DJ Says...

With the economy tanking, Obama leading us into socialism (if not straight up Communism - no that isn't a joke - see the definition) and people's fear levels rising, there has been a renewed interest by some in Milton Friedman's work on economics. Specifically, many "conservatives" are passing around a YouTube video in which Mr. Friedman declares that "greed is good".

Although I think that the majority of these people are misinterpreting his rhetorical answer to a rhetorical question, the bigger issue for me is that many of these "conservatives" fly a "Christian" banner on their sleeves. Accepting for a moment that Mr. Friedman is actually endorsing greed and truly believes it to be a "good" thing for society, it troubles me deeply that anyone claiming to be a follower of Christ would accept such a notion and worse, promote it.

As in all things, we, as Christians, are to look not to pop culture for guidance, but to the Bible. So what does the Bible say about greed? A lot, actually. First, we need to understand what greed is. Webster's defines it as:

a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Merriam-Webster, Inc: Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Eleventh ed. Springfield, Mass. : Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003

Selfish and excessive. That should give us a clue right off the bat because that is the anti-thesis of the teaching of the whole of the Bible. What does the Bible say about greed? An awful lot, far more than I could put here. David Jeremiah has a book entitled Powerful Principles from Proverbs which is a very good resource on this subject. He does a nice job of detailing that, for Christians, prosperity comes from God, not greed.

The book of Proverbs makes numerous references to wealth and riches and poverty. In fact, there are two proverbs that speak pointedly to the issue of greed and the lust for money—Proverbs 15:27 and 27:20. The core problem with the wealth game is that you never get enough. Many people get caught in the cycle of trying to get just a little bit more, contrary to the advice of Proverbs 23:4: “Do not overwork to be rich.”

Jeremiah, David: Powerful Principles from Proverbs : Study Guide. Nashville, Tenn. : Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2002, S. 102

And he is correct. Greed knows no bounds. It is rather bizarre that a Christian would promote greed as a good thing. A quick outline from his book:

• Prosperity Comes from the Hand of God - Proverbs 10:22 could not be more clear: “The blessing of the Lord makes one rich.”
• Prosperity Comes from Honesty and Integrity - Cheating someone in business in order to gain wealth is an abomination in God’s sight - people should read Isaiah to see what happens to those who aren't honest.
• Prosperity Comes from Hard Work and Diligence - “Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished, but he who gathers by labor will increase” (Proverbs 13:11).

It is very sad that, instead of following, applying and promoting these principles, some of these people claiming to be followers of Christ instead promote this:

“Greed is good, greed is right, greed works. Greed cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed in all its forms, greed for life, greed for money, greed for love, greed for knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my word, will save the USA.”

That comes from a speech given by Michael Douglas in the movie Wall Street. It was based upon the philosophy of Ivan Boesky, a man that eventually served prison time for his misdeeds. A more current example would be Bernard Madoff, who recently plead guilty to massive fraud.

In What Does the Bible Say About, we get this for greed:

Do-It-Yourself Religion

In a world where the motto often seems to be “do your own thing,” people frequently develop self-styled religious beliefs and practices. For some this means taking a pick-and-choose, take-it-or-leave-it approach to established Christianity. For others it means coming up with outlandish ideas about God and eccentric ways of living. Either way, the ultimate authority seems to be the individual, who assumes the prerogative of ignoring any demand or discipline that feels too limiting or imposing.

Thomas Nelson Publishers: What Does the Bible Say About-- : The Ultimate A to Z Resource Fully Illustrated. Nashville, Tenn. : Thomas Nelson, 2001 (Nelson's A to Z Series), S. 188

This is certainly a "do your own thing" world. And finally, what does Christ have to say about greed?

Luke 12:15 Then ³⁶  he said to them, “Watch out and guard yourself from ³⁷  all types of greed, ³⁸  because one’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”

So the next time one of these fake followers of Christ tries to tell you that greed is good, just tell them the truth: nonsense. And then run from them as fast as you can.

versus man's free will.

Our discussion today centers around God's will. The illustration used to start discussion is a drunk driver careening into a sidewalk at a mall, killing a mother and her six year old. Was this God's will? Man's choice? If man's choice, what did the mother and child do to "deserve" this outcome?

In my studies, I came across this and thought it was interesting:

Albert Einstein, whose name commands tremendous respect amongst scientists and laymen alike, believed in God the Creator. The beauty of order and planning in all of nature enthralled the great thinker. Einstein’s quest was to know “?how God created this world?”. He was convinced that God was not “?malicious but subtle?”. This last remark indicated that it required resourceful thinking and research to find out how it all happened. However, the god that Einstein believed in was not the Deity described in the Bible. His god was a scientific amoral hypothesis, not a personal God interested in, or involved in planet earth and its inhabitants. Somehow a “?superior reasoning power?” had to be associated with the whole cosmos. He was baffled by the paradox of God’s omniscience and omnipotence and man’s ability to make choices. The dilemma was expressed as follows??:

If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also his work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would, to a certain extent, be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

Einstein was simply giving expression to the age old question of reconciling God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility. Instead of seeking an answer or being provided with one by the religious leaders of his day, he opted for an escape route wherein God became impersonal and thus the question need not be faced. He is not somebody who is interested in planet earth and its inhabitants. It is a sad piece of human history in the life of a great man.

Christians face the same problem in different ways. If God is omnipotent and in control of all history, ranging from the individual to the whole world, what is the point in praying? Does man have the responsibility to choose Christ as a personal saviour if it is predestined what he will do anyway? What do we understand by free will? If God is the original source of everything, how did evil arise in the universe?

Does the Bible have an answer to these problems, or does it at least indicate along which lines these baffling questions are to be dealt with?

Alberts, L. (1997, c1996). Christianity and the enquiring mind  : Essays on the compatibility of the Bible and the findings of science. Also available in Afrikaans. Vereeniging: Christian Publishing Co.

Talk about a bizarre 'policy': chaplains at a hospice in Florida are banned from using the word God or Lord in public.

A chaplain at Hospice by the Sea in Boca Raton has resigned, she says, over a ban on use of the words "God" or "Lord" in public settings.

Signorelli, of Royal Palm Beach, said the hospice policy has a chilling effect that goes beyond the monthly staff meetings. She would have to watch her language, she said, when leading a prayer in the hospice chapel, when meeting patients in the public setting of a nursing home and in weekly patient conferences with doctors, nurses and social workers.

"If you take God away from me," she said, "it's like taking a medical tool away from a nurse."

Pretty incredible. The administrator claims she was just trying to respect the faith of people without faith and only in staff meetings.

"I was sensitive to the fact that we don't impose religion on our staff, and that it is not appropriate in the context of a staff meeting to use certain phrases or 'God' or 'Holy Father,' because some of our staff don't believe at all," Alderson said.

But as with most attempts to control people, the law of unintended consequences takes over.

Signorelli said her supervisor recently singled her out for delivering a spiritual reflection in the chapel that included the word "Lord" and had "a Christian connotation."

"But that was the 23rd Psalm," Signorelli said — not, strictly speaking, Christian, as it appears in the Old Testament.

"And I am well aware that there were people from the Jewish tradition in attendance. I didn't say Jesus or Allah or Jehovah. I used 'Lord' and 'God,' which I think are politically correct. I think that's as generic as you can get."

Notice that it wasn't a staff meeting, it was a chapel service. If you can't say God in a chapel service, where is it appropriate? Also notice how the supervisor decided to extend the administrator's policy beyond staff meetings. I call this "policy creep". You see it in every business and bureaucracy in the world, which is why you have to be very careful of unintended consequences when implementing any restrictive policy. For the most part, I've found that it is better to not implement restrictive policies and deal with situations on a case by case basis.

On a larger, societal scale, this is simply another indication of how far America has moved from its foundation of religious freedom. Can you imagine George Washington not being allowed to say God in public?

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

 

For today's class, we are focusing on Isaiah 7:1-16, with the topic being Act on Revealed Truth. As I was studying this week, I noticed wide, and I do mean wide, variations in the translations of several of the verses. Verse 14 in particular struck a chord because it is referenced in Matthew 1:23 regarding the birth of Christ. I'm not going to bring this up because there wouldn't be a purpose for today's topic but it is interesting to me nonetheless.

Check out the venerable King James:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Then the New International Version:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Basically the same. Now the NASB:

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

Again, basically the same. Even the ESV roughly matches:

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

And the Holman, Young's, Darby, etc. all pretty much match this. But when you review the notes attached to these translations, you'll find that the translations are guided more by doctrine than by scholarship. Check out my favorite bible version, the NET:

For this reason the sovereign master himself will give you a confirming sign. Look, this young woman is about to conceive and will give birth to a son. You, young woman, will name him Immanuel.

Quite a bit different. The reason that I prefer the NET is not so much the translation but the fact that they put their translators notes directly in the Bible, so that you can review them and understand why they translated it a certain way. And they generally allow scholarship to determine the translation, not any particular doctrine or creed. Here is the translators notes for that verse:

²⁶ tn Traditionally, “virgin.” Because this verse from Isaiah is quoted in Matt 1:23 in connection with Jesus’ birth, the Isaiah passage has been regarded since the earliest Christian times as a prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth. Much debate has taken place over the best way to translate this Hebrew term, although ultimately one’s view of the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is unaffected. Though the Hebrew word used here (???????, ’almah) can sometimes refer to a woman who is a virgin (Gen 24:43), it does not carry this meaning inherently. The word is simply the feminine form of the corresponding masculine noun ????? (’elem, “young man”; cf. 1 Sam 17:56; 20:22). The Aramaic and Ugaritic cognate terms are both used of women who are not virgins. The word seems to pertain to age, not sexual experience, and would normally be translated “young woman.” The LXX translator(s) who later translated the Book of Isaiah into Greek sometime between the second and first century b.c., however, rendered the Hebrew term by the more specific Greek word ???????? (parqenos), which does mean “virgin” in a technical sense. This is the Greek term that also appears in the citation of Isa 7:14 in Matt 1:23. Therefore, regardless of the meaning of the term in the OT context, in the NT Matthew’s usage of the Greek term ???????? clearly indicates that from his perspective a virgin birth has taken place.

²⁷tn Elsewhere the adjective ????? (harah), when used predicatively, refers to a past pregnancy (from the narrator’s perspective, 1 Sam 4:19), to a present condition (Gen 16:11; 38:24; 2 Sam 11:5), and to a conception that is about to occur in the near future (Judg 13:5, 7). (There is some uncertainty about the interpretation of Judg 13:5, 7, however. See the notes to those verses.) In Isa 7:14 one could translate, “the young woman is pregnant.” In this case the woman is probably a member of the royal family. Another option, the one followed in the present translation, takes the adjective in an imminent future sense, “the young woman is about to conceive.” In this case the woman could be a member of the royal family, or, more likely, the prophetess with whom Isaiah has sexual relations shortly after this (see 8:3).

It is much easier for me to understand what this meant in Isaiah's time by reading and understanding the NET version. It does nothing to undermine my faith, in fact it helps to enhance it because I understand it.

I guess my point is more of a question: why do so many Christians avoid scholarly works like they would the plague?