The New Testament Canon

Hello, everyone! Sorry I had to miss this Sunday.

I just wanted to recap our discussion on the New Testament Canon. I think that the signifcant take aways for me are:

1. The NT canonization process wasn't really as smooth or cut and dry as we are often led to believe, or as I would be most comfortable with.

2. Even though this is the case, I think an objective look at history still gives us great confidence in the NT as we know it today. It is nothing short of miraculous, to me, that by the 3rd century AD the bulk of the NT was almost universally agreed upon by churches and pastors that were spread from the British isles, to Spain, to North Africa, to Ethipopia, to Italy, to Greece, to Turkey, to Syria, etc.

Here are the points from the summary slide listed below:


•At least 18 books of the NT were quoted and considered to have some authority within ~100 years of Christ’s life.
•20 of the NT books were fully accepted by the whole church by around the 3rd Century, while the other 7 were also known and had some support.
•Today, all major Christian groups accept the 27 books of the NT as inspired, genuine, and authoritative except: the Syrian church only use 22; and some Eastern churches exclude Revelation
•The 7 books that have been ‘disputed’ at times carry no essential doctrines that are not also found in the other 20 books.

The updated Bible 101 slides can be found here: http://www.sendspace.com/file/o5dkeg

Right in line with our discussion the oldest 'complete' copy of the New Testament we have made the news last week because it is being published online. I think some of the details of the story are particlarly interesting in light of our class last Sunday: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/24/online.bible/index.html?iref=newssearch


PEACE

- casey

Rick Warren and politics

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/22/warren.qa/index.html

Interesting article on Rick Warren inviting both candidates to speak at his church.

August 2-get your babysitter lined up!!

I just wanted to say that I am soooo looking forward to our event planned without kids and I want lots of fun friends there for Beauty and the Beast Musical (which guys in the door says is cool) at Zilker Park on August 2. So I know it will be late and everyone will need to get someone to watch the kids and that can be complicated so start now to line up a family member, friend from the door, neighbor or someone for that night. If you are having a hard time finding one (we often still do as we don't know many people in the neighborhood yet) let's talk so everyone can come.
Posted by Elizabeth :)

Notes and comments on today's evolution talk

I want to clarify a few things and add some notes:

First: When I talked to a few people after church I realized I may have miscommunicated about the role of viruses. It is true that there are some defunct parts of DNA that could possibly be the result of some ancient virus that infected an ancestor egg or sperm cell. But I didn't not intend to tell the class that that is how all viruses act. Sure enough some viruses become integrated into the host DNA, becoming part of it for ever, examples are wart viruses, cold sores, herpes, HIV, etc. But not all viruses do that, and even fewer would infect egg or sperm cells and be passed on to offspring DNA. This is why it is taken as good evidence that species who share possible ancient infections, are related. These are too rare to show just coincidental occurrences in separate species, even if you think the world is billions of years old, (certainly not if you think it is <10,000).

Second: The example of the deficient vit. C gene is more convincing than I think I made it. I should have mentioned that making Vit. C is complicated and requites several parts, several cooperating machinery. We, and other primates, all have defunct genes that in other animals helps them to make vit. C. There are other mammals that have defunct vit. C genes in this process, namely fruit bats and guinea pigs. But their Vit. C making machinery is defunct for different reasons, they have a different genetic screw up, we and apes have the same screw ups. Let me give you a strange example to make the point. Let's say there is a blue eyed orphan kid with cystic fibrosis AND color blindness (both inherited genetic). We screen people claiming to be parents for a genetic match. Obviously using "blue eyes" would be a silly cause lots of people have blue eyes. Color blindness is caused by several things genetically so that, though better, isn't definitive. But cystic fibrosis is caused by very few types of genetic problems. A match for a parent that carries the same cystic fibrosis problem gene as the boy, AND the color blindness, is a match! Now, I know it is complicated, but our relatedness to apes is probably MORE founded than the hypothetical genetic test just described, for the exact same reasons. What I didn't have time to talk about is that this type of information also tells us, scientifically, that modern man, even in all his forms, probably have the same, THE SAME, ancestor... we all came from 1 or just a few father and mothers. (adam and eve?, who also couldn't make Vit. C!!!! - the bible is right!)

Thirdly: While it may absolutely be possible that species where created each in their own form, individually, there is alot of strange things that would have had to be created along with them. Such as: an absolutely defunct Vit. C machinery in Adam and Eve, that we all inherited... why?....and many other strange deficiencies in our DNA and other animals DNA that God would have had to have created in a deficient state.(why?) other examples are the human appendix - useless, the ability of a human infants to support their own weight by gripping onto something - now useless (but similar to other primates gripping onto mothers fur), and, in other animals, such as salmon fish's adipose fin (a useless fin), and many other things rendered useless over time (you can ask me for more examples). Why would he create useless things? I know some would say: perhaps we don't yet know their use... but it's pretty clear that a person with out an appendix... has no change ill or good what so ever.

Fourthly: We didn't have time to talk about how things are aged, but it would have been boring anyway, to sum up, what we are left with is these choices:
1. Things did evolve like they certainly scientifically look like they did. or
2. Things where created pretty much as is, but they LOOK like they evolved.
You see, the science isn't wrong at all to make the conclusions it makes. For example: If adam was made "from dust".. he was made an adult, we assume. So on day 2 of his life, if you looked at him, you would probably say he looked, .... 30 years old? But he was only 1 day old. What about trees, they have rings.... first tries presumably had rings too.. showing "incorrect" ages. The point is, from where the science data sits, it tells a certain story. If we choose to believe something else, it is by faith alone. What we should never do is ever ever, never never ever, give credence to wacky "creationist science" - the world looks old... if it is younger... it's a miracle..

Next time we'll talk about the part of science that leads to God and how to talk about that with seekers.

Summing Up our Faith and Politics Discussion

Based on requests and my own desire to recap our discussion...I'm recapping our discussion and adding some additional thoughts. Please feel free to add on comments as you want.

**disclaimer** - opinions expressed below are not necessarily the opinions of Hyde Park Baptist Church...nor do I claim to always be right. :)

First off...thanks to everyone for a GREAT discussion last week. It's great to see some passionate opinions being shared in the class, yet done in a way that is respectful of others who might not share the same opinion. I hope nobody felt intimidated or that they couldn't add in their two cents. In my summary below, I don't mean to say that everyone in the class walked away fully in agreement on every point...but I will try to show other sides of the discussion as I remember it. Actually, I've typed quite a novel, so you may want to grab a coffee real quick.

Let's run through some of the questions we asked...and I'll add a few from my own additional thoughts:

1. What is the purpose of earthly government?

The conclusion was that God instituted earthly government to provide order, by that we mean restraining our sinful natures for the good of society, and to provide some level of earthly justice. Heavenly or true justice will only be served at the final judgement...but government administers some level of temporary justice today for crimes against society. This is true regardless of how evil or holy any certain government might be...whether Adolf Hitler's Nazi regime or our founding fathers' nascent USA. See Romans 13 for reference.

2. Is the kingdom of God achieved through earthly government? Or, are the things we Christians are charged by God with responsibility to do supposed to be done through or even possible to achieve though earthly government?

The consensus was that, spreading the word of God, going into all the world and making disciples, loving our neighbors and our enemies, etc. are not things that are best served by human governments and laws. We, the church are charged with these things to accomplish them, completely irrespective of government.

Jesus' apparent refusal to be involved in politics is striking, given that he 1) was the Jewish Messiah, many prophecies of which are somewhat political in nature, and 2) the region of Judea in the early first century was a very politically charged environment. It was difficult being a public figure and not having a strong political stance. Jesus was taken in trial before the local Jewish court, the 'Jewish' king (Herod), and the Roman governor, all three and did not bother with political answers. Would Christ have had a more political bent in a democratic republic like our today where he could have voted?

It is kind of a moot point, in my opinion, because all things were the way they were for a reason. I would still suspect, though, that the spiritual nature of Jesus' first coming would still leave no time for earthly politics.

We did agree, however, that government policies could hamper or encourage the kingdom of God to some degree however. Obviously, laws restricting the free practice of Christianity, logically, could hamper its spread. However we also noted that, counter-intuitively, there are instances of history of where the government is decidedly anti-Christian and the church most flourishes (modern day China, the first few centuries of the church in Rome), whereas, governments that have been very favorable to Christianity have sometimes resulted in a watered-down, lazy or corrupt church (Constantine's Roman church, the "church" in America today).

3. What then, is our responsibility as Christians and as US citizens in our political environment?

Should we vote for the most "evil" candidate in hopes of a repressive policy so the church will be made pure and flourish again? (I'm kind of joking, here...)

Should we completely abstain from the political process?

Should we seek to legislate our Christian morality into the law of the land?

Voting for overtly evil and repressive policies that force people to do active wrong can't seem to be justified at all. We won't really entertain that thought any longer.

Should we then take up the mantra to seek to legalize our Christian morals...our sense of right and wrong? Surely, the saying that you shouldn't legislate morality is incorrect. All legislation is rooted in morality. But is that the open door for people to seek to legislate every aspect of what they consider right and wrong? To preserve justice, as governments are supposed to do, they typically outlaw most forms of murder...which is definitely a "wrong" in my book. How could I not support such a law? However, also a "wrong" in my book, is worshipping any God but the one true God of the Bible...or even being an atheist. Do I also want to legislate that moral for others?

Someone said, "no", because the Constitution protects the right of religious belief and practice. But certainly we have the power to amend the Constitution when we believe it is incorrect (remember the Constitution once said African-Americans were counted as 3/5th's a person). So surely, if we find fault or limitations with the Constitution, we have the ability and possibly the responsibility to change it. So if we believe that it is truly wrong for someone to not worship our God, why do we not seek to put that into law?

I think the answer is because we also believe that it is not right to force all of our beliefs and practices on other people. To some degree, we respect the rights of people to choose the right or wrong thing to do for themselves. Purely dictating one's behavior, anyway, does nothing eternally for them because it is the heart that is corrupt and damning, regardless of how they act on the outside. Again, God's kingdom is not furthered through earthly law.

4. So...if we believe that we should not force good morals on others...why have laws at all?

Remember question one above...the purpose of government is to preserve order and provide some degree of earthly justice, though it is temporal and imperfect. To preserve order some basic level of morality must be put into law...otherwise the potential end of human nature left alone is self destruction.

5. How do we decide then, which morals of ours ought to be legalized, and which ones should not?

In my opinion, this depends on the system of government. Since we are US citizens, I'll limit the answer to our form of government, a democratic republic. Our government is set up so that each citizen has the ability vote for a few key people to represent our opinion in the federal government: our Congressman, Senators, and president/vice president. The voting power on individual issues and legislation actually rests with these people who are supposed to represent us, or at least act in our best interest (key phrase "supposed to"). These Senators and Congressmen and women join with hundreds of others, ultimately representing every other citizen in the country and they fight and argue and compromise until most reach an agreement on what the law should or shouldn't be.

In other words, ultimately our laws in this country ideally reflect the common will (or morality) of the citizenry of the country...or as close to it as it can get. Basically...what ends up winning should ideally be the point where most American citizens can agree on something. Most people agree murder is wrong and should be discouraged...hence it is illegal. Most people seem to no longer agree that homosexuality is in itself a threat to society's order and so, while no law compels people to engage in homosexual behavior, people are largely no longer prohibited from practicing it either.

So, again, where does the Christian draw the line in voting on moral issues?

Given that we are not given specific instructions on how to interact with our political systems, I would label political opinion to mostly be considered a gray area from a scriptural point of view...or better put, a matter of conscience. There is no scriptural guide for us to compel non-believers to any behavior via government or otherwise. I know very good and well that I should give to the poor...should I be in favor of a law that requires all people to do so( via taxes!)? I don't think there is anything wrong with it...it might do some good (social security). But ultimately I am only held responsible for what I do as a believer to help people...not what my government forced others to do based on the input of a vote from someone who represents me.

So where to draw the line, as far as which issues to be concerned about and try to get legislated (or "un-legislated"), to me seems to be a matter of conscience. Ultimately, our priority as believers is the work of the church, of the kingdom of God. Earthly government plays only a small or incidental role in this, if any at all. But even though we are first citizens of God's kingdom, we are also, secondarily, citizens of the US of A. In that we have the right, or privilege, to participate in our government to some degree. I would not despise those who pay little attention to our political system in favor of the kingdom of God, but I cannot fault those feeling a strong conviction to represent God's kingdom in our political system as best as possible, to improve the degree of justice that our government protects. Certainly there is good in providing justice to the oppressed, even if it through government? But the specifics are fuzzy...could providing justice to the oppressed in America be defined as guaranteeing health care to all...how about protecting fetuses from abortion? If you had to choose between voting for someone who supported one and not the other, or someone else who held the opposite view? What if a candidate held his position only to acquire votes?

What I do feel strongly about, though, is that this secondary, temporal, and earthly subject of politics be not used to divide the body of Christ. We have freedom in how we approach our political system, if we approach it at all, and on which issues we give priority, all according to our conscience. Let us not judge one another in this respect, then, or devalue some one's faith based on their political opinions. May not the kingdom of Christ be torn based on our convictions about how earthly kingdoms are run.

Let us not be ignorant...

I wish I hadn't missed last Sunday!

We'll try to tackle an equally problematic question though. This Sunday will be very difficult for me; we will discuss some tenets of "Evolution" that are "fact" and perhaps we will have time to discuss some theological implications. Let me iterate the goals of the topic - that we/the church will be more able to reach out to co-workers/others and family members and be ready for the world view of our children. After this discussion, next time, we will have a finishing discussion about how we might then engage non-believers in conversation about our savior. See you on Sunday

Faith and Politics?

I hope this post finds everyone well and I hope everyone is having a great holiday. Look for a link at the end of this post to the slides presented in last weeks lesson on the books of the Bible.

This Sunday I want to take a one week diversion in our Bible 101 series to discuss the role of faith in our politics. I'm doing it partially because it is election year and the recent news regarding Obama and Dr. Dobson, and partially because I need some more study time to get a very solid historical understanding of the development of the Biblical canon before I teach on it.

I do not choose to enter the subject of politics in our Bible Study time lightly. In fact we have to be very careful in how we do it. I would like to have a very open discussion, but I know political issues can cause people to get emotional and argumentative...so we will simply stop if it gets to that.

A couple of weeks ago, Dr. Dobson, on his Focus on the Family radio show, commented on a speech Barack Obama made in 2006 to a Christian group that apparently leans toward the left of the political spectrum (see http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/24/evangelical.vote/index.html). Dr. Dobson and his co-host were very critical of Obama and some of his comments from the 2006 speech. I've read the entirety of Obama's speech and you can see it here: http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/. You can listen to the Focus on the Family commentary on the speech here: http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007770.cfm. And finally you can read some of it if you prefer here, but there is interspersed commentary by another pastor: http://ponderingpastor.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/dobson-vs-obama-dobson-needs-a-chill-pill/

My brief interpretation of Obama's speech is that he is discussing how Christians should engage the political process in our pluralistic society. Dr. Dobson has some obvious disagreements. I do not want to discuss what people think of Obama or Dobson Sunday morning, but rather use their discussion as a springboard to step back from the specifics of this year's presidential race and party politics and discuss how we as Christians should or can engage in our political process.

What does the Bible say about the role of believers and politics?
Do we have certain obligations?
Are there limits if we do?
Is there room for interpretation or disagreement?
How does the separation of church and state figure in?

I DO NOT want to get into discussion that bashes any particular candidates or parties...this is a more philosophic and theological based approach. So be warned I will cut short any talk of the sort.

So, think about it and come prepared to talk!

Here is a link to last week's Bible 101 slides: http://www.sendspace.com/file/o5bdro