Calling All Theoblogians #13

It's elders' election time at my church. Each time, we are encouraged to reflect on the Bible passages that outline the requirements of an elder. I'm grateful to be part of a church that takes Scripture seriously:

Here is a trustworthy saying:

If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer, he desires a noble task. Now the overseer must be above reproach , the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect. (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God's church?). He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgement as the devil.  He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil's trap.

1 Timothy 3:1-7

An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.  Since an overseer is trusted with God's work, he must be blameless - not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.  Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.  He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Titus 1:6-9

The questions I have are:

• Does an elder have to be married?  I've been part of churches where single and engaged men have been elders or nominated to be elders. Christians seem to interpret 'husband of but one wife' differently. Some see it as saying that IF an elder is married, he should only have one wife and not be a bigamist. Others see it as that an elder must be a married man with just one wife.

• Is Scripture saying that an elder's children must all be believers? I've seen instances where an elder has adult children, some who are believers and some who are not. Or is it only concerning children who still live at home? What about elders who have babies or toddlers who aren't old enough to understand the gospel yet? Can a childless man be an elder? I know some Christians who think that a man with only child should be excluded from being considered for eldership because the passage says 'children'.

Any thoughts?

Calling All Theoblogians #12

Duncan and I watched the movie, Alive last week.  Based on a true story, Alive is about a team of young rugby players from Uruguay who were flying to Chile for a game in 1972 when their plane crashed in the Andes mountains.  Several passengers were killed instantly, but most survived.  After learning that the search for them had been called off and with only measly supplies of food and drink, they survived 10 weeks in freezing conditions (a few more died during this time), before three of the guys started a brave trek out of the mountains.  Eventually they were rescued.

The controversy surrounding this tale involves HOW they managed to survive for so long after their food supplies ran out.  The tagline says, They overcame the impossible by doing the unthinkable.  What was the unthinkable?  Yes, they survived by eating the bodies of their dead friends.

This sparked an interesting discussion between Duncan and myself.  Would we do the same if we were in that situation?  Is cannibalism wrong in that context?

I think no Christian would dispute that killing someone and then eating them is downright wrong and grotesque.  We are not to murder and God has given us plants and animals for food.  I doubt anyone would get their jollies out of eating human flesh either (unless they are Hannibal Lecter).  It was a massive decision for these young men, many being Catholics, even though one joked, "If I die and you eat me, promise me you'll clean your plates."

Is it wrong to eat the body of someone who is already dead if that was your only means of survival?

Personally, I think I would (unless someone can convince me that God forbids it in all circumstances) although I felt sick to my stomach when they finally went ahead and did it.

Can anyone shed some light on what the Christian view on this matter should be?

Calling All Theoblogians #11

Here's a thorny issue to ponder...

Can you be a Christian and believe in evolution?

Firstly, I'd better be clear on what I mean by 'evolution'.

I don't mean the kind of evolution that says humans came from apes.  I don't know anyone who claims to be a Christian and believes that.  I mean natural selection kind of evolution, survival of the fittest, and so on.  There are a growing number of Christians from the evangelical Anglican circles I used to mix in in Perth that don't believe in a literal six (24 hour) day creation.  There is no dispute that God created or could create in six 24 hour days, but they believe the word 'day' in Genesis means 'a period of time'.  They believe the earth is millions of years old, and not thousands which is the claim of Genesis.  I also get a sense of 'we are educated, scientifically-minded people who have moved past that idea that the earth was created in a literal week' attitude as if they think those who believe otherwise might as well believe in fairytales.  They think that believing in an old earth is no barrier to being a Christian.  These opinions have been voiced by a few people, but in no way reflect everyone.

Recently I read two books on this subject:

Refuting Compromise by Jonathan Sarfati has the tagline A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of 'Progressive Creationism' (Billions of Years), As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross.  It is, as its name suggests, a response to another book written by Hugh Ross, who claims to be a Christian, yet believes the earth is billions of years old and has written a book about why he believes this to be the case.  The hardest thing about reading a book which is essentially a review of another book is that I haven't read the original book.  Therefore, I can only go on the bits of Ross' book which Sarfati quotes.  I probably should go and read Ross' book, but if it's as 'sciency' as Refuting Compromise, it won't be likely.  I found Refuting Compromise to be a painful read.  I didn't enjoy at all, but I persevered because I wanted to see if the book contained any 'gems' of wisdom.  It does, here and there, but most of it went waaay over my head, and I ended up skipping or skimreading a fair few chapters.  I felt I could have said what he said in about a quarter of the size of the book, but I also suspect this book isn't really aimed at someone like me (who has a very non-science mind).  Thank God for the chapter summary at the end which you'd probably understand more than reading the actual book if you have a mind like mine.  I've given the book away since I doubt I'll ever pick it up again, and Duncan has said he's not interested in reading it.  However, it's probably a really good book to read if you are into sciency stuff and can understand it

On the whole, I found The Essence of Darwinism by Kirsten Birkett to be a much more helpful read (I have read it before, but that was nine years ago).  Not only is it short (142 pages), but it makes scientific theories much more accessible to someone like me.  Basically it can be summarised in a few points:

• What is known as 'Darwinism' today isn't actually Charles Darwin's theory at all.  His theory has evolved over the years and there is considerable disagreement between scientists.  Evolutionary theory is not a proven fact the way many schools teach it to be.
• The evolutionary debate is always religious.  Why can't it ever be neutral without religion being an issue?  Because it involves us...people...our origins.  If we have evolved by chance, then there isn't really any meaning of life, and humans are no different from the rest of the animals.  Without God, humans are not special.  There is no morality.  We don't make sense without God.  Debates about evolutionary theory are never just about the theory - they are always within a framework.  Some of those who believe strongly in evolution are also staunch atheists.
• Genesis is not so much about the 'how' (the mechanics of creation), but the 'why'.  Genesis explains why God created us, who God is and how we should relate to Him.

While the book is mostly very helpful, I think it falls down in a few places and I found those places quite alarming.  While it is true that what matters most is the 'why' and not the 'how' and that Genesis does not say EXACTLY how God created, the 'how' still matters somewhat.  On page 127, Birkett says, We cannot say a priori that God made His creation work in this way or that way.  It may seem bizarre, even uncomfortable, to us that God developed humans from apes.  What of it?  Other people find it uncomfortable that God might have created humans instantaneously with no intermediate steps.  What we find uncomfortable or not is hardly the issue.  We do not and cannot dictate how God has worked.  But how can any Christian say that God MIGHT have created humans from apes when it is clear from Genesis that He didn't:

the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. (Genesis 2:7).

There were also a number of her arguments in the Epilogue: What About Genesis? that I didn't agree with (get a copy and read for yourself).

I've never been a big fan of 'creation ministries'.  I think it is one of those topics that people like to get on their soapbox about (like baptism, the Lord's Supper or end times), but can distract Christians from the clear command and importance of spreading the gospel.  For this reason, I don't want to subscribe to Creation Magazine, nor do I appreciate people telling me I need to read it as if I'm a lesser caste of Christian if I don't.
But in recent times I've come to see that such ministries have a place and I certainly don't wish to discourage them.  I can see that the creation account may be a stumbling block to some people coming to faith and apologetics in this area can play a vital role.  But I think some Christians need to be careful in that they don't become TOO focused on this area and start arguments all the time.

Why are many people so quick to trust carbon dating, yet doubt Genesis?  One 'sciency' friend of ours has said that if people believe science is true, then they are completely missing the point of science.  Science is a theory, not a fact, and that theory continues to evolve.  Science needs to be reinterpreted by Scripture, not the other way round.

I don't think Genesis is meant to be read in the same way as an apocalyptic book such as Daniel or Revelation which have different meanings for the word 'day' (i.e. the 1335 days in Daniel).  Genesis is a narrative and, despite the opening chapter being very poetic, there is no reason to doubt that the word 'day' does not mean a literal 24 hour day.  After all, it says there was evening, and there was morning, the 'x' day.  Sarfati argues that the Hebrew word yom is what is used for the word day in Genesis. This means an ordinary day (sunrise to sunset). The Fourth Commandment for Sabbath rest makes no sense unless the days of the working week were the same as those of creation week.

I've also come to see that if you fiddle with Genesis, the rest of the Bible starts to cascade.  If Genesis needs to be reinterpreted to fit with science, then which other parts of the Bible need to be as well?  I'm wondering if the need to doubt the literal six day creation is coming from a desire to 'fit in' with non Christian friends rather any scientific 'proof'.  We don't want to to look like weirdos for believing something that seems so ludicrous to the rest of the world.  We want our friends to come to know Jesus so badly that we often compromise what the Bible says and water it down to make it more palatable to them.  The trouble is, if people doubt that all of Genesis is true, what does that say about their claim that the Bible is inerrant?

Thoughts?

Any other books you recommend on this topic?

Calling All Theoblogians #10

Here is an appropriate theological question with Valentine’s Day over for another year.

What is the ‘gift of singleness'?  Whereabouts in the Bible is it referred to?  I have heard two possible explanations:

One is that the gift is a special ability to feel content with being single.

The other is that the gift is the gift of single people to the church. That is, if you’re single, then the gift of singleness is not for your benefit, but for the benefit of the church in that single people have the ability to serve in ways married people often can’t i.e. having more free time.

An argument I’ve heard against the first interpretation is that if the gift is a special ability to feel comfortable with being single then why didn’t God give this gift to all single people? Some people are very unhappy with their singleness, and wonder why God is leaving them in these circumstances without the ‘gift of singleness’ to endure it.

Others don’t like the single people being the gift to the church option. They argue it sounds like single people are to be the slaves of married people as if all singles are useful for is babysitting. I must admit when I was single (and even now), I don’t like the idea.

Which one is it?

Calling All Theoblogians #9

I suspect the answer to this question may well be, "It doesn't matter," but I'm going to ask it anyway.

When a Christian dies, do they go to be with Jesus straight away, or does every Christian (dead or alive) have to wait until Jesus returns?

A few years ago, I was having a conversation with some friends and their housemates about this issue.  All of these people are Seventh Day Adventists, and Adventists believe in the doctrine of 'soul sleep' (see their Official Belief No. 26 from the Seventh Day Adventist homepage). They believe that when a Christian dies, they remain in an unconscious state until the second coming of Christ.  1 Thessalonians 4:13-17 is one passage in Scripture where they get this belief from, but there are others.

This belief differs greatly with the opinion of many other denominations which believe a Christian goes to be with Christ the second they die.  I've heard many people say, "They've gone to be with Jesus," after losing a loved one, and they get this from Luke's account of Jesus' conversation with the repentant thief at the crucifixion:
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:42-43)

My Seventh Day Adventist friends believe that since the original text contained no commas, where you place the comma in the English translation completely changes the meaning of the verse.

"I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (This sounds like the thief will be in paradise with Jesus TODAY).

"I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise." (This sounds like Jesus is telling the truth TODAY, but that does not mean the thief will be in paradise today).

A number of Christians believe that they will go to be with Jesus as soon as they die, and will be looking down on their loved ones from heaven.  For one lady I know of, this enslaved her because she believed her late husband was watching her so she felt pressure to dress in a way that would please him.  My SDA friends don't believe this because they argue they wouldn't be in much of a paradise if they could see their loved ones suffering on earth.  I'm inclined to agree with them there!

One pastor I know said he thinks it is both.  That when Christians die, they go to be with Jesus, but also a lot depends on the coming of the new creation.  He said it sounds ludicrous to think it could be both, but he thinks Scripture presents it as both.

I also suspect this question is unanswerable simply because you'd have to die and come back to tell people what it was like.  But I thought I'd throw it out there anyway to see if anyone can shed some insight on the Scriptures I mentioned.

Calling All Theoblogians #8

I don't know if this question is really 'theological' or not...but here goes.

Are married Christian couples commanded to have children?

Years ago, I was talking to a Christian friend and was shocked during the conversation when she announced that she and her husband had decided not to ever have children.  I was single then, and I guess I just assumed that all married couples eventually had kids, providing they could, of course.  When I probed her further, there was no concrete reason given, other than the fact that they just didn't want them!  I was stunned, but it made me think.  Since that conversation, I have met several more Christian couples, who are childless by choice, and intend on keeping it that way.

About a year after that conversation with my friend, I heard a sermon at my former church which was titled, Thanksgiving for Children.  Basically, the pastor's view was and is, that children are a blessing from the Lord (Psalms 127 and 78) and, as Christians, we ought not to be swayed by our world's negative view of children as a nuisance and an inconvenience.  He was under the impression that the Bible commands all Christian, married, fertile couples to produce offspring so that there will be future generations of godly men and women (Malachi 2), and that, when you marry, you are signing yourselves up to the possibility of children.  I'd already heard some people say that the Old Testament generally sees barrenness as a terrible thing, and that big families are a sign of blessing from God. 

I wasn't sure what to make of that sermon.  Perhaps because I'm not exactly a 'kid person' and I resent the emphasis placed on having children by so many churches.  I hate the fact that because I'm a young woman, that everyone assumes I want to go straight on the Sunday School roster whereas it is not my passion at all.  After talking to a few childless people who have also been reluctant to join the Sunday School juggernaut, it seems the main reason is that we feel completely ill equipped and inadequate to deal with ten toddlers, and parents don't seem to understand.  I've really struggled with seeing kids as a blessing because I see so many badly brought up brats around the place (even from Christian homes) and I just want to puke when parents gush about their wonderful little Johnny despite the fact he's been a complete little turd for the time he's been in your care.

When I was a kid (and not Christian), I wanted four kids - a boy, then identical twin girls, then another boy (yes, I had it all perfectly planned).  But by the time I was about 17, for some reason, I was completely turned off kids and was planning to be sterilised.  Now I'd say, I'm somewhere in the middle, but I have struggled off and on with this issue.  Personally, I think I'd make a terrible mother, although I know it's all about God's grace, and some people have been less than encouraging when I've confessed my doubts.  I've gotten replies such as, "Well, don't have kids, then," as if it's purely my choice, and what's worse is when it comes from childless people....what would they know?

I know quite a few Christian couples who waited for six or more years after being married to have their first child.  I wonder, was it a choice? (I'm guessing so since most managed to have multiple children in reasonably quick succession).  Why did they wait?  Was it for career, travel or ministry?  Did they doubt whether they should have children at all?  I'm most encouraged by couples who have doubted their ability, and then went on to be fantastic parents.  It gives me hope.  I was talking to one married lady who doubted whether she wanted to have kids, but went on to have four of them and is a great mum, from what I can see.

The main crux of this post is that are children a choice or a command?  I don't know about anyone else, but I want to really love my kids someday, and not have them because I felt obligated to.  There are all sorts of wrong reasons to have children.  Does the Bible say anything else about this?  I feel very uncomfortable about judging those couples who have chosen not to have children.

Calling All Theoblogians #7

What's with all the different English translations of the Bible out there? What are their origins? Which one is the best? Or doesn't it make a difference?

I've always used the New International Version (NIV) because it was the one I was given not long after I became a Christian and it's the only Bible I've ever had. Personally, I'm not fussed with translations as long as I understand the gist of the passage.

But some people have their preferences and others go beyond that and insist there is only one true translation. People who insist the King James (KJV) or New King James (NKJV) are the only versions to use really get my goat because, quite often, they themselves have no idea why they think this way; they are just going on what their church has said. A friend of mine told us recently about when he preached at a church other than his own and an older lady told him afterwards that she liked his sermon, but she usually didn't listen to anything that wasn't preached using the KJV (he used NIV). He thought to himself, "What a stupid woman!"

For a while, my old church in Perth started using the English Standard Version (ESV) during services because they reckoned it was more accurate then reverted back to the NIV because it was what most people had. I've heard mixed opinions on the New Living Translation (NLT), the Good News Bible and The Message (is that even considered a translation?). Some despise them with every breath they take while others rave about them. Who is right?

So......help! Is there anyone who wants to add an opinion on Bible translations such as which ones are better than others or if it doesn't make a difference? Are there any good books out there which explain when and where the different translations originated from?

Calling All Theoblogians #6

Ok, I know I'm opening a HUGE can of worms with this one but I've been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm just getting more and more confused.

I want to ask about......women in ministry!

(I hope I'm not hearing any claws being sharpened ;))

To me, the question 'Should women be in ministry?' is misguided. Of COURSE they should be in ministry, of course they should teach, encourage, lead etc. God has given women these gifts for service of his church and for mission to the unreached.

I think a more appropriate question is: 'WHO should women minister to?' In what context?

Since I've been a Christian I've met highly opinionated people from both sides. Some say women should only teach children or other women. Others don't think it matters at all, if God has gifted a woman she should be allowed to lead. But when I probe further, I've found it rare for these people to back up their views from Scripture. Some come from conservative churches and have just accepted that teaching no questions asked. Others have been brought up to hold their family's position. Some believe the 'end determines the means' and that we should be thinking 'missionally' so if women preaching will get more people into the church then we should go for it, that anyone who thinks differently is a sexist bigot.

You see I think it matters greatly how God wants his church to be run. It doesn't matter what we think would make the church more 'successful' or 'trendy', we need to be asking whether God cares about the gender of his church's leaders and preachers. If he does, then we must adhere to his guidelines regardless of how 'backward' this may seem in the eyes of some. If he doesn't mind, then we have freedom in this issue.

So my next question is: what DOES the Bible say?

Those who have used the Bible to back up their views, have pointed me to 1 Timothy 2:12 where it says I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. Therefore, they have come to the view where woman can preach and teach to children and other women but not where men are present. They say this is because God created Adam first and then Eve and Eve was to be Adam's helper. This does not make her role less important but if she were to lead, then it would be a role reversal which is against God's created order.

Yet I'm convinced that neither of the two churches I've been a part of have got this right and their positions have left me more confused than ever. At my old church, women were not allowed to preach or become elders or service leaders. Yet, they were allowed to lead the congregation in prayer during the service, lead music and lead Bible studies in mixed groups. During my time there I was a Bible study leader in mixed groups and no-one had a problem with this. When I asked why women were allowed to teach in Bible study but not during the church service, I was told that leading Bible study is not really leading, it is 'fascilitating', that is Bible study is more of a discussion and if I were teaching heresy, there were men there who could quickly correct me whereas sermons where not usually interrupted. I never understood why women weren't allowed to lead services as it's an MC role rather than a teaching role.

At my current church, I have never seen a woman get up in front of church for anything except to sing; everything is done by men bar morning tea, music and Sunday School. I'm not sure if that's the church's 'official position' on the matter or if it's a country church thing but I've only heard one female ever question this and she, like me, moved up here from Perth and is fairly new to the district. Duncan has told me about other churches he knows of where women are deliberately kept from getting up the front during church for fear they will become 'power-hungry'. In my view, this is terrible because it is legalism. I'm not talking about teaching/leadership here, I'm talking about the fact that women are being banned from things that Scripture does not warrant for fear 'girl power' will invade the church. This is a shocking thing, putting fences in front of sisters in Christ a lot of who have no desire to 'take over', they simply want to serve God (like Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2). While I was at uni, the Christian Union held annual elections for their committee and while I was in second year, a girl took over as president. One of my female friends was most unhappy about this because she had this staunch view that Christian males should always lead in all contexts even though in this case no guy wanted the president's job. The president's role was not of spiritual leader but rather an admin leader and encouraging of other Christians at uni.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no hardcore, bra-burning feminist. I'm not asking these questions because I have a burning desire to preach at my church (everyone will probably sigh with relief). I love public speaking but if I never preach that's no skin off my nose. I trust the guys who are leaders and want to encourage them in their roles. Rather I don't like meaningless traditions and fences being put up (in case of women being banned from everything) and I think church practices should always be questioned and drive us back to the Bible. This may make us realise we were right all along or we need to seriously change how we do things.

I'm also confused about what is 'preaching' and what is 'teaching' and if there is a difference between the two. Duncan and I spoke with someone recently who is of the view that women can preach in churches (give a sermon) as long as it is ok with the elders. He mentioned the 1 Timothy verse but said it does not refer to women in general, rather to wives submitting to their husband's leadership. He said the NIV translates it badly and we need to look at the Greek (this is opening up a whole other kettle of fish on Bible translations which I'll post on another time). What I don't get is that why would God want me to follow Duncan's leadership outside of church yet in church it is reversed? That doesn't make sense. This guy also said that women are allowed to 'preach' but not 'teach' because teaching is more in-depth expounding of Scripture but he never explained why he believes this and offered no verses to back it up. Then I was even more confused when he said I would be allowed to preach as long as Duncan was present but then he seemed to change his mind and said I could preach but Duncan would have to be absent because I am not meant to teach my husband. To me, this makes NO SENSE. It's like I would have to plan for Duncan to be absent from church weeks in advance so I could plan my sermon. This guy, while being an advocate for women preachers, said that a woman should never be given the title of 'Pastor', that is a man's title, even if she is a children's pastor. Again, I have no idea where he got this from and my head was spinning by that stage.

The issue of women teaching opens up more grey areas than we realise. One example is books. If I write a Christian book explaining Scripture, then is a man allowed to read it? Or does that only matter in church contexts? Duncan and I study the Bible together on our 'date night'. A couple of weeks ago, he didn't understand something we were reading and I had a better understanding so I explained it to him. Is this wrong? Duncan didn't have an issue with it.

Part of me thinks I am never going to get the answer I crave. That either the Bible is too obscure in this area or nobody will want to give up their cherished traditions or already formed views to see what it actually says.

Anyone out there want to have a stab at this?

Calling All Theoblogians #5

A couple of years ago I got into a conversation with a close friend and her husband about alcohol. This couple are staunch teetotallers and while I'm certainly not a big drinker myself, we found ourselves disagreeing on the question....should Christians drink? At all?

I had always been of the view that drinking is not a sin but drunkenness is. My friend and her husband believe that drinking is a sin, even if you're only an occasional drinker like me, even if you only have one sip, it's wrong, don't do it. They won't even go to a pub to have a soft drink. They think being anywhere around alcohol is wrong. I really don't know how it is possible to avoid alcohol in our alcohol-saturated society but that's what they believe.

What really surprised me was that they pulled out the Bible to justify their beliefs. Not that I think this is wrong but I just couldn't think which passages they would use to support their position.

Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise - Proverbs 20:1

This passage seems to be dealing with alcohol as a wisdom issue rather than a sin issue but they think it means that alcohol for a Christian is always wrong.

Next they turned to John 2 where Jesus turns water to wine. They said there are two different Greek words which are translated as 'wine'...one means alcoholic wine and the other means grape juice and that Jesus turned water into grape juice not alcoholic wine. None of us know Greek and I would rather hear from people who actually know Greek rather than know of someone who does. Duncan has a copy of Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words and there are two words oinos (the general word for wine) and gleukos which means sweet 'new wine'. Neither seemed to indicate the wine they meant was unfermented. I don't know anything else about Greek words though so I'm not going to pretend I do.

One thing another friend pointed out....if Jesus turned the water to grape juice then why does the master of the banquet say to the bridegroom, "Everyone brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests have had too much to drink; but you have saved the best till now." If the water that Jesus turned to wine was non-alcoholic then why does the master say it is the best?

The post is not about our personal convictions although I am interested in hearing yours. Some people believe they have the freedom to drink alcohol if they choose but abstain for various reasons.....perhaps they struggle with drinking too much, they think it would be a better witness not to drink, they think abstaining from alcohol is a healthier lifestyle. Some see it as a Romans 14 issue and choose not to drink so as not to cause a non-drinking brother to stumble in their faith. My issue is, are my friends right and it's a sin to drink at all or do we have freedom to drink as long as we drink wisely? Personally I think it's the latter but I just wanted to hear your thoughts, particularly your own convictions and if any you know any Greek which could clear up this matter.

Calling all Theoblogians #4

Okay, I really need all you theologian types to come out of the woodwork and respond to this. Or even if you've never been to Bible college but have a Bible-based opinion then please leave a comment, even if you wish to be anonymous.

Nearly two weeks ago, Duncan and I had lunch after church with a guy from our church. While we were eating, he suddenly changed the topic to the trinity and said quite frankly that the trinity is man's idea and that there is no evidence for it in the bible. To say the least, both Duncan and I were pretty spun out. I've only been a Christian for six and a half years and didn't grow up in a Christian home, but since my conversion, I have never doubted the trinity exists. Sure, it's hard to get your head around but I have never expected to be able to understand what God understands because that would make me God! I had never met a Christian that DIDN'T believe in the trinity. Was it even possible to refute the trinity and still be a Christian? I had always thought that was a JW belief.

This guy was well armed with Bible verses that he said never say Jesus is God in the flesh. In fact, he believes that Jesus is not divine at all, that he is 100% man and although he is FROM God, he is not God. He said that Jesus was the perfect man, created by God so he is not the Creator, he is a creation. Since he lived the perfect life, he is able to be a perfect sacrifice and pay for the sins of mankind.

One of the first questions that Duncan and I asked was how could a man, even a perfect man, pay for ALL the sins of mankind - past, present and future? The guy replied that the problem with many Christians is that we have got it into our heads that only God could pay for sins because we are so programmed by the idea of the trinity. He said that if God created a perfect man and said that by his death and resurrection, we could be forgiven then God can do what he likes. He also said that Jesus only became 'divine' because the early church needed to have a 'god' as the cornerstone of their religion to be able to compete with other religions and mythologies. To have a man as the centre of their faith would not have been enough. This is something which The DaVinci Code also claims if I am correct.

I am not the greatest at pulling Bible verses out of a hat to counter arguments. I find it even more difficult 'under pressure' when someone is challenging you and they are pre-prepared with a list of Bible verses and all I have is my tardy memory. Now this guy wasn't trying to be malicious or fight with us. He simply wanted to have a debate and was obviously intending to raise this with us when he invited us to lunch. I still find this quite intimidating. It's tempting to try to win the argument rather than search for truth and have a mature discussion. That's one of the reasons I prefer to debate on blogs and online forums because then you can go away and investigate someone else's claims rather than be put on the spot.

Verses I brought up:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
That sure sounds like the Word is Jesus and that the Word (Jesus) was God. That he was there in the beginning (not a creation) and made all things (creator).

Then there's John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

But this guy had a comeback. He claimed that the 'Word' refers to Genesis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."
So Jesus is the fulfillment of that verse. Yes, we agreed. Jesus is the one who will crush the serpent's (Satan's) head but I didn't see how he could deny that the Word is clearly a person.

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

That sure sounds like the trinity to me. Even though the word 'trinity' is never mentioned in the Bible, surely that verse would prove that God is one yet three persons (kinda confusing I know).

The guy didn't agree. He claimed that verse is not in the original text and was inserted years later by 'trinitarians'. How I could investigate that, I don't know.

Philippians 2:5-8 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

His counter-argument for this verse was that Jesus had a nature like God's but that does not mean he is God. He said there is no evidence in the New Testament of Jesus ever claiming to be God, only to be the Son of God and a son is not his father.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

I pointed out that God says "Let US..." so he is either talking to himself or it proves that Jesus was there in the beginning.

But the guys simply said it was a figure of speech which doesn't make sense to me at all. In fact, he said several times that some translations were unreliable or that parts of the Bible had been tampered with (ie. Matthew 28:19). In my opinion, this is very dangerous ground because if you are starting to say that the Bible has been tampered with to prove your opinion, then who's to say which parts have and which parts haven't and the Bible loses its authority in matters of faith.

I digress.....

Duncan asked, "What about the Holy Spirit?" and was given a response that the Holy Spirit is simply another name for God ie. people could call me Sarah or Sed (my nickname) or Duncan's wife and they are still referring to the same person.

I asked then that if Jesus is just a man, created by God then should we worship him as God clearly says to worship him only. He replied "yes, we should worship Jesus, absolutely." Here's my dilemma. Jesus accepted worship - Matthew 28:9 Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him - so either Jesus is guilty of blasphemy or he is God in the flesh.

After a few hours, we went home with our minds spinning and then jumped straight on the net to check for verses. I was absolutely certain there were many verses that I could not remember for the life of me and I was right. Here are a list:
Colossians 2:9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.

Colossians 1:16-20 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
(Another argument this guy had was that all things were created FOR Jesus but not BY or THROUGH him. This passage says otherwise, it says both FOR and BY.)

Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ

Romans 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Acts 20:28 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" —which means, "God with us."

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"

I think that's enough.

One of the main things that this guy said was that if he can't understand it then it's not true. Meaning he can't understand the logic of the trinity (how can God pray to himself, sit at the right hand of himself, how can the Father and Son be the same person) then it isn't real. There are plenty of things I can't understand about God. How can all the wisdom and supremacy of God fit into a human brain? I don't always understand but I trust him. This guy could not understand how Jesus could be 100% man yet 100% God at the same time, that it is ludicrous and that if Jesus were truly God then he could not have been tempted because God cannot be tempted by anyone.

Another dilemma I have is that if Jesus isn't God in the flesh, then God is still remote to us. He hasn't walked in our shoes, he doesn't understand our pain and temptation. Jesus does but God doesn't if they are separate beings as this guy claims.

After doing some more searching on the net, I found that there are plenty of Christian groups and websites out there supporting this guy's claims. Every verse the 'trinitarians' come up with they have a comeback for. It's pointless arguing. Some sites are Truth or Tradition: Who is Jesus Christ and BiblicalUnitarian.com both of which claim that Jesus is a mere man.

The good thing about these 'debates' is that they can make you turn back to the Bible to see what it actually says. You are challenged to question whether you actually might be right or wrong. But debates also prove what we already know - that anyone can twist scripture and make the Bible say what they want it to say.
Now it's over to you. Have a look at those sites if you have the time. I'd like to know your thoughts. Is it possible to be Christian and not believe Jesus was God in the flesh?

Calling all Theoblogians #3

Baptism would be a good theological headbutting issue to discuss in this almost non-forgotten series of mine but.....

Bek has beaten me to it and has raised some good questions on this post of hers. So rather than duplicate what she's done, why don't you head over to her blog and give your opinions on this topic? I'm sure she'd appreciate more than just mine!

Calling all Theoblogians #2

It has been a long time since I last updated this series. Since December in fact.

The intent of this series is not to provoke rants and cause divisions among Christians (there's enough of that already) but rather to have a mature adult discussion and learn something.

In the first and only previous post in this series, I asked questions about the gift of tongues and it's role in the church. If you would like to read and comment on this post, you can do so here. I'll keep checking this archive for new responses.

My next question is about gifts of healing.

I haven't heard this discussed much among Christians I know. I've had a look through the Bible to see what it says.

The first thing that jumped out at me from 1 Corinthians 12 is that it says gifts of healing not gift. Does that imply there is more than one gift of healing. I heard someone suggest that people who have a gift of healing are not necessarily able to heal every ailment, just some.

Jesus obviously was known for his healing of physical ailments but that was not his main mission. Throughout the Bible, there are accounts of the apostles having the ability of being able to heal the sick and lame in the name of Jesus.

I disagree with Christians who refuse to talk about gifts of healing and have the look on their faces as if it's evil or something. Gifts of healing are from the Spirit, from God for the building up of his church.

I can understand why some people are sceptical. I often battle with scepticism. It's not hard to doubt when current affairs shows are full of stories of dodgy faith healers ripping people off.

Ultimately healing is God's work after all and he may not choose to heal a person this side of heaven. I get angry when I hear of people saying to sick people that they are sick because they don't have enough faith to be healed.

I was very sceptical when I saw God on My Side at the cinema last year and there was a woman who was healing people through the television. She was saying "I can sense someone out there has warts. You are healed in the name of Jesus." I thought that seemed very dodgy and she was acting more like a medium but then someone said to me that people with gifts of healing can often sense and pray for sick people without actually seeing the person.

So what about gifts of healing today? How is it used? Does it just involve laying hands on someone and saying they are healed in the name of Jesus or does it include people who have medical gifts such as doctors and surgeons?

How does someone know if they have a gift of healing? And how do you know if someone is genuine? Whenever we are sick, is it worth going to a 'healing service' or just see a doctor or get a Christian friend to pray for you? I get confused when I hear Christians say 'I healed some people". What does that mean?

Calling all Theoblogians #1

I've only been a Christian for five years (and boy has it gone quick!) so I decided it's about time to get those pressing theological questions answered. What better place to do it than the blogosphere! My intention is not to offend but to get others' opinions and of course voice my own as well. I want to venture beyond tradition and see what the Bible has to say...easier said than done perhaps but I pray we can all (myself included) look at this with open minds.

The first issue is........the gift of tongues. Does this get your tongues wagging? :)

For the first couple of years I hadn't thought much about it. I go to a fairly conservative church and we have discussed tongues in certain sermons (1 Corinthians 14 for example) but I wouldn't have a clue if anyone I know speaks in tongues. I know of one person who thinks it's all dodgy because they went to a church where the pastor said, "Right now everyone start speaking in tongues" and the whole congregation started babbling non stop and stumbling around everywhere. There was such pressure to speak in tongues that this person's friend felt quite ashamed that she didn't and kept trying and trying until she spoke in tongues. Which raises the point - do some people fake speaking in tongues because of pressure from other Christians or to get acceptance by their church?

Another person I know asked a very good question - what is 'speaking in tongues'? Is it an unknown language that the person themselves doesn't know but can speak (like Harry Potter being able to speak in Parseltongue) or is it the gift of suddenly being able to speak to others in another language eg. French? I decided to have a look through the Bible and find out.

In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, what seemed to be tongues of fire descended upon the apostles and they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Jews from many nations had come to Jerusalem and each of them heard the apostles speaking in their native language. Therefore, it appears the gift of tongues enabled the apostles to speak the gospel in other languages so that others could hear it in their native tongue.

1 Corinthians 14 goes more into the gifts of tongues and prophecy and their use in the church. Verse 2 says that those who speak in tongues, speak to God and not to men because no-one else understands them. Paul goes on to say that the gift of prophecy is better because it edifies the church but tongues edifies only the individual. Verse 14 says "For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful." Does this mean that the person who speaks in tongues has no idea what they are saying? Paul says in verse 13 that the tongue-speaker should pray that they will be able to interpret what they're saying. Chapter 12 lists different spiritual gifts, one being speaking in different kinds of tongues and another being the intrepretation of tongues. I was always under the impression that if someone were to speak in tongues in church then there must be someone present who can interpret but some of these passages indicate that the speaker can also interpret what they say.

Another thing I heard was that the gift of tongues is spontaneous ie. the individual will suddenly just start doing it at any moment and cannot stop themselves. After reading 1 Corinthians, I disagree with this. Paul seems to be advocating orderly worship - 1 Cor 14:28 says "If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God." Which begs the question - how do you know whether an interpretator is present or not?

From reading these passages, I'm convinced that tongues is a good gift from God and one of the many gifts of the Spirit that God gives us for the building up of his church. What I don't like is when some Christians go about saying that you can't be a Christian unless you speak in tongues because tongues is a sign of having the Holy Spirit - if you don't speak in tongues, you don't have the Spirit. It's black and white to them. I had a tradesman come to my house about six months ago and I soon found out he was also a Christian. He was a very friendly guy and we were soon having a good chat but then the conversation became all about tongues and I could not shift it from there. This guy went to a church where to become a Christian, you had to have spoke in tongues at the point of conversion and he used Acts as an example saying that everyone who became a Christian in Acts spoke in tongues. He asked me how I knew I had the Spirit if I didn't speak in tongues. I mentioned 1 Corinthians 12:7-11; 27-30 which shows we each have the same Spirit but different manifestations of the Spirit such as gifts of healing, wisdom, prophecy, tongues, faith etc. In 1 Corinthians 14:5, Paul says to the Corinthian Christians, "I would like every one of you to speak in tongues but I would rather have you prophesy." This implies that not all of them speak in tongues. I also had a look through Acts and not all converts speak in tongues or at least it is not mentioned whether they did or not. Acts 2:40-41, 4:4, 5:14, 8:36-40 (Philip's conversion), 16:14-15 (Lydia's conversion) and there are probably heaps more which I can't be bothered listing. Most of all, Ephesians 1:13-14 says that those included in Christ when they believed the gospel were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit which is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance. Emma and Peter arrived a bit later and continued to discuss these things with him.

This guy wasn't convinced by any of these verses. His mind was already made up and I can't be bothered arguing with people for the sake of arguing. We parted on good terms and I could tell he still wasn't convinced I was a real Christian. But I'm convinced. Later on I looked at the website of one church which has their statement of beliefs. In the 'How to become a Christian' section, it says that people should pray for Jesus to fill them with the Spirit and they should start speaking in tongues. In brackets it says (not in English).

The point of this post is to hear from other people in the blogosphere. I'm not convinced that all Christians need to speak in tongues but I do wonder why in some churches, everyone speaks in tongues and in other churches, nobody does. Is it a case of 'birds of a feather flock together' or something else? I want to get beyond what our churches/denominations teach and see what the Bible says. Do YOU speak in tongues? If so, perhaps you can answer the 'what is it' question? Should we all WANT to speak in tongues? I know of some people who pray very earnestly for the gift of tongues. I'm not sure what their motivation is but is it a gift all Christians should want?

Comments?