Posts
At church this morning, the theme during the children’s part of the
service is that it is better to give than to receive. The pastor’s
puppet, Jake, had a long list of Christmas wants, and the pastor was
trying to teach Jake to give gifts, not just receive them. Jake told
the pastor to close his eyes and Jake would tell the pastor what his
gift would be. “What do you see?,” Jake asked. “Nothing,” the pastor
replied. “And that’s exactly what I’m giving you for Christmas!”
This whole theme was pretty ironic because that Bible verse was on my
mind a couple of days ago. We were at the Goodwill, and I was looking
at the books and movies. I usually try to set a limit on how much I
will spend, but, overall, I base my determination of what I will buy on
what I want—-what I may enjoy reading or watching, or what may be useful
to me, either now or down the road. But I saw a couple of Gene Autry
DVDs—-each DVD had four movies—-and I remembered that my pastor was a
Gene Autry fan. I decided to get those for him, even though those
movies would bring personal enjoyment to him and not to me. I think I
made the right decision. I wonder how I would have responded to the
theme of the children’s part of the service had I made the opposite
decision!
Focusing on giving rather than receiving is a challenge for me, but
it is necessary. What will motivate me to say “hi” to people, even
though I am afraid that they will not return my greeting, or even when
they have not in the past? The answer is: the rule that it is better to
give than to receive.
Sunday, December 7, 2014
Saturday, December 6, 2014
II Chronicles 10
In II Chronicles 10 and I Kings 12,
Northern Israelites, led by Jeroboam, go to King Rehoboam and challenge
him to lessen their burdens of taxation. Rehoboam confers with the
elders, and they advise him to do so, since that will win over the
people. Rehoboam also consults with some young men, and they advise him
to be really harsh with the Northern Israelites and to flex his
muscle. Rehoboam goes with the young men’s advice, and the result is
that Northern Israel secedes.
The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary maintains that there are differences between the stories in II Chronicles 10 and I Kings 12. In I Kings 12, the elders are offering Rehoboam advice about the immediate situation, and that advice is about how the king can manipulate the Northern Israelites so that they will serve him. The elders, after all, say “If today” (I Kings 12:7), indicating that they are speaking of the situation at hand. And they essentially suggest that Rehoboam serve and speak kindly to the people, and the people will then be his servants.
In II Chronicles 10, on the other hand, the elders are offering Rehoboam a model of kingship in general, as a way to guide Rehoboam on how to address the situation at hand. The Artscroll notes that, in II Chronicles 10:7, the elders are advising Rehoboam about how he can be of benefit to the people. They are saying that kingship is to benefit the people. Rehoboam is then to use that as a guide in handling their demands.
The Artscroll says that Rehoboam’s harsh response to the Northern Israelites was misguided, but it denies that the response was evil, for the harsh response arguably accorded with precedent. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 8a says that Joshua used a rod to beat Israel’s head, and B.T. Sotah 40a interpreted I Chronicles 28:2 to mean that the Israelites would be David’s brothers if they listened to him but his subjects if they did not. But Rehoboam’s response was still misguided because it encouraged the Northern Israelites to rebel.
Am I convinced by what the Artscroll is saying? Overall, not particularly, but I will admit that I Chronicles 10 spells out that the king is to benefit the people.
The Orthodox Jewish Artscroll commentary maintains that there are differences between the stories in II Chronicles 10 and I Kings 12. In I Kings 12, the elders are offering Rehoboam advice about the immediate situation, and that advice is about how the king can manipulate the Northern Israelites so that they will serve him. The elders, after all, say “If today” (I Kings 12:7), indicating that they are speaking of the situation at hand. And they essentially suggest that Rehoboam serve and speak kindly to the people, and the people will then be his servants.
In II Chronicles 10, on the other hand, the elders are offering Rehoboam a model of kingship in general, as a way to guide Rehoboam on how to address the situation at hand. The Artscroll notes that, in II Chronicles 10:7, the elders are advising Rehoboam about how he can be of benefit to the people. They are saying that kingship is to benefit the people. Rehoboam is then to use that as a guide in handling their demands.
The Artscroll says that Rehoboam’s harsh response to the Northern Israelites was misguided, but it denies that the response was evil, for the harsh response arguably accorded with precedent. Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 8a says that Joshua used a rod to beat Israel’s head, and B.T. Sotah 40a interpreted I Chronicles 28:2 to mean that the Israelites would be David’s brothers if they listened to him but his subjects if they did not. But Rehoboam’s response was still misguided because it encouraged the Northern Israelites to rebel.
Am I convinced by what the Artscroll is saying? Overall, not particularly, but I will admit that I Chronicles 10 spells out that the king is to benefit the people.
Friday, December 5, 2014
Sire, Dawkins, Apologetics
I was reading a post
by Christian apologist Stephen Bedard a few days ago. In this post,
Bedard was reviewing a book by another Christian apologist, James W.
Sire, entitled Apologetics Beyond Reason. Bedard says the following:
“James Sire, in his book Apologetics Beyond Reason, makes it clear that he is unhappy with the evidential apologetics popular among apologists today. He offers as an example the Kalam Argument put forth by William Lane Craig. Sire confesses that he would fall into the presuppositional camp of apologists…The basic idea that Sire offers is that instead of arguing to God, we should be arguing from God. In order to do this, Sire uses a number of examples from literature to show that God is the presupposition. In this, he is using something called literary apologetics.”
This interested me because I read this blog post soon after writing my review of Kevin Diller’s Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma, in which Diller argued that the thoughts of theologian Karl Barth and Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga are actually compatible. Both Barth and Plantinga, I would say, believe that we should reason from God rather than to God. For Barth and Plantinga, people who know God do so because God has revealed Godself personally to them, not on account of their reasoning their way up to a belief in God through philosophical or historical arguments. I do not know to what extent Sire agrees and disagrees with Barth and Plantinga, but there does appear to be some overlap.
Bedard’s post also interested me because it reminded me of when Sire came to speak at my undergraduate institution, back when I was a student there. Incidentally, Sire came to speak there at the same time that atheist Richard Dawkins was there. Some evangelical students attended Dawkins’ Question and Answer session in order to trap Dawkins, but other evangelicals attended Sire’s lecture, bringing non-believing friends with them. While many thought that Intervarsity invited Sire specifically in response to Dawkins’ appearance, Intervarsity insisted that it did no such thing—-that it was a coincidence. Actually, one Intervarsity leader told me that Dawkins and Sire showing up at the same time was not particularly helpful, since people were asking Sire about evolution, even though that was not Sire’s field of expertise. (Actually, I asked Sire about that topic.)
I attended Sire’s lecture. My understanding of Sire’s argument is that we see in Scripture that God tells Moses “I am that I am.” God is what God is, not what we want God to be. Sire asked us to consider that as a proposition. He may have also said that he could not envision human beings making that sort of proposition up, so it probably came from God. (I’m writing from memory, which is not perfect.)
The non-believing students there, and even some believing students, were not particularly impressed. “What if you don’t believe in the Bible?,” the first questioner asked Sire. Sire said that he was not resting his argument on biblical authority, but was asking us to consider “I am that I am” as a proposition. After the event, I was giving a student a question to ask Dr. Sire on my behalf about the Holocaust (since I would not be able to attend Sire’s Q and A the next day), and a non-believing student saw that and sarcastically said, “God does not have to explain himself to us—-he is the I Am!” The next morning, at class, a non-believing student was telling our professor about Sire’s lecture. The non-believing student thought Sire was using circular reasoning—-appealing to the Bible to defend the Bible.
The non-believing students may not have grasped the subtleties of what Sire was saying, but I could understand their concern: Sire did not prove to them the existence of the God of the Bible. He, in their eyes, did not give them any foundation for it. This was just one lecture, though, and I may want to read some of Sire’s books, where he fleshes things out more.
Something that did impress me was when I saw Sire the next day at Richard Dawkins’ lecture, taking notes on what Dawkins was saying. Sire was not afraid to hear an alternative point-of-view. As an academic, that interested him.
“James Sire, in his book Apologetics Beyond Reason, makes it clear that he is unhappy with the evidential apologetics popular among apologists today. He offers as an example the Kalam Argument put forth by William Lane Craig. Sire confesses that he would fall into the presuppositional camp of apologists…The basic idea that Sire offers is that instead of arguing to God, we should be arguing from God. In order to do this, Sire uses a number of examples from literature to show that God is the presupposition. In this, he is using something called literary apologetics.”
This interested me because I read this blog post soon after writing my review of Kevin Diller’s Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma, in which Diller argued that the thoughts of theologian Karl Barth and Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga are actually compatible. Both Barth and Plantinga, I would say, believe that we should reason from God rather than to God. For Barth and Plantinga, people who know God do so because God has revealed Godself personally to them, not on account of their reasoning their way up to a belief in God through philosophical or historical arguments. I do not know to what extent Sire agrees and disagrees with Barth and Plantinga, but there does appear to be some overlap.
Bedard’s post also interested me because it reminded me of when Sire came to speak at my undergraduate institution, back when I was a student there. Incidentally, Sire came to speak there at the same time that atheist Richard Dawkins was there. Some evangelical students attended Dawkins’ Question and Answer session in order to trap Dawkins, but other evangelicals attended Sire’s lecture, bringing non-believing friends with them. While many thought that Intervarsity invited Sire specifically in response to Dawkins’ appearance, Intervarsity insisted that it did no such thing—-that it was a coincidence. Actually, one Intervarsity leader told me that Dawkins and Sire showing up at the same time was not particularly helpful, since people were asking Sire about evolution, even though that was not Sire’s field of expertise. (Actually, I asked Sire about that topic.)
I attended Sire’s lecture. My understanding of Sire’s argument is that we see in Scripture that God tells Moses “I am that I am.” God is what God is, not what we want God to be. Sire asked us to consider that as a proposition. He may have also said that he could not envision human beings making that sort of proposition up, so it probably came from God. (I’m writing from memory, which is not perfect.)
The non-believing students there, and even some believing students, were not particularly impressed. “What if you don’t believe in the Bible?,” the first questioner asked Sire. Sire said that he was not resting his argument on biblical authority, but was asking us to consider “I am that I am” as a proposition. After the event, I was giving a student a question to ask Dr. Sire on my behalf about the Holocaust (since I would not be able to attend Sire’s Q and A the next day), and a non-believing student saw that and sarcastically said, “God does not have to explain himself to us—-he is the I Am!” The next morning, at class, a non-believing student was telling our professor about Sire’s lecture. The non-believing student thought Sire was using circular reasoning—-appealing to the Bible to defend the Bible.
The non-believing students may not have grasped the subtleties of what Sire was saying, but I could understand their concern: Sire did not prove to them the existence of the God of the Bible. He, in their eyes, did not give them any foundation for it. This was just one lecture, though, and I may want to read some of Sire’s books, where he fleshes things out more.
Something that did impress me was when I saw Sire the next day at Richard Dawkins’ lecture, taking notes on what Dawkins was saying. Sire was not afraid to hear an alternative point-of-view. As an academic, that interested him.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
Atheist Fiction
One blog that I read is Bob Seidensticker’s Cross Examined. Bob is an atheist. In a recent post, he was talking about two books that he has written: A Modern Christmas Carol, and Cross Examined: An Unconventional Spiritual Journey. They are works of fiction.
I was thinking of requesting review copies from Bob, but I decided to buy the Kindle books instead, since their price is low. In my mind, it’s all right for me to buy low-cost Kindle books, as long as I don’t do so every single day! Also, I already have plenty of review books lined up, so I don’t want to feel rushed to get to Bob’s book. On my online Kindle, they are there for my convenience.
I’ve been reading Christian fiction. I might as well give atheist fiction a chance. I enjoy stories that explore big questions.
I was thinking of requesting review copies from Bob, but I decided to buy the Kindle books instead, since their price is low. In my mind, it’s all right for me to buy low-cost Kindle books, as long as I don’t do so every single day! Also, I already have plenty of review books lined up, so I don’t want to feel rushed to get to Bob’s book. On my online Kindle, they are there for my convenience.
I’ve been reading Christian fiction. I might as well give atheist fiction a chance. I enjoy stories that explore big questions.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
Book Write-Up: Theology's Epistemological Dilemma, by Kevin Diller
Kevin Diller. Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma: How Karl Barth and Alvin Plantinga Provide a Unified Response. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2014. See here for Intervarsity’s page about this book.
Karl Barth was a renowned twentieth century Christian theologian. Alvin Plantinga is a Christian philosopher. According to scholar Kevin Diller, their thoughts about how one knows God are compatible. This is a remarkable thesis because Barth has been stereotyped as a theologian who did not care for philosophy, which is Plantinga’s field.
Where Barth and Plantinga overlap, according to Diller, is that both of them stress that people who know God do so because God reveals Godself personally to them. For Barth and Plantinga, people do not come to know God through their reasoning abilities—-reasoning that there must be a God because the universe needed a cause, or because nature looks fine-tuned for life and that demonstrates that it had to have a creator. Rather, for Barth and Plantinga, knowing God is a response to God’s personal revelation: God must take the initiative, and humans cannot arrive at knowledge of God on their own.
Of course, this raises questions. Do Barth and Plantinga focus on the individual receiving God’s revelation, or do they believe that Christian community is significant? (They believe that Christian community is very significant, as the setting in which God’s revelation takes place.) Does rationality play any role in God’s revelation? What is the significance of the Bible in God making Godself known to people? Does Barth believe that divine revelation contains propositions, or is it simply God’s personal revelation of Godself, in a relational sense? Throughout the book, Diller corrects what he considers to be misunderstandings of Barth and Plantinga. For example, Diller states that Barth had no problem with philosophy, for Barth believed that philosophy could help one articulate what is being revealed. And, while Plantinga did not believe that arguments for the existence of God were sufficient in giving people knowledge about God’s existence and what God is like, he still maintained that such arguments could be useful in helping believers who struggle with doubt, and that God could use arguments for the existence of God in revealing Godself to people.
An interesting discussion in Diller’s book concerned the interaction between Barth and Emil Brunner, another theologian. Part of their debate concerned whether human beings had faculties within themselves that enabled them to know God. My understanding is that that Barth said no, stressing God’s personal role in revelation, whereas Brunner said yes, while stressing that God’s grace was still necessary. Diller often seeks to demonstrate that Barth and Plantinga are similar, saying that, when they appear to be different, one can see that they actually are compatible by understanding their own concerns, what they were addressing, and what each of them was trying to say. (Diller acknowledges some differences, though.) Based on Diller’s discussion, however, I would say that, on the issue of faculties, Plantinga appears to overlap with Brunner rather than Barth, for Plantinga believed that humans had faculties that made them aware of God, and yet that the Holy Spirit needed to renew those faculties for them to know God more fully because those faculties were undermined by human sin.
The greatest asset to this book is its clarity. This would be a helpful book for people who want to understand Barth’s view of revelation, or to explain Barth’s view to others. Diller’s explanation of Plantinga is good, too, even though it has more technical terminology. This book clarified to me the thoughts of Barth and Plantinga, reinforcing where my understanding was correct and highlighting to me where it may be off. Reading Diller’s book made me hope that he writes more about Barth’s thought, especially as I read blog posts on the Internet about Barth and end up scratching my head. (In one blog post that I read, there was discussion about what Barth meant when he said that all people are in Christ, and if that means that they are saved or rather are in Christ ontologically, whatever that entails.)
There was also a down-to-earth quality to Diller’s book. The earlier part of the book about epistemology is rather abstruse, but it becomes down-to-earth when Diller talks about Barth. Diller asked the question of how Barth could believe that God revealed himself, yet remained hidden. Does not God’s revelation imply that God is no longer hidden? Later, Diller questions those who say that Barth denied that divine revelation was propositional, asking how God’s personal revelation would lack propositions about who God is and what God is like. These are practical, common-sense questions, and I was pleased with how Diller addressed them and placed them within the context of Barth’s thought. Barth ended up looking quite coherent and sensible after Diller’s attempts to clarify Barth’s thought.
Personally, I have questions about divine revelation. If God indeed causes human beings to know God, why are there such different ideas about God, or doubts even among believers? Why does the Bible itself seem to have a variety of ideas about God? Diller addresses human subjectivity—-how one’s knowledge of God can be distorted by certain factors. Diller also interacts with the Bible and argues that Barth’s thought is compatible with seeing the Bible as inerrant, even if Barth himself did not believe that it was. While I respect Diller for making the effort to address the messiness of humanity and the Bible, I was not satisfied with his conclusions about such issues. Moreover, I also wonder how Diller, Barth, or Plantinga would address the factor of Christians who believe there is a God, but do not actually know that for a fact.
My thanks for Intervarsity Press for sending me a complimentary review copy of this book.
Karl Barth was a renowned twentieth century Christian theologian. Alvin Plantinga is a Christian philosopher. According to scholar Kevin Diller, their thoughts about how one knows God are compatible. This is a remarkable thesis because Barth has been stereotyped as a theologian who did not care for philosophy, which is Plantinga’s field.
Where Barth and Plantinga overlap, according to Diller, is that both of them stress that people who know God do so because God reveals Godself personally to them. For Barth and Plantinga, people do not come to know God through their reasoning abilities—-reasoning that there must be a God because the universe needed a cause, or because nature looks fine-tuned for life and that demonstrates that it had to have a creator. Rather, for Barth and Plantinga, knowing God is a response to God’s personal revelation: God must take the initiative, and humans cannot arrive at knowledge of God on their own.
Of course, this raises questions. Do Barth and Plantinga focus on the individual receiving God’s revelation, or do they believe that Christian community is significant? (They believe that Christian community is very significant, as the setting in which God’s revelation takes place.) Does rationality play any role in God’s revelation? What is the significance of the Bible in God making Godself known to people? Does Barth believe that divine revelation contains propositions, or is it simply God’s personal revelation of Godself, in a relational sense? Throughout the book, Diller corrects what he considers to be misunderstandings of Barth and Plantinga. For example, Diller states that Barth had no problem with philosophy, for Barth believed that philosophy could help one articulate what is being revealed. And, while Plantinga did not believe that arguments for the existence of God were sufficient in giving people knowledge about God’s existence and what God is like, he still maintained that such arguments could be useful in helping believers who struggle with doubt, and that God could use arguments for the existence of God in revealing Godself to people.
An interesting discussion in Diller’s book concerned the interaction between Barth and Emil Brunner, another theologian. Part of their debate concerned whether human beings had faculties within themselves that enabled them to know God. My understanding is that that Barth said no, stressing God’s personal role in revelation, whereas Brunner said yes, while stressing that God’s grace was still necessary. Diller often seeks to demonstrate that Barth and Plantinga are similar, saying that, when they appear to be different, one can see that they actually are compatible by understanding their own concerns, what they were addressing, and what each of them was trying to say. (Diller acknowledges some differences, though.) Based on Diller’s discussion, however, I would say that, on the issue of faculties, Plantinga appears to overlap with Brunner rather than Barth, for Plantinga believed that humans had faculties that made them aware of God, and yet that the Holy Spirit needed to renew those faculties for them to know God more fully because those faculties were undermined by human sin.
The greatest asset to this book is its clarity. This would be a helpful book for people who want to understand Barth’s view of revelation, or to explain Barth’s view to others. Diller’s explanation of Plantinga is good, too, even though it has more technical terminology. This book clarified to me the thoughts of Barth and Plantinga, reinforcing where my understanding was correct and highlighting to me where it may be off. Reading Diller’s book made me hope that he writes more about Barth’s thought, especially as I read blog posts on the Internet about Barth and end up scratching my head. (In one blog post that I read, there was discussion about what Barth meant when he said that all people are in Christ, and if that means that they are saved or rather are in Christ ontologically, whatever that entails.)
There was also a down-to-earth quality to Diller’s book. The earlier part of the book about epistemology is rather abstruse, but it becomes down-to-earth when Diller talks about Barth. Diller asked the question of how Barth could believe that God revealed himself, yet remained hidden. Does not God’s revelation imply that God is no longer hidden? Later, Diller questions those who say that Barth denied that divine revelation was propositional, asking how God’s personal revelation would lack propositions about who God is and what God is like. These are practical, common-sense questions, and I was pleased with how Diller addressed them and placed them within the context of Barth’s thought. Barth ended up looking quite coherent and sensible after Diller’s attempts to clarify Barth’s thought.
Personally, I have questions about divine revelation. If God indeed causes human beings to know God, why are there such different ideas about God, or doubts even among believers? Why does the Bible itself seem to have a variety of ideas about God? Diller addresses human subjectivity—-how one’s knowledge of God can be distorted by certain factors. Diller also interacts with the Bible and argues that Barth’s thought is compatible with seeing the Bible as inerrant, even if Barth himself did not believe that it was. While I respect Diller for making the effort to address the messiness of humanity and the Bible, I was not satisfied with his conclusions about such issues. Moreover, I also wonder how Diller, Barth, or Plantinga would address the factor of Christians who believe there is a God, but do not actually know that for a fact.
My thanks for Intervarsity Press for sending me a complimentary review copy of this book.
Tuesday, December 2, 2014
Scattered Ramblings on Comparing Jesus to Santa Claus
My pastor in last Sunday’s sermon was comparing Jesus to Santa
Claus. My pastor was actually seeing similarities between the two, but
others have said that there are differences.
Santa Claus makes a list, checks it twice, and is going to find out who’s naughty or nice. Christians who believe that God manifests a particular kind of grace say that God does not act that way. For them, God is nicer than that old legalist Santa Claus!
Commentator P.J. O’Rourke said that God was a Republican, whereas Santa Claus was a Democrat:
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
“God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
“Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.” From here.
For O’Rourke, Santa Claus is nicer than God. The thing is, though, Santa is too nice to be true!
After I came home from church on Sunday, I read a post by Hebrew Bible scholar Pete Enns on legends concerning St. Nicholas. Enns quoted a card that said: “Nicholas saved young women from slavery, protected sailors, spared innocents from execution, provided grain in a famine and rescued a kidnapped boy.” Later in the post, Enns glibly remarks that “For ‘Jolly Old St. Nick’ to have pulled off things like standing between a slave owner and his property, or an executioner and his victim, or go about unkidnaping a boy, he was probably a very brave man indeed with better things on his mind than making sure nice children get an X-Box or an iPad 3.”
I did not know about those legends about St. Nick while I was sitting in church listening to the sermon. But I was thinking as my pastor compared Jesus to Santa Claus, “Is God concerned about whether a kid gets an X-Box?” My pastor was saying, though, that Jesus brings other kinds of gifts. He did not elaborate on that a great deal, but one can think of examples: forgiveness of sin, peace with God, joy, and the hope that God will one day set up a just world order.
I can probably critique all sorts of comparisons between God and Santa Claus. There are places in the Bible in which God does appear to meticulously scrutinize people’s behavior; I would say, though, that God shows us grace and allows us to grow. I do not believe that God is as callous as P.J. O’Rourke’s comment seems to indicate. There are indications in Scripture that God is deeply concerned for the poor. But God does not always intervene as we think he should, for whatever reason. On Pete Enns comments, yes, that is quite profound! I would not say that there is anything wrong with wanting an X-Box or iPad3, though, and yet one should evaluate those things within the proper context.
Anyway, those are some ramblings!
Santa Claus makes a list, checks it twice, and is going to find out who’s naughty or nice. Christians who believe that God manifests a particular kind of grace say that God does not act that way. For them, God is nicer than that old legalist Santa Claus!
Commentator P.J. O’Rourke said that God was a Republican, whereas Santa Claus was a Democrat:
“I have only one firm belief about the American political system, and that is this: God is a Republican and Santa Claus is a Democrat.
“God is an elderly or, at any rate, middle aged male, a stern fellow, patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and regulations. He holds men accountable for their actions. He has little apparent concern for the material well being of the disadvantaged. He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage on literally everything in the world. God is difficult. God is unsentimental. It is very hard to get into God’s heavenly country club.
“Santa Claus is another matter. He’s cute. He’s nonthreatening. He’s always cheerful. And he loves animals. He may know who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but he never does anything about it. He gives everyone everything they want without the thought of quid pro quo. He works hard for charities, and he’s famously generous to the poor. Santa Claus is preferable to God in every way but one: There is no such thing as Santa Claus.” From here.
For O’Rourke, Santa Claus is nicer than God. The thing is, though, Santa is too nice to be true!
After I came home from church on Sunday, I read a post by Hebrew Bible scholar Pete Enns on legends concerning St. Nicholas. Enns quoted a card that said: “Nicholas saved young women from slavery, protected sailors, spared innocents from execution, provided grain in a famine and rescued a kidnapped boy.” Later in the post, Enns glibly remarks that “For ‘Jolly Old St. Nick’ to have pulled off things like standing between a slave owner and his property, or an executioner and his victim, or go about unkidnaping a boy, he was probably a very brave man indeed with better things on his mind than making sure nice children get an X-Box or an iPad 3.”
I did not know about those legends about St. Nick while I was sitting in church listening to the sermon. But I was thinking as my pastor compared Jesus to Santa Claus, “Is God concerned about whether a kid gets an X-Box?” My pastor was saying, though, that Jesus brings other kinds of gifts. He did not elaborate on that a great deal, but one can think of examples: forgiveness of sin, peace with God, joy, and the hope that God will one day set up a just world order.
I can probably critique all sorts of comparisons between God and Santa Claus. There are places in the Bible in which God does appear to meticulously scrutinize people’s behavior; I would say, though, that God shows us grace and allows us to grow. I do not believe that God is as callous as P.J. O’Rourke’s comment seems to indicate. There are indications in Scripture that God is deeply concerned for the poor. But God does not always intervene as we think he should, for whatever reason. On Pete Enns comments, yes, that is quite profound! I would not say that there is anything wrong with wanting an X-Box or iPad3, though, and yet one should evaluate those things within the proper context.
Anyway, those are some ramblings!
Monday, December 1, 2014
"I Forgive That Person"
I have been working on forgiveness lately. Essentially,
whenever I have a negative thought about a person, I say to myself, “I
forgive that person.” I try to remember that I myself have made my
share of mistakes over the years and need forgiveness. And, when I am
finding forgiveness particularly difficult, I think to myself: “I have to forgive that person, otherwise my bitterness will eat at me, and I don’t want that.”
I am forgiving others primarily for my own sake: because I want neither them nor my bitterness to have a hold on me. Some may say that my forgiveness is not good enough. They may say that unforgiveness can disrupt my relationship with that other person, and that is why I should forgive. Maybe they’d say that I should forgive out of obedience to God, and doing it primarily for my own benefit shows that I reflect the narcissism of my culture (and, of course, these righteous ones are so immune from that). They may say that my forgiveness is not adequate because I am not trying to reconcile with people and have them back in my life; remember, they’d say, Jesus forgave us so we could have a relationship with God, so I cannot just forgive and let people be. I have to pursue a relationship with them. Forgiveness should lead to restoration of the relationship, otherwise it is not real, we are told. Overall, these detractors and self-appointed gatekeepers may say that my forgiveness does not flow from love: it’s just letting bygones be bygones so that I can feel better.
A lot of this is me second-guessing myself. A lot of it, though, is based on what I have read and heard about forgiveness.
Primarily, I am forgiving for my own sake. At the same time, there is a possibility that my forgiveness could lead me to an improved relationship with others. I’m not talking about a deep relationship. I’m just saying that, if I see someone I dislike, forgiveness may help me to be affable and loving towards that person rather than tense, hateful, passive-aggressive, or outwardly nice while inwardly boiling. The thing is, when it comes to many people I have tried to forgive, there is a good chance that I will never see them again. They have their lives, I have mine, and I have no desire to put myself in their lives, nor would they necessarily want me to do so. In having this attitude, am I developing an attitude of indifference to certain people rather than the deep love that Jesus has? Well, perhaps. I cannot pretend that I have deep love for these people. But indifference is better than hate, in my opinion. Galatians 5:15 states: “ But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another” (NASV).
In some cases, separation is better. If a person is going on one path, and I am on a different one, why should I try to make that person walk on my path, and why should he try to make me walk on his? It’s better for both of us to walk on our own path, to grow in the direction that we want to grow.
Another issue: can I truly forgive a person when what that person did was not necessarily wrong? Perhaps my pride was hurt by what the person said. Well, not being considerate to others is something to forgive. But, even if the person did not technically wrong me, I should still forgive, rather than letting what that person said or did to eat at me.
In any case, I am finding that saying to myself “I forgive that person” has helped me. I hope it continues to do so!
I am forgiving others primarily for my own sake: because I want neither them nor my bitterness to have a hold on me. Some may say that my forgiveness is not good enough. They may say that unforgiveness can disrupt my relationship with that other person, and that is why I should forgive. Maybe they’d say that I should forgive out of obedience to God, and doing it primarily for my own benefit shows that I reflect the narcissism of my culture (and, of course, these righteous ones are so immune from that). They may say that my forgiveness is not adequate because I am not trying to reconcile with people and have them back in my life; remember, they’d say, Jesus forgave us so we could have a relationship with God, so I cannot just forgive and let people be. I have to pursue a relationship with them. Forgiveness should lead to restoration of the relationship, otherwise it is not real, we are told. Overall, these detractors and self-appointed gatekeepers may say that my forgiveness does not flow from love: it’s just letting bygones be bygones so that I can feel better.
A lot of this is me second-guessing myself. A lot of it, though, is based on what I have read and heard about forgiveness.
Primarily, I am forgiving for my own sake. At the same time, there is a possibility that my forgiveness could lead me to an improved relationship with others. I’m not talking about a deep relationship. I’m just saying that, if I see someone I dislike, forgiveness may help me to be affable and loving towards that person rather than tense, hateful, passive-aggressive, or outwardly nice while inwardly boiling. The thing is, when it comes to many people I have tried to forgive, there is a good chance that I will never see them again. They have their lives, I have mine, and I have no desire to put myself in their lives, nor would they necessarily want me to do so. In having this attitude, am I developing an attitude of indifference to certain people rather than the deep love that Jesus has? Well, perhaps. I cannot pretend that I have deep love for these people. But indifference is better than hate, in my opinion. Galatians 5:15 states: “ But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another” (NASV).
In some cases, separation is better. If a person is going on one path, and I am on a different one, why should I try to make that person walk on my path, and why should he try to make me walk on his? It’s better for both of us to walk on our own path, to grow in the direction that we want to grow.
Another issue: can I truly forgive a person when what that person did was not necessarily wrong? Perhaps my pride was hurt by what the person said. Well, not being considerate to others is something to forgive. But, even if the person did not technically wrong me, I should still forgive, rather than letting what that person said or did to eat at me.
In any case, I am finding that saying to myself “I forgive that person” has helped me. I hope it continues to do so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)