Marriage and the Bible - Part 26 - Jezebel, Athaliah and Mixed Marriage Issues

Jezebel is name that conjures up evil and sin on a large level in the Bible. Her and Ahab ruled what has to be the most wicked time in Israels history. Jezebel was not an Israelite and even though mixed creed marriages were forbidden by God, Ahab marries her anyway. The results were disastrous for the nation. Her daughter Athaliah did much the same for the southern kingdom of Judah.

This is not the first time we have seen pagan wives drawing away men further from God but it is the most pronounced as Jezebel's name now is synonymous with wicked sin.

Her and Ahab's marriage is one for the books, it is about mutual sinfulness and scheming to get what they want. You see only love for destroying a common enemy and given the nature of Baal worship, I doubt sexual faithfulness was a part of it either. This is contract relationship for mutual gain by any means. A twisted version of marriage is what they represent. Ahab was already a pretty wicked guy, his wife just egged him on. This would not be the first time the values and beliefs of a married couple drew them both into sin, but it is the worst example of it. Jezebel's wickedness would not stop until her death; Ahab seems to have come to his senses just in time.

The mixed marriage question would dog the Israelites until the Exile and Reconstruction.

Next: Exile, Reconstruction and Putting Away Wives.

Re-Thinking God: Where is God?

According to Webster: To be present in all places in all times.

Of all the things that is it most difficult to think on it is omnipresence. To think of God being everywhere and I mean everywhere is on a practical note difficult and form a faith perspective I don't think people really believe it. If they did would they commit secret sins thinking no one saw?

For God to be present in all places I have no doubt is true. Nothing escapes his notice or presence. No moral condition prevents him from seeing everything from a first hand point of view be it the inside of a church or the most despicable den of iniquity - God is there.

The thing with the Bible is that there are times when God's presence is said to be there with greater weight, for lack of a better way to describe it. When the children of Israel are walking around the wilderness it is the glorious presence of God that guides them as a pillar of cloud by day or a pillar of fire by night. The the glory of God sets on the mercy seat. Moses feels the presence of God on the mountain, etc. etc. It is not, that God is not everywhere else, but he manifests himself is stronger presence to show his power and authority.

It is the second part of the traditional definition of omnipresence that has changed for me. Earlier in my post of transcendence and imminence I mentioned that God's relationship with time changed for me when I started to understand time, not as a creation of God, but as something bound to God's eternity itself. God is eternal so therefore time has always existed. What changes in omnipresence for me is: if God is the eternal now, does that mean he does indeed exist in the past and future in the same real way as the now? This is much the same as the question about God's power where I asked what powers do indeed exist for God? In this case, what time exists for God if He in a sense is time? Do the past and future actually exist now for God?

The fact remains that in the Scriptures, very little proof that God exists as much in the future and past as he does in the now is actually there. God never even speaks this way of himself. When he refers to the past, God talks about it as something done and no longer existing and the future he talks as one trying to shape it but not as if he is already there. When I was reading through the scriptures chronologically I simply could not find God using this type of language to describe himself and his relationship to time. What I did find is that God did exist in the present because the present is all that really exists as far as time and God go.

God may have a perfect knowledge of the past, but he does not exist in the past because the past no longer really exists. It is spent and done. The future has yet to be formed and does not exist till we get there. God is not present in the future because the future does not yet exists. God will exist in the future when it becomes the present, but until it becomes the present, the future does not exist and God only exists in the time that is.

This changed the definition of omnipresence for me: God is present in every place that exists in the eternal now.

Next: God is Love

Re-Thinking God: How Much Does God Really Know?

Webster: Having infinite awareness, understanding and insight and possessing universal and complete knowledge.

If there is an area that I have changed the most in my understanding of God it is God's Omniscience. The question that dogged me the most was always one involving the problem of evil. If God knew absolutely that evil would result from his creating the world and that because of it people would absolutely go to hell for their sin, why did he create the world in the first place? Because of this absolute knowledge God becomes absolutely responsible for evil existing.

One thing that started to change in me, as I read through scripture to escape my agnostic pit, was my understanding of HOW God knows things. It is not just about WHAT God knows, but HOW he knows it because of the way he created the world.

As you look through the backlog of my posts you will find many labeled 'Open Theism' and I now make it no secret that I am an open theist. I see no other way to avoid the charge that God caused evil unless He only knew evil as a possibility and not a certainty.

There is a lot of things I could say here, and to get a full understanding of where I am coming from, reading every article I have written on open theism starting with The ABC's of Open Theism and then all the rest in any order will give you a good start. There are a few specifics to mention here:

1. God knows the past and present absolutely.
2. God knows the future both absolutely and propositionaly (both what will be for certain and what is possible)
3. There are some things that God does not know: any sin He has forgiven.

For me the definition has changed: God knows everything that is knowable and He knows it in the way it is knowable.

Next: God's Omnipresence

Marriage and the Bible - Part 25 - Rehoboam and the Divided Kingdom

Rehoboam is Solomon's eldest son and as such at the time of his father's death becomes Israels new king. The only real problem was despite his father's instruction Rehoboam did not have any wisdom and the kingdom became divided between the northern ten tribes and the southern kingdom of Judah.

In regards to marriage, Rehoboam followed in his fathers footsteps and had many wives (18) and concubines (60) but it is said that he did love one above them all Maacah. Not as many as dad, but then again he was not as prosperous. It also indicates that he may have had one thing his father did not -- a close relationship covenant with one woman although in the context of polygamy.

This is the pattern for the rest of the kingdom period, if a king is prosperous it will mention that he also had many wives/concubines. If a king struggles, he might have one wife or there is silence. One thing is for certain, the idea of polygamy is ingrained in society and whenever a man has means he practices it.

One advantage this rampant polygamy had was the the line of David remains so large there is never a problem finding an heir to the throne. It meant that God was fulfilling his promise to David and one of those ways was to make sure the women attached to that line were both fertile, productive and many.

Next: Jezebel and Athaliah - Mixed Marriage Issues

Theology for Dummies - Natural Theology

".. a branch of theology based on reason and ordinary experience." - Wikepedia.

Natural theology is best described as looking at the world around us and using what we know to come to conclusions about the divine. This is ultimately man looking at things and saying "this means God is X".

The value of natural theology in Christan circles has long been debated. The Scripture writers, particularly guys like David in the Psalms declare that the world proves there is a creator. Other writers point to other things. Theologians fall into many different camps from those who say natural theology is a key tool to those that reject it outright.

The basic problem is that all nature religions, polytheistic systems, animism, etc. all have as their base this understanding of looking at the world around us and drawing conclusions about the divine. The problem is natural theology is often in the eye of the beholder unless there is some other authority to guide it.

I have no problem with natural theology as a support to other kinds of theology, the problem is when it takes center stage you can go anywhere with it. That is its inherent weakness.

Next: Revealed Theology

Marriage and the Bible - Part 24 - Solomon's Marriage Downfall

1 Kings 11 is a telling chapter about the downfall of Solomon. Because he married so many women from so many lands, variety being the spice of polygamy after all, it lead to his spiritual downfall. He had so many wives that were foreign in their religion that eventually to make them happy he incorporated their idolatry into his own life making altars to all their gods. The majority of which were sexual/fertility gods. This was a direct violation of a command of God on two counts:idolatry and mixed marriage. David at least keep his marriages in the house of Israel.

This brings about a sad conclusion about Solomon and polygamy. How divided can one's heart get about God the more women a man has in his harem? Pretty divided. Not only does polygamy make it more difficult to have a one-flesh/truly intimate relationship with a woman, it also seems to create a God attention problem. You spend so much time pleasing all your wives, you have less or no time for God. There seems to be an ideal that Solomon strayed from that he mentions himself - 'rejoice in the wife of your youth'

One asks, "how is Solomon so wise, when he acts so foolishly?" The answer is one can have wisdom, but wisdom does not give you the dedication and will to follow it. Solomon knew and understood, but his wives robbed him of his will and dedication to God, the source of that wisdom.

If there is wisdom for us in Solomon, it is that marrying well means to keep an eye on the values and faith of the one who you wish to marry. You don't want your spouse to lead you from God.

Next: Rehoboam - A Pale Reflection of His Father.

Re-Thinking God: How Powerful is God Really?

Omnipotent: All-Powerful, Having Unlimited Power.

Well that is the normal standard definition anyway no matter what dictionary/encyclopedia you run to. The question is does it accurately describe the power that the God of the Bible possesses?

"Gee, Mr. Rabyd Theologian, why are you even asking this, the answer is an obvious yes", you might say. "Gentle Reader, this series would not be entitled Re-Thinking God if I didn't think this definition was not at least a little off", I return.

There is for starters the Omnipotence Paradox: Can God make a rock he cannot lift? If He can't, he is not omnipotent? If He can, he is not omnipotent? Now it may simply be that the definition of omnipotent is not specific enough, I mean does such a power actually exist to make a rock you cannot lift? Perhaps what this paradox teaches us is that we need to be more specific in what we mean by possessing all power or we need to define the ALL in all-power better. Some philosophers and theologians have rejected the paradox as ridiculous, but that does not necessarily make it so.

It could also be said that perhaps God places limits on himself in some way. I mean after all to be all-powerful, wouldn't you need the power to limit your own power? It might answer some of the questions surrounding God's power.

The more common challenge to the idea of God being all-powerful is Theodicy: God is love, God is omniscient, God is all-powerful and yet evil exists. 'Either God is not love, not omniscient or NOT ALL-POWERFUL' the argument follows. The thing is if the definitions of these are clearly defined, then there may be an explanation for evil because of change in the definitions.

Thankfully, for myself, I really have no problem with getting a little more detailed about the definition of omnipotence, because to just say God is all-powerful is overly simplistic in my book. What do we mean by all and what do we mean by power?

Some of us like to give God comic book like powers like a superhero. The question is do such powers actually exist or are they imaginary. I mean do we really know what powers actually exist or do they only exist in the minds of human imagination. It is a possibility that some powers we think exist, do not exist. Such a consideration may factor into our definition.

The Bible even seems to limit what power is by placing boundaries: "All power in Heaven and Earth" as an example. Not powers in places that do not exist. Still a lot of power but, all-power may only be inside all of heaven and earth. Actual power in actual places, not imaginary planes of existence.

The question of whether God places limits on Himself is actually a question of God's character so I will leave it till then, except to say that it would seem to have all power and not have a power to control it would mean not having all power. To be all-powerful seems to imply the power to control your power.

A working definition of Omnipotence: To have all power that actually exists and the ability to control that power as one sees fit.

I like this better, it allows us to ask the question: How exactly is it possible for God to deal with the problem of evil with the powers that he actually has? How can God use his power in this situation? Ect. We can ask these questions and be more specific in how God's power actually applies.

Next: God's Omniscience

Theology for Dummies - Philosophical Theology

Wikipedia: "Philosophical Theology is the disciplined employment of philosophical methods in developing or analyzing theological concepts."

While it is argued when this discipline appeared, there can be no doubt as to its purpose: take any theological concept and trace how it developed and ask the questions: "Is it philosophically sound?"; "Does that theology make sense; is it logical?"; "Does it line up with how we understand the world and God?", etc. Take any theological idea and take the questions philosophers ask and ask them to analyze that theological idea. That is the aim and purpose of philosophical theology

I really got into philosophical theology in seminary. There are certain disciplines of Christianity like apologetics (defending the faith) and issues like the problem of evil that require some philosophy in them.

Before I go further, I know a lot of Christians like to quote Paul from Colossians 2:8. But in all cases, the point is not against philosophy in and of itself but against 'vain' or 'empty' philosophy. It might be said the philosophical theology is how you tell the difference between 'vain' philosophy and solid philosophy.

In any case, no one can escape using philosophical theology from time to time. We are always as Christians checking to see if our doctrines are sound. We all ask of the Bible and what we believe: Does this make sense? We all use logic and reason as we approach Scripture and that makes use in a limited sense philosophical theologians.

Philosophical Theology proper though will take any doctrine or theological concept and put it through the wringer and see if it holds up. Probably the most famous is Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason where he argued that the old doctrines of revelation must give way to the new because of new theories on knowledge.

For myself I find that philosophy can be a good way to test a theological idea to see if it is sound. Logic does have its place as we analyze the Scriptures. Where it can fail is that if the Bible says: "A is true, but philosophical theology says 'A is not true' you still have to side with the Bible and say 'A is true'. You just may have to think real hard to get it to make sense or come at it from a different angle of thinking that satisfies the philosophical objections to 'A' being true.

Next: Natural Theology

Real World; Real Pastor - A Reflection

Three churches; three pulpits and yet still one desire: to be a real pastor for the real world.

Despite all the changes in my life over the years I have had. I still maintain the singular vision that brought me into the ministry in the first place. To have the type of ministry that makes the lives of real people deeper with Christ and closer to God. To help them find the God of the universe there in every situation they may face and know that He is working. While that has always been the desire, it has taken me a while to realize the implications of that desire.

In my first church, I tried to be what people expected, but that means sometimes being truly cold in professionalism. There were rules to be maintained and I had been taught to be a loyal company man to my denomination. I wore suits even though I hated them; I enforced membership rules because it was the advice I was given to grow my church; to be Pentecostal I was expected to be a little emotional even though my personality does not lend itself well to it; etc. In the end it earned me an empty bunch of pews and a lot of grief. I learned in the interim to trust my instincts. I still had lessons to learn but I no longer trusted the ministry gurus.

The second church was a lesson in learning to be human even when people don't like it. I followed my instincts but I had a transparency problem; I wasn't allowed to be transparent. Every time I was, people read it wrong and that was partially my fault too. The lessons of treating people like people still were being learned and by the time I understood them, it was too late to implement anything. I was also a hurting pastor from the first experience and truly I had jumped back in because of necessity, not because I was ready. I had started out wrong and it was too big to fix by the time I realized it. The only people that real understood where I was coming from were the youth group. Many of whom I still hear from at times. I love those guys.

So here I am in church three and the desire remains the same and I think I am on the right track. I also know that this will be my last stop on the ministry train. It's Hersey Congregational Church or bust. I will either be a real church with a real pastor that both minister in the real world or I am going to hang up my pastor gear and find something else to do that will not cause the Church of Jesus Christ dishonor by my presence. It is the last team for Christ for which I will play as captain.

The thing is I know we are headed in the right direction because at last the people themselves are realizing their need for direction. The leadership is calling for vision and that is good. There is conflict, but it is conflict with purpose and that is good, very good.

For myself, If I can't be myself in something, I don't do it. If I can't look in person's eyes and be genuine in my feelings and expression, then it is time for a heart check on my knees. If I can't grasp a man hand and feel kinship or hug a woman's shoulders and feel love coming back at me, I look in the mirror. Only when I have eliminated the guy in that mirror as the source of the problem, do I look elsewhere. I don't sugarcoat things and I don't sour things, I really have come to take people as they are and work from there. You lead as a pastor, you do not push or pull.

I am sure that I still have a lot to learn, but I am ready to learn anything that allows me to be real, truly real.

Blessings.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 23 - Solomon's Marriage Wisdom

The funny thing is that the Proverbs 31 wife is not actually Solomon's idea but King Lamuel's. Solomon gets the credit for compiling the proverbs so that is perhaps why he gets credit for her. Interestingly enough I find more modern women that hate this lady, she is too perfect and that may be Lamuel's point. She is a figment of desire but does not actually exist.

The thing with all of Solomon's wisdom is this, you need to remember it is coming from a guy that is married to multiple women. On the one hand, if your looking for advice that will steer you toward a closer relationship with your spouse in faithful monogamy, he is probably not the guy. On the other hand his is experience in marriage and that experience shows some wisdom.

In Song of Solomon, the wisdom is pretty straightforward. Be intimate and passionately attracted to each other. The fact is there is not a lot of marriage advice here mostly a poem about having a passionate love life.

Proverbs has many lines involving marriage:
1. Proverbs 5:18-19 reminds men to rejoice in the wife of your youth and let her breasts satisfy you at all times. If there is a more direct reference to foreplay in Scripture, I do not know where it is. As for the wife of your youth thing, which one Solomon?
2. Proverbs 6 is a really clear picture that adultery is bad, very bad. Keep sex and passion in marriage and avoid the temptress.
3. There are several proverbs about finding a good wife and the differences between a good wife and a bad one. Given that Solomon had a lot of time on the new wife lot, both finding and acquiring new wives, I think we can trust his advice.
4. Solomon does not like nagging wives and says it is better to live on a house roof in the corner, than in the house with the nagging wife. Once again, given his experience, we can believe him. On the flip side, he praises the virtuous wife and Lamuel's chapter sums up what that virtuous wife is like.

I know I am being a little light hearted with this but I do get a little chuckle when a guy, who's view of marriage is contract followed by contract with maybe one woman he was close to at all, gives marriage advice. But the truth is because he was a polygamist, Solomon would have possessed a good solid knowledge about women and what made a good wife and marriage relationship in a variety of circumstances. His first hand knowledge makes him an expert. You just can't help wondering why he did not follow his own advice at times.

Next: Solomon's Marriage Downfall.

'Duty' - Not a Four Letter Word

I have been trying to shake it out of my mind but my last post and some of the responses to it have left some concern about the definition of 'duty'. The way some talk about 'duty' you might think it is a four letter word used deride or diminish. Nothing could be further from the truth as all things of value find that value in duty.

Webster - Duty: obligatory tasks, conduct, service or functions that arise from one's position (as in life or a group); a moral and legal obligation and the force of those obligations.

Duty is a term that conveys a moral commitment to someone or something. It is not passive but active, it involves a choice to place the interests of others above one's own interest. Duty then is an expression of self-denial that results from one's commitments to others.

In my post on Christians, Intimacy and Sex, I pointed out that intimacy and sex are a duty in marriage. When you are married there is the obligation to one another to engage in self-sacrifice to meet each other's needs and wants. It is part of the process of becoming one flesh to give up what I feel I should do and instead do the right thing to become more intimate and one-flesh in nature. The point of it is that it is not my duty to point out my wife's duty to me, but to fulfill my own to her. Part of that should involve communication to her and my needs and wants (in a sense this is part of my duty as well, as my wife can't fulfill her duties to me if she does not know my needs and wants) but it is on my wife and her sense of duty to fulfil them once she knows them. Duty does not involve selfishness in this case but self-sacrifice. The very essence of what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 7:3 and 4 is fulfilling duty in one direction but giving authority in the opposite one. The husband must fulfill the duty to his wife but gives up authority over his own body to her. The reverse is also true. Mutual surrender of self and mutual obligation are what is expected in marriage as part of a covenant relationship and it is duty that ultimately is the driving force of that covenant.

Another great illustration involves military service. Men and women when they choose to serve, give up their rights as citizens to protect citizens of a country. Duty compels them to serve something greater than themselves above their own interests and safety.

Duty then becomes a significant cornerstone of things like: devotion, honor, love and faithfulness. Feelings will come and go, but a sense of duty transcends feelings and causes a person to sacrifice self interest for the sake of something bigger or higher.

Christians, Intimacy and Sex

In an effort to clarify my own thoughts as I prepare to preach on this topic this coming Sunday, I thought I would write about some current trends on the subject of sex and intimacy.

Now there is one thing that we humans do very well - have a lot of sex. Good thing too because it keeps us at least following one command of God - 'be fruitful and multiply'. The real clash usually always comes as to in what place sex has within Christianity.

You do not have to look to far and you will find some anti-Christian or atheist blaming Christians for all the anti-sex stuff out there or that we were the ones responsible for making sex boring.

Truth be told there are and have been a lot well meaning Christians who have spoiled sex at different times. Notable among them are St. Augustine and Holiness Groups.

When we all get to heaven we need to go up to St. Augustine (if he is there) and kick him right between the legs. If he hadn't been such a dog in his life before his conversion, he probably wouldn't have had such a negative attitude about sex afterwards. The guy loved sex and connected it to HIS sin so much that after he converted he pretty much said all sex was bad except for procreation (and then you better not lust after your spouse) and that if your intention wasn't to have children then you should abstain. His exaltation of celibacy was received too well and that is why priests in the Catholic church are required to be celibate today. This despite Paul saying several times that overseers (church leaders) should be married (1st Timothy and Titus).

The Holiness Movement of our own country does not really say sex is bad but they insinuate it so much that it creates the impression that it is bad even after marriage. What I mean is when I was growing up in church, the remaining holiness influence had this message about sex: "Don't do it until you married - it's bad." Now this created some interesting tests of faith. I remember overhearing a father of a recently married woman relating a story about how his daughter had confronted him: "The way you acted about sex dad, I thought it was something I had to endure, but you know I found out it is pretty fun." The father wondered where she got the idea that sex was bad.

I can tell you - 'more is caught than taught' when it comes to the intimacy / sex question in marriage and your children. How intimate were you and your wife while they were growing up? If you never touched one another, kissed or 'sported' in front of your kids, they might have gotten the impression that that stuff was dirty for married people. Not good, because it creates the impression that when your a Christian you are not going to have any fun while your married. Is it any wonder some kids bail on Christianity, it is perceived as a drag or sexually unfulfilling. This will become particularly pronounced if also do not talk about sex beyond the: 'don't till your married' line. It is OK to tell you kids sex is fun. It is also OK to tell them that outside of marriage sex will not be as fulfilling as inside a marriage.

Notice, I did not say the Puritans. While it is true that the Puritans did put on an outward show of righteousness and piety, inside the bedroom of a married Puritan couple it could get quite steamy. We know this from several letters that were sent between husbands and wives that were recovered. Simply put, they are both erotic and at times pornographic. No, the Puritans get a lot of unnecessary grief on this. They simply felt the sex was the playground for the married.

So Biblically what is intimacy. 1) It means to be one-flesh -- the two made one. Intimacy is both the state and process of two people becoming one entity. 2) It is to be naked and possess a total openness to one another that is spiritual, mental, emotional and physical. I simply do not understand people who think they can be intimate with someone and not have intimacy on all these levels. Settling for anything else is simply second best and less than ideal. 3) It means to be unashamed. You know I find it very odd when Christian married couples blush about the fact they are intimate. Is that not the way it is holy and good (Hebrews 13:4)? If something is holy and good there is no need to blush over it. It needs to be celebrated.

So then sex is the ultimate expression of intimacy between a couple. It is as much a spiritual act as it is a physical one. It is the joining of two people to produce life. Spiritual life for themselves as a couple and it has the added possibility of creating another human life under the right conditions. The reality is that the spiritual will take place far more than the physical, because most of the time sex is simply about the pleasure of being one flesh.

Given the fact that the second leading cause for divorce is infidelity, you would think that Christians could trumpet the simple fact that intimacy and sex are the greatest defense against it. Instead we usually say: 'don't be unfaithful'. Do you ever notice how negative our message always is about this? Paul's response to infidelity and sexual sin in 1st Corinthians 7:1-9 was far different: 1) Be Married, 2) Fulfil your duty to each other - in short make love and make love often even if you do not necessarily feel like it -- he uses the word 'duty' for a reason, 3) Give you body to your spouse - it belongs to them, not you. 4) Do not deprive each other from sex unless you both agree to it as a time of fasting and prayer, 5) It is better to be married and do this than burn with lust. Paul's message is ultimately positive. Married people should be engaged in intimacy and sex as often a possible as one defense against infidelity and lust.

This of course brings up the challenge of intimacy and sex. That of making love and having sex in fresh and exciting ways.

For men there needs to be a recognition of where true sexual fulfilment comes from. I have never understood the guy who thinks he has great sexual prowess because he can have sex with a bunch of women. It does not impress me. The real challenge of intimacy and sex for a man is to truly be intimate with one woman and satisfy her on all levels for life. That is far harder to achieve than to learn a few tricks that allow you to play the field. It is simply much harder to reach a woman both emotionally and physically for her whole life.

For women, the challenge is even greater in some respects. Men are driven spiritually by their need for sex and women are not always in the mood for it while the man usually always is. There is the additional problem for many Christian women I encounter; in that, they play the morally superior card when it comes to their need for emotional intimacy over a man's need for sex. Truth is neither one is better or worse than the other. A man's need for sex is no worse morally than a woman's need for emotional intimacy. They are two sides of the same coin and both need to be fulfilled. The real issue for women is to remember that as a man is denied fulfillment in the area of sex, he gets hungry and the more hungry he gets the weaker he gets about it. As a man's spouse, a wife is supposed to be his satisfaction for this hunger. The more a wife delays in this though, the more a man will be tempted to fulfil this hunger in a way outside of her. There are other factors of course but this is the basic problem men have. Their sex drive does not shut off, it is always in standby mode at the very least.

When intimacy and sex are both fulfilling in a couple, the one great thing that happens is that both are more confident and happy about their lives. Ed Young was onto something when he suggested 7 days of sex to his married couples. The results is a couple that are both healthier and happier in their marriage.

Right now, the main thing Christians need to do is to speak positively about sex in the confines of marriage. Even more importantly, they need to live a life of intimacy and sexual fulfillment as an example to others. No good talking about a good thing if your not benefiting from it yourself. That would just make you a hypocrite.

Theology for Dummies - Historical Theology

"...is a branch of theological studies that investigates the socio-historical and cultural mechanisms that give rise to theological ideas, systems and

statements." Wikipedia does pretty good on this one. As might be obvious with the word 'historical', this is about analyzing history to find how theological ideas got started, developed over time and which groups were and are connected to them.

The purpose for the theologian who uses historical theology is to take what ideas he thinks he sees in Scripture and pour them through the filter of historical theology to see if they have been thought of before, what are others' thoughts about the same ideas. It shows who believed what and why?

If there is a weakness to historical theology it is this: it may show who believed an idea and why they believed it, but it does not really make an evaluation of 'were they right?". It is not so much about assessing truth as it is being descriptive in the who, why and what throughout the history of the church.

It's value is limited because there are many ideas that are held historically but on the flip side those same ideas can be opposed by others. It is descriptive not analytical although it can help analyze a theological idea's value to the church over time.

I use this in a limited fashion. I will be completely honest that I do not find useful other than to get inspiration or see what others in the history have thought about things. The reason is, just because a whole group of people believe something about God does not make them right. Truth cannot be assessed using historical theology.

Next: Philosophical Theology

Re-Thinking God: Is God Immanent or Transcendent?

Immanent: Being within the possible limits of possible experience or knowledge.

Transcendent: Being beyond the limits of all possible experience or knowledge.

The reason I am taking these two parts of the nature of God together is it is truly difficult to talk about one without the other. What parts of God's nature are within our experience and knowledge to understand them and which parts are beyond our experience and understanding? What parts of his creation is He close to in nature and what parts does He transcend? The main issue is how much is God close to his creation and what parts of God transcend his creation. We are also in part dealing with what relationship does God have to the world he created.

Going through the Bible, it does not take long to see that God separates himself from his creation. He is not a force of nature like the other gods of mythology. The creation account in Genesis shows God creating and controlling those forces of nature. It also shows that these forces of nature have no personality and are absent of godhood in and of themselves.

The significance of this to modern scholarship is often lost. Modern scholars are always pining on about the similarities between this creation account and the other creation accounts such as the Gilgamesh Epic, but the truth is the differences are both significant and staggering in their implications. You have to either conclude that the creation account in Genesis is revelation or religious genius and cutting against the grain of what was around the Jewish people at the time. God transcends his creation in that he is not his creation but he is immanent with it in that he controls and governs it. He is however not directly connected with a nature force.

Some areas though are subject to debate. Among them and probably the greatest of them is God's relationship to time. Why is this so? Because to say that God transcends time creates some theological and philosophical problems.

On the theology side, the Bible repeatedly show God acting in history. God does things in a certain order and there is significance to that order. If God transcends time, than this acting in time seems irrelevant. But there is relevance to understanding both God in history and doing things in order to understand him as a God of relationship, order and control.

On the philosophical side, the question is one of definition. God is eternal. Does ETERNAL have any meaning, if time has not always existed? No. Further try to define what it means for God to ALWAYS be eternal without using 'time' as a concept. Then the question then becomes what is God relationship to time. Time has always existed because it is wrapped up in the eternity of God. Because God has always been eternal; time has always existed. At least in my view this is the case and that means I do not view God as transcending time but more immanent with it than anyone else.

Why does this matter? The BIG thing is this has incredible implications for the omniscience of God in regards to God's knowledge of the past present and future and how REAL those three things are to God himself. More on that in a later post on God's Omniscience.

In the end, the challenge to re-thinking God is one of engaging each issue to ask the question of: "In what way does God transcend this in what ways is he immanent with it?" The problem is that God in the Bible seems to be more more immanent than people want to make him in theology or doctrine.

Next: God's Omnipotence

Theology for Dummies - Systematic Theology

"... a discipline of Christian Theology that attempts to formulate an orderly, rational and coherent account of the Christian faith and beliefs." Wikipedia's definition here is adequate but a little prejudicial. The idea is that this is the only way of doing theology rationally is a little much. When you look at it the best way to define systematic theology is to contrast it with biblical theology. While biblical attempts to see chronological development of the big picture, systematic theology follows a single theme or group of themes through the Scriptures and it is done in such a way as to not really give the chronological development of revelation a lot of thought. The best theologians use elements of both.

For myself, I try to always keep the big picture of revelation in mind and the chronology is important. Things change and evolve in Scripture and it is good to use biblical theology to remember to keep in mind the full tapestry of revelation. At the same, systematic theology allows me to take a good close up look at a single thread or group of related threads in that tapestry.

If there is a weakness to systematics is that it can assume certain categories exist and presuppose or assume their existence. Just becasue the church says the category of such and such exists in Scripture, that does not mean it is so in all cases.

Probably the best illustration I can give of what I mean is the series I did on The Bible and Nakedness. As biblical theologian I wanted to divorce myself from assumptions about the topic that I might have: "nakedness is always wrong and sinful" as an example. I also wanted to see how the topic developed as the chronology of the Bible is followed. Using systematic theology, I also was looking at a group of themes in the Scripture and taking them as a whole at the end when I drew my conclusions. I use both.

There is a tension between the two types of theology, but they also can be used to get a more complete picture of the issue at hand.

Next: Historical Theology

Marriage and the Bible - Part 22 - Solomon - Polygamist Unleashed

Now I don't know if at any one time Solomon could look at the house of women on his palace grounds and say: 'Holy crap, there are 1000 women in there and I am married to each one of them' but over the course of his whole life Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I say: HOLY CRAP! It is really good to be king! Or really taxing -- remember it is Solomon who wrote Proverbs 25:24 - 'It is better to live in the corner of the roof, than in a house shared with a contentious woman.' Given that each woman in his harem (gives a whole new definition of this word doesn't it) could have been contentious at any time, I wonder how much time he spent on the roof?

The logistics alone are staggering. To provide for such a group of women and their children meant Solomon made Bill Gates look like a pauper. You had to have money to prove you could take care of a girl before a dad would give his consent and the fact is, kings of other countries were handing over their daughters to Solomon with eager hands. His palace was HUGE. Everyone of them had their own room. This is RICH on a scale very few would understand.

Then there is sex. Talk about a guy who, as he is preparing for bed, could dial up what he wanted for the evening. Blond, redhead, brunette, tall short, athletic build, busty, light skin, dark skin, etc. etc. Talking about the choices might have taken a few minutes. Solomon comments of this in Ecclesiastes 2:8 - "... I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures of men - MANY Concubines." No kidding. The point is when it came to sex, Solomon had experienced it all by the end of his life. All of it legal too because he had a marriage contract with each and every one of these ladies. But there was no sexual activity with a woman he probably did not experience. In the end he calls it vanity and useless. Probably because all it ever was was sex.

The million dollar question (chump change for Solomon) is: "Did Solomon ever have a close, one-flesh, covenant relationship with any of these women?". I would say maybe one. The Shunamite maiden in the Song of Solomon is a possibility, but even there the language is one of erotic desire but there does seem to be a spiritual longing as well. However, with this maiden it is possible that even she was not Solomon's first wife, just maybe the only one he really had more feelings for than physical and emotional pleasure.

That said, the motivation for marriages for Solomon was multifaceted but few of them involved covenant. He married some for political alliance, some for financial gain and some because it seemed to be a good idea for whatever reason. Because of his already having many sons, his concubines really only have one use - sexual pleasure. In short, Solomon for all his wisdom and advice on letting the wife of your youth please you at all times, probably never really had a covenant one flesh relationship with any of his wives or concubines, at least not that we know of.

Polygamy my offer the man heightened chances at children and sexual pleasure, but it seems to deny a man the possibility of a close relationship with a woman. The more wives a man has, the more pronounced this is as Solomon, polygamist unleashed, demonstrates.

Next: Solomon's Marriage Wisdom

Truth and the Value of the Church.

Looking above, such a church may exist, but I doubt it would have any value. To have value, a church must hold something that is true as true. Without central truth, no value can be had. Relativism, believing truth is relative to the situation, will never bring value because value is fleeting and changeable in relativism. Guess me and the emergent church part company at this point. Although, I do hear some of the points they are making.

Whenever I stand in the pulpit, I am confronted with an inescapable fact -- I have former EVERYTHING in front of me. Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, Reformed, Wesleyan, Pentecostal (Hey, that's behind the pulpit too), Charismatic, etc. are all present. In addition, there are several Tried Everythings as well. When I try to find something we have in common, it comes down to a single fact that we all got fed up with religiosity of our other churches and wanted to find a church where we could be Christan and yet have our differences respected. We were looking for a place where the commonality of our faith was the core, not how we differ from others of Christian faith.

That said, there are central truths we uphold at Hersey Congregational Church that are the common ground and give our church its core values:

1. The Bible is our authority and is the inspired word of God: what 'inspired' specifically means is open for debate. We all believe God had a hand in the Bible, but the exact 'how" he did it is open to interpretation because in truth the Bible really does not say itself 'how it works'. What we do not question is that the Bible has the authority to tell us how to live and what to believe.

2. The Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Three in One. One God, three persons. As confusing as this doctrine can be, it is found throughout Scripture and is a central tenant of being a Christian and understanding God.

3. The Historical Life, Work, Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Honestly, is their a point being a Christian if there is no historical Christ who was born of a virgin, lived a sinless life, died on a cross and rose from the dead? Christ -- Christian -- get it?

4. Salvation through Faith in Christ: What 'faith' is and means is Bible defined, but the definition does have fuzzy edges when in the context of works (i.e. James or Paul or both), but in the end faith is not doubt. It is trust and evidence of that which is not seen (Hebrews 11:1). There are tons of issues under the heading of 'salvation' and how one is saved, but we point back to Christ regardless of which ones people personally have.

5. The Return of Christ: Christ said several times he would return to return his people to himself. When, where and how may be debatable, but one thing is for sure: He is coming back.

All of these, constitute what we believe to be the central tenants of the Christian faith. They represent a true expression of True Fundamentalism. Everything else is not necessarily relative, but these are the convictions that a Christian should be will to live and die for. Otherwise I would really doubt the Christianity of a Christian who cannot believe these core understandings.

So what about the rest. In the end we allow freedom to hold differences, discuss them, but still be brothers and sisters in Christ at the end of the day. They simply are not core enough, in my opinion, to break fellowship with someone because we disagree. Only the five above items justify such a break. Although it should be understood, the first one has the implication of following what is clearly said in the Bible. Murder and adultery are defined as Biblically wrong so they are wrong for everyone under 'the Bible being the authority' for example.

The central theme for us then truly becomes: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity. Both Augustine and Wesley (two guys with very different views) were fond of this saying and so am I. I may not always agree with my brothers and sisters in Christ, but I stand with them in unity about Jesus and love them no matter what.

Truth gives a church value, but also allowing each other liberty allows us to enjoy that value and walk in that truth. Otherwise all you have is religion which seeks to control and manipulate, neither of which are loving things to do.

I have finally found my church and it is one that fits me as a pastor. It allows me to walk in the liberty of the truth of Jesus Christ and love each person because I can allow them to be free as well. Instead of trying to control the flock, I work to have them know the truth so they can be free and follow Christ. I can only wish the same for everyone else.