God and the Whirlwind

A couple days ago, the ELCA denomination of the Lutherans voted to liberalize their stance on practicing homosexuals. Then a small tornado struck the place where they were meeting. After watching the storm from his Baptist church, Reverend Piper shared a few thoughts about it on his blog. I suspect this is one blog post he will end up wishing he'd not written. It's a shoddy hermeneutic he employs, and his conclusion that the whirlwind is a warning from God is a reading-into-Scripture that doesn't follow from his five premises. I really thought Piper was better than this.

This curious tornado touches down just south of downtown and follows 35W straight towards the city center. It crosses I94. It is now downtown.

The time: 2PM.

The first buildings on the downtown side of I94 are the Minneapolis Convention Center and Central Lutheran. The tornado severely damages the convention center roof, shreds the tents, breaks off the steeple of Central Lutheran, splits what’s left of the steeple in two...and then lifts.

Let me venture an interpretation of this Providence with some biblical warrant. ...

Read his entire post here.

Jenell Paris found a certain amount of silliness in the Piper post. Her take on the matter is a great example of how humor can be a better corrective than anger. And no, it doesn't descend into ridicule.

John Piper explains the biblical connection between the Minneapolis tornado and its target, the steeple of Central Lutheran Church where the ELCA was meeting to discuss homosexuality and church leadership. His conclusion? “The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin.”

Wow. Today the weather in Grantham, PA is “82 degrees, feels like 88.” The humidity is 73%. God is speaking to us, too, and I believe I have been chosen to interpret today’s weather for everyone else in Grantham, and perhaps even Mechanicsburg, our surrounding suburb. My spirit is unclear regarding Camp Hill or the city of Harrisburg, so I don’t think the prophecy extends that far.

Read the rest of her post here.

.

There was yet another preacher who weighed in on the matter. He said that God "causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous." Had he been asked about tornados, I think he would have included those, too.

.

.

Illustration: William Blake, "The Whirlwind: Ezekiel's Vision," 1803

We May Have Pat Robertson, but Islam Has Its Own Buffoons, Too

First off, this is not a joke...though it is funny in its own way. See why this Saudi cleric thinks Mickey Mouse should be exterminated (90 seconds):



And from much more liberal Kuwait, we learn the danger of massage parlors and hair salons. Notice the undocumented statistics and the utter ignorance ("Do women get massages, too?). This one will take you almost 6 minutes, but you'll be riveted:

Bishop Gene Robinson and Me

Last night, I went to hear Bishop V. Gene Robinson speak at the Emory Law School. If you don't already know, Robinson is the gay Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire whose ordination has been a catalyst for schism within the Anglican Communion. For better or worse - and I believe worse - Robinson is a history-changer. He's not a "celebrity" like Britney Spears, but he will be remembered in the history books, possibly for centuries, while Britney won't even merit a footnote.

Despite arriving half an hour early, I found no seats available in the auditorium. But caught up in a last minute scrum, I somehow ended up in the front row - a great place for a view, but not so great if you're not going to applaud (I didn't) or give him three standing ovations (I didn't give him even one). Awkward, indeed. At least I didn't hurl tomatoes, or invective.

And it was draining. When it was all over, I felt like I do after a long, tense, enervating movie.

Robinson spoke for maybe 45 minutes, then had a short colloquy with a fawning Harvard professor, then took several questions from the audience. It's not surprising that Robinson likens his situation to that of the campaigners for black civil rights or equal rights for women. He accuses himself of racism and misogyny, which I guess is designed to provide a foundation for accusing those who oppose him of heterosexism (he said he avoids the term homophobia). Victimhood is a strangely comforting position to be in for many, Robinson apparently included.

I won't attempt a detailed recap of his talk or the questions. In some ways, the non-sex-related comments he made were the most illuminating. They certainly explain how he can arrive at the conclusion that it's just fine with God if you are a practicing homosexual. Here are some statements I found "interesting:"

• "I do not believe that Jesus is the sole revelation of God to man." Other faith communities are also OK to God.
• Homosexual behavior is "not immoral, sick, disordered, misguided."
• "You can't find too many definite proclamations in Scripture," so people an use the Bible to say anything. We have a "flawed understanding" of such Biblical words as "abomination."
• "I believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, but not the words of God."
• Jesus is God's highest revelation. The Bible isn't. [But how do we know anything about Jesus apart from the Bible?]
• Jesus said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to lead you into all truth." The truth the Spirit is leading us to now is that gays and women deserve "full inclusion."
• Regarding divorce and remarriage: "In spite of the explicit injunction against it from the mouth of Jesus Himself," the Holy Spirit has led us to accept divorced people who remarry. [Thus the Spirit can contradict Jesus.]
• Straight Christians focus on homosexuals so they won't need to deal with their own sexual issues. [He doesn't know the straight Christians I know!]
• "It is time that Christians and Jews actually read the holy Scriptures." [The old canard. Besides myself, I know plenty of Christians who have read the Bible several times through and arrive at conclusions very different from Robinson's.]
• "I helped start a group for 12-21 year old [gay] teens."
• "People who oppose me are only believing what they were taught." [None of his opponents has carefully studied the matter?]
• His advice to gay Catholic priests is that the ordination of women is a good first step on the way toward the full inclusion of homosexuals.
• "There are as many sexualities as there are human beings."
• "God is omni-vulnerable."

There was more, of course, but the above gives you a good flavor of the evening. One thing I listened carefully for, and didn't hear, is any suggestion that whether we're gay or straight, we're called to be continent (i.e., celibate) until marriage or something roughly equivalent. Robinson himself is in a committed relationship and has a "spouse," but at no time did he suggest that spousal fidelity should be normative. He'd lose a lot of gay supporters if he were to advocate such a position, and I still wouldn't agree with him, but I think his position would be much easier to defend. As it is, it comes across more like, "People should be free to do what they want to do, as long as it's loving (and not child abuse or other things I don't think are OK)." That position is intellectual mush, no matter how palatable you make it.

And Bishop Robinson does know how to make heresy palatable. He is witty and winsome. He presents a persona that's hard to dislike, and some of his humor is top-notch. His captor the devil is a liar, and though the Bible doesn't say it, I expect he knows some good jokes, too.

When Christians Look Really Stupid

Here's yesterday's post from FriendlyAtheist.com. I hope Hemant doesn't mind me just reproducing most of his post, but it's good as is. No need for additional commentary.

The religious right group American Family Association’s OneNewsNow site seems to have an automatic filter that replaces the word “gay” with “homosexual.”

Because they want to use the more harsh sounding term, perhaps?

So when runner Tyson Gay won the 100 meter race at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials over the weekend, here’s what the news site wrote:

The article has since been corrected.

However, this article mentioning basketball player Rudy Gay, still needs some fixing…

.

On the Nature of Truth: Is Is, but Is Is Not Ought

Provocative thoughts from Thomas Hopko on the nature of truth, and the role and limitations of the natural sciences:

There is no truth - scientific or poetic, physical or metaphysical, literal or spiritual - that is contrary to Christian truth. . . . There is no such thing as "Christian truth" as distinct from any other kind of truth. Truth is truth; it is the same for everyone. In this perspective, divine revelation is not only about God; it is about everything else as well. And created things also are all about the God who made them, and so, in that sense, are revelatory of God in His divine energies and operations in the world.

...

[Two warnings about science:] The first is that natural science in itself is restricted to physical nature and human behavior. It is not concerned with metaphysical, spiritual, and divine things . . . . It says nothing about the origin, meaning, and destiny of that which it studies.

The second warning is that science is concerned with physical, animal, and human natures in their presently deformed [by the Fall of man] forms, not in the forms in which God originally created them, nor in the state in which they will be in God's coming kingdom. Therefore, for example, the fact that a certain percentage of human beings is proven to be of "homosexual orientation" is irrelevant in a theological and moral discussion of same-sex attraction and love. It says nothing about human being and life according to God and Christ. It says nothing about what was intended for humanity from the beginning and will be for humanity at the end. . . . It merely provides data (always welcome, interesting, tentative, and debatable) about sinful humanity in a disordered and corrupted world in need of salvation.

Picture: "What is Truth" by Ron Waddams

ITP

ITP: Inside the Perimeter, noun, adj., adv.: an abbreviation for "Inside the Perimeter," relating to the area inside Atlanta's I-285 loop highway. Contrasted with OTP, "Outside the Perimeter, which is all the area of Atlanta outside of I-285.

.

ITP and OTP are much more than geographic descriptions. They divide states of mind and ways of being. ITP is urban and Democratic; OTP is suburban and Republican. Old money lives ITP; new money lives OTP. Gays and lawyers reside ITP; straights and corporate people will be found OTP. All the cool restaurants and coffee shops are ITP; it's hard to find anything other than chain restaurants and corporate coffee shops OTP. People ITP drive Smart cars or ride bikes or walk; people OTP drive SUVs or SUVs or SUVs. ITP couture is funky-cool; OTP couture is Polo-Macys.

Before attending my Emory class last night ("Wednesdays at Atlanta's Microbreweries"), I stopped by an ITP coffeehouse for some caffeine fortification, grabbed a table outside, and overheard a conversation that could only happen ITP. A youngish man (30?) talking with a similarly youngish woman, who seemed to be his counselor or therapist or life coach or Scientology leader or something. I only picked up snippets over the traffic noise of the busy intersection, but it went something like this:

He: "Yes, my parents . . . family . . . frustrated . . . Do I really want to start a relationship with a pot-smoking graduate student? But I do like him . . . he doesn't smoke that much . . . my dissertation . . . watching pornography and measuring . . . "

She: "An unusual dissertation . . . a bunch of guys jacking off . . . "

Somehow, I found it difficult to concentrate on my book of Orthodox theology.

What's the Use?

A while back, I heard from an old friend. The question he asks is simple but profound: why should we pray for people to make good decisions, stay out of sin, etc., if they're just going to do what they will do? Does it make any difference at all?

Here's how my friend explains the dilemma (edited for obvious reasons). If you have any thoughtful responses, they're more than welcome:

Does free will supercede prayer?

This question comes more from the gut than the head. It has been one I have been struggling with as I have seen “B” and two other close Christian friends involved in adultery. It just sometimes feels like "people do what they want to do".

You remember “A” and his wife. “A” ended up marrying that gal he moved in with. Six months after divorcing his wife, he marries her, but not before he moved her in, forced her kids to call her mommy and (rumor has it) got her pregnant. After months of agonizing over him in prayer, organizing prayer meetings with very mature believers, fasting and all the other spiritual requisites, the divorced wife repented but he didn't. I came away thinking, "I could have used that time to mow my lawn, read a book, clean the car, etc." At the end of the day our prayer didn't seem to make much of a difference in his decisions. From my perspective, we did all the right things the scriptures tell us to do to see prayer answered, and there seems to be no reason why God wouldn't answer this one. A no-brainer when it comes to His Will. Yet “A’s” actions seemed to be little hindered by our intercession. Now I have to believe that our prayer at least caused spiritual turmoil in his soul, but his will superceded our prayer.

And what about “B”? He probably had an army of people praying for him over the years. What he did wasn't a shot in the dark, a one night stand. It was a systematic, organized, pre-meditated, long term homosexual affair and cover-up. “B” was acquainted with every single verse in the Bible that deals with sexual sin. He crammed it down my throat as a young believer. And at the end of the day, "he did what he wanted to do". The Holy Spirit didn't intervene, nor did our prayer for his protection, his knowledge of right and wrong, his intimate familiarity with scripture, his church, his family, his training, his accountability group, his Christian books, his cassettes, Christian music, Focus on the Family publications.... He did what he wanted to do....

So why pray? My time is at a premium. I have cars to wash, lawn to mow, books to read. If my friends are going to commit their sins and the prayer of an army of saints isn't going to make a difference... You get my visceral question....

I have no doubt “A” and “B” heard His voice. I think part of “A” must feel tremendous guilt for having committed adultery and gotten someone pregnant. His bitterness and defiance are probably shielding his emotions. But did God stop at the entry door of self will and only call out? In the case of “B” and “A” it appears so. He didn't stop them from living in sin. At the end of the day he allowed their will to make the final decision.

I was being a bit facetious when I wrote about mowing my lawn, because I do feel I am closer to God through this struggle for “A’s” soul. It caused me to talk to Him more and to wrestle with theological issues. But after so much asking He seems to have said no to us, that he would allow “A” to go his own way...