Ranting about the frightening state of the Christian Rock/Metal Scene…

When I was in high school, I was a musician more than anything and I’ve always loved music and (many) musicians.  I played in symphonies for around a decade (percussion), but my real love was always rock and metal.  I loved music and the whole Christian Rock/Metal scene, and in Northern British Columbia, that was a small scene.  In the Prince George area, I knew everyone who was in any sort of Christian band, and I also was a music journalist for TuneTalk, a Christian music publication with single digit subscribers (though it eventually became associated with Syndicate, back when that C.M. mag was around for it’s 5 year run…or so…).   I’ve written recently for HM Magazine (though hardly at all) and I’ve done stage work and concert promotion work off and on as well.

I’ve also been around the Christian music scene for around 25 years.  My first Christian Rock tape was “Captured in Time in Space” by Petra, and I bought it in 1985.  I remember when Stryper first came to Vancouver and I asked my mom if I could go (I was in third or fourth grade…she said no).  I remember when H.M. was called Heaven’s Metal, and I remember when you could count all the “Christian Metal” bands on 10 fingers.  I remember the “should we preach from the stage or not” controversy in the 90’s, and I remember when Tooth & Nail records started.  I remember the day I first heard Stop the Bleeding and I went nuts, flipping through my bible for hours, figuring out what all the scripture references were talking about.  I remember when Amy Grant divorced Gary Chapman and married Vince Gill.  I remember when Whiteheart had their big scandal and when their roadie auditioned for vocals.  I could go on and on, but I won’t.  Needless to say, I’ve been around the Christian music scene for a long time, and I’ve been involved as a musician, journalist, roadie, stage hand, concert promoter, band manager, etc.  Before I came to Seminary, one of the last things I did was work stage crew at a Def Leppard show!  HA!

Either way, as I’ve been following the scene and getting some perspective during my time doing my MDiv at seminary, I’ve gotta wonder where the “Christian” part of “Christian music” went.  It seems that the “worship” acts (Jeremy Camp, Deleriou5, David Crowder, etc.) are lyrically where the Christian Metal was back in the 90’s (i.e. Songs about Jesus, salvation, etc. but with way worse theology) and the popular level stuff has been so theologically reductionistic for years (not wanting to come across as preachy) that I’m struggling to think of a single Christian Rock band that has music somehow topically associated with the gospel.  It seems that the ones who claim to be somewhat about the gospel are so “artistic” that their message is obscure.  In fact, all the metal acts I know of seem so obscure I don’t know what they’re alluding to, all the rock acts are so ‘poseur goth’ that they’re almost nihlistic, and basically the entire scene seems to be theologically swimming in either charismatic experientialism (i.e. trying to make God “show up” so that unbelievers will experience God…however that works…?!?) or some form of “Schleiermacher meets McLaren meets Derrida meets Deepak” spirituality that doesn’t actually contain propositions or any sort of positive understanding and holds out “faith” as a concept detached from God’s promises in scripture.

Maybe it’s because, as far as I can tell, the majority of the Christian music scene is overrun by young, spiritually deceived or otherwise immature kids?

Maybe it’s because, as far as I can tell, the majority of the Christian music scene has fallen for a faulty theological foundation that the gospel is not, in it’s core, a proposition message about mankind, sin, Christ’s death and resurrection, repentance and salvation (hence there’s no preaching from the stage anymore…or anywhere else for that matter…)?

Maybe it’s because, as far as I can tell, the majority of the Christian music scene is basically a bunch of bands that emerge from seeker friendly charismatic or liberal churches?

Maybe it’s because, as far as I can tell, the majority of the Christian music scene contains people who wouldn’t be elder qualified in a church to teach, so they strike out on their own and find their own platform for ’self expression’.

Some of these frustrations have come from reading various interviews in HM magazine over the past 2 years, and some of these frustrations have come from recently discovering Neal Morse (ex-Spock’s Beard) who is essentially a Jehovah’s Witness (holds that Jesus is the highest created being, at least from what I’ve read him say) and yet he writes some great prog-rock with lyrics that I would applaud coming from a Christian band who had orthodox understandings of God.  Either way, there’s my rant.

Right now, I’m doing huge amounts of research on energy medicine and alternative medicine, so maybe I’ll post something about Reiki and applied kinesiology sometime.  Either way, time to eat.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon, The Armchair “Annoyed about the sorry state of Christian music” Theologian, Unger

Quote of the day…

Sitting in an Evangelism class at Seminary, and there was a guest speaker today.   I won’t reveal his identity for the reason that he shared something private, but I laughed at what he shared.  Apparently he had corresponded with a famous atheist spokesman who like to play the “I was the most Christian guy ever for years” card.  Apparently this atheist used to be a pastor, evangelist, faith healer, etc. and pretty much tells everyone Christian that he meets “I used to preach the same thing you preach, but the I opened my eyes and became an atheist”.

Anyway, the guest speaker in class commented on how this atheist and him interacted back and forth over e-mail, several years back.  It seems that they had cordial exchanges until the atheist commented on how he was the “most Christian guy ever” and the guest speaker replied “Wow!  You faked it for 15+ years?  Judas only made it 3!  That must have taken a LOT of effort!”

At that, the atheist informed him that if the speaker ever contacted him again, he’d sue him for harassment.

I was laughing out loud in the back of the class, since I’ve often wondered “what would happen if someone called that atheist’s bluff?”

Apparently the atheist was enraged at the insinuation that his self-proclaimed ’salvation’ was inauthentic.  HOW DARE YOU!?!

There’s no such thing as someone who “used to be a Christian”.  Anyone who has studied the Bible, let alone attended a Bible College (or, *gulp*, a seminary) and thinks that someone can be truly regenerate and then abandon the faith hasn’t seriously worked through the various texts that explicitly address the sovereignty of God in salvation.  God does the saving and no sheep can leap out of his hand.  People can be pro-Jesus, pro-Christianity, pro-Church, pro-morality, pro-bible, pro-ministry, attend church 7 days a week, read the whole bible twice a day, stop doing all the bad things in their life, get a doctorate in theology, pastor a church of 10,000, give all their money to the poor, etc. and still not be a Christian…but that’s a post for another day when I have more time.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

Understanding the now infamous Barker vs. White objection…

Okay, I’d first like to thank Brian at Apologetics315 for having an audio link up so quick for the September 26th debate between James White and Dan Barker.  For those of you that have not heard about it yet, you likely don’t worry much about apologetic debate and don’t follow that scene.  For those of you that did, it’s quickly becoming one of the more astounding statements made in public apologetic debate, to date.

Dan Barker delievered his opening address on the various parallels that Christianity has with other preceding mythological tales from various other religious sources.  He started with a ficticious story about 3 little donkeys and a nasty elephant, and commented on how his story was obviously borrowing from the three little pigs story, based on what is essentially known as ‘common sense’ in our culture, regarding childrens stories and literature.  After that, he listed a bunch of parallels from various ancient mythological tales and religious lore.  I won’t repeat it all, but it’s essentially along the lines of how other religious lore that preceded the story of Christ contained all the various elements of the story of Christ (virgin birth, 12 disciples, death and resurrection, etc.).  Barker argued that the story of Christ was, simply put, a patchwork quilt of various pieces that were ripped off from the blankets of other religions and sewn together.  A majority of his argument was similar in form and content to his published works that contained commentary on these subjects, namely Losing Faith in Faith (from 1992) and Godless (from 2008, though I’ve heard it was released in 2007)

Then, 30 seconds or so into his opening presentation, James White was interupted by Dan Barker when White stated that he’d present his case built against Dan’s arguments presented in his book and would respond to Dan’s opening statement in his cross examination period.  Dan wanted to make a point of order, and the point was that they were not debating his book.  I remember when I first heard that statement, I was floored, thinking that Dan Barker was objecting to White’s quotation of his work.  Surely Barer wasn’t suggesting that he had abandoned the arguments in his latest book?

After listening to the audio of the debate, I think Barker was suggesting something slightly different.

It seems that Dan objected to how White had an opening statement that addressed the arguments put forth in his two books as opposed to Barker’s opening statement, thinking that somehow White should be immediately responding to the opening address that Barker had just delivered.

It seems that Barker thought that White was “avoiding the issues” when White was not rebutting Barker’s opening statement with White’s own opening statement.

The reasoning that Barker seemed to give was that he “may have changed his mind” on something(s) that was in his books.  Barker seemed to think that White should have responded to what he had just said.  Later in the debate, it seems that Barker had abandoned some of the arguments about Mithras that he had gathered from The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets, written by Barbara G. Walker.  It seemed that Barker had studied her other books A Treasury of Knitting Patterns, A Second Treasury of Knitting Patterns, Charted Knitting Designs: A Third Treasury of Knitting Patterns, Knitting from the Top, Mosaic Knitting, The Book of Sacred Stones, Feminist Fairy Tales, The Secrets of the Tarot, The Woman’s Dictionary of Symbols and Sacred Objects, etc. and started to have some suspicions about her scholarship.  She’s obviously not an atheist (more likely a wiccan), and spilts her writing between books on mystic feminism and knitting.  I cannot understand why Barker would have ever taken her seriusly as a scholar and I understand why he would distance himself from her.

Either way, it appeared that Barker didn’t want White bringing her up and didn’t want White attacking some of his arguments on the basis of the comically bad sources that he used.  I applaud Barker in recognizing that at least one of his sources is a non-scholarly source; unworthy of quotation or reference in a serious address on the subject of the origins of the story of Christ.

I think in the fury and the nerves of the debate, Barker wanted White to interact with what he said that day, not what he had written years ago (because he may have changed his mind).

It was still completely bizarre, but I think many people heard it as Barker saying that he didn’t want White quoting his book, as if that were somehow unacceptable in debate or somehow reprehensible.

I cannot understand how Barker would think such a complaint would be legitimate unless he had communicated his change of argument to White before the debate, so White could modify his opening statement to remove the elements that Barker had removed from his repertoire.  Entering a debate with a position modified from something you previously held is understandable.  Not communicating that to your opponent (or apparently anyone else in any sort of public way) is clearly not being forthright, and complaining about it is being downright absurd.  Obviously, White and Barker aren’t neighbors and don’t frequent the same locales.  How else would White learn about Barker’s espoused positions, except for his publically available printed work?  The complaint is silly, especially seeing that Barker is seasoned debater, with +60 debates under his belt.  He definitely knew better and I’m guessing that he was searching for an angle to slam White, right off the start.

Barker’s no stranger to mockery, and no stranger to special pleading argumentation.  The whole “I didn’t quote your books” complaint worked against Barker; it rightly shows that he has no concern for interacting with the specific case offered by his opponent but instead is only interested in gaining a public forum to make fun of Christianity.

- A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions – Proverbs 18:2.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

Initial Thoughts on the 2nd Dan Barker vs. James White debate…

First blog post in MONTHS!

Well, I just got off the AOMin chat channel and finished listening to the White/Barker detate that happened.  It was a little over 3 hours, and it was definitely quite the show.  Right off the bat, I’m not going to pretend that I remembered everything that was said (and won’t suggest that my representation of the debate is factually inerrant in any way), but here’s my synopsis:

1.  Dan comitted a fatal error right off the start.  When White started his opening statement, Barker interupted him and pleaded for a point of order; he asked that White would not quote from his own book Godless.  Why?  Barker essentially has changed some of his positions from the book (released in 2008) and doesn’t want to have to defend some of the things that he’s changed his mind on.  Ironically, the book was apparently for sale on the merch table at the debate though.  Fatal error is an understatement.  Barker came to the debate and brought his latest book, but protested to his opponent actually refering to his published offerings on the subject.  If Barker is still in transition on the issues of the debate, selling his book at the debate while admitting it’s error is both a marketting flaw and a debating seppuku.

White rightly remarked that he’d never heard of anyone doing that in a scholarly debate.  Usually, people desire to have people quote their books (as opposed to some T.V. interview, or some sound bite, or a blog post, etc.).  It seems that when a person writes a 400 page book on an issue, they’re relatively confident on the subject matter and have done enough thinking about the issue to think it’s worth publishing, for the benefit of the world at large.  Barker is a bizarre exception to this rule.

2.  Barker got horribly outgunned by White on the various source texts that are used to establish the Isis/Mithras/Osiris issue, as well as the supposed Christian borrowing from those texts for the creation of the “Jesus Myth”:

• First, White knew the source material and had done original language work that adequately challenged the translation of some of the source documents.  Barker apparently does not know Greek enough to simply read a Greek text without helps, since he had nothing to say about White’s interpretative points stemming from original language work.
• Secondly, White commented on the parallels and showed how utterly non-parallel they are; i.e Osiris was “resurrected”, but this really means he was hacked to pieces and sewn together and ultimately became a zombie.  Not quite as similar to the resurrection of Christ as many people attempt to portray it.
• Barker admitted that the Old Testament’s essential message was one of how the Israelites were constantly flirting with idolatry; thus he made the effort to show how the Israelites were familiar with paganism and attempted to incorporate it into Judaism.  White responded by pointing out that the univocal response to paganism in the OT was one of disgust; the prophets consistently and constantly showed a hatred of paganism in all its beliefs and practices.   Also, the paganism was essentially set by the leadership; i.e. when a king was bad, the nation was bad (idolatrous like Ahab or Manasseh), but when the leadership was good, the nation was good (non-idolatrous like David or Josiah).  It’s very hard then, knowing how completely “anti-idolatry” the Jews were after the Babylonian captivity, to suggest that anyone in Judaism would support what would have clearly been idolatrous concessions, if early Christians were Jews stealing from paganism to make up their Christianity.  The Jews, especially the leadership (Pharisees and Sadducees), would have condemned any pagan concessions, and the early Jewish converts would have gone with them in condemning the ‘psuedo pagan message’ that the Christians were delivering.  This is not the case with Christ though.  Everyone knew he was a miracle worker, and the historical records of the gospel suggest blasphemy where Christ said he was God.  This was an utter attack against the Jewish monism that was found nowhere in preceding paganism.  The 1st and 2nd century Jews knew that Christianity was new and different, but nobody thought it was a reversion to, or new version of, pagan idolatry.  Many things were rightly said of early Christianity by the Jews, but ‘pagan rip off’ was not one of them.
• Barker completely abandoned this topic in both of his Q&A periods, which is telling.  Barker used his Q&A time to pursue obvious ad hominem arguments; namely the idea of Young Earth Creationism and ideas surrounding Mormonism and their “scriptures”, attempting to establish evidences of inconsistency with White.  The YEC questions were simply attempting to show that White was a crack pot, and Barker didn’t go near Mithraism/Isis/Osiris, etc. in his Q&A time.  In channel, everyone was consistently asking “Why is he changing the debate subject?” and “Why is he using such obvious rhetorical traps and ad hominem arguments?”

3.  Barker started off the debate attempting to give proof that Christianity stole from pagan sources to manufacture the “Jesus story” but ended up the debate reverting to a pleading for uncertainty.  He closed his final statement suggesting that White looks for “proof” when you cannot prove anything, suggested that Christianity is unprovable, his atheism is equally unprovable but more rational (though he abandoned any form of reasoning, outside of ad hominem attacks against White, to show how it is more rational), and gave the standard “I only believe in 1 less god than you” line.  Barker was on the ropes, and it seemed like he knew it.  I was wondering where his notorious “capital ‘A’ atheism” (I’m going to prove that God does not and can not exist…) went by the end of the debate.

I’m guessing that’s why the “Jesus never existed” camp is so utterly small (what, >10 biblical scholars support that, if that?), and why the “Jesus is entirely a concoction from earlier pagan myths” camp is not much bigger (what, >100 biblical scholars, if I’m being generous?).  The first position, when thrown in the ring of actual debate and when demanded to present its factual evidence in the face of articulate and informed rebuttal, is simply atrociously weak and utterly indefensible.  The second position, when thrown in the ring of actual debate and when demanded to present its factual evidence in the face of articulate and informed rebuttal, needs to rest in ambiguity and has to completely ignore the numerous glaring differences between Christ and the pagan ideas in order to argue for precious few tiny similarities.

The web groups that applaud things like Zeitgeist are essentially filled with high-school level skeptics who are incompetent critical thinkers that are allergic to self-critical examination, and the whole “Jesus never existed” and  “Jesus is a concoction of pagan components” positions are built upon bizarrely improbable skepticism stacked upon bizarrely improbable skepticism stacked upon bizarrely improbable skepticism.   Let’s face it; the majority of people who support the latter position on a popular level, have no training in anything relevant to anything biblical (Ancient Near Eastern History, Religious Studies, Classical or Semmitic languages, let alone Biblical studies, theology, exegesis, biblical languages).  I think that’s why biblical scholarship (i.e. the SBL or…*cough* the ETS) currently has less than a dozen scholars who positively defend the position as opposed to the thousands of currently active biblical scholars who, although they represent a wide variety of opinions about Jesus, recognize that he was a figure who was not simply a figure built from the lego blocks of the paganism that came before.

Anyway, those are my initial thoughts.  I look forward to none of the coming comments, knowing who usually comments on this sort of stuff!  Hooray!

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

A little exploration of a key Apologetics text…

One of the key passages that comes up when talking about a biblical view of apologetics is 1 Peter 3:15-16.  I recently got to read a rather bad “exegesis” of the passage by a rather well known (at least on the internet) apologist who basically dismissed that 1 Peter 3:15-16 essentially taught the idea of “what you say matters as much as how you say it”.  This was my response to him:

1 Peter 2:1 1 Peter 2:13 begins an extended passage on submission to “Every authority”, which includes those in work (2:18-24), the home (3:1-7) and the world (3:8-22). The main thrust of the extended passage is on the necessity of holy living; that one’s life should be properly representing God.

In the workplace (i.e. in the slave & master relationship), “it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.” (2:15) and you should “not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil” (2:16).

In the home, wives should “be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.” (3:1-2) and they should focus on beauty of character, not clothing (3:4-5). Husbands should “be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers” (3:7).

In the world, Peter writes “all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble.” (3:8)

Is this meant to be a directive of behavior only between Christians?

Well, Peter writes “Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (3:9)  It’s possible that Christians can treat other Christians in an evil way, but there’s no “between believers” specificity in the text.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean that this is how we should respond to non-Christians, right  A testimony from silence is not an admonition to anything at all…

What if they’re the ones that treat us with evil and insults?

Peter clarifies by quoting Psalm 34:12-16. There are only two people in that Psalm; the righteous and the wicked. “The Righteous one” must keep (i.e. to guard as a watchmen, to blockade – נצר) his tongue from evil (רע) and keep his lips from deceitful speech (“words of treachery”).

Why?

“For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” (3:12)

Either one is acting in accord with “the righteous” or “the wicked”.  One the Lord is for, and one the Lord is against, and they’re known by their words and the qualities of their speech.

Then Peter asks the rhetorical question “Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?” (3:13) The obvious answer is “nobody”, but Peter still recognizes that Christians will not be free from harm if they do good.  He writes “But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed” (3:14) and quotes Isaiah 8:12 to justify his point, saying “Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened.”

The Christian doesn’t fear physical harm from those who hate him, since the Christian does not fear the grave.  Nothing that anyone can do to a believer need be feared.  (The fear of the grave is something that marks the lives of the unregenerate though [Hebrews 2:15] and the necessity of the reorientation of fear is taught by Christ in Luke 12:4-5.)

Instead, “in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord.” (3:15). Instead of cowering under the fear of death (and losing the things we treasure on earth), we need to submit ourselves to Christ.

As well as re-orienting our fears from death to the Lord, Christians need to “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.” We give reason for our hope (in death) to everyone who asks. But there is an caution:

“But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience,” (3:15-16)… Why?

“so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.” (3:16) When you set apart Christ as Lord in your hearts, you do so by giving Christ preeminence in your mind, even above your fear of death. You bear witness to your hope by explaining it and you conduct your explanation in a way that is marked by gentleness and respect, and does not violate your conscience.

Christians do not repay evil for evil, insult for insult, and Christians do not have lips marked by evil or deceitful speech. Instead, their words are marked by gentleness and respect.  To do otherwise places one in opposition and disobedience to scripture.

And always let your apologetic efforts be guided according to 2 Timothy 2:14-26:

“Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: “The Lord knows those who are his,” and, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness.”In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will.”

Defend the faith, but make sure it’s the Christian faith you’re defending, in the biblical way.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

A Sesame Street Game for you!

You know the old Sesame Street song “one of these things is not like the other”?  You remember when there would be three similar things on the TV and one completely different thing and the kids had to find which one didn’t match the others?  Well, today, we’re playing that game.  I’m going to put up four sets of song lyrics and you can tell me which one is a Christian worship tune!  Ready?  Let’s have some fun:

********************************

SONG 1

Can you feel it?
Can you feel it?
The love in this place
Can you feel it?
Can you feel it?
Can you feel it?
The grace in this place
Can you feel it?
Yeah

Life makes it so hard sometimes
To know what’s real
When I can’t feel You there
When I can’t see You there
When I can’t comprehend that You are there
You are there
You’re everywhere
You are everywhere

Can you feel it?
Can you feel it?
The hope in this place
Can you feel it?
Can you feel it?
Can you feel it?
The peace in this place
Can you feel it?
Yeah

When we can’t feel You there
When we can’t see You there
When we can’t comprehend that you are there
You are there
You’re everywhere
You are everywhere

Our God is here

We believe You’re here
We can feel You here
We can see You here
We believe You’re here
You are here
You are here

********************************

SONG 2

Free me – know me
Only you can make the morning mine
Lowly, humbly
As the sunlight lights the way

This is all I’ve asked for
This is all I’ve wanted to do
Is to live with you forever
And feel the beauty of your truth
This is all I’ve asked for
To live a life that’s pleasing to you
And be there ever after
You know my heart; you know it’s true

Bravely, strongly – You have left the veil of death behind
Something drawing me out into your way

This is all I’ve asked for
This is all I’ve wanted to do
Is to live with you forever
And feel the beauty of your truth
This is all I’ve asked for
To live a life that’s pleasing to you
And to be there ever after
You know my heart; you know it’s true

All I want is you

Oh God I seek the glory that’s from you and from you only
Oh God I seek the glory that’s from you
I seek your light through the veil of life
Please come and make me holy
Oh God I seek the glory that’s from you
(This is all I ask for)
Oh God I seek the glory that’s from you
(To live a life that’s pleasing to you)
Oh God I seek the glory that’s from you
Only you

********************************

SONG 3

Come, come, ye saints, no toil nor labor fear;
But with joy wend your way.
Though hard to you this journey may appear,
Grace shall be as your day.
Tis better far for us to strive our useless cares from us to drive;
Do this, and joy your hearts will swell -
All is well! All is well!

Why should we mourn or think our lot is hard?
‘Tis not so; all is right.
Why should we think to earn a great reward if we now shun the fight?
Gird up your loins; fresh courage take.
Our God will never us forsake;
And soon we’ll have this tale to tell-
All is well! All is well!

We’ll find the place which God for us prepared,
Far away, in the West,
Where none shall come to hurt or make afraid;
There the saints, will be blessed.
We’ll make the air, with music ring, Shout praises to our god and king;
Above the rest these words we’ll tell -
All is well! All is well!

And should we die before our journey’s through,
Happy day! All is well!
We then are free from toil and sorrow, too;
With the just we shall dwell!
But if our lives are spared again to see the Saints their rest obtain,
Oh, how we’ll make this chorus swell-
All is well! All is well!

********************************

SONG 4

What could be the closure
If the wisdom of secret
Is a mystery for the heart?
What could be the closure
If to meet Your mercy
Is still in the past

It hurts in the deep of my soul
The deception of weakness

I’m so lonely…
Take care of me …
It’s hurting deep inside …
I’m so lonely…
Wash my sins…
It’s hurting deep inside …
The certain of the reason
Immortality of passion.
… So many broken hearts.

Put the strength in my heart
The certain of emotion…
To find Your Mercy.

It hurts.
I’m so …

*******************************

That was fun!

One of these songs is not like the other
One of these songs just isn’t the same!
One of these songs is not like the other
Now it’s time to play our game,

It’s time to play our game!

Let’s see how good you are!  Find the Christian worship song in this list!

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

Sodomy and Understanding Genesis 19…

I recently was given a link to an article that claims to have the “truth” about the Bible and Homosexuality.  The article is found in PDF here.  I haven’t worked through pro-homosexual arguments made from the bible for quite some time, but I thought I would give the whole article a read.  I’m not sure if I’ve gotten better at exegesis or if the article was just horrible, but I was impressed with the sheer level of exegetical desperation the author took with just 2 passages; Genesis 19:1-11 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

It’s interesting how a person can address a passage of scripture, giving it’s “true” meaning, without actually interacting exegetically with a single verse of the passage.

Just for interest sake, here’s the thrust of the Genesis 19 defense:

a. This story is not primarily about sex. (page 11)

b. All other mentions of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible don’t mention homosexuality (Ezekiel 16:48–49 apparently says that the sin of Sodom was pride, excess of food, prosperous ease,  not helpin or encouraging the poor and needy, and arrogance.)  On page 12, White says “Sodom was destroyed because its people didn’t take God seriously about caring for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast.”  (I am growing fond of the “If the Bible doesn’t explicitly teach it in other verses, it’s not taught in this verse” fallacy.  Fools and Liberals get a ton of mileage out of that one!)

c.  Genesis 19 talks about rape, and rape is about power and revenge, not homosexuality. (page 12)

The only scripture even mentioned is Ezekiel16:48–49.

So let’s look at Genesis 19:1;11 in the NIV:

The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.”  “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.”  But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. (19:1-3)

- So we have 2 angels arriving in Sodom and wanting to spend the night in the square.

- Lot insisted that they come to his home (for whatever reason).

- Lot prepares a meal for the 2 angels and they ate with him.

“Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing.” (19:4-7)

- Who was in the mob?  All the men from every part of the city; both the young and the old.

-Who did the mob want?  The “men who came to you tonight”.  (Hebrew -אנוש – common term for man)

- What did the men say? “Bring out the two men that we can have sex with them.” (Hebrew -ידע – common term for sex.  Literally means “to know”, as in “to know sexually”.  If there is any question about the intention of ידע one only need read on.)

- What was the “this wicked thing” Lot was referring to? The only thing the mob said ( “Bring out the two men that we can have sex with them.”).  That was the “wicked thing”.

“Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” (19:8)

- Who did Lot offer to the mob? His daughters.

-Why?  They had never slept with a man. (Hebrew -ידע – common term for sex. Same term as the mob used for their intended action for the men.)

- If the mob wanted someone to chat with,the daughters would have sufficed.

- If the mob wanted “simple sex” (-ידע), also the daughters would have sufficed.

- If the sin of the mob was generic rape, the mob could have raped the daughters.  The sin was homosexual rape.

(I am not, nor would not, suggest that the daughter-offering of Lot was a good thing.  Lot’s actions are not prescriptive actions that should be applauded, but the passage is simply describing what happened.  Biblical narrative is rarely prescriptive, but often recounts wicked people doing wicked things.   Either way, the following verse clarifies what exactly the mob was after.)

“‘Get out of our way,’ they replied. And they said, ‘This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.’ They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.” (19:9)

- The mob wanted nothing to do with the women. They wanted sex and they only wanted it with men.

- They tried to break down the door to get to the 2 angels (who they thought were men). When offered sex with women they simply ignored the offer.

- Ironically, the mob was angry and the only thing that came out of their mouth was “how dare you judge us!  We’ll get you for casting moral judgment on us!”  Contemporary homosexuals are like a 4,000 year old broken record.  They hate the idea of being judged and respond to accusations of immorality with greater perpetration of immorality, only justifying the judgment against them.

“But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door.” (19:10-11)

- Ironically, the NIV gives a really weak translation here. The Hebrew literally reads “they made themselves weary to (find) the door”. The Hebrew verb is לאה, which means “weary, make weary, exhaust”.  The mob wanted sex with men so badly that even after they were blind, the grew tired in searching for the door to Lot’s house. They stumbled around in desperation for sex with men, unwilling to give up…so much so that they tired themselves in their searching for the door. They would not take “no” for an answer, even in the face of the miraculous powers of the two strangers. Genesis 19 says nothing at all about how “Sodom was destroyed because its people didn’t take God seriously about caring for the poor, the hungry, the homeless, or the outcast.”

- If there’s confusion with Genesis 19, it is NOT because of Genesis 19.

- Sodom was destroyed because it’s people didn’t take God seriously about natural sexual relations between men and women, and Lot and the crowd both knew that the sexual relation they sought with the 2 angels was a “wicked thing”. Long before Moses gave the law, people knew that sex between men was wicked.

As for the mention of Sodom in Ezekiel 16:48-50, one only needs to looks at the whole passage of Ezekiel 16 to see what God’s condemning Israel for; spiritual adultery.  Israel is likened to a temple prostitute.  One only need read Ezekiel 16:15-47 and see how many times Israel is condemned for her wanton lusts that she lavished upon every nation.  Ezekiel comments on Israel’s prostitution 13 times in that passage, going into detail at Israel’s sexual deviancy.  In that context is the metaphor continued, with the proverb “like mother like daughter” mentioned and applied in16:44.  Israel is the daughter of “the unfaithful” (Hittites and Amorites) and is the sister of Samaria, whose daughter was Sodom (16:46).  Israel walked in the ways of Sodom and became more depraved (16:47).

Now what was Sodom’s sin?  It was pride, self indulgence and a lack of concern for the poor and the needy.  In Sodom, where the town square was a place for the poor to rest when nobody would offer them their homes, Lot pleaded with 2 visitors to not stay in the town square.  When they came to his house, a homosexual lynch mob came and attempted to rape them.

I think raping the poor and needy would fall under the umbrella of  showing a lack of concern for the poor and needy.  The immediate context of Ezekiel 16 is definitely one of sexual immorality, and Israel is paralleled with Sodom in that regard.  They did detestable things and were destroyed for it; how can Israel think that they will escape if they’re worse?

Genesis 19 is very, very clear.  The homosexuals supress the truth in unrighteousness, but that’s no shocker.  The only way they can comment on the text is by covering their eyes to the actual words of the text and talking about it in vague moral or philosophical categories.
Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger.

Barker White Review not ready yet…

I’m listening to the James White vs. Dan Barker debate right now, and I’m guessing that people have already listened to and review it.  Either way, I’m working full time (i.e. 13 hours yesterday) and listening to it at work.  The review will be up in a few days, unless my schedule changes.  Okay…we’ll just aim for next week.  Either way, keep watch and I’ll have some thoughts up about the debate in 7-10 days.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

James White vs. Dan Barker initial thoughts…

Okay.  I listened to the White vs. Barker debate on the Dividing Line live stream tonight, and then went to a Shai Linne concert at Masters College, so I’m writing this quick and late (it’s bedtime).

The audio from the debate switched off between White’s Skype feed (good) and one fella’s cell phone (he called Rich Pierce and streamed the microphone from his cell phone).  The audio was pretty bad for most of the time (mostly cell phone feed) and I couldn’t hear it much at all.  None the less, it was quite the exchange.

I can easily say that Barker doesn’t have a case for atheism beyond what he’s been repeating since before 1997.

He seemed to throw out the same arguments he’s used before…

…The Bible has contradictions in it; i.e. God is described 1 way in 1 verse and another way in another verse…

…therefore God cannot exist (due to inherent self-contradiction).

White delivered his opening arguments, using a intelligent design argument to attempt to show the differences in their worldviews (and Barker’s inconsistency) and Barker basically ignored him and threw out a long list of Bible contradictions.

Barker also tried to pull off the whole “the Bible has been tampered with and changed over history”, and talked to White as if this would be new information to him.  Barker gave the whole “Did you know that we don’t have the originals of the Bible?  What we have is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy” argument.  White responded and pushed him on the issue, and Barker backed away from it fairly quick (for some reason).  Barker understands nothing about textual criticism (as does almost everyone, Christian or atheist), so that’s understandable.

White also challenged his ‘bible contradictions’ and pursued several, like the whole ‘murder vs. killing in the Old Testament’ one (which I blogged about earlier today).  White asked him about lexical sources, and I believe that Barker somehow suggested that he learns the meanings of words from looking up the various uses of the words in the Bible and building up their meaning…

…i.e. it seemed that Barker claimed to do his own lexicography.  Not even joking.  I had to have misheard that one.

There was some back and forth Q & A, and Barker and White chopped at each other on biblical manuscripts, supposed contradictions, materialism and functionalism.  Barker asked White about how God could be Spirit and Barker consistently refused to accept White’s claim that God could be incorporeal and yet still think, since thoughts are the functions of a brain (*sigh*).

Barker also (attempted) to use the design argument against White, making the Dawkins argument that since designers are more complex than what they design, then God must be the most complex being in existence and likely then does not exist.  I didn’t hear or make out White’s response to that one.

All in all, Barker seems oblivious to the fact that he has been responded to, comprehensively, on all his ‘bible contradictions’ repeatedly; White himself started his Q&A time by saying that if Barker had done his homework, Barker would know that White had responded to all his ‘bible contradictions’ over the last 6 or so episodes of the Dividing Line.  Baker didn’t seem to care, and took strong offense to the whole accusation that he takes scripture out of context.  He claimed that he dealt with all the biblical passage in context in his books, and White was the one tearing scripture out of context.  Not much to say to that.  Barker is as blind as he is deaf to anyone who would disagree with him.

Honestly, from all the “Barker vs. whoever” debates I’ve listened to, I don’t know if Barker knows what a Bible scholar means when they say “context”.  He certainly didn’t learn it from his Pentecostal friends, and he apparently didn’t learn it at Asuza Pacific.  Someone should explain the term to him, just to be sure.  I’m guessing that to him it means “place in the sentence or paragraph” or something along those lines.

I cannot wait for the MP3, and I would love to hear another White vs. Barker debate.

As for who won the debate, I couldn’t hear it that well to make a judgment.  They both got audience laughs and they both had arguments.  I don’t think Barker has reality based arguments, nor arguments that show any meaningful understanding of Christianity, so I don’t expect much from Barker.  It you’re wondering about whether or not to buy it, I want to buy it simply to hear some of the comments that both made that had the audience laughing so hard…and I am seriously interested in Barker’s responses to White (which I didn’t hear too much of).

I’ll get the MP3 and give a serious review later on.

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Theologian” Unger

Third Post in ONE day!

Boy, I’m on a role today.  As is sometimes the case, I went crazy a few minutes ago and invented a new Mennonite Joke in the light of current events.  Here it is:

(Drum roll please…)

Q. What do you call it when a Mennonite guy and a Baptist girl meet at Bible College and start dating right before summer break?

A. Spring Fever!

Q. What do you call it when a Mennonite guy and a Mennonite girl meet at Bible College and start dating right before summer break?

A. Swine Flu!

HA!

Until Next Time,

Lyndon “The Armchair Mennonite Theologian” Unger