for curiosity's sake

Hasarder, in her comment to my last post, asked what I was referring to regarding how Paul was accommodating to both Jews and "heathens."

Short answer: These are the books of the Bible which are generally accepted as penned by Paul. Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon. Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (this second group are not quite as accepted). Check out the wikipedia articles on Paul or Tarsus.

I'm not exegetical wiz, but I'll break it down the way I understand it. This is the lonnnnnnggg answer.

Jesus grew up and preached. He preached about love. The way I understand the theme, if we can say that, of Jesus' preaching is that he wanted people, Jews, to worry less about the legalism of the Law and more about the genuineness and holiness of their heart and spirit. To stop missing the forest for the trees, if you will. The fact is, Jesus preached to Jews because of his immense desire to motivate them to be better and Godlier Jews. Jesus didn't preach to initiate the Christian Church.

But it happened. Jesus preached in a very small area. Paul (and others) took that message beyond the local. Paul made it to what is now Turkey and Greece. Here there were fewer Jews. Paul's writings in the Bible, which are mostly letters to churches in Greece and Turkey, deal with the question: "what about the gentiles who want to follow Jesus?"

These gentiles, non-Jews, were not followers of the Laws - the laws of Moses. So if they decide to follow Jesus, should they eat kosher, keep the Sabbath, get circumcised?

It turned out, a bunch of those guys that new Jesus, and some that didn't know him (like Paul), decided that the "God fearing gentiles," and Christ followers should not be required to be circumcised. Was this a political move in order to increase the ranks (would you get circumcised as an adult for religion?)? The decision to not require circumcision, and other decisions were then a modern interpretation of the Laws and the teachings of Jesus. This is a process of binding and loosing, forbidding and allowing certain behaviors based on the wisdom of a rabbi. Problem! The rabbis refused to acknowledge Jesus, so this new group had to start making these big decisions. This is what brings us to "the council of Jerusalem," or that meeting with all those guys who knew Jesus.

So after these guys got together and made these interpretive decisions, Paul went his own way and did all that preaching and writing in Greece and Turkey. These epistles, or letters, make up a huge chunk of the New Testament. They have become the foundation for Christianity.

Some of the accommodating things attributed to Paul:

"For since I am free from all I can make myself a slave to all, in order to gain even more people. To the Jews I became a Jew to gain the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) to gain those under the law. To those free from the law I became like one free from the law (though I am not free from God's law but under the law of Christ) to gain those free from the law. To the weak I became weak in order to gain the weak. I have become all things to all people, so that by all means I may save some."
--1 Corinthians 9:19-22 (emphasis is mine)

These was a question of eating. If I as a Law-abiding Christ-follower am invited to eat at the home of an "unbeliever," should I eat their food, which may not be properly prepared and blessed, or may *gasp* be blessed unto demons? Here's what Paul says, in his incredibly liberal wisdom for the time:
"'Everything is lawful,' but not everything is beneficial. 'Everything is lawful' but not everything builds others up. Do not seek your own good, but the good of the other person. Eat anything that is sold in the marketplace without questions of conscience, for the earth and its abundance are the Lord's (from Psalm 24:1). If an unbeliever invites you to dinner and you want to go, eat whatever is served without asking questions of conscience... So whether you eat or drink, whatever you do, do everything for the glory of God. Do not give offense to the Jews or Greeks, or to the church of God.
--1 Corinthians 10:23-28, 32 (emphasis is mine)

Here's another I adore: in 1 Corinthians 13, Paul addresses the falseness of religion and gives a working definition of love.
"If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but I do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal... If I give away everything I own, and if I give over my body in order to boast, but do not have love, I receive no benefit. Love is patient, love is kind, it is not envious. Love does not brag, it is not puffed up. It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful. It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends."
--1 Corinthians 13:1, 3-8.

With these few tidbits in mind, I can safely say that Paul paved new ground in religion. He was persecuted for it, of course. But what he had to say is the alleged foundation of modern Christianity. We've built our theology on his words. But we've not built our lives around it. Paul preached that we do not have to live under the Hebraic laws because we can live under the laws of Christ, and he gave us his interpretation of those laws. What I see the modern church doing today is a very dangerous binding and loosing. We are totally into the "not under the law" bit, as long as we are 'born again.' But if you aren't a card carrying Evangelical, then you are under our laws to a degree we will not submit ourselves unto. Scary, since Jesus said in Matthew 3:16, "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." And what about all that love stuff? We're just going to chuck it because it's not convenient? not quite as pressing?

My point in all this history and layman's extrapolation is that we simply cannot stop changing. Only when the world stops being the world, constantly changing and growing, can we as Christians stop changing. We have some words, and some more words. But most of what we have in the Bible is the inspired interpretation of a bunch of really Godly people. Really Godly people still exist and they can still interpret the Words we have. This is the only way to keep the Church relevant. Let's keep binding and loosing for ourselves first before we worry about those with no interest in our 'yoke.'

blablabla...

The global warming "debate"

I'm sorry, I didn't realize global warming was still a debate. I thought it was a fact. The debate is who should do what to reduce the rate of warming.

I'm also sorry to inform the religious right that I am capable of worrying about more issues than abortion, gay rights, and sex ed. Poverty, global warming, AIDS.

Here's the background... Some folks, including Dr. James Dobson, wrote a letter to Dr. Roy Taylor, the chairman of the board at the National Association of Evangelicals. In this letter these folks express their concern about the vice president of government relations at NAE, Richard Cizik. Their main claim in this letter is that Cizik, as he expresses his views, is understood to be speaking for the NAE, which then represents the voices of Evangelicals in general. The problem with this, according to Dobson, et al is that the NAE "lacks the expertise to take a position on global warming." Although "it does appear that the earth is warming," Dobson et al suggest that the NEA should not be addressed theologically, since it is a "dividing and demoralizing" issue. Finally, the writers call for the resignation of Cizik if he cannot refrain from this demoralization and work to represent the NAE's commitmentment to defend "traditional values."

I have a couple of very basic arguments.
First, raising awareness of new issues does not have to be a distraction. Perhaps, and my rightest friends forgive me, but just perhaps, focusing only on what marriage is, not teaching young people how to use condoms, and arguing over why and when and who should have an abortion is actually the distraction. Is it possible that these micro-issues are narrowing the spectrum of relevancy of modern christianity. In no uncertain terms, these issues distract the secular (or, in church-speak, the 'unchurched') from the love of Christ. All they see is the hate, bigotry, self-rightousness, and uselessness of today's church. Don't insult me by assuming that I cannot occupy myself with more issues than you care to worry over yourself. Perhaps you, religious right, are worried that someone might think I care more.

Secondly, it is an insult to God to not be good and efficient stewards of the earth. Can we not honor what we are given? Fine, it is not a theological issue, but as Christians we should care for creation. The gluttonous rape of our lands is easy and easy to ignore. But being wise consumers and preservationists of our world is one of the many ways we as humans can share in the nature of God. God called the earth, the trees, flowers, animals, water, and air on it good. It is unGodly to waste them. If there are proven methods of less wasteful consumption of these goods, then we should be made more aware of them and encouraged to participate in them. The left encourages us to do this for the sake of the planet. The right should likewise encourage this participation, but for a greater reason, in order to honor God and his love of creation and all that is in it.

Thirdly, I'm so tired of this idea that to distract from mainstream Christianity is somehow unChristian. Puhlease. I can't form any better argument. PUHLEASE! Asking for Cizik's resignation because he is doing something "divisive" is like asking for Jesus' resignation because he was being divisive from then modern Judaism. It's like asking for Paul's resignation because he sought to accomodate the Jews and the "heathen." Forgive my extreme similes, but I hope you get my point. This extremism that Dobson & Co. are demonstrating is more like the farsical works of Michael Moore than the loving example of Jesus.

And that's all I've got to say.

However, if you're interested in paying attention to this debate, and what the big guys have to say, like Jim Wallis, one of the ring leaders of the "red letter" movement, check out this blog!