Sage Advice on Relationships

All of you should treasure the advice of your elders.  They have a lot of wisdom and experience to share with you.  This includes your parents, your grandparents, and others at your church, your school, or your work place.

There is one piece of advice that a co-worker gave me eight years ago that I still remember to this day.  I was a summer college intern, and she was a middle-aged black woman who I believe was either widowed or divorced.

She asked me if I had ever had a girlfriend, and I told her I hadn't.  And she told me, "Don, the next time you're interested in a girl, you just walk right up to her and say, 'Hey there, I don't know if you've noticed me, but I've certainly noticed you, and I've had my eye on you for a quite a while now, and I know deep down in my heart that I would love to get to know you better."

"Wow," I said.  "That's good."  Such wise, profound advice!

Then I asked her, "So if a guy went up to you and said that, would it work on you?"

"Pshhhhh.  No."

Currently Reading The Death of Death in the Death of Christ By John Owen see related

Ever see a major car accident unfold before your eyes?

So I was on the way to work this morning driving in the leftmost lane, when out of nowhere, a car flies across my view from the right, pieces following off and smoking.  It proceeds plows into the side of the car in front of me, pushing it into the center divide.  It was ugly.  And I'm headed right towards them.

I'm not going too fast, but I'm not sure if I can avoid them, but I slam on the breaks, and the steering holds up well enough that I barely jog around them in the lane to my right, and avoided to not run over any pieces from the car on the road.  Thank God for keeping that lane open and for good Honda engineering!

If you have time, say a quick prayer for those involved in the accident.

Oh yeah, and I'm twenty-eight years old today.

Southwestern Baptist Seminary's Homemaking Program

"The Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary offers coursework in Greek and Hebrew, in archaeology, in the philosophy of religion and - starting this fall - in how to cook and sew," writes Rose French in an Associated Press article.  The seminary is associated with the Southern Baptist Convention.  The curricula is 23 units which include classes on general homemaking, the biblical model of family, clothing design and construction, and nutrition and food preparation.

Terri Stowall, the dean of women's programs, says, "Whether a woman works outside or strictly in the home, her first priority is her family and home," she said. "We just really want to step up and provide some of these skills."

The program has received much criticism.  Pastor Benjamin Cole of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, who says, "It's quite superfluous to the mission of theological education in Southern Baptist life.  It's insulting I would say to many young women training in vital ministry role.  It's yet another example of the ridiculous and silly degree to which some Southern Baptists, Southwestern in particular, are trying to return to what they perceive to be biblical gender roles."

There are a number of criticisms against this program that are simply based on false assumptions.  The first is that homemaking is being imposed on women.  But this is not the case.  Dean Stovall says that the program is one of ten women's programs and "only targeted to women whose heart and calling is the home."  This is not every woman, but those who desire it.  President Patterson relates that seminary wives were the ones who asked for these classes.  Rather than being imposed on women, it is the women who want to take these classes.

The existence of such a program does not mean that Southwestern believes married women are not to work, as Key implies.  If women desire to follow a track that is geared toward not working outside the home, shouldn't they have that freedom?  It is not as if Southwestern Seminary restricts women from pursuing occupational fields.  There are seminaries that will not grant a Masters of Divinity to a woman, but Southwestern is not one of them.  A woman can get a Ph.D. in Theology at Southwestern.

Now, I'm not saying I would recommend the program.  What I am saying is that we ought not dismiss these women who are called more specifically to ministry within the home, and who see training in homemaking, as well as theological training, as beneficial to their Christian lives.

Doctors should not evangelize?

So writes Richard P. Sloan, Professor of Behavioral Medical at Columbia University Medical Center.

"Because medical patients very often are in pain and fearful, they are especially vulnerable to manipulation by physicians who, even in these days of medical consumerism, retain positions of authority in the physician-patient relationship. When doctors capitalize on this authority to pursue a religious rather than a medical agenda, they violate ethical standards of patient care," he writes.

What Sloan is doing is presenting a false dichotomy.  He writes, "being a medical professional means assuming certain responsibilities and foremost among them is acting in the interests of your patients rather than allowing your personal religious beliefs to interfere."  He is pitting religious beliefs against the interest of the patients, but there is no clear distinction.

For a Christian doctor, religious belief plays a major part in determining what is in the best interest of the patient.  For example, many doctors, Christian or non-Christian won't perform an abortion, and not only because it would violate their own conscience, but because they believe it is not in the best interest of a patient.

A Christian doctor knows that what makes a person well is, in addition to proper medical care, is believing the gospel.  Sloan presents these ends as opposed to each other, but proper medical care and soul care do not oppose each other.  It is not as if a Christian doctor is neglecting medical care at the expense of sharing the gospel.

Sloan wants to present "the best interest of the patient" as something that is purely objective, but it is not so simple.  What Sloan wants is to impose his own view of the best interest of the patient over and against the views of a given Christian doctor.  To those who oppose Sloan's view, he makes the following suggestion: "find another profession."

Currently Reading Foundations of God's City: Christians in a Crumbling Culture By James Montgomery Boice see related

Practical Eschatology

"What's your millennial view?  Are you premillennial, postmillennial, or amillennial?"
"I'm panmillennial."
"Which means ... ?"
"It will all pan out in the end."

Most Christians are of the opinion that one's view of eschatology, that is, the study of the end times, really doesn't matter and really doesn't affect the life of a Christian.  Other Christians will use eschatology as a test of biblical fidelity.

In a letter written to President Bush by 34 prominent evangelicals from groups that include Wheaton College, Fuller Theological Seminary, World Vision, InterVarsity, Vineyard USA, Christianity Today and the National Association of Evangelicals, thank President Bush for working towards a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.

This where it gets theologically hairy.  Dr. Jim Hutchins, president of Jerusalem Connection and the Washington-area director for Christians for Israel, denounces the letter, and says, according to OneNewsNow, “I would suggest that the basic theological underpinning of this is super-cessionism, and that is to say that the church is the new Israel, that Christians have replaced Jews as the covenant people of God … [and that] the covenants that God made with Israel and the Jews are now null and void because they have not accepted Jesus as the Messiah.”  Hutchins calls this Replacement Theology, and holds that the covenant between God and ethnic Israel is still in effect and suggests that Israel should annex the West Bank and Gaza.

Richard Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary and one of the signers of the letter to Bush, answers the charge of "Replacement Theology" on his blog.  He writes, "I do not support a 'replacement' theology regarding the theological identity of 'Israel' – I did earlier in my career, but I have changed my view in recent years. God’s original covenant was with the ethnic people, Israel, and that covenant has not been cancelled. We Gentile Christians are not a 'new Israel' in a replacement sense. Rather we have been grafted onto Israel. In these latter days, the Lord now says also to Gentile Christians, 'but you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people' (I Peter 2:9)."  As attested by a comment posted to his blog, Mouw's view will continue to be called "Replacement Theology" by many who oppose his view.

So we have two different theological positions which represent two different policies in the Middle East.  But are the theological positions necessarily linked?  To look at that, let's take a step back.

Mouw's view is representative of what is known as Covenant Theology.  The idea is that God's covenant carries on today in the church.  This view is generally represented by the older denominations: Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics.

Hutchins' view, that God's covenant is with national and ethnic Israel and still continues, represents a school of thought known as dispensationalism.  This view is commonly held among Baptists, Anabaptists, and Bible churches and can be found taught at schools such as Dallas Theological Seminary, Biola, Moody Bible Institute, and others.

I suggest that dispensationalism does not necessitate political support of Israel (which I would call Christian Zionism).  There is a dualism within dispensationalism regarding Israel, and it is best represented in Romans 11:28: "From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God's choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers."  On one hand, a dispensationalist will say that ethnic Israel is God's beloved, but on the other hand, Israel is an enemy of the gospel!

Present day Israel is an enemy of the gospel.  They actively persecute Palestinian Christians.  There are Christian groups in America that give money directly to the Israeli government, and it's a crying shame.  Dispensationalists would do well to remember the first half of the verse and give unconditional support to Israeli policies.

Dispensational theology teaches that the national of Israel will turn to Christ during the seven-year tribulation prior to the return of Christ after the church is raptured.  Given that the Church and Israel are enemies in the present age, why should the Church support Israel?  The Scripture says that a house divided will not stand.  If or when God restores Israel to Christ, it is then that Christians should support Israel.

Having said that, my theological leanings are in line with Mouw's.  George Eldon Ladd has a brief rebuttal of dispensationalism in his book "The Last Things."  Among other things, he points out that Romans 9 quotes Hosea regarding who God sees as His people.  What was originally applied to Israel is applied to the Gentiles by Paul.  Thus, Ladd says, and I agree, that Gentiles are now among the covenant people of Israel.

Though I believe the questions of eschatology are worth studying, I personally don't think that a dispensationalist or covenant theologian need to take one side or the other in the Israel-Palestine conflict.  What both sides should agree on is that we should strive for peace.

Does striving for peace mean that we should work for a two-state solution?  Perhaps, but not necessarily.  There are some things in the letter that I'm not fully comfortable enough to throw my support behind it.  I'm cautious to throw my support towards one particular solution.  I'm not convinced that the two-state solution would be stable, and it might give Palestine the foothold it needs to take over the rest of the land, which is among their stated goals.  We need to be prudent in our negotiations for peace.

Also, the letter places an emphasis on historical, legitimate rights of both the Israelis and Palestinians (and likewise, the Christian Zionists appeal to the historical right of Israel only).  An appeal to historical rights seems rather empty.  Nations rise and fall and are in a continual state of flux.  If you took into account every historical right of every single people group, there wouldn't be enough land even if we had several earths to distribute.

So while I would stand by the principle of working toward a just peace that is found in the letter and I would agree that we should not withhold warranted criticism of Israel, I would not be comfortable with many of the specifics found in the letter.

One thing the letter emphasizes is prayer for our leaders.  Foreign policy is an extremely difficult issue, and we should pray that they would have wisdom in these negotiations.

Most would consider the Southern Baptist Convention among the Christian groups most supportive of war.  According to their own Baptist Faith and Message, though, Christians are to seek peace and to end war, and it rightly emphasizes the importance of the gospel to accomplish those ends.  I think it's a good statement, so I will close with it.

Peace and War

It is the duty of Christians to seek peace with all men on principles of righteousness. In accordance with the spirit and teachings of Christ they should do all in their power to put an end to war.

The true remedy for the war spirit is the gospel of our Lord. The supreme need of the world is the acceptance of His teachings in all the affairs of men and nations, and the practical application of His law of love. Christian people throughout the world should pray for the reign of the Prince of Peace.

Currently Reading Last Things: An Eschatology for Laymen By George Eldon Ladd see related