O say, can you see(if you cannot say or see we'll force everyone else around you to accommodate you by changing everything from entryways to job requirements in an effort to make you feel just good as everyone else),
by the dawn’s early light,(Unless of course those lousy Big Corporations continue to destroy the environment with their toxic fumes that have not really caused all that much damage but makes us environmentalists feel important to predict the end of humanity)
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming(But not too proud, in fact, we should feel very guilty for all the poverty us rich Americans have caused all over the world by being one of the most free and prosperous societies in history, and we should give more to the poor through oppressive taxation)?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight (Well, we don't believe in fighting anymore and also those stripes and stars are offensive to certain groups, so in light of these please take that flag down, ok?),
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming (Listen, there is nothing gallant about war or the military either, so no more glorifying murdering innocent children and spending money on defence that should be feeding all our single mothers' kids out there)?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air (Well, we now consider all war wrong, no matter what, so see above for what we should do with all the money being spent on rockets and bombs that are killing innocent babies all over the oppressed world),
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there (Unless we ourselves burn it in an act of free speech, that is),
O say does that star spangled banner yet wave (Please don't ask us to speak, there are those out there with speech impediments who may well be emarassed, or even offended),
O’er the land of the free, and the home of the brave (Can we really say "free" when most states don't allow gay marriage, there is rampant institutionalized racism?, and some people are not allowed to use marijuana for medicinal proses? Not to mention there are some Neanderthals out there who actually want to take away a woman's freedom to kill her unborn baby. And bravery isn't a virtue we really want to be encouraging. That breeds distinction, and we would like there to be no distinguishing characteristics in our society thank you, especially not those backward, evil, homophobic, anti-abortion, traditionalist, gun-totin' kind of characteristics. Well, you can be as radical as you want, just make sure it's as far left as you can go. Then we will call you "brave.")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Feel better?
Well, yes and no.
We had a lectureship this week/weekend that challenged us to not retreat from defending the faith in our culture, and especially for us who are involved in academics. It was encouraging, but I have been thinking that it may not be possible. I believe as we near the Day of the Lord things are going to get worse. For the moment I belive in pre-tribulation rapture, so I don't think Christians will be around for the worst part of it though.
Paul warned us about it:
"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was. -II Tim. 3:1-9
Paul also gives us the way to deal with it:
Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." -II Tim 4:1-5
If this doesn't describe these days, I am not sure what it would be.
So long answer to a short question.
I'm not a dispensationalist anymore. I don't rest in the idea that only the unsaved will endure hard times in that great and terrible day.
That aside, I wonder, when Paul exhorts Timothy in chap. 3 vs.5 to turn away from such people, does this not imply that the type of people he's describing would be in the same time frame as Timothy's life, if Timothy is to avoid them? I mean, Paul was writing to Timothy, not to the 21st century church, right? Haven't there been people, as described in this passage, all throughout history? Could it be that Paul is prepping young Timothy for the difficulty of being a Christian amongst such people, something that was new, as Christianity was about to explode all over the region (and eventually the world, as we know), and that knowing the Truth, guarding its integrity, was something serious, new for a new Christian in a new Christian era among ungodly deceivers and such? Paul knew that old beliefs (like old habits) die hard.
Also, it seems more plausible to me that it's Timothy, not everyone who reads the Bible, who's being charged to preach the Word, to be prepared for there would come a time during his ministry when the church would split so to speak, it always does. He's told to keep his head during this time (chap 4 vs 5)- which means he'll still be living during the disturbances described. Isn't this letter Paul's instructions and advice from an apostle (himself) to an up and coming carrier of the Truth, Timothy?
In reference to your post, I AM kind of wondering why you consider those who have different political opinions from you to be in the category of 2 Tim. chap 3?
I do enjoy dialoging with you, Bob. It sharpens me. You have a good mind, and a seeking heart.
Firstly, not believeing in a pre-trib. rapture and being dispensational are two very different things. Are you saying that you do not see a future for Israel, that the church has replaced Israel, and Israel has lost the promises made to it in the Old Testament? Or are you simply saying you do not beleive in pre-trib rapture?
Second, no doubt Paul was exhorting Timothy, but there is no doubt that Paul meant the letter to be read by more than just Timothy, just as his letter to Ephesus was meant to be read in many other churches. If it were only for Timothy, why include it in the canon? If it is indeed Timothy only who is supposed to follow the teaching Paul gives and "not everyone who reads the Bible", is the Gospel of Luke only for Theophilus? Or is Philemon only for Philemon? Or Titus only for Titus? Certainly I am in the "original authorial intent" camp, but there is always an application, whether a direct command or an indirect teaching, that is universal. If one were to argue that this is not so, we lose most of our doctrine because they would have to go in and cut out anything that is not directly addressed to all people.
So yes, Paul is talking about Timothy and his situation, but I have no doubt Paul was also talking about the future. Yes, there have always been people who were like those described by Paul, but I can't think of a time when so many millions of people were not following "sound doctrine" but calling themselves Christians while teaching and preaching a "different gospel" than the one Paul preached - Christ crucified, buried and resurrected.
Third, when you consider a Christian's worldview should be shaped entirely from the Scriptures, things that are unscriptural sould not be held by a Christian. I also believe the Bible says what it means to say. So those who say Jesus was "just a moral Jewish teacher" are completely missing the message of the Gospels. Those who say they beleive in Jesus but do not obey His commandments are, "men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith," as Paul says.
I am pretty sure most of the things I satirized in my post come from a secular humanist worldview, certainly not a Biblical one. So yes, I would put most of the different "political views" there in the category of II Tim. 3. Do I believe anyone who differs from me politically is in the category of II Timothy 3? If they can't defend thier political views Biblically, yes.
Thanks for your quick response, Bob!
Space and time allow me to address only one point at a time.
You wrote, "Third, when you consider a Christian's worldview should be shaped entirely from the Scriptures, things that are unscriptural should not be held by a Christian."
I agree that a Christian's worldview should be Biblically based - for sure. And anything that is unscriptural would be a wrong view for a Christian.
Do you agree that compassion is a Biblical teaching? Think Abraham compassionately asking for mercy for Sodom and Gomorrah, or Moses' compassion for the Israelite who was being beaten by the Egyptian. Jesus exemplified compassion, as did Paul. God Himself has compassion. The concept of Christian compassion is clearly portrayed in the Bible.
And yet, in your post you were compassionless towards disadvantaged people such as the blind, mute, and those with speech impediments, implying that it is wrong for society to try to make things easier for such folks. Can you Biblically defend your lack of compassion?
You wrote, "Do I believe anyone who differs from me politically is in the category of II Timothy 3? If they can't defend thier political views Biblically, yes." Looks like you'll have to put yourself in the 2 Tim. 3 category, unless you can Biblically defend lack of compassion (which is a political and moral view).
I'm interested in your response. These are important questions you raise, questions that merit thoughtful consideration, from many vantage points.
There is a difference between compassion and "political correctness." Notice I used a thrid person voice, not first person. There are many out there today who, while trying to seem compassionate are really making stereotypical judgements about the handicapped, implying that unless given special treatment, the hanicapped are not able to live life. Most everyone I have ever known (including relatives) who are handicapped wish no special reatment (beyond some simple accomidation like ramps or instructions in braile). I have a professor who has two doctorates and has a severe reading handicap. He has told us that his 6 year old can read faster than him. He did not ask for special accomidation in his classes, but worked very very hard and was successful.
What I was referencing was the Americans With Disabilities Act, which forces an employer to change the requirements of a job if someone who is too handicapped to perform the job wishes to have that job. For instance, if there were someone who applied at my work, carpet cleaning, and could show they were hanicapped to the point where they could not lift or operate the the equipment, my employer would have to change the requirements of the job (I don't know how). Now most people who could not do carpet cleaning won't apply for it, but there are other instances where suits have been brought.
Compassion for those who are hanicapped, in my opinion, does not involve forcing hardships (lack of compassion) on others. it involves helping in whatever way I can, which I have and continue to do.
As far as Abraham was concernecd, the main issue there was Abraham's questioning of God's justice. He asks, "Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” Gen 18:24. Also don't forget, Abraham knew where Lot lived...
The example of Moses is interesting. One could say his compassion made him murder. Of course this is preposterous, because his sense of justice made him angry and he let his anger cause him to sin by murdering. I don't see compassion here either.
For clear examples of biblical compassion I think the best example is Jesus. "And when Jesus went out He saw a great multitude; and He was moved with compassion for them, and healed their sick.
Matt 14:14. Jesus say the hadicapped, had compassion on them and did something about it for them. Later, when the multitude followed Him out into the wilderness and they were hungry, He commanded the disciples to do something about it - He fed them. (Mark 8:1–10) Now, I realize He is God so miracles are something He specializes in, but the application behind it for us is that we should help those who are handicapped in a practical way.
You know, comment forums are not the best way to dialog, are they? Rather clumsy. ;-)
For me, spitting it all out may be better than trying to be gently conversational. Here goes: (if you could hear my voice, you would hear calm, rational, sincere, kind, honest)
I think you are mistaken about a number of things from the motives of others, to biblical interpretation and application (which includes your views in the post and in your comments.)
I think you come across as heartless in your post, and I think you are misrepresenting scores of well-intentioned, compassionate people. (You never did respond to the speech impediment remark - "Please don't ask us to speak, there are those out there with speech impediments who may well be emarassed, or even offended." - it's mean-spirited, in my opinion.)
I hate to use the term narrow-minded because it has been abused to mean something I'm not saying here, but for lack of a better term, yes, you come across as narrow-minded, as in seemingly unable to genuinely consider the merits of another viewpoint. I, too, personally know handicapped people, people who have benefited from the programs and helps which our country has offered, without hurting anyone in the process. You are right that the disability act has flaws which can be devastating to small business owners, etc., but it has true compassionate help in it as well. To vilify good-hearted people who are sincererly trying to help seems harsh, don't you agree?
Wonderful that your professor can manage without special help! A good example of independence and a can-do attitude. Do you think he would deny that help to others, though, children perhaps, people more handicapped than he or people less self-assured? Who of us having never experienced a significant handicap can truly understand all that it entails?
All that being said, you certainly have a right to say whatever you want on your very own blog, and to defend your words and views. I thank you very much for allowing me to comment and for your responses.
It's my hope that you will keep writing, and I will keep reading. There is merit in dialoging about God's truth - it clarifies, sharpens, and gives opportunity for.......compassion.
;-)
With a smile on my face, I respond.
I humbly ask what in my biblical interpretation and application is "mistaken"? You did not say.
I did not say all, or even a majority of, advocates of the handicapped think this way. I love that this very page we are using includes a provision for those who cannot type. I'm not even sure I am talking about advocates at all. I believe I explained that, there are "many out there today who, while trying to seem compassionate are really making stereotypical judgements about the handicapped, implying that unless given special treatment, the hanicapped are not able to live life." I see these "compassionate" people as actually harming the handicapped. They want to be seen as compassionate, so they put forward legislation to force thier view of compassion to become law, all the while never actually helping anyone who is hanicapped.
I think this exlpains the remark about the "speech impediment." Notice I used the third person there. The one commenting on the line from the National Anthem is just assuming that those with speech impediments will be offended or embarassed. I am not poking fun at those who actually do have an impediment, which would be rather heartless.
The whole post was about how our progressively more and more secualr humanist liberal leadership is picking away at our country's traditional culture and laws. "To vilify good-hearted people who are sincererly trying to help seems harsh, don't you agree?" I do. But that is not what I was doing in any way.
I am afraid I am not sure what "merits of another viewpoint" I am not considering. You asked in the first response about the Epistle of Timothy, I considered it and wrote what I believe to be the correct response. If you beleive me to be in error, as I said before, please show me. In the second post, you asked about Abraham and Moses, and I believe I considered the merits of the viewpoint and I don't think they are right - according to the Biblical account.
From my view you are not responding to my arguments, simply moving to other issues. ;-)
What about dispensationalism vs. pre-tribulation rapture?
What about Paul's message in his letters to Timothy?
What about the main issue with Abraham and Moses?
What about my definition of Biblical compassion?
Finally, I agree that dialoge about God's truth is good. Speaking of which, I better get back at it!
"What about dispensationalism vs. pre-tribulation rapture?"
Not pre-trib, not dispensational, yes, Israel has the future promised
"What about Paul's message in his letters to Timothy?"
Stand by my earlier statements.
"What about the main issue with Abraham and Moses?" Disagree with you, still think compassion could have been the motive - just tried to prove compassion is biblical - you agree that it is, so, 'nuff said.
"What about my definition of Biblical compassion?" Not sure what your defintion is, unless it's that application you made about doing was is practical for the handicapped.
About what I consider your errors in interpretations and applications, I'm referring to your comments about Paul's letters to Timothy (events to happen within Tim. lifetime/or future as I said in an earlier comment, and your logic about Timothy/Luke/Ephesians/Titus/Philemon is faulty in my opinion), also your application about compassion and Jesus feeding the masses seems simplistic to me. (Not a fan of making 'practical applications' out of everything as so many pastors are taught to do. It's often huge stretching, even false. Does harm to the author's intent much of the time, often distorts or shades the truth intended. Yes, we can apply truth, but these 'applications'!) Also, your conclusions about Abraham and Moses and the impetus to their behavior is, I believe, not well thought out.
Have a fantastic week, Bob!!
I think it best we end here. I can see we are coming from vastly different places when it comes to the topics of Bible interpretation, and I think continuing the conversation will lead us off into a labyrinth of back and forth discussion which will benefit neither of us.
I think it best I move on to other topics on my blog.
You have a great week too!
I heartily agree.
Post a Comment