Perception, Reality, etc.

Excellent interview with the excellent Derek Webb at Patrol's website.

One quote caught my eye, though, and I had a coupla thoughts about it:

My main problem was, well, for example: a study done over the last few years identified a pretty outrageous statistic, with 15- to 35-year-olds who were asked, “What’s the main thing that comes to mind when you think of the word ‘Christian’?” 90-some-odd percent said, “Somebody who hates gay people.”

I have talked to a handful of people who, like you said, have told me “I’m a Christian, and I don’t hate gay people, and I think you’re exaggerating.” That all may be true, and I don’t doubt it—I know a lot of sensitive and nuanced, well meaning work that’s being done. What I’m concerned about is that perception about Christianity. In the world we live in, perception is as good as reality to some degree. So I think we need to work on that.

Let me get all the annoyingly obligatory qualifications out of the way: I don't hate homosexuals ("gay people" is a stupid term IMO and one which we ought not adopt), I think the "God hates fags!" people are ridiculously uncharitable and ought to repent, and I hold that the Church needs to embrace homosexuals with the love of Christ and preach the Gospel that will save them, for such were some of you and all that.

Now.

Is it really an outrageous statistic? And why is the percentage so high? I take Derek to be drawing the conclusion that the reason the statistic is high is because Christians have not been kind enough to homosexuals, and that is the reason that "world we live in" has the perception of us that it does. But is that the reason? Surely it is to some degree.

But there are other possibilities. One is that homosexuality is simply one of the current main areas of conflict between humanism and Christianity, with all the homosexual marriage talk and all. In that conflict, humanists will always interpret any opposition to homosexuality as "hate." When Christians en masse fail to embrace the latest item on the humanist agenda, it is always portrayed as our hatred of whomever the supposed beneficiary is.

It's almost certain that the perception of the surveyed group is due to some extent both to Christians' lack of charity toward homosexuals and to the bristling of homosexuals and other antinomians at any disapproval of their perverse actions.

Christians need to be kind to any homosexuals they meet, and treat them with all the charity due to one made in the Lord's image. They must never be dismissively condemned, but rather told with gentleness and humility the whole counsel of the Lord: their sin is as detestable to Him as ours, and He has provided a way to be free of it.

My second line of thought is pretty brief. Who cares what the world's perception of us is? Seriously, who cares? What is Jesus' perception of us? That's all that matters. Chances are, if we're pleasing Him, the world will think we're a load of moralizing backwards weirdos who are a threat to the state. And they'll want us killed.

Par-tay.

Get the John Calvin birthday clock at Calvin 500

You Can't Apologize if You Didn't Do It

The Senate has passed (unanimously) a resolution to apologize for slavery. The country is falling apart around us, and this is what they are working on? I suppose it's good to keep them distracted from ruining the economy further. Let's talk about apologies.

I do not apologize for slavery; I hold no slaves. The federal government owes no apology; they hold no slaves. There are no former slaves to whom anyone can apologize. Does this need to be pointed out? Really? Is someone of the African-descended persuasion's lot in life improved by Tom Harkin feeling sorry? Should it be?

Kidnapping, according to Scripture, is a capital offense. Those who rounded up Africans and forced them into servitude should have been executed for it. But they weren't. And instead of the proper course of action, we gave 600,000 lives and the Republic that was founded on July 4th, 1776. It is enough.

Someone in the Senate going to apologize for John Brown? How about for Lincoln?

Waterboarding

This came up on a friend's Facebook page, but I don't want to be a comments-monopolizer so I'll post my thoughts here.

If someone can make a Biblical defense of waterboarding, I'd like to read it. I can't imagine how that could be done.

There are two defenses of this procedure that I have heard. The first is that it doesn't really endanger or harm the recipient, and is therefore not torture. The second is that it has produced the desired results, and saved American lives.

Regarding the first point, does it matter if no real harm is done? You're inflicting torment on a guy to make him talk. He's suffering as if he were drowning. That's torture. If the practice is Biblically justifiable, then don't be a wuss and call it what it is and do it. If it is not justifiable, don't do it, ever.

The second point is simply the ends justifying the means. That trick never works. If God forbids this sort of thing, then obedience to Him is not going to result in disaster, and disobedience to Him cannot result in anything but disaster. Let those of us who are Calvinists think Calviny thoughts: God is sovereign.

I'm open to having my mind changed. To the Law and to the Testimony! Someone persuade me.

The Revelation

As I posted earlier, eschatology keeps rearing its head in several areas of my life lately (more on that later), and so I undertook another detailed look at the Revelation, this time transcribing it and working through Chilton's magnificent commentary on the book.

Just a few thoughts:

1. The book has very little to say about the end of the world.

2. The book has a lot to say about the end of the world--the old world, that is. It is so very obviously primarily concerned with the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant.

3. The similarities and parallel structure to Ezekiel's prophecy are staggering. Why was I never taught this?

4. I tend to agree with the hypothesis that the prophecy was meant to be read liturgically and not all at once.

5. Once one is familiar with the Bible's style of prophetic symbolism (another post on that soon too), the Revelation is not confusing in any way. It's actually very, very clear.

6. It's also very complex, in that the information communicated is very compact. There's much more to it than a quick reading will bring to mind, at least for those of us who aren't as Biblically literate as we should be (like yours truly).

7. There is no "battle of Armageddon." It doesn't ever happen, and there is no place called "Armageddon."

8. Chapter 19 ain't the Second Coming. John sees heaven opened, and Jesus seated on a horse. He doesn't "come" (go) anywhere.

9. The whole point is that Jesus rules, NOW, and we will be victorious in this present age.

10. We're very obviously living in the so-called "millennium." I don't see how anyone can not get that.

Bonus: Man, Dispensationalism is kooky. ;^)