In the Beginning

There has been a lot of fuss in the media recently surrounding Professor Ellen van Wolde, and her assertion that she has discovered a new way of interpretting Genesis 1:1.

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb “bara”, which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean “to create” but to “spatially separate.”

from this she continues to make a few errors:

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world — and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals."

this so called fresh perspective has been thoroughly investigated by many including Mark F. Rooker, Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, Criswell College, Dallas, Texas In his paper entitled "Genesis 1:1-3: Creation or Re-Creation?" (Bibliotheca Sacra 149 (1992) 411-27. Copyright © 1992 by Dallas Theological Seminary.)

The only thing fresh about her perspective is the fact that she begs the question, "If Genesis 1:1 says that God separated the heavens from the earth, then surely it means he never at any point created it." All the text points to is that we don't know what happened before, Genesis 1:1 is an insertion point, the beginning of a story.

This all to say, theological careers seem to be made by getting media hype, or saying the most outrageous things. The nuance of the Hebrew word "bara" - it doesn't really matter. Real theology is lived, and you'll probably never see their names in a headline.

Observations

It seems to me that over the past several decades (maybe even longer, but I can only speak personally for three) that Church has become less formal. The introduction of the guitar and drum set, and the subsequent lack of Organ music didn't slow that process any; Neither did the cost of maintenance on those organs, or the abandoning of vestments in favor of a suit and tie. Many churches have abandoned pews in exchange for stacking chairs, trading even the sanctuary for the gymnasium. Where there were once stained glass windows, there are now blinds to draw down for the Power point. Even the very language of church has become less formal.

Many of these changes have happened in order to be more convenient, others due to the church growth movement have occurred in order to be more seeker sensitive. But I can't help and wonder if along the way we have lost something of the respect for God elicited by high gothic ceilings, and thundering fugues.

Financial Crisis Solved

Leave it to a coffee company to point out the cause of the current economic crisis. Politicians take note, this is the cause not the cure.

From where I stand

If there is a God worth knowing, then it is worth it for me to get to know him.

This is not about getting to know ideas about God or stories about God, there are no shortcuts, no one can do it for me.

Scripture is useful as a tool illustrating other people on their journeys, but it is subject to having eyes to see and ears to hear, and is not plainly understood as many claim it is.

There are many who climb over the fence into the sheep pen, but the true sheep know and hear the voice of the shepherd.

Many have wasted countless hours and energies arguing the irrelevancies of theological dogma. It matters not to explain the divinity of Jesus or the nature of atonement. It matters that he was sent by God bearing the image of God in a manner forgotten to us as a race after Adam, and invited us to have relationship with God, as he did.

Religions have sprung up wherever truth was found, so as to package it for mass consumption - but if there is any truth it is this, One must find God for ones-self.

Community is the essential ingredient of our human lives joining us as fellow witnesses to the image of God in each other, and meant to live in relationship so as to edify and encourage each other on our own sometimes lonely quest.

Politics and Religion

I have been noticing recently how much the politics of "healthcare reform" look so much like religion. According to the media and politicians there are only two sides to this debate: either you want state run healthcare with "death panels" or you like the system as it is, and be damned the poor who can't afford it. It is as though we only have the choice between Feudalism or Nazi-ism... Honestly aren't there other choices? middle ground? maybe we don't need as much "healthcare" as we use, maybe we could use a system that provided traumatic care insurance for unforseen circumstances, but we shell out cash for the ordinary things. Just maybe, but then again while each side employs the righteousness of it's cause in a country where we believe "you are either with us or against us" anyone not locking step is part of the "axis of evil".

We are such a polarized society, because we have narrowed our scope to see only that which we want to see. Sure we value intelligence - the ability to recognize patterns, but we don't look at enough of the picture to see the real patterns. What we need is WISDOM, in every aspect of life - the ability to see the broader picture.

Why I believe in infant Baptism

A good olde fashioned controversial subject

A sacrament is defined as the outward sign of an inward change. Throughout the centuries since Christ, many churches have adopted different symbols to mark the milestones of life - those inward changes that we acknowledge to and with others openly and outwardly. Some such as the Salvation Army live every day as the sign of that change within, and so do not have ceremonies to usher in those changes. Others with great sanctimonious pomp greet each new event from Birth, to Death. I fall somewhere in the middle. I understand that the inward change is the important part, not the outward show, and yet we have been given the "keys of the kingdom, that whatever we bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever we loose on earth will be loosed in heaven". How then can we expect that to be bound which we have not expressed to bind, or loosed which we have not tried to loose.

Marriage is meant as a symbol of the covering a Husband provides for his Wife - that is to say He takes responsibility for her. Likewise those entering a Holy Order are placed under some ecclesiastical covering, and the Eucharist is a sign of our covering in conjunction with our communion in Christ. Thus at the Birth of an infant it is important to mark the extending of the father's protection over the child until he develops and is able to take responsibility on his own, or be placed under the covering of a husband.

Infant Baptism does not symbolize a change in the infant, it is a symbol of the change in the parents, their covering and responsibility. It is taking charge to bind the harmful influences so that the baby may grow in wisdom and stature and the grace of God unharmed. We call this infant baptism or Christening as did Iranaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Hippolytus of Rome.

The Infant Baptism also includes the naming of God Parents, those who will assume responsibility for the spiritual well being of the child should there be a gap in the parental relationship (for whatever reason). They are chosen as faithful stewards of the truth, and not as blind followers, as ones who will not abdicate responsibility for teaching the child to lesser teachers/institutions/and those who do not take seriously the vision of spiritual guidance.

I find it necessary to find someone to perform an infant baptism, void of commitments to any one church or doctrine, but with a commitment to God's truth and light.

it's a boy

Mom and Dad are elated