Duck and Cover

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/19/duck-dynasty-bible-religion-palin-robertson-column/4124181/


This article has been floating around Facebook in defense of Phil Robertson. This is one of the most poorly reasoned articles I have ever seen. Whether you support Phil Robertson or not, please argue your point with well reasoned facts. Do not take someone else's word and assume it is true. Here are some of the logical fallacies in this article:

1. This article states that Phil Robertson repeated "simple truths that are fundamental to western civilization" in his interview with GQ. When did “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!" (quote from Phil Robertson in the actual GQ article which I am sure no one has actually read) become a truth that is fundamental to western civilization.
As a side note, western civilization began in Ancient Greece where the norm for a man was to have a female wife that he used for procreation and a younger male companion that he used for recreational sex. So, by definition, casual homosexuality is a fundamental idea for western civilization.

2. The author of the article makes the argument that by telling businesses that they cannot discriminate against homosexual couples, the government is playing God. The government is actually playing government. A baker, photographer, and a hobby store all exchange goods or services for money. Therefore, they are subject to the commerce laws of the region in which they operate. As a result of the Civil Rights Act, people belonging to a protected class cannot be denied services based on their protected class. Sexual orientation is a protected class, and therefore, homosexual consumers cannot be denied services from a business that engages in public commerce. The government is not telling the owners of these businesses what they can and cannot believe. The government is simply saying, if you want to conduct business under our jurisdiction, then you need to follow our laws. The same laws would apply to a gay business owner who tried to refuse service to a christian consumer. Religion is also a protected class. If the owners of these businesses do not agree with these laws, they do not need to change their beliefs, they simply need to stop conducting their business under the jurisdiction of those laws.
Side note: How does taking pictures of a lesbian wedding compromise your beliefs? You are simply providing a service in exchange for cash. If a man, who I know is cheating on his wife, comes into my bar, does serving them a drink mean I condone his adultery? No. It says nothing about whether I approve or disapprove of his behavior. It is simply a business transaction. As the Bible says, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So, if a business owner were to refuse service to every person that is living a lifestyle that is displeasing to God, they would have no income.

3. The last fallacy that I would like to point out in this article is the forced choice between "liberty" and "political correctness". First of all, these are not the only two choices a person has. Second, why can we not have both liberty and political correctness. These ideals are not opposing forces. However, the author assumes they are in opposition to one another without providing proof for this assumption.  Here are my assumptions as to what the author actually means by "liberty" and "political correctness". These are based less on the actual article and more so not the situation that the article addresses. Because A&E put Robertson on leave because of his comments on homosexuality, I am assuming that the author is using "liberty" to describe those who oppose gay rights and "political correctness" to describe those who are in favor of gay rights. The author also seems to imply that those who oppose gay rights are Christians who are obedient to the gospel. While Christians who are disobedient to the gospel are either in favor of gay rights, or they abstain from the debate. This makes them "politically correct". The author uses these terms to try to make an emotional proof that his way, the way of liberty, is correct. "Liberty" is a positive word that triggers feelings of patriotism. All "good" Americans believe in liberty! "Political correctness" is a negative term to those in conservative circles. It applies to progressives who want to change the American way of life. By using these two terms and forcing a choice between them, the author is trying to give his argument emotional weight in hopes of swaying the reader. However, the author provides no valid evidence to support his views. This has the feel of a McCarthy communist hunt rather than a well reasoned argument.


I use this article as an illustration. My desire is that people will learn to give a logical explanation for their views. This is the only way to be heard by someone on the other side of your beliefs. Making a shallow, emotionally-driven argument will only yield a more shallow, emotionally-driven response. Take the time to research facts and form a well-informed argument before you post anything. Failing to do so will only add fuel to an already roaring fire.

With that in mind, I would like to give a well-reasoned argument as to why Christians should not be standing behind Phil Robertson.

Let me begin by saying that anyone who has not read the full GQ article should not comment until they have done so. However, be warned that there is profanity in the article. So, if that type of language offends you, you may want to bow out of the argument. The link to the article is here:

http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

I will paraphrase and directly quote this article throughout my argument.

This is not going to be a debate about whether Christians should oppose gay rights. My argument will be that Christians in general, whether they oppose gay rights or not, should not stand behind Phil Robertson. There are several reasons that I feel that standing behind Robertson is a mistake. He does not argue his views biblically, he is crass and offensive, and his television show is not a Christian ministry.

Let me begin with the fact that Duck Dynasty is not a Christian ministry. While the Robertson family may use their wealth and fame to minister to people, the TV show itself is not a ministry. The TV show is a business. This business extends to product endorsements as well (seriously, try walking down one aisle in Bass Pro Shops without seeing their faces). A ministry is something that a person performs to edify the body of Christ without expecting anything in return. If a person does something with the expectation that they will be paid for it, it is an occupation. Phil Robertson worked for A&E. They paid him to put together a television show that would bring in revenue for the network. Robertson made comments in the media that had the potential to damage the company, so A&E took reasonable action to reprimand their employee. Most large companies have similar policies. They have a right to protect their brand any way they see fit. In the same vein, A&E is not a government entity. The federal government had nothing to do with this decision. A&E is a company that operates in the private sector, and it took action that it deemed necessary to try to recuperate from the damage that Robertson's comments caused.

Why were Robertson's comments so damaging? They were dehumanizing and vulgar. Robertson's comments came from a lack of understanding and empathy. Here, I will use the same quote I used earlier, “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes!" This quote implies that a man who finds another man attractive is less of a man. This type of language is degrading and crude. If Robertson's real mission is to bring people to Christ (a claim he makes in the article), then there is no place for this type of language. This type of comment only outrages people and drives them further away from Christ. Based on the reactions by gay activist groups, I can conclude that Robertson's words did not cause a great repentance among the homosexual community. Robertson's ultimate mission, to bring people to Christ, should be the mission of every Christian. We should want every person on the planet whether they are GLBT or not to see Christ's love in us and be drawn to Him. As anyone can see, these comments did more harm toward that mission than they did good. If we are going to have any chance of showing Christ's love to the LGBT community, we will have to do it with empathy and understanding. Too many Christians just repeat what they hear other Christians saying without taking the time to find out the truth. This leads to statements that are so oversimplified they become offensive. Immediately, a person who spouts off these statements sounds ignorant and bigoted. This is what I talked about in the first part of the blog. We need to make well reasoned arguments that come from a place of understanding and empathy.

Phil Robertson did not express his views in a well reasoned way. Which is the final reason Christians should not support him in this issue. His arguments were not biblical. In fact, every time he references the Bible, he misquotes it. First, people were not vegetarians prior to the flood. Abel made a sacrifice to God from his flock. Presumably, one raises a flock of animals so that they may eat them. Next, he paraphrases 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. While his paraphrase is close to what that passage says, the way in which he uses it is does not match the tone of the passage. After Paul lists the types of sinners that will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, he goes on to say, "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Corinthians 6:11, NASB). Paul is using the list in the previous two verses to remind his audience that they were once among those who were not going to inherit the Kingdom of God. Thanks to the grace of God, however, they were washed, sanctified, and justified. Paul is not preaching to sinners and telling them how bad they are. He is reminding the Christians in Corinth that they are no better than those sinners. It is only by the grace of God that they have been saved. So, when Robertson uses that passage to show how "not right" homosexuals are, he is using it in exactly the opposite way it was intended to be used. Finally, Robertson says that if everyone just turned to God, all of our problems would be solved. There are hundreds of passages within scripture that talk about the difficulties that followers of Christ face (just look up "persecution" or "trials" in you concordance). If turning to God solved all problems, then following Him would not require much faith. 

Whether you support or oppose gay rights, one thing should be clear. We as Christians need to stop standing up for people who say and do things to further the divide between us and the LGBT community. We need to encourage open dialogue that stems from a genuine desire to understand the other person. It is easy to hide behind Phil Robertson and point fingers. It is easy to regurgitate a soundbite. But when you take the easy way, you do harm and drive people away from Christ. Broad is the path that leads to destruction. It is difficult to listen to and try to understand an opposing viewpoint. It is difficult to have a conversation with a real person who has been hurt by Christian ignorance. But, when we take the difficult path, we meet people where they are, and in that moment, we can show them the love of Christ.

Great is Thy Faithfulness

It’s my first blog post! I just wanted to take a minute before the rush of the holidays to write a Thanksgiving post.  When I was a teen, I used to write a journal entry every Thanksgiving. That journal entry always had a list of 101 things that I was thankful for that year. Although I’m sure I could list 101 things that I am thankful for, I’m not going to make you read all that. However, I am thankful for many things this year and I wanted to take a moment to share how God has provided for Steven and I this year.

As many of you know, Steven and I made the decision last fall that we wanted to move to North Carolina. We had planned on saving money in 2013 so that we could afford a move. We knew that our lease would be up in December of 2013 and we planned to be ready to move at the end of it. While we were saving, I also requested a transfer with Kohl’s the week of Black Friday 2012. I knew that transfers take time and I also needed to wait for a supervisor position to become available. Even if one did, I knew that most managers fill from within their store. I submitted a list of about 10 stores in the Charlotte area that I was interested in.

Around the same time, Steven was promoted to Director of Training for Sizzler. We then put our plans of moving on the backburner to see how his new position would go. We were still saving but since I hadn’t heard anything in regard to the transfer, we kept going about in our normal routine. As March 2013 rolled around, the Apparel and Accessories Supervisor (1-3) position at my store become temporarily available while the current supervisor was out on maternity leave.  Although my manager had not made an official offer, I knew it was coming. During the last week of March, the day that my manager was going to make the offer, I got a call from a manager at Kohl’s in Waxhaw, North Carolina. After talking to her for over an hour, I knew that this was a real opportunity and the timing wasn’t an accident. Because I knew my store was going to ask me to be the temporary 1-3, I called my manager and let her know about the NC call I had just received. She then gave me the formal job offer and left the choice up to me. Long story short, Steven and I did a lot of talking, praying, and seeking advice. Do I take a temporary position for the “experience” or do I take this job while it is offered and start over like we dreamed? By the end of that last week in March, we had made the decision for me to move without him and he would join me later that summer.  That was a REALLY hard decision for us to make, but at the time it was necessary.  

Three weeks later, our stuff was packed and in storage and Steven, Onyx and I were on the road to NC. I was going to go and live for a few weeks with one of my Mom’s cousins (who I’d only met about 2 times when I was a kid). Angela heard through the family grapevine that we wanted to move and opened up her home to me until I could find and move into an apartment. She was a HUGE blessing. Before Steven returned to CA, we were able to find a great apartment that had everything we needed and that was secure for me to stay in alone until he could move too. It was also around this time that we got bad news too. Steven had been back in CA for about 2 weeks after leaving me in NC, when we found out that his grandmother had been diagnosed with Acute Leukemia, a quick, terminal cancer. I was heartbroken that I couldn’t be with my husband when all of us were worried about Barbara. Steven was in CA dealing with that while I was in NC starting our new life. That was a very difficult, emotional time on both of us. In June I was able to move out of Angela’s and into the apartment. My mom flew from CA to help me get all situated and my NC family came and helped me move all my stuff to the third floor apartment that Steven and I had found.

By the start of July, Steven was able to turn in his notice. I flew to CA, spent some time with my family and friends. We also made a point to spend time with Barbara, because we didn’t know if or when we’d see her while she was still healthy enough to enjoy company. We were not sure how quickly the cancer was going to move. It was a hard goodbye when we left the restaurant after dinner. We got Steven’s things together and then made that crazy long drive again! This time, with my husband coming home for good!

About two weeks after Steven got here he was offered a job bartending at Aloft Hotel. It is a full-time position that is in the evenings so that he can go back to school like he wants to do. That same week, I was also offered the Apparel and Accessories Supervisor Position at my new store. After only having been at that store for 3 months I had already earned the “temporary” promotion that I turned down in CA, only this time it was permanent! To add to our joy was the news that his grandmother’s cancer had been misdiagnosed and that she had a low-grade lymphoma. Still cancer, but it has a 97% survival rate. She went from having a death sentence to having hope for life.

Steven and I have had a whirlwind of a year. We are still discovering places in our new home. We still are looking for a church family to worship with. We still are deciding where and when Steven will go back to school. We still have to get my car registered in NC. And many other decisions, but God has opened doors all along this long road that we have traveled this year. I know that He will take care of these things as well.

So this year among the small things like having a warm bed, food, and the cutest rabbit in the world, I’m thankful for God’s provision. He certainly did not do things on my timetable. We were up and moved months before we thought we would be. Somehow, God gave us the courage to trust His plan and His direction. As a result He has provided.

Great is Thy Faithfulness, Lord unto me

In His Image

As I continue to work my way through Bruce Waltke's An Old Testament Theology, I arrived, today, at an exegesis of Genesis 1:26-28. For those that are not familiar with this passage, it is the sixth creation day, and the day in which God creates man in His image. This passage is the first poem in the Bible, and it appears that the writer shifted his writing style to show the magnitude of this aspect of creation. Man is the only creation that is made in God's image, and thus deserves more attention.

Traditionally, theologians, such as Thomas Acquinas and John Calvin, believed that the image of God was found in man's intellect, will and heart. Although this is partly true, it does not describe the whole picture. The image of God is shown in man as a whole. There are four key aspects of man that reflect the image of God. First, the human physical form reflects God. As the Psalmist says, "Does he who implanted the ear not hear? Does he who formed the eye not see?"(Ps 94:9). God is spirit, so He differs from us, but through His image, we know that he sees the needy and hears the cry of the suffering. Second, our intellect and our ability to make decisions through our intellect reflect God. However, our limited knowledge is vastly different than God's omniscience. But through His image we see that God does everything based on His will which comes from His perfect knowledge. Third, the image of God is made male and female. This shows that God exists in relationship. Even before time began, He existed in the fellowship of the Trinity. This aspect of His image disproves the idea of a dispassionate, removed deity. Rather, God is in an active relationship with His people.

The fourth aspect of God's image takes some background explanation. In the Ancient Near East, the image of a god was a statue that represented that God. It was seen as the physical dwelling place of that deity. The image was capable of ruling and exercising the deity's authority. Kings were viewed in the same way. If they were ruling on behalf of the deity, they were seen as a manifestation of that deity. Man, as the image of God, was created to bring God's kingdom to the earth. Man gives names to all the animals, thus signifying his authority over them. Man is meant to be God's representative on Earth. However, this is the point where the Biblical idea of image and the ANE view of image differ. Man is not God. There is a second phrase in this creation story that separates man from God. Man was also created in God's "likeness". This shows that although man reflects God's qualities, he is not God. Man's knowledge is limited, God is omniscient; man is limited by time and space, God exists outside of time and space; man's power is weak and feeble, God is omnipotent. So, although we reflect God's qualities, and we are to live as ambassadors of Him, we still dependent on Him, and when we try to usurp His power, it leads to our fall.

R & R

It is amazing to me how the Word of God convicts. I am currently working through Bruce Waltke's An Old Testament Theology, and today's section dealt with the form of the creation narrative. My intention for most of my reading was to get onto a soapbox and talk about the reasons that Christians should not get lost in a scientific debate about how God created the cosmos. I was going to borrow from Dr. H. Bruce Stokes and Dr. Nathan Lewis and talk about spheres of influence to show that science can never prove the biblical creation narrative, and the Bible does not attempt to explain itself in a scientific manner. But, I reached a point in Waltke's theology that talked about God resting on the seventh day. This launched me down the rabbit hole, and ended showing me that I have been lacking in a key spiritual discipline. So, I shall give a single quote by J. I. Packer that I think sums up my argument against trying to prove the creation narrative through science.

"Genesis 1 and 2, however, tell us who without giving many answers about how. Some today may think this is a defect; but in the long perspective of history our present-day "scientific" preoccupation with how rather than who looks very odd in itself. Rather than criticize these chapters for not feeding our secular interest, we should take from them a needed rebuke for our perverse passion for knowing Nature without regard for what matters most; namely, know Nature's creator." (Packer, I Want to Be a Christian)

That being said, a small passage in Waltke's book lead me to what I think is a greater understanding of our Creator. Waltke was discussing anthropomorphisms in our descriptions of God. For those that do not know, an anthropomorphism is giving a human trait or characteristic to something that does not have that trait. The Bible is full of anthropomorphisms because we have to use what we know and what we can see to describe God whom we cannot see. The particular anthropomorphism that Waltke touched on was that of God resting on the seventh day. God does not grow weary, but on the seventh day, he is described as resting, and Exodus 31:17 goes further to say he refreshes himself. How can this be? I believe that this anthropomorphism is here to describe the nature of God as a juxtaposition to the nature of man.

Augustine pointed out that the seventh day is the only day that is never terminated by "it was evening". This shows that the seventh day never ends, and that God is presumably still at rest. This does not mean that God is not active in the world. His hand is always present. Rather, God's rest is a state of being that is opposite to that of man. Man was once part of God's rest, but through the sin of Adam, man was separated from God's rest. Genesis 3:17-19 lays out the curse that God places on Adam. "In toil you will eat of [the ground] all the days of your life... By the sweat of your face you will eat bread..." Man's curse is to work to survive. God is separating man from His rest.

Despite this, God has a redemptive plan. He wants to bring man back to Him and lift the curse of Adam. The Bible is full of shadow and substance. Shadows are earthly images of an eternal substance. One of these shadows was the land that God promised to Abraham. The Promised Land is a shadow of the New Jerusalem where man and God will dwell together for eternity. Deuteronomy 12: 9 refers to the Promised Land this way, "for you have not yet come to the resting place and the inheritance which the Lord your God is giving you." In the promised land, God promises to give Israel rest from their enemies if they will follow his commands. When the Israelites disobeyed God, and were afraid to enter the promised land, God swore that they would not enter into His rest (Ps. 95: 10-11).

Ironically, the command that Israel has the most trouble following is the command to remember the sabbath. Of the ten commandments, the command to cease working on the seventh day is the longest. It sets apart the sabbath as holy. Why is this day given so much importance? When we cease from work and focus on worshipping God, we experience a shadow of what eternity will be like. We get a taste, albeit a very small taste, of what it is like to be in God's rest. God created the Sabbath so that His people could draw closer to Him and experience what he is like.

There is much debate in Christianity over whether or not we are still required to remember the sabbath. Personally, I don't understand the debate. If God prescribed a way to draw nearer to Him and experience His presence, why would you not want to do it? This is what God has convicted me of this morning. It is funny how there are famous verses in Scripture that everyone knows, but no one can remember the context of that passage. Hebrews 4:12 is the famous passage, "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and the intentions of the heart." However, what God convicted me of this morning was the context of that passage. Hebrews 4:9-11 says this, "So there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God. For the one who has entered His rest has himself also rested from his works, as God did from His. Therefore let us be diligent to enter that rest so that no one will fall, through following the same example of disobedience" (NASB). When you couple that with verse 12, it is clear. If the intention of your heart is to grow closer to God, you will enter into his rest by remembering the Sabbath. But, if you hear the good news preached and do not obey His commands, you will be like the Israelites that did not enter the promised land, and you will be separated from God's rest.

My prayer is always that as God speaks and convicts me, He will speak to others through me. I plan on making sure that I set aside time to enter God's rest from here on.

And God Said...

Every time I dive into studying the creation narrative in Genesis 1, I am always blown away. This passage is glossed over so often, and yet, it is probably one of the most profound pericopes in all of Scripture. There are two reasons why this passage does not get the recognition it deserves. First, everyone who grew up in the church has been taught the creation story since they were in diapers. However, this child-like understanding of what God created misses what that narrative tells us about who the Creator is. The second reason we miss the profound nature of the narrative is that we try to explain how God created. We get locked into scientific debate with evolutionists about the methods God may or may not have used to bring about this creation. I will get into the reasons why we should not waste our efforts on this pursuit in a later post, but suffice it to say, "The Bible is not a science book" (Bruce Waltke, An Old Testament Theology). These arguments cause us to miss what God is trying to tell us about himself. So, today I want to focus, with the help of Bruce Waltke's An Old Testament Theology, on a couple of key elements in the structure of the creation narrative that reveal some elements of who God is. 

One of the key differences between the Biblical narrative and the other creation myths of the Ancient Near East is creation by word. The Canaanite, Babylonian, and Egyptian mythologies were all influential to the people of Israel. I include the Babylonian myth because even though it was probably Moses who wrote the creation narrative, it probably did not reach its final form until sometime during the Babylonian captivity. These three mythologies all have creation narratives. In these narratives, the gods fight against a force of chaos, usually represented by the sea or a sea monster. In order to defeat chaos, they create order, and the deities become the god of whatever they created to drive away chaos. The Biblical writers borrowed imagery, not theology, from these myths. In this narrative, we see God triumphing over the chaos (Gen. 1:2) not through a battle royale, but rather through the spoken word. This is what separates the God of Israel from every other god. He is one God, and yet, as the psalmist says, "But at your rebuke [the waters] fled, at the sound of your thunder they took flight" (Ps. 104:7). The notion that one God rules over everything is further emphasized when god names the cosmic elements. In the Ancient Near East, naming something represented having power over that thing. When a king conquered another king, he would change that kings name (2 Kings 23:34). When God names the cosmic elements ("day", "night", "land", "seas", "sun", "moon", "stars"), he is declaring his power over them. This eliminates the notion of a sun god, or a moon god. Instead, it boldly proclaims that the God of Israel is in control of all things. 

God's control is also emphasized in the syntax of the narrative. The announcement of each creative act ("And God said...") precedes the action. This announcement "by putting word before event, implies that the cosmos is created according to the plan of one God" (Bruce Waltke). Those three simple words show that everything in the universe is under a divine plan. It rejects the notion of an impersonal God. Rather, it shows that God planned every detail of creation. It also reinforces the notion of God's control over everything. While creation is not part of God, it depends on him, and is bound to him by His word. In John 1, John reveals that Jesus is the Word of God, and that all things are created through him (John 1:1-4). Paul also echoes this and adds that through him all things hold together (Col. 1:16-17). So, at the very beginning of scripture, we see that God has a plan, and that all creation is bound to him through Jesus. This plan will reach its full fruition when one day, every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. Then, God and His creation will be brought physically together through the sacrifice of His Son. 

Thank you for reading what God was teaching me in my quiet time this morning. My hope is that God will use it to speak to you too.

What does that mean?

Welcome to our Blog! Katherine and I (Steven) will be posting on this blog jointly, and we will sign the bottom of each post so you know who the author is. We hope you will enjoy.

I wanted to start the blog with an explanation of the name. The name was pulled from Act I, Scene 4 of Hamlet. While the context of the phrase is not really relevant, the terms themselves convey what we hope this blog will be. Pith is "The innermost or central part of a thing; the essential or vital part; the spirit or essence; the core, the nub." (Oxford English Dictionary). It refers to the center of a leaf, or the substance of which the spinal cord is made. Marrow is similar in its meaning. In case you do not know, it refers to the soft inner tissue of bone. It is also used to describe the essence or core of something. For example, Thoreau went to Walden Pond to "suck the marrow out of life." When combined, the two terms refer to the heart, or very essence of a person or thing. That is what we hope you will see in our blog through our sharing of experiences.

Enjoy,

Steven