A short while ago, I wanted to find a picture of a politician who could represent Ezekiel Bulver — a fictional character whom C.S. Lewis once wrote about. We could call him Lewis's pit bull; I'll explain in a moment. I was clipping this story of Ezekiel Bulver to post at Mere C.S. Lewis, a blog at which I offer daily readings from Lewis. I like to illustrate the readings with contemporary pictures, and, thus, I was searching for the perfect politician to represent Ezekiel Bulver.
Following Lewis' description, I needed to find a politician who never bothered to prove that their opponent was wrong, but instead would start by explaining why this opponent was wrong. Lewis gives a bit of a biography of Ezekiel Bulver, explaining that at age 5,
he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than the third — ‘Oh you say that because you are a man.’ ‘At that moment’, E. Bulver assures us, ‘there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and then explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. (C.S. Lewis, "'Bulverism,'" God in the Dock, 273)
So, you can see, I needed a member of Parliament who was well known for standing up in Question Period to attack members of the Opposition and accuse them of fighting for causes without sufficient reasons, while he himself would claim that he and his government had solid reasons and not causes.
I chose John Baird to be a living representation of Ezekiel Bulver. Unofficially, Baird is known as the Prime Minister's "pit bull." Officially, he was the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure —very visible in this last year as he played a key role in the implementation of Canada's economic stimulus plan. On Friday, the Prime Minister appointed John Baird to be the new House Leader —the member of the government who works with the opposition to try to ensure the passage of bills in the House. I cannot imagine any worse candidate for such a strategically important role. Obviously, the Prime Minister is looking for a fight. You send in the pit bull to attack not to negotiate. Ezekiel Bulver is not the man to sit down and reason with his opponents. He will either humiliate them and make them look stupid or, more likely, he will infuriate them and provoke them to act stupidly. In any case, I found it ironic that Stephen Harper would appoint the man I chose to represent Ezekiel Bulver to be the new House Leader, a role obviously not well-suited to Bulver or Baird, in my opinion.
Guess it's been a rather political post this time; maybe I'll get some Bulverish comments ;) If you want to read more about Ezekiel Bulver from C.S. Lewis, check out the Ezekiel Bulver posts at Mere C.S. Lewis. And, in closing, one Scriptural principle for overcoming Bulverism is found in the Epistle of James:
My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because our anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. (James 1:19-20, TNIV)
CS Lewis warned that "until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs" (274). As Christians, Lewis urges us not to be like Bulver, not even to be like pit bulls with lipstick. There is a better way, a more reasonable approach.
It was a fairytale wedding come true for the older members of Generation X, like me. I got up very early on that morning of July 29, 1981, joining a worldwide TV audience of 750 million, to witness the very beautiful twenty-year-old Diana become The Princess of Wales when she married Prince Charles at St. Paul's Cathedral in London, England. The wedding ceremony with all of its pomp and circumstance was absolutely stunning.
As is well known now, there marriage proved to be anything but a fairytale. After the lack of intimacy, distrust and infidelity, they were separated and then divorced — exactly the ending to marriage that we Gen Xers expect to see. Today, exactly 29 years after their wedding (and 14 years after their divorce), while certainly disillusioned about marriage, I still find myself believing and wanting to believe in marriage, in a love and intimacy between two people that lasts a lifetime. There is no fairytale romance, wedding and marriage; it does not magically just happen in our real world. It takes love and patience and suffering and hard work to have a great marriage. But this ideal of a love and intimacy between two people that lasts a lifetime, I know it must exist. I know because this is what the Scriptures describe for us — Jesus himself saying, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." (Matt 19:5-6)
Recently, I put together a list of the Top Ten Bible Readings for Weddings. This is a great top ten list which I've posted at Squidoo.com in hopes that couples looking to include a Scriptural reading in their wedding will find it. I hope you'll check it out too! Squidoo is a fun and fascinating site... and the more people who visit my "Squidoo lens," the higher my ranking, so help a friend out ;) My lens has risen from #8335 all the way up to #285 in the "religion" category.
While reading the Toronto Star last week, this headline caught my attention, "How facts can make things worse." Being a big proponent of "the truth shall set you free," I was alarmed at the notion that getting facts can make it worse. How so? It turns out that the article is about a fascinating research project about how presenting facts to politically conservative people in the U.S. can actually cause them to solidify their wrong position! (If it's too hard to read in the window below, you can find it here: How facts can make things worse.)
After reading the article, I wondered how it might apply in Christian circles. Is it possible that we who value the truth might also be subject to the "Backfire Phenomenon"? What do you think? I'll comment below, but just to review, here are two salient points from the article:
It is known as the backfire phenomenon: misinformed people who are given correct information not only reject that information, but end up believing the wrong information even more strongly.
Part of this response can be attributed to a common psychological phenomenon known as motivated reasoning — when people encounter discordant information [they] find a way to deal with that information in a way that doesn’t threaten what they already know or believe.
So does the backfire phenomenon happen in Christian circles? By presenting facts to some wayward Christians do we actually make things blow up even worse? I suspect this is exactly what has happened in the last 40 years with regard to the erroneous teaching about an end times "rapture" of believers. Thanks to Hal Lindsey's The Late, Great Planet Earth it became very popular to believe that true Christians would be raptured to heaven before the outpouring of God's wrath in the last days. Now, in reality, the term "rapture" is not biblical nor is the concept supported in the Bible. There's just no way that Bible verses like Revelation 4:1 support the idea of all believers being taken up to heaven before seven years of wrath ("After this I looked, and there before me was a door standing open in heaven. And the voice I had first heard speaking to me like a trumpet said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this"). But, when we have tried to correct this teaching by presenting evidence from the Scriptures, it has only made things worse and multiplied the false teaching about the rapture. In fact, it exploded into the best-selling series of Left Behind novels. Now it seems almost impossible to present the Biblical truth on this matter and have it heard. Trying to do so with the novel readers only makes things worse.
What do you think? Are there other examples in the Church where presenting the facts only makes things worse?
Another example that came to mind for me is in those circles where the sovereignty of God has been taught in such a way as to promote a deterministic understanding of reality, leaving us to be merely puppets pulled by God's strings. Though it seems abundantly clear that we are radically free event o run wild, presenting the Biblical teaching on free will — the human power to choose only seems to make things worse (I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live" - Deut 30:19; "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve" - Josh 24:15; "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son" - John 3:18; "Whoever wills, let him take the water of life freely" - Rev 22:17). Though the Scriptures clearly teach that humans have free will, presenting these facts to some people only makes things worse and they then support even more extreme versions of determinism where nothing happens apart from God willing it which serves to make God the author of evil (theologically, an unacceptable position rejected by the early church).
Anyone want to weigh in? Is it true that sometimes facts make things worse in the church? What do you think?
The new containment cap has been installed, but for some unspecified reason the integrity testing has been delayed. I hope and pray that this cap will stop the flow of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I know I've been focused on this disaster for a while now, but I do remain very concerned that this crisis is not being taken seriously enough, especially in the Christian community. The water is becoming toxic, ocean life is being killed, and livelihoods are being devastated. Human folly is wreaking havoc with God's good creation. And look at the rate at which it is happening. Watch above to see how the oil is flowing according to the conservative estimate. Start moving the slider to see what the more realistic numbers look like.
Please join me in praying that the oil will stop gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. I'm hoping for the best with this new containment cap, but concerned that testing on Tuesday was delayed. God have mercy! Here is a suggested prayer:
We pray today for the preservation of the Gulf of Mexico and the lands and waters it touches: Please stop the oil from gushing into the ocean; Give them success with this new containment cap. Guide those who labour to contain the oil that endangers the creatures of sea and land; Strengthen those who work to protect them; Have mercy on those whose livelihoods are suffering; Forgive us for our carelessness in using the resources of nature, and give us wisdom and reverence so to manage them in the future, that no one may suffer from our abuse of them, and that generations yet to come may praise you in the beauty of your creation; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Previously, I expressed how surprised I was at how little of a Christian response there was to the oil spill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, at least based on what I could find on the Internet.
Recently, someone pointed me to a video circulating on the net in which a pastor from Florida claims that the oil spill catastrophe is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy! To be fair, Pastor Carl Gallups would probably say that he does not claim this, but rather asks if it could be the judgment of God and fulfillment of prophecy. (I've invited Pastor Gallups to reply to this posting, and I will post any reply I receive from him. I am very open to debating this with him so that we can arrive at truth.) Let's be clear, to ask a leading question like this is to imply the answer. Most people viewing the video or listening to the original radio broadcast would conclude that Gallups believes the oil spill disaster is God's judgement on the US for turning against Israel. But see for yourself...
The conclusion Pastor Gallups gives in the video sums it up nicely: "April the 19th, Israel celebrates its independence in 2010. On April the 19th, Fox News reports that the U.S. will no longer automatically support Israel in the United Nations. The next day, on April the 20th, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig explodes. Coincidence? Or the hand and judgment of God?" World Net Daily interviewed Pastor Gallups and they got Bible prophecy heavyweight Hal Lindsey (author of The Late Great Planet Earth) to back him up, "I believe this is evidence that when you turn your back on Israel, especially when you've been a supporter, you're gonna see judgments come from God." Really? I object to Lindsey and to Pastor Gallups.
There are at least three good reasons why this horrible disaster is NOT God's judgment on the US: (1) God gave no warning, (2) Fox News isn't presenting actual facts about the US and (3) the Genesis prophecy ultimately concerns the children of Abraham by faith not by land.
1. God gave no warning. Here's how biblical prophecy about judgment works: (1) God decides he must judge the people's sin so He sends a prophet, (2) if the people listen and repent He does not judge them, (3) but if they continue in sin, having been warned, they are then judged. Think about the Ninevites, for example. God sends the prophet Jonah and even though his prophetic message is, "Forty more days and Nineveh will be overthrown," when the people repent, God does not overthrow their city. If you think this through, the judgment-punishment must be clearly connected to wrong behaviour if it is to be effective. Philip Yancey illustrates this very well: "Think of a parent who punishes a young child. It would do little good for that parent to sneak up at odd times during a day and whack the child with no explanation. Such tactics would produce a neurotic, not an obedient, child." So regarding the oil spill crisis, where was the warning? How is the US to know that they are being punished for their policy towards Israel if God has not warned them? Wasn't it clear to the Pharaoh of Egypt why the plagues came upon his land? Why wouldn't God warn President Obama? As Amos 3:7 says:
Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing
without revealing his plan
to his servants the prophets.
2. Fox News is reporting gossip which cannot be substantiated. This article fails to meet the standard of journalistic credibility. Let's get real: there was no significant change in US policy toward Israel on April 19 and not even the Fox article is claiming any change took place on April 19. The only sources that Fox News refers to in this article actually deny that any policy change has occurred! Now, here's the real kicker: the Fox News articles claims that the US has a history of using its veto at the UN Security Council on votes against Israel making new settlements in the occupied territories. Examine the history for yourself and you'll see this is wrong. The US voted for UN Resolution 242 in 1967 which forbids Israeli settlements in the territories and so far as I know the US has consistently called on Israel to stop building these new settlements. Even if what Fox News is alleging about President Obama were true, I don't see how this would be a "major shift in policy" — it sounds rather like a consistent confirmation of ongoing US policy.
3. The Genesis prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with the modern state of Israel. In Genesis 12, God made this promise to Abraham:
I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you. (Gen 12:2-3)
While many (dare I say dispensationalist?) Christians think a prosperous nation of Israel in the promised land is the fulfilment of this promise, they are at odds with the New Testament. (Personally I vote for the NT over and against dispensationalism.) Paul and the other apostles were quite aware of the promises made to Abraham and they saw them as being fulfilled through Jesus Christ, the seed of Abraham. In Galatians 3, explaining how this very promise made to Abraham is being fulfilled, the Apostle Paul declares:
Those who have faith are children of Abraham. Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you." So those who rely on faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. (Gal 3:7b-9)
The blessing of the good news that Jesus Christ is Lord is how God blesses the nations (ie. Gentiles) through Abraham. And as Christians today carry this message more nations and more Gentiles will be blessed. And, to continue Paul's thought into Genesis 12:3, those who bless Christians who are sharing the gospel will themselves be blessed, but those who curse Christians proclaiming that Jesus is Lord will themselves be cursed — well, Jesus changes our perspective on that, saying, "Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you" (Luke 6:28). Sorry, there's just no way that the Bible ever gives some kind of blanket promise of blessing to the nation of Israel (past or present). And I would argue that the US should certainly not automatically vote with Israel in the UN. It is a lousy interpretation of Genesis 12:3 to suggest otherwise. In conclusion, I want to underscore again what a horrible tragedy we are seeing in the Gulf of Mexico, worsened now by Hurricane Alex. It seems apparent that many mistakes were made, many "shortcuts" taken in the construction of the Deepwater Horizon. Human error, human greed and human arrogance are to blame for this disaster, not God. Pastor Gallups looks at the oil spill crisis and sees the righteous judgment of God; I look and cry for what we've done — clearly not what God has called us to do with this good earth and its resources. What we should be able to hear from the Gulf of Mexico and its beaches is creation groaning for redemption, having been subjected to frustration due to sin (Romans 8:18-25). God help us! Please, Lord, stop this oil from ruining sea and land. Have mercy on us.
Oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico as I write today; it's been doing this for over a month now. And only now are some people becoming aware of the extent of this devastating crisis. The Exxon Valdez spilled 250,000 barrels of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound in 1989. On conservative estimates, U.S. government scientists indicate that at least twice as much oil as that has now gushed into the Gulf of Mexico, making it the largest oil spill in U.S. history.
Today we find out if the latest of many BP attempts, the "Top Kill," was effective in stopping (more likely slowing down) the oil. To date every attempt has failed and the human cause of this tragedy is clear. Are we praying for God to intervene in this horrible assault on his creation? I found surprisingly little of a Christian response on the Internet, so I offer this prayer which I used for leading in prayer in church last Sunday.
We pray today for the preservation of our natural environment,
especially the Gulf of Mexico and the lands and waters it touches:
Please stop the oil from gushing into the ocean;
Guide those who labour to contain the oil
that endangers the creatures of sea and land;
Strengthen those who work to protect them;
Have mercy on those whose livelihoods will suffer;
Forgive us for our carelessness in using the resources of nature,
and give us wisdom and reverence so to manage them in the future,
that no one may suffer from our abuse of them,
and that generations yet to come may continue to praise you
in the beauty of your creation;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!" And she told them that he had said these things to her. (John 20:18)
John's Gospel does not record the reaction of the disciples to Mary's news, but Luke tells us that "they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense" (Luke 24:11). I had a new thought about this during Easter this year, but first the old thoughts on Mary and the women who were the first witnesses on that first Easter morning.
"All four Gospels agree that the first primary witnesses to the resurrection were women," says NT scholar Craig Blomberg who goes on to explain the commonly held assumption, that this "detail [is] unlikely to have been invented, inasmuch as their testimony, because of their gender, would have been inadmissible in a court of law." In other words, if you were making this story up, you would not have made these women to be the first witnesses. Therefore, it is more likely that this is historically what really happened than something fabricated.
So here's the new thought: If the testimony of women could be so easily discounted in that culture and time, how much more so the testimony of the very first witness, "Mary (called Magdalene) from whom seven demons had come out" (Luke 8:2)? "Seven" is of course a numerical way of saying "complete"—that is to say, the demons were in complete control of her. She was likely crazy, suffering from some kind of mental defect, until Jesus set her free. In the movie The Miracle Maker, on that Sunday morning after the crucifixion, Mary excitedly keeps repeating the news that Jesus is alive and tries to get Peter to come to the tomb. Peter quite certain of what has happened to Mary responds to her saying, "The grief has made you mad." He raises an interesting point. Could Mary have gone crazy in her grief over Jesus?
Sure enough, doing a little research, I discovered that this point has been made before! The first known pagan written critique of Christianity includes this exact argument. Writing in A.D. 175,
Celsus... says that a hysterical female... was the witness to Jesus' resurrection, which Celsus then discounts.... Origen responds (c. A.D. 225) to Celsus by saying that there were other witnesses... and that the Gospels do not say she was hysterical (Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, 883-884).
If the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in the Gospels had been fabricated, a fiction being sold to the public, it makes no sense to have women as your first witnesses. And it makes even less sense to have your very first witness to be a woman who could be accused of having gone mad in her grief. The best explanation for this is that the Gospel writers are capturing what truly what happened. Mary who had suffered a great deal in her life, being under the control of seven demons was set free by Jesus. She was loyal to him, staying with him through the trials and crucifixion, even when the male disciples had abandoned Jesus. And she becomes the first witness of Jesus' resurrection, commissioned by Jesus himself to go and tell the other disciples which it is claimed makes her "an apostle to the apostles." It is a true mark of Christianity that "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.... God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are" (1 Corinthians 1:27-29). So, yes, of course, he chose Mary Magdalene to be the first witness of the resurrection of Jesus.
Related Sermons
By the way, I am available to preach! As I am no longer in full-time pastoral ministry, I do have opportunity to preach. This blog is a great place for me to explore the intersection between life today and our faithfulness to Christ. I hope it gives you a sampling of what I might preach; here is a sermon I've preached that examines what the Scriptures do say about Mary Magdalene.
Jesus, Mary and Da Vinci The bestselling book The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction and even the claim it makes to be historically accurate is fiction. In particular the character of Mary Magdalene as presented in the novel is completely inaccurate. The New Testament (and even the Gnostic writings) present Mary as a premier, exemplary disciple of Jesus.
