Tentpegs

I had to jump on this one, even though there are about a dozen questions in the queue at tentpegsquestions@yahoo.com. It was just too fun and unique to wait.

When I was in college (as a “non-traditional” student in my mid-30s), I took a fascinating course in Cultural Anthropology, studying all of the cultures of the world.  It struck me how many of the cultures used – religiously, both in terms of religion and daily use – hallucinogens in their lives/cultures.
Do you think that this is because the societies were many times primitive and “needed” the escape caused by such agents, or do you think this is something common to man or what?  I mean, I was amazed at the number of societies in which this was present, including here in America with the Indians using peyote and such.
What is your take on this?  Many times it was used in religious practices and I’m wondering if maybe some of us (ha!) could benefit from such.  (I’m halfway kidding, but also halfway serious.)

They used hallucinogens for the same reason tribes, peoples, cultures, and groups still use them all over the world.

1. They are pain relievers. When I see our homeless friends in Detroit chugging on a 40 ounce bottle of Stroh’s or Colt 45 Malt Liquor, I don’t assume they like the taste. The whole point of a 40-ounce bottle of beer is to numb yourself for awhile. It can’t be stored, so it is downed quickly. At $2.25 to $3.00, it is remarkably effective at dulling the pain of headaches, joint pain, etc. and it helps you sleep even as the city roars around you.

2. Some of them are more effective pain relievers than anything you can get legally. Drug laws are silly and contradictory things. They create a HUGE criminal class and make millionaires out of villains, just as Prohibition did. And they are inconsistent. Canada is a much more politically correct country than the US, but you can buy aspirin or Tylenol mixed with codeine over the counter there. In this country, if I want to treat my migraines, I have to take incredibly powerful drugs that have horrible side effects. Or… I can drive across the bridge and buy aspirin and codeine tablets, about $15 for 200, that will last me a year and not cause me other health problems. (you can also buy most of your sinus and allergy meds over the counter there, too, but you can’t buy a lot of cleaning supplies and chemicals you can get anywhere in the US. No consistency). If you are suffering with pain and there is relief out there, but that relief is illegal… you might go for it anyway. While most people on medical marijuana shouldn’t be, there is no question in my mind but that it is the most effective treatment for the pain and nausea associated with cancer and its treatment. But, it is illegal. Instead, doctors use morphine and Dilaudid, both of which cause massive side effects. We need someone with a brain and a spine to sort out all these laws and contradictions.

3. People have always wanted to touch the divine or to have powerful, mystic experiences. You can get there through a holy, righteous life lived in service and love… or you can grab some peyote. A lot of people go for the shortcut.

4. Hallucinogenic plants were considered gifts from the gods; almost “email” from them! When found, they were used to communicate with the god who gave them. Most hallucinogens have real medical usages (though some don’t. Not a lot of use for LSD so far) but the high, the experience, the “otherness” was most often sought. Medical usages, if any, were considered later.

5. For some cultures, drugs get them through their day. People in the high Andes live at altitudes that would literally kill most of us. However well they are acclimated to their lives, they chew coca leaves and use them in everything from stew to granola bars and candy. It allows them to live, move, and work without pulmonary edema, crippling headaches, etc.

6. For others, drugs take the place of alcohol in that they are readily available, legal (in their country), and socially acceptable. I’m thinking here of some Native American tribes that use peyote but a better example are those peoples who chew betel nut. Look it up. It is a pain reliever, a numbing agent for the grueling poverty in which they live, and a way to chill out. However, it causes some very serious issues in the individual and in the culture that accepts it.

As for us, I am all for drugs if they will help you and I’m totally opposed to them if they will hurt you. I know people who brag that they have never taken an aspirin. I’m not sure why they think that is a mark of holiness and purity, but they do! I have sarcoidosis and frequent migraines so I take over the counter pain meds often. Before you write in — I have tried a dozen chiropractors and given each of them a year or more to make a difference and none did — for long. I have also tried physical therapy and it DID help but without a garage full of equipment, I couldn’t keep the exercises going after the treatment was done. So… I’ll take Advil or aspirin. I am all for pain meds or other medications if they are warranted.

True story: my mother had to have a lump removed from her breast. My parents lived, at that time, in a poor county in southwest Ohio that only had one hospital. I considered that hospital two steps down from a MASH tent but that is where they lived and so that is where they went. An Indian doctor removed the lump and, from all accounts, did a great job. However, after the surgery, she was in great pain. My father is not a fan of pain pills but I told him that he needed to get over that for my mother’s sake. Then… we hit a snag. The doctor wouldn’t prescribe anything for her. My mother is the last person to complain (she married my father and doesn’t complain about that. Case closed) so I took her pain seriously. The nurses couldn’t find the doctor, but I did. I blocked his path in the hallway and told him he needed to prescribe something for my mother. He said — and I kid you not — “American women are so weak! In my village, the women would never complain about their pain like this!” I stepped in close to him. Those of you who have seen me know that I am not tall, muscular, or burly. However, I am told that people can read in my eyes that maybe I mean what I say. I will not quote what I said to him but it boiled down to the fact that either my mother or he was going to be taking pain medication within the next fifteen minutes. My mother got her meds.

Americans have a love/hate relationship with drugs. They are great for many, many things but they are NOT the way to communicate with God or get close to Him. To do that, you have to go the long, hard way — live a holy, righteous life and submit yourself to Jesus.

It may require a fourth blog for cleanup of comments, etc. but I don’t want to override this pony.

One of the hottest set of videos on YouTube at present is Louis Giglio’s presentation on “How Great is Our God.” He does a commendable job on expressing wonder at the power and staggering creativity of God in creating our universe. The creation of the universe was not only a creative act, but a violent one. Suns were created as were black holes (we are sure they are out there though we’ve never seen one), canine teeth, fire, and gravity. It wasn’t all butterflies and puppy dogs. And when it came to un-making the world, He also resorted to creativity and violence. (some would prefer the word “re-making” but, face it, the Flood was a violent act that left permanent scars on the planet and on our history)

Good, decent, God-loving people can disagree on whether or not this was a universal flood or a local flood. Either would require a large number of miracles. I believe in a universal Flood because of my knowledge of Hebrew (I learned it as I learned English, from the time I was 2 years old), my knowledge of science, and the plain words of Scripture. In chapter 6, God says “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth.” Note, the Hebrews have words for “some” or “a lot” or “all the locals.” None of those words were used. The words used seem to mean all mankind and that is the way they need to be read unless there is compelling evidence that God didn’t mean to say that. Instead of finding that evidence, we find God repeating this. In verse 13, He says “I am going to put an end to all people… I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.” Here, the word used is “all” and that is hard to interpret in a way that means “not all.” But God isn’t done yet. In verse 17, He says “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.” It seems as if God is going out of His way to make it very plain that His intention is a global, catastrophic Flood. But He still isn’t done…

In chapter 7 verse 4, He says, “…and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.” In verse 21ff, after saying that even the mountains were covered with water, scripture says “Every living thing that moved on the earth perished…everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left and those with him in the ark.” No language exists which could be plainer in its statement and intention.

Peter says that the whole world was created out of water and by water… and it was also submerged under water (2 Peter 3:5-7). As the creation wasn’t a local event, neither was the Flood.

The Bible describes the Flood as starting from below — first, the earth was broken and water fired up into the air (7:11). Then, the “floodgates of the heavens were opened.” I have been by dams when they opened their floodgates. Wow. Water shoots for hundreds of yards and it sounds like a herd of trains is blasting through your head. And as the water in the heavens fell and the waters in the deep shot up and churned… the earth was forever changed.

When we find fossils, we find them in large batches. They are almost always smashed into disorderly piles and include animals that didn’t live near each other or eat locally available food. The were obviously moved to that place as a group and anaerobically sealed in an instant. A global flood explains that easily. When you drive through a cut in the mountains and see the strata laid out, that is also explained by a global flood. Could they have been formed over billions of years? That is certainly within the realms of possibility, but they could have also formed within months if there was an abundance of water. If that water is churning and if the earth is experiencing earthquakes (shaking) that settling of minerals into different layers in a short time is quite understandable. You can even turn vegetation into oil if you have enough water and pressure… and the Flood supplies both.

Today, we see such evidence of the Flood everywhere we look. The oceans’ floors are scarred with fissures, lava flows, cracks, and springs. Marine fossils have been found on the highest mountains. “Out of place” fossils such as a huge number of dinosaur fossils (as well as fossilized tropical plants) are found in the South Pole. Mammoths are found flash frozen, dying while chewing tropical vegetation. Something dramatic and incredibly sudden — incredibly creative and violent — occurred.

Here is an important phrase to remember: “There is always another way to tell that story.” When I hear about bones found that are carbon dated to 70,000 years, I remember that phrase. It leads me to find out that the creator and developer of carbon-14 warned that any dates over 10,000 can be wildly inaccurate. It also brings me to research on how carbon-14 dating can be completely thrown off if a mix of water and vegetation is applied to the article dated. Uh… a Flood would do that… And strata can be laid down over billions of years, but billions of years isn’t the only way to lay down strata. Here’s an illustration. Most of you know that I have a parrot. When you buy parrot food, you will note that it is made up of dozens of different kids of seeds, pellets, peppers, etc. If you place it in a medium glass jar and shake it once a day, in a month or so, the layers all form naturally. If you add water and shake it several times… the layers form immediately.

The Flood wasn’t a rainstorm out of control. It was the un-making of a planet, an eco-system. Remember that God said He was repenting of making man (most modern versions weaken the word by saying He was “sorry” but the word used is the same one Moses and the prophets used when they called on Israel to repent). Most of us know that “repentance” requires you to do what you can to undo the harm/sin repented of. God, when He repented, un-did what He had earlier done. We know that violent, terrible event as the Flood.

I will wait to address some of the comments, objections, etc. made after my first blog until after I am done with this series. If any of you want to comment or to object, correct, etc. either me or another commenter, please feel free to do so. Don’t interpret my silence as either a lack of interest or a lack of an answer.

I would highly recommend an old, but frequently updated, book. Henry Morris was a professor, an expert in the action of water on open closed systems (sometimes called a hydrologist). He was fully credentialed, fully tenured, and completely disgusted with his students who insisted on retaining belief in God, the Bible and, especially, the Flood. On a mission to smash the story and drive it out of Western culture forever, he actively researched for over a decade, building his case against the story and against the Bible. By the end of his research, he believed in God and in the global Flood of Noah. His son continues his work today. They founded a university in California that offers up to the Masters Degree level in various scientific disciplines along with a healthy helping of Christian Evidences. Though the State of California and several secular groups have threatened their accreditation from time to time, they remain a fully accredited school. The book, “The Genesis Flood” , is easily available at Amazon and bn.com.

Now.. back to the story…

The Bible is plain that the reason for the Ark was to protect and preserve humanity and animals during the Flood. Again, if the flood had been local, the humans could have just walked and the animals could have been led away by God (in the Bible, He is the one who gathers the animals and brings them to the Ark, not Noah. He could just have easily led them out of harm’s way had the flood been a local event). So how big was this Ark? The word “ark” means “box” by the way and that is what it was — a HUGE box.

Most people think that a cubit is 18 inches and, even at that, the Ark would have been much larger than any other ocean going vessel created by man until around the Titanic era (and that didn’t work out too well, if memory suffices). However, Egyptologists say that the earliest cubit was just a shade under 2 feet long. That makes the size of the Ark even more impressive. At the lower estimate, it would have been 450 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 45 feet high. By the larger, more likely estimate, it would have been 600 feet long, one hundred feet wide, and 60 feet in height. No wonder it took a hundred years to build!

The deck area in such a vessel would run to 95,700 square feet. Its volume would be 1,396,000 square feet and it could have comfortably stored 13,960 tons of cargo… and all of these numbers are using the smaller, more conservative estimate of the cubit. To illustrate how much stuff could fit into the smaller version of the Ark, imagine standing by the railroad track and counting the cars of a very long train as it goes by. When 520 full sized railroad cars go by, you have reached the volume of the Ark… and that’s the smaller one. That would have been quite enough room to house 2-7 of every animal species then on earth. Speciation and differentiation would not have been nearly as far along as it is today. To explain briefly (and inadequately, I’m sure), there is all the DNA you need in any two cows — as long as one is male and other other is female — to get all the current kinds of cows… and a lot of ancient ones… out of them given several centuries of intentional and accidental breeding. And all “races” of human beings are within your DNA. I know that is hard to imagine, but trust me — if we’d never heard of DNA and then tried to describe it to someone, they would believe we had gone nuts. The stuff is amazing.

Checking experts in DNA and zoology and animal husbandry, they agree that there would have been room to house all of the kinds of animals that existed during the time of Noah in about half the Ark. The other half could be used for foodstuffs, water, and Noah’s family.

Most objections to the Flood have already been dealt with ad nauseum. For example, those who say it would have created the need for a series of miracles have two problems. First, their solution (a local flood) would also require a series of miracles. Two, series of miracles are no problem for God. Examples of the latter abound. When Jesus healed a man who’d been bed ridden for years, not only was his disease ended, his muscles were rebuilt, the nerve endings and venous pathways were made whole, and he had adequate muscle memory to get up, pick up his bed, and walk away. We could go on and on here, but back to the story…

The idea that all land was once in one place is now common place and accepted in scientific circles. This is pressed home more and more when we find — as we do — marsupial teeth and bones in Brazil and Chile, lodged in rock structures that have their complement in Australia and New Zealand. We also find dinosaur bones and compressed, often petrified, sometimes fossilized tropical vegetation under the ice of the South Pole. It is now looked upon as obvious that we used to be in one place and we have since broken up and are still on the move. Sometimes that movement is very, very slow (and I’m all for that). Sometimes it isn’t (see Krakatoa, Mount St. Helen, landslides in Chili and Peru, etc.).

Remember that the Ark and the whole journey was God’s idea. HE gathered the animals. HE directed the size and design of the Ark. And, when the time had come, the scripture says he “bade Noah to come in” and join him. The entire theme of the story is supernatural so we shouldn’t be surprised when the supernatural breaks into it! Ancient sailing vessels have been found — mainly in depictions on stone, but some actual specimens have also been found — that explain the “door and window” issue God had on the Ark. The bottoms of these vessels have a moon-hole, a hole that is surrounded by a built up section of wood rather like an old fashioned, stereotypical wishing well. As the ship moved through the water, the water would be raised and lowered in the moon-hole by hydraulic action, creating a powerful flow of air throughout the structure as long as the intake was limited to one or two large “windows” or doors. That would keep the air breathable in the Ark. The darkness would have encouraged animals to hibernate (many mammals), go into suspended animation (almost all reptiles), or just sleep. That would keep the noise, waste, and need for food down to a minimum. Still, since God was the pilot of that vessel, it wouldn’t surprise me to know He did more to keep them calm and manageable.

More next time…

Although this will surprise a few of you and send one of my frequent commenters into a spasm of choking, spitting, and typing… I believe in a literal, worldwide flood. I have completed an interesting circle with this story. At one time in my childhood I believed it because I was told it. Later, I believed it because it fit science just as well — or better — than the standard uniformitarian story told in textbooks. Now, I believe it, once again, because it is in the Bible.

In the scripture, more space is given to the Flood story than the Creation story. The first 11 chapters of Genesis represent the majority of earth’s history and three of those chapters are devoted to the Flood. The Flood is where we see the pristine world of God’s creation changed forever in an avalanche, a deluge of water, mud, and terror. Nothing like it has ever happened before or since. Nothing has changed earth’s geology, topography, or zoology as much as the Flood.

Jesus believed in the Flood and referred both to it and to Noah. The apostles also believed (an incomplete list would be Matthew 24:36-39; 1 Peter 3:18-22; Hebrews 11:7; 2 Peter 3:5-7). This creates a problem for those who consider the Flood story myth or hyperbole. If Jesus and the apostles believed it, and it isn’t true, what else did they believe or teach that isn’t true?

Let’s review…

According to the scripture, God created all that physically exists anywhere in 6 days, each day made up of an evening and a morning. Adam and Eve were placed in a garden paradise and told to work that garden and to guard it (most versions say “keep it” but the word is the same word used later when Cherubs are sent to guard the garden). They failed and not only let Satan in, they let him talk them into rebelling. Soon, polygamy, murder, and war were common on earth. Sometime, much later, comes the Flood.

A slight aside here: Bishop Ussher and his cheerleaders decided the earth was created in 4004BC. They figured this out by backtracking the genealogies in places such as Genesis 5. However, ancient Hebrews did not draw their trees like us and would often to refer to someone as “father” when they were really a great grandfather or even further back up the tree (remember, Jesus was called “Son of David.”) Genesis 5 probably merely denotes the important names and cannot be read as a complete history (or, it can be read that way but I think that is the wrong way to read it!). I’ve seen estimates as low as 1700 years from the Creation to the Flood but there is just absolutely no way to determine that.

When the world was thoroughly corrupt (Genesis 6:5), God decreed that it must end in 120 years. He had one man He could trust: Noah. The long time given before the Flood was so that Noah could build the Ark and so that news of his message could spread throughout the settled sections of the world. Still, when the Flood came, only Noah, his wife, and three of their sons and their wives entered. The rest of humanity perished. (Methusaleh died in the year of the Flood. He might have died in it. If so, one wonders if he was too old to make it there in time)

Here is where we run into an interesting, sad, repeating pattern among skeptics and atheists. Had there been no other record of the Flood, they would claim that was evidence that no such Flood occurred. If there were over 100 different flood stories all over the world, they claim that the story was just made up by people who heard those other stories. In other words, if there is no evidence, it didn’t happen and if there is a TON of evidence… it didn’t happen. Huh? They do this with a lot of stories in scripture. It’s about time they were called on it. These universal flood stories have certain points in common: the universal destruction of the human race by water except for a few who, with representatives of living creatures, entered an ark or a boat after being forewarned by a Deity. That seed of mankind then perpetuated the human race.

The way these stories agree on these basic, core facts is amazing. I haven’t read everything, but I know of no other story that is repeated so often and so consistently in so many ancient cultures. But not everyone accepts it as true. Many believe the story was really about a devastating local flood, perhaps a flood that even swept over a thousand miles at its height but still just a local flood. The problem is that none of the stories we find around the world read that way. Plus, if the flood was going to be a local flood, and if God was giving them a 120 year warning… why not just walk out of there?

Others say that there is no way that water could have covered the earth because the mountains are too high. If water covered Everest, they say, it would have been so heavy it would have crushed the earth’s surface. They are right about that, by the way. The answer to this is multi-parted. First, Everest wasn’t Everest back then. The world was all in one place with a huge firmament of water above it and all water on earth gathered into one place; and all land gathered into one massive continent. There would have been no weather changes. Every day would be a tropical, warm, day with semi-darkness during the entire day and heavy, heavy humidity creating a mist like effect during the morning and late evenings. If you have ever been in rain forest reconstructions such as the wonderful one in Galveston, Texas, you get the idea. Second, when the Flood came, it came from several directions at once. The water above fell — and that took well over a month before it was played out! Water also came up through the surface of the earth, breaking the tectonic plates and creating an unstable planet. That set up the planet for the creation of mountains and the breakup of the continent into our present set of landmasses (which is not settled. We are still moving laterally and vertically). When those plates ram into each other, they create mountains such as the Rockies, the Alps, and the Himalayas. (Other mountains were formed by ice acting like a massive bulldozer, shoving debris ahead of it. Think about the Appalachians as an example of this. It is common for mountain ranges to have both plate action and ice age contributions in the same range). When the water eventually evaporated, some mountain ranges were already being formed. The Ark landed on one of them.

Oh… and rocks brought back from the top of Everest often contain marine fossils in them… which means those rocks were once under water.

The pre-Flood world would have been richer in carbon dioxide, protected from environmental or solar radiation, supplied with abundant food, and with a constant, non-threatening weather pattern. That would mean that people could live much longer than they can today in our rather exposed position. And… what do we see? Before the Flood, people lived 900+ years. Immediately after the Flood, that drops to 120 and keeps dropping to our present average of 79. Doctor Graham Fisher said this in 1982, “The flood completely altered the climatic balance. The ozone layer was disturbed thereby letting a greater quantity of harmful ultra-violet radiation penetrate to the ground. The carbon dioxide balance was altered giving much reduced percentages. Thus life spans were dramatically shortened… The curve of declining longevity is perfectly consistent with a gradual reduction in carbon dioxide.”

More next time…

I’m assuming you’ve already read the previous blog so…

I love to read the mystery novels of James Lee Burke. The ones set in Louisiana are especially descriptive and evocative. There are paragraphs that rise off of the page like poetry as Burke describes the birds, the smells, the sounds, the plants, and the flow of water in the bayou. But the books aren’t travelogues and they aren’t biology or geography books. In the same way, the New Testament does have some rules for us but it is not a rulebook, blueprint, or Book of Discipline. It is a narrative that contains some rules, all of which can be summed as “love God and love each other.”

The Bible opens with the story of God’s creation of the universe — and us. It shows our special relationship to Him, that we are more than angels, more than sparrows. It shows us how sin entered our world and how sin makes us look and act more like animals than soul bearing creatures made in the image of the Father. It shows us how God built a relationship with a family and then gradually built them into a nation, how He kept them together long enough for His Son to be born, and how He his love meant that He returned to them again and again even after His righteousness required Him to punish them. This complex dance, this multi-layered story… is our story and His story.

Jesus treated the Old Testament (the only Bible he had) as absolutely true. He seemed to go out of his way to to refer to the very stories that most modern scholars doubt — the Flood, Adam and Eve, Jonah, etc. Yet, he did not treat the Bible as a Constitution or law book. In Luke 6, he made it clear that law did NOT trump everything else. David was allowed to eat the bread in the tabernacle even though that was against the law because David was hungry and he loved God. Jesus then healed on the Sabbath and chastised those who used the law as an excuse to NOT do good on that holy day. In Mark’s telling of this story (Mark 2:27), Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words — love trumps law.

Jesus’ attitude toward the scripture was one of respect, but he did not use it as a club to beat people into line. He consistently upgraded the rules they received from God, turning them from outward actions into inward attitudes (“you have heard it said… but I say unto you”). Even as John’s little letters closed out what would become the Christian canon, the summation that Jesus gave comes back: “love one another.” John says that is how we can know that you know God — by your love. James, the brother of Jesus, said true religion can be summed up by taking care of the widows and orphans (another way of saying the poor and helpless or undefended) and keep yourself clean as you walk through the world. WE would have added dozens of laws and traditions but neither Jesus nor the apostles did. That should tell us something about how to read the Bible. If it were a rule book and a blueprint — a pattern book, as some in my tribe like to say — then man would have to shape themselves to every law we could pull out of it. But that isn’t what Jesus did with scripture and neither should we.

Frank Girzone put it this way: “Where there is a human need, the law must bend. It is God’s children who are sacred to God, not laws. Laws are to protect or assist God’s children. If a law does not do that, it should be reevaluated and, perhaps, abrogated.” Before any of you react to that by being appalled, think about schools that have those ridiculous “zero tolerance” rules. Kids are sent home for drawing a gun, or wearing a shirt with a depiction of a toy soldier holding a toy gun, or hugging a friend because “we have zero tolerance when it comes to guns or sexual harassment.” We see those rules — rightly — as stupid when enforced blindly without consideration for the person involved. Jesus made it plain that God takes the human condition into consideration (and whether or not the individual loves Him is also factored in).

To treat the Bible as a rulebook is to jettison grace and elevate law and objectivism. It also invites thousands of arguments about which bits of the narrative are rules for today and which ones aren’t. And no one — no one — is consistent in the way they answer those questions. The only cure for religious division and enmity among believers in Christ is to restore love to its rightful place (remember First Corinthians 13? It’s not just for weddings anymore!) and to treat people as more important than laws. Then, go back and read the Bible as a fascinating story, a narrative, an adventure, and a march of history in which we now get to play our parts.

I am cheating a bit with this one. After some comments made on the last blog, I thought it was time that late comers to this blog reviewed something very basic, but incredibly altering to  one’s traditional worldview. Does God tell us what kind of worship He wants? Is He expecting us to mine this and that passage for secret — or, at least, esoteric — hints about what He wants us to do during the sacred hour on Sunday or within the sacred precincts of our buildings?

The entire concept of the building being a place where some behavior — acceptable outside — is completely ruled out while other behavior — acceptable outside — is frowned upon as divisive or entertainment is a sinful concept. It is an attempt to take us back into the temple, negating the life, teaching, and sacrifice of Jesus. In the Old Testament, there were definite rules about what could go on and who could do what within the temple precincts (and within the temple proper). When Jesus came along, he consistently scandalized people by doing and saying things that violated those rules. In his first recorded sermon, the Sermon on the Mount, he repeatedly says “you have heard it said…but I say to you.” He was quoting scripture and then changing it from an external obedience to an inner standard. What a scandal! And yet… he was the Son of God and, therefore, not only did he have the right to say and do this — he was doing it on purpose. Most Christians I know missed the entire point of that sermon. They continue to worship as if their buildings were a temple and they were Levites in charge of maintaining strict rules of discipline within the House of God.

Except that WE are now the temple of God and we exist outside as well as inside our buildings. Fact is, it is almost impossible for us to fulfill the directives of God within our buildings. He told us to love our neighbor, go into all the world, feed the poor, lift up the fallen, sacrifice for each other… wow… it’s hard to find much of anything he told us to do that we can do during the Sacred Hour on Sunday.

How did we mess this up so badly? We failed to note the difference between the Old Covenant and the New. We made up a new set of rules and produced Temple Rules 2.0 rather than realizing that God had ended the first law and brought us — instead of law — His Son. Our law can now be summed up — and was summed up by John by the power and authority of God’s Spirit — in one simple directive: love God and love each other. Jesus even warned his apostles not to correct others who seemed different and outside their circle. Romans 14 and 15 are in there for a reason and they absolutely prohibit criticizing anyone who is serving God (and we don’t get to write them off as “not really serving God” in an attempt to avoid His commands in those chapters).

Anytime that a group of people get together, they work on who is in charge and whose voice will be heard. When they gather to play sports, rule books follow. When they gather to live in a New World, constitutions, states, and warehouses full of laws are produced. When they gather to worship God, they try to run back into the Temple and make a new code, a new Book of Discipline and they enforce it with iron rods; preferring division and heartache to a loss of control or a change to their traditions.

Campbell really thought he could find one simple system that all Christians (he considered them Christians, by the way) from all denominations would agree on. He was as wrong as those who tried to push the entire world into speaking Esperanto. The Bible wasn’t written so that we could find patterns and then enforce them. Yes, I’ve read “Behold the Pattern” and it sounds like perfect legalese but it doesn’t sound like Jesus and it bends scripture to the breaking point and beyond in order to prove that the way the author likes things done is the way God likes things done. Once again, the god in the mirror trumps the God Who Is.

I can remember being taught that the Bible was a roadmap, a blueprint, a rule book. But it isn’t; at least not the New Testament. Can you find even one example of any other blueprint or roadmap being written like this? Where is the Book of Worship? The Book of Fellowship? The Book of Organization? I would LOVE to have those books!!! It would make life so much simpler. And it would be so much easier just following the rules on Sunday than it would be to do all those things Jesus actually told us to do — almost all of which have to take place in our daily walk, not in an assembly of like minded, lock step brothers.

Because we have tried to treat the Bible as a rulebook, we have constant divisions in the faith. I visited a church this week that has divided five times in the last 20 years… in a community of less than 10,000 people. Christians love to claim they know the mind of God and their way of reading scripture is the one that makes God happy… and then attack and disfellowship those who disagree. So each denomination writes its own Manual, Book of Discipline, Catechism, etc. Or, it sets up publishing houses, websites, and periodicals to keep the people in lockstep. Or it has a set of traveling ministers who enforce conformity. Why? They need all of these because the Bible, alone, will not get them where they want to go…

Because it isn’t a rule book. Part two is coming in a day or so… stay tuned.

Suddenly, there is a lot of action at tentpegsquestion@yahoo.com. Let’s get to it.

One definition of “entertainment” includes “something diverting or engaging”. Do you expect activities in Heaven to be entertaining? Is it bad to add some aspect of entertainment in our worship assemblies? We have been told repeatedly not to add entertainment to our worship (ie, the assembled worship) as do the growing churches (we must be content to grow smaller).

It is amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to either 1) read something in or out of the Bible or 2) fight to make sure that all serve a God who is indistinguishable from their own reflection. This question comes from a wonderful elder who has had to fight the worship wars. Although he didn’t mention it, he probably has had a ton of folk complain that something “made them uncomfortable” or that “people today are just about entertaining themselves, not worshiping God.”

Those who complain that worship is just become a big entertainment event might be right; there are some places that put on quite a show. However, judging the participants as shallow or self seeking would seem to be a dangerous activity after reading Matthew 7 and Romans 14. May I be bold and make a broad brushstroke of a statement here? Most people who complain that worship is just becoming entertainment are really saying that they, themselves, are no longer being entertained by worship and they resent it. They liked things the way they were. The loved the suit coats and ties, the painting of the Jordan River behind the pulpit, the funeral fans in the back of the pews, the big red (or blue or brown) songbooks, the song leader moving his arm different ways to match the time signature of the song, the predictability of the order of worship, the comforting liturgy (prayers full of familiar, repeated sayings.  Communion talks full of the same scripture and words each week…), and the solemn, Back To The Temple-style worship. They ignore the fact that Jesus died to get us out of the Temple. They also assume that since they liked it, so did Jesus.

They never think that they are requiring everyone to like what they do and be fed like they are or they are frozen out of that church, out of heaven. They make their worship style part of God’s plan of salvation. I’ve seen Africans try to worship by mimicking American worship styles of the 1960’s complete with the minister wearing a ripped, old sport coat as a sign of his office. It is heartbreaking. I do not view traditional, southern worship from the 1960’s as bad by any stretch of the imagination. No! If it works for you, and you offer it up as a way to worship and honor God, none of us should criticize you or try to get you to change… unless you want to reach your neighbors and the unsaved. If you are evangelistic, you will have to learn the worship language of those you meet… and that can be aggravating and/or fun.

“They don’t sing the songs here anymore that God likes” a woman told me years ago when I spoke at a congregation in the north. “Really? What songs would that be?” I asked. She went on to name several traditional, well known and well loved hymns. I asked her if she liked those songs and she seemed surprised and a bit affronted by the question. “Of course I do!” she replied, standing straighter. I tried to explain to her what she was saying: she and God were the same when it came to musical taste and both of them were equally upset at anyone who didn’t share their preferences. She just couldn’t understand the concept. I didn’t make a convert that day.

Who are you okay throwing away on the way to heaven? Is it okay that young people, people of other races, people of other traditions go to hell, especially if it means you get to keep your worship comfortable for you and your favorite people? Paul was willing to go to hell to save his brothers (Romans 9:1ff) and Moses didn’t want to be saved if he couldn’t bring the people with him (Exodus 32) while a lot of my brothers aren’t willing to be uncomfortable for their neighbors. THAT is sad.

Titus 2 tells us to behave and to consider each other so that the teaching about God can be attractive. Yes, attractive! It is fine to change worship style, songs, dress codes, time, and locations to reach people Jesus loves. If He loves them enough to die for them, we need to love them enough to change for them. I believe it is true to say that every Sunday I am uncomfortable with something that happens at Rochester Church… and I am pretty sure God doesn’t care; the record doesn’t indicate that God is all that interested in my comfort and ease. He said something about carrying a cross if I wanted to follow Him, if I remember right.

We are not in the temple anymore. The Ethiopian Eunuch wasn’t told how to appoint elders, what songs were acceptable, when to clap and raise hands (if ever), what clothes one should wear to church, etc. He was baptized after being told about Jesus and he went on his way rejoicing. I would assume it is hard to rejoice without being entertained. And God seemed quite happy about that. He filled the Bible with admonitions to make noise, shout, clap, raise hands, play instruments, and rejoice as we worship the One who loves us, came to us, and saves us. Who are we to strip the joy out of what is supposed to be an attractive and entertaining event?

Here’s a new one for you.

What do Christians mean when they call themselves “mystics?”  One of my favorite preachers calls himself a mystic.  One young man at our congregation, a Yale grad who knows six languages and chooses to live out the Nazarite Vow calls himself a mystic.  He interprets owls hooting and dove sightings as signs from God.  He is brilliant, but weird.  What are the upsides and downsides to mysticism, and how does it intersect with acknowledging the objective truths from God’s word?  Is mysticism born of post-modernism, is it a rejection of science, what am I missing in my life if I do not relate to God and His world in this way?  It sounds “hokey” to me, but others I respect immensely seem to define their reality with these terms.

I see this trying to make a comeback, but not doing very well so far. In the 60s, we had a lot of flower children who were also self styled Children of God. Some of them tried to bring back the Nazarite vows while others took on a form of Judaism. Others acted out a form of communal living along with vows of poverty. None changed the world though many of them did some good along the way — and that has to be respected.

I do not believe this is a mark of our post-modern times but I could be wrong. I think, rather, that we have entered a time when it is cool and acceptable to be different. Rather than the lockstep conformism that characterized many of our religious tribes, Christianity seems to be allowing for more diverse forms of interaction and lifestyle than it once was. This could be a very good thing. I have often ached in my heart when I saw the artistically gifted or the poetically inclined trying hard to worship in a church building and a worship service that could have been designed by colorblind civil engineers with no sense of humor. We have lost many of them when they could not get into step with the more rational, logical, A-then-B folk that inhabited the reins of power in the congregation.

I can remember a preacher speaking with pure, sickening, disgust about a young man who prayed at the Lord’s Supper and cried while doing so. The preacher made it plain that there was no room for any such emotional display in our churches. That was a sad day.

There is room in God’s heart for the mystically inclined. He loves them. He loved Ezekiel as well as Isaiah and those were two very, very different kind of prophets.

The danger is, of course, when the mystical experience trumps the written Word of God and the collective wisdom of the people of God gained through centuries of prayer and practice. That is why I always ask for the three arrows to align before I am ready to “buy” a new truth or a new spin on an old truth.

1. What does the Bible say?

2. What has the greater believing community done with this passage through the centuries?

3. What does nature tell us about this?

If all three line up, I’m fine with it whether it’s an emotional song, the hoot of an owl, a painting, or a sermon with all the emotional excitement of an out of date blueprint. I keep in mind Paul’s warning not to receive a new gospel (Galatians 1) even if it comes from an angel. At the same time, I can sing the line from “this is my Father’s world” with no uneasiness at all: “in the rustling grass, I hear Him pass. He speaks to me everywhere.” I am no mystic, nor am I am poet or painter, but I believe that the world is a much better place because those people are here. Yes, we might have to rein them in when their imaginations convince them that they can overrule scripture or the people of God, but they can and should overrule us when we strip beauty, creativity, change, and wonder out of our worship — and our daily lives.

As long as we respect each other, love each other, and watch each other’s back… I think the differences are nothing but positive.

There were a lot of comments made on the last series of blogs (and thank you for that. Almost all of them were kind, even if disagreeing). Some of those asked questions and I will try to hit those quickly here. Let me know if that raises more questions or if I have not answered something sufficiently. Note, I am freely rephrasing the questions rather than trying to quote them verbatim.

“Why does the Bible say that the one who marries the woman who was put away commits adultery?” I am going to grant you that that one is tricky. If you followed the comments and links, you might have already found a couple of reasonable answers but I’ll add one more: the woman who was put away for adultery has been marked by the society — which was the same as the faith community at that time — as an unacceptable person. When another married her, he was challenging the thinking of the one who put her away originally. He also made it impossible for that woman and her first husband to ever reconcile (under Moses’ law, if a woman married another man and then divorced him, it was a horrible sin for her to return to her first husband. It was never allowed). He did not initiate adultery but, by marrying her, he finished the breaking of the original covenant. This statement was not made to be a legal warning but, rather, a reminder of the seriousness of making covenants.

“Can a minister be an elder?” Yes, they can and vice versa. Peter is described as both an evangelist and an elder. At Rochester Church, we have an elder on staff. He serves as our executive minister and does an amazing job, relieving me of much of the busy work that swamps many ministers. Can it be a problem for the minister to also be an elder? Absolutely. Each congregation has to decide the way they will deal with that issue. God made no law and neither should we.

“If it is okay that an elder was once divorced and then remarried, is it okay for the preacher, too?” Sure, if the preacher has now shown by his life that he is a righteous person. In some cultures, having a divorced preacher would be a hindrance for the mission of the church but, in most places, if that minister then successfully lived and served the Lord (either in a new marriage or as a single person), he would be accepted. His “scars” from the divorce would, in fact, give him credibility among some groups for, when he spoke of pain and loss, he would be speaking from experience.

“Paul’s teaching on how to care for widows required that they only be married once. Is there a connection between those rules and his rules for elders?” If there is one, I don’t see it. Paul’s teaching on the care of widows seems terribly harsh and restrictive but we need to remember what it was: Paul was creating a welfare system for those who were unable to feed or care for themselves. When a husband was lost, if family connections were not there to save the widow, she was essentially homeless. She did not inherit the house, land, or money of the dead husband; that went to male heirs. The church needed to care for them (in fact, that was one of the first arguments we find in the early church: who cares for the widows and makes sure they are treated fairly regardless of which group they belong to?). However, the church was in a tenuous situation financially and socially. Many lost their jobs when they wouldn’t bow to Caesar or continue to go to synagogue. Frequent mentions are made of brothers and sisters in dire circumstances and of collections being taken to get money here or there. Paul would not have been able to be very generous in making these rules for the care of widows for money and resources were very, very tight. As history moved on and other ways of caring for widows became available, these temporary rules were laid aside. I know of no commenter or minister who claims that these rules were rules for all ages, societies, and cultures.

“When an elder’s wife dies, should he step down since he is no longer ‘the husband of one wife’?” Not unless he killed her. If he loved her and they had a successful marriage, laying down a track record that praised God, he has fulfilled the spirit of the law. However, I know of many men who step down because they do not believe they can adequately lead others without the support and wisdom of their wife. I fully understand that. I have often said — and still believe — that should something tragic happen to my dear wife, I would step away from the pulpit. Why? Because she is my strength, a great source of wisdom, and my main source of encouragement. I have seen very few examples of men who continued to be elders after being widowed so I would not want to give an impression of how well they did. I’ll just say that if the congregation continues to view them as a shepherd, they are one.

Thanks for all your comments. We’ll try to get to a new question in a few days.