There is an interesting story in the bible that I found pretty descriptive of where my life has come. In the book of Acts (see chapter 10), Peter is tanning on the roof of the house of a guy named Simon, when he gets hit by heat stroke and starts to hallucinate.
Okay, Peter is staying with a guy named Simon who is a tanner, when he goes up on the roof of the house to pray. He gets really hungry and falls into a trance. Happy?
Anywho, he sees a vision of a sheet being let down from the sky, with all kinds of different animals on it. A voice tells him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat." Apparently, some of the animals were of the types that the Mosaic law forbid him to eat, because he replied, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean." (And apparently, Peter believed the voice to be of God, and he had no problem telling God no.) The voice replied, "What God has cleansed you must not call common." And, since Peter is stubborn, the vision was repeated two more times.
Later in the chapter, Peter goes to the house of a guy named Cornelius who was a "devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms (money to the poor) generously to the people, and prayed to God always." During this visit Peter comes to an understanding of the vision. Cornelius was not a Jew, and up to that point, Peter believed that the good news of Jesus' death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins was ONLY for Jews. What Peter finally understood was God meant that he was not to call ANYONE common or unclean. That what Jesus did was for all mankind, and not for Peter's particular brand of religion.
My wife and I went out to dinner this weekend and I ordered the Lobster Garlic Noodles (I'm a sucker for seafood), which contained shrimp, crab, lobster, shiitake mushrooms, spinach, and parmesan cheese. As I was reveling in the taste sensation before me, I was struck by a thought: There are religions who would frown (a really, serious frown) at the idea of eating such items. Others forbid pork (which we always have on New Year's Day), and others would freak out over eating anything but fish on Fridays (at least during Lent - oops! Did I give that one away?!?)
You see, my wife and I are "foodies". We even shape vacations on what is available to eat. We absolutely love eating. You want to spend quality time with us? Guarantee food will have something to do with it!
Now, let me connect the story at the beginning with the thought I had over dinner.
For starters, I have formally departed ways with the church I had belonged to for many years. I am officially "church" homeless. And the clincher? I have no "want" to look for another.
I have found myself with a distaste for anything "religious" (which comes from an old word meaning "to strangle"). Oh, I'm still a Christian. The good news that Peter was sharing with Cornelius is still truth. I just believe that one does not have to hold to the manmade tenants of any particular religion in order to hold to that truth. And there lies the reason I have no "want" to look for another church.
In the bible it says that no scripture is for anyone's personal interpretation. But, what is happening within the different religions that cause such separation (and for the sake of simplification, I'm referring to different Christian religious "sects"), is exactly that: personal interpretations of the bible. And for me, I find that the bible was never meant to be taken to be an equal in the Godhead, based on the very writings it contains. Of course, that's just MY personal interpretation. If only I was a licensed or ordained minister (or televangelist). THEN my interpretations would be right! (sarcasm font)
What this means is that I find in every church things I agree with and things I disagree with. Of course, some would say the idea is to find one where what I agree with outweighs what I don't agree with. I can tell you, at this point in my journey, I'm not looking to settle. Nor, do I think I will find a church that believes 100% with me. And you want to know what? I'm okay with that.
I will still be loving God. I will still be worshipping God. And if you are looking for me, I'll be at the buffet.
© Emittravel 2016
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religion. Show all posts
Sunday, January 3, 2016
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Fish or Cut Bait?
As I sit here, mentally preparing to write, I find I'm stuck between two different topics. One was an opinion piece on the Bruce-to-Caitlyn Jenner announcement, and the other was a reflection on my first "full" service at my "home church" (today) since the start of the sabbatical. While having a late breakfast with my lovely wife this afternoon, I found both topics intertwining. The church experience stepped into the Jenner topic, providing almost further support of the opinion piece yet to be written. With both topics being fenced in by the timeliness of their occurrences, I think I will focus on this morning's experience, and refer to it in a later blog when I go back to the Jenner story.
As I wrote in "B.I.B.L.E.", now that I'm at the end of my sabbatical, "Where do I go from here?" I decided to make this Sunday the day I would not exit after the praise and worship portion, and stay until the end of the service. My wife went to the church she has been attending during this period, so if I really felt I couldn't stay, walking out in the middle wouldn't be something that would embarrass her (I, for one, am difficult to embarrass.)
The pastor of the church preached the sermon. This is nothing new. It is actually a rare thing for him to not be preaching.
Let me add right here, that this is not the first time I've sat through a sermon since the start of my sabbatical. It's just the first time in my "home" church. I've had the pleasure of going to a friend's church, playing with him in the band, and listening to his pastor preach. That experience held little-to-no anxiety for me. I was hoping for a similar experience at my "home" church.
(Note: I was thinking of going into a detailed description of the sermon, but I think that it does not fit the purpose of this particular post.)
I found myself, not necessarily bored, but more mentally disengaged. This is not a reflection on the pastor's preaching ability: he is a hermeneutically excellent preacher/teacher. It was me.
I felt very disconnected. Not just while listening to the sermon, but the whole morning. The long and short of it is, I find I don't believe in what the church preaches anymore. It's more than the "worship" of the bible. It's how the church looks at the rest of the world outside of its stained-glass walls. There is this air of perfection required for God to accept you. That is not what is spoken, but that is the attitude. There is a focus on the depravity of the world outside of the church, and that focus helps to solidify the "we have overcome" persona the church claims. Unfortunately, it is THIS attitude that keeps many outside of the church from wanting anything to do WITH the church.
As my wife and I chatted (over some awesome chocolate-meringue pie), I realized that I had changed a lot. She used to shut down during conversations, because she was afraid that what she would say would seriously conflict with my belief structure. Now she says that has changed. I've become more tolerant. I've become more accepting. I've become less . . . religious.
In a sense, I would like to think I've become MORE Christ like. Jesus would not hesitate to eat with sinners. He would even occasionally invite Himself over to a sinner's house for lunch. He was tolerant. He was accepting of those "outside". He never made it seem one had to clean up their act BEFORE He would accept them. He was not religious.
The pastor mentioned that the pronouns in the passage he referred to (in Genesis) were plural ("Us" and "Our"), showing that the godhead was relational. As I've written a few times previously, if you look at the overall story of the bible, God is a relational god. Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship. We have gone and made it into a religion. What is religion? Religion, at its root form, means "to strangle".
So, "Where do I go from here?" Do I give my "home" church one more shot? Do I, instead, continue to attend the way I did in the sabbatical (making a graceful exit at the "meet and greet")? Or do I make the decision to "cut bait"? Is it the whole idea of church, or the idea of this PARTICULAR church?
I told my wife that I had this fear, that if I left my "home" church, without having another place to go, I would find that I would stop believing all together. She doesn't think that would happen. My beliefs have transitioned over this period, not waned. Like REM, maybe I'm just "Losing My Religion".
There is the chance, that if I walk away from my "home" church, that I will never again find myself in a worship (music) team. And would I be okay with that?
You know what? I think I am.
© Emittravel 2015
As I wrote in "B.I.B.L.E.", now that I'm at the end of my sabbatical, "Where do I go from here?" I decided to make this Sunday the day I would not exit after the praise and worship portion, and stay until the end of the service. My wife went to the church she has been attending during this period, so if I really felt I couldn't stay, walking out in the middle wouldn't be something that would embarrass her (I, for one, am difficult to embarrass.)
The pastor of the church preached the sermon. This is nothing new. It is actually a rare thing for him to not be preaching.
Let me add right here, that this is not the first time I've sat through a sermon since the start of my sabbatical. It's just the first time in my "home" church. I've had the pleasure of going to a friend's church, playing with him in the band, and listening to his pastor preach. That experience held little-to-no anxiety for me. I was hoping for a similar experience at my "home" church.
(Note: I was thinking of going into a detailed description of the sermon, but I think that it does not fit the purpose of this particular post.)
I found myself, not necessarily bored, but more mentally disengaged. This is not a reflection on the pastor's preaching ability: he is a hermeneutically excellent preacher/teacher. It was me.
I felt very disconnected. Not just while listening to the sermon, but the whole morning. The long and short of it is, I find I don't believe in what the church preaches anymore. It's more than the "worship" of the bible. It's how the church looks at the rest of the world outside of its stained-glass walls. There is this air of perfection required for God to accept you. That is not what is spoken, but that is the attitude. There is a focus on the depravity of the world outside of the church, and that focus helps to solidify the "we have overcome" persona the church claims. Unfortunately, it is THIS attitude that keeps many outside of the church from wanting anything to do WITH the church.
As my wife and I chatted (over some awesome chocolate-meringue pie), I realized that I had changed a lot. She used to shut down during conversations, because she was afraid that what she would say would seriously conflict with my belief structure. Now she says that has changed. I've become more tolerant. I've become more accepting. I've become less . . . religious.
In a sense, I would like to think I've become MORE Christ like. Jesus would not hesitate to eat with sinners. He would even occasionally invite Himself over to a sinner's house for lunch. He was tolerant. He was accepting of those "outside". He never made it seem one had to clean up their act BEFORE He would accept them. He was not religious.
The pastor mentioned that the pronouns in the passage he referred to (in Genesis) were plural ("Us" and "Our"), showing that the godhead was relational. As I've written a few times previously, if you look at the overall story of the bible, God is a relational god. Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship. We have gone and made it into a religion. What is religion? Religion, at its root form, means "to strangle".
So, "Where do I go from here?" Do I give my "home" church one more shot? Do I, instead, continue to attend the way I did in the sabbatical (making a graceful exit at the "meet and greet")? Or do I make the decision to "cut bait"? Is it the whole idea of church, or the idea of this PARTICULAR church?
I told my wife that I had this fear, that if I left my "home" church, without having another place to go, I would find that I would stop believing all together. She doesn't think that would happen. My beliefs have transitioned over this period, not waned. Like REM, maybe I'm just "Losing My Religion".
There is the chance, that if I walk away from my "home" church, that I will never again find myself in a worship (music) team. And would I be okay with that?
You know what? I think I am.
© Emittravel 2015
Sunday, June 7, 2015
NO REL PREF
I recently had a visit to a local hospital for some "lab work". That's a nice way to say that I had to go and get some blood drawn. I'm an absolute freak when it comes to needles. When I was a kid (pre-teen, early teen), I needed to have some surgeries, and one of the things they would do is give two shots in either the hip or upper thigh as part of the anesthesia. It would take FIVE nurses to hold me down for the shots. As an adult I say that only two were necessary (WINK!!) I even have trouble watching one of my all-time favorite TV shows: M*A*S*H. Whenever they show a needle I have to turn my head. Pretty phobic!
While at the lab, the staff had to update some of my records in their system, and one of the questions I was asked was what was my religion.
When I joined the Navy at seventeen years old, one of the many questions asked, in the multitude of paperwork, was the same thing: what was my religion. I grew up Roman Catholic, so that is what I put down. Later, when I turned eighteen, I announced to my parents that I was no longer considering myself a Catholic and was no longer going to church. They didn't like it too much, but since I was eighteen, they accepted my decision. That meant that I wanted/needed to contact the Navy to correct my "religion" on the paperwork, which is what I did.
When you arrive in boot camp, one of the things you receive are your dog tags. Dog tags are flat metal plates strung on ceiling fan pool chains that you wear around your neck. There are two tags. One on the main chain, and one on a much smaller chain that is hanging on the big chain. This smaller one is known as a "toe tag". Anyone familiar with shows like CSI should be familiar with the term. On the tags are your name, ID number, branch of service, blood type, and religion. Where it said "religion" it said "NO REL PREF": No Religious Preference.
Here, as I find myself at the end of a sabbatical, I find myself faced with defining the religion I ascribe to. This sabbatical has brought many things to light of where my head/heart/belief structure is, as you can read in past blog posts. I find that labeling my beliefs is much more difficult than it once was. I no longer consider myself Catholic. I've been going (for many years) to a church that jokingly/lovingly calls itself "Bapticostal" (the diligence in study of the bible as the Baptists, with the embrace of the movement and involvement of the Holy Spirit as the Pentecostals). They have been called Charismatic and Non-Denominational. And I have called myself the same.
I could have said "Christian", but the question was concerning my religion. "Christian" literally means "Christ follower", a disciple of Jesus. A relational word that describes a child to their parent. There is a big difference between calling yourself a Christian and calling yourself a Catholic (or Methodist, or Lutheran, or even Bapticostal). And, due to my journey during this sabbatical, I am having a lot of difficulty ascribing myself to one of them.
I turned to the lady and told her NO REL PREF: No Religious Preference.
©Emittravel
While at the lab, the staff had to update some of my records in their system, and one of the questions I was asked was what was my religion.
When I joined the Navy at seventeen years old, one of the many questions asked, in the multitude of paperwork, was the same thing: what was my religion. I grew up Roman Catholic, so that is what I put down. Later, when I turned eighteen, I announced to my parents that I was no longer considering myself a Catholic and was no longer going to church. They didn't like it too much, but since I was eighteen, they accepted my decision. That meant that I wanted/needed to contact the Navy to correct my "religion" on the paperwork, which is what I did.
When you arrive in boot camp, one of the things you receive are your dog tags. Dog tags are flat metal plates strung on ceiling fan pool chains that you wear around your neck. There are two tags. One on the main chain, and one on a much smaller chain that is hanging on the big chain. This smaller one is known as a "toe tag". Anyone familiar with shows like CSI should be familiar with the term. On the tags are your name, ID number, branch of service, blood type, and religion. Where it said "religion" it said "NO REL PREF": No Religious Preference.
Here, as I find myself at the end of a sabbatical, I find myself faced with defining the religion I ascribe to. This sabbatical has brought many things to light of where my head/heart/belief structure is, as you can read in past blog posts. I find that labeling my beliefs is much more difficult than it once was. I no longer consider myself Catholic. I've been going (for many years) to a church that jokingly/lovingly calls itself "Bapticostal" (the diligence in study of the bible as the Baptists, with the embrace of the movement and involvement of the Holy Spirit as the Pentecostals). They have been called Charismatic and Non-Denominational. And I have called myself the same.
I could have said "Christian", but the question was concerning my religion. "Christian" literally means "Christ follower", a disciple of Jesus. A relational word that describes a child to their parent. There is a big difference between calling yourself a Christian and calling yourself a Catholic (or Methodist, or Lutheran, or even Bapticostal). And, due to my journey during this sabbatical, I am having a lot of difficulty ascribing myself to one of them.
I turned to the lady and told her NO REL PREF: No Religious Preference.
©Emittravel
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Middle East Peace - An Oxymoron?
First off, a statement of the obvious: the Middle East is one messed up place. I think we can all agree upon that. And no matter what anyone has done, peace in that region has been a fairy tale dream at best; a major catastrophe of "biblical" proportions at worst.
I keep wondering why we are so heavily invested in trying to barter peace there. The Left says that it is all about oil. The Right says we need so support our allies there. In one sense, they are both right. In another, I think they are standing on flimsy arguments. Let's take a look at the Left's side of it first.
Oil. Black gold. Texas "T". (Wait, did I just alienate some of my readers? Sorry 'bout that. Guess I'll have to go dunk my head in the ol' "cement pond".) No matter what Earth Day advocates have said, oil is still this nation's blood. No other energy source even comes close to the power and convenience of oil. We, in the United States, used to produce most of what we needed ourselves. Thus the "Texas 'T'" reference. But costs to produce it here have become so astronomical that it became cheaper to import it. That's where the Middle East comes in. That area of the world is one of the areas we get it. It's not the only place, but any drop in production there has a significant enough impact upon our nation that we will do anything to keep it flowing. Even poke our heads in wars of solely religious significance to those who live there.
Now, the Right says that we are there to support our allies. You know, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the on-again-off-again love affair with Iraq and Iran.
When we went into Iraq under President G.W. Bush, we were going in based on "supposed" Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Saddam Hussein even used them on his neighbor (Kuwait). We had "Intelligence" reports (I put that in quotation marks to signify that I question the validity of the existence of governmental "intelligence") that said he had them. After much feet dragging with the useless entity known as the United Nations, we finally went in to find that no, he didn't have any. "Bush lied / People died" became the chant of the left. But did he really lie?
Saddam DID indeed have WMDs. I'm not going to argue what happened to them during the foot dragging. That's not the issue. He DID have them. How do I know? Let me ask you a question: Where do you think he got them? Saddam was put in power by the U.S. as an "ally". We supplied him with the weapons to protect him from his neighbors. Do you honestly believe that Iraq had the technical knowledge to actually create and store such weapons? Really? Hell, even Iran - the country most-likely-to-get-a-nuke relies heavily on Russia for weapons. Most of the weapons these countries use are stamped "Made in" some other country than their own.
Which brings me to the whole "ally" argument of the Right. Why do we consider those religious nut jobs our allies in the first place? If we, the U.S., were to be invaded by a hostile nation, do you think any of those nations are going to send troops over here to support us?!? Yet, we send our troops there to protect them. Why? I'll tell you why: those nations are not our allies - they are our vendors. Our suppliers. I'd like to see the cost analysis comparing the cost of producing our own oil, or obtaining from non-hostile environments, versus the cost in weapons, aid, and the lives of our troops (yeah, place a dollar amount on THAT) currently spent.
"But J.P., Israel is not a source of oil. They ARE our ally." Israel "needs" our support. Is it really supporting them that when they are attacked we help barter a TEMPORARY cease fire that their enemies have CONSISTENTLY broken? You want to support Israel? Let them take care of themselves. They are fully capable of doing it on their own. Sure, that means those attacking them will have civilian casualties. In war they are called "collateral damage". If those civilians are in support of their government attacking Israel, they cannot be considered innocent civilians. If those civilians are not in support of their government attacking Israel, they have the responsibility to do something about that government.
I've read that the worst kind of call to respond to for the police is a domestic dispute. There's something to that.
As I mentioned above, those in the Middle East are fighting over religious differences. Do you realize, that before the Islamic takeover of those nations (think: sharia law), Muslims in that area were the leaders in technological and scientific advancements? Not so much any more. Their religious system has stifled any growth in those nations. And they want to force everyone else to follow suit. According to them, Israel has no right to exist. I've read the bible. It's hard to make the argument whether they have the right to that land or not. But they've been there for years. Should they now be kicked out because it belonged to someone else years ago? Let me ask my fellow Americans specifically: Would you move out of your house freely and hand your land over to the Native Americans/Indians/whatever-is-PC who lived there before? Do you think Alaska needs to go back to Russia? Heck, it was their land before it was our land.
This is a religious war. I say leave them alone and let the best God win.
© Emittravel 2014
I keep wondering why we are so heavily invested in trying to barter peace there. The Left says that it is all about oil. The Right says we need so support our allies there. In one sense, they are both right. In another, I think they are standing on flimsy arguments. Let's take a look at the Left's side of it first.
Oil. Black gold. Texas "T". (Wait, did I just alienate some of my readers? Sorry 'bout that. Guess I'll have to go dunk my head in the ol' "cement pond".) No matter what Earth Day advocates have said, oil is still this nation's blood. No other energy source even comes close to the power and convenience of oil. We, in the United States, used to produce most of what we needed ourselves. Thus the "Texas 'T'" reference. But costs to produce it here have become so astronomical that it became cheaper to import it. That's where the Middle East comes in. That area of the world is one of the areas we get it. It's not the only place, but any drop in production there has a significant enough impact upon our nation that we will do anything to keep it flowing. Even poke our heads in wars of solely religious significance to those who live there.
Now, the Right says that we are there to support our allies. You know, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the on-again-off-again love affair with Iraq and Iran.
When we went into Iraq under President G.W. Bush, we were going in based on "supposed" Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). Saddam Hussein even used them on his neighbor (Kuwait). We had "Intelligence" reports (I put that in quotation marks to signify that I question the validity of the existence of governmental "intelligence") that said he had them. After much feet dragging with the useless entity known as the United Nations, we finally went in to find that no, he didn't have any. "Bush lied / People died" became the chant of the left. But did he really lie?
Saddam DID indeed have WMDs. I'm not going to argue what happened to them during the foot dragging. That's not the issue. He DID have them. How do I know? Let me ask you a question: Where do you think he got them? Saddam was put in power by the U.S. as an "ally". We supplied him with the weapons to protect him from his neighbors. Do you honestly believe that Iraq had the technical knowledge to actually create and store such weapons? Really? Hell, even Iran - the country most-likely-to-get-a-nuke relies heavily on Russia for weapons. Most of the weapons these countries use are stamped "Made in" some other country than their own.
Which brings me to the whole "ally" argument of the Right. Why do we consider those religious nut jobs our allies in the first place? If we, the U.S., were to be invaded by a hostile nation, do you think any of those nations are going to send troops over here to support us?!? Yet, we send our troops there to protect them. Why? I'll tell you why: those nations are not our allies - they are our vendors. Our suppliers. I'd like to see the cost analysis comparing the cost of producing our own oil, or obtaining from non-hostile environments, versus the cost in weapons, aid, and the lives of our troops (yeah, place a dollar amount on THAT) currently spent.
"But J.P., Israel is not a source of oil. They ARE our ally." Israel "needs" our support. Is it really supporting them that when they are attacked we help barter a TEMPORARY cease fire that their enemies have CONSISTENTLY broken? You want to support Israel? Let them take care of themselves. They are fully capable of doing it on their own. Sure, that means those attacking them will have civilian casualties. In war they are called "collateral damage". If those civilians are in support of their government attacking Israel, they cannot be considered innocent civilians. If those civilians are not in support of their government attacking Israel, they have the responsibility to do something about that government.
I've read that the worst kind of call to respond to for the police is a domestic dispute. There's something to that.
As I mentioned above, those in the Middle East are fighting over religious differences. Do you realize, that before the Islamic takeover of those nations (think: sharia law), Muslims in that area were the leaders in technological and scientific advancements? Not so much any more. Their religious system has stifled any growth in those nations. And they want to force everyone else to follow suit. According to them, Israel has no right to exist. I've read the bible. It's hard to make the argument whether they have the right to that land or not. But they've been there for years. Should they now be kicked out because it belonged to someone else years ago? Let me ask my fellow Americans specifically: Would you move out of your house freely and hand your land over to the Native Americans/Indians/whatever-is-PC who lived there before? Do you think Alaska needs to go back to Russia? Heck, it was their land before it was our land.
This is a religious war. I say leave them alone and let the best God win.
© Emittravel 2014
Monday, July 21, 2014
Too Much of a Good Thing?
"Everything in moderation" is a piece of wisdom we've all heard many times. If you haven't, welcome to the wisdom club. Too much of anything is bad for you. Too little as well. Take oxygen for example: too much and you get cell damage, problems with the lungs, and seizures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity). Too little and … well … you die.
Most commonly that piece of wisdom focuses on not having "too much" of something. Don't believe that too much of something is hazardous? Outside of the oxygen reference above, have too much prune juice and see what happens. Or, have too much cheese and see what doesn't!
This wisdom is found across cultures, countries, and even religions. The bible makes reference to moderation in many areas. Actually, most things considered "sin" in the bible are just taking things to an unhealthy extreme. What is lust? Natural attraction on steroids.
There is one area I want to focus on in this article: alcohol. It is a topic of much discussion in the church, and there are people on both sides of it. In America, there is a serious problem with alcoholism. When it comes to discussions concerning legalizing marijuana, the harmful effects are often compared with the harmful effects of alcohol.
What are some of the things the bible says about alcohol?
"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard …" (Isaiah 24:20a NKJV)
"Thus says the Lord God: 'You shall drink of your sister's cup. The deep and wide one; You shall be laughed to scorn and held in derision; it contains much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of horror and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You shall drink and drain it, you shall break its shards, and tear at your own breasts; for I have spoken,' says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 23:33,34 NKJV)
"But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly." (Luke 21:34 NKJV)
"Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness …" (Romans 13:13a NKJV)
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard …" (1 Corinthians 5:11a NKJV)
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit," (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV)
"For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, …" (1 Thessalonians 5:7,8a NKJV)
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles - when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (1 Peter 4:3 NKJV)
Apparently, quite a lot. It is such verses as the above, and the affects of alcoholism on families and individuals touted in the media, that the church uses to condemn ANY drinking whatsoever. But is the condemnation of alcohol biblical?
I have a great pastor. One of the great things about him is that he puts up with the likes of me! As I've mentioned previously, I like to poke a stick at things. One time he was mentioning in part of a sermon that, according to science, we all had a little bit of Neanderthal in us. I texted him after that sermon asking him, "Does that mean Adam and Eve were Neanderthals?" (He never responded.) He is a fastidious teacher/preacher. He has often said that you must look at scripture in the context in which it was written, and to not add meaning that the writer did not intend. He is also not afraid to condemn alcohol from the pulpit based on the destructive qualities it has on families (his family in particular). I say those two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Alcoholism is a destructive thing in our society to be sure. But you can't use the bible to condemn it. The bible does not condemn drinking: it condemns drunkenness. And what is drunkenness? Drinking that is not in "moderation". Excessive.
"And put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23,2 NKJV)
"Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20,21 NKJV)
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness …" (Ezekiel 16:49a NKJV)
"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:34 NKJV)
As is shown in the above verses, gluttony, or overeating, is also a sin. In fact, in the bible it is on the same footing as drunkenness. Yet I've never seen a church who shunned pot luck dinners.
Once, at a men's advance (or "retreat"), a group of us went out to dinner at a local steakhouse. We had a rather long table with guys on both sides. I sat at the end. As the waiter went down one side of the table taking drink orders, he was told, "Coke", "Coke", "Diet Coke", "Pepsi. No Pepsi? Okay, Coke", "Iced tea", "water", "water", etc. He got to the guy across from me who ordered in a similar manner. He then started up the side I was on with me. I said, "I'll have a 'Corona'." The guy across from me asked me, "You're ordering a beer?!?" I said, "Yes. Beer and steak go well together." He turned to the waiter and said, "Can I change my order?"
Culture has a major impact on how the church handles itself. In places where the water isn't the greatest, wine and beer are preferred due to the sterilization that occurs during processing. We in America don't have that concern. But the church shouldn't add to scripture what wasn't intended. You can preach against alcohol in light of drunkenness, but don't condemn.
Like I like to say, if you consider one beer drunkenness, than you have to consider that small order of fries gluttony.
Moderation is the key to everything.
© Emittravel 2014
Most commonly that piece of wisdom focuses on not having "too much" of something. Don't believe that too much of something is hazardous? Outside of the oxygen reference above, have too much prune juice and see what happens. Or, have too much cheese and see what doesn't!
This wisdom is found across cultures, countries, and even religions. The bible makes reference to moderation in many areas. Actually, most things considered "sin" in the bible are just taking things to an unhealthy extreme. What is lust? Natural attraction on steroids.
There is one area I want to focus on in this article: alcohol. It is a topic of much discussion in the church, and there are people on both sides of it. In America, there is a serious problem with alcoholism. When it comes to discussions concerning legalizing marijuana, the harmful effects are often compared with the harmful effects of alcohol.
What are some of the things the bible says about alcohol?
"The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard …" (Isaiah 24:20a NKJV)
"Thus says the Lord God: 'You shall drink of your sister's cup. The deep and wide one; You shall be laughed to scorn and held in derision; it contains much. You will be filled with drunkenness and sorrow, the cup of horror and desolation, the cup of your sister Samaria. You shall drink and drain it, you shall break its shards, and tear at your own breasts; for I have spoken,' says the Lord God." (Ezekiel 23:33,34 NKJV)
"But take heed to yourselves, lest your hearts be weighed down with carousing, drunkenness, and cares of this life, and that Day come on you unexpectedly." (Luke 21:34 NKJV)
"Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness …" (Romans 13:13a NKJV)
"But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard …" (1 Corinthians 5:11a NKJV)
"And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit," (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV)
"For those who sleep, sleep at night, and those who get drunk are drunk at night. But let us who are of the day be sober, …" (1 Thessalonians 5:7,8a NKJV)
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles - when we walked in licentiousness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries." (1 Peter 4:3 NKJV)
Apparently, quite a lot. It is such verses as the above, and the affects of alcoholism on families and individuals touted in the media, that the church uses to condemn ANY drinking whatsoever. But is the condemnation of alcohol biblical?
I have a great pastor. One of the great things about him is that he puts up with the likes of me! As I've mentioned previously, I like to poke a stick at things. One time he was mentioning in part of a sermon that, according to science, we all had a little bit of Neanderthal in us. I texted him after that sermon asking him, "Does that mean Adam and Eve were Neanderthals?" (He never responded.) He is a fastidious teacher/preacher. He has often said that you must look at scripture in the context in which it was written, and to not add meaning that the writer did not intend. He is also not afraid to condemn alcohol from the pulpit based on the destructive qualities it has on families (his family in particular). I say those two ideas are in conflict with each other.
Alcoholism is a destructive thing in our society to be sure. But you can't use the bible to condemn it. The bible does not condemn drinking: it condemns drunkenness. And what is drunkenness? Drinking that is not in "moderation". Excessive.
"And put a knife to your throat if you are a man given to appetite." (Proverbs 23,2 NKJV)
"Do not mix with winebibbers, or with gluttonous eaters of meat; for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and drowsiness will clothe a man with rags." (Proverbs 23:20,21 NKJV)
"Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness …" (Ezekiel 16:49a NKJV)
"The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, 'Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'" (Luke 7:34 NKJV)
As is shown in the above verses, gluttony, or overeating, is also a sin. In fact, in the bible it is on the same footing as drunkenness. Yet I've never seen a church who shunned pot luck dinners.
Once, at a men's advance (or "retreat"), a group of us went out to dinner at a local steakhouse. We had a rather long table with guys on both sides. I sat at the end. As the waiter went down one side of the table taking drink orders, he was told, "Coke", "Coke", "Diet Coke", "Pepsi. No Pepsi? Okay, Coke", "Iced tea", "water", "water", etc. He got to the guy across from me who ordered in a similar manner. He then started up the side I was on with me. I said, "I'll have a 'Corona'." The guy across from me asked me, "You're ordering a beer?!?" I said, "Yes. Beer and steak go well together." He turned to the waiter and said, "Can I change my order?"
Culture has a major impact on how the church handles itself. In places where the water isn't the greatest, wine and beer are preferred due to the sterilization that occurs during processing. We in America don't have that concern. But the church shouldn't add to scripture what wasn't intended. You can preach against alcohol in light of drunkenness, but don't condemn.
Like I like to say, if you consider one beer drunkenness, than you have to consider that small order of fries gluttony.
Moderation is the key to everything.
© Emittravel 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)