The Judges Versus the Little Boy

     In Philadelphia a court decided to tell a little boy that he cannot regard the Bible as his favorite book.  Well, not really.  They apparently ruled that the boy could not bring it to class as part of a show-and-tell activity where the students were to bring their favorite book. 

     I cannot imagine any adults doing that to a boy in kindergarten.  I really cannot imagine a group of judges thinking that it is crucial to our American civilization to ban a Bible from a classroom. 

     Perhaps they should read the Constitution.  It’s apparently not their favorite document.

UPDATE:  The students were given an open invitation to have their parents come to class and read from their favorite book.  I still am appalled that two of the three justices of the 3rd Circuit believe it is their job to tell a little boy what his favorite book should or should not be.  The third justice wrote that the school engaged in viewpoint discrimination.  In the words of Scott Erb (see comments), “D’oh.” 

By the way, I do not take this position because it was a Bible.  If little Karim had brought a Koran for his mom or dad to read, I would also support his freedom of religion and freedom of expression.  That’s what freedom means–being free.  It doesn’t mean doing only what is politically correct.  Only if a person’s behavior harms somebody should it be legally curtailed.

Desiderius Erasmus: Christian Humanist

    

     Erasmus was born in the 1460’s in Rotterdam.  He is famous for his beautiful style in writing Latin, his criticism of the Roman Catholic Church of his day, and his promotion of humanism within a Christian context. 

     Among his many accomplishments was editing a version of the Bible with the Greek text and Latin text in parallel columns.  This Bible was a magnificent attempt to present the best possible Greek text from the manuscripts available and to update and correct the Latin text.  Martin Luther used it when he translated the Bible into German.

     Unlike Martin Luther, Erasmus remained firmly committed to the Catholic Church, although he opposed some of its practices at the time of the Reformation. 

     In one of his books, Handbook of the Christian Soldier, Erasmus attacks mere formalism in the practice of Christianity–that is the performing of outward rituals while ignoring the actual teachings of Christ.  In Education of a Christian Prince, he suggests that to rule wisely a monarch should get a well-rounded education and should strive to be loved by his people as a benevolent leader.

     Among his more pithy sayings is “In the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”

FOR FURTHER READING:

Erasmus Center for Early Modern Studies

Wikipedia article on Erasmus

Catholic Encyclopedia article on Erasmus

Jesus and the Adulterous Woman

     I just heard an excellent sermon on the story of the adulterous woman who was brought to Jesus by his opponents.  It really made me think.

     It made me think about how much I appreciate Jesus’s mercy and grace.  I have committed sins as serious as, and perhaps more serious than, the one the woman committed, yet I believe that Jesus has forgiven me just as he forgave that woman.  For that, I am grateful.

     It made me think about my feeble attempts to clean up my life in order to avoid God’s condemnation.  It should be the other way around.  God doesn’t say, “Leave your life of sin, and then I will no longer condemn you.”  He says, “I do not condemn you; now leave behind your life of sin.”  Forgiveness first, reformation second.

     It made me think of my tendency to condemn others, as the religious leaders condemned this woman.  Who am I to consider anyone inferior or morally worse than myself?  I am a sinner, too.  Yet I fall to the temptation way too often.  I am sorry, and I pray for the grace and the strength not to do so in the future.  As I said, I have been forgiven much; therefore, I want to embrace my obligation to forgive others.

     On the other hand, it made me think about God’s holiness and how He does not simply ignore sin or overlook it.  Jesus chose not to condemn the woman, but He did not tell her that her sin was unimportant or not actually a sin.  The act of forgiving includes an acknowledgement that the act was indeed sinful, and he expects her to stop committing that sin.  One implication is that I cannot simply brush aside my sin and treat it as inconsequetial or make up excuses for it.  God doesn’t pretend that we didn’t sin or tell us that it is okay, He forgives it and tells us to stop it.  Another implication is that I do not have to ignore the sins that other people commit against me.  I am commanded to forgive them, but in doing so I actually acknowledge that what the person did was wrong.  If no wrong is committed, no forgiveness is needed.  The choice to forgive is the choice to release the person from your anger and hatred and from your wish to see them punished and condemned by God.  It isn’t a glossing over of their sin, but a recognition of one’s one status as a sinner and an act of reciprocity for God’s willingness to forgive your sins.

     The sermon made me think of how one can be very right and at the same time be very wrong.  According to the story the woman had indeed committed adultery, and adultery is indeed a sin according to God’s law.  The law prescribed stoning as a punishment for it, just as the religious leaders indicated.  But why hadn’t they brought her male partner?  And how did they catch her in the act of adultery?  And why did they use her only as a means to trap Jesus?  And why did they seem to take delight in their threat to stone her?  And why were they so willing to overlook their own sins?  We must be very careful to do what is right, and only what is right, and only for the right reasons.

     I am the one caught in adultery, and I have been forgiven.

     I am also the one who would stone other people, and I have dropped my stone and walked away ashamed.

     May I continue to live in the recognition of my own sinfulness and in the freedom and light of God’s forgiveness.

Moderation in All Things?

     Moderation has long been thought a positive approach to many things in life, but it is only good in certain aspects of life.  I think that we all agree that moderation should not be practiced in literally all things.

     When it comes to outward behavior that is not, in and of itself, immoral, moderation is usually the best policy.  We have to eat to live, but the Bible classifies gluttony as a sin.  I don’t find a total prohibition of drinking alcohol in the Bible, but there is a prohibition against getting drunk. 

     When it comes to moral or immoral behavior, however, moderation is a bad thing.  One should not steal moderately or murder moderately; one should simply not do either of those things at all.  One should not love one’s family moderately or respect the rights of other people moderately; one should do those things as freely and fully as possible.

     People claim that you can be moderate on the question of abortion.  Some of them say that they want to reduce the number of abortions while still allowing women the supposed right to choose.  That’s a strange position.  Why should you want to reduce the number of abortions, unless you realize that abortion is bad?  And if you realize that abortion is bad, then why don’t you want to eliminate the practice altogether?

     In what other arena do we say that something is wrong but should still be legal?  Do you hear anyone saying that we should reduce the number of murders or thefts but still allow people the right to choose to murder or to steal?  Do you hear people saying that they are “personally against” rape or fraud but support the rights of people to commit those acts if they so choose?

     If you want a moderate position on abortion, consider the approach that most conservatives take.  They are willing to exempt rape and incest victims, if it would mean that abortions for convenience would be banned.  Some are willing to accept, temporarily at least, abortions in the first trimester, if it would mean that partial-birth abortion and other late-term abortions would be banned.  Over and over, conservatives have been willing to accept a reduction in the number of abortions, but liberals insist on allowing women to choose to abort their babies for any reason at any time in their pregnancy.  If you challenge that assertion, tell me what legislation Democrats, as a group, have favored that would actually reduce the number of abortions, as many of them have said they want to do?

     Is the “liberal” position on abortion a moderate approach?  No, it is an extreme approach–and an extremely wrong one.

     Nobody has the right to do what is wrong.

The Creation of Adam and Eve

      In Genesis, chapter 1, we read that during the sixth day of creation:

    Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.

     So God created man in his own image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

     God blessed them and said to them, “Be frutiful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.”

      This passage shows that God definitely created human beings in two flavors:  male and female.  It seems to flow naturally into the commandment he gave them to reproduce, which everyone who has taken high school biology knows requires gametes from each flavor.  Two female cells won’t work; nor will two male cells.

Book Review: The Year of Living Biblically

     A. J. Jacobs, author of The Know-It-All (see the previous post) outdid himself with The Year of Living Biblically: One Man’s Humble Request to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible.

     When I first heard about the book, I was afraid that I would not enjoy it.  I assumed that the author would take a very flippant approach to the topic and perhaps even make fun of the Bible and its guidelines.  I couldn’t have been more wrong.  Jacobs took a very sincere and reverent approach, although he also discovered and injected a lot of appropriate humor into the project.

     Another thought I had at first was, “Why didn’t he just become Orthodox and join the local synagogue.  He would have been taught how to live according to the biblical commandments?”  His approach was much more intriguing than that.  He wanted not to copy what other Bible adherents had done but to discover for himself both the commandments, their proper fulfillment, and their underlying meaning.  In short, it was a true spiritual quest.  I was pleased to read that he consulted other resources, including many religious experts.

     As in his previous book, Jacobs writes in a confessional manner.  He reveals many unflattering things about himself, which takes a lot of chutzpah.  There are some extremely poignant moments when he is revealing things that most of us wouldn’t dare tell anyone–much less publish them in a book.  I admire his courage.

     His quest leads him to a strange mix of people–an Amish farmer, Lubavitcher Jews, creationists, and Pentecostal snake-handlers.  His openness to learn is astounding in its inclusivity and tolerance.  He paints interesting portraits of his very quirky family, too.

     The most satisfying aspect of the book is Jacobs’ growth, which he chronicles as openly as he confesses his shortcomings and weirdnesses.  He goes from being agnostic to being somewhat of a believer in God.  He dispelled some of his own misconceptions about devout people.  He discovered the wisdom and practically of many biblical precepts, including those that seem strange and inexplicable.

     I think everyone should read this book.  I was inspired and challenged, and I think you would be too.

Bible Survey Results

     In my completely unscientific survey yesterday, I asked people to answer one question, and I presented them with all the possible choices that I could think of.  (Although some people could not commit to one answer.)  The results are what I expected, given the viewpoints of the people who usually read my blog and of those I invited to take the survey.  Here are the results, as of this morning:

Bible Survey

How do you view the Bible?  Please choose the answer that best reflects your view.

A.  It is not the word of God and has no significant value as a book.

B.  It is not the word of God but it has some value as a cultural and historical (but not ethical) document.

C.  It is not the word of God but it has some value as a cultural, historical, and ethical document. 

D.  It is not the word of God in its entirety but contains the word of God in some segments of it.

E.  It is not the word of God in the sense of being directly inspired, but it does reflect the mind of God in some way.

F.  It is the word of God but not the sole or ultimately authoritative way that God speaks to people today.

G.  It is the word of God and is the ultimately authoritative way that God speaks to people today. 

H.  It is the word of God and is the sole way that God speaks to people today.

Why Read Different Bible Versions?

     I like to read from different versions of the Bible.  I find that different versions give me new perspectives and clarify the meaning of the text for me.  C. S. Lewis also pointed out that reading other versions of the Bible than the one a person is used to (in his case the KJV) makes the impact of the words greater–as great as they should be.

“We must sometimes get away from the Authorized [King James] Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear, but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity, the transporting or horrifying realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed, and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame, or struck dumb with terror, or carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations.”  –C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock

     Do you agree with Lewis?  When you read from other versions of the Bible, do the words hit you more forcefully?

Which Bible?

     A reader called Robster asked on another thread, “So which of the 21 English versions or the over 70 worldwide versions of the Bible do you Christians follow?”

     It’s an interesting and important question, but I think that its implication is not valid.  I don’t know Robster’s motivation for posing the question, but when I have heard such questions before, the person posing the question is attempting to question the authenticity and reliability of the Bible.  Sometimes people who ask such questions are mistakenly assuming that the various versions present contradictory messages, which is not so at all.

     There are more than 21 versions of the Bible in English–many more.  Some of them are very strict translations, while others are loose paraphrases.  Some of them are written in highly formal laguage while others are more colloquial in style.  Some are old fashioned, while others are very contemporary.  However, most of the English versions present accurate, reliable renditions of the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek.  

     All versions of the Bible in English teach that Jesus rose from the dead.  Observe this verse from I Corinthians:

• “But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.”  New International Version
• “But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.”  New American Standard Bible
• “But Christ has truly been raised from the dead—the first one and proof that those who sleep in death will also be raised.”  New Century Version

     All three versions quoted convey the same meaning but in different words.  That’s how the different translations and versions are–different ways of expressing the same ideas.

     I’m not sure what Robster means by “70 worldwide versions.”  Obviously people in different countries need the Bible in different languages.  And there are a lot more than 70 versions if you count all the languages that the Bible has been translated in.  But, once again, they all convey the same message found in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.