, and all kinds of other tools to look for something beneath the surface. I’m not saying these things are bad, nor am I saying that there aren’t layers of meaning in the scriptures. What I am saying is that I think that we’re afraid of the simple. We want there to be complexity. We want that feeling of discovering the hidden meaning. Like Naaman, we want it to be harder than it needs to be.

Personally, I think it has something to do with our desire to be in control, but I’m not sure that’s the entire story.


Which leaves one question. Why?