Chad Bird (Upside-Down Christianity/Spirituality)

 In response to a recent sermon, I offered the following:

Pastor:

I was taken aback by your reference to Chad Bird’s position, as articulated in “Upside-Down Christianity,” asserting “Christianity is not about a personal relationship with Jesus.” Had the assertion been that it is not “just” about a personal relationship, that would have been tenable.

Your efforts to grant bona fides to his statement were, in my opinion, anemic and unwarranted. I hesitate to critique pastors’ comments and am fully aware that congregants are frequently critical of virtually all pastors. However, in this instance, I feel as though you committed an error that potentially misled many in the pews.

I commend you for referencing Jeremiah 1:5. However, this was couched in such a way as to lend credibility to both Chad’s comments and patent intent.

Chad states, “Christianity is not about a personal relationship with Jesus. The phrase is never found in the Bible. And the whole biblical witness runs contrary to it.” The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but the concept is certainly evident. Chad errs in stating the Biblical witness does “runs contrary to it.” 2 Corinthians 5:10, Galatians 4:9,Matthew 6:6, Daniel 6:10-28, among many other passages militate against this view. Illustrative thereof are the following:

######

Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of God.

Romans 10:9 If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Romans 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Romans 8:29-30 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

John 6:37 All the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

John 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose none of all that he has given me, but raise him up on the last day.

John 6:44  No man can come to me, unless the Father who hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

John 15:16 you did not choose me

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice . . ..

John 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

John 10:29 No one can pluck you out of the Father's hand

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

#######

Chad also states that “Me and Jesus prayers are impossible.” Was Jesus mistaken in Matthew 6:6 when He instructed us, as individuals, “to go into your inner room, close your door and pray . . ..”? (NASB)

Chad goes on to say, “Heaven forbid that I should have a personal relationship with Jesus. For I know what would happen: I would end up, in my mind, reshaping my personal Jesus into a strikingly familiar image: the image of me.” The Bible makes it very clear that if we do not have a personal relationship with Jesus, we are none of His. ( See discussion supra)

This teaching is dangerous and reminds me of Jesus’ warning to those who cry out “Lord, Lord, . . ..” It is not, as I am confident you know, joining a local congregation, that to which we refer as a church, that is salvific. 

I am concerned that your message today comports more with Catholicism than the Bible’s clear teaching on what it takes to enter God’s kingdom. If your intention was to impress upon the hearers that we are saved through administrations of the local church rather than the Spirit’s influence upon us as individuals, replacing our stony hearts with hearts of flesh, I believe that you did a disservice to your congregation.

MANHOOD

 In response to recent comments by a talk-show host who described manhood as “drinking, fighting and chasing women,” I opined as follows:

I recently listened to a podcast of your July 20th program, during which you discuss what it takes to be a real man in today’s society. You may not find this directly applicable and I certainly realize that in today’s “Truth is Relative” culture, it may mean little to any of your listeners.

The concept of being a man, in my opinion, is universal, not situational. Throughout recorded history, although there are myriad exceptions, a man is seen as first and foremost as a protector.

Sadly, there are many who claim to be men who are only interested in protecting themselves, if anyone at all. They have no love of country and would rather support China’s than America’s interest. They have little interest in protecting their families. We need merely look at the escalation of fatherless homes. (No, I am not conflating being a man with the procreative-act. Rather, the emphasis is protecting that which is in your charge.)

Furthermore, character, from time immemorial, has represented manhood. I am reminded of Shakespeare’s Othello, in which Iago states: “Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls. Who steals my purse steals trash; ‘tis something, nothing; ‘Twas mine, ‘tis his, and has been slave to thousands; But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.”

Our characters our established by meaning what we say (i.e., “man-of-my-word”). A statement attributed to Horace Greeley may be germane to our discussion: “Fame is a vapor, popularity an accident, riches take wings, only one thing endures and that is character.” 

Although there is much more to be said on this topic, allow me to conclude by stating that to be a man is to be a provider. A man must provide, if others are not reliant on him (Yes, “Him”! Not “they,” “zim,” “zir,” ad infinitum.), then for himself. A man must be removed from the state in which he becomes a blood-sucking leach, reliant on others for hearth and home.

There is so much more to be said on this topic, but this is already too lengthy.

Best wishes,

OFFICE OF THE KEYS

 Following a recent sermon, I submitted an inquiry to the pastor. The response was, “I’m unable to find the biblical warrant.” The inquiry follows:

Pastor:

As a preface to my confusion and request for the biblical warrant regarding your reference to the “Office of the Keys” serving as a prohibition against administering sacraments in your absence, I note, among other issues, the following:

In 2007, the LCMS convention adopted Res. 1–03, which reaffirmed the Synod’s commitment to the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

I realize that in Matthew 16:15–19. Jesus says to his disciples,

“Who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I also realize that in sacerdotalism (e.g., Catholicism), priests, at least from my perspective, continue to ostensibly serve as intermediaries between God and man. One of the primary reasons this position is maintained is because of the foregoing exchange.

However, it is my understanding that Jesus was making a play on words, because Peter’s name, Petros, means rock or stone. Jesus said, “You are Petros, and on this rock [petra], this ‘bedrock’ I will build my church.” They are not the same words. It is a play on words. It was the “petra,” not “Petros,” on which the church was to be built and the gates of hell would not prevail against it. 

Furthermore, in Matthew 18:18, Jesus says to those believers present at that time, “Truly, I say to [those of you gathered in my name], not simply to Peter, “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This appears to refer to the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

In conclusion, petra has a different connotation than petros. Petros, per my understanding, suggests a loose stone. Contrariwise, petra implies bedrock stone. It is upon this bedrock stone (i.e., petra), not Peter (viz., petros), on which the church will be built.

Thus, it suggests to me that Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., “Office of the Keys”) to all believers.

DIVORCE & LGBTQIA+

 Does the Church’s current laxness regarding divorce lend credence to those in the LGBTQIA+ community’s allegations of hypocrisy? The local church, in many cases (the number is dwindling), readily identifies the practice of homosexuality as a sin. However, little, if any, concern is raised when even church Elders are divorced.

I have heard at least one pastor state that he considers divorce to be no more of a problem than having a father of a child conceived out-of-wedlock serve as an Elder. Clearly, this pastor has given no serious consideration to the issue.

The pastor would suggest that there is no proscription against premarital sex that did not result in a child conceived out-of-wedlock. By extension, this pastor naively suggests that if either an abortion or D&C occurs, such relationships would be preferable to bringing the child to term.

Furthermore, such a position reveals an ignorance of biblical teachings with respect to these issues. Although proscriptions against premarital sex are clear, the Bible makes a clear distinction between those who engage in premarital sex and subsequently marry - irrespective of the birth of a child - and divorce.

I would draw your attention to Deuteronomy22:28,29: “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”

The Bible provides a remedy, unavailable to divorcees, in addressing the issue of premarital sexual relations. Furthermore, most people do not realize that the ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the spouses themselves. While the Church strongly encourages members to marry in the presence of a minister, strictly speaking, an officiant is not needed. As long as each spouse intends to contract a true marriage, the union is formed. To argue against this point is to vitiate the union between Adam and Eve.

However, when it comes to divorce, please note the following: Luke 16:18: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and everyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

As we examine the issues further, we note that there are four words listed in The New Strong’s Expanded Concordance of the Bible that address the dissolution of marriage. The Gospel of Mark uses the Greek term “apostasion”. It is defined as “Separative. A defection. A standing off. Writing a bill of divorcement.”

Jesus, quoting the OT, states: “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; consequently, they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:6-9 NASB).

In the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, we find the Hebrew term “garash” (i.e., to drive out from a possession; to cast out a woman; to put a woman away from her husband). We also find the use of the Hebrew term “kriythuwth” (i.e., to cut, destroy or consume; to sever something from something else by cutting with a blade). The latter term implies a cutting off of a person - not being killed, but rather driven out of the family and removed from the blessing of the covenant.

In the Old Testament era, a bill of divorcement was often written. During this era, a man could do this if the wife failed to either please him or if he found some “uncleanness” in her. However, there were grave warnings and severe consequences for any parties who lied.

“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes  and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4 NASB).

“I hate divorce,” says the Lord. (Malachi 2:13 NASB). Jesus informed His audience, “Because of the hardness of your hearts, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery’” (Matthew 19:8-9 NASB).

Jesus elsewhere said, “I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery’” (Matthew 5:31-32 NASB). 

Do members of of the LGBTQIA+ community have a legitimate argument regarding divorcées? Perhaps. It is unclear whether local church communities explore the grounds upon which the myriad of divorces plaguing our local churches have been examined in light of the Bible’s clear requirements.

What, if any, examinations are undertaken when considering membership of divorcees to ensure that they are not in violation of clear biblical teaching with regard to the issue of marriage and divorce? Please compare and contrast the legitimacy of divorcees who do not satisfy biblical criteria vis-a-vis those engaged in homosexual relationships.

One of the pastors to whom I directed the inquiry responded as follows:

Good evening! Great to hear from you; I’ve been trying to be productive and I’m working on confirmation curriculum. But I have some thoughts on your text.

I agree that the church’s silence, laxness, and simply inconsistent response to divorce, heterosexual sin, etc. has absolutely played a huge role in the church’s failure to respond to LGBTQIA.

I would quickly say that I don’t agree with what you attribute to be my view of divorce, premarital sex, children out of wedlock, etc. Your characterization of my views are completely erroneous.

To your final question about membership of divorcees vis a vis LGBTQIA, I believe the church I serve, and I, teach what scripture has to say on these matters. I do this unequivocally and without apology. I’ve had plenty of people disagree with me, say many negative comments about me, and leave the church. 

So the Law is preached. Oftentimes, divorcees come to me with a burdened conscience and we go through confession and absolution. I’ve had LGBTQIA folks do the same. Depending on the response, the Gospel may follow. Or they may leave still clinging to their sin. 

Sadly the many churches that do make excuses and allow and support sexual sin have made it that much harder to speak clearly against.

An example: I was relieved by an ELCA Navy chaplain in Africa. He is a vocal advocate and supporter of all things LGBTQIA. June was Pride month and the Navy literally forced that garbage down every sailor’s throat. So when I teach in accord with scripture (which I believe is every time I teach) I have to contend with him and others and the charges of hypocrisy. 

Those are my initial thoughts. Very good questions and I hope the angles of worldview as well as scripture’s attributes (inerrant, authoritative, etc) also enter the discussion, as I believe that heavily influences people’s hermeneutical approach 

#########

In response to the pastor’s comments, I provided the following:

My views that you deem “erroneous” were derived from a discussion you and I had in the past regarding the issue of divorce. (Perhaps I misunderstood, but you do not identify that in which I was in error.) I appreciate your response. However, the issue of divorcees potentially engaging in ongoing adulterous relations upon remarriage remains unaddressed. I observed nothing that spoke to the issue of divorcees, sans careful examination, engaging in behavior that should be accepted and homosexual engaging in activity that should be rejected. I am simply seeking biblical warrant for the apparently diverse views. The Church in which we as Christians are called to serve is that established in Jesus Christ and the Bible is/should be our guide. I have also sought guidance from Pastor Fernandez this evening regarding the issue. (It will be interesting to read his thoughts. He doesn’t appear to have strong views with respect to these issues.)

True History of Slavery

 N.B. The following article is posted, with permission, from:  https://liberalsarenuts.com/2021/03/27/true-history-of-slavery/. (Author is unknown):

A History Lesson

Asians enslaved other Asians.  Africans enslaved other Africans and even today, in North Africa blacks continue to enslave other blacks.  Slavery has existed since the Old Testament Biblical times.  A bit of history that is conveniently ignored; between 1500 and the 1860’s at least 12 million Africans were brought to the ‘New World’ of the Americas. 

Of these 12 million forced into slavery, less than 500,000 were brought to North America.  The remaining Africans went to South America and the Caribbean.  By the mid-1600’s Europeans were outnumbered by Africans in cities such as Mexico City, Havana and Lima.  A few more historical facts: 

1.  The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Johnson_(colonist)

2.  South Carolina’s largest slave holder in 1860 was a black plantation owner named William Ellison; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ellison

3.  American Indians owned thousands of black slaves; http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/an-ancestry-of-african-native-americans-7986049 /

4.  In 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves; http://www.ironbarkresources.com/slaves/whiteslaves05.htm

5.  Many black slaves were allowed to hold jobs, own businesses and own real estate;

6.  Brutal black on black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years; https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/26/six-inconvenient-truths-about-the-us-and-slavery-n876052

7.  Most slaves brought from Africa to America were purchased from black slave owners; http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_text’book.cfm?smtid=2&psid=445

8.  White people ended legal chattel slavery; This is a useless fact.  Since black slaves couldn’t vote and had no rights, it would have been impossible for them to end slavery.

And turning to the present…

1.  Barack Obama, who has stoked the fires of racial hatred for the last eight years, is the direct paternal descendant of slave owners; https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-te.obama02mar02-story.html

2.  You certainly won’t hear CNN’s Anderson Cooper mentioning Obama’s sordid family history, lest Obama might remind Cooper, the son of heiress Gloria Vanderbilt, that his family also were slave owners; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_Cooper#:~:text=Also%20in%202014%2C%20Cooper%20appeared,from%20the%20southern%20United%20States.

3.  New York Gov.  Andrew Cuomo, who found some Lee and Jackson statues to remove from the Empire State, seems to have forgotten New York is named for one of the most notorious slave traders in history, the Duke of York.  Better tear down that Big Apple, Andy.

4.  Before defacing and tearing down statues became the latest Leftist fad, Virginia’s carpet-bagging Clintonista, Gov.  Terry McAuliffe, characterized the Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues on Richmond’s Monument Avenue as “parts of our heritage.” After Charlottesville, McAuliffe re-characterized them as “flash points for hatred, division and violence.”

5.  “Blacks who were never slaves are fighting whites who never owned slaves over a Confederate statue erected by southern Democrats because Democrats can’t stand their own history anymore……yet somehow, it’s Trump’s fault!”

6.  Recently the brilliant Democrat leaders all took an eight minute knee to honor George Floyd wearing an African scarf.  The idiots apparently were not aware that the scarfs that they had draped around their necks were the colors and design of the African Ashanti tribe one of the largest marketers of slavery ever.

The racism charge against White America is One Big Lie. It’s all about the money, folks. It always is. – The Liberator

WHATEVER BECAME OF DISCIPLINE?

 Allow me to state at the outset that I am neither licensed as nor a practicing mental health practitioner. Although I have trained literally thousands of male and female healthcare providers from various fields, to include psychologists and therapists, I am not an expert in any of the mental health disciplines.

I write this as an individual who has observed, with alarm, the psychologization of virtually any and all crude behaviors. The title of this post was inspired from an episode of “The Liquidator,” in which Jeff Schwarz states, “I need to go to anger management.”

This statement followed on the heels of Jeff throwing a tantrum, not unlike a 3 year-old, because something did not proceed in the manner he desired. My immediate reaction was to think, “You don’t need anger management. You need to grow up!”

Consistent with Schwarz’ character, a female employee became hysterical, to the point of sobbing, tears and shaking, when Schwartz elected to purchase furs to be sold in the warehouse. Please tell me that you do not believe that this response arose naturally from a revulsion of fur coats. It is undeniable that this was a conditioned response, triggered by a so-called “Progressive’s” worldview. Such childlike behavior is deemed endearing to those embracing this particular ideology.

Prisons are filled with those who refuse, yes, I said refuse, to manage their frustration/anger. Like children, when things don’t proceed as intended, they throw their tantrums. Sadly, as putative adults, they often inflict mayhem on society. Too frequently, these tantrums result in domestic violence, abuse of any unfortunate target and even homicide.

Although we don’t like to consider the issue of suicide, this consequence often arises from an inability to cope with one’s environment. There are many facets to this epidemic. However, it appears quite obvious, at least to me, that if an individual manages their behavior, they are unlikely to engage in this activity.

I’ve posted previously about my views on infantilization of society. Efforts to psychologize and excuse infantile behavior in adolescents and adults is not healthy for any societal group.

There are those today who expose their entire families, to include pets, to psychotropic drugs. In lieu of modifying your behavior, why not pop a pill? It is interesting to note that in many instances, the behavior is not improved and those on the psychotropics become more and more dependent on them to make them feel comfortable with themselves.

Dr. Karl Menninger, MD,  world-renowned psychiatrist, wrote “Whatever Became of Sin?” I think that we should examine the question “Whatever Became of Discipline?” 

It is obvious that rates of so-called psychological impairments have increased exponentially. It is undeniable that many children in schools today are taking medications intended to permit them to listen to teachers, avoid engaging in abruptive behavior, remain seated during class periods, avoid conflicts with other students, etc.

Unfortunately, many parents have abdicated child-rearing responsibilities. Excuses for doing so include financial, lack of resources, no desire to deal with childhood antics, etc. Sadly, many households today have only one parent. These are certainly challenges, but not justification to abdicate this responsibility to others.

For those of you who wish to engage in speculation that this author cannot relate to the foregoing challenges, au contraire. I am the seventh of seven. My father died, at 44 years of age, when I was six years old. My mother never remarried. My mother did not believe in government assistance (e.g., Welfare, etc.). I began working at 6 years of age, hawking newspapers, etc. We didn’t want to refer to ourselves as “poor.” We preferred “financially challenged.” My mother worked a minimum of 2 jobs and my sister and I were the quintessential “latch-key” kids.

I frequently hear adults say, “I can’t sit still,” “I have ADHD,” “I need anger management,” ad infinitum. Yes, you can sit still, you simply don’t want to. (Obviously, there are rare neurological conditions that result in involuntary movements.) It is unlikely that you have ADHD, whatever that encompasses. It is very likely that your immaturity is such that you simply won’t respectfully listen to or observe what is being presented.

Finally, it is very likely that you don’t need anger management. You just need to grow up!