Judge Not

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." (Matthew 7:1-5)

These verses have puzzled me in the context of the verses that follow.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine" (Matthew 7:6)

"Beware of false prophets...You will know them by their fruits" (Matthew 7:15,16,20).

Thus, this principle isn't a statement of moral relativity or tolerance of evil or a recognition of human falliability, so far as I can tell. To the contrary, my reading of the full context is that we must judge and indeed much of ethics is nothing more than judgment-- discernment of moral truth from falsehood. Thus, I would paraphase the phrase as "Judge not falsely, that you be not judged falsely."

What say you?

Read More.

Christ is Risen!

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/l/i/lintgrav.htm





He is risen, indeed!
Early in the morning, before the break of dawn.
Darkess hugs the hills, water laps the shore.
An eerie stillness, a moment is unfolding.
God is at work, bringing light, rolling away stones of doubt, setting loose new possibilities. God is at work, awakening hope, wiping away tears, calling each of our names.
God is at work this Easter morning.
Christ is risen!
He is risen indeed!
Changing our lives and bringing us hope and joy!
Easter is here!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fu8YIG8uyQ

A Sacrament-free Faith

Catholics recognize confirmation, penance, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction as sacraments, in addition to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Many Protestant churches recognize only baptism and the Lord’s Supper (or what my boy calls “that thing you do at church with the blood and flesh”). Some apostolic churches have a third sacraments—holy sealing-- the passing of the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands by church elders. But on what authority are there any ordinances? Doesn’t Jesus command us to do much more than just these acts? Because sacraments are done without exception within the context of the institutional church, I believe that the observance of any sacraments is a form of sacerdotalism—an attempt by the clergy to mediate between me and God by imposing on me requirements that have nothing to do with my faith in God. I think we can affirm our faith with baptism and the Lord’s Supper, but it isn’t and shouldn’t be an obligation.

Baptism and church membership are the external criteria of faith, and a true follower of Jesus is one who keeps his beliefs free from heresy and tries to live a moral life. But these seem to be minimal and possibly even irrelevant criteria. Faith is not an intellectual assent to dogmatic propositions but a commitment of one’s entire being, directed not just to myself, but also to my neighbor and the world. Christian ethics provides us with the tools to deal with the world with all its challenges. The only law for a Christian is to be a fully-devoted follower of Christ who, in the words of Micah 6:8, will "do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly with God." Thus, to the question: how many sacraments are we obliged to follow? I would answer: none.

Even a cursory glance at church history will show the many schisms and sometimes violent wars between nations that were created in arguments over sacraments and succession. Is it relevant if someone is baptized with a drop of water or with a dunking, or if you believe that the wine (or grape juice for us Baptists) at the Lord’s Supper is Jesus’ blood or represents Jesus’ blood (the transubstantiation versus consubstantiation debate)? I think what really matters is that we try to follow Jesus by rescuing the perishing and caring for the dying.

If I’m right on this point, it would also follow that the doctrine of apostolic succession is not true or necessary. The Catholics believe God’s authority passes from generation to generation starting from Peter, through Linus, Cletus, and Clement to the present day Pope. The Mormons and some other churches believe that succession was broken through apostasy and has since been restored through their church and scriptures. Ephesians 4: 11-14 are verses used to justify the succession, where God gives to different people different abilities “for the perfecting of the saints for the work of the ministry for the edifying of the body of Christ.” But no where in these verses or any else does the Bible suggest that man can confer God’s grace or authority to other men. The transmission of these gifts is not through the church or the apostles or their delegates. Since our relation is to God not through the church, such a succession was never needed.

World Atheism in Retreat

I recently browsed through two books recently: David Martin's Tongues of Fire: The Explosion of Protestantism in Latin America and David Aikman's Jesus in Beijing: How Christianity Is Transforming China and Changing the Global Balance of Power.

The facts are both amazing and counter-intuitive. A few decades ago, for example, there were hardly any evangelical Christians in Brazil. Now there are 50 million. In 1950, Brazil had 50 million Catholics. Now it has 120 million Catholics. According to Aikman, in a few decades, China will become the largest Christian country in the world. Currently, an estimated 100 million Christians in China workship in underground evangelical and Catholic churches. In Korea, there are numerous mega-churches with more than 10,000 members and is the world's second largest source of Christian missionaries, with 12,000 preaching the faith abroad. The Catholic church in the Philippines reports 60 million members and is projected to have 120 million by mid-century.

Atheism is still strong in Cuba, but with today's news of Castro's resignation, even that may change within a generation.

Men and women of faith are on the march all over the world.

Why I Don't Tithe

I had a student in my bible study that challenged me and some others on tithing. The guy doesn't believe in the tithing as a New Testament practice. I was searching the net for perspectives on tithing and most of the links I googled, I discovered didn't support tithing. I found this very surprising considering I've never attended a church that didn't tithe. I admit also the arguments that come which are against tithing are very persuasive (but that's doesn't mean they are true). So does anybody care to share whether they tithe or not and state their reasons?

Last year, I gave more that $12,000 to charity, but I do not tithe and nor will I tithe. I consider this to be yet one more perversion of Biblical teaching, a disconnect between what the Bible says and what preacher's preach. If you have the choice between being generous and being stingy, you must always chose generosity. Be generous with your emotions, your time, and your money. But experience has taught me two principles. First, avoid cash charity gifts to individuals, as those gifts seldom address the underlying reason for the problem and can sometimes make the problem worse. People are eager to take your money but not so keen on taking the effort to master the principles that made that money possible.

My second principle is to tithe with caution. My parents and members of my family are aggressive tithers, and it isn’t for me to question their motivations. Dad’s goal for 1991, for example, was “to contribute no less than 15 percent of income to the work of the Lord.” Perhaps the genesis of my views toward tithing came out of those tough years in and immediately after college when I was financially strapped while my parents were supporting other ministries. Whatever is the case, my view today is that I should support the church in proportion to the value that it gives my family. When I pay $1.99 for one gallon of milk, I expect one gallon of milk in return of $1.99. Value has been exchanged for value. The same is true at church. Don’t pay too much or don’t pay if the value doesn’t exist. If you believe that the value you receive from your church amounts to one or ten or fifty percent of your income, then by all means give the church the one or ten or fifty percent, but don’t write the church a check just because a man of cloth quotes Malachi 3:8 (“Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But, ye say, How have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.”). No such commandment for tithing exists in the New Testament, and in fact the early church “had all things common” (Acts 2:44 ), a disquieting model for us capitalists. I sometimes ask myself when the collection plate nears: To whom goes this money? Sometimes, but certainly not always, it is a few greedy folks who live far more lavishly than anything I can imagine. Giving is a virtue, except when it is done without discernment and accountability.

There are many ways to give. And you can sometimes give most effectively by getting involved. To paraphrase President John Kennedy, don’t ask what the church can do for you, but rather ask what you can do for the church community. Authoritarian churches often make it difficult to get involved, and for such churches, I would let the plate go by with nary a cent and no regrets. A minister’s teaching on giving and the structures in place to ensure financial accountability can give you insight into the ethics of that church and whether or not you should even attend that church. I would look for another church if the preacher claimed that tithing was a moral law, or claimed that writing a check to them was identical to writing a check to God, or claimed that the financial needs of your church takes precedence over the financial needs of your family.

Is it really true no commandment for tithing exists in the New Testament? Would you be willing to demonstrate that from the Bible?

You are asking me to prove the lack of something, which is illogical. It is like asking you to prove that a commandment against biking don't exist. It cannot be done. All that you can do is prove a commandment for biking does exist.

There is a backward-looking reference to tithes in Hebrews 6:5 "the sons of Levi...take tithes of the people according to the law" but that falls far short of a principle of action for Christians.

I often hear we do not tithe anymore because Jesus or the disciples didn’t explicitly teach tithing in the New Testament. Suppose this was the case...

It either is the case or it is not the case. Which is it?

So with anything in the Law, we cannot be so quick to think that the things in the OT serve no purpose anymore just because Jesus is here. All things in the Law of Moses had purpose and I believe only when we can identify and understand their purpose can we adequately understand how that purpose applies to believer today, such as with the sacrifices. Otherwise, we're just picking and choosing what applies and what does not and bound to not divide the Word of Truth correctly.

All things had their purpose at one time. But the question is: what is culturally bound and what are transcending principles of Christianity. As I mentioned earlier, the early church held all their possessions in common, perhaps because they expected the immanent return of Christ. Are you a communist? If not, by your own logic, how can you call yourself a Christian? In terms of the levitical law, would you say a cafeteria Christian is one who does shave their head and trim their beard (Leviticus 19:27)?

So I perhaps ask a detailed and complicated question, but from my experience, many of the people who are against tithing don't understand how tithing fitted in with the Law and what the implications are now that Jesus is here. So that's why I asked what proofs could you give for tithing not being applicable anymore? It's insufficient I think to say it doesn't apply anymore because Jesus is here.

What I believe is there is no scriptural evidence at all that the New Testment teaches tithing either as a specific commandment or as an ethical principle.

My sister and I have an agreement -- to wit, if either of us wins the lottery, 10% goes off the top to educational and health-related philanthropies. That's the minimum. We even have a list.
I have been donating to Doctors Without Borders for years before they won the Nobel. I have been impressed by the willingness they have to treat both sides in any conflict situation and their work on starvation in the world. I don't give to religious organizations -- I leave that to others -- but I do believe, as a humanist, that starvation and unjust distribution of resources to be a sin.

I think playing the lottery is a sin albeit a minor one, but perhaps that's a discussion for another thread.

I think at the end of the day, motivations of giving to the church or elsewhere are not so much doctrinally based or rationally motivated than a reflection of subconscious feelings and emotions. Much of my life has consisted of an extended, heated argument with God, which, at least I see and I believe God sees as a kind of a faith and love. When some mentions the word "church" however, if was to free associate, for me the following words would pop to the surface of my mind unbidden: loneliness, cruelty, ignorance, wealth, domination. It is only when I struggle to think about it that I modify these feelings but what I know to be the deeper truth with words like this: accountability, community, adventure, wisdom, hope. Perhaps for many people on this forum, these sentiments would appear: love, home, freedom, assuredness, faith. And for those people I can see why tithing could be not just an obligation but a pleasure. I wish my sentiments were in the latter camp, but my biography is such that I it is not.

C'est la vie.

Bibleoltry

Do you worship the Bible? Of course not. But is it possible that some people put the love of the Bible over the love of God? If so, how? Or is the love of the Bible inseparable with the love of God?

Yes, I think it is possible and does happen. I think some people may simply enjoy the intellectual stimulation that the Bible gives them and enjoy thinking about what is presented there rather than accepting what is there.

"Before there was a book, there were persons who handed on Christ’s sayings and told of the marvelous things God had worked in him. First came Christ, then the witnesses, then the books. This ordering of things is at the heart of the early interpretation of the New Testament. The goal was to delve more deeply into the mystery of God revealed in Christ, to whom the writings bear witness. We are inclined to begin with the book, with historical context and social setting, words and idiom, grammar and literary forms, religious and theological vocabulary, and many other topics that command our attention. But the early Christians began with the risen Christ, and long before there was a book the faith was handed on orally."

Wilken, Robert Louis – Interpreting the New Testament quoted from 1 Corinthians – The Church’s Bible [Eerdmans 2005, Kovacs, Judith L. ed. p. x-xi]