The Assemblies of God and Alcohol

A little over a year ago I wrote a paper critiquing the Assemblies of God position paper concerning the consumption of alcohol. In this paper I don’t argue for any particular position concerning the usage of alcohol, but I do argue that the AG position isn’t adequately supported by scripture. There may be a different sort of argument that they could give to support the view that a Christian should never consume alcohol, but I’m doubtful. Some day I may take the time to actually argue that moderate usage of alcohol is morally acceptable, but for the time being, I think it is enough to show that arguments against the moderate position fail.

After writing the paper I sent it to the Committee on Doctrinal Purity, but I guess they weren’t convinced. Because several people have asked for a copy of it, I decided to go ahead and make it available on this web page. You will find a copy of the paper in pdf format on the ‘Research’ page (the tab should be above and to the left). If you have comments or suggestions regarding the paper, I’d be happy to hear them. You can either post them here under the comments section or send me an email, either way is fine with me.

Cheers!

Reaping what you sow

Last night at my small group we looked at Luke 1, (specifically the passage about Elizabeth being barren). This started a discussion about reaping what you sow and determining which bad events in life are the result of punishment and which are of testing. On the way home I started thinking about this a bit more and realized that there’s an easy way to explain Luke’s point (and Jesus’ in John) using simple laws of logic.Logic tells us the way we can appropriately think about the world. Logic is rooted in the nature of God, meaning that even God obeys laws of logic. That may surprise some of you, but it’s really no different from saying that God couldn’t make 2+3 = 97. This isn’t a limit on God in any way, just the way any rational being’s mind works. For example, imagine I say something like, “If it is raining outside, then the streets are wet.” If you look outside and see that it is raining then you’ll know that the streets are wet. To make it easier to see the structure of this argument we can put it into what is called standard form.

1. If it is raining outside, then the streets are wet.
2. It is raining outside.
3. Therefore, the streets are wet.

This type of reasoning will always guarantee the conclusion. If premise 1 is true, then any time it is raining the streets will be wet. However, sometimes people reason incorrectly like this:

1. If it is raining outside, then the streets are wet.
2. The streets are wet.
3. Therefore, it is raining outside.

Why is this a case of poor reasoning? Because there is no guarantee that the conclusion is true. The streets might be wet because someone isn’t very good at aiming their lawn sprinklers. The conclusion might be true, but there is no guarantee. Okay, now that we’ve gone over a bit of basic logic, we can see that even Jesus used this type of reasoning. But first, let’s revisit what we know about the principle of sowing and reaping. There are many references to this principle throughout Scripture, so I’m going to assume you know what I have in mind. We can present the principle the same way we presented the argument about the streets being wet when it rains.

1. If you sow bad things, you will reap bad things.
2. When you sin, you sow bad things.
3. Therefore, at some point you will reap bad things.

Here again, this will always produce a true conclusion if premise 1 is true. Now, recall that in John chapter 9 the disciples and Jesus come across a man born blind. They asked Jesus whether it was this man’s sin or his parents’ sin that caused him to be born blind. The disciples understood the principle of sowing and reaping. If you sow bad things, you’ll reap bad things. But, they were guilty of fallacious reasoning and Jesus pointed it out to them. We can put this into the same form as we did above.

1. If you sow bad things, you will reap bad things.
2. The man’s being born blind is a bad thing.
3. Therefore, either the man or his parents sowed bad things.

To refute the disciples argument, Jesus gives them a counterexample. He responds that it was neither the man’s sin nor his parents’ sin, but that he was born blind so God could be glorified. Jesus recognized that their argument does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion and he provided an example showing that it doesn’t. Just as it might be true that because we know the streets are wet that it is raining, it might be true that being blind is the result of sowing bad things. But Jesus’ point is that there is no guarantee. It could be that I don’t know how to use a sprinkler very well and it could be that God had another reason for the man being born blind.In conclusion, we know from Scripture that we reap what we sow (both good and bad). But that does not mean we can determine why someone is going through what they are. It could be that it is the result of the principle of sowing and reaping or it could be because God desires that he be glorified and revealed to his creation.

Driscoll, the Bible, and Interpretation

I recently read a friend’s post concerning a video of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. (See the video here and my friend’s blog here.) Just for a little context, in the video Driscoll is bemoaning the fact that so many churches are tackily designed, boring, and effeminate, Well, actually he says the reason they are tacky, boring, etc is because they are effeminate.I think my friend has done a great job responding to such a ridiculous claim, and you should visit her site to read it. I want to focus on one part of that response. She notes that Driscoll is aware of the fact the he often offends people with comments like ‘the church in bad shape because of emasculated men’ . His response to this fact has been something like, “Dude, this is what Jesus said.” So the claim is if Jesus says something then I shouldn’t shy away from saying it too. I don’t think that is problematic, but what is problematic is figuring out what Jesus meant.For example, Jesus said “Turn the other cheek.” Now if I go around saying that all the time, people are going to want to know what I mean by that. Unfortunately, Jesus didn’t leave behind a copy of his systematic theology (and no, it wasn’t a first edition Grudem!). If you’ve listened to even a brief conversation between a pacifist and non-pacifist, you’ll realize that there is a huge debate in figuring out what Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek. (And given that Driscoll advocates beating up the bully of a playground, I’m sure he’d recognize the tension. See the Christianity Today article here.)Driscoll’s “Dude this is what Jesus said” comment highlights a major problem for the church today. There are many today that are likely to say something very similar. Usually it’s conveyed in the evangelical maxim, “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.” Unfortunately, that usually won’t work. If we take that as our maxim, then there should be very few men with both eyes. Jesus said if your eye brings you to sin, then pluck it out. Well, we also know that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, then he has committed adultery, which is a sin. So, if a man lustfully looks at a woman, then he has sinned. How did he go about looking at that woman? With his eyes. Therefore, he should pluck them out.Not many would agree that this is the best way to interpret those passages. But notice, you’re agreeing for the need of interpretation. That’s a lot more than just saying “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.” So, the next time you try to prove a point by using scripture, make sure that you’ve done your homework and have reasons for thinking that was the intended meaning.I’ll end this with a bit of a homework assignment. Luke 6:38 says, “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Read that verse in context (the verses before and after it) and then try to convince me that it has anything at all to do with money. If you subscribe to the “the Bible says it” mentality, then you’re likely to think it does. But, you would be wrong.

A Problem of Hell?

I was talking with a good friend (his website) last night about the problem of evil and how it relates to Christian theology. I’m starting to think that an adequate answer (solution?) to the problem of evil has to rely on specific Christian resources. For those unfamiliar with the problem, I’ll briefly state it. It seems that the following are inconsistent (either logically, or at least probably inconsistent):

1. God is omnipotent
2. God is wholly good
3. Evil exists

If God is wholly good he would want to eliminate evil and if he is omnipotent he could eliminate evil, but yet we experience (or hear of) evil all the time. I think this poses the greatest challenge to Christian theism, but also think there are good responses to the problem.

In the philosophical discussions it is often tempting to try to resolve this problem without appealing to specific Christian doctrines, but I think that is a mistake. There aren’t many who believe in a God that is just omnipotent and wholly good and know nothing else of him or his plan for this world. So, it seems that the problem is directed toward Christian theists and so it should be acceptable to appeal to certain Christian understandings of justice and eschatology in giving an answer to the problem.

During our discussion last night my friend pointed out that many people are glad they exist even if they have experienced a great amount of evil. I think that is a really important thing to keep in mind. Sure, person X may have experienced a lot of evil, but if X thinks it is better for him to have existed than not, is the problem of evil still as pressing? I wonder how many people would say they really wish they were never born. (On a side note, it would be interesting to study the psychology of a suicidal person. Do they wish they were never born, or just that they don’t want to go on living? I think an answer to that will play a role.) As I was reflecting about last night’s conversation I began to wonder how this would fit into the Christian’s understanding of hell.

I guess if I’m willing to appeal to Christian theology to respond to the problem of evil I also need to deal with difficult parts of that same Christian theology. I’m not exactly sure what the orthodox understanding of hell is, but I’m pretty sure it’s not literally fire & brimstone. Either way, it’s not a place that anyone would want to be (regardless of their jokes about it). No matter how much evil a person inflicts on earth, eternal punishment for that temporal evil seems to be a bit of an overkill. At some point, would it actually have been better for the person in hell to not have existed? Even if people experiencing evil on earth still are glad they exist, would the person in hell feel the same way? Is the fact that they are in hell because they rejected God and not because they committed evils relevant? My intuitions lead me to think they would not want to have existed at all instead of spending eternity in hell, but that’s just my intuitions talking. This, of course, leads to the discussion about whether a wholly good being could annihilate his creation and still be wholly good. The two questions are closely connected, but I just don’t know what to say about either at this point.

I would love to hear your thoughts on the subject. Maybe a better understanding of what hell is (and not just what it isn’t) would help resolve the problem, but I’m not sure.

Why the Bible Doesn’t Matter (at least sometimes)

I’ve been listening to quite a bit of commentary following Tim Hardaway’s recent comments that he hates gay people. For those of you that haven’t heard, Hardaway was asked on a Miami area sports radio show what his thoughts were about having a teammate that is gay. He made some remarks that seemed a bit bigoted and when asked if he understood those were homophobic, bigoted remarks, he responded by saying “I hate gay people.” Much of the commentary I’ve heard on a local radio station has focused on how the Bible condemns homosexuality and even though the way Hardaway expressed his view is questionable, he is right in saying that homosexuality is wrong. Their basis for why homosexuality is wrong is that the Bible condemns it. Well, I want to argue that, in this situation, what the Bible has to say about homosexuality doesn’t matter.

First, it’s not at all clear that Hardaway based his comments on the Bible. In fact, I think it’s clear that his comments were not based on the Bible. So the biblical passages that refer to homosexuality don’t matter in this context because they were never appealed to in the first place.

Some may respond by saying that even if Hardaway didn’t appeal to the Bible in his comments, he could have made such an appeal. In fact, some have even said that he should have made an appeal to the relevant Biblical passages. This leads naturally to my second point. Even if Hardaway (or anyone for that matter) does have a case that the Bible condemns homosexuality he should not have appealed to that case. Why? Because what the Bible says about homosexuality is completely irrelevant when discussing the issue with people that don’t believe in the Bible. I understand that some may be bothered by this statement so let me explain a bit further.

When making a case for or against some issue, it is important to make that case with premises that all parties find agreeable. Please allow me to illustrate. Imagine you and a friend are playing in a field behind both your houses. You see a tree and decide to climb that tree. Tree climbing is a hobby you developed with your father and would now like to climb that tree. Your friend tells you, “Don’t climb that tree!” to which you ask “Why?” Now if your friend responds by saying “Well, my daddy said to not climb this tree, so you shouldn’t climb the tree” do you have any obligation to comply? Of course not. What reason do you have to comply with the commands given by an authority (her father) that you don’t recognize? Now if your instead friend replied by saying, “All the other children that have climbed this tree have fallen and hurt themselves very badly” then it might make sense to not climb that tree. Does the situation change if instead of a friend in the field with you it is a sibling and your sibling said “Don’t climb that tree because Dad said not to”? Yes that does change things and in a very important way. Why? Because now both people recognize the same person as a common authority.

So how does that apply to debating whether or not homosexuality is a good thing to practice? Well, if you say, “Don’t engage in homosexual activities because the Bible says it is a sin” but the person doesn’t believe in the Bible, then you are no different than the friend that expects you to obey her dad. Now if both parties agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and a guide to daily living, then it is perfectly acceptable to appeal to the Bible as your authority on the subject.

Does this mean that the Christian should remain silent about the potential or actual harms of homosexuality? Of course not. There are two things open for the Christian to do. One is to engage the other person about why he or she should accept the Bible as the standard for daily living. This would be like the friend in the example going on to say, “Well, my dad is a fireman and the last time someone got hurt climbing this tree all the firemen decided it was too dangerous for anyone to climb.” This would be an attempt to show why, in this case, you should accept the authority of her dad. The second thing you can do is make your case against homosexuality without referring to the Bible. Why do you think the Bible seems to prohibit homosexuality? (I use ‘seems’ because not everyone reading this will agree it does, but even those people would agree with what follows.) Well, certain behaviors prevent people from living the best life possible. That is true whether or not you believe in God or the Bible. If you show how those behaviors prevent the best life without appealing to the Bible, then whomever you are talking with cannot just say, “Well, I don’t believe in the Bible and so I have no reason to obey its commands.”

I do think such a case can be made. If you’re interested in some books that make a case against homosexuality (among other things) without appealing to Scripture, let me know. There are also some great books that will help you know why people should believe in the Bible’s trustworthiness and reliability. Those types of books may help you with your ability to convince those that don’t trust the Bible that they should.

The Da Vinci Code

It’s been awhile since I’ve last posted, but after finishing Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, I thought I’d come out of hibernation and give you some thoughts. So, here are my thoughts:

1. The book is a good read, but the amount of copies it has sold is surprising (it’s not that good).
2. The Church has a lot more to worry about than this book; let’s focus on people coming to Christ and not on some piece of fiction.
3. If you’re a conspiracy theorist, then this book will really get you going (just remember that Harvard has no professor of symbology, no one does because it’s a made up profession).

Okay, in regards to 1. I think I know why it has sold so many books. People like controversy. That’s it, nothing more needs to be said (but will be said anyways). If Dan Brown concludes at the end of the book that the Church had it right all along and isn’t hiding the truth about Jesus and his family, then I’m certain it wouldn’t have sold as many books as it did. Heck, it probably wouldn’t even have gotten published because the writing just isn’t that good. In the future I plan to post about the writing itself, some of it just doesn’t make sense.As far as 2 goes, too many people in the Church today have gotten very worried and upset about this book. Guess what, people have been writing this type of stuff for awhile now, just this time it’s much better than before. If you’re curious about what makes people so upset, go to your local bookstore and read Chapter 55. This is the chapter that causes all the problems with many people in the Church and sets the stage for the rest of the book. Don’t worry, reading this before everything else won’t ruin it; you won’t understand some of the plot but the plot isn’t why I want you to read the chapter. It’s also the chapter that made the book much less interesting for me. It’s like when a movie takes such a terribly unrealistic turn that it’s hard to watch anymore, that’s what chapter 55 does for me. Some may be convinced that something like what happened in chapter 55 could happen; if that’s you, go buy Darrell Bock’s Breaking the Da Vinci Code or for something not related to Brown’s book, get J.P. Moreland and Michael Wilkins’s Jesus Under Fire. (The latter is a very good book, the former I haven’t read yet but Bock is one of the foremost New Testament scholars and is sure to be helpful).Finally, conspiracy theories will never go away. It’s why in grade school rumors get started about someone eating his boogers. It’s why in high school some guy is always accused of being gay (especially if he is in drama). There is an often insatiable desire for controversy and that’s exactly what conspiracy theories are supposed to cover up. Brown has written a book that fans the flames of controversy in people’s hearts, especially those that have something against the Church.Read the book so you can know what the heck is going on in our culture today (that’s why I read it). Don’t be afraid that your faith will be shattered or that you’ll lose trust in the New Testament. If that indeed happens, please let me know and I’d be glad to help out or at least locate some resources to answer your questions.Grace and peace,