Energion Direct

Category: Energion.com eZine

  • Update on Comment Contest

    I was probably a bit too ambitious with the comment contest, considering this is a test site with limited content at this point.  Had there been even one comment I would have felt obligated to give the prize to that commenter, but since there aren’t I’m changing the rules and will keep doing so until I give the prize away.
    From now on any relevant comment is eligible for the free copy of Preserving Democracy, and on October 1 I will choose a winner with the assistance of a few others.  If there is no eligible comment by October 1, the prize will go to the first eligible comment after that time.
    Future contests will, I hope, be run closer to the rules, but in general, I like to give the prizes away!

  • National Health Insurance

    “Write about the National Health Service” was the request. OK, I thought – I’m a child of the NHS, having been born 5 years after it’s inception in 1948; it’s something I know well from experience of many parts of it’s operation as a patient and as a relative of patients. “For American readers” was the stinger in the tail; I don’t know how the US health care system works in practice, my family having had the good fortune never to be ill in the States.

    But then it occurred to me that the US system is based on insurance, and I have had invitations to pay for health insurance dropping through my letterbox, in newspapers and on TV ever since I started paying any attention to these media. I’ve never felt inclined to take up any of these offers, except when going on holiday to somewhere else, and the “why” of that should give some insight.

    The NHS was a socialist concept brought in by the Labour Party, part of the larger “welfare state” concept which was originally a child of the Liberal Party. The welfare state aims to eliminate want (i.e. poverty), disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness (i.e. unemployment); it’s basic funding was by a system of compulsory insurance payments (“National Insurance”) payable by those who earn proportionate to their earnings, but topped up from general taxation to provide for those who didn’t have enough national insurance contributions. The NHS could have worked on the same principle, but has been funded from start from general taxation, with the objective of providing “health care for all free at the point of need”.

    I should comment at this point that although the labels “socialist” and “liberal” appear here, there has been no mainstream political party here since it’s inception which has openly proposed abolishing either the NHS or the Welfare State; conventional wisdom is that it would be political suicide to do so, and even proposing limiting spending on either is politically dangerous, though Conservative and even Labour governments have done so. Neither “socialist” nor “liberal” has the same kind of negative impact which it seems to in the States.

    Now, what exactly would I get for my money if I bought some health insurance? Frankly, not much I’m concerned with. Single hospital room if I’m hospitalised, better food, smaller hospital, better decorations – all of those are pretty inessential from my point of view. No, the main thing which might attract me is not having to wait as long for an operation or other significant treatment; the NHS does have waiting lists, and sometimes it can take a while, first to be seen by an appropriate consultant and then to get whatever treatment is prescribed (unless it’s drugs only). That said, they’ve been making strenuous attempts to reduce waiting lists, and there seems to have been a fair amount of success there. The private sector can cut those times very significantly, for some operations or treatments. Not all – some of the more complex or advanced surgeries aren’t yet available in the private sector, who seem to like to stick to well-practised procedures which are clear money-spinners. Granted, some even more complex or advanced surgeries aren’t yet commonly available from the NHS either; however the chances of needing one of these are minute.

    However, it’s only a matter of “jumping the queue”, and you jump the queue anyhow in the NHS if your condition is life-threatening, so I can live with that unless something very cheap is available – and health insurance isn’t “very cheap”.

    The one exception which I’ve experienced is mental health issues. I have had issues there, and have paid for private treatment rather than wait perhaps years rather than months, not being remotely an “acute” case, as the budgets for mental health tend to be more cash-limited than most. This, it turns out, would have been facilitated by most available health insurance, up to a rather modest limit. Even so, with 20/20 hindsight I might actually have made a profit, assuming that the underwriters had approved the treatment. That’s a big assumption, as we’ll go on to see.

    Where I have always thought health insurance valuable is as part of a travel insurance package. Even in Europe (where there’s socialised health-care everywhere I might go, with reciprocal arrangements), things like emergency flights home are useful to have cover for, and there are sometimes unexpected limitations of cover. Better to be safe. Outside Europe – well, that’s a dangerous place! Either it’s really expensive, or the provision isn’t nearly as good unless you pay through the nose. Cover is essential.

    There, though, I have a horror story. No, two horror stories, both involving trips to Canada, one for my wife, one for my daughter on different occasions. Both times we had cover for medical expenses as part of the travel insurance. On both occasions, to cut a long story short, the insurers found a reason to wriggle out of paying, and we were left with bills paid but unrecoverable, and in my wife’s case that was a lot of money. In the case of my wife, the excuse was a “pre-existing condition”, despite the fact that the condition wasn’t diagnosed until it got looked at in Canada, and that my wife had gone to the trouble of getting clearance from her doctor here that the problem she had experienced had ostensibly been cured and had notified the insurers of this (it wasn’t a condition which could sensibly have been diagnosed at the earlier stage, either). This was compounded by us agreeing to the treatment on a verbal assurance from the insurers which they then withdrew after the event. My daughter’s claim just died in a welter of paperwork, with extra queries at every stage, and we eventually gave up, as it wasn’t actually a colossal bill.

    So, would I now take out health insurance? Not on your life, except for travel – I can have no confidence that an insurer would actually pay out for anything really significant, and have every confidence that they’d make my life a misery trying to avoid payment by any means possible. Add to that the fact that such insurances are usually not open-ended; there’s a limit to what they’ll pay out, and once you get to that point you can be left without treatment, sometimes in the middle of a course. Would I support our government changing the system to an insurance-based one rather than one funded out of general taxation? Absolutely not, for exactly the same reason.

    Indeed, I am not at all certain that I want to travel anywhere outside Europe, particularly as I get older and, presumably, more likely to have some medical emergency. I don’t feel I can trust the insurers. I’m left marvelling that the States doesn’t have a system like ours, and that Americans don’t overwhelmingly want to establish one.

  • Health Care – The Problem with Single Payer

    Controversy continues to grow over Obama’s proposed revamping of the health care system. Much of it centers on the proposed “government option” and the fears that it will lead either by design or by accident to a single payer system. As with most political controversies, there are a lot of charges and counter charges, and often more heat than light. Still at its core, the controversy is not simply about competing options, but one of fundamental direction. For decades, Liberals have been pushing for a single payer health care system. Obama and many others have supported it, though often they have said it would take an incremental process in reaching it. Still single payer has been the ultimate goal.

    The arguments for single payer range from providing universal coverage, a simpler system leading to saving through reduced administrative costs and unified billing process, improved health care for patients, reduced cost for employers, and equality of access, just to name a few. These all sound wonderful. After all who wouldn’t want better health care at a cheaper cost?

    In fact, supporters are often so sure of their case that they see some sort of devious reasons behind the lack of its immediate and overwhelming acceptance. As one supporter put it, “The obvious conclusion is that our government does not serve the people who elected them. Rather, our elected government officials serve the special interests of the health insurance industry and other corporations who make massive campaign contributions.”

    What does not seem to occur to such supporters is that, rather than the corruption of special interests it is doubts about their claims that have led to lack of support for single payer. That is certainly what is behind my opposition.

    The problem with so many of the arguments for single payer is that they contrast the best assumptions and hopes for single payer with the worst realities of the current system. Therein lies the first of their major problems, for they commit the fallacy of False Choice, as there are more than just two options here. It is not the current system or single payer. Even if we do conclude the current system is flawed and needs replacing, the question simply becomes what should we put in its place? I would certainly agree that the current system is badly in need of reform. But the reform I advocate would be in a completely different direction than single payer.

    This takes me to my second and in many respects more serious problem with single payer. I simply do not believe that the underlying assumptions supporters make are true. In fact I believe history is pretty clear that they are not.

    When people talk of a single payer, they really mean the government. Single payer health care is government run health care. True, some supporters claim that single payer is merely “a health care financing mechanism,” but such claims are hard to take seriously. What government pays for, the government will control. In addition, the claim that it is merely a financing system is contradicted when the very same supporters then claim “The strongest economic argument for single payer is that it can control costs in a coordinated fashion because of the centralized nature of its administration.”

    So while supporters claim that this is its “strongest economic argument,” I would argue that this is its biggest flaw. Most of the claims in favor go back to this general belief, the efficiencies that come from centralized administration, and thus centralized planning and control. Such arguments are not new. In fact, many of the political battles of the last 150 years have been fought between those who have argued for such centralized planning and control and those who have argued for more market based approaches that stress choice and competition.

    At first glance, there is a sort of logic to centralized planning and control, but it is a siren song that has led many astray and caused untold suffering. Supporters often contrast such planning with what they portray as the chaos of the market. Thus for the payment of claims, “a fractured payment system, preserving the chaos of multiple claims data bases, would subvert quality improvement efforts.” Having one source would be so much simpler and therefore better.

    As I layout in detail in chapter three of my book Preserving Democracy, there are at least two fatal flaws in such thinking. The first is the simple fact that the larger the enterprise the harder it is to control and manage. Something like single payer health care for a country as large as the United State would be so large as to be completely unmanageable in such a top down approach.

    Again this is not merely theory, but has been demonstrated time and time again. Government is simply not a good manager. Claims of supposed improvements in efficiency consistently turn out to be false. After all, if government could effectively manage a national Health Care system, why is Medicare going broke, even though many doctors must limit the number of Medicare patients they see, for Medicare simply does not pay enough. Yet supporters of single payer ask us to believe that a government that is failing at providing health care for a portion of the public should be given control of the entire system.

    The second fatal flaw behind such centralized planning and control is its disconnection between those who pay for the services, and those who receive them. Whenever this happens costs rise until some sort of costs control places limitations on service. Thus the when one looks at the government systems around the world they find either extremely high costs or some form of rationing of service. Often it is a combination of the two.

    The real solution to current problems of our health care system are not to be found in centralized planning and control, but rather in increasing choice and competition, an approach that has repeatedly been demonstrated to work in many areas.

    Let me be clear about this, the current system is NOT based on choice and competition as both are severely restricted. Even though there are over 1300 companies providing health insurance in the U.S., for those who have health insurance, their choices, if they have any at all, are limited to the few offered by their employer. In addition there is already significant government involvement in health care, through Medicare and other programs and regulations which are negatively impacting the system and driving up costs.

    Real positive reform would increase choice and competition. It is simply a matter of numbers and freedom. If 1300+ companies are actively seeking better ways to provide health care, and customers are free to choose those who do the best job, than we are much more likely to see better health care at a lower cost, than waiting for one entity, the government, with a proven track record of inefficiency and mismanagement, to come up with an improved system.

    After all, with choice and competition if you don’t like your current provider you can change to some else. With single payer, if you don’t like your current provider, well there is a reason it is called single payer…

  • You're Fired!

    by Geoffrey Lentz

    1Then Jesus said to the disciples, “There was a rich man who had a manager, and charges were brought to him that this man was squandering his property. 2So he summoned him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Give me an accounting of your management, because you cannot be my manager any longer.’ 3Then the manager said to himself, ‘What will I do, now that my master is taking the position away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. 4I have decided what to do so that, when I am dismissed as manager, people may welcome me into their homes.’ 5So, summoning his master’s debtors one by one, he asked the first, ‘How much do you owe my master?’ 6He answered, ‘A hundred jugs of olive oil.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill, sit down quickly, and make it fifty.’ 7Then he asked another, ‘And how much do you owe?’ He replied, ‘A hundred containers of wheat.’ He said to him, ‘Take your bill and make it eighty.’ 8And his master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly; for the children of this age are more shrewd in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light. 9And I tell you, make friends for yourselves by means of dishonest wealth so that when it is gone, they may welcome you into the eternal homes. 10“Whoever is faithful in a very little is faithful also in much; and whoever is dishonest in a very little is dishonest also in much. 11If then you have not been faithful with the dishonest wealth, who will entrust to you the true riches? 12And if you have not been faithful with what belongs to another, who will give you what is your own? 13No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
    – Luke 16:1-13 (NRSV)
    Presented 9/19/04-Helena United Methodist Church, Helena, North Carolina
    Three terrified young people sit in a boardroom in a New York City skyscraper. They are awaiting a decision from one of the richest men in the world. They have been managing his company for the week-or more often than not, mismanaging his company. He singles one of them out—-“You’re fired!” he decrees as he gives his famous cobra hand-gesture. I imagine that all of us are somewhat familiar with this scene in America’s currently most watched TV show-The Apprentice.
    This scene is not far off from our gospel lesson today. This is probably Jesus’ most controversial parable. As preachers and teachers have read this scripture throughout the centuries, we have wanted to clean it up and sanitize it. “Surely, this is not the way Jesus told it”, we say to ourselves, “it must mean something else.” We try to apologize for Jesus and explain his message away. We dress up our Jesus in nice clothes-give him some stage makeup, nice bright white teeth, and perfectly styled hair that doesn’t move when the wind blows. The Jesus in our minds is a nice Jesus of Children’s Sunday School class, not the Jesus that turned over the money tables in the temple, not the Jesus that two weeks ago in our scripture reading told us to “hate our family” in comparison to our love for God and the church. No our Jesus is a porcelain doll Jesus-that we can play with when we want to and put back on the shelf. Our Jesus is a Hollywood Jesus-that has all the glamour of a superstar. Our Jesus is a Hallmark Jesus-that gives us sweet syrupy messages to make us feel better. That is why it is so difficult to understand this text. How could our Jesus whom we have so carefully domesticated tell a story as scandalous as this?
    Clarence Jordan, the founder of the Koinonia Community in Georgia once said that all of Jesus’ parables are like Trojan horses. If we don’t look closely-all we see is a beautiful safe horse, but if we open up the gates of our hearts and let that Trojan horse within the walls of our lives–bam we are under attach. If that is true of all Jesus’ parables, then it is particularly true of this one.
    In order to see this story with new eyes, let’s think of the scripture in a different context. I am going to tell you Jesus’ parable-but the names and faces have been changed to protect the innocent or guilty rather. There was a rich man named Donald Trump. He hired for himself a manager to help run one of his many companies. This manager mismanaged millions of Trump’s dollars and properties. Upon hearing this information, Trump invites the manager into “the boardroom”. There, the manager sits trembling, as Trump demands to hear his account of what happened. “You’re fired!!!” Trump asserts as he gives the cobra signal. Trump then demands that the manager give an accounting or audit of the present situation. As the manger is preparing the files for Trump he thinks to himself-“What am I going to do? I am not strong enough to dig ditches, and I am too ashamed to beg for hand outs.” Then he comes up with a solution. He lets all of Trumps debtors off the hook. Slashing prices-lowering interest rates-cutting and eliminating Trumps profits. “You owe Trump a million dollars—quick let’s change it to 500,000. It’s a half off sell today. And you-you owe Trump 100,000 dollars-hurry up and make it 80,000. The mis-manger goes though the whole ledger “cooking the books”. The story gives us the clue that he is doing this in order to shrewdly secure a job for himself later-in order to make friends and influence people-not to mention get back at the master. All these people that he has let off the hook now owe him. Surely he can cash in with them after his two-week notice has expired.
    Wow, what a weird story. The mis-manger has out trumped The Trump. Tricked Trump at his own game of greed. Now we all know what follows-don’t we. The Trump gets angry and the manager goes to Jail and Jesus tells us all to be nice people-and to never color outside the lines-always do what is right. Wrong——-that is what we wish that it said-because that is so much easier to deal with—especially when we white middle-class Americans are the rich managers of the world. But that is not the way Jesus tells the story.
    Instead the Trump calls the manager back into the “boardroom” and says-“Wow I am impressed—you really have a keen business sense. You’re hired.” Jesus then tells us that “the children of this world are shrewder in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.” Jesus does the unthinkable. He tells us Christians to be like the shrewd manager. He calls us to be shrewd in using all of our resources in creative ways. Eugene Peterson paraphrases the end of this story this way:

    Now here’s a surprise: The master praised the crooked manager! And why? Because he knew how to look after himself. Streetwise people are smarter in this regard than law-abiding citizens. They are on constant alert, looking for angles, surviving by their wits. I want you to be smart in the same way-but for what is right-using every adversity to stimulate you to creative survival, to concentrate your attention on the bare essentials, so you’ll live, really live, and not complacently just get by on good behavior.

    Jesus is telling us that we cannot just get by on good behavior. Jesus is telling us to follow the example of the Enron executives using all our skills to get by-to follow the lead of Martha Stewart who illegally swindled her own employees and company-and somehow is still going to be able to keep her company afloat during her relatively short prison stay. All of these people are able to think outside the box. To color outside the lines. Jesus is not asking us to be dishonest like the manager or Enron executives or Martha Stewart, but to be as creative-as shrewd as they are. Although often, the gospel calls us to actions that to the world seem strange or maybe immoral. Jesus effectively says-“Why is it that all the shrewdest and creative people are in the world doing wrong and not in the church doing right.” Why is it that we think that as “children of light” we are never to go against the status quo? Why is it that our politicians on both sides of the isle are able to sway the Nation with words filled with lies, but our churches can’t even sway our communities with preaching the ultimate Truth? Jesus is calling us to put our heads together to come up with creative and innovative ideas to help the Kingdom of God grow. As Luke reminds us—our goal as Christians is different from the world’s goals. We can’t serve both God and money. We can’t serve both God and our own self-interest. As Christians, Jesus is calling us to put all of our shrewdest brain-power behind serving God and neighbor not ourselves.
    What might this Christian shrewdness look like? Maybe it would look like Clarence Jordan’s creative vision of a counter-cultural community in which poor and rich, black and white can live together sharing their resources in order to faithfully display the gospel of Christ in the middle of rural Georgia in the heart of a KKK stronghold. The world and even people claiming to be Christians fought against his strange idea-fired bullet rounds through his house threatening his children, but his shrewd creative community challenged and changed the world. But he had to color outside the lines-think outside the box.
    Maybe this Christian shrewdness would look like the self-made millionaire, Millard Fulton. He was a work-aholic. He had been extremely shrewd in self-serving-business practices, not all of which were ethical. One day in November 1965, his wife Linda told him that she was going to leave him. In a last ditch effort, he took off work, packed his wife and kids in the car and headed to Florida. On the way, he stopped in Georgia to visit some friends living in the Koinonia Christian Community-he ended up staying a month. His life was changed-his family saved-he put his shrewdness to good use and started one of the most successful ministries in America-Habitat for Humanity. Now he uses his money and life as a tool to help cut prices and interest rates-just like the man in the story. He helps those deep in debt-deserving or not-to own their own home. The consequences have been dramatic-thousands of people lifted out of poverty, but he had to color outside the lines-think outside the box.
    Maybe it looks like the United Methodist Church’s boycott of Taco Bell and Mt. Olive Pickles by using shrewd business sense to change labor practices that we believe are contrary to the gospel. Just this week Mt. Olive announced a change in labor practices. The boycott of Mt. Olive is over. But we had to color outside the lines-think outside the box.
    Maybe it looks like having free pizza at youth group to draw young people to hear the gospel -even if it looks like bribery.
    Maybe it looks like the churches of Person County pulling together all of our resources to make sure that there are no mouths going hungry, no people without beds to sleep in or roofs over their head.
    Maybe it looks like new creative evangelism ideas—new ways to invite people to join the kingdom-new ways to teach Sunday school. Hopefully, our New Beginnings initiative is a good start on Christian ingenuity.
    Maybe Christian shrewdness is best exemplified by our Savior who creatively used all the resources available-even his own life as a ransom for all our sins as the Epistle lesson proclaims—for each and every one of us-even though we did not deserve it. After all, this strategy of the cross is very strange to the world systems. But this “foolishness of the cross” as Paul calls it is our door to salvation.
    Jesus calls us to “shrewd Christian living”. It is time for the church to start thinking outside the box that we have put God in. God has called us not to give just 10% of our income to the church, but to realize that all that we own is a tool to advance the kingdom. God has called us not to give just one or two hours a week in worship and Sunday school, but to see all of our time as a tool to advance the kingdom. Can the church survive the materialist-self-driven-self-centered world that we are in? I hope and believe so. As Christians, we are no longer on the world’s payroll-the world has given us the cobra. It is up to us to shrewdly live out God’s shrewd grace in the world as we dare to think outside the box and color outside the lines.

    Geoffrey Douglas Lentz, a native of Pensacola, Florida is a graduate of Duke Divinity School and associate pastor of First United Methodist Church in his home town.  He and his wife, Liz, have two children, Luke and Eliza. Geoffrey was a student pastor in North Carolina where he presented this sermon.

  • Facing the Proof Text Method

    by Henry Neufeld

    When I was in elementary and High School, I attended a private, Christian school with its focus on the Bible as the foundation for study. Amongst the many requirements that we had, especially in the area of Bible study was memorization. We memorized chapter after chapter of the King James Version of the Bible.

    When I was in elementary and High School, I attended a private, Christian school with its focus on the Bible as the foundation for study. Amongst the many requirements that we had, especially in the area of Bible study was memorization. We memorized chapter after chapter of the King James Version of the Bible.
    But there was one type of memorization that was unusual-we had numerous groups of four texts, each grouping in support of a particular doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, the denomination to which the school’s owners belonged. For example, we’d have four texts on the Sabbath to memorize, each verse supposedly proving that one ought to rest and worship on Saturday rather than Sunday. Then we’d have four texts on the state of the dead, intended to prove the doctrine of soul-sleep, the idea that when a person dies they don’t go immediately to their eternal reward, but rather wait until the resurrection. Four texts would show that Jesus was going to return soon and that we ought to take this literally. Then the next year, there would be “four more texts” on each of the various subjects to memorize.
    The owners of the school and those who taught in it were convinced that if we simply had enough of these proof texts solidly engraved in our memories, we would be able to resist the waves of false doctrine that were said to be preparing to roll over us as we went out into the world. We would clearly know what the truth was because, by the time we had memorized all of them (and few students stayed at the school long enough to do so), we would have memorized as many as 20 scriptures that “proved” that particular doctrinal position.
    I appreciate the efforts of that school, and I’m glad I had a chance to attend it, because it gave me the opportunity to learn the proof-text method very, very thoroughly, generally better than most of its practitioners. Thus I can recognize it instantly and respond to it as necessary.
    I’m writing this essay in response to various questions I have been asked about Bible study. I suggest that the use of proof-texts is a manifestation of laziness and the desire to get something for nothing. People do not wish to spend the time firmly grounding their understanding in what various Bible writers actually teach. They would much rather have a short list of texts that support precisely what they have decided to believe anyhow. Thus, the use of proof-texts tends toward hypocrisy. To the uninformed, the purveyor of proof-texts can appear to be wonderfully informed and a deep scholar of the Bible. In fact, the result of reliance on proof-texts is a moral certainty and overbearing arrogance that is not supported by one’s study or learning.
    But first let me define what I mean by proof-texting. By proof-texting I mean the use of individual scripture texts to produce apparent support for a doctrinal position without adequate regard for the contexts of the individual texts which may indicate differences and nuances. I do not include the use of texts for illustration or the use of texts which are properly taken in context and limited appropriately in what one tries to prove from them. In particular, I’m referring to the creation of entire doctrines which one demands that others believe or commands which one then demands that others obey, taken from a tissue of the words of texts but ignoring the meaning of those texts in their original contexts.
    Let me use an example. If someone were to write a biography of me, he could truthfully state that Henry Neufeld accepted Jesus as his personal savior and received baptism in water by immersion. We can also say that I did this at the age of nine and overcame the objections of my parents and church leadership because I felt that it was in obedience to the commands of Jesus.
    Now if the next generation were to read that passage in my biography and apply the proof-text method to it, they might well conclude that I believe as some do that water baptism is a requirement for salvation. They would of course be wrong. I don’t believe anything of the sort. But the key statements are there. I underwent baptism, I did so at the time that I was saved (or received salvation in one sense of the term), I did so because I believed that I was obeying a command of Jesus, and I did it all in such a way that the events were connected.
    Now I think most people will be able to see easily that the conclusion that I believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation is not a necessary conclusion based on these facts. Based on the statements above, I might believe that. You can’t be certain that I don’t. But it is not actually stated. It is not even implied.
    The difficulty is that by taking words outside of their immediate context or even their broader context will tend to make something seem extremely plain that may not have been intended in the first place. So the fact is that it’s very easy to take statements out of context and create an entire set of doctrinal beliefs from them which are not a valid conclusion based on the intent of those statements.
    As a scriptural example, let’s take a look at Acts 2:38. “So Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus for (Greek eis) forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Now there are some people who get a number of key doctrines right out of that text. They believe that one must be baptized in order to be saved. They believe that baptism results in forgiveness of sins, thus if one is not baptized one cannot be forgiven. Further, many believe that one must be baptized only in the name of Jesus, or that baptism is not efficacious.
    When you’re building these kind of doctrinal sand castles from a single text, you need to be very careful that you have read the text correctly. For example, salvation is said to occur before baptism. Does salvation occur separately from forgiveness of sins? The medium of baptism is not, in fact, mentioned. Perhaps I should tie the text to Mark 1:8, which says that Jesus will baptize “in the Holy Spirit.” Perhaps here there is no water baptism intended, but rather the person who accepts Jesus is immersed in the Holy Spirit, and thus receives forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.
    Someone will, of course, mention that it says, “…baptized for forgiveness of your sins…” Doesn’t this mean that the baptism causes the forgiveness of sins? Well, not exactly. The Greek word used here, eis generally meaning “into” can indicate purpose, but it can also simply indicate result. Further, in studying the text, one needs to ask which of the prior events results in forgiveness of sins-repentance or baptism? Perhaps it is, in fact, both that result in this forgiveness. But it doesn’t say that if you don’t get baptized, you won’t get forgiven, it doesn’t say that it must be in water, and it doesn’t say that no other name need be mentioned. Of course, the proof-texter counts on you not actually knowing any verses that are not on his plan.
    We’ve already seen one verse that suggests that there might be more to this baptism thing than we find in this one text. Mark 1:8 suggests that it is possible for one to be baptized “in the Holy Spirit.” It might be difficult to describe a process for that, but one doubts that it involves dunking someone in water. Thus on the first point, that this is a case of water baptism being required for salvation, there is at least some reason to do a little bit of thinking.
    What about the matter of names? If we turn to Matthew 28:19 we find the instruction to baptize “in (or into) the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” So at least we have some indication that we might need to think some more about this matter of uttering names at the time of one’s baptism.
    But what about forgiveness? Surely we can be certain that forgiveness of sins only occurs as the result of believing on Jesus and repenting! How about Matthew 6:14-15. “For if you forgive other people their transgressions, Our Father in heaven will forgive you. If you don’t forgive other people, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.” Oops! First, it looks like we have a case where belief in Jesus is not even mentioned, and also where another condition, not mentioned in Acts 2:38 is placed on forgiveness.
    And what about the thief on the cross? Jesus apparently indicates (Luke 23:42-43) that the thief is saved, and does so at a time when he has no chance to do anything except suffer and die. Now here’s where the total doctrinal filter can kick in. I was once told that we are not told explicitly that the thief hadn’t been baptized previously, and we know from our proof text (Acts 2:38) that he must get baptized, so we can assume that he did at some point. Of course, the text itself doesn’t say or imply anything of the sort. But once the doctrine is settled into the proof-texter’s mind the things that are actually in the text are obscured by the previously created doctrinal filter.
    And we haven’t even gotten to the issue of how rituals relate to actual spiritual experiences in various parts of the Bible. That is something that might enlighten us about the issue of baptism especially.
    Now please don’t take the texts I’ve added into the pot and do more proof-texting to create a new doctrine. I used those texts to illustrate the problems with one particular interpretation, not to propose another.
    Various groups of Christians have different ways of sorting the Old Testament commands. The Seventh-day Adventist Church, in which I grew up, divides the law into two separate sections. First we have the moral law, which is eternal. SDAs equate this to the ten commandments. Second we have the ceremonial law which is basically the entire remainder of the commands which were, according to this doctrine, nailed to the cross. By this division of laws Seventh-day Adventists are able to divide the commands in a manner that is at least consistent. It may in fact be wrong, but it is at least consistently wrong. Nonetheless you will frequently find Seventh-day Adventist preachers using laws that were supposedly nailed to the cross as though they were binding. The problem is that many Christians have no rational basis on which to divide between the commands that they believe they should keep and the commands that they don’t.
    Let’s take, for example, the variety of commands in Leviticus chapter 18 & 19. In chapter eighteen we have a number of commands that relate to sexual morality with especially verse 22 which is commonly used in reference to homosexual behavior. Many Christians view these commands regarding sexual morality as still binding but it’s interesting that if you switch to chapter 19 and point to verses 33 and 34, you’ll find a command that if an alien is residing amongst you, you shall not oppress him. It’s interesting that many of the right wing politicians in the United States have managed to apply the commands of chapter eighteen about sexual morality to American politics, but have not complied with Leviticus 19:33 & 34. In fact it has been viewed as a positive and “Christian” thing to treat aliens in the United States differently from citizens, something which is here forbidden by the Biblical command. On what basis does one distinguish the two commands?
    Because users of proof-texts very rarely discuss principles of interpretation, it’s very hard to get at their thinking on these matters, but I’ve formulated some rules which I believe by observation that they follow so that they can claim to be “just doing what it says in the Bible.

    1. The True Result
    2. Text Trimming
    3. Total Doctrinal Filter
    4. All Passages are Equal
    5. Stick to the Subject

    The True Result

    When a proof-texter is confronted with his invalid exegesis, he may simply ask what’s wrong with the doctrine he was teaching from the misapplied text. In this case, any process which produces a true answer must be an acceptable process. Any math teacher can tell you to the problem with this-a process can accidentally produce a wrong answer. You need one that consistently produces a right answer. Now because of the extent of bad exegesis in sermons and teachings, I often don’t worry about the details in other people’s work. But each individual should be concerned with the accuracy and consistency of his own work.
    Let’s look at an example. Frequently we hear Ezekiel 18:20, normally in the KJV, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” This is taken as a proof text meaning that sin results in death or that the punishment for sin is death. What’s wrong with that? Well, in the passage in question (read the whole chapter!) the argument is quite different. Ezekiel is saying that children will no longer be punished for their parents’ sins. In that context, the statement is that it is the one who sins who will die, and not somebody else. As a Christian you can use Romans 6:23 to indicate what the wages of sin actually are. Ezekiel is concerned not with the wages, but with who gets paid.

    Text Trimming

    This is the special proof text process whereby one makes the text mean less than it says in order to be able to claim to be following it totally. Let me bring two examples. (All examples are ones I have either heard personally or seen in writing.) Exodus 21:15 & 17 talk about a person who strikes or curses father and mother, and commands that they be put to death. I have heard many Christians claim that we should follow these passages, but they didn’t actually mean to follow them. Instead, they suggested that we should strictly discipline our children. Now I don’t want to provide an argument for actually applying the literal words here. In fact, I hope anyone who does believe in taking the Bible seriously has a way not to apply this to the present day. But to claim to take the Bible literally and at face value, and then to claim that these two texts command us to discipline our children (how much apparently being determined kind of randomly) is simple denial. (Note that both in Judaism and Christianity we have approaches to understanding texts like this that take the literal text seriously, but deal with application in a more appropriate way. These methods are not called “literal,” however, and they should not be.)
    Now look at the commands of Jesus in Matthew 5:29-30 to cut off one’s right hand or to pluck out one’s eye if it offends you, or causes you to stumble. I had a lengthy conversation with someone who claimed that all commands in the New Testament (he avoided all examples in the Hebrew scriptures) were to be taken at face value. His particular claim was that we should understand them the way an American high school student would be likely to understand them. This type of interpretation applied to oaths (you can’t take any oath at all), to giving alms (nobody must know under any circumstances whatever, even the IRS for a tax deduction), but when we came to this verse, he used verse trimming. He believed this verse meant one should stand by one’s faith in the face of persecution, in which someone might cut off your hand or tear out your eye. Now that’s an interpretation I doubt most American high school students would come up with!
    He had trimmed what the text of the verses actually said so that he could avoid its literal implications without ever admitting that he was interpreting in a non-literal way. He no longer saw the literal meaning at all. He had become accustomed to calling his interpretation literal.

    Total Doctrinal Filter

    The total doctrinal filter forces all texts to conform to a particular doctrinal standard whether they do or not. For example, I know someone who states unequivocally that no person can possibly be righteous. When I point out certain Biblical characters who are described as righteous, such as Job who was “blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil” he will say that this refers to the fact that Job was covered by the righteousness of Jesus.
    Now Job 1:1 doesn’t say anything like that. It appears in context to be discussing Job’s character, describing him as perfect and upright, then stating specifically that he feared God and turned away from evil. It clearly does not state that some theological formula has been intoned over him so that it is no longer his character in question, but rather that of Jesus. The very foundation of the book is that Job is righteous, and thus his suffering undeserved.
    This doctrinal filter clearly holds a place of higher authority than the statements of scripture itself. The writer of Job does not get to have his say-he is pre-empted by theology extracted (improperly) from the works of Paul.

    All Passages are Equal

    Most people involved in discussions of scripture will have encountered this approach, which often is combined with the corollary that all passages can be strung together at will. It is one of the many ways that context is avoided.
    A typical example is when someone asks what Jesus had to say on a certain topic, and someone promptly quotes Paul. What did Jesus say about salvation? “Now we know that a man is justified by faith and not by the works of the law” (Romans 3:28). We asked for something Jesus said, and we got Paul back. What’s wrong with this? Wasn’t Paul inspired? I do believe that Paul was inspired, but no amount of inspiration would make Paul into Jesus. No amount of inspiration would take Paul’s historical context and make it the same as that of Jesus. And for some reason, Jesus never said anything close to what Paul said in Romans 3:28 and there’s probably a reason for that, and we ought to look for it. We lose much meaning by ignoring who said what and when.
    Another case is the passage from Genesis 15:6, that Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness. Does Paul use these words in the same way and with the same meaning as they were used in Genesis? It’s beyond the scope of this paper to answer that question, but it would probably be a good idea to let Genesis speak and then let Paul speak, and to realize the difference between the two, and then make the decision. (Note that James takes an apparently opposite view of this passage in James 3:23. What are we to do with that one?)

    Stick to the Subject

    This is the prime defense, which is why I have left it until last. Every proof-texter in the business wants to make sure you stick to the subject, specifically the subject he has chosen to discuss. There is a good reason for this. If you start applying the proof-text method to all sorts of scriptures other than the ones he has chosen, you will get quite different results. Subconsciously, the proof-texter is nervous about the weakness of his approach.
    The prime way to respond to proof texts is to identify the method being used, and then use it on other texts, especially texts that produce ridiculous results, such as Exodus 21:15 & 17, and Matthew 5:29-30. Or compare the responses to Leviticus 18 and 19, using the proof text method. You should, in fact, refuse to stick to the subject-the subject the proof-texter has chosen-and force him to try to apply his methods to other subjects. He won’t want to do it, because he knows it won’t work.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion, the use of the proof texts is a method that can be twisted to support a variety of viewpoints, that encourages spiritual and intellectual laziness, and produces a form of certainty without an adequate foundation. We need to make our Bible study (or the study of any text) serious by taking the time and effort to hear what the writer is actually saying, rather than abusing his words to support whatever structure we have already built.
    Henry Neufeld is the owner of Energion Publications and editor of this eZine. He has BA and MA degrees concentrating in Biblical Languages, and has done post masters work in Linguistics.

  • Everyone Is An Atheist

    by Rick Wingrove

    I am an Atheist …
    By definition, Atheism means only that I have no belief in gods. To say the least, I find the stories about gods to be unconvincing. To say it another way, I find the ancient fables to be exactly as convincing as the stories about Santa Claus or Superman. As a thinking adult, I am under no obligation to believe what reason and experience show me to be false.
    We are all born atheists, without religious belief, without the concept of Reason, and without the ability to apply skepticism, but possessing a brain which soaks up information like a sponge, even if that information is erroneous. It is during this early, pliable phase when parents and society begin to pummel young, uncritical, defenseless minds with stories of the locally popular deities, omnipotent powers, eternal life, and the dire consequences that will accompany disbelief. With these stories comes a frightening prohibition against any form of skepticism, which inflicts permanent disability upon the ability to apply Reason. More than merely frightening, all deistic religions cap off their indoctrination by making it dangerous, even lethal, to ask simple, reasonable questions about the most fundamental elements of their faith. Questions and doubt are mental crimes and grievous insults to the supreme creator of the curious mind. Deistic religions demand immunity from examination. By crushing all inquiry, the religions have quieted opposition and rendered huge swaths of civilization permanently incapable of questioning the answers they have been given – answers without questions.
    Fortunately, it does not work on everyone, and despite the best efforts of the Southern Baptists, it did not work on me. Somehow I managed to retain my natural curiosity and, over time, I developed a healthy skepticism and an inability to blindly accept the ancient god stories without a more coherent set of explanations than was available in an ancient holy book. I slowly began to realize that what they were selling just wasn’t true.
    I did not arrive at this position lightly. I was raised in the church and every attempt was made to set my mind with Christian dogma. I read my bible and went regularly to services and church activities. I tried real hard for awhile to get a sense of “God”, but I sensed only absence. But as my skepticism grew, I couldn’t help but notice that the stories I was told were strikingly close to the old stories of the Greek and Norse gods, differing only in the details, not in credibility. The ancient and various tales – no more reliable or believable than campfire stories, really – about deities creating the Universe were such obvious mythology that they were quickly abandoned in favor of a more Scientific and rational examination. Reason and Science, the mechanisms for the acquisition and validation of knowledge, won out for the simple reason that they were actually capable of supplying answers.
    The disparity between the ancient fables and the realities of the Universe was most obvious when contrasting the biblical genesis tale against the discoveries about origins provided by the study of Cosmology. On origins, either cosmic or Human, the bible answered correctly in this area not once and corresponded to reality not at all. Instead, I turned to sources on astronomy and cosmology, and supplemented over time with evolution, quantum physics, history, sociology, and psychology. All these subjects taken together mesh into a coherent and rational explanation for the workings of the Universe. They also provide some perspective regarding the place of Humans in that Universe.
    A comprehensive explanation is not simple and cannot be reduced to verse-sized sound bites. It could never have been understood or discovered by uneducated, illiterate and credulous Humans thousands of years ago. Nor is it palatable to those who cling to the old stories. The explanations are complex, far-ranging, and inter-related. The explanations require thought and they require study; they require process and must stand up to rigorous examination. The explanations are in no way augmented by the insertion of magical deities. Observed, and validated facts diverged wildly from the guesswork of the ancients.
    In the end, religion made no sense to me. The gap between what the church taught and what reality showed could not be closed. I finally accepted that I was a natural-born, fully realized Atheist.
    In short, I am utterly convinced, that all the stories about all the thousands of gods ever proposed by Humans are concoctions based on fear and wishful thinking, and are not connected to objective reality. I am as certain that there are no gods as I am that there are no unicorns, or leprachauns, or monsters under the bed.
    I can justify saying that these things do not exist. To make such a statement will cause logical purists some heartburn due to the fact that it is never possible to prove a negative. But even the purists know that it is OK to stop searching for Unicorns.
    … and so are you.
    Now, the point of that whole semi-biographical roundabout was so that I can show that you are also an Atheist. All adamantly religious people are hard, committed Atheists. Just not very good ones.
    Just like myself, members of every religion, commonly claiming to be the One True Religion, hold every other religion, also commonly claiming to be the One True Religion, to be false. If you do the math on that you will see that the vast majority of people on this planet recognize your religion, whatever it may be, as pure fantasy.
    The atheism of the religious is not done after a careful weighing of the evidence. Nor is it done after a thorough ‘compare and contrast’ of the tenets of your religion against what is known about the workings of the Universe. True to the early indoctrination of your own religion, you just plain old don’t and won’t believe in the gods of the other religions. To you, just as they are to me, they are all obviously false and unworthy of further consideration. Proof is unnecessary and a waste of time as you summarily dismiss several thousand alleged gods without any thought whatsoever.
    When you examine your attitudes about all the other religions, you can understand exactly my attitude towards all those religions. Your view of all those religions varies from mine not in the least, not at all. In the case of each and every one of those alleged deities you are experiencing and pricticing pure, hard Atheism.
    Of all the thousands of gods that people have believed in, prayed to, and entrusted their wellbeing to, you retain belief, not surprisingly, only in your locally popular deity. When you do the math on that, you will see that, except for a small fraction of a percent, you are every bit the Atheist I am. The only difference is that my Atheism also applies to your local religion, while you persist in an inexplicable, irrational, and indefensible breach of consistency.
    A final word
    Is there a point to all this? Yes. There is an inherent contradiction built into every fundamentalist religion – open contempt for Atheists while practicing near universal Atheism towards all other religions. Those who are bent to religion frequently express incomprehension as to how an Atheist could not see the “truth” of the existence of their locally popular deity. Easy. Look to yourself – you do it all the time. You are an Atheist. Welcome to my world.
    Rick Wingrove
    30 December 2003

    Rick Wingrove is a navy veteran, a single parent, a taxpayer, a constitutional patriot, and a hard, assertive, full realization atheist. Rick is involved in political activism in defense of the First Amendment and is an adamant defender of the full separation of state and church. Rick recognizes the Establishment Clause as the most brilliant thing the Founding Fathers included in the Bill of Rights and that it has effectively prevented religious strife in this country for two centuries.
    For fun, Rick used to fly hanggliders, but now likes to travel, do woodwork and stained glass, dabble in photography, keep up with old friends, and watch his daughter grow up.
    Rick lives in the solidly conservative Christian bastion of Virginia, near DC, where he is appalled daily by the stupidity and pure evil emanating from inside the Beltway.

  • After All, it's God's Idea!

    by Dr. Bob McKibben

    The question has always been there. “Why?” It is framed in many different ways, but ever since the events of Acts, chapter two, the question has always the same. “Why do Christians always share their beliefs with others?” Perhaps you are a missionary on the plains of Africa or in the jungles of South America. Maybe you are just an everyday disciple on the streets of Anytown, USA. Sooner or later you will be faced with the question, “Why do you Christians always try to evangelize others – why are you always sharing your faith?”

    Answers to this question are complex, but not really very hard to understand. The complexity usually lies in the source of the question. Who’s asking? Evangelism has been given a black eye in recent years by some well-meaning, yet insensitive disciples who got the key elements of their mission a little mixed up. The question of “why evangelism” has, of course, been voiced by antagonists who have encountered one of these witless witnesses. But the question has also been voiced by those within the church, who recognize that a problem exists, but aren’t sure what to do about it. Evangelism has been given a black eye in recent years by some well-meaning, yet insensitive disciples who got the key elements of their mission a little mixed up.

    The problem is that evangelism methods have often overshadowed the message. The solution is to better understand the true nature of Christian evangelism. This article seeks to offer a few points of understanding and possibly a few answers to the “why” question at the same time.
    Those of you who have had close encounters with an over zealous disciple, a modern day follower of Christ, are going to love this first point. The noun “evangelism” has no direct counterpart in scripture. But before you fan the flames of resistance, there are some derivatives of the word in the New Testament. The Greek word euaggelion is translated into English as “gospel.” Gospel is a transliteration of the word “godspell”, which, like euaggelion, means good news.

    Evangelism: ev (eu) = good
    angel = message, messenger (news)
    ism = English noun suffix

    An evangelist is someone who shares the Good News, or proclaims the Gospel. The very first evangelists were the angels themselves.

    And the angel said to them, “Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of a great joy which will come to all the people; for to you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.” (Lk. 2:10-11 RSV emphasis mine).

    The point is this. The very essence of the gospel is Christ the Lord. He is the Good News. Jesus is the Message. The birth of Jesus prompted God to send an angelic choir to proclaim the babe’s arrival and sing praises for the marvelous event.
    Jesus is the Message, but He is also the Messenger par excellent. After being baptized by John and spending forty days in the wilderness combating the devil, Jesus returned empowered by the Holy Spirit to launch His earthly ministry. Jesus goes home and on the Sabbath goes to the synagogue. He is handed the holy scrolls of Isaiah and reads: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Lk. 4:18-19 RSV emphasis mine).
    The mission of Christ was to be the Good News and to announce the Good News. Jesus was the embodiment of the Message that God wanted communicated to His creation.
    Q: Why do Christians do evangelism?
    A: Christians do evangelism because it is an elemental part of who Christ is and His mission and ministry.
    Evangelism is a fundamental part of Christ’s ministry and thus an elemental part of all Christian ministries. Christian disciples are, as the Body of Christ, what Jesus was in the body of Christ. Jesus was the Incarnate God, “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” fulfilling and proclaiming the Good News. The Church, the Body of Christ, is a continuation of what God started in Jesus Christ. Evangelism was God’s idea!

    It might be that you have picked up a little clue or hint as to the problem that is giving evangelism a black eye. There are four parts to evangelism: Message, Messenger, Method, and Motive. We’ve already discussed the first two. When a person confuses the method with the Message and Messenger, problems are bound to arise. Many of the methods of evangelism focus on the method itself. Then the motive becomes distorted as well. The problem often lays in the fact that Christians try to evangelize people. Evangelism’s sole purpose is to proclaim or spread the Good News. You don’t spread people! Evangelism is not about recruiting people to the cause, but about introducing people to the Christ. Recruitment methods often are motivated by survival needs of the institution and not by the Good News. Revival and survival are not the same thing! Yes, in the process of proclaiming the message, there must be a recipient. But ours is not to convert, but simply to convey the message in hopes that the recipient will accept Christ into their hearts and enter into a life-changing relationship with Him. If we want to encourage people to trust the Lord, our methods of sharing our faith and our motives for evangelism must instill trust. If we want to encourage people to trust the Lord, our methods of sharing our faith and our motives for evangelism must instill trust.

    Christians also share their faith because their faith demands it. The Christian faith is centered on the Person of Jesus Christ. But more than that, it is empowered by the Living Holy Spirit of Christ. The force or drive behind a disciples’ faith is grace. In writing his Gospel account, John gave us these powerful words:
    And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father…And from His fullness have we all received, grace upon grace. (John 1:14, 16 RSV emphasis mine). The totality of what God in Christ did for us is wrapped up in the word grace. The Greek for grace is charis, which means, “gift.” All the benefits of the Christian faith come to us as gifts – grace. We can’t earn them, we don’t deserve them, and we can’t buy them. The very nature of the Christian faith is that it must be received as a gift and it must be given away in the same manner.
    James, the brother of Jesus, caused a lot of trouble when he tried to put this idea in writing. …faith without works is dead…(James 2:26). You cannot receive faith or its saving benefits through works. If you could, it would no longer be a gift and your life would no longer be empowered by grace. On the other hand, if faith is simply received and finds no life beyond itself, it dies. The Christian faith has to have expression by giving itself away. Essentially, it must be shared with others by word and deed. (Romans 15:18).
    Have you ever considered why the Dead Sea is dead? It has no outflow. The waters of the Jordan and other tributaries flow into the sea, and where the ecosystems meet, life abounds. But there is no life in the main body of the sea because it has no outlet, no flow. Faith that becomes bottled up and stagnant soon dies. It must be shared with others in order to live.
    Q: Why do Christians share their faith?
    A: We share our faith because our faith demands it.
    Yet another way to answer the question “why?” is to admit that our times demand it. It is possible to pick any number of world events to highlight “our times”, but consider these. When two students can walk into their high school with guns and bombs, killing indiscriminately teachers and fellow students, and then themselves, it’s time for Christians to put their faith into action. When a person can walk into a Baptist Church in Texas and begin shooting young people who have gathered to pray, it’s time for Christians to being sharing their faith with others.
    The events of September 11, 2001 are certainly those that have changed all our lives forever. More than that, it has changed the entire human population. When a group of men can simultaneously hijack four commercial airliners and fly them into national landmarks with the intent of killing themselves and thousands of others – IN THE NAME OF GOD! – it’s time for Christians to put their faith into action.
    Scott Beamer’s wife, Lisa, has written her story of the event of that day. In her book titled Let’s Roll! Ordinary People, Extraordinary Courage, she reveals the chilling events aboard United Flight 93 that crashed in a Pennsylvania field, claiming her husband’s life. Except for the extraordinary faith and courage of those aboard, Flight 93 would have likely been crashed into the White House, or some other Washington landmark. If the event itself isn’t shocking enough, the radio and intercom transmissions tell a horrifying truth. These men were willing to kill and be killed because they believed that God was directing them to do so.
    In each of the horrifying stories above, young boys and grown men were deluded by a terrible lie. They were duped by a false message into believing that they would be honored and revered for such murderous acts. Some were even deceived into believing that they would spend eternity in heaven for their “faithfulness.” A secondary, but equally tragic result of all this is that others across our planet are being drawn into the same horrible lie. They are being led down the path that leads to eternity – an eternity with the Father of Lies. Almost every religion believes that our world will someday come to an end. The events of our day appear to be plunging us more rapidly than ever toward that day. Christians must proclaim the truth about the One True God. They must share their faith in hopes that others won’t be duped and deluded by the author of lies. God doesn’t need to be defended against the liars of our world, but His divine truths do need to be proclaimed and shared for all to hear. God wants His followers to be ordinary people with extraordinary courage.
    Q: Why do Christians share their faith?
    A: Christians share their faith because our times demand it.
    For all the opponents of evangelism who are still reading, thank you. Christians share their faith because it is intrinsic to all Christian ministries. Christians share their faith because their faith demands it. Christians share their faith because our times demand it. To all disciples of our Lord still reading, thank you. Christians must never confuse method and motive with God’s Message. We must insure that our methods and our motives reflect God’s method and motive. After all evangelism is God’s idea. And what is His method and motive? Love (John 3:16)!

    I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints, and I pray that the sharing of your faith may promote the knowledge of all the good that is ours in Christ. (Philemon 4-6 RSV).

  • God Crucified

    by Chris Eyre

    The text of a sermon presented at the Bowers Allerton Mission Hall

    Sitting in front of the television a couple of nights ago, the news came on. There was a report of another suicide bombing in Palestine – and I thought “I don’t want to hear any more about this” and turned over to watch something which didn’t make me think, which didn’t challenge me, which didn’t make me want to do something about this terrible situation. I’ve done the same with many news reports – perhaps we all have.
    I don’t know if any of you have yet seen “The Passion of the Christ” (the new film by Mel Gibson) – I haven’t myself, though I’ve heard a lot of reports of it. I understand, though, that it focuses very much on the sheer barbarity of the end of Jesus’ ministry on earth, and I think as we move towards Easter, when we will be remembering that particularly, this is something on which we would do well to reflect.
    Crucifixion was perhaps one of the most barbaric punishments ever invented. It tortured as it killed, and usually it killed fairly slowly – there are reports of people living two or three days nailed to a cross, or a tree. Generally, it was apparently eventually suffocation which actually killed, as the position put increasing pressure on the lungs. The Romans were skilled at this, though, and provided ropes to bind the arms in order to prevent the body from falling as a result of the nails tearing through the flesh, and often also put a kind of peg in so their victim would be able to hold himself up longer – and suffer longer.
    Over the next few weeks, we may see and hear the nails being knocked in, we may hear the cries of anguish, we may see a man reduced to the ultimate agony – and we may do this whether or not we see the film. It is the most harrowing moment of all of the gospels, the day when Christ said “it is finished”. It is the start point of Easter, our remembrance of that death and the glorious resurrection which followed.
    I did recently attend a performance of “Jesus Christ, Superstar” at the Theatre Royal at York. Again, I don’t know whether any of you have seen a production, but this I can definitely recommend.
    The words “Jesus Christ, Superstar, do you think you’re who they say you are” echo in my mind. What do we say Christ is?
    I’ve talked to you on my last visit about the Creation and Adam, and, in a way, what I’m going to say follows on from that – you can regard this as “Part II” if you like. Actually, I’m going to link in to quite a lot of what I’ve said previously, so forgive me if there’s some repetition. [Ed. We may publish that prior sermon at a later date, but we believe this will stand on its own for now.] The reading was the beginning of John’s gospel. Now, I think it’s clear that in this passage “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men”. … and “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” we have the pinnacle of the understanding of Jesus.
    In Acts 2:22-24 Luke tells us that Peter said “Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs which God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know – this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. But God raised him up, having loosed the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it” Snipping everything between that and Acts 2:33, Peter continues:- “Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this which you see and hear”
    We have, in the preamble to John’s gospel, a very different picture. The Word made flesh……. having been in the beginning with God, and being God. Can this be the “man attested to you by God”? Are we talking about two entirely different concepts?
    Which brings me back to “Jesus Christ, Superstar”. Who was Jesus? What was Jesus?
    We ascribe a large number of roles to him. He was, obviously, a man. He was a healer (among the other mighty works and wonders and signs which Peter talked of). He was a teacher, a preacher, a leader.
    He is also (to some at least of his followers and to us, but, sadly, not to much of Judaism) the messiah, the prophesied deliverer of the nation of Israel.
    “Superstar” deals, in part, with some of the expectations of his followers at the time, and I think many of these were based on messianic prophecy. Some expected a military leader (two of the disciples were associated with the “Zealots” – and one was called “Zealot” in the bible – and the Zealots were a group of what we would now call “freedom fighters”, though the Romans would probably have called them “terrorists”) – someone who would liberate the nation of Israel from the oppressive rule of Rome. Some expected the apocalypse and the intervention of God on earth in person, with Jesus playing a central role. Most, I suspect, expected that he could wave a magic wand and produce what they thought he was aiming at.
    But what I think he was aiming at was bringing others to his conception of God. I hark back to the Sermon on the Mount, and his impassioned statements about the Kingdom of Heaven (or Kingdom of God). In a world where (in modern terms) most people had a faulty dial-up connection to God, Jesus had broadband. He knew that it was possible to have communion with God on a daily, an hourly, a minute-by minute basis – and I believe that is what he meant by the Kingdom of Heaven.
    I also think that this is what is really meant by “Son of God”, which is the next category in which we place him. This is not exclusive – in Deuteronomy 14:1, we see “You are the sons of the Lord your God”, applied to the whole nation of Israel. We are all sons and daughters of God.
    And yet, we face the scripture “only begotten son of God” in John. It cannot, in the face of other scripture, mean “only son of God”; the clue has to be in the word “begotten”. I’ll pass over issues such as the virgin birth here, and suggest that the word would be better thought of as “intended”.
    We also have the concept of Jesus as mediator (one of the possible meanings contained in John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life; no-one shall come to the father save by me”. In Hebrews 5:5, he is described as a high priest.
    So, we have man, healer, teacher, preacher, wonder worker, messiah, mediator, high priest, Son of God. . . .
    And we add redemptive sacrifice. “Lamb of God, who bears the sins of the world”. Saviour, redeemer.
    But John actually goes further than this. He links Jesus with the Word of God, and with God himself. “In the Beginning was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God”, and “And the Word became flesh and dwelt with us”. Jesus is God. We hold to a trinitarian doctrine, that there is one God in three persons, father, son and Holy Ghost.
    Son of God and God, then.
    And one thing more – he is also described as the “new Adam”. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15:45 says “Thus it is written ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit”.
    This takes us back to where we were the last time I spoke to you. Then, I talked of the story of Creation being the story of God creating the universe out of his own substance; all of material reality being of the “stuff of God”. This is very much the image given by some of the great Christian mystics – Meister Eckhart, for instance, said “Thou shalt know him without image, without semblance and without means, – ‘But for me to know God thus, with nothing between, I must be all but he, he all but me’ I say, God must be very I, I very God, so consummately one that this he and this I are one is…..”.
    If you want a more prosaic version – Eckhart is definitely carried away there by the power of his personal experience of God, and his language is not easy – consider for a moment Matthew 25:34-40: “Then the King will say to those at his right hand ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me’. Then the righteous will answer him ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ And the King will answer them ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of my brethren, you did it to me’”.
    Think of this – that this is more literal than it might appear, that what you do to another you are doing to Jesus: God in immanence, in his creation is the whole of creation (and, of course, more besides). Creation out of the “stuff” of God renders all things God – and of this Jesus is the pattern. I see things very much as the mystics do; when I read the commandment not to kill, I read it as not to kill because what is killed is a part of the living God, and extend it to every living thing. When I read the Great Commandments – briefly, to love God, and to love your neighbour as yourself, I see these as two formulations of the same thing. With the passage from Matthew, what I do to my fellow man I do to God – but when I squash a fly, I am doing it to God as well.
    And then think further. I spoke of the nails being driven into the hands and feet at the beginning of this: in every negative action we do towards another, we are driving in another nail. Christ lives in humanity, and humanity in general, not just in Christians, and is crucified every day, every hour, every minute somewhere in the world. He is starved, beaten, shot, mutilated, abused, imprisoned in actions we take against others all the time.
    God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son – yes, but more than that, God poured himself into his creation at the beginning. The Word was made flesh from the beginning, and that flesh is the whole of creation.
    And in my thinking, together with many of the mystics, Christ; God; the new Adam also lives in every part of the remainder of creation, and what we do to that beggars description. When an animal is vivisected, when we pollute the earth on which we live – these things too we do to God, we do to Christ.
    I preach Christ crucified: I preach God crucified on the cross of the universe – crucified from the beginning, and crucified still. In all our actions in the world, we may be knocking in another nail – and we probably are knocking in another nail. And yet, God gave himself that this should be possible.
    God so loved the world.

  • OVERFLOWN AGAIN

    by: Chris Eyre

    More Info

    So, the man who would be Kennedy is meeting with the capo di tutti capi of the Russian Mob, and passed by Europe on the way. Arms reduction is on the menu, which is a good thing; trade is very much on the menu, which is not so good, and Iran may be on the menu, which is not of much concern but maybe should be.
    President Obama arrived on the scene with amazing expectations. He looked and sounded like a return to the heady days when we had US presidents who we looked up to, and an America which we were happy to think of as leading the Western World, especially Western Europe. All the resonances were with John F. Kennedy, days when the States were our friend and protector against the Soviet Union and a shining light of social-democratic leaning responsible government.
    Of course, the expectations were far too high; he had an economic situation not seen since the 30s to deal with at home, and the geopolitical problems had changed dramatically. Any hopes we had that he’d wave a magic wand and fix the world economy were fantasy to start with, but some of the gloss has gone with the realisation that that’s the case. We hoped he’d move rapidly to end involvement in Iraq, and that seems to be happening; we hoped he’d have solutions to involvement in Afghanistan, and that doesn’t. We hoped he’d stop the sabre rattling about Iran, threatening to precipitate yet another Middle-Eastern war, and there’s too much doubt still about where his intentions are in that respect. He’s still fairly glossy.
    His opposite number in the talks is Vladimir Putin. No-one here seriously thinks the change of president in Russia produced any change in real leadership. Russia faded fast in the European consciousness as a threat in the 90s and still doesn’t look like an imminent military threat, but has managed to position itself as a commercial bandit of epic proportions. European money flooded in to the opportunity of reconstructing Russia, and we got cheap gas and decent returns for a while – and then found the pipelines being turned off to exert political pressure and control of joint ventures being appropriated by the Russian partners, apparently with state backing. Actual commerce in Russia was bedevilled by corruption controlled by criminal gangs, and on the whole it appeared that the government, i.e. Putin, was entirely happy for this to happen and to give it a gentle helping hand.
    At least they’re not talking about forward missile defences in the eastward expansion of Western Europe via the raft of former Warsaw Pact nations which are now part of Europe. What we’d actually do if Russian tanks started appearing over the Polish and Baltics borders again is very unclear (absent US assistance, we don’t have the level of military force to resist this, nor the coordination of forces, nor the will to build those up), but we don’t seem to have major concerns over that; it’s agreeable not to have the States disturbing the situation and making us think about the possibility.
    Reduction in nuclear arsenals is always a good thing. The trouble is, it’s not a matter of central concern any more. Everyone knows it will never reach the point of either side being unable to do totally unacceptable damage if sufficiently provoked, and the genie is out of the bottle as far as the possibility of limiting ownership of nuclear weapons to a relatively few supposedly reliable nations is concerned.
    And so to Iran. Yet another unstable and untrustworthy regime with nuclear capability isn’t an attractive prospect, but what can actually be done to stop it, and is it actually worth the cost? Do we really think the Iranian regime is going to be mad and bad enough to nuke Israel and provoke potentially awful retribution? No, in truth. But then, if that were to happen, would we actually want to commit to an awful retribution either? Probably not. Europe does not have a significant geopolitical stake in the survival of Israel, and it does have a significant geopolitical stake in Iranian oil. It’s difficult to see what US-Russian cooperation on that issue is going to achieve; probably not military threat (which would be a bad thing) as we still don’t see Obama as being hawkish; possibly diplomatic and commercial cooperation, which would be a good thing if it resulted in more stability for trade as well as less danger of being a flashpoint.
    The issue of most concern is trade. We’ve had major difficulties with Russia, and along comes Obama with a much bigger stick in his hand to encourage good behaviour and talks of very large amounts of US investment. This could be the last straw for European investment in Russia; we’ve already suffered from what amounts to stealth nationalisation of some of what we’ve invested, and could readily be replaced by American capital with better protection. One possible saving grace is that the leopard doesn’t change his spots, and the new investment may be as precarious as ours has proved to be. The other and better one is that Russia may end up forced to adopt fair commercial practice towards everyone, and then we have a possible head start. We’re going to be watching what happens in those areas with huge interest.
    Is Putin going to stop being cold warrior redux, as Obama would like, and foster a new and close relationship between the States and Russia? We might actually not be very happy about that prospect; both are militarily much stronger than Europe is, and both have huge commercial power. The thought of getting stuck between two cooperating giants is not an attractive one – much better to be between to competing ones. That said, on the international stage, having that amount of power behind attempts to resolve problems elsewhere in the world would be attractive.
    It probably isn’t going to happen easily. Russia is suffering from “loss of empire” withdrawal, and would very much like to return to being one of two, but the States is never again likely to see Russia in that mould, perhaps even less so than Europe is. There are huge political differences, huge differences in the economies and a massive history of distrust. We can probably sleep easy.
    It would have been nice to think that the leader of the Free World was there to represent us as well, just a bit. But that isn’t the case; he overflew us on the way there and again on the way back. We aren’t really involved.

  • Gender Neutrality and Bible Translation

    by Henry Neufeld

    Many people in the pews don’t understand the controversy that surrounds this issue. Some think they do, but have misunderstood what the debate is about. This essay is not intended as a contribution to scholarly debate, but rather as an explanation to the general public as to what the issues really are. Though I have a definite point of view I believe you can read this essay, gain some insight into the problem, and still end up disagreeing with me.
    Some people prefer the term “gender accuracy” but I continue to use gender-neutrality, because that is the term most people in the church pews think of in connection with this issue. It is also part of the second and third issues that I list.

    Multiple Issues

    There is not a single issue of gender-neutral language, with people divided into “yes” and “no” camps. Rather there are at least three issues involved.

    1. The issue of gender references in Bible translation, where the reference of a Bible passage is (probably) to people of more than one gender.
    2. The issue of gender in references to God or angels as used in the Biblical text.
    3. The issue of gender in references to God or angels in modern liturgical language and in common speech.

    Gender References in the Bible

    There is a great deal of agreement amongst scholars about a number of references in the Bible in which one can clearly determine the gender of the persons referred to. In these cases, translators search for the best option to represent the actual persons referenced. If it is a group of men and women, modern usage usually requires some indication, such as “brothers and sisters” rather than “brethren,” or something similar.
    More controversial is the use of “he or she” instead of just “he” or the singular “they,” which were all deprecated by English teachers a few years ago, but have become nearly standard. These issues have an impact on how well various audiences understand the Bible, but they do not represent theological positions as such. Some people complain of political correctness when certain terms are used; others are annoyed when the sisters are not included. Let me suggest that this is a matter of preference. If you don’t like modern gender-neutral language, choose a Bible translation that doesn’t use it and find a church where the dialect spoken reflects your preferences. It’s not worth fighting over. (For help choosing a Bible version, see the Energion.com Bible Translation Selection Tool.)
    More controversial still is the idea of “male representation.” To understand this issue consider the difference in translation of Psalm 1:1 between the ESV and the NLT:
    Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of scoffers; (ESV)
    Oh, the joys of those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or stand around with sinners, or join in with scoffers. (NLT)
    In order to avoid the gender specific language, the translators of the NLT have changed the singular reference to a man to a neutral and plural “those.” This changes the gender reference, but it also changes the number. There are those who believe that this dilutes the meaning, that there is an intention here to hold up a single man, definitely not a woman, as the example of the person who obeys God and is blessed. The ESV sticks with the gender specific and singular form.
    I chose the ESV and the NLT because those two translations are both done by evangelical translation teams, which makes it clear that this is not a liberal vs. conservative argument.
    Again, while I understand the issue, let me suggest that the best way to approach this is to choose a Bible version that is translated in the way you prefer. Nobody is deceiving anyone. The NLT translators, and others, such as the TNIV team, believe that the best way to convey the meaning of this verse is to present it in a gender-neutral fashion, keeping it clear that either a man or a woman who obeys God would be blessed. The ESV translators are sticking with the number and gender in the source text, assuming that people will understand that the blessing is not limited by gender, but believing that the spiritual position of the male is important and must be preserved.
    (Note that I don’t know the theological position of each of the ESV translators. Some of them might simply prefer the more literal rendering, despite some possible loss of communication, or might also not believe that there is that much loss of communication with the exclusively male pronoun.)
    All of these issues relate purely to translation. There is no question how Hebrew and Greek represented mixed groups of men and women. The question is how we express the same thing in English, being faithful to the source texts, and also being accurate and clear in the way we communicate.

    Gender Language Referring to God in Translation

    Most Bible translators will quickly tell you that they do not believe in modifying gender language used in reference to God. This issue becomes confused with the first issue. I am frequently asked when teaching whether the NRSV is that “gender-neutral” Bible. Normally people are referring to various efforts to change terminology used in reference to God, modifying he to she, or to a combination of masculine and feminine pronouns, or referring to “Mother-God” instead of “Father God.” But the NRSV did no such thing. All of its modifications of gender language fall into the first category I listed above, and are hardly more radical than those of the evangelical NLT.
    This type of language with reference to God should be clearly distinguished from translating simple references to persons or groups of people. The vast majority of Bible translations are not nearly so radical. There have been a few experiments in translating references to God in the Biblical text, but none of these occur in mainstream versions. Despite the fact that if you put “gender neutral” and “NRSV” into Google, you’ll get multiple pages of listings talking about the “gender neutral NRSV,” the NRSV only deals with references to groups of people and does so quite well.
    It is because of this confusion that many people would like to change the terminology, using “gender accurate” for the instances I noted in my first heading, but saving the term “gender neutral” for this second area.
    For historical reasons, I would suggest that translating the scriptural references to God using modern gender neutral terminology is inappropriate. The writers of the Bible used masculine references to refer to God; they understood his role using masculine metaphors, and we should not obscure this historical fact.

    Gender References to God in Modern Liturgy

    But what about references to God by feminine terminology in modern liturgy or in common conversation about God? One of my favorite authors, Andrew Greeley, regularly uses feminine pronouns and other references to God in his novels. I do not find this in any way offensive.
    Why do I find gender-neutral translation of references to God in the Bible offensive, but not modern use? The issue is both historical and experiential. Historical, in that it is simply a fact that metaphors for understanding God were largely masculine in Biblical times. We should not hide from facts of history. But it is also experiential in that it is extremely valuable to understand that our experience with God can change and grow, and that we can learn to understand God under new terminology and new metaphors. When we try to make modern people out of the prophets, we tend to obscure this fact. We don’t have to change their experience in order to celebrate our own, developing experience.
    So while I would object to alteration of references to God in a Bible translation, I am not disturbed by such references in modern liturgy. I would add one note, however. Those who change the image of God to a purely feminine one are, I believe, losing just as much as those who see only masculine aspects to God. Don’t let fear and bad examples of men in your own life prevent you from seeing the masculine aspects of God’s character.

    Summary

    Let me simply suggest that the issues of Bible translation can be easily solved by choosing the Bible translations that we use wisely. If certain language does not communicate well with you, don’t use versions that use that language. At the same time, don’t force others to use only versions that communicate best with you-they may be very different from you.
    In liturgy, we need to make sure to both communicate, and allow the worshippers to worship. Liturgy can either help people get closer to God, or it can stand in the way. We simply need to look at how individual church members can best worship, and try to facilitate their experience with God as best we can.
    For more information, see What’s in a Version, a pamphlet from Energion Publications, or the book by the same title and author, What’s in a Version?

    Henry Neufeld is the owner of Energion Publications and the editor of this eZine. He has BA and MA degrees concentrating in Biblical Languages, and has done post masters work in Linguistics.

Energion Direct
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.