Theology for the Masses

First of all, then, I urge that requests, prayers, intercessions, and thanks be offered on behalf of all people, even for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. (1 Timothy 2:1-2 NET)

In recent days, given the current season that our country is in, I have been coming back to this over and over. I have a question for anyone who wants to chime in. Paul urges us (παρακαλῶ) to pray for all people. Then he tells us what is meant by all people: kings and all who are in authority. I like that the NET brings out the radical-ness of this request by Paul in saying that Timothy should pray for Rome. My question is this, what does it look like for a 21st century Christian to pray for “kings and all who are in authority? How do we pray for them?

Perhaps the best argument leveled against Judaism and Christianity is the angry child of a god that people construct out of choice samples of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. These criticisms should not be taken lightly nor should the texts they reference be whitewashed. 

To this end, I came across an article via the Codex that I plan on reading tomorrow (for it is 2:11AM and early evening naps should be avoided, no matter how crappy one feels) entitled Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?:The New Atheists and Old Testament Ethics which takes a critical look at the claims of the “New Atheists” and attempts to construct and honest and workable Christian reply to such criticisms.  Take a look online via the link in the preceding paragraph, or download the 30 pages of textual goodness in this pdf. 

While you are reading that article, I recommend you also read the one which referenced it over at the Codex entitled Yahweh – a Moral Monster?, which begins a discussion on the Canaanite genocide.

Scott, over at Grace is Unfair, looks at Amos and Isaiah and comes to some troubling conclusions about personal and societal sins.

In Amos, God condemns oppression of the poor and sexual sin in the same breath.  And in Isaiah, God shows that He detests both when people amass too much land at the expense of the poor and when people act as drunkards.  Neither passage suggests that God is placing a greater value judgment on personal sin or societal sin.  What does that mean for us as Christians, who desire to do God’s will?

At the end of his post, he quotes James 4:17, which says: “So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.” We know the right thing to do – therefore societal sins that we participate in are our own.

Given the content of some of our posts here, I was wondering what the perception of people is concerning the role of women in the early church.

n

In the Roman world, within the household, the position of child is the lowest in terms of power and hierarchy.  Taking this into account, consider Mark 10:15:

I tell you the truth, anyone who doesn’t receive the Kingdom of God like a child will never enter it.

Rather than assuming our standard in pouring of innocence and naiveté into the phrase “like a child,” perhaps we are better served with assuming a Roman view of children, of powerlessness over others into this phrase.

Also consider Luke 22:25-27

Jesus told them, “In this world the kings and great men lord it over their people, yet they are called ‘friends of the people.’  But among you it will be different. Those who are the greatest among you should take the lowest rank, and the leader should be like a servant. Who is more important, the one who sits at the table or the one who serves? The one who sits at the table, of course. But not here! For I am among you as one who serves.

Here again we see the same theme – the relinquishment of dominance as a command of Jesus to his followers, to the members of the Kingdom of God.

If we do not relinquish culturally inherited claims of dominance over others and see them as true equals then ours is not the Kingdom of God.

Seeing people as the imago deis involves the complete removal of claims of dominance and superiority.  This must be applied in terms of race and gender.  It is a command to give up our claims of dominance over others.

If we accept, which I do, Tom’s rejection of the soteriology of the State, how should Christians interact with the government? I don’t see a scriptural imperative, as the situation of a participatory government as we Americans have currently did not exist during the writing of our set of sacred texts. Given that lack of an imperative, do Christians vote, run for office, try to legislate the tenants of our faith?

Do we wash our hands of participation in government and focus solely on the work of the Kingdom of God, the whole while reaping the benefits of this country’s contradicting history of domination and freedom? Do we actively engage it, using it as a tool to bring God’s distributive and or retributive justice to the people that we can bring it to?

I don’t know, but with the November of 2008 slowly approaching debate by debate, I am giving increasing thought. I’d like to hear yours.

It is interesting, and also very frustrating, to read how people justify actions. This seems to be the most posh argument that people use nowadays, “Jesus didn’t talk about it, so it must not be important.” The people who make this argument seem to use it as a magic wand to wave away people calling certain actions sin. This is the one of the most horrible arguments, ever. The people who use this argument the most are the people who say that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable behavior. However, when this argument is used to justify that behavior, what other behaviors are being justified at the same time? They also manage to create a rift in the Bible between what Jesus says and what everyone else says. Lastly this thinking degrades scripture to only mean what a person wants it to mean and fails to recognize the cohesiveness of all scripture.

People fail to realize the types of things Jesus never talked about. While they know the things he did not talk about that justified their own behavior, or behavior they believe is proper, they fail to see what else Jesus never mentions. As mentioned before, the people who use this argument the most are those who accept homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. They justify this by saying that Jesus never calls it sin and the only other time it is mentioned is in Leviticus, which is not true, in a section called purity laws. Leviticus has been abrogated, therefore homosexuality is OK. What other behavior is justified by the same reasoning? There is an easy answer to this. It is also mentioned in the same chapter of Leviticus, however no one seems to want to justify this behavior. The behavior is incest. Does Jesus ever mention it? No. It is in the same chapters of Leviticus that homosexuality is mentioned that being Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. However it is unlikely you will find incest pride parades on weekends or find churches hiring ministers that are actively involved in a sexual relationship with their sister. Clearly most “higher thinking” Christians would object to incest but accept homosexuality. Usually their reasoning is how Jesus never talked about it.

This thinking also creates a rift in scripture between what Jesus says and what the rest of the Bible says. First what would the Bible say about itself here. 2 Timothy 3:16 says how ALL scripture is inspired by God. So anything in the Bible is the word of God. Many times in the Bible when it reads “scripture says” it is equated with “God says”. So scripture, no matter who it was written by, can be equated with being the word of God. Jesus himself claimed to be God, John 10:30. So, if scripture is the Word of God, everything that is written, and Jesus is God, one could say that when Paul writes in Romans 1 about men and women giving up natural relations it is something that Jesus would have been in full agreement with and would have said himself.

Lastly, people who only want to believe what Jesus said directly in the Gospels fail to realize the importance of all scripture and only wish to believe certain parts of scripture. This part may be the most troubling. This is where people can be misled and completely led away from God. One can make scripture say whatever they want it to say if it is not taken as a whole. While this debate could rage on with possibilities about who is actually being misled and who is doing the misleading, once again the example should be taken from scripture to when scripture can be used to try and lead people astray. In Matthew 4 Jesus is tempted by the Devil himself. First Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread. Jesus answered with scripture saying “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God,” Deuteronomy 8:3. Next Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tells Jesus to throw himself off telling him, as Psalm 91:11-12 says, that Angels will protect him. Here Satan is making an argument from scripture. Odd how the Devil is saying, “See what scripture says.” It says this is good. Act in this way. Its OK. God wants you to. Jesus, knowing the totality of scripture, responds with scripture saying “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test,’” Deuteronomy 6:16. Lastly Jesus is tempted to worship Satan and once again Jesus uses scripture and says “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only,’” Deuteronomy 6:13. Once again Jesus fends off temptation with scripture. The most intriguing part of this passage is when Satan uses scripture as a justification for wrong action. However Jesus, knowing all scripture, was able to know how to correctly behave. He knew what every passage meant and knew how it all worked together. So when he was tempted by a bad argument based in the word of God, he was able to do what was right. All of scripture in its totality speaks on how one should act, not just a small portion.

The “Jesus never said it” fallacy is a mere justification for sin. It justifies wrong actions with a thin veil that appears to be from God. It makes most scripture to be nothing more than the words of man. It denies that all scripture is from God. It perverts scripture to be whatever one wants it to be instead of being totally the inspired word of God which is to show everyone who God is and what He requires.

Does God wants bond-slaves:

God does not want people to be “in love” with Him. This carnal phrase is a sick way to refer to our Lord. God desires bond-slaves who worship Him and adore Him as their sovereign Master, not who are in love with Him as one is with their lover.

or does God want “lovers?”

Yes, according to this post, God prefers slaves rather than people who are in love with Him. That would come as a surprise to Jesus, I guess, who in John 15:15 said,
“I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.”
It also misses the point of much of the Biblical narrative. It seems to me that even in the Old Testament, God was looking for people who loved them with all their hearts. When David wrote,
As the deer pants for streams of water,
so my soul pants for you, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God.
When can I go and meet with God?
was it sickening to God? Too wishy-washy and touchy-feely?