Paraphrase Bibles

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about story/paraphrase Bibles:

Q:  Are alternative formats for the Bible a good tool for Christians to use?  What does one gain or lose by using a chronological or story Bible or a paraphrase instead of a typical translation?

Probably the earliest alternative Bible formats to be produced were intended to be used with children.  Picture Bibles were produced for children who had not yet learned to read, and illustrated Bible Story Books were produced for children in the process of learning to read.  Some of these books, particularly the older hand-illustrated ones, are beautiful works of art which also served as excellent teaching tools for introducing the Bible to children at a young age and beginning their instruction in the Faith.

More recently, books have begun to appear for adults which place excerpts from the Bible in chronological order formatted as a story or a novel.  One thing that people often find challenging when first interacting with Scripture is that it consists of several different genres arranged thematically rather than chronologically.  So the Old Testament begins with all of the history books, continues with the poetic writings, then concludes with the record of the prophets.  Likewise the New Testament is divided into the four Gospels and the Epistles (letters), with the books of Acts (history) and Revelation (prophecy) included as the fifth and last books respectively. 

The authors of chronological or story Bibles intend to make the Bible easier to understand by smoothing these various genres into a continuous narrative and placing them in chronological order, and pastors may find some beneficial uses for these attempts, such as guiding a new believer through the Bible for the first time, much like parents might use a picture Bible or Bible story book with their children.

These Bibles do serve to remind us something that has sometimes been overlooked in the most recent era of Christianity—that, beyond being a source of inspirational quotes and proof-texts for doctrine, the Bible is a record of God’s actions from creation until the death of St. John the Evangelist to rescue humanity from the deserved punishment for our rebellion against Him. 

However, this style of Bible does have its weaknesses.  The first of these is that it does not include the whole story.  Because an editor has chosen the highlights of the story, the reader is at his mercy to choose which parts of the Bible are more or less important than others.  This means that bias of the editor may result in overemphasis on certain minor themes or the omission of important details not favored by the editor.

Additionally, since these editions of the Bible are not translations of the Bible text but paraphrases, one is reading the paraphraser’s impressions of a given verse or story rather than the actual text of the Scriptures.  This was a criticism often leveled against early paraphrases of the Bible such as The Living Bible or the Good News Bible, because the biases of the paraphraser can cloud the understanding of the reader.  While this is a concern with any translation of the Bible other than the original Greek and Hebrew, the concern is amplified when dealing with a paraphrase. 

When one considers that some of the popular translations of the Bible have been rated at a 7^th grade reading level, and even the King James Version is evaluated to be readable for the average high-school Senior, paraphrasing the text seems unnecessary.  This is one reason that, until recently, most seminaries required a working knowledge of at least Greek, and usually Hebrew, for every man who desired to become a parish pastor—so that he would be able to assist his parishioners in passages that may be difficult to understand or to translate concisely. 

Some pastors may find that chronological or story Bibles have a limited benefit for introducing the broad outline of the Bible for some people under their instruction, but because the various parts of the Bible are so intricately intertwined and interdependent, it would be difficult for a reader to gain a mature understanding of the Bible or a full appreciation for its depth using only such resources. 

Build Churches or Help the Poor?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of church resources:

Q:  Is a Christian allowed to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment?  Does the Bible require us to use all available means, no matter how unlikely the chance of success, to extend the life of a person who is critically or terminally ill?  How do we know when it is appropriate to proceed with, discontinue, or refuse treatment?

Knowing how to handle a life-threatening medical condition can be a very difficult thing, especially when we are making decisions for a parent or other relative who is not able to express their preferences at the time of treatment, as is often the case in situations where we are faced with questions such as this. 

For the Christian, life is always a gift from God to be honored and protected.  When we make decisions regarding our own treatment or that of a loved one under our care, this is our starting point.  We desire to respect life as God has given it and care for it in a way which honors Him.  We frequently hear this principle applied to life’s beginning at conception, but it equally applies to life’s end. 

Because modern medical technology did not exist during the times when the Bible was written, we do not find extensive guidance on choosing a course of medical treatment.  However, since the Fifth Commandment says, “You shall not murder,” it and its accompanying explanations in the Bible serve as our boundaries in this sort of decision. 

To begin with, actively and intentionally ending our own life or that of a loved one is never an option for the Christian.  The only circumstances in which the Bible does not consider causing a person’s death to be murder are genuine accidents, self-defense, and government’s authority to execute criminals and defend its citizens through war.  Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and any other active and intentional killing of the patient are therefore not an option.

We also do not withhold essential provisions such as food, water, and oxygen from a person for the purpose of hastening their death, nor should a person refuse such things as long as they are able to receive them through normal means.  At the same time, one is not required to go to employ extraordinary or invasive means to receive or provide them. 

When Martin Luther explains the Fifth Commandment, he summarizes the Bible’s guidance in this way: “We should…not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need.”  Our goal when making the sort of decisions described here is to help and not harm the person receiving care.  We want to honor God’s gift of life by making our best efforts to heal and save, but also we do not want to needlessly cause or prolong suffering beyond the likelihood of recovery. 

This can be difficult, because we have no way to know with absolute certainty what the outcome will be, so as we make these decisions we are always ultimately leaving the person in God’s hands.  We do our best to serve them with our decisions, and trust Him to guide the outcome for their benefit. 

As we do so, it is important to honor their wishes whenever possible.  If they have expressed to us a desire regarding treatment, we should honor those desires.  When they have not expressed a desire or the decision goes beyond what they have communicated, we seek to always do whatever is best for them—whatever will bring the most help or the least harm in a given situation, and provide them the highest degree of comfort possible in the process. 

When the person receiving care is a Christian, we have an added consolation, because whatever the outcome, it will be for their benefit.  The Apostle Paul said, “To live is Christ, and to die is gain,” and the book of Acts tells us that “through many tribulations we enter the kingdom of God.”  This means that if the treatment is successful, they will spend more time receiving God’s blessing on earth, but if the treatment fails, their soul will rest with Jesus to await the Resurrection on the last day when they will be fully and permanently healed. 

As is often the case, the variety of circumstances is seemingly endless, so every situation will have its own unique characteristics.  Although we have general boundaries within which to proceed, the guidance of doctors and pastors is of immeasurable value when making any particular decision. 

Refusing Medical Treatment

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about treating terminal illness:

Q:  Is a Christian allowed to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment?  Does the Bible require us to use all available means, no matter how unlikely the chance of success, to extend the life of a person who is critically or terminally ill?  How do we know when it is appropriate to proceed with, discontinue, or refuse treatment?

Knowing how to handle a life-threatening medical condition can be a very difficult thing, especially when we are making decisions for a parent or other relative who is not able to express their preferences at the time of treatment, as is often the case in situations where we are faced with questions such as this. 

For the Christian, life is always a gift from God to be honored and protected.  When we make decisions regarding our own treatment or that of a loved one under our care, this is our starting point.  We desire to respect life as God has given it and care for it in a way which honors Him.  We frequently hear this principle applied to life’s beginning at conception, but it equally applies to life’s end. 

Because modern medical technology did not exist during the times when the Bible was written, we do not find extensive guidance on choosing a course of medical treatment.  However, since the Fifth Commandment says, “You shall not murder,” it and its accompanying explanations in the Bible serve as our boundaries in this sort of decision. 

To begin with, actively and intentionally ending our own life or that of a loved one is never an option for the Christian.  The only circumstances in which the Bible does not consider causing a person’s death to be murder are genuine accidents, self-defense, and government’s authority to execute criminals and defend its citizens through war.  Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and any other active and intentional killing of the patient are therefore not an option.

We also do not withhold essential provisions such as food, water, and oxygen from a person for the purpose of hastening their death, nor should a person refuse such things as long as they are able to receive them through normal means.  At the same time, one is not required to go to employ extraordinary or invasive means to receive or provide them. 

When Martin Luther explains the Fifth Commandment, he summarizes the Bible’s guidance in this way: “We should…not hurt or harm our neighbor in his body, but help and support him in every physical need.”  Our goal when making the sort of decisions described here is to help and not harm the person receiving care.  We want to honor God’s gift of life by making our best efforts to heal and save, but also we do not want to needlessly cause or prolong suffering beyond the likelihood of recovery. 

This can be difficult, because we have no way to know with absolute certainty what the outcome will be, so as we make these decisions we are always ultimately leaving the person in God’s hands.  We do our best to serve them with our decisions, and trust Him to guide the outcome for their benefit. 

As we do so, it is important to honor their wishes whenever possible.  If they have expressed to us a desire regarding treatment, we should honor those desires.  When they have not expressed a desire or the decision goes beyond what they have communicated, we seek to always do whatever is best for them—whatever will bring the most help or the least harm in a given situation, and provide them the highest degree of comfort possible in the process. 

When the person receiving care is a Christian, we have an added consolation, because whatever the outcome, it will be for their benefit.  The Apostle Paul said, “To live is Christ, and to die is gain,” and the book of Acts tells us that “through many tribulations we enter the kingdom of God.”  This means that if the treatment is successful, they will spend more time receiving God’s blessing on earth, but if the treatment fails, their soul will rest with Jesus to await the Resurrection on the last day when they will be fully and permanently healed. 

As is often the case, the variety of circumstances is seemingly endless, so every situation will have its own unique characteristics.  Although we have general boundaries within which to proceed, the guidance of doctors and pastors is of immeasurable value when making any particular decision. 

Can Jesus be Tempted?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on the temptation of Jesus:

Q:  How could Satan tempt Jesus in the wilderness as described in the Gospels, when in James 1:13 the Bible says that God cannot be tempted with evil?

This question requires much care, because it touches on two of the most foundational doctrines of the Faith (The Trinity, and the Two Natures of Christ), and because these two truths are considered by many to be “mysteries” – that is, teachings that the Bible declares, but leaves an unresolved tension, because understanding them is beyond our natural capabilities. 

To begin with, God is three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), but there is one God, not three.  All three persons are equally God and have all the attributes of God, yet there are things we can say about one that we cannot say about the others.  For example, it is proper to say “God died” because Jesus died by crucifixion and Jesus is God the Son.  However, we could not say “God the Father died.” or “The Holy Spirit died,” because only the Son was crucified.  Similarly, only the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove at Jesus’ Baptism, while the Father and the Son did not. 

In a similar way, Jesus is fully God and fully human at the same time, yet only one person.  He is not half God and half human or sometimes God and sometimes human, but always completely God and completely human simultaneously.  Because of this, we cannot separate these two natures in Jesus in such a way as to say that only His divine nature did a thing or only His human nature did a thing.  If Jesus did a thing, then both natures did it, and if a thing can be said of one nature (divine or human), then it must be said of the other as well, because it is attributed to His whole person and not only to one nature.

When we look at the events of Jesus’ temptation by Satan in the wilderness, we see the above truths put into action.  Since Jesus is being tempted, Satan is trying to tempt God.  However, it is only the Son whom he is tempting, but not the Father or the Holy Spirit. 

When James says that God cannot be tempted, the word he uses for “God” can sometimes refer to God as a whole (all three persons) and at others refers only to the Father.  Additionally, the words used to reference the temptation differ in the two verses.  When James says that God “cannot be tempted,” the word is actually an adjective and means that God is “un-temptable.”  The word focuses on God’s inability to give in to the temptation, not the inability of anyone to try. 

However, when Matthew, Mark, and Luke speak of Jesus’ “being tempted,” they use a related word that is a verb.  This Greek verb conveys a significant amount of meaning that is not immediately observable in English.  In this case, the verb is passive, meaning that the devil is doing the tempting, and Jesus is the target.  However, this verb does not imply success by Satan, or surrender on the part of Jesus, but only the attempts of Satan to tempt Him.  Therefore, the Gospel-writers are not implying in any way that Jesus was lured by the temptation, but only that the devil was trying to tempt Him into sin.

The book of Hebrews also addresses the temptation of Jesus, saying, “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.” (4:14-15) 

In these verses, the temptations Jesus faced are described as just as real as those faced by every other person.  As human, the temptations were just as hard to resist as those faced by every other person, but as God it was completely contrary to His nature to give in to them.  As a result, Jesus was truly tempted in every way, but because He is “un-temptable” God, He successfully resisted them without sin—not just during His 40 days in the wilderness, but also during the 30 years prior and the three which would follow—culminating at the crucifixion when He was tempted by onlookers to escape the cross, but remained steadfast, suffering the wrath of God for the sin of the world as our substitute.

Contraception Mandate

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the contraception mandate:

Q:  Why has there been so much opposition among religious leaders about the government’s new mandate concerning insurance coverage for contraception?  Does the Bible say that it is a sin to use birth control?

Most news coverage of this issue has focused on the Roman Catholic Bishops’ public opposition to this mandate.  The particular reason for their opposition is because this policy would require them to provide contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization surgery in their health plans—all of which are forbidden according to Roman Catholic doctrine. 

Even though there is a narrow exemption covering churches themselves, the exemption does not extend to non-church religious employers, such as religiously-affiliated hospitals, schools, colleges, and social service agencies.  This results in a circumstance where many religiously-affiliated employers would be forced to pay for and provide drugs and procedures to which their doctrine and conscience are opposed or face extreme fines and penalties.  Even after the accommodation announced the following week by the administration, which shifts the responsibility of providing the services to the insurer rather than the employer, they argue that the cost of these services would still be paid by employers who self-insure their plans or passed on in their premiums in cases where the organization purchases insurance, thus forcing them to provide for services they consider morally wrong.

This mandate and the previously-mentioned opposition have sometimes been framed as a women’s health issue, but the opposition is not on the grounds of disagreements over the services offered, but rather on the grounds of religious freedom.  The religious leaders opposing this mandate are not asking that the services be made illegal, nor are they asking that other employers and insurers be forbidden from providing them.  Instead, they argue that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from requiring them to provide and pay for services to which they are morally opposed.

There are a great many non-Catholic Christian leaders who have joined the opposition to this mandate.  Their participation is not because of contraception, or even surgical sterilization, because their doctrine does not forbid it, but rather because abortion-inducing drugs, such as the morning-after pill are included in the mandate.  They argue that providing coverage for their employees to receive abortion-inducing drugs amounts to participation in murder according to the teachings of their churches because these drugs are known to cause the death of an already-conceived child.  Since the Bible treats unborn children as persons and speaks of them being already known by God and formed by Him, they consider abortion of any kind to be murder, and many of them have stated that they would be jailed rather than participate in such an act.

Many of the denominations which are opposing this mandate, including my own (The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod) typically avoid taking stands on political issues.  They refuse to endorse candidates for public office, the denomination and its leaders do not publicly affiliate themselves with any political party, do not have Washington offices or lobbyists, and do not accept federal funding to do their work.

They urge their parishioners to pay their taxes and participate in their civic duty even if the government acts immorally, and they believe in obeying the government, even when one does not like its laws.  At the same time they also believe, according to Acts 5:29, that Christians “must obey God rather than man.”  So, when this mandate was announced, they felt compelled to speak out, because the government was obligating them to materially participate in acts they consider immoral.  Their demand was not that the government obey the Bible, but rather that the government honor the nations commitments embodied in the Constitution by not interfering in their freedom of religion and conscience. 

As to the question of the propriety of birth control in general, the Bible, at all times, considers children to be a blessing to a husband and wife from God, and defends their lives, even while yet unborn, causing the majority of Christians throughout history to insist that aborting them would be murder, including contraceptive methods that could cause already-conceived children to die.  However, it is silent on birth control methods that prevent conception by use of barriers or preventing ovulation, leaving these methods as matters of conscience to be decided between husbands and wives.

Wine or Grape Juice

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of wine in the Lord's Supper:

Q:  Why do some churches use wine for Communion and others use grape juice?  What did Jesus use in the first Lord’s Supper and what are the potential consequences if we use something else?  What alternatives does a person have who has been advised not to consume alcohol because of alcoholism or for medical reasons?

When Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper on the night He was betrayed, He was eating the Passover meal with His disciples.  This fact, along with the words Jesus used, does a great deal to reveal to us what was in the cup that Jesus was using on that evening. 

First, the wine was made from grapes, because Jesus refers to it as “fruit of the vine,” which would exclude wine made from any other fruits.  We also know that grape wine was used in the Passover meal and that the wine was fermented wine. 

In addition to the traditions of the Passover meal, the Greek word used in the Bible for the drink used in the Lord’s Supper specifically means fermented wine.  If it were anything else, the authors would have used a different word or modified the word for “wine” with an additional word to describe the difference. 

Further evidence can be found in that the Passover is celebrated in the Spring.  Because Pasteurization and Refrigeration had not yet been invented, it would only be possible for a person to drink unfermented grape juice immediately during the grape harvest, because within a matter of days, the juice would begin to ferment as a result of the heat and the natural yeasts found on the skin of the grapes.

Throughout history, churches have typically attempted to use the same elements as the original institution to the closest degree possible.  This is because God’s command includes specific elements and His promises are tied to those elements.  While we cannot say whether the wine was red or white, or what grape it was made from, or the particular alcohol content, we do know that it was fermented grape wine. 

For Christians who believe that Jesus body and blood really become present in the Lord’s Supper and that the Lord’s Supper does forgive sins, the consequence of changing the elements is that it has the potential to introduce doubt concerning whether the Sacrament is valid and capable of delivering the blessing God has promised. 

Typically, when grape juice is used exclusively in congregations, it is in congregations with one or both of two teachings as a part of their theology.  The first of these is a belief that the bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper represent or symbolize Jesus’ body and blood rather than being His body and blood.  As a result of this belief, using grape juice does not present concerns about the Sacrament’s validity for them. 

The second of these is that they have some level of discomfort with the use of alcohol by Christians, sometimes even to the point of considering all alcohol consumption sinful.  Since they cannot reconcile the use of fermented wine with this belief, they resolve the tension by using unfermented grape juice. 

Occasionally, even Sacramental denominations will offer unfermented grape juice as an alternative for those who struggle with alcoholism or have been medically advised not to consume alcohol.  However, in light of other alternatives many pastors are now finding even this concession unnecessary. 

For example, there are a variety of wines available on today’s market which have been fermented in the usual manner, but distilled to 0.5% alcohol content, resulting in a true wine that is virtually without alcohol.  Another option is to use the normal communion wine offered in the congregation, but dilute it with water to the point where the alcohol content is insignificant. 

Many have also found a return to using the chalice (common cup) as an excellent alternative, because the communicant can merely allow the wine to touch their lips rather than consuming the entire contents of an individual cup.  Many alcoholics also report that receiving wine during communion by the pastor’s hand from a common cup is such a different experience from receiving an alcoholic drink by their own hand that it eliminates the temptation to return to their alcoholic behaviors. 

In addition to these practical reasons, since we know that Jesus instituted Lord’s Supper for our benefit, we can have a faithful confidence that God would certainly not allow a Christian to suffer spiritual harm in a Sacrament intended to bless them. 

Does God hate religion?

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines on the term "religion":

Q:  Can a person to say they hate religion but love Jesus?  Is Christianity a “religion” or not?  Did Jesus come to abolish religion?

This is a question that has been circulating with increasing frequency since the mid-20^th century, especially during the first decade of the present century, and which was brought even further into the forefront in past weeks by a YouTube video that quickly made the rounds on the internet through social networking sites. 

The current questions regarding religion and Jesus or religion and Christianity have arisen primarily from two sources.  The first of these can be seen within Christianity as a reaction against the rigid rule-oriented portrayal of religion that had become prevalent in certain denominational circles.  In response to this portrayal, many preachers have begun to contrast this law-oriented focus, which they would characterize as “religious,” against a gospel-oriented message which focuses on grace and the freedom of the Christian.

The second source from which this question finds its origin is a movement outside of Christianity where people consider themselves “spiritual but not religious.”  Recent demographic studies of religious identity reveal that “none of the above” or “unaffiliated” has become the fastest growing religious identity in the United States.  However, these religiously unaffiliated persons are not primarily atheist or agnostic.  Instead, they have definite spiritual ideas, but do not practice them collectively in a Church or other religious organization or submit to any particular authority or doctrinal system. 

Much of the confusion regarding this question about Jesus and religion can be overcome by nailing down the definition of religion.  Prevailing dictionary definitions of religion describe it as a set of beliefs regarding spiritual things or a devotion to a deity.  When scholars speak of a religion, they use the word to refer to a particular world religion such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Mormonism, while they use the word denomination to refer to the particular organizations that are divisions within Christianity. 

However, the popular use of the term religion by “spiritual but not religious” proponents outside of Christianity or by Christian preachers who want to distinguish faith-based Christianity from rule-oriented religion has initiated a novel view of religion that causes confusion. 

If one wants to say that Jesus is against rule-oriented religion but in favor of a faith which trusts in Him and embraces the freedom of knowing God’s forgiveness, then one could say that Jesus is against “religion”.  In fact, this is the characteristic that distinguishes Christianity from every other religious system in the world.  Every other world religion emphasizes a system of acts which must be carried out by people in order to make things right with their deity, but Christianity proposes that God Himself, in the person of Jesus, already accomplished everything necessary for our spiritual good, and we receive it through trust in Him. 

However, if one wants to say that Jesus is against any form of formal organization to religious practice, that would be a false claim.  The Bible continually emphasizes both that Christians ought to gather together, both for worship of God, through which He speaks to them by His preached Word and forgives their sins through the Sacraments, and for service to others.  We even see that the New Testament constantly urges Christians to cling to pure doctrine as taught by Jesus and the Apostles and to believe the same things rather than each having his own individual spiritual convictions.  In this sense, Jesus is very much in favor of religion—in fact, He is the true religion. 

"in vain?"

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of God's name:

Q:  What does it mean to take God’s name “in vain”?  What are the proper and improper ways to use God’s name in accordance with the Second Commandment?

This is one of those phrases left to us as a legacy from the King James Bible, and which many of us remember from when we memorized the commandments in our youth.  Some translations have made this easier to understand by translating it in simpler terms such as, “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.” 

At first glance, we might think that this commandment simply means that we shouldn’t use “God” as a curse word or that we should avoid His proper name, “YHWH” or “Yahweh”.  On the other hand, there are small groups of Christians who insist that it is not appropriate to speak, or even to write the word God or other words which refer to Him, and as a result, they might render such words as “L-rd” or “G-d.”  However, this practice is more in line with the teachings of the Pharisees than of Jesus. 

While this commandment does not forbid all usage of God’s name, it does forbid misuse of God’s name.  So, for example, not only would using the word “God” as a curse word be forbidden, but also the use of other words which refer to God, like Lord, Almighty, Savior, Jesus, Christ, etc.  In fact, even if one were to make up his own name for God not found in any language, then misuse it, that would also be forbidden in this commandment, because it is not the syllables, but the intention that are addressed.

In addition to the way in which one speaks God’s name, this commandment also addresses other ways of misusing God’s name.  For example, if one were to wish evil upon their neighbor and do so in God’s name, or if one were to lie and swear it to be truth in God’s name, these would also be forms of misuse.  Any attempt to manipulate people or events for personal gain using God’s name, is more akin to witchcraft than Christianity and would be another way of misusing His name. 

One misuse of God’s name which might be less obvious, yet just as serious, is the teaching of false doctrine.  This is because to teach anything other than the truth about God is a way of misusing His name.  If a preacher says, “God says…” then follows with something untrue, he has lied about God and misused His name.  Likewise, if he says, “Jesus is this…” or “The Holy Spirit does that…” and his statement is untrue, He is telling a lie about God and therefore misleading people in God’s name.

When Martin Luther explains this commandment in this catechism, he reflects the teaching of several Biblical authors when he says that the way Christians ought to use God’s name is to “Call upon it in every trouble, pray, praise, and give thanks.”

While God takes seriously the way in which we use His name, He does not desire that Christians should avoid using His name or the many titles and descriptions of Him which we find in the Bible.  Instead, He desires that we use His name to explain the truth about Him, express our faith and trust in Him, call upon Him and His promises in times of need, and thank and praise Him for His many blessings.

God's Name

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about God's name:

Q:  What is God’s Name?  Many religions talk about “god,” but does the Christian God have a unique name?

For Americans, it used to be that the identity of “God” was very clear.  55 years ago, the nation was largely Christian, and the question, “Do you believe in God?” meant, “Are you a Christian?”  In the years since, that clarity about the identity of God, along with the answers to many other spiritual questions has been largely lost.

Today, when someone speaks of “god,” they could mean the Christian God, but it is just as likely that they mean the God of some other religion, a deity they have cobbled together from the various thoughts of many religions, or merely a generic “higher power” which may or may not have a precise name.

This lack of clarity in the language for god is not unique to our culture.  For example, in nations which speak the Arabic language, both Christians and Muslims use the term “Allah” to refer to their god.  Likewise, both Jews and Christians could recognize the many terms used by the Old Testament as references to their god, even though their definitions of that God are drastically different.

The two most common Hebrew terms that the Bible uses for God are “Elohim” and “YHWH.”  Elohim is a general term used for a deity in the Hebrew language, but since the Israelites believed that only one real God existed, and that the others were false, this term came to be used as a specific term for their God, much like Americans would have used the word “God” until the late-1950s. 

YHWH, on the other hand was the proper name for God.  This is the name revealed by God to Moses when He spoke from the Burning Bush, saying, “I am that I am.”  Sometimes this word is written in English as “Yaweh,” and it is thought to be pronounced like “Yah-way.”  However the precise vowels within the name as well as its pronunciation cannot be decisively identified by modern scholars.  This is because the Israelites took the commandment against using God’s name in vain so seriously that they refused to pronounce it at all, instead substituting the word “Adonai” (which means “Lord”) or “Ha-Shem” (which means “the name”) when they would read it out loud.  Eventually, the vowel sounds within the word were no longer known by later generations and therefore lost to history. 

These Hebrew Words were translated into Greek in the New Testament as “Theos” (the generic term for a god) and “Ho Kurios” (which is literally translated as “the Lord”).  We also have specific revelation of God in the person of Jesus, who said that the only way to know God the Father was to know Him and the only way to come to God the Father is through Him.  Therefore, it is also accurate to say that God’s name is Jesus, as reflected in the early Christian confession, “Jesus is Lord.”  (i.e. “Jesus is YHWH.”)

For Christians, it is important to choose our language carefully when speaking about spiritual things, because we must remember that when we say the word “God,” it may not be understood by our neighbors in the same way we mean it, which can be an obstacle to accurately communicating the Truth. 

For myself, I have a personal habit of avoiding the generic word “God” to a large extent, when preaching or writing, because it is too easy today for every person listening to simply fill in their own definition.  For the sake of clarity, I instead attempt to use terms like The Trinity, The Lord, Triune God, God the Father, God the Son, Jesus, God the Holy Spirit, or The One True God as much as possible so that it will be abundantly clear to anyone listening that I am not speaking about a generic deity or about the God of every person’s individual understanding, but instead about a specific God who has revealed Himself in specific ways resulting in a precisely definable identity. 

Creeds

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about the use of creeds:

Q:  Why do some churches say creeds during their worship services?  Isn’t believing in these creeds a way of adding onto the Bible?  If a church requires adherence to any document other than the Bible, isn’t that against the Reformation principle of “Scripture Alone” that protestants claim to believe?

There are many forms of creeds found throughout Christianity.  The three that are almost-universally accepted, and which many churches speak publically as a part of public worship are the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed.  The Apostles’ Creed is typically associated with Baptism and with the prayer offices of the Church.  The Nicene Creed is typically associated with the Lord’s Supper, and the Athanasian Creed, the longest and most complicated of the three, is traditionally said on occasions specifically associated with the doctrine of the Trinity, such as the first Sunday after Pentecost.

During the first 400 years after Jesus ascended into heaven, representatives from all of Christianity met seven times in response to false teachings that had arisen.  They gathered in council to evaluate these new teachings and responded by formulating statements of what was true, based on the writings of the Apostles, which we know as the New Testament.  These three creeds are the result of the councils mentioned above, and from that point until the founding of the United States over 1300 years later, they were considered the standard for Christian orthodoxy.  If anyone agreed with these creeds, even if they disputed other teachings of the Church, they were considered within the scope of Christianity, and if anyone disagreed with elements of these creeds, they were considered outside the scope of Christianity.

This is true to such an extent that my Lutheran predecessors emphasized their consistency with historical Christianity by including them as the first documents in their collection of statements about what they as a group believed in comparison to their Roman Catholic and Reformed neighbors of the time. 

To confess these creeds, whether as foundation for one’s written doctrine, or as a public act of worship, is not a way of adding onto the Bible, though.  This is because these creeds are summaries of what is contained in the Bible.  In fact, fragments of these creeds can be seen already in the letters of the Apostle Paul, as he quotes them as evidence for which doctrine is true or false in the congregations he is addressing. 

The reason these creeds are necessary is because throughout the history of Christianity, people have frequently misunderstood the message of the Bible, and as a result, strayed from the truth.  These creeds serve as a succinct and time-tested way to begin instructing new Christians in the faith, so that as they begin to read the Bible, they can “stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them” as these foundational statements undergird their personal reading, as well as an easily-memorized way that Christians can test the statements of unknown teachers against established truth to judge whether the teacher in question ought to be believed. 

In the centuries since these creeds, the tradition of summarizing the doctrines of churches in a written statement has continued with documents such as the Book of Concord among Lutherans and the “Westminster Confession” and the “Canons of the Synod of Dort” among protestants.

However, this is not to say that these creeds or other confessions are to be considered equal to the Bible.  Instead, they are always subject to what is taught in the Bible, and derive their authority from the Bible. 

At the same time, the three major creeds listed at the beginning of this article are not merely examples of what Christians have believed in the past.  Instead, they are statements of timeless truth which reflect the essence and foundation of Christian teaching.  Since God Himself does not change, neither does His Truth, and since these creeds reflect and embody that Truth as revealed in the Bible, they themselves remain true for all time, regardless of the changes in human opinion and perspective which may have occurred in the generations since.

Divorce & Remarriage

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about divorce and remarriage:

Q:  Under what circumstances does the Bible allow for divorce?  After a divorce, are one or both of the parties allowed to remarry, and under what circumstances? 

Strictly speaking, the Bible allows only one circumstance under which a marriage ought to come to an end.  That circumstance is the death of one spouse.  A widow or widower is given no special restrictions in the Bible regarding when or whom they may marry beyond those given to other single Christians, so they may remarry as soon as their own conscience allows them. 

However, in light of human sin, Jesus is recorded in the gospels as allowing one condition under which a marriage may end by divorce, which is adultery (sexual unfaithfulness) on the part of one spouse.  In such a case, Jesus said that the spouse who was the victim of the adultery has the option (but not the requirement) to divorce the spouse who committed adultery.  As in all things, the Bible prefers reconciliation of the marriage when possible, but does allow for divorce as a result of adultery when reconciliation is not possible. 

In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives several pieces of instruction, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as an Apostle, regarding marriage and divorce.  In doing so, he specifically rejects the idea that spouses may divorce, even over matters as  serious as religious differences, but he does expand upon Jesus’ instruction to allow for divorce in the case of abandonment by one spouse.  Under the circumstance where one spouse unilaterally leaves the marriage against the wishes of the other, he does not fault the spouse who was abandoned for the dissolution of the marriage. 

In reading these instructions from St. Paul, Bible scholars and Christian ethicists have typically concluded that these instructions not only include the allowance for divorce as a result of literal abandonment, but also what has been termed “malicious abandonment.”  Malicious abandonment would include such circumstances as abuse by one spouse toward another, and addiction or other circumstances under which the actions of one spouse significantly compromise the safety of the other spouse or the children in the family. 

Under the circumstances listed above, one spouse in the dissolved marriage would be ethically and morally faulted with causing the divorce, while the other would be considered justified in their decision to end the marriage.  At the same time, a divorce is never solely the fault of one spouse.  Since all marriages are between two sinners, both spouses have always sinned against the other in some manner, even if not in ways that justify divorce.  Remembering this, it is important that both parties acknowledge their sins to God (and perhaps to one another or to their pastor) in the aftermath of the divorce and repent of them, knowing that Jesus’ death is sufficient to forgive all sin, and taking corrective action before considering remarriage.

After a divorce, a pastor would treat every situation individually when divorced Christians are considering remarriage.  If the divorce was not Biblically justifiable based on the criteria above (adultery, abuse, abandonment) then he will need to address this in caring for those desiring remarriage.  If the divorce was Biblically justifiable, then he will have different needs to address in his spiritual care of the person depending on whether they were the guilty party in their divorce or the victim. 

A victimized spouse is morally free to remarry, but should certainly seek guidance and pastoral care as they enter their new marriage, because of the mental and spiritual factors involved with recovering from divorce.  On the other hand, it is also necessary that a spouse guilty of causing their divorce repent of their sin and take corrective action before a responsible pastor will agree to participate in joining them in a new marriage. 

Ultimately, Christian ethics insist that marriage is intended to be a life-long commitment between a husband and wife, but human sin has interfered with this intention and continually causes broken marriages.  Acknowledging this, it is the task and desire of the Church and its pastors to care for all who are broken by the effects of sin in the world, especially making use of God’s gifts of Prayer, Blessing, Scripture, and Sacraments so bring the forgiveness of Jesus to those who have sinned, allowing them to proceed in a new life. 

Moneybags Superstition

My article from this week's Algona Upper Des Moines about superstition:

Q:  On many occasions this year, I have received emails or seen social networking posts that the way days of the week fall within a month or the way numbers align in the date have the potential to bring wealth, luck, or other benefits if I take certain action.  First, is this legitimate?  Second, is it acceptable for a Christian to trust in such things to receive the promised benefits?

I have seen these posts myself.  One of them claimed that the circumstance that there were five Fridays, five Saturdays, and five Sundays occurring during July 2011, was called “moneybags” and only happened every 823 years.  It claimed that if a person re-posted or forwarded the message, they would receive money, but if they did not, the message warned, they would be without money. 

Another message attached special significance to four particular dates:  1/1/11, 1/11/11, 11/1/11, and 11/11/11 with similar promises and warnings that the recipient’s actions, which must occur at or before 11:11 on 11/11/11, would bring them either a blessing or a curse. 

To begin with, claims such as the “moneybags” myth mentioned in the first example are factually inaccurate.  The phenomenon described actually occurs once every 5-11 years, depending on where the leap years fall.  Secondly, even if the events described were as rare as they are claimed to be, there is no observable evidence that the benefits described have occurred in the past. 

For Christians, 1 Timothy 4:7 gives perspective on practices such as those described above.  In that verse, Paul says, “Have nothing to do with irreverent, silly myths.  Rather train yourself for godliness. 

In the Old Testament, God had forbidden all types of divination, which was the practice of seeking guidance or knowledge of the future through manipulating or observing elements of nature unrelated to the events in question.  So, for example, kings of unbelieving nations might ask a priest of their religion to slaughter a sheep or goat and study its organs to find out how an upcoming battle would go, or they might observe the pattern in which a flock of birds fly to discern which strategy to use.  Horoscopes are an example of how this ideology continues even to this day. 

God clearly commanded His people that they were not to engage in such practices, and connected this command to the First and Second Commandments, which forbid idolatry, and the misuse of God’s name.  As such, these prohibitions continue into the New Testament era for Christians.  Because all of the above actions describe trust in some other force than the Triune God for blessing, they are a form of idolatry to be avoided by Christians. 

The Bible does at times speak positively about discerning the signs found in nature, but these are always observed natural correlations between an event and the result which follows, such as the color of the sky relating to weather which might follow, or the color of leaves indicating the change of seasons. 

Regarding the alignments of days in a month or dates in a year, we must also note that our modern calendar is not a divinely-given system, but rather a humanly-devised method or organizing time.  So, as such, it would bear no correlation to divine promises for blessing. 

Finally, assumptions such as those above are opposed to a Christian worldview.  In the religion from which these superstitions arise, it is assumed that the god/gods/universe are against us and inclined to do us harm, and it is only if we act in the specified ways that they will be forced to bless us. 

Christianity, on the other hand, proposes that God, in fact, desires to act on our behalf and takes the initiative Himself to bring us blessing.  He does this by providing for our obvious needs of food, clothing, shelter, etc. but more importantly by forgiving sins because of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus for all who trust in Him. 

Even though it might appear that we need to appease the deities and forces of the universe by our own action, the God who created them has already acted, both through creation and through His Son, to provide us with all of our needs of body and soul, not based on our own worthiness or ability, but because of His own kindness and righteousness.