Worldviews: Question 1 — Origins

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Worldviews: An Introduction

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Does Christianity Discriminate Against Women? [Part 1]

In recent years the accusation that the Bible is anti-female has arisen more and more frequently. Because the Scripture uses the masculine gender to refer to God, it is labelled sexist. Because the Bible teaches that although men and women are equal in God’s sight they have different roles in His service, it is called discriminatory. Because the Old Testament relates how certain women were victimized, it is accused of endorsing the abuse of women.

Are these charges justified?

Whole books have been written about this subject, so it is impossible to give a complete answer here. However, we can examine the three main objections listed above and see if they are truly valid.

Objection #1 — The Bible Describes God in Masculine Terms

Some people assume that the use of a masculine pronoun is meant to imply that men are closer to God or more like God than women are. There is no Scriptural support for such a view, however, and indeed much Scripture to contradict it. Right from the very beginning, the Bible establishes that both men and women are made in the image of God: “So God created man in his own image, male and female he created them”.

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 2]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Purpose of the Sacrifices [Part 1]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Grief is Not a Sin

Over the last year or so I’ve been reading through the Bible at the rate of about a chapter a day. I just finished Jeremiah yesterday, which is a really emotionally tough book if you identify even slightly with Jeremiah, and as I was reading the first chapter of Lamentations I was struck by a thought that’s been creeping up on me for a while.

Grief is not a sin.

Well, duh, you may say. Of course it’s okay to grieve. We lose people or hear terrible news or suffer disappointment, we feel sad; it would be monstrous if we didn’t react that way. And I think most people would agree that this is the case.

And yet it’s easy to fall into the trap of expecting that grief, or lamentation, should only last so long or go so far. Just a nice neat little grief, not too long, something you can swallow back and force a watery smile and then put your chin up and keep marching with a smile on your face. Especially if you call yourself a Christian, because Christians are supposed to be full! of! joy! and count themselves blessed when they suffer tribulation, etc.

Inbox: The Authority of the Servant

Tertius writes in connection with today’s post:

“… that I am your servant.” Would another reason for such a request be that the authority of both the servant and his message must be recognized by those to whom he is sent, or what he says will be discounted and he will be perceived as just mouthing off; his message not taken seriously and God’s purpose in sending him frustrated? Paul used a good amount of ink convincing the Corinthians that he had credentials that were no less than those of the twelve [apostles], and was similarly concerned that Timothy’s youth not result in him being despised. Receiving the messenger as having full authority is necessary to receiving the message he delivers.

Absolutely. Well said.

A Nature Like Ours

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Fifth Business

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Deafening Silence of 9/11

The most current version of this post is available here.

Joshua Twice

The most recent version of Bernie's post is available here.

The Woman in the Pink Coat

I saw you downtown this morning as I was heading back to my car, standing on a step-stool and yelling to make yourself heard. A fit-looking guy in his forties or early fifties, casually dressed in jeans and a fitted sweatshirt, your neat-trimmed beard streaked with silver. Nothing strange or threatening about you really, except for the shouting. From the way people cringed and hurried past you, I could tell they didn’t like it.

At first I thought you were ranting about something political, but then I saw the Bible in your hand. That made me curious. So while all the people around me kept walking, I stopped and listened.

Inbox: The Purpose of the Gospels

In connection with this, JRM writes:

Just wanted to pass along a thought on the genealogy of Matthew 1. It’s obviously divided into three sections. A while back, I was impressed by the fact that the main divisions are related to the three main turning points in the kingship of Israel: (a)  the first section ends with “David the king” – the first genuine king of Israel (since Saul was from Benjamin and was the “teach Israel a lesson” king); (b) the second section ends with the exile to Babylon – the end of the kingship; and (c) the third section ends with “Jesus who is called Messiah” – the ultimate king of Israel. All of this fits nicely with the fact that Matthew is presenting Christ as the king.

To which I can only add: Yeah, exactly. Wish I’d thought of it.

Bible Study 10 — Context [Part 4]

The most recent version of this post is available here.

Without Counsel Plans Fail

I’ve seen a professional counsellor exactly once in my life. He was bald with a trimmed, white beard, sitting behind the big, polished, expensive desk one would expect, in a quiet, dark room. No couch. My wooden chair was not completely uncomfortable but clearly calculated to be no more so than required.

He was mild mannered and pleasant, cajoled me into spilling my guts for half an hour and then pronounced that I was a “good person”.

That was pretty much it for me. I knew everything I needed to know about him right there — if not as a man, most definitely as a counsellor.

First, he’d known me for precisely 30 minutes, probably less at that point. Nobody, no matter how perceptive or experienced, can reasonably pronounce on another person’s goodness with such a limited information base.

Second, he knew me only from what I’d told him. I could have been the world’s biggest liar. I could’ve been entirely self-deceived, recounting things I believed to be true but that anyone who knew me outside of that office would have dismissed as nonsense in a heartbeat.

Third, after hearing everything I had to say, his first inclination was to attempt to reinforce my positive self-image to ensure I was not feeling bad about myself.

That was the kicker for me.

10 down, 603 to go ...

My reading this morning reinforced something I.C. posted a little while back on the subject of the 613 Commandments though, much to my disappointment, he only dealt with 10 of them.

(I look forward to a future post setting out how the rest of God’s commands can also be viewed relationally, though I suspect that may take him a while …)

Frankly, since reading that particular post, I’m finding evidence in the Old Testament that God’s purpose has always been primarily about fostering a relationship with man everywhere I turn, and in everything I read.

Inbox: Demon Possession and the Church Age

The most recent version of this post is available here.

The Boy in Black Leather

“I was crazy for Jackie

I was almost ready to say

when a boy in black leather

came and took Jackie away”

— The Waterboys

Those of you who are a few years younger than I am, and most, if not all, of the men, can probably relate to that one. I don’t mean that you necessarily know the song, but you’ve almost certainly had the experience.

I had it as a teenager, and oddly enough the girl’s name actually was Jackie, though I can’t remember if the boy who took her away wore black leather or not. Those were the punk rock years, so it’s not improbable.

And, if I am completely truthful, there was more than one “Jackie” over the years, and more than one “boy in black leather”.

Who’s Afraid of Science?

I often refer to Wikipedia, that unassailable bastion of compiled wisdom, not because I believe it to be particularly accurate, but because it provides as good an understanding of how people currently use language as can possibly be obtained. A Wikipedia definition is the gold standard for lowest common denominator human knowledge. So while it may not represent what everyone down through human history understood by the term “science”, let’s give their definition a browse:

“Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.”

Sounds reasonable, no? So let’s get some things clear here:

I am not anti-science — and more importantly, neither Christians nor the Scripture itself are anti-science — if by “science” we mean using our God-given intelligence to puzzle out how things work and make life better for each other. Who could reasonably be against the search for objective truth? Who wouldn’t like better hygiene, a cure for cancer or buildings that remain standing in earthquakes?

“Science” in this sense is a perfectly sensible concept, and something man was clearly designed for. It’s in our nature to ask questions and look for answers.

I am, however, profoundly anti-science, if by “science” you mean what most people actually mean by it: agenda-driven, government- or special interest-funded pseudo-authority masquerading as universal truth. 

Boiled down to its essence, it is a propaganda hammer used to bludgeon the most malleable minds into what are — today, at least — the most politically acceptable shapes.

It is about as far from the original concept as it is possible to have come.

Mission Statement

The most recent version of this post is available here.