Crossing the Border

So, will illegal immigrants, old westerns, or exotic vacations be discussed today? No, no, and no. Actually, the course of American culture is the topic. Why borders, then?

Sociologists have long recognized that every culture is defined by boundaries. In fact, without boundaries, a culture would lack definition and would therefore be indistinguishable from other cultures and societies. Thus, lacking unique traits, such a culture would be no culture at all.

In the field of New Testament studies, a new approach emerged in the 80s known as the social-scientific method. One aspect of this area of study has been the attempt to find the defining cultural structures of the 1st century Mediterranean-basin world. The question has been whether or not boundaries or markers existed that gave commonality to the Greco-Roman world that existed around the Mediterranean Sea. Many believe such defining boundaries did exist. Some remain in place today.

Can similar social structures be found in America? Most assuredly so. Many of the boundaries that have set limits on what is and is not American are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. More to the point, many are biblically-based.

Take marriage. Even though polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament era by some of the notable characters from Israel’s past, monogamy was the accepted standard for marital relationships. As well, in the Roman world, monogamy was the standard.

In both the Jewish world (including early Christianity) and Greco-Roman society, homosexuality was rejected as an acceptable form of human sexuality. While found more in the Roman world than in the Jewish, homosexuality never gained widespread acceptance in either.

Some would suggest a more accepting attitude regarding homosexuality existed in Rome. Consider, though, the views of Juvenal, one of the fathers of Latin Satire. Curiously, Juvenal’s Second Satire was devoted to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. According to Leland D. Peterson in New Oxford Review, an on-line news service, "Juvenal recognized in the secularized, godless Rome of his day, same-sex ‘marriage’ [was] not merely a crime against Nature and a corruption of marriage and the family, not merely a symptom of moral decline, but a function of a morally sick society . . ." Juvenal’s satirical treatise on noted homosexuals of his day was scathing and bitter.

The Roman historian Suetonius (70-130 AD) presented another view of the moral decline of the empire. He wrote Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of Hadrian as a compilation of the biographies of Rome’s leading emperors. Many were described in all of their immoral glory. A special case was Nero. Nero "married" Sporus, a young Roman boy, whom Nero dressed as a woman and had castrated. Later, Nero himself was married to his freedman Doryphorus (Nero played the woman’s role in that "marriage").

By the time of Nero, Roman society was in a state of decline, out of which she never climbed. Both Suetonius and Juvenal decried the loss of morality in the Roman Empire, and especially in the city of Rome itself. As the boundaries that characterized Roman society were crossed, they were lost to the past. Progressively, Rome ceased being Rome. Ultimately, Rome fell.

America cannot continue moving and redefining her cultural boundaries. By devaluing and obscuring the markers that set our society apart from all others, our nation will move relentlessly to a place where America will cease being America.

One of the saddest debates in our history has been over marriage. Why should we need to argue for the primacy of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in the first place? Are we unable to see the uniqueness of that relationship and the unequaled contribution made by heterosexual marriage?

Dare we continue crossing the borders? Do we not see the danger of going to a land in which our concepts of right and wrong will be turned on their heads? If we lose marriage, we will lose ultimately our whole representative democracy. Rome was not defeated by a greater military force from beyond its borders. Rome fell when her cultural boundaries were destroyed from within. Will America share the same fate?

Cooler Temps Redux

The issue of global warming just will not go away. Recently, a group of evangelical Christians signed on to the environmental debate by siding with those who see man as the problem, predict catastrophic climate changes in the future, and propose solutions that would have an equally severe economic impact on America.

Two questions insinuated themselves into my thought processes.

First of all, does a consensus view prevail on the issue of global warming? Second, what should be the response of Christians and churches with regard to global warming? How one answers the first question determines the answer to the second.

A recent article posted on the online version of National Review magazine offered a dissenting view of the popularly held position of human-induced global climatic change. The author, Kenneth Green, pointed out that "some establishment scientists seem to be getting the message that they may have overplayed their hands and become more parody than prophet. In just the last few weeks, two studies in major journals (Nature and Geophysical Research Letters) dump cold water on the high-end horror-story estimates coming out from modelers seeking ever higher-end scenarios to publicize."

He furthered stated that "other scientists seem to have figured out that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. One used to hear near unanimity among the scientists beating the drum of climate alarmism. There was, invariably, only one possible course of action supported by ‘the consensus of scientists’: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions immediately, even if it meant the collapse of national economies. Not any more. On April 18, a group of 90 scientists wrote an open letter to Canada’s prime minister observing that ‘advances in climate science . . . have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation for projected changes." The group goes on to emphasize that as ‘mitigation measures will become effective only after many years . . . adaptive strategies are essential and must begin now.’"

In other words, human beings, organized under governmental and scientific institutions, have enough sense to prepare for the changes to come in ways other than those that would devastate the national economies of industrialized nations. Human societies, especially modern ones in the western world, have shown remarkable skill in correcting their problems in creative and effective ways.

Now, question two: what about Christians and the environment? Personally speaking, groups who are radically committed to an issue engender in me a degree of mistrust. I am suspicious of anyone who is so ardent in their views as to suggest that all of life’s ills have a single cause and can be solved by their solution alone. Thus, I remain unconvinced that global warming is all that some would have us believe.

Further, I am intensely suspicious of any issue modern mass media promote from only one perspective. When was the last time a major print or broadcast news source gave even the slightest nod to the notion that global warming might be a natural process, and be one we humans cannot change? You can count the times on one hand and have five fingers left.

So, what about Christians? Believers should be wary of hitching their wagon to any movement founded on principles in conflict with biblical Christianity, as are many radical environmental groups. As hard as any group might try to avoid the stigma, the movement of which it is a part will define said group. Christians who, naively I believe, enter the global warming debate will marginalize themselves in the greater task of biblical Christianity.

Sadly, just when the debate has changed significantly, a group of evangelical leaders jump into the argument. At a time when respected experts in the field of climate and environment are questioning seriously the underlying assumptions of the global warming issue, we might encourage responsible stewardship of creation without aligning ourselves with those who appear to be wholly antagonistic to traditional Christianity.

If we humans are the problem, we cannot be the answer to the problem. If we have created the problem, or some part of it, we then can and should provide a range of solutions. From the standpoint of the Bible, all human beings have a problem, namely, sin. God has invited us to be a part of the solution. Christians often must do a balancing act so as to not compromise our integrity and reputation. Buying into popular issues may tilt us in the wrong direction. Thus, we limit our effectiveness as heralds of the gospel.

The Prayer of DaVinci

No, I do not have a copy of a cryptic prayer offered by Leonardo to whatever god or goddess he believed in. What I do have are questions about the reaction to The DaVinci Code by the Christian community at large. Can a precedent be found that would enable us to understand a little better how we are handling the current debate engendered by Brown’s book and the upcoming film, based on The DaVinci Code (starring no less a cinema giant than Tom Hanks - surely, that makes the movie believable)?

A contemporary literary phenomenon, albeit with the opposite effect of Brown’s book, that shows how Christians are suckered by hype is The Prayer of Jabez, by Bruce Wilkinson. I have two observations about Jabez that have a parallel in DaVinci (aside from the fact that both books have really nifty titles). First of all, a look at the content of Wilkinson’s book reveals the same kind of poor research and faulty theology as one finds in Brown’s work. Although not to the same degree as Brown, Wilkinson based his book on popular theology, not real biblical theology.

Wilkinson proposed that if one prays Jabez’s prayer everyday, God will bless him in a variety of ways. Number one, prayer is not a way of making God "work." Such an approach to prayer falls into the realm of pagan mysticism and magic. Regardless of what we do, God is not required to act in any particular manner. In other words, God is not like a coke machine: you don’t insert 60¢ and automatically get what you want.

Second, Wilkinson totally misrepresented the nature of blessing. The Bible never uses the word blessing or any of its derivatives in the way Wilkinson did in The Prayer of Jabez. According to Wilkinson, blessings are material things or incidents that one receives only because he asks. Well, how about Ephesians 1.3? Paul stated that God has "blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places." Or, take Galatians 3.9, where Paul wrote that "those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer." So, do we need to ask for what is already ours? Further, does Wilkinson’s view of blessing match up with Paul’s? I think not. Yet, millions of readers uncritically accepted Wilkinson’s views.

Another similarity between Jabez and DaVinci is the amount of money made off both the books. Further, stacks of books, truckloads of trinkets, and gigabytes of data on CDs and DVDs have been generated by these two books. Millions and millions of dollars have made in one case by what is, essentially, a lie masquerading as the truth. In the other, well-intentioned, but mistaken interpretations of Scripture were promoted as binding truth. In both cases, many believers and unbelievers alike were caught up in the frenzies. Just as with DaVinci, Jabez made tons of money, and no one ever questioned the rightness of such an endeavor. Ironically, few pray the prayer of Jabez any longer, and all the cute Jabez novelties gather dust or waste away in the local landfill. So, too, will be the case with The DaVinci Code and its associated products.

In response to The DaVinci Code, as with the reaction to The Prayer of Jabez, believers have responded in a manner opposite to what should have been. Rightly, we have reacted negatively to Brown; yet, the reaction has been way over the line. To hear some, you would think a stake was driven through the heart of Christianity by Dan Brown. Rightfully, many have questioned Brown’s assumptions and and conclusions. Sadly, some of the works written in response to The DaVinci Code, such as one book I read, are as poorly written as Brown’s book.

Even more ironical was the response to Jabez. Because Bruce Wilkinson has the stature he does among evangelicals, none were willing to take him to task over his book. Mainly, few criticized The Prayer of Jabez because, some argued, the book was "doing so much good for so many people." How can poor theology and shoddy biblicism help anyone? Wilkinson surely was well-intentioned, but still was guilty of misunderstanding the Bible’s teachings.

I think that in six months or so, no one will be talking about The DaVinci Code. Most will have moved on to the next literary fad. Just as The Prayer of Jabez faded away into anonymity, so, too, will The DaVinci Code. The true biblical message will never fade away. We are faced daily with life’s challenges. We need to know how to maneuver through the ethical mine fields of today’s world. Only the Truth of Scripture can give us the guidance we need.

Perhaps, if we Christians show more consistency between what we say and do, and if strive for greater biblical accuracy in what we teach, a lesser need will exist to combat fad theologies. Rest assured, we will be confronted by another popular book that will espouse some biblically inaccurate point of view. Will we be ready?

The Katrina Code

Two recent events have had surprising impacts on me. First, I read the novel, The DaVinci Code. Second, I visited a house in Chalmette, LA, a city east of New Orleans with massive devastation from flooding related to Hurricane Katrina. After having had the time to consider both, I have discovered similar reactions to both.First, the house. Several months ago, a couple began visiting our church and finally joined. Jimmy and Jolene Black moved to our community from Chalmette. We all knew they had lost their home to Katrina, and had decided to begin anew in our area. Currently, they are building a new house north of us.

Several weeks ago, we were discussing an upcoming relief volunteer trip. We had not yet decided where to go, but were thinking of the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Jimmy made a remark about their home, and after a few questions, we decided to head to Chalemette. Another member of Enon and I visited the Black’s house this morning. I hardly can describe what I saw. I will tell you that the water came within a foot of covering their home totally. Also, they were in the area affected by chemicals from Murphy Oil.

As I stood in what had been their living room, I was able to look into the next room and the attic; the walls and ceiling were gone. Dried mud was a couple of inches thick, which means before it dried, the mud was very deep. Ruined furniture, furnishings, family photos, clothes, and everything else we take for granted in our homes were lying where the water had scattered them. Jolene has not seen her home since she left after being forced out when the levees were breached. Jimmy will not show her even a picture. No one was ready for the tragedy visited upon them by the effects of Katrina.

Second, The DaVinci Code. I consider myself to be a minor authority on mystery and suspense thrillers. I have been reading novels of that genre for a number of years. Such books are what I call "mind-candy." Your intellectual powers are not tested, but you do have to think off and on. Good suspense writers don’t give away too much and hold the resolution of the plot to the end. Mystery novels are supposed to keep you guessing till the end. After a few pages, I had Dan Brown’s book figured out.

I was amazed at how poorly written the book was. The characters were, at best, one-dimensional. Narrative critics in New Testament studies would call them flat as opposed to round. The research for the book was what one would expect in a term paper written by a sophomore in high school. Worst of all, Brown’s hidden agenda was as evident as the proverbial fox in the hen-house. Strangely, though, millions of readers have bought into the author’s agenda without ever raising a critical question.

We live in an era of spiritual emptiness. Too many people get their "religion" from TV. People get a steady diet of "me-ism" from the mass media evangelists. Rarely does one hear a real challenge to sacrificial living when listening to those who dare not alienate the audience. If they do, ratings will fall and contributions along with them. So, folk learn how easily they can use God to become wealthy. Do we wonder why people are so cynical about organized religion?Into this spiritual wasteland wandered Dan Brown. He soundly condemned organized religion in his book, as well as offering an alternative. Sadly, though, he is guilty of what he condemns organized religion of doing: distorting the truth. In order for his story to be "true," he had to change history.

Lots of folk will not be prepared for the brick wall they’ll run into down the road if they persist in believing trendy philosophies such as what Brown offers in The DaVinci Code. They will not be ready when the unexpected tragedy occurs and their self-determined spirituality falls apart and fails them in their time of need. Nothing Brown offers in The DaVinci Code would strengthen a person in the midst daily challenges, much less a real faith-trying trial.

Jimmy and Jolene Black persist. They have not given up. They continue to live because of their faith in God to sustain them in the terrible crisis they, and many others like them, have experienced. Fortunately for them, their lives were not rooted in what they owned, but in who they knew: Jesus. Readers of Dan Brown’s novels will not encounter a personal Lord. They’ll hear about the sacred feminine and the goddess, but not a personal relationship with God through Christ.

The lives and dreams of many who accept uncritically Brown’s philosophy, or theology or whatever he might call it, will be as devastated as the homes in south Louisiana. These people will have nothing to sustain them in their trials, or to strengthen them to move on with life. All they’ll have left will be lives in shambles, with precious things scattered in disarray by the storm known as The DaVinci Code