Author: W. Keith Brenton

Closed-Minded Debate

/ W. Keith Brenton / 25 Comments

Uh, what’s the point?

Closed-minded debate is what takes place between one or more contestants with no intention of changing point-of-view on the subject at hand.

While it may afford some entertainment for the participants and/or spectator-lurkers, of what real value is it?

It’s kind of like idling an engine for a few hours just to generate heat. No actual work gets done; no real result accrues from it.

How do you recognize when closed-minded debate is taking place? (Especially if you happen to be involved, and of the open-minded variety?)

  • The closed-minded debater will not concede any point. After all, he is right; why should he?
  • The closed-minded debater will insist on framing the issue/wording the question. This is to her advantage.
  • The closed-minded debater will frame the issue / word the question in personal terms if possible. This is to his advantage, as it opens to the door to personal attack as a diversion.
  • The closed-minded debater will make use of diversions frequently when unable to respond logically and accurately to a point made by her opponent.
  • The closed-minded debater will divert to side issues (relevant or not) in order to lengthen the discussion. (Some dogs bark because they like to hear the sound of their own voices. My neighbor has one.)
  • The closed-minded debater will show no interest in learning; learning is not the point. The closed-minded debater will show no interest in consensus; consensus is not the point. Winning is paramount. After all, he is right; why should he show such interest in collaboration with someone who is wrong?
  • The closed-minded debater will only recognize authorities and commentators who agree with her, and will discredit (substantively or not, usually not) those referenced by her opponent.
  • The closed-minded debater will only be able to see facts and citations of authorities one way, the way presently seen, and no other possibilities.
  • The closed-minded debater will accuse his opponent: of evading, of illogic, of intellectual dishonesty. After all, she is right; why shouldn’t she?
  • The closed-minded debater will frequently take offense at comments made with no intention of offending. This establishes power and calls into question his opponent’s character and therefore (ostensibly) generates sympathy for himself among the spectator-lurkers. No comment is too small to be magnified into a personal insult. This is also, often, a diversion.
  • The closed-minded debater will show little regard for conversational or personal ethic in the process. As stated before, winning is paramount; and when one is right, the end justifies the means.
  • The closed-minded debater will not be persuaded. Will. Not. Be. Persuaded.

These are fairly widespread tactics; you’ll see them all over the Web and on every so-called news network. What is truly disappointing to this believer is the size of the culture of closed-minded debate within Christendom. Believers –who of all people should be the first to understand the difference between faith and fact; the necessity of being open-minded and selfless with others; the victory that comes through saying “I was wrong” — seem to be among the very worst in many instances.

Their language may not (or may!) be as offensive, but their utter contempt for those who disagree with them on dearly-held beliefs — whether well-founded or not — is absolutely unmistakable … whether by another believer, or someone who does not believer, does not know the Story, has never really even heard of Jesus of Nazareth (other than as part of a curse or epithet).

Christian discourse should be light-years above simply civil discourse. It should be persuasive in its humility, its love and its deep concern for others above self. It should be unyielding in matters of faith, and understanding in matters of opinion, and sufficiently mature in spirit to discern them.

I have gone past being weary of the level of discourse among believers that I’ve seen (and, sadly, been a part of) and my tolerance for it has reached an all-time low.

So I’ve set some goals for myself when I feel drawn (or sucked) into closed-minded debate:

  • I will not be the closed-minded party.
  • I will love and pray for the one(s) who disagree(s) with me.
  • I will not argue matters of opinion anymore. You’re entitled to my opinion any time you like it; just read it here. I’ll be glad to read yours. I’ll probably be secretly delighted that we’re alike or different in certain ways because I believe that such commonality and diversity will both enrich and strengthen the body of believers. But I’m not going to go into hours and paragraphs and billions of pixels over something we don’t have to agree upon.
  • I will argue matters of faith. When I encounter something that challenges faith, has the potential to enlighten or strengthen or deepen it, I will argue it and argue it passionately.
  • I will admit when I am wrong. And I am frequently wrong.
  • I will continue to tell you when something is my opinion, my conclusion … and when something is simply the fact as virtually everyone else in the known universe agrees upon it, citing reference when possible.
  • I will do my best to discern the difference between those two.
  • I will concede my opponent’s points when they are correct. Hey, it happens.
  • I will always try to be a brother to a sibling in Christ, a fellow believer, and share fellowship with her.
  • I will always try to be a brother to someone who does not believe, and share fellowship with him as well.
  • I will continue to believe that Jesus loves without precondition, which is my example to follow.
  • If I cannot foresee a worthwhile outcome, I reserve the right to not participate in a challenged debate at all. I may well ask the challenger: “Is there really a possibility that either of us is going to change the other’s mind on this matter? If not, is there really any point in proceding?”

Well, that’s my short list. It’s a start.

But I think it’s a good one.

The Nativity Story from John 1

/ W. Keith Brenton / 4 Comments

Yesterday, a friend on Facebook asked a group of mostly preachers what they would be preaching about on Sunday, December 25, Christmas morning.

I answered, “I don’t preach, but if I did, I’d preach on the Nativity Story from John 1. Yup, John 1. It’s short, but cosmic.”

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. … The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. … For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. ~ John 1:1-5, 14, 17-18

I love the baby-Jesus-in-a-manger version of the story as dearly as anyone. But this version has incredible power in its brevity.

The very Son of God, the Word, who was with God and was God from the beginning, took our form to live with us. The glory of which angels sang was now visible in Him. You could see grace. You could see truth. In Jesus, you could see God.

Want another tiny sample of this part of the Nativity Story?

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” ~ John 8:58

They wanted to kill Him right there in the temple by throwing rocks at Him, they were so incensed to hear this. He claimed to be God. But truth is a defense against blasphemy as well as libel … and He walked away, unharmed. I have to wonder if their hands were stayed by doubt in their conviction that He was only a man; that a man could not also be God.

Another glimpse?

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” ~ John 14:8-10

God with Us. Immanuel.

Jesus knew who He was. He knew what Isaiah had prophesied in 7:14, and He knew that “Immanuel” meant “God With Us.” He had to have known what His mother had treasured in her heart for all those years.

And in telling Philip and the other apostles once again Who He was, He was promising to give them the very Holy Spirit within Himself so that God could do His work through them as well.

One more glimpse, this time from someone other than John:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father. ~ Philippians 2:5-11

God became a single cell; a nothing; a thing invisible except through a microscope. God became a baby. A young man. A servant.

A sacrifice.

God intended all of this to happen, and that was why it was as good as done as soon as Jesus was born, and the angels could sing praise at His birth for what He would yet do as a man, and a servant, and a sacrifice.

Jesus showed us that God could be in and among man, so that God could continue His work in us and among us and through us by His own Holy Spirit.

Jesus showed us that we could be born anew; become something very different, something still like a human being on the outside, but full of grace and truth and God within.

Jesus showed us that the true glory of God is to serve, to give, to be given and spent out and used up in love to others.

He gave up a throne in heaven to wash dirty feet.

He gave up being in the Presence of God in order to be the Presence of God.

He surrendered His life there to surrender it again here, and to give it abundantly and without measure to anyone who hears and believes and asks.

Eden: Literal, Mythic, Allegorical …?

/ W. Keith Brenton / 7 Comments

I’m not here to make enemies or stir the pot on this one. I know it’s popular at one extreme to defend the literality of the Genesis creation account even to the length of a 24-hour-day. I know it’s popular at the other extreme to see it as two accounts, mythic in nature and structure, and both meant to be allegorical in their meaning.

What if it’s possibly all of those things — and much, much more?

(I’m not an extremist on matters of theory. More of a collectivist.)

I find great value in seeing the deep meaning in the creation account, but I see it as a single account, inspired by a single Author. After all, it’s not likely that there were eyewitnesses who recorded the creation story in writing, is it?

We’re dealing with a God who could have created (and still can) in any way He wishes. He doesn’t have to follow what we have defined as the laws of the universe, and He doesn’t have to limit Himself to what we have decided are His boundaries by what we deduce from scripture.

This God created all things in seven days. I don’t know how many hours long those seven days/ages/epochs of creation were. I don’t know how fast the earth was rotating then, or how much time passed between sunrise and sunset. I really don’t care. There weren’t any clocks then, or any writers that we know of to watch them. I believe it means “day” because it says “there was evening and morning” … I suppose that means “sunrise” and “sunset” … six times. That’s pretty definite. Moses quotes it twice in establishing Sabbath: “For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth ….” (Exodus 20:11; 31:17)

He created it and He related it — presumably through His Holy Spirit to the writer (quite possibly Moses; it isn’t exactly autographed, is it?) — to benefit all of us. He created it and He related it, so I see no reason why God couldn’t have been truthful in relating it exactly as He created it. It’s written in the simplest possible language, structured as a gorgeous cosmic poem, telling the Story exactly as He wanted it told. Children memorize it. They sing songs about it. (“Day one; day one …”) It’s clear and pointed and colorful and memorable.

If you were God and wanted your Story passed down from one generation to the next, isn’t that the way you’d want to do it? Especially to that first generation, who literally woke up in a new world every morning?

And about that. I said I believe there is one account. I don’t divvy up the account into two parallel and somewhat contradictory stories, one ending at Genesis 2:3 and the next beginning at Genesis 2:4. It’s all one Story.

God created in seven days, culminating in mankind on that sixth day (and much of the animal kingdom over which mankind — male and female — was to rule). But Genesis 2:4 — as nearly as I can tell — backs up to focus in on a special creation moment within that larger story in which God created A MAN, male, before there was even vegetation and living creatures to tend. At some time on that third day …

Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. ~ Genesis 2:5-7

Whether geysers, springs or both watered the earth, I do not know and have no need to speculate. The fact is that God created a caretaker for the garden He was about to plant in the east, and He provided the man with an eyewitness point-of-view for the remaining days of creation. My picture — totally interpretation! — of the days that follow (four, five and six) is that God creates fantastic new living things: plants, fish, birds, animals; and asks Adam what he would like to name each one as He does so. Adam has a function in creation, of giving name and meaning to what God creates.

God also gives the man a choice between two trees in the center of the garden that would determine his destiny. The man could eat of the tree of life and live forever (though no mention is made of that option expressed to him), or eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil — and die that day.

Choice. Now whether you take this account literally or allegorically, that point is indisputable. The man could choose to obey or not. This was real choice, life-or-death choice, and it comes in the simplest terms available.

But in those days that followed, there was one thing not good: the man was alone. God was not alone; had never been alone. (The Hebrew word for “God” in the creation account is actually plural, elohim … “Gods.”) His Spirit had hovered over the waters at the beginning (Genesis 1:1-2) and the Word was with Him and was Him and everything was made through Him and for Him (John 1:1-4) — and the Word would one day be named “Jesus” (14-16). Yet the man was alone, and God formed Eve for Adam from his very own side, to be at his side, and to be the mother of all living. You can’t have “mankind” without a mom.

After all things are named and the couple are settling in, they are naked before God because they have no knowledge of good and evil and therefore no shame — they only know God and the goodness He has created and provided.

That gives the Accuser an opportunity — to provide another point of view, to lie, to create doubt, to tempt … and to ruin, destroy and eventually kill. He strikes at their innocence; their Achilles heel.

Why is that choice provided by God? Why was the temptation permitted?

God is love. Love is choice. Real choice. Life-or-death choice. The Accuser had made this choice, and chose self … and in Eden, God has created a crucible of choice to vindicate His love for (and goodness toward) others against the Accuser’s selfish desire and evil intent toward others.

At some point in the future, the Word would become flesh and receive the name “Jesus” (“God saves!”) and fully vindicate with a crushing blow to the Accuser’s head, destroying death once and for all.

That’s my take. It may be pure speculation, but — as I have said in other contexts — it fits all the known facts and I think William of Occam would be willing to shave with it.

You don’t have to agree with me. We’ll still be siblings in Christ if you believe but disagree with me.

But this view of the creation account makes a lot of sense to me … and makes a lot of other things in scripture make more sense.

Do me a personal favor. Before you write it off or fly into paragraphs of objections, think about it for a couple of days. Read the account again. Study it. Pray about it. Ask God for clarity on the matter.

Then feel free to leave a comment, okay?

It’s not like this all came to me in seven days, you know.

The Plan

/ W. Keith Brenton / 1 Comment

I have never really been a fan of James Cameron’s The Abyss (1989), but as someone who grew up yearning to watch Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (on at the same time evening worship started on Sundays) and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (Disney’s World of Color, same time, different channel), I had high hopes when I went to see it.

Not sure anyone emerged from the chilly theater as a fan, but the movie had moments. Most James Cameron flicks do.

The one that resonated with me (to the best of my recollection)?

Trapped in a deep undersea sub-structure rapidly filling with icy water, oil rigman Virgil and estranged wife Lindsey are trying to come up with a plan to get both of them over to an airtight compartment back on the rig hundreds of yards away. He still loves her passionately; she has shown only cold contempt for him. He is wearing a wet suit; she is not.  And the minisub is a wrecked piece of junk:

Lindsey: Please, listen! Just listen to me for one second. Now you’ve got the suit on, and you’re a much better swimmer than I am, right?
Virgil: [reluctantly] Yeah, maybe…
Lindsey: Right? Yes! So I’ve got a plan.
Virgil: What’s the plan?
Lindsey: I drown, and you tow me back to the rig.
Virgil: No. No!
Lindsey: Yes! This water…
Virgil: NO!
Lindsey: …is only a couple degrees above freezing! I g-go into deep hypothermia, my blood’ll go like ice water, right? My body systems will slow down, they won’t stop…
Virgil: Linds…
Lindsey: You tow me back and I can, I can be revived after, maybe ten or fifteen minutes. Ten-fifteen minutes!
Virgil: [pushing the suit collar at her] Linds, you put this on, you put it on!
Lindsey: [pushing the collar back at him] No, it’s the only way! Just put this on! Put this on, you know I’m right. Please, it’s the only way, you’ve got all the s-stuff on the rig to do this! Put this on, Bud, please…
Virgil: [putting the collar back on] This is insane.
Lindsey: Oh my God, I know. But it’s the only way.

Maybe it’s not the only way; after all, I didn’t get to see all of those scientifically-stoked hours of Voyage and Leagues. Maybe it’s just a few hokey moments of pretty good melodrama in an otherwise immemorable movie.

Granted.

But the scene resonsates with me because I have always wondered how the conversation in heaven took place where The Plan was formulated. You know: The Plan.

We can theorize and argue all we want to about atonement theories, but when we intellectualize the subject, we fail to to address and experience the raw emotion of The Plan.

The Father will have to abandon His beloved Son in ultimate anguish. The Son will have to suffer in indescribable physical pain. And die, trusting the Father who has turned His back on the sin borne by the Son. And the Son must stay dead for three days. And then be resurrected, to a whole new and different kind of body, apparently.

Somehow, among all the nice, systematic, logical theories we can muster, The Plan turns out to be the only way.

It is the only way we can be revived from asphyxiation while drowning in icy sin.

In The Name Of ….

/ W. Keith Brenton / 16 Comments

And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. ~ Colossians 3:17

I’ve read a lot of writers in the fellowship of churches of Christ who insist that this verse means that (in the words of at least one of them): “Whatever we say and do must be supported by His authority” and “The church should obey the apostles’ teaching and should not adhere to anything not authorized by Christ.”

Which all sounds very scriptural and obedient and worthy, except that not everything that a church can do (even a lot of good things) can’t be said to be specifically authorized by Christ.

And a lot of things that churches — even churches led by some of these writers — are doing all the time are not specifically authorized.

I don’t really want to get into all that; it’s an old argument.

What I want to ask is: Where does the word “authority” fit into this verse? Which words is it between, so I can find it? Does this verse really have anything to do with the authority of Christ as a prerequisite for doing anything?

These writers’ logic goes like this: because a great many Old Testament verses and a few New Testament verses use the phrase “in the name of” to connote that someone spoke or acted “by the authority of,” that’s what it means here in Colossians 3; it can have no other meaning. (They’ll cite Deuteronomy 18; 1 Samuel 17:45; 2 Kings 2:24; Esther 8:10; Isaiah 48:1; Jeremiah 11:21; Acts 4:18; 16:18; James 5:14 and perhaps some others, and I won’t quibble.)

Trouble is, in the Old Testament and New, there are plenty of instances where “in the name of” has little or none of that connotation; it can mean “in behalf of” (1 Chronicles 16:2; 21:19; Psalm 129:8; Jeremiah 26:16; Matthew 21:9; Acts 5:40; 1 Corinthians 1:10) or “in honor of” (1 Samuel 20:42; 1 Kings 18:32; Psalm 20:5; Micah 4:5) or “trusting in / dependent upon” (Psalm 20:7; 124:8; Isaiah 50:10; Zephaniah 3:12; John 3:18; Acts 2:38; 10:48; 1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 John 3:23) or even “in gratitude to” (Psalm 106:47;  Ephesians 5:20)

The context of this verse is gratitude; giving thanks to God through Christ. Let’s just read a few verses which verse 17 culminates:

Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. ~ Colossians 3:15-17

Yes, the context is worship; specifically the sharing of gratitude to God with fellow believers in wisely teaching and edifying each other in song. It should be done in the name of the Lord Jesus.

How does that mean “with the authority of the Lord Jesus”? Is His authority needed in order to say “Thank you” to God? Is it a command to close each prayer “In Jesus’ Name” or God will not hear it? Was Jesus’ name required at the end of every prayer from Adam until the resurrection, too? Did the apostles all pray and sing and close each prayer and hymn “In Jesus’ Name” lest God not listen to them? Must we?

Is this a command to sing and sing only? Is this a command that specifically forbids instruments of music by not mentioning them at all?

Is this the only way that we are authorized to teach and admonish one another by vocal music? Should we have cantors rather than preachers?

Is there anywhere in this verse something that says everything a church or believer does must be specifically authorized by the authority of Jesus Christ and/or that anything not specifically authorized is automatically forbidden and condemned and punishable if violated by eternal hellfire (as some writers would have you believe)?

Does it only apply to gathered worship or also to individual worship?

Does it apply only to worship? (It does say “all.”)

I think there’s at least one alternative and better interpretation of the phrase “in the name of.”

I think this passage is a reminder that Jesus promised and explained:

And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. ~ John 14:13-14; see also 15:16; 16:23-26

It is a custom that reminds both Jew and Gentile (who have been used to another way of praying and praising their God or gods) of the One through whom they have believed in a God who has accepted His last sacrifice for sin.

Surely we are to be as grateful to the Son as to the Father God; both made that sacrifice.

And let’s just think about the concept of worship for a moment. Is worship something that God wants from us because He has commanded it and requires it and expects us to only do it in prescribed ways with no margin for creativity and so we do it out of obligation, duty, fear and selfish desire to obey in order to be saved in heaven and avoid eternal punishment? Is that the motivation from which true worship springs?

Or does worship best flow from gratitude … from the joy of receiving the promise, of being blessed, of having worth ascribed to us by God and being entrusted with the precious gospel of Jesus Christ, to faithfully and truthfully bear it to others who need it as dearly as ourselves? Not to mention the power and promise that He will give what we ask (and doesn’t that imply a responsibility to know His will and to want it to be done and to ask for it to be done through us)?

Are we not to do all that we do in gratitude for what God through Christ has done for us?

The verse says what it says. Does it mean what these writers say it means? Is that the one and only meaning it can have — that “in the name of” means “by the authority of” and no other?

And if it can have both meanings in this passage … where in the context of the verse are the words that talk about authority?

Yes, I am using a different hermeneutic from most people, a Jesus Hermeneutic, that asks “Which interpretation draws me closer to God through Christ?” and the answer that it yields has nothing to do with the law Jesus fulfilled or instructions God left out but expects us to obey anyway.

And I will keep using it, because it points to the Way, the Truth and the Life and not to the law of sin and judgment and death.

Interpretation

/ W. Keith Brenton / 13 Comments

I just tweeted:

I hope I never reach the point where assumptions, opinions, and interpretations regarding scripture hold equal weight to scripture itself.

A Facebook friend asked, “Can you read a Bible verse without an interpretation? And how do you separate the scripture from the interpretation? Keith, I think I understand what you’re saying-that scripture takes precedence over opinion and I agree. I’m just not sure we can separate scripture from interpretation. Every time we read scripture we make an interpretation.”

I seem to read that a lot. Is it true?

Are we incapable of discerning the difference between what scripture says and what we (or others) think it says?

To me, Jesus seemed to be pretty tough on religious leaders who couldn’t; who added their own interpretation to scripture and made it weigh the same; as if it were God’s own doctrine rather than just based on God’s own doctrine.

When you go to a movie that’s “based on the best-selling biography” but, familiar as you are with that biography, encounter a point in the screenplay that takes wide liberties with the biography for the sake of dramatic effect, are you unable to discern that?

Why should it be different with scripture?

I answered my friend: “You don’t think there’s anyone who can come to a perplexing scripture and honestly say, ‘I don’t understand what this means’? That’s not an interpretation … It’s an admission.”

And if we are honestly unsure, isn’t discernment something that we can ask God for? That He gives through His Spirit?

I’m thinking 1 Kings 3:11 … Psalm 119:125 … 1 Corinthians 2:14 … Philippians 1:9-10.

Am I off-base with this interpretation?

Don’t you think God wants us to understand His word? Won’t He grant that if we ask? Is the problem that we don’t ask …?

“Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” ~ Luke 11:11-13

Or perhaps that we lean too much on our own understanding? (Proverbs 3:5; 18:2)

I’m not a heavily-structured logical thinker; I’ll just admit it. What logic I have is much more informal. But when I don’t understand a scripture, the first thing that I (usually remember to) do is ask for help. From God. From others. Because I believe there’s value in finding out what the consensus of others might be (if there is a consensus), or at least what the possibilities are.

Then I ask questions, and these are just a few of them — in addition to questions about the context/pericope, to whom it is written, when it is written, what its scope might be (just us, just them; both; then, now, both; etc.):

  • Is this the ONLY thing the scripture can mean here? Could it have more than one layer of meaning?
  • Is prophetic language or context in play?
  • Is it a commandment, instruction, request, narrative, parable, question, example, implication, poem/song/opera, historical record, what?
  • Has it been contravened by something in scripture that’s related and more recent/relevant?
  • Do other related scriptures confirm what it says or contradict it and why? For instance, were Jesus and party entering (Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35) or leaving (Matthew 20:29-34) Jericho when a blind man was/two blind men were healed? Or, as in that example, is it possible that two different things are described that are similar in some ways – one going in; two coming out?
  • Does it matter? (A value judgment: “A difference which makes no difference is no difference.” Not always true, but sometimes relevant.)
  • What’s the simplest explanation? (Occam’s Razor can often be helpful, though not determinative.)
  • What explanation points me to God through Jesus Christ? (This, of course, is the Jesus Hermeneutic. I didn’t invent it and I don’t think I named it. As far as I know it’s not trademarked or copyrighted and you should feel free to use it if it helps!)

Well, those are a few of mine. What are some of yours?

And should we believers be teaching responsible scripture reading, analysis and interpretation skills — as well as asking God for answers — a whole lot more?

Still Yet More Maxims of Methuselah Moot

/ W. Keith Brenton / Leave a comment

Methuselah MootRobert Heinlein chronicled a far-flung future’s The Notebooks of Lazarus Long; a few years later, David Gerrold responded with the often-hilarious and equally-irreverent Sayings of Solomon Short. That was all years ago, so I have decided at last to reveal Still Yet More Maxims of Methuselah Moot (although some of them go back as far as the Greek philosopher-humorist Eurippadese Eumendadese).

It is possibly coincidental that most if not all are 140 characters or less.

  • I’m so old I can still remember when a television was also a piece of furniture.
  • I don’t care whether you wish me a Merry Xmas, Christmas, Happy Holidays, Kwanzaa or Hanukkah. I love you and hope your season’s great!
  • Finished “The Shack” last night. Recalculating.
  • Have you noticed that in the advertising for all those iPads and tablets, nobody uses the positioning line “It’s like a big ol’ Palm Pilot”?
  • I’ve avoided entering the ministry thus far in life … mostly due to the fear of being changed from Free Moral Agent to Cheap Moral Agent.
  • Note to self: Don’t try to be too chummy with God today, okay? (Isaiah 55:8-9)
  • Can we really trust St. Nick? According to the commercials, he builds Mercedes-Benz … but he sells Chevrolets. #sleighworknotenough?
  • I kinda skipped the news over the holiday weekend … who’s the new GOP Presidential Flavor-Of-The-Week?
  • If I were a character in a J.K. Rowling “Harry Potter” novel, I’m afraid I would be named “Pudgewort.” #thanksgivingaftermath
  • I would like to shop on Cyber Monday, but I don’t want my computer to get pepper-sprayed or knocked unconscious by ‘Net police ….
  • Can I just honestly tell you I don’t know all the answers … partly because I’m not sure about all of the questions? No? Well, never mind.
  • This morning in class I’m substitute teaching on Mark 13 – the chapter where I once lost my faith (along with Matt. 24, Luke 9, 17 & 21).
  • No, no. It’s okay. Don’t mind me. Just go on with your posting. I’ve got a magazine.
  • I think the chief requirement for being a sports color commentator is a penchant for stating the obvious by using an obfuscating metaphor.
  • Bet that Aflac duck could be prepared for a more appropriate career by the chefs at P.F. Chang’s ….
  • Well, just hate me now. I kinda like Nickelback. And some other greasy shiftless rock bands that remind me of Black Oak Arkansas.
  • My first Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade in hi-def. It’s like being there, but warmer.
  • All of you have something to be thankful for: that I was not cast in a “Twilight” movie, and you don’t have to see me without a shirt on.
  • I am thankful that I am not any more stupid than I am.
  • I know it’s a little early, but … anyone making plans for Festivus yet?
  • I’m really not hard to please at the Thanksgiving table …or any other table. I like anything with calories. The more calories, the better.
  • I hadn’t used the WinXP desktop in my office for about a month. I am now downloading & installing 123 high-priority updates. Est.: 1 hr. 22.
  • I wasn’t going to say anything, but our Christmas tree’s skirt makes its hips look big.
  • My dog has been worrying his black fur so much this week that it looks like a puppy exploded on the living room floor.
  • 140 characters in search of meaning and popularity. Used to be Twitter. Now it’s the Republican presidential candidate array.
  • Wish I could afford to Shop for Small Business this Saturday. I’d like to buy a hobby shop.
  • I think it’s a sign that I’ve watched too much TV recently when I wish the blonde lady from the Target commercials could get a life.
  • An iPhone is a great source of informational illumination … especially when in a windowless restroom and someone turns out the lights.
  • Matt. 7:20 says “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Dear Westboro Baptist Church: Maybe the Lord doesn’t need recycled horse apples.
  • Booing a first lady. Any first lady. Really classy. Suggest we change the name to CRASSCAR.
  • The current U.S. debt – $15 trillion – is that really more than $2,000 for every person alive on the planet or is my math messed up?
  • The more low-calorie soda you drink, the thinner you get … right?
  • If you have multiple personalities but keep them all straight, is it still a disorder? (We need to know urgently!)
  • The economic plight of our country is the direct result of a vast, both-wing conspiracy.
  • I am not ready for Thanksgiving. I am already 20 pounds overweight.
  • My mom was never shy about demonstrating to me why it is called “child-REARing.” #disciplinedwhethermyrankwascorporalornot
  • Grateful to have been able to get – and get over – my usual Sunday migraine yesterday and thrill to worship with my church family today!
  • If we want significant change, we need to start an Occupy A Restroom Stall movement. (Re: 1965 Natalie Wood movie “The Great Race”)
  • People who line up for midnight premieres of movies about teen vampires and werewolves are from the Twilight Zone.
  • When traveling by air and in airports, try to avoid critiquing things with the phrase “It’s da bomb.” #freeadviceworthwhatyoupaidforit
  • Dyslexia messes up your life. Here I’ve been trying to make a difference the last work day of the week, thinking they were “causal Fridays.”
  • Repeating myself wouldn’t be so bad if I just had something to say. Repeating myself wouldn’t be so bad if I just had something to say.
  • Someone going to the premiere please tell me tomorrrow what I so desperately need to know: 1. Who is Dawn? and 2. How did they break her?
  • Angi’s watching an HGTV International house search while I’m headed to bed. She was not impressed that I knew Buddha never lived in Budapest.
  • The problem, as I see it, is split three ways and two of them are difficult to focus upon. But that’s just because I have trifocals.
  • I’m trying to design my own custom emoticon. How’s this? 8^)> … Looks like I’m lying down on the job. Accurate enough.
  • I was never cool. I never cared about being cool until now, and I am too cool. Most of the time. I think a cardigan will take care of it.
  • It’s really hard for me to pray for Jerry Sandusky. I know I should. My compromise is to pray for him 1/18th as much as for his 18 victims.
  • Truth is usually the first victim of extremism.
  • Something you didn’t know (or remember or want to) about me: About 17 years ago, I had two pet newts, Rockne and Gingrich.
  • I think I’m at least as qualified to run as the top three GOP candidates Herman Cain, Rick Perry, and uh … and uh ….
  • Open my eyes, Lord, like you did for Elisha’s servant … to see Your armies surrounding me on the hills, ready to fight for my soul.
  • Today I am yearning for heaven, where news coverage does not have to be saturated with items about inappropriate sexual touching.
  • I just realized that, once again, I am dressed to depress.
  • Long night. Anyone in LR know of a medical supply where I can rent an intravenous caffeine drip? Open early?
  • What’s going on? Hogs having a good season. Cowboys having a good season. #Luck? #Fate? #Karma? #Apocalypse?
  • We need to have a national election to finally determine the only “There’s nothing worse than ….” #canonlybeone
  • Well, if it was “needless to say,” then why did you say it? #inarguable
  • Sorry. I am self-diagnosed with Twitrette Syndrome. It’s like Tourette; it just comes out of my keyboarding fingers instead of my mouth.
  • I’ve been making some really poor decisions lately. (As my terrible scores in Bejeweled 2 will confirm.)
  • Now that Veteran’s/Palindrome Day is over, did you know that if you take today’s date and divide by 12345, the result has no significance?
  • I think I could enjoy hunting in the deer woods if only I could afford a really nice camera with a really long lens. #nogunsthanks
  • … untangled his daughter’s charm necklace without invoking any foreign gods or extraneous dimensions. And with only ten fingers.
  • Little Chocolate Donuts: Breakfast of Champions. Sadly, on my plate are Little Sugar-And-Cinnamon Donuts: Breakfast of Runners-Up.
  • Five nights later, my body has still not adusted to the end of Daylight Saving Time. #goodnight
  • If you use the wrong fork first, no one is going to excommunicate you from the Fellowship of Formal Dining. And if they do, their loss.
  • Yes, Alaska and Hawaii have interstate highways. It is not the fault of the federal government if you and your car can’t make connections.
  • I just wanted to be the first to use the word “turducken” and mention how unappetizing it sounds, starting with those first four letters.
  • I’m a pacifist. I’m a Christian. I am unabashedly grateful for all veterans whose consciences prevent war from becoming worse.
  • The question of soteriology – how God saves us – is not multiple-choice but yes-no. And God’s answer is “YES!” in Jesus Christ.
  • Monsters often have trouble distinguishing attraction from hunger. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • Monsters are not good about cleaning up after themselves. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • Don’t go in old castles or Victorian houses after dark. The odds are against you. And the really-odds, too. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • Zombies can be either superhumanly strong or very fragile. No way to tell by looking. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • Monsters will always kill the sort-of cute girl in the tank top first. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • Monsters also really like it when you back away from them and cover your mouth with the back of your hand. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • If anyone, at any time, says anything about their laboratory, run away. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • Monsters like it when you scream. They’ll do anything to to get you to scream. Anything. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • Don’t go into dark spooky places by yourself and then scream to scare your friends. #stuffivelearnedfromhorrorflicks
  • There’s nothing wrong with being right. But there’s a wrong way to be right. And I know I’m right about this because I’m never wrong. Right?
  • What you don’t know can hurt you … even kill you. But probably not until it has tortured you first.
  • Wednesday is the day I usually update my church’s Web sites. Today, their server is down. And I’ve done about all the other stuff I can do.
  • If it’s my party’s candidate, it’s media persecution; if it’s the other party’s candidate, he’s guilty til proven innocent. #CainMeetClinton
  • Here’s my plan for today: Get through it. (Disclaimer: This plan may or may not succeed in your personal circumstances.)
  • Here are my words of wisdom for today: Stop doing stupid stuff. And let me know if it’s possible, will you?
  • I don’t believe I can accept Jesus as my personal Savior. He’s the Savior of all God’s family. Now about my so-called “personal banker” ….
  • May I tactfully point out the painfully obvious flaw in the logic of your dearly-cherished prejudice? No? Well, never mind then.
  • Seriously? An ice cream truck patrolling our neighborhood? In November? … Well, at least it’s blaring “Turkey in the Straw.”
  • I would like to comment on Cowboys/Seahawks, but pictures, descriptions or content used without the NFL’s permission is prohibited.
  • Nothing like starting the day with a migraine to remind you how blessed the previous 10 days have been without one.
  • Workmen tidying up after siding installation. Hosting formal dinner at 6:00. Can you say #beattheclock ?
  • #MaxLucado says, like David, we can either face the giant or flea. I choose the flea.
  • Thinking of starting an Anti-Defamation League for the One Percenters … and having a fundraiser. Poor abused things.
  • So far, the most interesting thing that has happened to me today is writing this tweet. I live such a wild and crazy life. Envy me.
  • I’m sorry, but all braincells are currently busy. Please hold your query until one is available. Thank you for your patience.
  • Given the choice of being taken prisoner by the Kardashians or the Cardassians, I’d choose the latter.
  • Criminy. I forgot the next apocalypse was October 23 (21?) and totally missed it. Anybody absent? Raptured? Hold up your hand if you were.
  • You’ll be glad to know I’m working on a new book. I thought I’d start with the binding.
  • I’m so old I can remember when Disney channel used KC’s “Get Down Tonight” and altered a line to “Do a little dance | make a little flub…”
  • Total depravity – embraced one way or another by Calvinism and Arminianism – sounds to me like an elaborate excuse for bad behavior.
  • I’m using my “Skip A Day” pass for Twitter today. What? It’s only good for Mitchum Deodorant? Well, forget it then. I’m posting this.
  • You know, the joy of worshiping God is either in your heart or it’s not … whether you like the song, the message, the leader — or not.
  • 17 million Americans are clinically depressed. I’m guessing they all watch the morning news.

It has been said that all of these are moot points, and I would find it difficult to disagree. However, if you would like to experience them as they spring unbidden to the three pounds of goat cheese known as my brain and thence to my keyboard, all you have to do is follow keith_brenton at Twitter.com.

The Verse Where I Once Lost My Faith

/ W. Keith Brenton / 6 Comments

“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” ~ Jesus, Matthew 24:34 (also its parallels, Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32. And don’t forget Luke 9:27.)

“This is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” (Essay “The World’s Last Night” (1960), found in The Essential C.S. Lewis, p. 385)

It was a dark time in my life almost thirty years ago: my first marriage was failing and so was my faith.

Like Lewis — one of the most profound Christian thinkers I’ve yet encountered — I read what Jesus said about (as many Bible editors knowingly add as a subhead) “The Destruction of Jerusalem and Signs of the End Times.” And I reasoned that, since it had not happened in Jesus’ generation as He had predicted, He was wrong; and if He was wrong about that, He could have been wrong about a lot of things.

I had spent my due diligence time in the Harding University library (no Internet then) reading the theories and explanations: that “generation” might also mean “race;” that He might have been referring to the generation of the end times rather than the generation of Jerusalem’s destruction; that He wasn’t necessarily referring to the end times when He said “all these things” … and all the rest.

I read the systems that explained which verses referred to which parts of the prophecy; and which were already fulfilled and which were yet to come; and the reasons they were all jumbled up in Luke 9:21-27, 17:20-37 or chapter 21 but not its parallels Matthew 24 or Mark 13 where Jesus stuck to the system; and why perhaps He skipped about among them and …

None of them was persuasive.

None of them agreed with each other (possibly because there are no book deals to be made in agreeing with what is already published), and none of them was complete and none of them strictly adhered to both the scriptures and the rules of logic.

And for a time, I lost my faith. Like my first marriage, it simply ended. I had moved to another city and had no church home for a time, and for a shorter time I didn’t even attend church sporadically. Sunday became a day of rest and contemplation and recreation as it is for most of the not-believing (and quite a bit of the believing) world, and I liked it that way.

But my one-year assignment in that city came to its close, and I moved back. I missed my church family, and I went back home there, and I tried to forget the one-verse tripstone that had catapulted my faith and me heels-over-head-and-flat-on-my-fanny.

As the Internet became a part of my intentionally forgetful world, though, I one day stumbled across that quote by Lewis. And I crept back into the due-diligence mode, because … well, if you’ve read my self-description at this blog for the past seven/eight years, you already know … I am “someone who questions reality and won’t settle for an evasive answer.”

Rejecting virtually everything I had read and rejected before, I read and rejected just about everything else I could find — and for the same reasons.

And I just meditated on it. I had time. My marriage was — still is — flourishing wonderfully, and I felt no pressure nor desperation. There was plenty of other scripture to believe in even if I couldn’t accept this one, was my reasoning at the time. So I believed again. Mostly.

In time, as all of the authors/writers/thinkers I had read, I put together my own best guess.

And it goes like this:

What if there is no system, no separate prophecies, no skipping around? What if the subject Jesus spoke about in all of these situations (and through His Spirit, in many many other instances of scripture) was in fact one, just as He and the Father are one? Just as there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism … you get the picture.

What does it do to the prophecy if Jesus is speaking of the destruction of Jerusalem as The Day that He returns on the clouds/is revealed and judgment takes place and fire destroys and deliverance arrives but it is One Very Long The Day? What if — just as each sin we commit is connected with the sin of Adam and Eve and the salvation we receive when accepting Christ is connected with the cross and the tomb — what if the moment of each individual death is also connected with the moment of His return and revelation (and also in a temporally-inexplicable way)? What if He began coming in His kingdom then and still comes when each believer dies and along with his angels gathers His elect from the four corners of the earth, taking one and leaving the one next to him or her behind? What if it is not so much an event in this world, but in the nearby world of eternity that Stephen saw before the first stone flew at him? What if it’s not so much an event at all, but a process?

In my reasoning, this theory does nothing in contradiction to the prophecy.

But, you see, that is my theory’s greatest flaw and weakness: in my reasoning.

Reasoning got me into a loss of faith and I doubt very much that reasoning is going to bring anyone’s faith fully back because I don’t know. You don’t know. Nobody knows exactly what it means.

Nobody knows exactly how or when the world ends, or even for sure what that means. Even Jesus didn’t, when He still held a mortal form and breathed the air of this world and loved life in it and dedicated Himself to living it and losing it and receiving it back from the Father so that the rest of us could, too.

Now, you can hang your hat on that truth. Anyone can understand it. Anyone can — and should — bet his or her life on it. It is simple and true. But while everything Jesus said was true, not all of it was simple.

And not one of the authors I read — Lewis included — had what it took to just say, “I don’t know.” Instead, they reasoned. Then gave their reasoning the weight of scripture.

It’s painfully ironic to me that C.S. Lewis — who wrote his children’s novels of Narnia, a world where time passed at a different rate than here on earth — could not grasp the possibility that eternity’s The Day might pass at a different rate than a day on earth. Surely he did not forget the paradox stated by Peter:

“But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ” ~ 2 Peter 3:8

Peter’s talking about the Lord’s return here. You can tell by the subhead that many Bible editors knowingly put over the paragraph: “The Day of the Lord.”

So Lewis made an assumption, that “this generation” meant “this generation” and that was it; it could not mean anything else. It was to be a single-day event, taken or left behind: clouds are clouds, days are days, stars are stars, the sun is the sun, the moon is the moon, trumpets are trumpets. All of that in spite of hundreds of years of prophetic language (and the Revelation to John yet-to-come) where virtually nothing is literal.

And he could not see the possibility of my theory.

Which gives me comfort, because it helps me see possibilities. But what if I’m wrong.

I probably am. I pretty much expect to be.

I don’t know.

Here’s what I do know, and here’s what I’ve learned: Belief is not contingent upon full comprehension.

Some things God shows and some things God hints at and some things God hides for another day.

So believe anyway.

It won’t do you any good to stand defiantly right where He can see you and demand to know all of His secrets while standing on one foot before you are willing to believe. Trust me on this.

Been there. Done that.

Well, now you know what I’ve learned, and about the verse where I once lost my faith, and the reason why my blog is titled “Blog in My Own Eye” and about the absolutely arrogant idiocy that’s involved in thinking that you know enough to judge God based on your own understanding.

Just be willing to say, as I will now say for the third time: “I don’t know.

“Yet I believe.

“Lord, help my unbelief.”

He just might, you know.

He did for me.

Keith Brenton: Ultra-Conservative

/ W. Keith Brenton / 16 Comments

Methuselah MootIs that possible?

Well, probably not in terms of politics, but with regard to Christianity … yes, I think it might be.

You see — as I’ve shared before — I think there are a lot more things expressed by the Lord in imperative tones than just five or six “steps” and BING! you’re “saved.”

And I believe that everything the Lord asks of us, whether you want to call them commands or not, are necessary because He knows they are good for us, will bless us, will help us to grow spiritually and to grow closer to Him and to others.

Yet the preaching within too much of Christianity is centered — not on Christ who saves us — but on what we must and must not do (as long as it’s not more than five or six “steps”) in order to be “saved.”

And I put “steps” in quotes because you won’t find the concept of “steps to salvation” in scripture.

And I put “saved” in quotes because you won’t find many preachers willing to share with you a comprehensive definition of what it means to be “saved.”

Eternal life in heaven with God and a get-out-of-hell-free card, sure. I get that. Most people do. Is that all? Sure, it’s enough, but is it all? What does it mean to be “saved” in this life?

That, I believe, is at least as much of what Jesus’ teachings and example were concerned with as pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by.

Yet when was the last time you heard or read (or perhaps gave) a sermon on the imperative expressed in Luke 12:33? Is that not a salvific concept? Is it not a salvation “issue”? Or is it just about whether your bank account will take you through eternity when you get to heaven?

When was the last time you encountered teaching on Matthew 5:16? Why does 27-32 get a lot of press but 38-48 gets virtually none?

Why do we ignore 6:16-18 entirely? Did Jesus not say those words? Are they not in imperative mood? Do they not presuppose that we will elect to fast?

Is there any one of those things that God asks of us that doesn’t testify to (and live out before others around us) His goodness, His grace, His power to save, His willingness to do so, His love for us, His very own Son’s life?

I could rattle off another dozen, and they wouldn’t add to the value of the discussion because I’m betting you could too. Let me just cut to the chase:

We don’t preach those things because they’re our shortcomings and oversights and, yes, sins of omission — and if they were preached about with the same ferocity and intensity that marriage, divorce and remarriage or salvational step-jumping is preached then someone would get fired for infringing on our consciences instead of preaching hellfire and damnation against someone else’s sins.

There. I’ve said it. And I ain’t a-takin’ ‘er back.

So you just call me liberal all you want to. You’re wrong. I’ll bet I am at least as conservative about what Jesus said needs doing and what God wants for us to do as anyone else you know. Probably more.

It’s what man says about what scripture says that I have my doubts about.

‘Cause it’s not like scripture doesn’t say enough already to convict and still save every single daggum one of us.

Something Big and Sinister

/ W. Keith Brenton / 3 Comments

Arthur Dent: “All my life I’ve had this strange feeling that there’s something big and sinister going on in the world.”
Slartibartfast: “No, that’s perfectly normal paranoia. Everyone in the universe gets that.”

~ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams

I believe the mythical designer of terran fjords and fiddly-bits is mistaken.

There is something big and sinister going on in the world, and I think we all feel it. And we can let it lead us into paranoia and madness-that’s-even-worse and eventually total destruction. Or not.

It’s sin, plain and simple. And if you’ve read very much stuff I’ve written, you know that I believe sinleadstodeath sinleadstodeath sinleadstodeath.

And death is possibly the second-most pointless and absurd and frustrating thing ever, yet absolutely necessary because sin and self cannot be permitted to endure forever and ruin the ongoing effort to bring things back to the way they really ought to be.

Look around. Look at this world. It’s a perfectly gorgeous place on the whole.

Now.

Read a newspaper. Or if you’re not haply or happily literate and reading this anyway, watch a news broadcast on the telly. This world’s a mess. It’s not getting any better.

And it’s all because people make decisions largely or solely based on self-interest, then act on them. Casually, brutally, thoughtlessly — whatever. We act on whatever we want or want to happen.

Sin, in other words.

With no particular preperception or concern regarding the consequences, particularly for others.

Sin.

The single most pointless and absurd and frustrating thing in the world.

Sin has completely screwed up our planet.

And the Person who actually created it (no, it was not Slartibartfast) did not have sin in His intentions for us. It was not what He wants for us. It never was. It separated us from Him and from all the good and great things this planet could have been and that we could have been and might yet be.

Nevertheless He has a plan to restore all that, but it is more horrifically expensive than any custom-made planet built by the Magrathean WorldWerks, or whatever it was Adams called it.

The plan cost God heaven’s dearest blood, His own Son, tortured and slaughtered at the hands of man’s sin — but brought back to life by a love that simply cannot be obliterated, bought, sold, perverted, or turned only on one’s self.

And to me, the fact that there is something big and sinister and wrong in this world is the greatest evidence that there is something — someOne — far bigger and selfless and right beyond it; and He loves without limit and He wants to make things good and right and perfect again.

The way things ought to be.