Elections in Greece
Europe and the financial markets are in turmoil over the decision of Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou’s call for a referendum on the recent deal reached to rescue the country from it financial problems. Some called it “a strange thing to do.” Other were “irritated,” while a member of the opposition called it “a dangerous and frivolous decision.”
While there seems to be few that support his call, I think it is great! Who would have thought that democracy in Greece would cause such a problem? There is, in fact, a deeper issue here, and one that goes to the heart of the financial problem in Greece, the rest of Europe, and even here in the United States.
While they are vastly different movements, the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements do share at least one common belief, and it is a belief also shared by a large segment of society. It is the belief that things are out of their control.
The Tea Party sees government as having lost touch with the people and on a seemingly uncontrollable spending binge that threatens to turn this country into Greece. Occupy Wall Street seems to hold that the rich and powerful, symbolized by Wall Street, are out of control and that their greed is causing our problems.
The idea that there are forces and powers outside of our control that are running things is not new. In the extreme, this belief forms the basis for many of the conspiracy theories that seem never to go away. But this idea exists and influences behavior beyond just conspiracy theories. While this type of thinking can be found on both the right and the left, it is particularly strong on the left, for there it is integrated into the way they view the world.
Compared to Occupy Wall Street, the Tea parties come at this backwards. The Tea Parties started out of an alarm over the massively exploding debt. Throughout the Bush years many Democrats and some Republicans complained about the growth of the debt. In fact, the Republican loss of the Congress in 2006 was probably due more to the failure of Republicans to rein in spending, than the War in Iraq.
Yet with Obama and the Democrats, the deficit did not go down, it went up even more. In fact it exploded to unprecedented heights to a level roughly 10 times higher than the last Republican budget. To make matters worse, this was not just a short term problem due to the recession. The Obama budgets showed huge deficits with no end in sight. This caused a lot of people to focus what was going on, and the Tea Parties were born.
Whereas the Tea Parties can point to specific problems and polices, Occupy Wall Street has no such specificity. Instead, they seem to be trying to force the current problems to fit their existing worldview. The Left is, at its core, a movement of division. It sees the world as a series of competing groups: labor, management, union, non-union, rich, middle class, poor, men, women, white, black, Hispanic, etc, etc, etc..
While there are many problems with this worldview, the key problem in this discussion is that these divisions frequently end up viewing things in an us-versus-them fashion. In doing so it separate actions from responsibility. This is most easily seen with labor unions. At their core, Labor unions pit management against employees, using force and intimidation (normally the use of the strike, but historically often physical force and intimidation as well) to get changes to working conditions. This engenders a get-all-you-can mentality, without any responsibility for the consequences. If management gives in too much and the business (or even industry) fails, that is management’s fault for agreeing to union demands.
We currently see this issue playing out in a number of states. Government unions are a particular problem in that government employees are often a significant political force, a force which can get their candidates elected. As such in many instances they find themselves effectively negotiating with themselves, i.e. the people they elected. This has led to huge problems in many states, as wages and benefits have far exceeded those in the privates sector and where grave concerns exist on how these obligations will be paid for. California, for example, which is already in serious financial trouble, also faces an unfunded pension liability of $500 billion.
Returning to Greece, this is the core of their problem. In short, the Greek government spent too freely, made too many promises, and now the bill is coming due. But the Greek people do not yet seem to grasp this and there is broad disapproval with the debt deal. Polls “showed that nearly 60 percent of Greeks viewed the deal as negative or probably negative.”
If democracy is to work, people must be free to choose, but also to suffer the consequences of those choices. There is no such thing as choice without consequences, at least in the long run, and the belief that there is, is one of the gravest dangers for any democratic system. In the short term the consequences can be postponed, and thus ignored. But eventually the bill comes due, as is currently happening in Greece, and will eventually happen here.
This is the big difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street. The Tea Party wants to bring spending and the debt under control now. Occupy Wall Street is still in an Us-versus-Them mentality, refusing to take responsibility and instead seeking to blame unseen forces of Wall Street for just not paying their fair share.
So I say let Greeks vote, but let them take the consequences of that vote. That way, regardless of what they decide, the Greek people will be responsible for what happens. They will not be able to blame others, as they almost certainly would have, had this deal been imposed on them against the will of the majority.
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 2 John 4-7a
Week Eight: Oct 30, 2011
This week we began the body of the letter. As is common, John starts with some positive statements aimed at framing the discussion of the problem, which begins in verse 7.
Study
II. Body
a. Living In Truth and Love (4-6)
4 – I was overjoyed to find some of your[1] children living truthfully, just as the Father has commanded us.
I was overjoyed to find
– The Greek word for find is the word εὕρηκα – eurēka. This is what Archimedes supposedly said when he discovered buoyancy in a public bath and ran home naked crying Eureka. It means “I have found it.” It is in the Perfect tense which suggests that John’s joy was based on a personal experience. Thus it is probably referring to something that happened during a recent visit to this church.
some of your children living truthfully
– There was a question in the class as to why the word “Some” was italicized is some versions. Does this mean that the translators added the word? The answer is yes, but the meaning is pretty clearly implied which is why some other translators don’t. The Greek text of the key phrase reads, ἐκ τῶν τέκνων σου (ek ton teknon sou) – or in a literal translation: “out of the children of you.” Thus word translated “out of” (ἐκ) is pretty clearly indicating that out of a whole there were some. Thus translators render this as “some of your children.”
– While it is clear that John was referring to some, the meaning is disputed. One option is that he found “some” were and other that were not. In other words John was happy to find that there were still some who were following the truth (lit walking in truth ), that not all had fallen away. Note again the emphasis on the truth. A second option, however, is that while John is happy about the “some” he is saying nothing about the others. Since his comments appeared to be based on personal experience, he may have met with some during his visit, and those were the ones he is talking about. He is saying nothing about those he did not meet with. Given the positive tone in this section I would think that the second option is more likely.
just as the Father has commanded us
– While the word translated commanded refers to a singular commandment, John is referring here not to any particular command but to the commandments of God in a general sense. All of the commandments, taken as a whole, are a commandment that we live in the Truth. That is what God asks of us.
5 – Dear lady, I am now requesting of you[2] that we all continue to love one another. It is not as though I am writing to give you[3] a new commandment, but one that we have had from the beginning.
Dear lady, I am now requesting of you
– John now makes a direct request, which serves to emphasize his request.
that we all continue love one another
– Notice how verse 4 and 5 link the concepts of living truthfully, and loving one another. Both are at the core of the Christian experience. For many this view of love, a view where love is something we have control over such that we can be commanded to love, does not make a lot of sense. In the modern view, love is something that just happens. We may fall in or out of love and it is really beyond our control, it just happens. While this is a common view, this is not a biblical one. Biblical love is something we have a choice in. We are commanded to love:
John 13:34 I am giving you a new commandment to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another.
Eph 5:25 Husbands, love your wives as the Messiah loved the church and gave himself for it,
Not…a new commandment
– A minor issue arises with John’s claim that this is not a new command. How does this square with John 13:34 just quoted? This is really not hard to reconcile. While for us, 2000 years later, the New Testament is take as a whole, it must be remember that the period it covers was nearly 70 years. Thus while Jesus told his disciple this was a “new” commandment, 2 John was probably written over 50 years later to second or or even third generation Christians who had heard this from the time of their conversion. Thus for them it was not new. This will be in contrast to the new teachings spread by the false teachers.
6 – And this is what demonstrates[4] love: that we live according to God’s[5] commandments. Just as you[6] have heard from the beginning what he commanded, you[7] must live by it.
And this is what demonstrates love:
– This is Lit: and this is love (καὶ αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ` ἀγάπη / kai autē estin ē agapē) John now goes on to describe exactly what he is requesting.
we live according to God’s commandments.
– Note the change from The commandment (v5) to commandments (v6). The commandment is that we love one another. The Commandments are how we love another. To love God is to obey God.
John 14:21 The person who has my commandments and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I, too, will love him and reveal myself to him.
– Obeying God shows love for God. But how does it show love to “one another?” God laws are not arbitrary rules, given so that he can punish us, but are given by God to make our lives better. The simple fact is that sin damages relationships and damages lives. While Christians are often portrayed as killjoys who irrationally follow blindly old rules that no longer apply, the simple fact is that the evidence is on our side. Many studies have shown that on average those who regularly attend church live happier and longer lives than those who don’t.
b. Reject False Teachers (7-11)
7* – For many deceivers have gone out into the world. They refuse to acknowledge Jesus the Messiah[8] is coming in flesh[9]. Any such person is a deceiver and an antichrist.
For (ὅτι)
– While this verse marks a change in the letter from positive exhortation to warnings, it is connect to the previous verse. In context, John was glad that they were living in the truth because…
many deceivers have gone out into the world.
– Just as Christians missionaries that 3 John 5-6 says we should welcome have gone out so had their counterparts. And it is these counter parts that John is now going to warn about.
Questions and Discussion.
This week’s discussion picked up on the themes of living in truth and love, and in particular old versus new commandments. The modern technological society has a built in bias towards the new, and against the old. While it is primarily driven by the rapid change in technology, cultural development is rarely so nicely compartmentalized. For example, after Einstein’s theory of relativity came to be accepted in physics, relativity as a concept spread throughout the culture and soon many things, including morals were seen as relative. Likewise, modern cultures love of the the new, and devaluing of the old is not restricted to technology. This has affected the church as well.
One of the members brought up the issue of the lack of contemplation and meditation on God’s word. In the fast pace world there is little time for such things. In fact, many kids (and even some adults) are virtually addicted to their own adrenaline, as life becomes a search for excitement and the next big rush of adrenaline. Little wonder that they do not have time to just sit and pray, contemplate study and meditate on God’s word. And yet, if we do not stop to listen, how will we ever hear the Holy Spirit? If we do not stop to study, contemplate and meditate on God’s word, how will we ever know what it says for our lives? Are you powered by adrenaline, or by the Holy Spirit?
Next week we will continue in 2 John 7
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
[1] 4 Lit. your (singular)
[2] 5 Lit. you (singular)
[3] 5 Lit. you (singular)
[4] 6 The Gk. lacks what demonstrates
[5] 6 Lit. his
[6] 6 Lit. you (plural)
[7] 6 Lit. you (plural)
[8] 7 Or Christ
[9] ISV: having become human
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 2 John 3
Week Seven: Oct 23, 2011
While this class follows the text very closely, there is no preset schedule, nor any particular number of verses that we need to cover each week. Instead I encourage discussion and leave room for the Holy Spirit to take the class, where He needs to take it. This was one of those week, were most of the class was taken up in the discussion and questions. As a result we only covered one verse. I will try to summarize at least the main points that were discussed in the question section below.
Study
I. Opening
b. Greeting(3)
3 – Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus1 the Messiah,2 the Father’s Son, in truth and love.
– Ancient letters followed the standard opening with a greeting, an example of which can be seen in Acts 15:23.
From: The apostles and the elders, your brothers
To: Their gentile brothers in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia.
Greetings.
Paul’s letters show an expansion of the standard greeting with Christian elements in awordplay with the word Greeting (χαίρειν/chairein) changing it to Grace (χάρις/charis) and often adding peace, the standard Jewish greeting. Thus in 1 Cor 1:3,
May grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus, the Messiah, be yours!
This came to be a common patter among Christian letters and one that John follows here.
Grace, mercy and peace
– Grace and peace were common among Paul’s letters and to this John adds mercy.
– A member of the class mentioned that there was a progression in this verse, and there is a definite progression. Working backwards, you cannot have true peace apart from God. But sin keeps us from God, and it is God’s mercy that allows us to be reconciled with him, and this mercy in grounded in grace.
will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus
– This is an affirmation, not a request. Note that John is making it clear that the source of our grace, mercy and peace are both the Father and Jesus.
– This will be important has the letter develops, for the denial of Jesus as the Messiah forms a key part of the false teachings this letter warns against.
the Father’s Son
– Jesus is further described as the Father’s Son. This repletion is a form of emphasis that Jesus is the son. Again this was something the traveling missionaries discussed in this letter rejected.
in truth and love.
– John again comes back to truth adding love. This stresses their importance in grace, mercy and peace, without truth or love, there can be no grace, mercy or peace. This is why truth and love will play such large role in the rest of the letter. So John is not just greeting his readers, he is using the opening of this letter to prepare his readers for what follows.
Question/Discussion:
As mention above the question and discussion took up the majority of the class, and my memory is not sufficient to have captured it all. So you see there is a reason to come to the class and not just follow it online! But I will do my best.
The discussion started with the theme of the class, living in truth and love. These are both very important concepts, but they are often at odds with each other. In addition, truth, itself is a very challenging concept. This was brought home to me in the very first week of this current class. Highland Community Church has a winter and summer schedule and does not have classes during the summer. So when our class started up again, not too surprisingly, one of the members who has been in the class for several years asked me, how was my summer?
My first reaction was to say the standard, “fine,” but I realized this was not true. For reason that are not important here, it had been a difficult summer with virtually no free time to actually enjoy it. Here I was, about to start teaching on truth and love, and before class even started I was about to say something that was not true. So I was honest, it had been a difficult summer.
This started a discussion among the class as to what and how much to say, and how you can answer truthfully, without going into long and possibly unwanted explanations. But before long, the discussion broadened onto how we are not always truthful with ourselves. Just as we tell others that we are Ok, or that everything is fine, we say the same things to ourselves. We are fine; no problems with God; I have my life in order. Yet if we were to ask God, would he say the same thing?
Before I had started this study, I thought I was doing pretty well on the truth front, and in a general sense this was probably true. But it did not mean that I was up to God’s standards, or even that I viewed truth, or its importance, in quite the same way that He does.
Jesus is the truth in every sense of that word. A commitment to Him is a commitment to truth, a key component of which is being honest with, and about, ourselves. Letting God shine his light into our lives to reveal the things we need to work on.
A few weeks ago, we had some questions about Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and so after the discussion above, before going into 2 John, I updated the class on something that had happened during the week. My neighbor has had some Jehovah’s Witnesses coming over to his house, and so he stopped by to ask some questions about what they were claiming. One argument in particular stood out and I wanted to share it with the class.
A key difference between the historical Christian belief and the beliefs of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is over the deity of Jesus Christ. Christians have historically affirmed it, while Jehovah’s Witnesses deny it. A key verse in this debate is John 1:1.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God.
Verses 1:14, 15 and 30 clearly identify the Word in verse 1 as Jesus. So when it says “The Word was God,” it is not hard to see why historically Christians have believed that Jesus is God.
My neighbor said that in response to this passage, the Jehovah’s Witness had pulled out a Greek-English Interlinear and pointed out how the word translated God in the phase, “and the Word was with God” was different than the word translated God in the phrase “and the word was God.” My neighbor went on to explain that he had been told that the word ‘God’ in “the Word was with God”, refers to Jehovah, while ‘God’ in “the word was God” is not really god. Thus in the New World Bible, the Jehovah’s Witness’ translation, John 1:1 reads,
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (NWT)
While this argument may sound good in English, it falls completely apart with even the most preliminary understanding of Greek.
Here is the Greek of John 1:1
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Or transliterated
En arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton theon, kai theos en o logos.
Or as a word for word literal translation
In beginning was the word, and the word was with the god, and god was the word.
From this we can see that it is true that two words translated “God” in this passage are spelled differently, the first one is θεόν (theon) and the other is θεὸς (theos). But the difference in spelling has nothing at all to do with the basic meaning of the word, but rather the grammar of the sentence. The spelling is different because Greek uses the ending of words to indicate their function. Consider the following sentence:
Bill threw the ball to Joe.
English uses word order to indicate function, so we know that Bill is the subject (i.e., Nominative Case) and Joe is the indirect object (i.e. Dative Case) by where they appear in the sentence. Greek however uses the ending of the word for this. One place were English also uses word endings, is with the possessive (i.e. Genitive case). Thus in the sentence
Joe threw Bill’s ball back.
The -’s ending is used to show that the ball belongs to Bill. English also uses the –s ending to show plural. So whereas English does this for the Genitive case and for plurals, Greek does this for all cases and for both singular and plural. It shows the Nominative singular (i.e, the subject) with the -oς ending and the Accusative singular (i.e. the object) with –oν. This the reason for the difference in spelling between θεόν (theon) and θεὸς (theos). The first is in the Accusative case, which is exactly what one would expect as it is the object of the phrase, and the second occurrence is in the Nominative case.
To see the fallacy of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ argument consider again the two sentences about Bill and the ball.
Bill threw the ball to Joe.
Joe threw Bill’s ball back.
Bill is spelled differently in these two sentences. Does that mean that “Bill” in the first sentence is a different kind of Bill than “Bill’s” in the second sentence? Clearly not! Bill is the same in both sentences and the spelling difference merely concerns how it is being used in the sentence. The same is true for θεόν (theon) and θεὸς (theos) in John 1:1.
At this point a question was asked about the translation of “a god” found in the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation. First off, it is not impossible. Greek has no indefinite article (“a”) nor can one simply determine by the absence of the definite article (“the”) that a noun is indefinite. Normally, this must be determined by the context.
A key issue in John 1:1 is that in the phrase “The Word was God” (lit: God was the Word) both “God” and “Word” are in the nominative case. A rule in Greek, Colwell’s Rule, does help us determine that “Word” is the subject, which is why it is translated as “The Word was God,” and not “God was the Word” because in English the subject normal appears first. It also suggests that God is definite (“was God”) instead of indefinite (“was a god”). But it does to prove it. I will not go into the details of the grammar here. Those who are interested can find a more complete discussion of the grammar here.
In terms of the context, an extremely difficult problem arises with the translation of “a god” particularly in the way it is understood by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. If Jesus is “a god,” in what sense is he a god? If he really is “a god,” separate and distinct from the father, then you have the teaching of polytheism, the belief in more than one God. On the other hand, if you want hold on to monotheism, the belief in only one god, then John 1:1 cannot really be saying what it is saying.
Another point is that one of the ways Greek emphasizes something is by moving it to the front. (The other is, as we saw in the verse this week, by repetition) Remember, because of the word endings, word order is not needed to determine the function of the word. In Greek you can put the words pretty much where you want them. While “Bill’s Joe ball threw” does not make much sense in English, that word order would not be a problem in Greek as the word endings would make it clear that the meaning was “Joe threw Bill’s ball.” As mentioned above, the Greek literally reads “god was the word.” So not only is the word being equated with God, but the “God” part is being emphasized. Yet the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding attempts to de-emphasize this out of existence. It is not “God” but just “a god,” and then it was not really even “a god,” but something lesser than that, because according to their belief Jesus is not god. In short it is pretty easy to see that their translation is trying to get around what the text says, because what it says does not match their beliefs.
From here the discussion turned to how average Christians can deal with such arguments. After all, few Christians know very much Greek, nor do they need to. God does not expect anyone to become a super-Christian, one who know all the answers and whose walk with God is perfect. This goes right back to the subject of this class. When dealing with questions, the simplest thing is to be honest. Answer those questions you know, and when you are not sure, or do not know the answer, or someone raises a point or objection you have never heard before, simply say “that is a good question, and I do not know the answer. Let me look into that and I will get back to you.”
Everyone has their role to play, and just as not everyone is called to be a pastor, not everyone is called to be an apologist. So while you may not know the answer, there is probably someone in your church who does, or at least who knows how to get the answer. Your pastor is a great place to start.
In many ways truth is liberating. It frees us to go wherever the truth leads us. We do not have to live in fear that what we believe will be proven wrong. If a Jehovah’s Witness or a Mormon showed me an error in my understanding of the Bible, I would praise God, because that would remove an error from my understanding and move me one step closer to the truth. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Having said that, as with the example above, I have seen so much error and falsehood in their teachings that I know that they cannot represent the true teaching of the Bible, but I approach them in truth and in love seeking the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Next week we will start in 2 John 4
If you have question or comments about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the ISV version. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
1 Other mss. read the Lord Jesus
2 Or Christ
The Epistles of John: Living in Truth and Love. 2 John 1-2
Week Six: Oct 16, 2011
This week we finished the study in 3 John in an earlier post. Here we will start 2 John.
2 John
Outline
The structure of 2 John is very close to a typical 1st century letter, and thus there is pretty broad agreement on the outline by scholars.
I.Opening
a. Address (1-2)
b. Greeting(3)
II.Body
a. Living In Truth and Love (4-6)
b. Reject False Teachers (7-11)
III. Conclusion
a. Final words (12)
b. Greeting (13)
Study
I. Opening
a. Address (1-2)
1* – From:1 The Elder
To: The chosen lady and her children, whom I love in the truth2, and not only I but also all who know the truth, 2* – because of the truth3 that is present in us and will be with us forever.
A standard opening of a 1st Century letter. A writing to B, greetings and prayer
The Elder
This is same opening as 3 John. For further details, see comments here.
To: The chosen lady and her children
– There are three options on who this letter is written to.
1) This could refer to a particular noble woman and her children. The word for Lady (κυρίᾳ / kuria) is a the female version of Lord. It is possible that this woman was well known to John. Her name would have been on the outside and so here he only needed to refer to her as the chosen lady. It is also possible that her name was Eclecta as in as in “The Lady Eclectra” or possibly Kyria as in “The chosen Kyria.”
This understanding is supported by a strict reading of this passage as well as others such as v13 The children of your(singular) chosen sister greet you (singular).
2) This is could be a metaphor for a particular local church and its members. With this understanding, the Lady = the church and could be a reference to the Bride of our Lord. Then the children would be its members.
This is supported by other passages such as the later part of v1 whom I love in the truth, and not only I but also all who know the truth. This would be a very unusual way for a man to address a woman during the first century. Then there are passages such as v6 Just as you (plural) have heard from the beginning what he commanded, you (plural) must live by it.
C. H. Dodd suggests that the reason for the metaphor could have been to protect the church from persecution should the letter fall into the wrong hands.
3) The third option is that this is a general letter intended for many local churches. While this would explain the lack of mention of a particular church, such as the church at ______, it is difficult to account for the specific details within the letter. It is notable that one of the leading proponents of this view, Bultmann, argues that these details are fictitious.
My view is the second one, that this refers to a particular local church as this seems to be most natural way to understand over all letter.
whom I love in the truth
– This could simply mean whom I genuinely love, as in the ISV, but given importance of truth in John’s writings, and in this sentence I prefer the translation of in the truth
and not only I but also all who know the truth,
– i.e., the rest of the church. Evidently this church (or woman) was well known and had a good reputation.
because of the truth that is present in us
– The truth is not just academic knowledge that we have. It is because of the truth that we love, and love is grounded in truth, which gives it life. Truth is not just something we know it indwells us. See John 14:15-17a: “If you love me, keep my commandments. 16I will ask the Father to give you another Helper, to be with you always. 17He is the Spirit of truth,”
and will be with us forever.
– Real truth is not temporal. This may also be a reference back to the phase, be with you always found in John 14:16.
For the questions this week, see the first part of this week’s post.
Next week we will start in 2 John 3
If you have question about the class, feel free to send me an email at elgin@hushbeck.com and be sure to put “Epistles of John” in the header.
See here for references and more background on the class.
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible: International Standard Version®. Copyright © 1996-2008 by The ISV Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONALLY. Used by permission. www.isv.org
Note: Some places I have modify the text from the version ISV. Passages that I have modified have been noted with and * by the verse number and the ISV text is included in a footnote.
Footnotes:
1 The Gk. lacks From
2ISV whom I genuinely love
3 ISV omits because of the truth
The Cult Question
With Romney as the front-runner, the question of his Mormon religion continues to be an issue and came to the forefront recently when a Perry supporter labeled Mormons a cult, which was then followed by calls for Perry to repudiate these comments.
This is an issue, which if not handled correctly, could blow up in a number of directions. Romney supporters are understandably nervous that if Romney’s Mormon beliefs become an issue, it could cost him the nomination or the election. However, if the defense of Romney is to label any criticism of Mormonism bigoted that could also easily backfire and alienate many Christians who make up a large portion of the conservative base that Romney will need to win.
One factor that makes this a huge minefield is the general ignorance of the mainstream media when it comes to religion. But the biggest problem in this whole debate concerns the word “cult.” “Cult” is one of those words that has a very large lexical domain (range of meaning) from academic/technical at one end of the spectrum to a derogatory label on the other. Those calling for Perry to repudiate the term clearly see the term in the latter sense. Because of this ambiguity in meaning I do not use the word, and have encouraged others to avoid it.
While there certainly are some Christians who use the term in a derogatory sense, for many Christians the term cult simply refers to groups who in some fashion claim to be Christian, but who reject one or more of the key doctrines that have defined Christianity. But this gets into a discussion of just what is Christianity. I discussed this issue in my book, Christianity and Secularism.
On these central beliefs there is very little dispute. In fact, it has been these doctrines that have defined Christianity as a religion. Groups that accept these doctrines are considered to be Christian groups. Those who do not accept these doctrines cannot be considered Christians, at least not in any historical sense.
Some may consider it to be judgmental and arrogant to say who is or is not a Christian simply because they do or do not accept a particular doctrine or belief. First, let it be clear that we are talking about classifying groups based on beliefs. After all, if there is a difference between being a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu, does it not mean that Christians must have some distinct beliefs that can be contrasted with these other religions? Second we are not talking about an individual’s relationship with God. This is a spiritual matter that only God can judge, for only He knows what is truly in a person’s heart. We may be able to get a good indication by the person’s actions or beliefs but we cannot judge the heart.
Groups do not have personal relationships with God. What defines a religious group is the beliefs of the group. If we were to be completely non-judgmental, then we would have to conclude that any group that claimed to be Christian was, regardless of what they believed. This would render the term “Christian” completely meaningless. Should we consider a group that believed in child sacrifice to be a Christian group? Would this make child sacrifice a legitimate expression of the teachings of Christ? Clearly not. So the question is not should a line be drawn that defines Christianity, but where do we draw that line.
If no line is drawn, Christianity becomes a completely meaningless term that could be applied to any group or any action from the most divine to the most depraved. If, on the other hand, we compose a long and extensive list of doctrines that must be accepted in order for a group to be considered Christian, then we would indeed be arrogant and judgmental, restricting Christianity only to those groups that agreed with us in every little detail. The doctrines that define Christianity should be limited to those expressly taught in the Bible as essential….
Philip Schaff, in his three volume work, Creeds of Christendom, surveyed the doctrinal statements and creeds of the various Christian churches down through the ages. He refers to their ecumenical creeds as those creeds which contain “the fundamental articles of the Christian faith, as necessary and sufficient for salvation.” As to the acceptance of these creeds, Schaff points out that they:
… are to this day either formally or tacitly acknowledged in the Greek, the Latin, and the Evangelical Protestant Churches, and form a bond of union between them.
The differences that divide denominations are mostly peripheral issues, such as whether or not some spiritual gifts are available to be used today. (pg 76-7;90-1)
How this applies to the current debate is that Mormons reject some of these key doctrines. For example, while both Christianity and Judaism believe that there is only one God, Mormons believe that that many gods exist. This does not make Mormons bad people, but it does mean that Mormons beliefs are different from those that have historically defined Christianity.
It is true that Mormons use a lot of the same terminology as Christians, such as referring to Jesus as the Son of God, but what they mean by this is often vastly different than what Christians have historically meant. Thus when a Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, Orthodox, to name just a few, talk about the nature of God, or say that Jesus is the Son of God, and they all mean the same thing. Mormons talking about these topics may sound similar, but they mean something significantly different.
This is not an unusual circumstance. Jews, Christians and Muslims all share a lot of beliefs. In fact they all believe that there is only one God. But they also have key differences. Thus we refer to them as different religious movements. While there are a large number of Christian groups with differing beliefs, they have historically shared a core of beliefs that has defined them as Christian. Mormons reject this core of beliefs, so the easiest thing to do is to likewise consider Mormons a different religious groups. This is not said in a derogatory sense, but merely an attempt to be accurate and precise.
So how does this apply to the election? The simple answer is that it doesn’t. The constitution is pretty clear that there should be no religious test for office. The office of the president has no religious function, and therefore the religion of the candidate should be largely irrelevant. It would only become relevant if the candidate chose to make it an important part of their campaign, but this would in and of itself raise red flags. But Romney has not done this, and nothing in his career would indicate that he would. So as a bottom line, when it comes to Romney, while I do not believe he is a Christian, I am looking for a President, not a pastor. Thus I will be much more interested in his polices than his religion.
