Latest Articles
2011-09-24
2011-09-18
May a person divorce his/her ill spouse?
Infamous fundamentalist church leader, Pat Robertson, were featured on CNN's website recently (through this video clip). In the clip he gave advice to a person asking about a friend whose wife suffers from Alzheimers Disease and who started to see another woman. Roberston's advice to the man was that his wife is dead because of the illness; he may move on with his life but it would be better to divorce his wife first. You can also watch the original video clip HERE.
The other day I visited with an older couple. The husband suffers from Alzheimers. He is in an early stage of the illness, so the visit was quite enjoyable. They spoke openly about the disease. His wife read everything she could get about it and it was obvious that she suffers under the weight of the personality changes and forgetfulness of her husband.
She doesn't plan to leave her husband because of the illness.
I'm wondering ... If it is okay with Robertson to tell this gentleman that he may divorce his wife (perhaps she is in an care institution and he doesn't have to look after her?), then maybe I can advise my friend whose husband is dying from cancer to start searching for her next husband? Her current spouse could even assist her in the process! Or perhaps I should tell the man whose wife suffers from such serious depression that she wants to commit suicide every other week, that he should stock extra sleeping pills in the house?
Nope, Pat, you don't quite understand the Bible.
Perhaps Robertson should have given the guy who started dating another woman the advice to do some soul searching. If it was him to fall ill, wouldn't he expect of his wife of x amount of years to stand by his side in his illness? What did he really feel for her if he can so easily move on with his life?
More importantly, if a Bible teacher says its okay to divorce an ill person, that needs integrity, dignity and support precisely during this time, I shudder to think how the rest of his Biblical interpretation will sound.
I know it is terrible to live with someone who suffers from Alzheimers. Yet I think its worse to emotionally leave your spouse in a time where she cannot decide for herself. If you choose to move on because your partner changed, you have built your relationship on a very superficial footing.
My own emotions flabbergast me.
I'm not normally judgemental. Still, Robertson's advice pushes in my throat. It presses nauseating gulp from my stomach. I think about my mom's sister with Alzheimers and their other sister who sacrificially cares for her.
And I become irrationally angry at people calling themselves ministers of religion that make such idiotic remarks.
The other day I visited with an older couple. The husband suffers from Alzheimers. He is in an early stage of the illness, so the visit was quite enjoyable. They spoke openly about the disease. His wife read everything she could get about it and it was obvious that she suffers under the weight of the personality changes and forgetfulness of her husband.
She doesn't plan to leave her husband because of the illness.
I'm wondering ... If it is okay with Robertson to tell this gentleman that he may divorce his wife (perhaps she is in an care institution and he doesn't have to look after her?), then maybe I can advise my friend whose husband is dying from cancer to start searching for her next husband? Her current spouse could even assist her in the process! Or perhaps I should tell the man whose wife suffers from such serious depression that she wants to commit suicide every other week, that he should stock extra sleeping pills in the house?
Nope, Pat, you don't quite understand the Bible.
Perhaps Robertson should have given the guy who started dating another woman the advice to do some soul searching. If it was him to fall ill, wouldn't he expect of his wife of x amount of years to stand by his side in his illness? What did he really feel for her if he can so easily move on with his life?
More importantly, if a Bible teacher says its okay to divorce an ill person, that needs integrity, dignity and support precisely during this time, I shudder to think how the rest of his Biblical interpretation will sound.
I know it is terrible to live with someone who suffers from Alzheimers. Yet I think its worse to emotionally leave your spouse in a time where she cannot decide for herself. If you choose to move on because your partner changed, you have built your relationship on a very superficial footing.
My own emotions flabbergast me.
I'm not normally judgemental. Still, Robertson's advice pushes in my throat. It presses nauseating gulp from my stomach. I think about my mom's sister with Alzheimers and their other sister who sacrificially cares for her.
And I become irrationally angry at people calling themselves ministers of religion that make such idiotic remarks.
2011-09-09
RWC 2011: Rugby for Dummies
Today saw the official kick- off of another world religion - er sport - tournament. If you live in SA, Aus or NZ you'll know how utterly important the next month's planning will be to fit your work schedule around the matches being played. (Okay, the rest of the world too!) This explanation of rugby is provided by one of South Africa's premier newspapers, Mail & Guardian. Read the original HERE.
Rugby is a 15-a-side sport played by ripped individuals of the athletic variety. It is played on a rectangular 144m x 70m field with H-shaped poles on the opposite ends. Matches are played between two teams for 80 minutes and are competed on a points system. The one with highest points wins.
A group of your country's finest warriors has headed into battle with the nation's pride at stake as every sinew of muscle aims for victory during this year's Rugby World Cup in New Zealand.
Scoring
If at first you don't succeed, try try again
The most productive way of scoring points is a try, which involves a player holding the ball in his arms and placing it on the ground (or "dotting down") past the opposition's "try-line". This explanation in no way encapsulates the bone-crunching brute force at which players force their way through opposition defences in order to complete the move. All this effort is rewarded with five points. So why is it called a "try", when you actually succeed? Originally, the winner of a rugby match was determined by the amount of goals, as opposed to the points of today. A team could kick for a goal by placing the ball over the goal line, and this allowed the scoring team to "try" for a goal.
It doesn't end there
As we have just explained, in ye olde game, a "try" meant you were given a chance to kick the ball at the posts. This still happens. The ball is placed perpendicularly to the point at which the ball is dotted down and is moved backwards by the kicker towards their try-line until the desired angle in relation to the opposition's poles is reached (still with us?). It is then (hopefully) kicked through the upright poles. This is worth two points.
Drop it like it's hot
If a player is inspired to kick the ball through the poles during open play, this is called a drop goal and is worth three points. He can kick it from wherever he is on the field, but, unless he is feeling very lucky (punk), he should do this when he is at a decent angle and close enough to the opposition's poles. This was the definitive move Joel Stransky pulled to win South Africa the Webb Ellis trophy for the 1995 Rugby World Cup (you beauty).
Foul deeds
When a team has committed a foul -- such as making a high tackle (above the elbow of a player) -- and the referee notices this naughtiness, the opposing team will have an opportunity to kick a penalty. This involves setting the ball up at the point of infringement (where the foul deed took place) and attempting to kick it between the opposition's poles. This is worth three points.
Knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door
In rugby, players aren't allowed to pass the ball forward. They have to pass it to players behind them, who hopefully, at some point, will run forward with the ball so that the game can get anywhere at all. Two steps forward, one step back. We know. If the ball bounces forward off a player, this is called a knock-on, and leads to a penalty or a scrum.
Set pieces
This is where you see players lined up waiting for the ball or huddled together and bashing heads with the opposition -- the structured bits where everyone knows what to do. Think of them as choreographed moves in an otherwise experimental and improvised piece of modern dance, if that helps (which it probably doesn't).
Scrumptious
The scrum is the part of the game that confuses (and probably disturbs) many. What's the point of eight big men huddled together ramming up against the opposition's group of eight, equally big, huddled men?
In a scrum, the ball is thrown beneath the two opposing groups of eight players who bind together (it's not as cuddly as it looks) and try and to push each other back towards their try line, while the hookers (more about them later), use their feet to try get the ball to pop out the back of their side of the huddle, in which case they would have won the scrum.
So does it hurt? Probably, but no player worth his salt would complain -- being built like a hulk must help.
Good touch, bad touch
It might seem pretty pointless to kick the ball out of play (i.e. over the edge if the field) only to have it thrown straight back in again, but "kicking for touch" is a very strategic part of the game. The aim is to have the ball go out of play as close to the opposition's try line as possible. Kicking for touch then leads to a line-out.
Line-out
When the ball has gone out of play, or a team has "kicked for touch", both teams line up and the ball is thrown down the middle of the two opposing lines of players, who jump up to try catch it. Normally it is the tallest player (usually your No 5 lock) who is helped by his teammates who hold him steady when he jumps, (but they aren't allowed to lift him into the air -- this is rugby, not ballet). Our very own Victor Matfield is seen as one of the best line-out jumpers in the world.
Bit parts
Maul
This particularly violent sounding word describes a struggle for the ball between at least two opposing players. It is only a maul if the ball has not yet touched the ground. It is called a rolling maul when this occurs in movement, in other words, when players are fighting for the ball and moving in any direction on the field.
Ruck
This is similar to a maul, but occurs once the ball hits the ground. To further complicate matters, players can't use their hands to get the ball, only their feet. As you can imagine, doing things with your feet instead of your hands sometimes involves things getting in the way, such as an opposing player's head, and, it grieves us to say, more, um, delicate parts.This move is the main reason players leave the field bleeding, bruised, swollen and less attractive than they were at the start of the game.
The tackle
The fine art of tackling involves players immobilising opposition players by literally launching themselves into their opponents. It is not your standard bar brawl manoeuvre, because you cannot engage your opponent above their torso (or ribs). The main aim is to have your opponent knocked from their feet.
Sin bin
This is rugby's version of soccer's yellow card, but instead of players dancing around the field, feigning shock and swearing at the ref, when rugby players get sin-binned they have to leave the field for 10 minutes to cool off. This means their team plays with one less man and as such is disadvantaged.
The players
Unlike soccer, players always have the same numbers on their shirts, depending on what position they play. Here is a short breakdown of what each player does, with their numbers in brackets.
The frontline
These are the beefy, hulky individuals you'd think twice before arguing with. Their job is to win the ball from the opposition by any means necessary (within the rules of course) and provide it to their teammates in the back line.
Loosehead (1) and Tighthead (3) props
Usually the stockiest members of the team whose main job is to support the hooker in the scrum and assist the lock jumping in the line-out. A tighthead is positioned between two players, with his head secured firmly in the scrum, which, we're sure you will agree, sounds freaking terrifying. A loosehead is on the end of the scrum, with only one shoulder lodged in the scrum.
Hookers (2)
Similarly built to the prop, but with better handling skills and more mobility, their job is to win the ball when it is fed into the scrum by hooking it back with his foot -- hence the name. Stop smirking. The jokes are all old.
Locks (4&5)
Usually the tallest players in any team who must win the ball at the line-out and provide the main push in the scrum. Due to their height, weight and modern-day athleticism, locks also perform a vital role in loose play (when someone is tackled).
Blindside Flank (6)
This player binds onto the scrum on whichever side is closest to the touchline. This flank is mostly concerned with winning the ball in open play and assisting jumpers in line-outs, and is one of the most feared tacklers in any side.
Openside Flank (7)
This flanker binds onto the side of a scrum furthest from a touchline and whose role it is to win the ball by disrupting opposing backs. He must be quick and versatile as he may have to help the backs.
8th man (8)
The 8th man is responsible for ensuring the scrumhalf receives the ball at the end of a scrum or launching attacks from the same position. He doubles up as a potential ball winner at the end of a line-out and a ball carrier in loose play.
Backs
These are the glory boys of the side who score the tries and slot the penalties and drop-goals. They must be able to use the ball possession the forwards wrestle from the opposition.
Fullback (15)
This player serves as the last line of defence against the opposition's running attacks and tactical kicks. He must have excellent kicking skills as he usually launches the ball from the own goal-line in either a defensive or attacking manoeuvre.
Wings (11 & 14)
The Roman god Mercury had wings on his feet and was known for being quick and agile, which might help you remember that wings are usually the swiftest players on any team. Their core role is to run like the wind for the try-line once they have the ball in hand. Wingers were once dainty figures, but over time they have morphed into bulkier forms (who are just as quick).
Inside centre (12)
The marshal of the midfield is tasked with staving off attacks launched by opposing teams as well as knock holes in their defensive lines.
Outside centre (13)
Similar to the other centre, but has the primary focus of exploiting the gaps created by his No 12. They also form the link between the centres and the rest of the backline when an attacking movement is created.
Flyhalf (10)
The key playmaker who decides whether to distribute the ball to his backs or kick for position. He must be a skilled kicker and more often than not takes the team's penalty kicks and/or drop goals -- although this is often shared with the fullback.
Scrumhalf (9)
The player who provides a link between the forwards and the backs by feeding the ball won by the forwards to the backs. They may be one of the smallest players on the field but make up for this with slick handling skills and a lack of fear when tumbling with the opposition forwards.
Rugby is a 15-a-side sport played by ripped individuals of the athletic variety. It is played on a rectangular 144m x 70m field with H-shaped poles on the opposite ends. Matches are played between two teams for 80 minutes and are competed on a points system. The one with highest points wins.
A group of your country's finest warriors has headed into battle with the nation's pride at stake as every sinew of muscle aims for victory during this year's Rugby World Cup in New Zealand.
Photo gallery: Defending the title
Scoring
If at first you don't succeed, try try again
The most productive way of scoring points is a try, which involves a player holding the ball in his arms and placing it on the ground (or "dotting down") past the opposition's "try-line". This explanation in no way encapsulates the bone-crunching brute force at which players force their way through opposition defences in order to complete the move. All this effort is rewarded with five points. So why is it called a "try", when you actually succeed? Originally, the winner of a rugby match was determined by the amount of goals, as opposed to the points of today. A team could kick for a goal by placing the ball over the goal line, and this allowed the scoring team to "try" for a goal.
It doesn't end there
As we have just explained, in ye olde game, a "try" meant you were given a chance to kick the ball at the posts. This still happens. The ball is placed perpendicularly to the point at which the ball is dotted down and is moved backwards by the kicker towards their try-line until the desired angle in relation to the opposition's poles is reached (still with us?). It is then (hopefully) kicked through the upright poles. This is worth two points.
Drop it like it's hot
If a player is inspired to kick the ball through the poles during open play, this is called a drop goal and is worth three points. He can kick it from wherever he is on the field, but, unless he is feeling very lucky (punk), he should do this when he is at a decent angle and close enough to the opposition's poles. This was the definitive move Joel Stransky pulled to win South Africa the Webb Ellis trophy for the 1995 Rugby World Cup (you beauty).
Foul deeds
When a team has committed a foul -- such as making a high tackle (above the elbow of a player) -- and the referee notices this naughtiness, the opposing team will have an opportunity to kick a penalty. This involves setting the ball up at the point of infringement (where the foul deed took place) and attempting to kick it between the opposition's poles. This is worth three points.
Knock, knock, knocking on heaven's door
In rugby, players aren't allowed to pass the ball forward. They have to pass it to players behind them, who hopefully, at some point, will run forward with the ball so that the game can get anywhere at all. Two steps forward, one step back. We know. If the ball bounces forward off a player, this is called a knock-on, and leads to a penalty or a scrum.
Set pieces
This is where you see players lined up waiting for the ball or huddled together and bashing heads with the opposition -- the structured bits where everyone knows what to do. Think of them as choreographed moves in an otherwise experimental and improvised piece of modern dance, if that helps (which it probably doesn't).
Scrumptious
The scrum is the part of the game that confuses (and probably disturbs) many. What's the point of eight big men huddled together ramming up against the opposition's group of eight, equally big, huddled men?
In a scrum, the ball is thrown beneath the two opposing groups of eight players who bind together (it's not as cuddly as it looks) and try and to push each other back towards their try line, while the hookers (more about them later), use their feet to try get the ball to pop out the back of their side of the huddle, in which case they would have won the scrum.
So does it hurt? Probably, but no player worth his salt would complain -- being built like a hulk must help.
Good touch, bad touch
It might seem pretty pointless to kick the ball out of play (i.e. over the edge if the field) only to have it thrown straight back in again, but "kicking for touch" is a very strategic part of the game. The aim is to have the ball go out of play as close to the opposition's try line as possible. Kicking for touch then leads to a line-out.
Line-out
When the ball has gone out of play, or a team has "kicked for touch", both teams line up and the ball is thrown down the middle of the two opposing lines of players, who jump up to try catch it. Normally it is the tallest player (usually your No 5 lock) who is helped by his teammates who hold him steady when he jumps, (but they aren't allowed to lift him into the air -- this is rugby, not ballet). Our very own Victor Matfield is seen as one of the best line-out jumpers in the world.
Bit parts
Maul
This particularly violent sounding word describes a struggle for the ball between at least two opposing players. It is only a maul if the ball has not yet touched the ground. It is called a rolling maul when this occurs in movement, in other words, when players are fighting for the ball and moving in any direction on the field.
Ruck
This is similar to a maul, but occurs once the ball hits the ground. To further complicate matters, players can't use their hands to get the ball, only their feet. As you can imagine, doing things with your feet instead of your hands sometimes involves things getting in the way, such as an opposing player's head, and, it grieves us to say, more, um, delicate parts.This move is the main reason players leave the field bleeding, bruised, swollen and less attractive than they were at the start of the game.
The tackle
The fine art of tackling involves players immobilising opposition players by literally launching themselves into their opponents. It is not your standard bar brawl manoeuvre, because you cannot engage your opponent above their torso (or ribs). The main aim is to have your opponent knocked from their feet.
Sin bin
This is rugby's version of soccer's yellow card, but instead of players dancing around the field, feigning shock and swearing at the ref, when rugby players get sin-binned they have to leave the field for 10 minutes to cool off. This means their team plays with one less man and as such is disadvantaged.
The players
Unlike soccer, players always have the same numbers on their shirts, depending on what position they play. Here is a short breakdown of what each player does, with their numbers in brackets.
The frontline
These are the beefy, hulky individuals you'd think twice before arguing with. Their job is to win the ball from the opposition by any means necessary (within the rules of course) and provide it to their teammates in the back line.
Loosehead (1) and Tighthead (3) props
Usually the stockiest members of the team whose main job is to support the hooker in the scrum and assist the lock jumping in the line-out. A tighthead is positioned between two players, with his head secured firmly in the scrum, which, we're sure you will agree, sounds freaking terrifying. A loosehead is on the end of the scrum, with only one shoulder lodged in the scrum.
Hookers (2)
Similarly built to the prop, but with better handling skills and more mobility, their job is to win the ball when it is fed into the scrum by hooking it back with his foot -- hence the name. Stop smirking. The jokes are all old.
Locks (4&5)
Usually the tallest players in any team who must win the ball at the line-out and provide the main push in the scrum. Due to their height, weight and modern-day athleticism, locks also perform a vital role in loose play (when someone is tackled).
Blindside Flank (6)
This player binds onto the scrum on whichever side is closest to the touchline. This flank is mostly concerned with winning the ball in open play and assisting jumpers in line-outs, and is one of the most feared tacklers in any side.
Openside Flank (7)
This flanker binds onto the side of a scrum furthest from a touchline and whose role it is to win the ball by disrupting opposing backs. He must be quick and versatile as he may have to help the backs.
8th man (8)
The 8th man is responsible for ensuring the scrumhalf receives the ball at the end of a scrum or launching attacks from the same position. He doubles up as a potential ball winner at the end of a line-out and a ball carrier in loose play.
Backs
These are the glory boys of the side who score the tries and slot the penalties and drop-goals. They must be able to use the ball possession the forwards wrestle from the opposition.
Fullback (15)
This player serves as the last line of defence against the opposition's running attacks and tactical kicks. He must have excellent kicking skills as he usually launches the ball from the own goal-line in either a defensive or attacking manoeuvre.
Wings (11 & 14)
The Roman god Mercury had wings on his feet and was known for being quick and agile, which might help you remember that wings are usually the swiftest players on any team. Their core role is to run like the wind for the try-line once they have the ball in hand. Wingers were once dainty figures, but over time they have morphed into bulkier forms (who are just as quick).
Inside centre (12)
The marshal of the midfield is tasked with staving off attacks launched by opposing teams as well as knock holes in their defensive lines.
Outside centre (13)
Similar to the other centre, but has the primary focus of exploiting the gaps created by his No 12. They also form the link between the centres and the rest of the backline when an attacking movement is created.
Flyhalf (10)
The key playmaker who decides whether to distribute the ball to his backs or kick for position. He must be a skilled kicker and more often than not takes the team's penalty kicks and/or drop goals -- although this is often shared with the fullback.
Scrumhalf (9)
The player who provides a link between the forwards and the backs by feeding the ball won by the forwards to the backs. They may be one of the smallest players on the field but make up for this with slick handling skills and a lack of fear when tumbling with the opposition forwards.
FOUND ON THE INTERNET: HAS THE BIBLE BECOME AN IDOL?
Many churches in the U.S. draw heavily from the values and methods of secular businesses. When one pastor was confronted about this fact he replied, "So what? A principle is a principle and God created all of the principles." His answer illustrates the degree to which Enlightenment thought has shaped our understanding of God and faith.
The worldview behind his statement is the same as that held by deism -- God has created the cosmos with certain knowable and immutable laws. Among them are the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of mathematics. But modern people have expanded the list to include other areas of life such as leadership, relationships, and business. In order to function properly, our task is to discover these laws and translate them into applicable principles. In this view God is the law-writer, the principle-creator, the watchmaker.
The problem with the world, this view argues, is that most people are not living by the right principles. They are trying to run a diesel truck on fruit juice -- it just won't work. Rather than applying the principles of life derived from scientists, political leaders, or Oprah Winfrey, people should be living by God's principles. After all, as the Creator of all things, he knows what's best, right?
This understanding of God informs how many contemporary Christians engage the Bible. They believe the Scriptures are a divine instruction manual for life; a resource to be culled for principles that may then be applied to any challenge or dilemma. I've heard church leaders joke that B-I-B-L-E stands for "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth," and others have called it the "owner's manual" for a human being. We may chuckle at these metaphors for the Bible, but behind them is a very un-Christian understanding of God and ironically an unbiblical one rooted in Enlightenment thinking.
When the Bible is primarily seen as a depository of divine principles for life, it fundamentally changes the way we engage God and his Word. Rather than a vehicle for knowing God and fostering our communion with him, we search the Scriptures for applicable principles that we may employ to control our world and life. This is not Christianity; this is Christian deism. In other words, we actually replace a relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible. If one has the repair manual, why bother with the expense of a mechanic?
Tim Keller, in his book "Counterfeit Gods," defined idols as "good things turned into ultimate things." I wonder if this definition applies to what some evangelicals have done to the Bible. Rather than making the Bible the means by which we discover and commune with God, they have made the Bible an end in itself. It has come to replace Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End of their faith.
I realize that in Christian traditions holding a very high view of the Scriptures, like my own, it may sound as if I am downgrading the importance of the Bible. That is not the case. I believe it is God's Word, inspired by him, and the authority for our faith and lives. Through it we discover who he is -- and what greater gift can there be? And it does contain many useful and applicable principles for life and faith. But in our zeal to honor the importance of the Bible and extol its usefulness, we may unintentionally do the opposite. We may reduce the Bible from God's revelation of himself to merely a revelation of divine principles for life. And we are not the first to fall into this subtle trap.
The religious leaders in Jesus' time were expert students of the Scriptures. They had memorized the entire Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). And they had parsed every command, extracted every principle, and delineated every instruction it contained. But their mastery of Scripture had not resulted in actually knowing God or recognizing his Son when he stood right in front of them. Jesus said to these leaders, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."9
This is the sinister shortcoming of faith built upon principles, laws, and formulas. It causes us to reduce faith to divine instructions or godly self-help tips: five steps to a more godly marriage, how to raise kids God's way, biblical laws of leadership, managing your finances with kingdom principles, etc. But discovering and applying these principles does not actually require a relationship with God. Instead, being a Christian simply means you have exchanged a worldly set of life principles for a new set taken from the Bible. But like an atheist or deist, the Christian deist can put these new principles into practice without God being involved. God can be set aside while we remain in control of our lives. He may be praised, thanked, and worshipped for giving us his wise precepts for life, but as with an absentee watchmaker, God's present participation is altogether optional.
This posture is particularly tempting in affluent, professional communities where people are accustomed to off-the-shelf solutions and self-help manuals. Their education and wealth mean they are used to being in control of their lives, and a huge publishing industry has ensured they maintain this illusion. Many best sellers are self-help books advocating principles to overcome nearly any problem. While proven formulas might be expected for losing weight or growing a vegetable garden, we tend to apply scientific certainty to even the more mysterious areas of life. Perusing the shelves at the local bookstore can be a very comforting exercise.
Knowing that there is a solution to any problem life throws at you provides a sense of control -- it calms our fears. And if the answer cannot be found at the bookstore, we know there is always the pharmacy down the street.
This same trend is evident in many other areas of contemporary Christian teaching. It is now possible to have a "Christian" marriage, a "Christian" business, and even a "Christian" nation without Christ actually being present. The fact that we employ principles derived from the Bible is enough to convince us that they are -- and therefore we are -- Christian.
This popular form of Christianity with its emphasis on working principles and worshiping the Bible rather than God, may be appealing because it is far more predictable and manageable than an actual relationship with God. Relationships, whether human or divine, are messy, time consuming, and often uncontrollable. But principles are comprehensible and clinical. Perhaps this explains why a 2005 study found that only 3 percent of pastors listed prayer as a priority in their ministry. If he's already given you the watch, why bother maintaining a relationship with the watchmaker?
The worldview behind his statement is the same as that held by deism -- God has created the cosmos with certain knowable and immutable laws. Among them are the laws of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, and the laws of mathematics. But modern people have expanded the list to include other areas of life such as leadership, relationships, and business. In order to function properly, our task is to discover these laws and translate them into applicable principles. In this view God is the law-writer, the principle-creator, the watchmaker.
The problem with the world, this view argues, is that most people are not living by the right principles. They are trying to run a diesel truck on fruit juice -- it just won't work. Rather than applying the principles of life derived from scientists, political leaders, or Oprah Winfrey, people should be living by God's principles. After all, as the Creator of all things, he knows what's best, right?
This understanding of God informs how many contemporary Christians engage the Bible. They believe the Scriptures are a divine instruction manual for life; a resource to be culled for principles that may then be applied to any challenge or dilemma. I've heard church leaders joke that B-I-B-L-E stands for "Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth," and others have called it the "owner's manual" for a human being. We may chuckle at these metaphors for the Bible, but behind them is a very un-Christian understanding of God and ironically an unbiblical one rooted in Enlightenment thinking.
When the Bible is primarily seen as a depository of divine principles for life, it fundamentally changes the way we engage God and his Word. Rather than a vehicle for knowing God and fostering our communion with him, we search the Scriptures for applicable principles that we may employ to control our world and life. This is not Christianity; this is Christian deism. In other words, we actually replace a relationship with God for a relationship with the Bible. If one has the repair manual, why bother with the expense of a mechanic?
Tim Keller, in his book "Counterfeit Gods," defined idols as "good things turned into ultimate things." I wonder if this definition applies to what some evangelicals have done to the Bible. Rather than making the Bible the means by which we discover and commune with God, they have made the Bible an end in itself. It has come to replace Jesus Christ as the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End of their faith.
I realize that in Christian traditions holding a very high view of the Scriptures, like my own, it may sound as if I am downgrading the importance of the Bible. That is not the case. I believe it is God's Word, inspired by him, and the authority for our faith and lives. Through it we discover who he is -- and what greater gift can there be? And it does contain many useful and applicable principles for life and faith. But in our zeal to honor the importance of the Bible and extol its usefulness, we may unintentionally do the opposite. We may reduce the Bible from God's revelation of himself to merely a revelation of divine principles for life. And we are not the first to fall into this subtle trap.
The religious leaders in Jesus' time were expert students of the Scriptures. They had memorized the entire Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament). And they had parsed every command, extracted every principle, and delineated every instruction it contained. But their mastery of Scripture had not resulted in actually knowing God or recognizing his Son when he stood right in front of them. Jesus said to these leaders, "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life."9
This is the sinister shortcoming of faith built upon principles, laws, and formulas. It causes us to reduce faith to divine instructions or godly self-help tips: five steps to a more godly marriage, how to raise kids God's way, biblical laws of leadership, managing your finances with kingdom principles, etc. But discovering and applying these principles does not actually require a relationship with God. Instead, being a Christian simply means you have exchanged a worldly set of life principles for a new set taken from the Bible. But like an atheist or deist, the Christian deist can put these new principles into practice without God being involved. God can be set aside while we remain in control of our lives. He may be praised, thanked, and worshipped for giving us his wise precepts for life, but as with an absentee watchmaker, God's present participation is altogether optional.
This posture is particularly tempting in affluent, professional communities where people are accustomed to off-the-shelf solutions and self-help manuals. Their education and wealth mean they are used to being in control of their lives, and a huge publishing industry has ensured they maintain this illusion. Many best sellers are self-help books advocating principles to overcome nearly any problem. While proven formulas might be expected for losing weight or growing a vegetable garden, we tend to apply scientific certainty to even the more mysterious areas of life. Perusing the shelves at the local bookstore can be a very comforting exercise.
Knowing that there is a solution to any problem life throws at you provides a sense of control -- it calms our fears. And if the answer cannot be found at the bookstore, we know there is always the pharmacy down the street.
This same trend is evident in many other areas of contemporary Christian teaching. It is now possible to have a "Christian" marriage, a "Christian" business, and even a "Christian" nation without Christ actually being present. The fact that we employ principles derived from the Bible is enough to convince us that they are -- and therefore we are -- Christian.
This popular form of Christianity with its emphasis on working principles and worshiping the Bible rather than God, may be appealing because it is far more predictable and manageable than an actual relationship with God. Relationships, whether human or divine, are messy, time consuming, and often uncontrollable. But principles are comprehensible and clinical. Perhaps this explains why a 2005 study found that only 3 percent of pastors listed prayer as a priority in their ministry. If he's already given you the watch, why bother maintaining a relationship with the watchmaker?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
