I've been watching with passive curiosity over the past 6 months at the ridiculous antics and grossly inflated sense of self-importance that members of the "Ordain Women" movement seem to exhibit. I suppose it's time to weigh in a bit, although it really is unnecessary.
The "Ordain Women" movement believes... honestly believes... that they are a "significant force for change" in the Church. To those who actually HAVE a testimony of the Gospel, and more than a passing notion of how God works know that nothing in this universe could be farther from the truth. They are an incidental speck of annoyance. Nothing more. And they never will be. They are also yet another fulfillment of prophesy. We are told that in the last days "even the very elect will be deceived," and we have not seen this occur in as graphically stunning of a demonstration in some time.
Chronic Ark Steadying has long been an unfortunate companion to the Restored Gospel for as long as it has been restored. All it takes is a tiny group of spoiled, entitled small-minded whiners who either lost their testimony of the Restored Gospel, or who never had it in the first place, to insist that they know better than God how to run His Church. That is, if they even think He stands at the head of it anymore.
Many, if not most of them believe that the Church is nothing more than a social club, which they eagerly want to mold into whatever the current cultural flavor 'o the week dictates. They look at it as a huge corporate entity, wholly susceptible to the self-serving pressure of grassroots "campaigns" to change their policies and practices. The concept of "inspiration" and "revelation" are completely lost on them, as is the idea that God may have His own ideas of how He wants His kingdom run that may not necessarily coincide with theirs. "Divine authority" is nothing more than a buzzword to those who seek to create a "smooth god" in their own image and likeness, and carries no pragmatic weight.
At the most elementary level, OW's followers either 1) no longer believe that God actively leads His Church, or that 2) the prophet and the 12 have become apostate, and no longer receive revelation to guide and direct the Church. That is, if their direction doesn't agree with the Ark Steadiers. They're just fine with them if it does.
They claim that these two options constitute a "fallacy of exclusion," and that there are "other possibilities" not being considered... which might be the case if they actually had another viable "possibility" to present. So far, I've heard no plausible alternatives and a LOT of hand-wringing and whining over not getting their way.
Yes, I've heard them posit that "No one has asked God," but that assumes that neither the living Prophet nor the members of the Quorum of the Twelve pray. Which goes to Option #1, quite frankly. Or at the very least, they claim that they don't believe they have prayed about THIS issue, and that since the Blacks holding the priesthood was kind of a massive goof-up, that got all sorted out once they actually PRAYED about it, that surely the ordination of women must be of the same ilk.
What they are obviously not aware of are the significant errors in their logic and reasoning, as well as their pathetically inept grasp of Church History.
First of all, the blacks not receiving the priesthood was not a "massive goof-up," and there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that it was. The most that can be said about it is that "we don't know" the reasons... not one of the First Presidency or Quorum of the Twelve has ever insinuated that it was incorrect on any level. Strike one.
Secondly, there was precedent for the blacks being ordained, as Joseph Smith ordained at least one, if not more. There is no precedent for women being ordained. Not one prophet or apostle has either advocated it, or suggested that it might be something the Lord might consider in the future. Nada. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Strike Two.
The Lord (and His servants) have steadfastly and consistently taught that only males were to hold the priesthood, and that the basic roles of men and women are different. Of course, such a statement immediately makes the collective heads of the OW minions implode. "What about GENDER EQUALITY" they shriek.
The reality is that in the Lord's eyes, through the lens of scripture as well as revelation received through His servants, "gender equality" is alive and well in the Church. What is not part of the Restored Gospel is the concept of equality meaning "sameness." The ROLES of men and women in the Church are different. There's no mystery here, and no ambiguity. M. Russell Ballard, being quoted by Elder Oaks, commented on this very principle:
“Our Church doctrine places women equal to and yet different from men.
God does not regard either gender as better or more important than the
other. …"
Addressing this very question of differences in the last General Conference, Elder Dallin H. Oaks said,
"But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the
keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter
the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the
priesthood."
He goes on to say, "The Lord has directed that only men will be ordained to offices in the priesthood."
Now. Either the Twelve are inspired servants of God, or they are not. Either Elder Oaks prayed about this topic as he was preparing his address at General Conference, or he didn't. Either God leads the Church, or he doesn't. This really isn't rocket science. It's a binary concept.
The two possibilities that I presented still stand. Those who want to force the Church to bend to their will, instead of bending their will to that of the Lord, either believe that the leadership of the Church is apostate and uninspired, or they must believe that God no longer directs His Church.
EITHER BELIEF is grounds for excommunication, and quite frankly, those who embrace and openly teach them should be excommunicated for apostasy.
Sunday, June 22, 2014
Sunday, June 8, 2014
Anti-Cultural Mormons
We certainly live in interesting times, especially where the Church is concerned. For instance, apostates used to be few and far between, most everyone knew who they were, and the apostates were soundly ostracized and marginalized to the point where they gladly left the Church rather than stay and endure the "shunning" that inevitably occurred.
Not anymore.
One of the more recent aberrations to appear over the horizon in Mormondom is the movement to embrace the culture of the Church while at the same time rejecting its teachings and doctrines. Various groups have risen from the primordial ooze of apostasy to attempt to establish their turf as "legitimate" organizations that serve as "alternatives" for mainstream members who are butt-hurt over this or that.
"Reform Mormons," the ugly stepchild of the "New Order Mormons," or the NOM movement, is an attempt to de-spiritualize being a member of the Church, and to legitimize apostate membership. Instead of being critical of church doctrines, stomping their feet, and wandering off into whatever strange roads that call to them, they have gotten their full-blown rebellion on and are now vowing to stay in the church as active, non-believing members, and work to "change" the church "from within."
The "Ordain Women" movement seeks to overthrow the sexist male-dominated hierarchy of the Church and force the church to yield to their bidding... namely to ordain women to the priesthood. These people are under no illusion that the Lord approves of such a thing... they view the Church as nothing more than a corporate entity, which will cave to public pressure in time if they keep the heat up.
Some of us, myself included, have found ourselves both confused and disgusted at these movements, if for no other reason than the sheer illogic of it. I have to admit, it renders me speechless... but not for the reasons you might imagine.
There is another movement in the Church which stands in stark contrast to the movements I described above. Not much is said about this movement, and many don't even believe they're part of it, but I firmly believe that the sheer number of members that would joyfully and enthusiastically affiliate with this movement (if they knew it existed) would dwarf the handful of malcontents that fill the ranks of the other movements. Were this movement ever to visibly rear its ugly head, it would surely be a force to be reckoned with.
This movement I'm referring to is called "Anti-Cultural Mormonism." The core objectives and beliefs of this movement are exactly opposite that of the NOM's... While NOM's reject the doctrine of the church and the keys and authority of the living prophet in favor of the cultural and social aspects of the Church, Anti-Cultural Mormons are the opposite... they are deeply passionate about the Savior and His atonement and have very powerful testimonies of the Gospel. They sustain the Prophet, serve faithfully and cherish the scriptures. They also have a seething, white-hot loathing of "Mormon Culture."
Anti-Cultural Mormons, or "ACM's" for short, do recognize the need for a Church structure with priesthood keys and authority, but consider the Church itself to be a sort of "scaffolding" surrounding the REAL building, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. They reject the freakishly absurd centrality that Mormon culture seems to play in the worship of cultural Mormons... who seem to actually replace Jesus Christ with green jello, Fast and Testimony Meeting travelogues and foyer-corner gossip.
To be honest, some ACM's would be perfectly happy to never again step foot inside a chapel if it were possible for them to take the sacrament somewhere else. The frustration, hurt, and disenchantment are simply too overwhelming.
The experiences they have suffered through the years at the hands of insensitive local leaders and vicious, cliquish cultural Mormons has been painful and deeply traumatizing. They are so repulsed by their own wards and stakes that they are seriously torn... they love the gospel, but want no part of the local Church or the Culture.
The judgmental slights, insults, passive-aggressiveness, and outright hostility to anyone who is in any way "not wearing the uniform" or who are not in the "inner circle" or "cool kids club" makes attending meetings a constant exercise in frustration and disappointment. And it seems to happen every. single. week. It's relentless and omnipresent.
Mistakes by leadership that leave sometimes permanent spiritual wounds are dismissed with a smile and a waive of the hand with the ever-popular "Oh, well... he must have been called to that position for his own growth." Very little is done to adequately train new leaders, and even less seems to be done to correct errant ones. Almost every member of the Church can tell you horror stories regarding the personal failures or missteps of some local leader at some point in time.
The hushed, judgmental whispering at the deacon who wore a light-blue shirt instead of a white one to pass the sacrament... just loud enough for all around them to hear... is considered righteous and faithful. "If those parents were really righteous, they'd never allow this (obviously wayward) boy to come like that. Of all the nerve! How disrespectful is that to the Savior?" Never once allowing for the possibility that neither the boy or his parents can afford a white shirt.
And my personal favorite, the look of (very obvious) sheer, repulsive disgust at the humble investigator who bravely comes in faded jeans, reeking of cigarette smoke. "Obviously we don't want HIS kind here. He'll never fit in." Seriously?
The cliques. The judgmentalism. The pretending. The shunning. The musical-chairs of leadership callings between the same small group in the ward. The condescending "spiritually-I'm-more-righteous-than-you" attitudes. The Primary voice. The refusal to actually study the gospel, while at the same time pretending to be an expert in its mysteries. The erroneous and borderline apostate pseudo-scholarship. The arrogant and reverential claims of being led by the Spirit, while committing serious sins during the week when they think no one's looking. The hypocrisy. The constant feelings of not being enough. Of being less-than. Of watching that new family be invited to speak, and receive callings when you've been in your ward for 2 years, have waited for 6 months for a calling, and have never been asked to speak. The isolation. The despair.
And I could go on and on and on.
I have to admit that I no longer look forward to going to Church. I hate it. I start getting a pit in my stomach around Friday, in anticipation of Sunday morning. I count the minutes until Sacrament Meeting is over, which is the only meeting that I have the ability to endure.
Of course, in the grand tradition of passive-aggressive ecclesiastical counseling within the Church, those with legitimate and deeply felt concerns are assured, basically, that their issues are really their own fault. It always comes back to that. "There's nothing wrong. Move along. Nothing to see here." It's always our fault. We are obviously not "preparing ourselves" properly for worship. We are obviously shallow or "don't have a testimony." Two more notches removed from being a "cool kid" now.
We are repeatedly told that if we're "truly prepared," then our worship experience will be gloriously transcendent and meaningful. It will be about humbly partaking of the sacrament, thoughtful meditation and prayer, hearing angels singing reverently in the background, and being gratefully and richly fed through wave after wave of The Spirit washes over us as we listen to the well-prepared, insightful talks that leave us feeling inspired and invigorated spiritually and ready to take on a new week with renewed resolve.
Apparently, not for me.
The reality is that I can't really hear the speakers at all, even sitting on the third row. The talks are boring and poorly prepared. Even the Bishop is asleep. The thunderous din from over 125 toddlers and primary children is deafening. The opening dirge, Sacrament dirge, and rest dirge all leave you desperately yearning for the closing dirge. Rinse and repeat every week. No matter HOW diligently I spiritually prepare.
Lately, I've taken to simply finding an empty classroom and reading the scriptures, or browsing through the last Conference Report. That's all the spiritual uplift that I can expect. And I can do that at home.
I've had to seriously re-evaluate the standard testimony-meeting chestnut of "I know this Church is true." I suppose I do know that it's true, to an extent... the organization is correct... the priesthood keys are there... the gospel is true... the scriptures are a blessing... but that's where it ends. I don't "know" that the way the Church works in my ward is "true."
While the Bishop naps blissfully on the stand during a Dry Councilman's 40-minute talk on "obedience," the Miller kids are racing up and down their pew, screaming, and throwing Cheerios at each other while their parents sit by, seemingly oblivious to the disruption their Satanic spawn are causing and the annoyed stares boring into the back of their skulls from the rest of the ward.
Of course, kids are a double-edged sword. In wards that are either "newlywed or nearly dead," there is little tolerance for the struggling, overwhelmed young parents who honestly do try to teach their children reverence. Some parents are so exhausted and weary that they simply choose to just stay home rather then bring their brood of small children to be judged and condemned for... well... being small children.
So, I'm an unapologetic member of the Anti-Cultural Mormonism movement. I love the Savior. But think that His Kingdom on Earth desperately needs a cleanup on aisle 9. At least in my ward.
Not anymore.
One of the more recent aberrations to appear over the horizon in Mormondom is the movement to embrace the culture of the Church while at the same time rejecting its teachings and doctrines. Various groups have risen from the primordial ooze of apostasy to attempt to establish their turf as "legitimate" organizations that serve as "alternatives" for mainstream members who are butt-hurt over this or that.
"Reform Mormons," the ugly stepchild of the "New Order Mormons," or the NOM movement, is an attempt to de-spiritualize being a member of the Church, and to legitimize apostate membership. Instead of being critical of church doctrines, stomping their feet, and wandering off into whatever strange roads that call to them, they have gotten their full-blown rebellion on and are now vowing to stay in the church as active, non-believing members, and work to "change" the church "from within."
The "Ordain Women" movement seeks to overthrow the sexist male-dominated hierarchy of the Church and force the church to yield to their bidding... namely to ordain women to the priesthood. These people are under no illusion that the Lord approves of such a thing... they view the Church as nothing more than a corporate entity, which will cave to public pressure in time if they keep the heat up.
Some of us, myself included, have found ourselves both confused and disgusted at these movements, if for no other reason than the sheer illogic of it. I have to admit, it renders me speechless... but not for the reasons you might imagine.
There is another movement in the Church which stands in stark contrast to the movements I described above. Not much is said about this movement, and many don't even believe they're part of it, but I firmly believe that the sheer number of members that would joyfully and enthusiastically affiliate with this movement (if they knew it existed) would dwarf the handful of malcontents that fill the ranks of the other movements. Were this movement ever to visibly rear its ugly head, it would surely be a force to be reckoned with.
This movement I'm referring to is called "Anti-Cultural Mormonism." The core objectives and beliefs of this movement are exactly opposite that of the NOM's... While NOM's reject the doctrine of the church and the keys and authority of the living prophet in favor of the cultural and social aspects of the Church, Anti-Cultural Mormons are the opposite... they are deeply passionate about the Savior and His atonement and have very powerful testimonies of the Gospel. They sustain the Prophet, serve faithfully and cherish the scriptures. They also have a seething, white-hot loathing of "Mormon Culture."
Anti-Cultural Mormons, or "ACM's" for short, do recognize the need for a Church structure with priesthood keys and authority, but consider the Church itself to be a sort of "scaffolding" surrounding the REAL building, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ. They reject the freakishly absurd centrality that Mormon culture seems to play in the worship of cultural Mormons... who seem to actually replace Jesus Christ with green jello, Fast and Testimony Meeting travelogues and foyer-corner gossip.
To be honest, some ACM's would be perfectly happy to never again step foot inside a chapel if it were possible for them to take the sacrament somewhere else. The frustration, hurt, and disenchantment are simply too overwhelming.
The experiences they have suffered through the years at the hands of insensitive local leaders and vicious, cliquish cultural Mormons has been painful and deeply traumatizing. They are so repulsed by their own wards and stakes that they are seriously torn... they love the gospel, but want no part of the local Church or the Culture.
The judgmental slights, insults, passive-aggressiveness, and outright hostility to anyone who is in any way "not wearing the uniform" or who are not in the "inner circle" or "cool kids club" makes attending meetings a constant exercise in frustration and disappointment. And it seems to happen every. single. week. It's relentless and omnipresent.
Mistakes by leadership that leave sometimes permanent spiritual wounds are dismissed with a smile and a waive of the hand with the ever-popular "Oh, well... he must have been called to that position for his own growth." Very little is done to adequately train new leaders, and even less seems to be done to correct errant ones. Almost every member of the Church can tell you horror stories regarding the personal failures or missteps of some local leader at some point in time.
The hushed, judgmental whispering at the deacon who wore a light-blue shirt instead of a white one to pass the sacrament... just loud enough for all around them to hear... is considered righteous and faithful. "If those parents were really righteous, they'd never allow this (obviously wayward) boy to come like that. Of all the nerve! How disrespectful is that to the Savior?" Never once allowing for the possibility that neither the boy or his parents can afford a white shirt.
And my personal favorite, the look of (very obvious) sheer, repulsive disgust at the humble investigator who bravely comes in faded jeans, reeking of cigarette smoke. "Obviously we don't want HIS kind here. He'll never fit in." Seriously?
The cliques. The judgmentalism. The pretending. The shunning. The musical-chairs of leadership callings between the same small group in the ward. The condescending "spiritually-I'm-more-righteous-than-you" attitudes. The Primary voice. The refusal to actually study the gospel, while at the same time pretending to be an expert in its mysteries. The erroneous and borderline apostate pseudo-scholarship. The arrogant and reverential claims of being led by the Spirit, while committing serious sins during the week when they think no one's looking. The hypocrisy. The constant feelings of not being enough. Of being less-than. Of watching that new family be invited to speak, and receive callings when you've been in your ward for 2 years, have waited for 6 months for a calling, and have never been asked to speak. The isolation. The despair.
And I could go on and on and on.
I have to admit that I no longer look forward to going to Church. I hate it. I start getting a pit in my stomach around Friday, in anticipation of Sunday morning. I count the minutes until Sacrament Meeting is over, which is the only meeting that I have the ability to endure.
Of course, in the grand tradition of passive-aggressive ecclesiastical counseling within the Church, those with legitimate and deeply felt concerns are assured, basically, that their issues are really their own fault. It always comes back to that. "There's nothing wrong. Move along. Nothing to see here." It's always our fault. We are obviously not "preparing ourselves" properly for worship. We are obviously shallow or "don't have a testimony." Two more notches removed from being a "cool kid" now.
We are repeatedly told that if we're "truly prepared," then our worship experience will be gloriously transcendent and meaningful. It will be about humbly partaking of the sacrament, thoughtful meditation and prayer, hearing angels singing reverently in the background, and being gratefully and richly fed through wave after wave of The Spirit washes over us as we listen to the well-prepared, insightful talks that leave us feeling inspired and invigorated spiritually and ready to take on a new week with renewed resolve.
Apparently, not for me.
The reality is that I can't really hear the speakers at all, even sitting on the third row. The talks are boring and poorly prepared. Even the Bishop is asleep. The thunderous din from over 125 toddlers and primary children is deafening. The opening dirge, Sacrament dirge, and rest dirge all leave you desperately yearning for the closing dirge. Rinse and repeat every week. No matter HOW diligently I spiritually prepare.
Lately, I've taken to simply finding an empty classroom and reading the scriptures, or browsing through the last Conference Report. That's all the spiritual uplift that I can expect. And I can do that at home.
I've had to seriously re-evaluate the standard testimony-meeting chestnut of "I know this Church is true." I suppose I do know that it's true, to an extent... the organization is correct... the priesthood keys are there... the gospel is true... the scriptures are a blessing... but that's where it ends. I don't "know" that the way the Church works in my ward is "true."
While the Bishop naps blissfully on the stand during a Dry Councilman's 40-minute talk on "obedience," the Miller kids are racing up and down their pew, screaming, and throwing Cheerios at each other while their parents sit by, seemingly oblivious to the disruption their Satanic spawn are causing and the annoyed stares boring into the back of their skulls from the rest of the ward.
Of course, kids are a double-edged sword. In wards that are either "newlywed or nearly dead," there is little tolerance for the struggling, overwhelmed young parents who honestly do try to teach their children reverence. Some parents are so exhausted and weary that they simply choose to just stay home rather then bring their brood of small children to be judged and condemned for... well... being small children.
So, I'm an unapologetic member of the Anti-Cultural Mormonism movement. I love the Savior. But think that His Kingdom on Earth desperately needs a cleanup on aisle 9. At least in my ward.
Friday, February 14, 2014
A Testimony of Apostasy
If I only had a nickel for every time I've heard the following statement:
"I've always been active in the Church, and have always had a deep and abiding testimony of the gospel, but now that I know that Joseph Smith picked his nose in the 2nd grade, I feel betrayed and lied to... I mean... if the Church hid THIS from me as an active member, what ELSE has it hidden from me? That's why I walked away from the Church, my family, friends, and acquaintances. I feel so much more freedom now that I'm living a world of truth, and not a world of fraud."
Seriously?
The latest contestant on "My Testimony Sucketh" is a former Bishop in the Pacific Rim, who was so spiritually traumatized by the Church's latest essay on Race and the Priesthood that he's questioning whether everything he ever taught was a lie... and this is the interesting part... because "the excuses he, as a Bishop, made for some policies of the church were incorrect." But because some past leaders of the Church had used the same speculation, in his mind, this left the door open for any and all doctrine to be incorrect... never mind that the Church itself never endorsed or taught the reasoning that this former Bishop (or the past leaders of the Church) had employed. Take a minute and let the pure ridiculousness and lack of logic sink in.
"Let's see... I taught things that were never official teachings of the Church, and then I found out that I was wrong." Yeah, THERE'S a reason to leave the Church. And, of course, the underscoring justification for this is that some past leader was equally out of line for using the same speculation-in-the-absence-of-divine-revelation.
This whole mindset indicates a two-fold weakness... 1) it completely ignores spiritual confirmation of divine truth, and 2) it almost always infers (even if unstated) a belief in Prophetic Infallibility.
The main problem with this "Gosh golly, I discovered something sketchy with Church History, now my testimony is toast" rationale is that it completely and immediately reveals the individual to be one who has never had a true testimony to begin with. "But how can you possibly know that?" you ask? Easily. When the Holy Ghost truly testifies to your soul that the Gospel is true, it changes you. During all of the trials, hurt feelings, etc. that come our way as we traipse through this minefield we call "Mortal Life," the one thing that sustains us is NOT our BELIEF that the Church is true... it is the sure knowledge that we received when the Spirit testified to us that it was true.
I've actually been asked by anti's what it would take to convince me that the Church is not true. My response? "You can't." You see, even if they COULD manage to string three words together in a coherent sentence, much less prove to my satisfaction that Joseph Smith was a complete and utter fraud, that pesky issue remains... "But what do I do about the witness that I have received from the Spirit, which I could never deny?" And that's it in a nutshell. End of discussion. Game over, man. To this day, I've never received a satisfactory answer to that one. The idea of a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost is a concept that is completely foreign to most of those not of our faith.
As far as prophetic infallibility goes, one of the more glaring errors that Church members have made since the Restoration, and one which the Brethren are constantly struggling to teach is the fact that neither Prophets nor anyone else in the Church is infallible. For some, however, "The prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray" is a de facto code phrase for "Everything the Prophet says, writes, or comments on is infallible, and is perfect." As President Dieter Uchdorf reiterated in the Oct 2013 General Conference, this is clearly not the case.
The reality, Bishop, if you're even out there, is that the Church *IS* true. Yes, you taught foolish things that the Church never authorized, and I'm so very sorry that you're all butt-hurt over that, but guess what? That doesn't render the Gospel untrue. The truth is that you were incorrect... and that's on you. And if you were actually a Bishop without having any witness of the Spirit of the truth of the Gospel... I'm sorry, but you had no business accepting the call in the first place, IMHO. That's also on you.
The reality is that is should never matter what some Church Leader did or didn't teach, or whether Joseph Smith did or didn't pick his nose. "We see in part, and we prophesy in part." Line upon line, remember? Yes, we may learn (to the horror of some) that the early leaders of the Church were human, after all. And yes, we may even discover that the "Standard Gospel Answer" that we always taught was wrong. Whatever. But what we cannot jettison so neatly is the spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost that we have received.
One has their agency in this life to either be faithful, or faithless. One can humble themselves, and petition the Lord in prayer and fasting for understanding and direction, or one can arrogantly hop up on the closest soapbox and scream their various doubts through the megaphones of the blogosphere. But each choice, in its own way, reveals something invaluable about the individual.
"I've always been active in the Church, and have always had a deep and abiding testimony of the gospel, but now that I know that Joseph Smith picked his nose in the 2nd grade, I feel betrayed and lied to... I mean... if the Church hid THIS from me as an active member, what ELSE has it hidden from me? That's why I walked away from the Church, my family, friends, and acquaintances. I feel so much more freedom now that I'm living a world of truth, and not a world of fraud."
Seriously?
The latest contestant on "My Testimony Sucketh" is a former Bishop in the Pacific Rim, who was so spiritually traumatized by the Church's latest essay on Race and the Priesthood that he's questioning whether everything he ever taught was a lie... and this is the interesting part... because "the excuses he, as a Bishop, made for some policies of the church were incorrect." But because some past leaders of the Church had used the same speculation, in his mind, this left the door open for any and all doctrine to be incorrect... never mind that the Church itself never endorsed or taught the reasoning that this former Bishop (or the past leaders of the Church) had employed. Take a minute and let the pure ridiculousness and lack of logic sink in.
"Let's see... I taught things that were never official teachings of the Church, and then I found out that I was wrong." Yeah, THERE'S a reason to leave the Church. And, of course, the underscoring justification for this is that some past leader was equally out of line for using the same speculation-in-the-absence-of-divine-revelation.
This whole mindset indicates a two-fold weakness... 1) it completely ignores spiritual confirmation of divine truth, and 2) it almost always infers (even if unstated) a belief in Prophetic Infallibility.
The main problem with this "Gosh golly, I discovered something sketchy with Church History, now my testimony is toast" rationale is that it completely and immediately reveals the individual to be one who has never had a true testimony to begin with. "But how can you possibly know that?" you ask? Easily. When the Holy Ghost truly testifies to your soul that the Gospel is true, it changes you. During all of the trials, hurt feelings, etc. that come our way as we traipse through this minefield we call "Mortal Life," the one thing that sustains us is NOT our BELIEF that the Church is true... it is the sure knowledge that we received when the Spirit testified to us that it was true.
I've actually been asked by anti's what it would take to convince me that the Church is not true. My response? "You can't." You see, even if they COULD manage to string three words together in a coherent sentence, much less prove to my satisfaction that Joseph Smith was a complete and utter fraud, that pesky issue remains... "But what do I do about the witness that I have received from the Spirit, which I could never deny?" And that's it in a nutshell. End of discussion. Game over, man. To this day, I've never received a satisfactory answer to that one. The idea of a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost is a concept that is completely foreign to most of those not of our faith.
As far as prophetic infallibility goes, one of the more glaring errors that Church members have made since the Restoration, and one which the Brethren are constantly struggling to teach is the fact that neither Prophets nor anyone else in the Church is infallible. For some, however, "The prophet will never be allowed to lead the Church astray" is a de facto code phrase for "Everything the Prophet says, writes, or comments on is infallible, and is perfect." As President Dieter Uchdorf reiterated in the Oct 2013 General Conference, this is clearly not the case.
The reality, Bishop, if you're even out there, is that the Church *IS* true. Yes, you taught foolish things that the Church never authorized, and I'm so very sorry that you're all butt-hurt over that, but guess what? That doesn't render the Gospel untrue. The truth is that you were incorrect... and that's on you. And if you were actually a Bishop without having any witness of the Spirit of the truth of the Gospel... I'm sorry, but you had no business accepting the call in the first place, IMHO. That's also on you.
The reality is that is should never matter what some Church Leader did or didn't teach, or whether Joseph Smith did or didn't pick his nose. "We see in part, and we prophesy in part." Line upon line, remember? Yes, we may learn (to the horror of some) that the early leaders of the Church were human, after all. And yes, we may even discover that the "Standard Gospel Answer" that we always taught was wrong. Whatever. But what we cannot jettison so neatly is the spiritual confirmation from the Holy Ghost that we have received.
One has their agency in this life to either be faithful, or faithless. One can humble themselves, and petition the Lord in prayer and fasting for understanding and direction, or one can arrogantly hop up on the closest soapbox and scream their various doubts through the megaphones of the blogosphere. But each choice, in its own way, reveals something invaluable about the individual.
Friday, February 7, 2014
Faithful to the End
Boy, we put an awful lot of emphasis in the Church on "being faithful," don't we? Faithful this, faithful that, faithful the other thing. Faithful wives. Faithful husbands. Faithful servants. Faithful priesthood holders. Faithful tithe-payers. Faithful, faithful, faithful.
It's gotten to the point, however, where I think some Definitional Drift has occurred, and some clarification might be in order. You see, from what I've observed recently, "faithfulness" has drifted from the original meaning of "a condition of being full of faith," to being synonymous in some people's minds with "perfection." Or even "Perfect Obedience."
At the risk of offending some, may I suggest that that simply isn't the case.
I think to an astonishing degree, we've forgotten what "faithfulness" really means... and it is taking a terrible toll on our own spiritual self-worth. I think we do violence to ourselves and, ironically, our faith in Christ, when we constantly see ourselves as being "unfaithful" simply because we struggle in our weakness with various aspects of the gospel, or with addiction, sin, etc. I think we are sometimes guilty of bearing false witness against... ourselves.
How can this be if we are all under the bondage of sin? If "perfect obedience" isn't what it means, what DOES it really mean to be "faithful"?
Very simple.
For one to be "faithful," one must be "full of faith in the saving power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ." Not "full of perfection." Not "full of obedience" even. But "full of faith." None of us of are perfect... especially the ones who think they are pretty darned close. Try as we may, none of us are 100% obedient. And I believe that that's by Divine Design. But does that mean then that we are not "faithful"? I would argue a resounding "No."
But what then, IS being "full of faith"? Alma describes it as follows, but with a small substitution: "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of [the Atonement of Christ]; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for [the healing power of the Atonement of Christ] which [is] not seen, which [is] true." (Alma 32:21) Paul, of course, describes it in similar terms when he taught the Jews.
In neither of these descriptions do we find the definition of faith to be "Perfect obedience to divine law." And yet that is the standard that we sometimes impose on ourselves (and just as tragically, to others), to the point of violent emotional self-flagellation when we do not live up to the erroneous definition we have embraced. Perhaps we would be better served by looking at these passages in the way I suggested. Perhaps the "things not seen" constitutes nothing less than the atonement and our own salvation. The true meaning of "faithfulness" becomes a lot more clear when we read those passages with this in mind.
We, imperfect creatures that we are, in our hour of deepest desperation and heartache, look forward with an eye of faith to the Atonement of Jesus Christ and His infinite perfection to save us from our sins. We love him. Our hearts are full in humility before Him. He truly is our Savior and Redeemer. We know all too well how unworthy we are without Him. And so Every. Single. Time. we fall, every time we stumble, every time we succumb to temptation, even though our hearts ache with pain, regret, and godly remorse for whatever part we played in His suffering for our sins, we silently condemn ourselves... again... for being "unfaithful servants." Unworthy of salvation. Unworthy of His blessings. Unworthy of Him, period. After all, "God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance," right?
And yet, the irony is that in the very act of doing this, we ARE being unfaithful. We're not holding out faith that He will cover our sins. We aren't trusting Him to be our Savior and Redeemer. In a very real way, when we beat ourselves bloody for the mistakes that we make and refuse to forgive ourselves, we actually make a mockery of His atonement in the process, and convince ourselves that we are surely beyond even His reach. In doing this, we stop having faith in Him, and in His atonement. We then become deeply mired in the quicksand of legalism.
The only way we could possibly be justified in this feeling of unworthiness is if we somehow "earn" our way to heaven by our works. But we know that that is false doctrine. It is a Satanic doctrine. It is a doctrine of defeat, of damnation, of "never-enoughness." It is a doctrine of discouragement and despair. It is not a doctrine of God. Of course, all of us would rightly rebel against the idea that we work our way to heaven, but somehow would not bat an eye when refusing to allow that the Savior died for OUR sins... and instead content ourselves with beating ourselves bloody whenever we stumble and fall... and that, my friends, is true faithLESSness.
And let me be clear... it's not the sin itself that makes us faithless. It's the failure to realize that our Spirits are perfect, and nothing we can do will ever change that. One important Eternal Truth is that God, in His infinite goodness and perfection, cannot create imperfection. If He did, He would cease to be God. That's why, as one General Authority put it, our Heavenly Father created a Plan of Salvation for each of us, and not a Plan of Damnation.
In stubborn and unrelenting self-condemnation, we are not trusting He who designed this great Plan of Salvation that we embrace. If we do not trust Him, we do not believe Him, and we are thus not exercising faith. We are not being "faithful" servants. It is ONLY at that point that we fall under condemnation.
Now. That being said, obedience definitely plays a crucial part in our faithfulness. Remember the Gospel of James? "Faith without works is dead, being alone." "But... wait a minute... doesn't that mean that we DO need to be perfect in order to have faith? I'm confused."
No.
What being "full of faith" means is to approach the throne of the Savior with humility... on our knees... with a broken heart and a contrite spirit... and to look to Him and the infinite perfection He has as our Savior and Redeemer in abject faith; to plead with Him to apply His infinite perfection and eternal atonement on our behalf... to lift us up, help us get back on our feet, and to have the courage to keep putting one step in front of the other on our personal journey to where He is. To heal us. To sanctify us or make us perfect. To put a heavenly stamp of approval on our efforts. To keep trying.
That's what He expects of us, really. To just keep trying. Because when we arrive at the point where we give up, where we stop looking to Him, stop believing that He can heal us, and stop TRYING to do what He commanded... when we stop BELIEVING that He is our redeemer... we have then... and ONLY then... become "unfaithful."
When we look to Him through the white-hot tears of remorse with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, no matter how many times we have fallen down, we ARE being "faithful." We are trying. And that's all He asks of us. One foot in front of the other. Fall down? Get up. Bloody yourself? Learn from it, and apply the Healing Balm of Gilead to those spiritual wounds. Dust off the dirt and the filth, and don't look back. Never look back. Only forward, with an eye single to His glory, in faith, to Him.
We are so wrapped up in beating ourselves up for falling down again and again and again and endlessly scraping our knees, that we fail to see the beauty of the Father's plan for us... which is, as I mentioned before, a Plan of Salvation, not a Plan of Damnation. He doesn't merely want us to return to Him. If that were all we were here for, we would have never left the pre-existence.
He wants us to learn to become LIKE Him, and has provided a way to accomplish that... but we stop trying many times and just give up because we unrighteously judge ourselves. We convince ourselves that we're just "too far gone," and that we're simply "not worthy." That we are failures. That we are unfaithful. The truth is that it's through falling down and scraping our spiritual knees that we BECOME like Him. Think about that for a moment. That is the moment where we realize just how deeply and how desperately we need Him. That's the very moment when we cling to His promises... when we reach out to him in sackcloth and ashes. When we are the very closest to Him and His love.
Take faith and be of good cheer. The price for sin HAS been paid in full. An infinite amount of perfection is waiting to be applied to you. You were given the reward of a place at the Father's table when you entered the waters of baptism. That place was sealed upon you when you entered the New and Everlasting Covenant. The only thing that can ever deprive you of that, no matter how badly you stumble, or how often, is faithLESSness... when you stop trying, stop believing in the atoning sacrifice of the Savior, and just up and give in to Satan.
Never stop caring. Never stop trying. Never stop believing. Never stop putting one foot in front of the other and always keep one hand on the iron rod. Eventually, we'll reach our destination.
It's gotten to the point, however, where I think some Definitional Drift has occurred, and some clarification might be in order. You see, from what I've observed recently, "faithfulness" has drifted from the original meaning of "a condition of being full of faith," to being synonymous in some people's minds with "perfection." Or even "Perfect Obedience."
At the risk of offending some, may I suggest that that simply isn't the case.
I think to an astonishing degree, we've forgotten what "faithfulness" really means... and it is taking a terrible toll on our own spiritual self-worth. I think we do violence to ourselves and, ironically, our faith in Christ, when we constantly see ourselves as being "unfaithful" simply because we struggle in our weakness with various aspects of the gospel, or with addiction, sin, etc. I think we are sometimes guilty of bearing false witness against... ourselves.
How can this be if we are all under the bondage of sin? If "perfect obedience" isn't what it means, what DOES it really mean to be "faithful"?
Very simple.
For one to be "faithful," one must be "full of faith in the saving power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ." Not "full of perfection." Not "full of obedience" even. But "full of faith." None of us of are perfect... especially the ones who think they are pretty darned close. Try as we may, none of us are 100% obedient. And I believe that that's by Divine Design. But does that mean then that we are not "faithful"? I would argue a resounding "No."
But what then, IS being "full of faith"? Alma describes it as follows, but with a small substitution: "faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of [the Atonement of Christ]; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for [the healing power of the Atonement of Christ] which [is] not seen, which [is] true." (Alma 32:21) Paul, of course, describes it in similar terms when he taught the Jews.
In neither of these descriptions do we find the definition of faith to be "Perfect obedience to divine law." And yet that is the standard that we sometimes impose on ourselves (and just as tragically, to others), to the point of violent emotional self-flagellation when we do not live up to the erroneous definition we have embraced. Perhaps we would be better served by looking at these passages in the way I suggested. Perhaps the "things not seen" constitutes nothing less than the atonement and our own salvation. The true meaning of "faithfulness" becomes a lot more clear when we read those passages with this in mind.
We, imperfect creatures that we are, in our hour of deepest desperation and heartache, look forward with an eye of faith to the Atonement of Jesus Christ and His infinite perfection to save us from our sins. We love him. Our hearts are full in humility before Him. He truly is our Savior and Redeemer. We know all too well how unworthy we are without Him. And so Every. Single. Time. we fall, every time we stumble, every time we succumb to temptation, even though our hearts ache with pain, regret, and godly remorse for whatever part we played in His suffering for our sins, we silently condemn ourselves... again... for being "unfaithful servants." Unworthy of salvation. Unworthy of His blessings. Unworthy of Him, period. After all, "God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance," right?
And yet, the irony is that in the very act of doing this, we ARE being unfaithful. We're not holding out faith that He will cover our sins. We aren't trusting Him to be our Savior and Redeemer. In a very real way, when we beat ourselves bloody for the mistakes that we make and refuse to forgive ourselves, we actually make a mockery of His atonement in the process, and convince ourselves that we are surely beyond even His reach. In doing this, we stop having faith in Him, and in His atonement. We then become deeply mired in the quicksand of legalism.
The only way we could possibly be justified in this feeling of unworthiness is if we somehow "earn" our way to heaven by our works. But we know that that is false doctrine. It is a Satanic doctrine. It is a doctrine of defeat, of damnation, of "never-enoughness." It is a doctrine of discouragement and despair. It is not a doctrine of God. Of course, all of us would rightly rebel against the idea that we work our way to heaven, but somehow would not bat an eye when refusing to allow that the Savior died for OUR sins... and instead content ourselves with beating ourselves bloody whenever we stumble and fall... and that, my friends, is true faithLESSness.
And let me be clear... it's not the sin itself that makes us faithless. It's the failure to realize that our Spirits are perfect, and nothing we can do will ever change that. One important Eternal Truth is that God, in His infinite goodness and perfection, cannot create imperfection. If He did, He would cease to be God. That's why, as one General Authority put it, our Heavenly Father created a Plan of Salvation for each of us, and not a Plan of Damnation.
In stubborn and unrelenting self-condemnation, we are not trusting He who designed this great Plan of Salvation that we embrace. If we do not trust Him, we do not believe Him, and we are thus not exercising faith. We are not being "faithful" servants. It is ONLY at that point that we fall under condemnation.
Now. That being said, obedience definitely plays a crucial part in our faithfulness. Remember the Gospel of James? "Faith without works is dead, being alone." "But... wait a minute... doesn't that mean that we DO need to be perfect in order to have faith? I'm confused."
No.
What being "full of faith" means is to approach the throne of the Savior with humility... on our knees... with a broken heart and a contrite spirit... and to look to Him and the infinite perfection He has as our Savior and Redeemer in abject faith; to plead with Him to apply His infinite perfection and eternal atonement on our behalf... to lift us up, help us get back on our feet, and to have the courage to keep putting one step in front of the other on our personal journey to where He is. To heal us. To sanctify us or make us perfect. To put a heavenly stamp of approval on our efforts. To keep trying.
That's what He expects of us, really. To just keep trying. Because when we arrive at the point where we give up, where we stop looking to Him, stop believing that He can heal us, and stop TRYING to do what He commanded... when we stop BELIEVING that He is our redeemer... we have then... and ONLY then... become "unfaithful."
When we look to Him through the white-hot tears of remorse with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, no matter how many times we have fallen down, we ARE being "faithful." We are trying. And that's all He asks of us. One foot in front of the other. Fall down? Get up. Bloody yourself? Learn from it, and apply the Healing Balm of Gilead to those spiritual wounds. Dust off the dirt and the filth, and don't look back. Never look back. Only forward, with an eye single to His glory, in faith, to Him.
We are so wrapped up in beating ourselves up for falling down again and again and again and endlessly scraping our knees, that we fail to see the beauty of the Father's plan for us... which is, as I mentioned before, a Plan of Salvation, not a Plan of Damnation. He doesn't merely want us to return to Him. If that were all we were here for, we would have never left the pre-existence.
He wants us to learn to become LIKE Him, and has provided a way to accomplish that... but we stop trying many times and just give up because we unrighteously judge ourselves. We convince ourselves that we're just "too far gone," and that we're simply "not worthy." That we are failures. That we are unfaithful. The truth is that it's through falling down and scraping our spiritual knees that we BECOME like Him. Think about that for a moment. That is the moment where we realize just how deeply and how desperately we need Him. That's the very moment when we cling to His promises... when we reach out to him in sackcloth and ashes. When we are the very closest to Him and His love.
Take faith and be of good cheer. The price for sin HAS been paid in full. An infinite amount of perfection is waiting to be applied to you. You were given the reward of a place at the Father's table when you entered the waters of baptism. That place was sealed upon you when you entered the New and Everlasting Covenant. The only thing that can ever deprive you of that, no matter how badly you stumble, or how often, is faithLESSness... when you stop trying, stop believing in the atoning sacrifice of the Savior, and just up and give in to Satan.
Never stop caring. Never stop trying. Never stop believing. Never stop putting one foot in front of the other and always keep one hand on the iron rod. Eventually, we'll reach our destination.
Tuesday, December 24, 2013
The Value of Values
I've had an interesting experience this past year... I was called upon to become a high school debate judge for my son's debate team, and have thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Somewhat familiar with healthy debate myself, it has been interesting to watch these young people be given topical resolutions, and then to prepare arguments for each respective side of the issue.
In a recent discussion online, my son, who is an energetic, enthusiastic and quite talented debater (even though this is his first year), argued a particular side of an issue "just because no one else was." That got me thinking.
I began pondering about all the "resolutions" that one could come up with regarding current societal issues, and which ones would be open to legitimately exploring different sides of a given issue, and which issues seemed to be inherently "indefensible." Or whether there really were such issues? In other words, can every conceivable issue be intelligently and legitimately debated?
In debate, as I have observed, a topical resolution is provided, and then both sides reduce their respective position into an arguable set of defensible factual points. Each side analyzes the resolution, and then assigns a "value proposition" that frames their argument, and then "contentions" to support their analysis and value proposition.
It's all very fascinating to watch and the opportunities for real-world application of these skills, particularly in the legal profession, are very easily observed.
It got me thinking, though... while arguing for the sake of learning formal debate skills, solid research techniques, and thinking on one's feet is one thing... is it wise or justified to carry that over into the real world on every issue? I suppose the question occurred to me, "When should something be defended (in the absence of someone defending it), and when should it not?"
As I enumerated in my mind the various issues that I thought logically indefensible, it occurred to me that what I was really tallying was a list of my own personal values, and that the more importance a given value had to me, personally, the more indefensible the opposing position to that value was. At least in my mind.
It's always a slippery slope when I muse on philosophical issues at O'Dark Thirty.
The cascading torrent of thoughts that followed enticed me to explore the possible reasons why others seemed to be able to attack issues that I had always held indefensible with such amazingly brazen ferocity... and it occurred to me that what I was munging on was nothing less than a subtle societal shift towards moral and ethical devaluation.
I'm a child of the '60's. Even in the midst of the love-fest of the Flower Children and Beatnicks, there was also a greater societal foundation of values and taboos... a long-lost word in our 21st Century vocabulary, but a very functional one in a society that held certain values dear. Taboos were behaviors, practices, and ideologies that were so far off the societal radar that they weren't even thought worthy of discussion. To be against them was "common sense." To defend them was unthinkable.
As time has trudged on however, values have waned, taboos have been emboldened, and the societal values we once held dear have been diluted to the point where they are only barely perceptible passing thoughts anymore. We have spent so much societal capital trying to be politically correct that we have, in the process, devalued the "dollar" of our common ethics and morals to the point where we don't have enough left to buy gum.
Author Richelle Goodrich commented on this:
In the "Old Days," societal ethics and morals were part of who we were as a people. They were what set us apart. They defined us in a very real way. Today, those values have been reduced to a set of contentions that can be interchangeably argued at will, with equally valid conclusions.
The side that "wins" is simply the side that makes the most convincing argument. Not the side that's "right..." for there is no "right" or "wrong" anymore. In fact, in this increasing "enlightened" age of relentless "Progressivism" and its ugly sister "Relativeism," morality and ethics have become nothing more than quaint curiosities.
Debates, whether in high school or the real world, are now merely exercises in evidence-gathering and argumentation skills. They have no real meaning beyond the scope of teaching students how to collect and process data. The actual intrinsic value of the issues being discussed is negligible. Discussions based on the respective ethical and moral merits of those values don't happen very frequently, and more often than not, moral and ethical evaluation has simply a long-forgotten remnant of a bygone day and a former era, and is seen as having no functional value in society. We're far too occupied trying to ensure that no one's feelings are hurt.
This freight train was heard rumbling down the tracks in 1915. In an essay by social scientists titled "Social Degeneration," they observed;
In a recent discussion online, my son, who is an energetic, enthusiastic and quite talented debater (even though this is his first year), argued a particular side of an issue "just because no one else was." That got me thinking.
I began pondering about all the "resolutions" that one could come up with regarding current societal issues, and which ones would be open to legitimately exploring different sides of a given issue, and which issues seemed to be inherently "indefensible." Or whether there really were such issues? In other words, can every conceivable issue be intelligently and legitimately debated?
In debate, as I have observed, a topical resolution is provided, and then both sides reduce their respective position into an arguable set of defensible factual points. Each side analyzes the resolution, and then assigns a "value proposition" that frames their argument, and then "contentions" to support their analysis and value proposition.
It's all very fascinating to watch and the opportunities for real-world application of these skills, particularly in the legal profession, are very easily observed.
It got me thinking, though... while arguing for the sake of learning formal debate skills, solid research techniques, and thinking on one's feet is one thing... is it wise or justified to carry that over into the real world on every issue? I suppose the question occurred to me, "When should something be defended (in the absence of someone defending it), and when should it not?"
As I enumerated in my mind the various issues that I thought logically indefensible, it occurred to me that what I was really tallying was a list of my own personal values, and that the more importance a given value had to me, personally, the more indefensible the opposing position to that value was. At least in my mind.
It's always a slippery slope when I muse on philosophical issues at O'Dark Thirty.
The cascading torrent of thoughts that followed enticed me to explore the possible reasons why others seemed to be able to attack issues that I had always held indefensible with such amazingly brazen ferocity... and it occurred to me that what I was munging on was nothing less than a subtle societal shift towards moral and ethical devaluation.
I'm a child of the '60's. Even in the midst of the love-fest of the Flower Children and Beatnicks, there was also a greater societal foundation of values and taboos... a long-lost word in our 21st Century vocabulary, but a very functional one in a society that held certain values dear. Taboos were behaviors, practices, and ideologies that were so far off the societal radar that they weren't even thought worthy of discussion. To be against them was "common sense." To defend them was unthinkable.
As time has trudged on however, values have waned, taboos have been emboldened, and the societal values we once held dear have been diluted to the point where they are only barely perceptible passing thoughts anymore. We have spent so much societal capital trying to be politically correct that we have, in the process, devalued the "dollar" of our common ethics and morals to the point where we don't have enough left to buy gum.
Author Richelle Goodrich commented on this:
“When you devalue ethics and morals by proclaiming that our attitude toward them should be casual or lenient, you can't be surprised by a rising generation who then behaves disrespectfully; treating life, people, and choices as if they possess little value or worth. For whether or not that was the intention, society has taught them to believe thusly.” (Richelle E. Goodrich, Smile Anyway, Purple Papaya LLC)Without trying to sound too ancient, I miss the "Old Days."
In the "Old Days," societal ethics and morals were part of who we were as a people. They were what set us apart. They defined us in a very real way. Today, those values have been reduced to a set of contentions that can be interchangeably argued at will, with equally valid conclusions.
The side that "wins" is simply the side that makes the most convincing argument. Not the side that's "right..." for there is no "right" or "wrong" anymore. In fact, in this increasing "enlightened" age of relentless "Progressivism" and its ugly sister "Relativeism," morality and ethics have become nothing more than quaint curiosities.
Debates, whether in high school or the real world, are now merely exercises in evidence-gathering and argumentation skills. They have no real meaning beyond the scope of teaching students how to collect and process data. The actual intrinsic value of the issues being discussed is negligible. Discussions based on the respective ethical and moral merits of those values don't happen very frequently, and more often than not, moral and ethical evaluation has simply a long-forgotten remnant of a bygone day and a former era, and is seen as having no functional value in society. We're far too occupied trying to ensure that no one's feelings are hurt.
This freight train was heard rumbling down the tracks in 1915. In an essay by social scientists titled "Social Degeneration," they observed;
"Social degeneration is the breaking up of the coordination existing between the various social elements, individuals and the subgroups which cooperate in the social process, — by the growth of so many antisocial elements that social unity is destroyed. This comes about by the growth of degeneracy among the individuals who make up society. Therefore, individual degeneracy has a direct bearing upon social degeneration, for degenerate individuals are either unsocial, or antisocial and are unable to cooperate in the aims and purposes of society.My fear is that our stubbornly consistent devaluation of solid moral and ethical principles as a society is nothing more nor less than devastating evidence of Stage 4 Societal Cancer from which we may never recover. And perhaps we ought to debate THAT before it's too late.
"Social degeneration, then, arises from the decline of the individual who fails to perform his part in the social activity. This causes a breakdown in the social mechanism and a decline in social activity. So long as each individual may be replaced by another as he fails or declines, society may be perpetuated, if not destroyed by outside influences. Just as a diseased member of the body may eventually destroy the individual, so a diseased part of society may be the cause of the destruction of the whole body. Social degeneration, then, is an evidence of social disease."
Monday, December 23, 2013
And on Earth, Peace to Men of Goodwill
Ah, December 25. The ancient pagan festival of Deus Sol Invictus, or "Day of the Unconquerable Sun." A celebration so popular that even Christians gaily partook... much to the chagrin of Pope Julius 1. So, in 350 AD, he "Hijacked" the pagan festival with "Christ's Mass," which later would be shorted to "Christmas." The shortened version, which some recoil in righteous indignation at, "X-mas," was a contraction based on the "Khi" ('X') in Greek being the first letter of "Christmas." Even though it was well known at the time that Christ was born sometime after Passover in the Spring, the Church could not be shown up in the Festival department... it simply wouldn't do. And thus Dec 25 as the day to celebrate the birth of our Savior was born.
Most people are at least passably familiar with the Christmas Story in Luke 2, but they probably aren't aware of the story behind the story. So, to quote the inimitable Paul Harvey, this is "The Rest of the Story." Feel free to share this with your family and friends this Christmas Eve, and help them understand the incredible significance of this singular event more richly.
The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the Evangelist, not Luke the Apostle as many suppose. Luke the Evangelist was a physician, and a disciple of Paul. In fact, he accompanied Paul on at least one missionary journey, and was with Paul in Rome when Paul was under house arrest. Luke was an intellectual, and a highly educated, articulate, and erudite leader. He authored both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, which were originally intended as a 2-volume "companion set."
Both books were written to "most excellent Theophilus." Theophilus was most likely not an actual person's name, but a title of honor given to someone of great status or intellectual prowess. "Most excellent" was a salutation give almost exclusively to Roman Nobility... and the best guess is that they refer to a man named Titus Flavius Sabinus, the Prefect (Mayor) of Rome, and the big brother to then-future emporer Vespasian. Sabinus' sister-in-law is believed to have converted to Christianity, and thus Sabinus protected Paul during his house arrest in Rome. It is most likely to him that these works were addressed.
So now that we know a bit more about the background, let's explore the story itself.
"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered." (Luke 2:6)
Contrary to what some have thought, Mary did not give birth along the way. She and Joseph had arrived in Bethlehem, and had been there for some unknown period of time when she went into labor. Also contrary to common belief, there was no "inn." The Greek word for "inn," as used in the story of the Good Samaritan, was not used here... instead, the Greek word used means "Guest room/Dining Room." Bethlehem at the time of the census, as a dirt-clod of a town... a very, very small and insignificant village (except, of course, for its' history). The inhabitants were very poor, and there was a huge influx of people traveling to be registered in the census. Traditionally, travelers would stay with relatives, even distant relatives, for lodging if possible. More than likely, that was the situation here.
"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7)
When Luke says "she," he wasn't kidding. In those days, especially in poor conditions, the mother-to-be delivered her own baby. The husbands typically did not assist with childbirth, nor were there most likely any physicians or midwives around to assist her. SHE brought forth the baby, and SHE wrapped it in swadding clothes... and SHE laid him in a manger. Most likely before Joseph ever laid eyes on the Savior.
Swaddling clothes were the ancient version of Pampers and onesies... they were long strips of cloth which were wound around the baby to keep them warm.
"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night." (Luke 2:8)
Shepherds in Bethlehem only "abided" with their flocks in the fields after Passover, until what we celebrate as Fall, around Halloween-Thanksgiving... which means that the real birth of the Savior occurred in late March or April.
This is an appropriate place to stop and contemplate the magnificent symbolism in this whole scenario. The birth of Christ, the Savior of the World, took place in the dark of night... in the darkness of an apostasy and lack of divine revelation for literally generations. Rather than come to a castle or mansion, the King of Kings came to what Micah referred to as "little among the thousands of Judah."
The one thing that Bethlehem had was its history. King David was born and raised there, and died there. Ruth was from there, and Rachel was buried there... which is why she would be "weeping for her children" when Herod's terrible edict would take the lives of all male children under two in the midst of his fit of jealous rage. Flocks of sheep had been raised on the hillsides of Bethlehem for thousands of years. It was there that David defended his flock from the lion and the bear.
As with almost everything in this story, the significance of the shepherds in this narrative is not forgotten. Christ would be known as the Great Shepherd, and his followers as His "sheep." Being a shepherd, while a lowly and low-paying profession, was a spiritually significant one, being one of the most obvious metaphors for the coming Messiah.
Sometimes we have a difficult time today understanding why, because our paradigm is different from those in ancient times. Today, we have "sheep herders," which are hirelings... the sheep are not theirs. They do not know them. If you went up in the mountains in Utah today to see a sheep herder, you would most likely see an old man on a horse at the rear of the flock... asleep... while a bunch of yappy dogs did the heavy lifting in actually herding the sheep.
In Christ's day, it was different. There were no "sheep herders." Only "shepherds." And the difference was immense. Shepherds knew their sheep by name... they spent time with them, they were their sheep, and the sheep knew them. Shepherds LED their sheep... and the sheep followed them. If the shepherd turned left, so did the flock. If they turned right, they sheep followed. Theirs was a relationship of trust and love... which makes it such a stunningly accurate metaphor for our relationship with the Savior.
"And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid." (Luke 2:9)
At the same time the prophet Micah was prophesying that Christ would be born in Bethlehem, he also prophesied that the first ones to know about it would be the "Tower of the Flock," or "Migdal eder," which turns out to be a small shepherd's village a stone's throw from the hills of Bethlehem... it was here that the great Announcement of the Savior's birth was given. Not to the High Priest. Not to the noblemen. Not to the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Scribes. Not to the Mayor of Jerusalem. Not even to Caesar Augustus. But to a group of lowly, simple shepherds who were, quite frankly, scared spitless at the display.
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:10-12)
Not just any joy. Not just the joy of a wonderfully warm Spring night. GREAT joy... the kind of joy that is felt deep down to the core of your very soul... the kind of joy that you cannot keep from shouting from the rooftops... the kind of job that brings you to your knees in tears of gratitude. The kind of joy that "surpasseth all understanding." The promised day had come! The shepherds, among all of the rest of the House of Israel, had been preparing for this moment for thousands of years!!!
"And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." (Luke 2:12)
Throughout the Old Testament, or as the Jews knew it, the "Law and the Prophets," God had given signs to the people as visual reminders of the significant events and promises that He made to them. The rainbow was one... a visual reminder of the promise that God made to Israel that He would never again send a flood to wipe out mankind and cleanse the Earth.
This practice, with which the Jews were well aware, explains why the Pharisees and Sadducees were so interested in a "sign" when they challenged the Savior. That was their paradigm. That was how God "proved" to them what He said was binding. To them, it wasn't about faith. It was about "I'll believe it when I see [the sign]."
And God certainly didn't disappoint. He gave them a sign.. that they would find a baby, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
Now. To those of us who have grown up with this story, we wonder what was special about that. "Big deal. Everybody knows that Christ was laid in a manger." But in the days of Christ, this was unheard of. It was like being told to go to your great-aunt's house, and there you would find an elephant in the living room. It was that kind of ridiculous.
"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (Luke 2:13-14)
As if the skies had turned into a huge stage, the Greek here describes it as an "army," the number of heavenly host was so large. And they appeared SHOUTING, not singing... and what they said was very significant.
Scholars now know that the ancient Israelites believed from before the 1st Temple Period through the First Century Christian period, that there were other divine beings than God who had become partakers of the Divine Nature.
The Old Testament bears this out, as it speaks of the "Sons of God" who shouted for Joy before the foundations of this world were laid. The writer of Deuteronomy describes God as the "Lord of Lords, the God of Gods, a GREAT God," in keeping with this core Israelite belief in Monolatry or Henotheism. The ancient Jews believed, as can be seen in the praise of the heavenly host, in a holy council of gods, over which God the Father reigned supreme.
"God in the Highest" is a qualifier which refers, quite simply, to God the Father, our Father in Heaven. The "Great" God. The Only True God. The only God with which we have to do, as we praise His Only Begotten Son, whom He sent into the world to save us from our sins.
"And on earth, peace to men of goodwill." Another way of stating it is "And on earth, peace to men on whom God's favor rests." Quite a different message than the one we have, and one worth pondering.
"(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." (Luke 2:24-25)
First-born sons were very special in Jewish culture. By law, they were the Lord's. They were to serve in the temple all their lives. Fortunately, Jewish law had designated the Tribe of Levi to be "pinch hitters" for the first-born males, and took on that responsibility to serve in the temple for all of those in Israel. The condition was that a sacrificial offering be made of two turtledoves, or two young pidgeons. Once these offerings were made at the temple, the first-born son was relieved of his legal requirement, and the Levites took on that responsibility for him.
And now we arrive at what is, perhaps, the most spiritually significant part of the birth narrative...
"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." (Luke 2:26-33)
Simeon had been waiting for the "consolation of Israel," Consolation meant "comfort." The Savior was to "comfort" Israel in its afflictions.
Notice who recognized Jesus as the Christ... He was not recognized by the High Priest, or the Pharisees, or the Sadducees, or the Scribes, or the great men of the day... he was met by a humble servant of God, who labored in the Temple. Simeon had been promised by none other than Christ Himself through the Holy Ghost that he [Simeon] would not die until he had seen the Christ child. In obedience to the Spirit's promptings, he made his way, being very old, to the temple, which was most likely a great sacrifice for him. Simeon was almost surely a Levite, and would have been one of the ones to receive the Christ Child at his presenting, although the narrative seems to indicate that this was not his time to serve.
Simeon's touching statement, "Now lettest thy servant depart in peace.. for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou prepared before the face of all people" stands as the ultimate synopsis of what the Savior, through His atonement, has done for us. Because of His atoning sacrifice, we can now "depart in peace" from this world of sorrow, for we have "seen thy salvation" in the Only Begotten Son of Almighty God. He has conquered death. He has paved the way for us to return home to that God who gave us life. Indeed, "Glory to God in the Highest!"
"And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:34-35)
At this point, Mary had no idea what the pinnacle of Christ's life would bring, nor was she aware of the Atoning Sacrifice that He would make for all of mankind. She had no idea that she would have her very heart ripped out of her chest, as it would seem, in having to watch her first-born son hang on a cross, tortured unto death. "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also," a prophetic allusion to the sword that would pierce the battered body of the Son of God.
Finally, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established."
"And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." (Luke 2:36-39)
Allow me the privilege of adding my own personal witness to that of those much more worthy than I... He Lives. Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the world. I know that He is my Savior and Redeemer.
"Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth, peace to men of goodwill."
Most people are at least passably familiar with the Christmas Story in Luke 2, but they probably aren't aware of the story behind the story. So, to quote the inimitable Paul Harvey, this is "The Rest of the Story." Feel free to share this with your family and friends this Christmas Eve, and help them understand the incredible significance of this singular event more richly.
The Gospel of Luke was written by Luke the Evangelist, not Luke the Apostle as many suppose. Luke the Evangelist was a physician, and a disciple of Paul. In fact, he accompanied Paul on at least one missionary journey, and was with Paul in Rome when Paul was under house arrest. Luke was an intellectual, and a highly educated, articulate, and erudite leader. He authored both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, which were originally intended as a 2-volume "companion set."
Both books were written to "most excellent Theophilus." Theophilus was most likely not an actual person's name, but a title of honor given to someone of great status or intellectual prowess. "Most excellent" was a salutation give almost exclusively to Roman Nobility... and the best guess is that they refer to a man named Titus Flavius Sabinus, the Prefect (Mayor) of Rome, and the big brother to then-future emporer Vespasian. Sabinus' sister-in-law is believed to have converted to Christianity, and thus Sabinus protected Paul during his house arrest in Rome. It is most likely to him that these works were addressed.
So now that we know a bit more about the background, let's explore the story itself.
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city." (Luke 2:1-3)
The word "taxed" here is an error... the word in Greek is "apographos," which means "enrolled," or "registered..." not "taxed." Later scribes would look back, assume that the census was for the purpose of taxation (which it was, in a minor sense), and replaced "registered" with "taxed," presumably for clarity.
The word "taxed" here is an error... the word in Greek is "apographos," which means "enrolled," or "registered..." not "taxed." Later scribes would look back, assume that the census was for the purpose of taxation (which it was, in a minor sense), and replaced "registered" with "taxed," presumably for clarity.
Caesar Augustus' real name was Gaias Octavius, and he reigned over Rome for 41 years... from 27BC to 14AD. Augustus was Julius
Caesar's grand-nephew, who Caesar adopted as his son. The Roman Senate
gave him the name "Augustus," which literally means "worthy of
reverence." He was a conscientious and benevolent man, a magnificent emperor, relatively. The Roman Empire enjoyed Pax Romana under his leadership... Roman Peace. He was a religious reformer, of sorts, and was convinced that the allegiance and devotion to the Greco-Roman pantheon of Gods was what made the Empire great, and was deeply concerned about the foreign "mystery" religions that his people had wandered off after... so he remodeled and rebuilt over 82 temples in Rome alone, and appointed himself Pontificus Maximus... the High Priest and leader of the State Cult.
Augustus was very concerned about the state of the Empire, particularly whether it was growing, or waning. His concern was grave enough that he initiated 3 different censuses during his reign... 24BC, 8BC, and 14AD. The purpose of the census was not so much to tax as it was to see what the birth rate was doing throughout the Empire. On one occasion, Augustus went to the Forum, separated the married men from the bachelors, and took the bachelors aside, and chewed them out for failing to do their duty n marrying and raising children. He made promiscuity a crime, took away the inheritance rights of bachelors, and gave rewards, recognition, and incentives to those who had more than 3 children.
It is interesting that Luke's narrative mentions Quirinius, who was filling as Governor of Syria on a temporary basis during this time, after which he became the permanent prefect of Syria around 6-7AD. He was what was called a "New Man," meaning that he achieved his position on his own merits, and not on the basis of who his family wasy.
"And
Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into
Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he
was of the house and lineage of David:)" (Luke 2:4)
The fact that Luke is spending so much time describing the geography of the area is another clue that leans towards Titus Flavius Sabinus as the one whom this Gospel is addressed to... he would not have been familiar with the area, where a local Jewish man would have.
There were actually two different "Bethlehems" in the area at this time... one was several miles northwest of Nazareth, which was in the Northern Kingdom. The Bethlehem which was the City of David was located several miles Southwest of Jerusalem, in the Southern Kingdom of Judea. and 94 miles South of Nazareth... about a 3-day journey.
Which poses an interesting question... if Bethlehem was SOUTH of Nazareth, why does Luke say that Joseph "Went UP from Galilee?" Very simple. Bethlehem was 2300 feet in elevation... and it was a climb to get there from Nazareth... therefore "going up" to Bethlehem was an entirely appropriate way to put it.
"To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." (Luke 2:5)
There are two errors in this sentence alone... first, it should be "registered" instead of "taxed," and secondly, it should be simply "his wife," instead of "his espoused wife." The Greek here means "engaged" instead of "married"... when Mary was 9 months pregnant... a fact that would have been a massive scandal if they had merely been engaged, as the bride must be a virgin when the marriage is consummated.
The fact that Luke is spending so much time describing the geography of the area is another clue that leans towards Titus Flavius Sabinus as the one whom this Gospel is addressed to... he would not have been familiar with the area, where a local Jewish man would have.
There were actually two different "Bethlehems" in the area at this time... one was several miles northwest of Nazareth, which was in the Northern Kingdom. The Bethlehem which was the City of David was located several miles Southwest of Jerusalem, in the Southern Kingdom of Judea. and 94 miles South of Nazareth... about a 3-day journey.
Which poses an interesting question... if Bethlehem was SOUTH of Nazareth, why does Luke say that Joseph "Went UP from Galilee?" Very simple. Bethlehem was 2300 feet in elevation... and it was a climb to get there from Nazareth... therefore "going up" to Bethlehem was an entirely appropriate way to put it.
"To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." (Luke 2:5)
There are two errors in this sentence alone... first, it should be "registered" instead of "taxed," and secondly, it should be simply "his wife," instead of "his espoused wife." The Greek here means "engaged" instead of "married"... when Mary was 9 months pregnant... a fact that would have been a massive scandal if they had merely been engaged, as the bride must be a virgin when the marriage is consummated.
"And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered." (Luke 2:6)
Contrary to what some have thought, Mary did not give birth along the way. She and Joseph had arrived in Bethlehem, and had been there for some unknown period of time when she went into labor. Also contrary to common belief, there was no "inn." The Greek word for "inn," as used in the story of the Good Samaritan, was not used here... instead, the Greek word used means "Guest room/Dining Room." Bethlehem at the time of the census, as a dirt-clod of a town... a very, very small and insignificant village (except, of course, for its' history). The inhabitants were very poor, and there was a huge influx of people traveling to be registered in the census. Traditionally, travelers would stay with relatives, even distant relatives, for lodging if possible. More than likely, that was the situation here.
In Bethlehem, there were a large number of caves in the hillsides.. and modern archaeology has discovered that many of those caves had been turned in to homes, which were built into the hillside. In standard Jewish fashion, homes consisted of an "upper room," which was a combination guest room and dining room (think "Last Supper), and the first floor was the kitchen/living area. It was also where the animals were kept when it was cold, since the kitchen would be the warmest room in the house. In those days, there were no separate out-buildings for the animals... they were kept in the same building as the family.
It is entirely likely that when Joseph and Mary arrived, the "guest room," or upper room of their relatives' house was full to capacity... so they had to stay on the first floor, where the animals may have been brought in from the cold for protection. The "manger" was most likely made out of wood or stone, but in reality, was probably a hollowed-out log.
"And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (Luke 2:7)
When Luke says "she," he wasn't kidding. In those days, especially in poor conditions, the mother-to-be delivered her own baby. The husbands typically did not assist with childbirth, nor were there most likely any physicians or midwives around to assist her. SHE brought forth the baby, and SHE wrapped it in swadding clothes... and SHE laid him in a manger. Most likely before Joseph ever laid eyes on the Savior.
Swaddling clothes were the ancient version of Pampers and onesies... they were long strips of cloth which were wound around the baby to keep them warm.
"And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night." (Luke 2:8)
Shepherds in Bethlehem only "abided" with their flocks in the fields after Passover, until what we celebrate as Fall, around Halloween-Thanksgiving... which means that the real birth of the Savior occurred in late March or April.
This is an appropriate place to stop and contemplate the magnificent symbolism in this whole scenario. The birth of Christ, the Savior of the World, took place in the dark of night... in the darkness of an apostasy and lack of divine revelation for literally generations. Rather than come to a castle or mansion, the King of Kings came to what Micah referred to as "little among the thousands of Judah."
The one thing that Bethlehem had was its history. King David was born and raised there, and died there. Ruth was from there, and Rachel was buried there... which is why she would be "weeping for her children" when Herod's terrible edict would take the lives of all male children under two in the midst of his fit of jealous rage. Flocks of sheep had been raised on the hillsides of Bethlehem for thousands of years. It was there that David defended his flock from the lion and the bear.
As with almost everything in this story, the significance of the shepherds in this narrative is not forgotten. Christ would be known as the Great Shepherd, and his followers as His "sheep." Being a shepherd, while a lowly and low-paying profession, was a spiritually significant one, being one of the most obvious metaphors for the coming Messiah.
Sometimes we have a difficult time today understanding why, because our paradigm is different from those in ancient times. Today, we have "sheep herders," which are hirelings... the sheep are not theirs. They do not know them. If you went up in the mountains in Utah today to see a sheep herder, you would most likely see an old man on a horse at the rear of the flock... asleep... while a bunch of yappy dogs did the heavy lifting in actually herding the sheep.
In Christ's day, it was different. There were no "sheep herders." Only "shepherds." And the difference was immense. Shepherds knew their sheep by name... they spent time with them, they were their sheep, and the sheep knew them. Shepherds LED their sheep... and the sheep followed them. If the shepherd turned left, so did the flock. If they turned right, they sheep followed. Theirs was a relationship of trust and love... which makes it such a stunningly accurate metaphor for our relationship with the Savior.
"And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid." (Luke 2:9)
At the same time the prophet Micah was prophesying that Christ would be born in Bethlehem, he also prophesied that the first ones to know about it would be the "Tower of the Flock," or "Migdal eder," which turns out to be a small shepherd's village a stone's throw from the hills of Bethlehem... it was here that the great Announcement of the Savior's birth was given. Not to the High Priest. Not to the noblemen. Not to the Pharisees, Sadducees, or Scribes. Not to the Mayor of Jerusalem. Not even to Caesar Augustus. But to a group of lowly, simple shepherds who were, quite frankly, scared spitless at the display.
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." (Luke 2:10-12)
Not just any joy. Not just the joy of a wonderfully warm Spring night. GREAT joy... the kind of joy that is felt deep down to the core of your very soul... the kind of joy that you cannot keep from shouting from the rooftops... the kind of job that brings you to your knees in tears of gratitude. The kind of joy that "surpasseth all understanding." The promised day had come! The shepherds, among all of the rest of the House of Israel, had been preparing for this moment for thousands of years!!!
"And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." (Luke 2:12)
Throughout the Old Testament, or as the Jews knew it, the "Law and the Prophets," God had given signs to the people as visual reminders of the significant events and promises that He made to them. The rainbow was one... a visual reminder of the promise that God made to Israel that He would never again send a flood to wipe out mankind and cleanse the Earth.
This practice, with which the Jews were well aware, explains why the Pharisees and Sadducees were so interested in a "sign" when they challenged the Savior. That was their paradigm. That was how God "proved" to them what He said was binding. To them, it wasn't about faith. It was about "I'll believe it when I see [the sign]."
And God certainly didn't disappoint. He gave them a sign.. that they would find a baby, wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
Now. To those of us who have grown up with this story, we wonder what was special about that. "Big deal. Everybody knows that Christ was laid in a manger." But in the days of Christ, this was unheard of. It was like being told to go to your great-aunt's house, and there you would find an elephant in the living room. It was that kind of ridiculous.
"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." (Luke 2:13-14)
As if the skies had turned into a huge stage, the Greek here describes it as an "army," the number of heavenly host was so large. And they appeared SHOUTING, not singing... and what they said was very significant.
"Glory to God in the highest." In the Highest WHAT? If there were only one heaven, as many today believe, this does not make sense. There would be no "highest." There would only be "heaven." "Highest" is a term of contrast or comparison. It means "higher than," or "the most high one can go."
For a clue, we look to the New Testament, which teaches us in the epistles of Paul that there are at least 3 "heavens," as he reports being "caught up to the third heaven." The Savior Himself said that "in my father's house are MANY mansions..."
Could there be another meaning, though, even from this?
For a clue, we look to the New Testament, which teaches us in the epistles of Paul that there are at least 3 "heavens," as he reports being "caught up to the third heaven." The Savior Himself said that "in my father's house are MANY mansions..."
Could there be another meaning, though, even from this?
Scholars now know that the ancient Israelites believed from before the 1st Temple Period through the First Century Christian period, that there were other divine beings than God who had become partakers of the Divine Nature.
The Old Testament bears this out, as it speaks of the "Sons of God" who shouted for Joy before the foundations of this world were laid. The writer of Deuteronomy describes God as the "Lord of Lords, the God of Gods, a GREAT God," in keeping with this core Israelite belief in Monolatry or Henotheism. The ancient Jews believed, as can be seen in the praise of the heavenly host, in a holy council of gods, over which God the Father reigned supreme.
"God in the Highest" is a qualifier which refers, quite simply, to God the Father, our Father in Heaven. The "Great" God. The Only True God. The only God with which we have to do, as we praise His Only Begotten Son, whom He sent into the world to save us from our sins.
The last phrase, as rendered in our scriptures is incorrect as well. The earliest manuscripts render it as follows,
"And on earth, peace to men of goodwill." Another way of stating it is "And on earth, peace to men on whom God's favor rests." Quite a different message than the one we have, and one worth pondering.
The angels disappeared, and with hearts full of unspeakable joy, the shepherds found the baby as promised, and then scattered to announce the Royal Birth.
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." (Luke 2:21)
Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to ignore it... and so we see even in his infancy, the Savior obeyed the very law that He gave...
"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;" (Luke 2:22)
Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to ignore it... and so we see even in his infancy, the Savior obeyed the very law that He gave...
"And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;" (Luke 2:22)
Under Jewish custom, women were "unclean" for 40 days after giving birth, and could not enter the temple. Thus, after a little under 6 weeks, Mary was once again "clean," and her purification was complete, and she could present the Christ child at the temple.
"(As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons." (Luke 2:24-25)
First-born sons were very special in Jewish culture. By law, they were the Lord's. They were to serve in the temple all their lives. Fortunately, Jewish law had designated the Tribe of Levi to be "pinch hitters" for the first-born males, and took on that responsibility to serve in the temple for all of those in Israel. The condition was that a sacrificial offering be made of two turtledoves, or two young pidgeons. Once these offerings were made at the temple, the first-born son was relieved of his legal requirement, and the Levites took on that responsibility for him.
And now we arrive at what is, perhaps, the most spiritually significant part of the birth narrative...
"And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said,
Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." (Luke 2:26-33)
Simeon had been waiting for the "consolation of Israel," Consolation meant "comfort." The Savior was to "comfort" Israel in its afflictions.
Notice who recognized Jesus as the Christ... He was not recognized by the High Priest, or the Pharisees, or the Sadducees, or the Scribes, or the great men of the day... he was met by a humble servant of God, who labored in the Temple. Simeon had been promised by none other than Christ Himself through the Holy Ghost that he [Simeon] would not die until he had seen the Christ child. In obedience to the Spirit's promptings, he made his way, being very old, to the temple, which was most likely a great sacrifice for him. Simeon was almost surely a Levite, and would have been one of the ones to receive the Christ Child at his presenting, although the narrative seems to indicate that this was not his time to serve.
Simeon's touching statement, "Now lettest thy servant depart in peace.. for mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou prepared before the face of all people" stands as the ultimate synopsis of what the Savior, through His atonement, has done for us. Because of His atoning sacrifice, we can now "depart in peace" from this world of sorrow, for we have "seen thy salvation" in the Only Begotten Son of Almighty God. He has conquered death. He has paved the way for us to return home to that God who gave us life. Indeed, "Glory to God in the Highest!"
Simeon concludes with a solemn prophesy of the Savior's life, and how it would affect his mother:
"And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed." (Luke 2:34-35)
At this point, Mary had no idea what the pinnacle of Christ's life would bring, nor was she aware of the Atoning Sacrifice that He would make for all of mankind. She had no idea that she would have her very heart ripped out of her chest, as it would seem, in having to watch her first-born son hang on a cross, tortured unto death. "Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also," a prophetic allusion to the sword that would pierce the battered body of the Son of God.
Finally, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses, shall every word be established."
"And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years, which departed not from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord, and spake of him to all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." (Luke 2:36-39)
Allow me the privilege of adding my own personal witness to that of those much more worthy than I... He Lives. Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of the world. I know that He is my Savior and Redeemer.
"Glory to God in the Highest, and on Earth, peace to men of goodwill."
Monday, December 16, 2013
Legalizing Polygamy: At Breakneck Speed Down The Slippery Slope
When the screeching LGTB movement began pushing its relentless agenda for "marriage equality," even though their cause was illogical and groundless, observers outside of that tiny minority were quick to point out the "slippery slope" that they felt we, as a nation, would be headed down if we succumbed.
Now that the Domino Effect is fully engaged, and more and more states are joining the "marriage equality" bandwagon under extreme pressure from the Far Left, the blunt-force trauma being inflicted by those Hell-bent on destroying the family is starting to leave marks.
Yet another major bruise was felt this last week, when U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that Utah's anti-polygamy law is "unconstitutional," ironically citing First Amendment "freedom of religion" reasons... the very argument that was rejected when the ban was put into place.
And we all saw this freight train rumbling down the tracks.
The Left's crystal-clear agenda to destroy the family has become obvious to even the most casual observer. Morals are the enemy. "Restrictions" and "rules" and "duty" and "responsibility" are crass vulgarities according to the Left's vocabulary. Those who dared to stand up and state the obvious, even among their own, were instantly despised and cast out of the enlightened midst of The Left. This included three prominent social scientists (with rock-solid Leftist credentials, no less) in Great Britain in 1992 that published a paper on the devastating effects on children of broken families.
In an article by former Leftist Melanie Phillips titled "Why the Left Hates Families," in The Guardian, she recounts this study;
The response to the study by her beloved Left was stunning to her as a journalist, and was one of the motivating factors in turning her solidly to the right.
Amorality has now become the rallying point of the Leftist agenda. Those who disagree are now labeled "Moralists," with the sneering Left now attempting to redefine that word as societal profanity, and to paint such a position as "anti-society," and "anti-individual rights." In the Leftist paradigm, one cannot simply be "free" from all sense of morality, but actually needs to be encouraged to abandon all responsibility and duty, or one has no place in Leftist Society. And of course, without any rational standard of morality, any morality or choice is acceptable, as the recent court's ruling on Utah polygamy law attests. One only need use the Left's favorite "buzzwords" to bully their way into law. "Orientation." "Protected Class." "Accommodations."
Commentators who warned that passage of "marriage equality" using the arguments and rationale that the Left was utilizing would lead to a massive re-writing of existing law and societal moral standards turned out to be 100% correct. Reversing anti-polygamy laws would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. Now it has happened. One can only shudder at what the future... the immediate future... holds.
While Leftists sneer in derision at those who attempt to straighten the deck chairs on the Titanic of societal morality, We, The People are watching with immense dread for the next domino to fall... anti-child-pornography laws, and child sexual abuse laws themselves.
After all, if one cannot "choose" their sexual orientation, and if such can be argued to be an "individual choice" which is sacrosanct over the "rights" of children, what's left to stop those proponents from succeeding, given the court's proclivity to knee-jerk to whatever the Left decides, and make Pedophilia a "protected class"?
At the end of the day, if the mere trajectory of our society's direction doesn't scare the Bejeebers out of you, the sheer speed at which we are arriving there should.
Now that the Domino Effect is fully engaged, and more and more states are joining the "marriage equality" bandwagon under extreme pressure from the Far Left, the blunt-force trauma being inflicted by those Hell-bent on destroying the family is starting to leave marks.
Yet another major bruise was felt this last week, when U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups ruled that Utah's anti-polygamy law is "unconstitutional," ironically citing First Amendment "freedom of religion" reasons... the very argument that was rejected when the ban was put into place.
And we all saw this freight train rumbling down the tracks.
The Left's crystal-clear agenda to destroy the family has become obvious to even the most casual observer. Morals are the enemy. "Restrictions" and "rules" and "duty" and "responsibility" are crass vulgarities according to the Left's vocabulary. Those who dared to stand up and state the obvious, even among their own, were instantly despised and cast out of the enlightened midst of The Left. This included three prominent social scientists (with rock-solid Leftist credentials, no less) in Great Britain in 1992 that published a paper on the devastating effects on children of broken families.
In an article by former Leftist Melanie Phillips titled "Why the Left Hates Families," in The Guardian, she recounts this study;
"From their research, they concluded that children in fractured families tend to suffer more ill-health, do less well at school, are more likely to be unemployed, more prone to criminal behaviour and to repeat as adults the same cycle of unstable parenting."
The response to the study by her beloved Left was stunning to her as a journalist, and was one of the motivating factors in turning her solidly to the right.
"The defining issue for me — the one that launched me on a personal trajectory of confrontation with the Left and with my colleagues and friends — was the persistent undermining of the family as an institution.The Left responded by attacking and bullying anyone who dared to promote the family at all. No arguments were posed, no logic advanced, no rational reason for their hatred of the family was presented... just unrelenting attacks and bulling in an attempt to drive away opposition by fear.
"By the late Eighties, it was glaringly obvious that families were suffering a chronic crisis of identity and self-confidence.
"There were more and more divorces and single parents — along with mounting evidence that family disintegration and the subsequent creation of step-families or households with no father figure at all did incalculable damage to children."
Amorality has now become the rallying point of the Leftist agenda. Those who disagree are now labeled "Moralists," with the sneering Left now attempting to redefine that word as societal profanity, and to paint such a position as "anti-society," and "anti-individual rights." In the Leftist paradigm, one cannot simply be "free" from all sense of morality, but actually needs to be encouraged to abandon all responsibility and duty, or one has no place in Leftist Society. And of course, without any rational standard of morality, any morality or choice is acceptable, as the recent court's ruling on Utah polygamy law attests. One only need use the Left's favorite "buzzwords" to bully their way into law. "Orientation." "Protected Class." "Accommodations."
Commentators who warned that passage of "marriage equality" using the arguments and rationale that the Left was utilizing would lead to a massive re-writing of existing law and societal moral standards turned out to be 100% correct. Reversing anti-polygamy laws would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago. Now it has happened. One can only shudder at what the future... the immediate future... holds.
While Leftists sneer in derision at those who attempt to straighten the deck chairs on the Titanic of societal morality, We, The People are watching with immense dread for the next domino to fall... anti-child-pornography laws, and child sexual abuse laws themselves.
After all, if one cannot "choose" their sexual orientation, and if such can be argued to be an "individual choice" which is sacrosanct over the "rights" of children, what's left to stop those proponents from succeeding, given the court's proclivity to knee-jerk to whatever the Left decides, and make Pedophilia a "protected class"?
At the end of the day, if the mere trajectory of our society's direction doesn't scare the Bejeebers out of you, the sheer speed at which we are arriving there should.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)