Holier-Than-Thou Badges

Perhaps you have a few. Such badges are common where one's interest-at-hand is different from the general population. Here are some examples of Holier-Than-Thou badges, plus an entirely-too-sarcastic-and-exaggerated-and-thus-purely-hypothetical blurb from a hypothetical holder of such a badge. The bolded indicates the Holier-Than-Thou badge.

• Point-and-shoot cameras vs. SLRs (single lens reflex)
  "Ha, good luck taking any sort of professional grade pictures with that little thing. Do you even know how to change your aperture settings? I would choke if I had to use a point-and-shoot" And further within the photography realm...



• Manual focusing vs. auto focusing lenses
  "Have fun with your precious auto focus in low light conditions, while my $500,000 focusing screen and vintage f/0.4 lens gets it perfect every time. I could never go back to auto focus."



• Making your own computers vs. buying pre-assembled computers from Dell, HP, etc.
  "My computer is so much more powerful per dollar because I didn't have to pay myself $90/hr for labor. I would choke if I had to buy an assembled computer."



• Linux vs. Windows
  "Bow before me, mortals, I am so cool because I use Linux, death to everything Windows. BTW I am non-conformist for the sake of non-conformity.
"


• Traditional board games vs. Euro/German style board games
  "I'd much rather push wooden cubes around in a non-confrontational manner than bleed you dry in Monopoly."



• Store-bought vs. home-grown vegetables
  "The vegetables from our yard are so much higher in vitamin, mineral, and antioxidant content than your store-bought vegetables. Have fun dying of cancer."

The next few get a bit more relateable to any readers we still have left, mostly because I have/had personal experience with computers, cameras, and gardening and can't think of any others. And BTW, there is a point to this post besides being a vent or a rant; I shall put it after the list which follows.

• Homeschooling vs. institutional schooling
  "My homeschooler read Cicero's Greatest Hits in its original Greek, translated Swaziland's constitution into Latin for fun during his free time, and built a particle accelerator in his closet and has collected 153g of antimatter so far. What does your public schooler do with his time?"



• Cloth diapers vs. disposable
  "Cloth diapers are better for you, better for baby, better for life, and a prerequisite to enter Heaven."



• Avoiding trans-fats vs. Not
  "Avoiding trans-fats is better for you, better for the world, and a prerequisite to enter Heaven."



• Having many children vs. Not
  "I guess those people just don't view children as God's blessings."



• Grinding your own grain vs. white flour or store-bought whole wheat flour
  "You don't grind your own wheat? No wonder you're fat and diabetic."



• Backyard eggs vs. store bought
  "I guess those people just don't view fresh eggs as God's blessings. Oh, and backyard eggs are a prerequisite for entering Heaven."



• Natural childbirth vs. Not
  "BLARGH epidural anesthesia now, methamphetamine I.V. later."

In recent years, I have become much more sensitive to exhuding a Holier-Than-Thou attitude in my writing, speech, and actions. In discussing the topic with Harmony, both of us agree that our miscarriages and fertility woes were a big catalyst in changing the way we presented ourselves. For the duration of this blog post, I will refer to the period before miscarriages and fertility as BM&I, for "Before Miscarriages and Infertility."

BM&I, it was always my (our?) intention to have more children at this point in our marriage. After all, having lots of children is an indicator of God's blessing on a married couple living in holy matrimony, and we were pretty good people, right? Well. Then June 19, 2007 happened and our lives were never the same again. October 15, 2007 happened and set in stone that our thinking would never go back to BM&I mentality.

Miscarriages and infertility dampened our self-righteous tendencies quite a bit. Pregnancies and children were no longer Holier-Than-Thou badges to be smuggly flaunted, they were more like "oh-my-goodness-what-you-have-is-SUCH-a-blessing,if-you-had-any-idea-what-it's-like-to-not-be-able-to-have-that-you-would-spend-the-rest-of-your-life-cherishing-it/her/him." Viable pregnancies were something to be maddeningly but cautiously nervously grateful for, not casually addressed as "oh another blessing here and on the way, sweet, let's see how many tons of tomatoes we got today."

We discovered that, hey, you know, it doesn't quite feel great to hear people on blogs or blog comments boasting of God's blessings and their family size and implying that smaller families were that way because they actively rejected the blessings, in light of what had just happened. And I'm sure these people (I honestly do not remember any specific instances anymore) did not intend to come off that way, but that's the way I read things during that time. Losing hope for our "Has Many Children" badge humbled us in that area, as well as all the others. If it was that unpleasant to hear self-righteousness in one area, then it must be unpleasant in others as well. After all, who wants to feel like they are being condescended and condemned because of their choice of gardening philosophy or where they get their eggs?

I wish we had not had to endure the post-BM&I period, but good came of it. This is how life is, though - God gives us trials to help refine our character. I cringe to think what my thoughts might be if we'd had a honeymoon baby and easy children born at 1 year intervals after that. "Well anyone who rejects God's blessings shouldn't cry about it when they have difficult children. Well those people [who might have untold fertility issues or whatever, none of your business] obviously are rejecting God's blessings...I mean their first daughter is 2 and the mom isn't pregnant yet..??" You get the idea. Post BM&I, there's a greatly reduced (but still non-zero, as we are sinners) probability that such presumptuous thoughts will cross our minds.

In the end, all of these Holier-Than-Thou badges might come to us. I would, of course, welcome having many children, which is the Holier-Than-Thou badge which has proven most elusive to us. But perhaps God thought that it would be better for us to take the long route there, so that we could be fully grateful for what God has given us, with much less self-righteousness than if He'd given the blessings to us right away. But even if He chooses not to give us any more children, at least we'll be much less likely to be self-righteous, Holier-Than-Thou bags of hot air.

Thoughts about Proverbs 30:7-9

I quoted the passage in a previous post concerning being content with little, and here are a few more thoughts I thought warranted their own post.

These are a few verses which I find come to mind more times than statistically insignificant:

7Two things I asked of You,
Do not refuse me before I die:
8Keep deception and lies far from me,
Give me neither poverty nor riches;
Feed me with the food that is my portion,
9That I not be full and deny You and say, "Who is the LORD?"
Or that I not be in want and steal,
And profane the name of my God.

I don't know why, but these verses stuck with me ever since the first time I read them, which was I-don't-know-when, probably during the college years. I suppose the purpose of this brief post is to write/"talk" "out loud" to figure it out.

One of the reasons is that I perceive it as a very down-to-earth and understandable passage. No premillenial, preterist eschatology or transubstantial this-or-that. The writer is able to sympathize with the condition of someone in need, of someone who's tempted to steal in order to fulfill his (or presumably extending to his family's) needs. With a couple of very important exceptions, the Bible is filled with all sorts of imperfect people living life in imperfect ways and thinking imperfect thoughts. With good reason, as I believe is illustrated in this passage, since we imperfect humans are much better able to empathize with fellow imperfect humans.

Another reason I like it is that it seems that it's fine to not take a voluntary vow of poverty, in being a Christian. God does not call us all to be either very rich or very poor. In fact, this passage would imply that it's dangerous to be at either extreme. I do find it comforting that I am not necessarily called to take my family and live in a cardboard box ;)

On the other hand, living in (one of?) the wealthiest nation(s) in the world, it is also a stern warning not to forget God in the pursuit of or the wallowing-in of riches. I also talked about this more in the aforementioned post I linked to at the top.

Being Content with Little

Recently, we had a missionary preacher at our church to speak about his experiences and stir up interest for a Vacation Bible School that would be happening in Jamaica in July. Among other things, he had a long set of Powerpoint slides detailing pictures and experiences while doing foreign missionary work.

A couple of items stood out most to me, and those would be mentions of droves of people being baptized at once or coming from afar to attend services; and mentions of people living in sub-poverty conditions (by American standards) yet being content with what they had. After thinking about it for a bit, I do not think these two items (enthusiasm for the Gospel + contentment despite poverty) are independent.

One particular anecdote stood out to me. He recounted his experience with a Jamaican women with 6 children, 2 of whom she had not given birth to. He showed a picture of her hut, which consisted of scrap lumber, plywood, and sheet metal, probably scavenged from wherever she could find it. Obviously there were no utilities / luxuries such as running water, electricity, climate control. Yet he also showed a picture of a handwritten sign she had in her house, which said something along the lines of "Thank You God for providing for all my needs."

At this point, it's quite appropriate to mention Proverbs 30:7-9, one of my favorites. Usually when I am asked to say the prayer before the offering/contribution, I make some mention of the principle(s) in this passage:

7Two things I asked of You,
Do not refuse me before I die:
8Keep deception and lies far from me,
Give me neither poverty nor riches;
Feed me with the food that is my portion,
9That I not be full and deny You and say, "Who is the LORD?"
Or that I not be in want and steal,
And profane the name of my God.

That particular Sunday, on the way home, we had a conversation about why we seemed to hear such stories (foreign/third world people flocking to hear the message) from missionaries but never as much from people living in industrialized countries. We theorized a couple of reasons. People in such countries: 1) have grown up exposed to less-than-optimal representations of what they think is Christianity, thus growing calloused to the true Gospel, 2) have the "riches" spoken of in verse 8, thus not really feeling a need to add piety on top of their shopping list. After all, we are all too busy making money to go to church and think a few spiritual thoughts every now and then. And let's not forget Matthew 19:23-24:

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

We are no doubt "rich" here in America. Our grocery stores are always stocked, our pantries just as much, gas prices are reasonable even if they have risen recently, we have nice cars, and our houses are comparatively gigantic. Most of us, fully including me, have no idea what it is like to be truly poor. Thus, as Christians, we must be careful to be content with what we have (or much less) and not covet more and more that we don't truly need. There are more important things in life than stuff.

If It Weren't Illegal, Would It Still Be Wrong?

On the way to work a couple of weeks ago, I heard some mentions on the radio about the Arizona immigration law controversy. Somehow my brain then formulated the question posed in the title. I suppose my brain also accessed the memory of listening to some Mexican lawyer-type person on NPR talking about how corrupt Mexican law enforcement is.

One of the purported purposes of this blog is to look at every day life as a stranger to this world, as someone just passing through. As someone alien to the customs that everyone else observes. So let's now look at the immigration debate from that perspective.

Currently, it is illegal to cross the border without proper authorization, and as such, theoretically one will be deported if he is found to have done this. Now let's take the illegal part out and re-examine. Say there was no US law against entering the country without permission. Is the act of entering a sovereign country with (presumably) no harmful intentions wrong in God's eyes? I would think not. I admit to having no facts on this statement, but perhaps many of the illegal immigrants are trying to provide a nice life for their families? I feel sympathy for people who live in a country where corruption, extortion, and kidnappings are fairly common. I rather like that Harmony can take Pearl to the park during the day and not have a significant probability of being abducted.

Obviously the government cannot just open the borders wide and not expect craziness to ensue; there'd have to be some other measures in place to document who's in the country. And we should not just let any old Juan into the country, especially if he has proven himself to be a rather unsavory character in the past.

I wonder how enforce-the-border people would react if the government passed a sensible immigration reform law that made it much easier to enter this country? Would many of them be exposed as xenophobes? Or would it actually be true that they just wanted the law to be enforced for their safety? I would hope it would be the latter.

Today's Facebook Status....

... for our church:

Brief Bible Byte for July 31, 2010: Ezra 7:10 - "For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to practice it, and to teach His statutes and ordinances in Israel." This great prophet recognized that all three of these were important - studying, practicing, and teaching the law of the Lord. Setting our own hearts to do the same will help us be pleasing to God.

I love reading through all my friends' facebook updates and then seeing the "Bible Byte" from the church. I remember my parents being surprised that our congregation even had a facebook page. We're on the more conservative side, but that doesn't mean that we shun technology when we can use it to spread the Gospel. ;-)

Interpreting the passages we don't like

We all have them: Bible verses we wish God had left out. Maybe for you it's the violent wars God sent the Israelites on in the Old Testament. Maybe it's homosexuality, the role of women, or divorce and remarriage. And over the years Christians have found many creative and (I believe) dangerous excuses to avoid having to follow those passages.

Today in our Bible class, we discussed a very difficult passage, and it was interesting to see the gut reactions of others in the class. The passage was 1 Timothy 2:9-10, which reads,

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

For some inexplicable reason, this verse is like dynamite. Every time I've tried to have a discussion about this verse with another woman, it becomes an excuse fest. "God certainly couldn't have meant it like that."

Perhaps they're all right, but I would like to see a sound argument for that case rather than a knee jerk reaction without any substance.

Several of them said that it was a cultural thing. I admit to being a bit biased against cultural arguments. We present the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, a living and active document that applies today just like it did 2000 years ago... and then we want to throw out a paragraph or a chapter here or there because it "doesn't apply anymore". I think we need to be very careful when we throw out "culture" as a reason to not follow a passage... and I think in this instance the argument falls very flat. Those same people who think that verses 9 and 10 are cultural and therefore don't need to be followed would defend verses 11 and 12 (which say that women can't teach or have authority over men) to their graves. Yet how many modern denominations have decided that verses 11 and 12 are cultural, too? I think you have to make up your mind. Either the entire passage is cultural, or none of it is.

Another argument that someone brought up was that in a similar passage in 1 Peter 3, Peter doesn't mention pearls. The person said, in a somewhat ironic voice, that Peter apparently didn't have a problem with pearls. The implication was that because Peter and Paul couldn't agree, none of it applied. If that's the standard, we need to rethink our views of sin! Jesus' list of what makes a man unclean in Mark 7 differs from Paul's acts of the flesh in Galatians 5 and John's list of the sinners who are cast into the fire in Revelation 21. Jesus apparently approves of witchcraft, John and Paul approve of theft, and Paul and Jesus approve of lying.

Obviously, picking and choosing between different verses will get you into loads of trouble. Peter doesn't trump Paul, John doesn't trump Jesus, and just because Jesus doesn't mention something doesn't mean that we all get a pass from it when one of the Apostles mentions it in a subsequent letter.

My intent is not to pick on these people - all of whom I believe are honestly trying to live the way God desires - but I think that the discussion today is illustrative of the way many difficult passages are approached in modern Christianity, and it disturbs me. We need to decide how we will interpret the Scriptures and then be consistent in our application of those principles.

Have you seen Christians (or maybe you find yourself) making excuses for following a particular Bible verse? What excuses do we use? How can we fix this? Does it even need to be fixed?

More Thoughts on Headcovering

If you've been a reader of this blog for a long time, you probably know that I wear a head covering when I pray. I have also recently begun wearing one during worship services, and I am currently (and very reluctantly) toying with the idea of wearing one more often, perhaps all the time. This is a serious matter to me, and I have been thinking through it for a long time. My head is full of all the thoughts I have on this right now, so I decided that if I put all of it down in 1's and 0's it might help me sort through my thoughts.

This is going to be long, and I'm not going to break it down into more than one post (because, really, anyone who is interested in reading this post will probably not care how long it is, and the rest of you probably wish I would stop cluttering my blog up with posts about headcovering!).

First, the reasons against wearing a covering full-time:

1. It is not commanded in the Bible. There, that was easy. ;-) There are verses commanding the Corinthian women to wear a covering when praying or prophesying, and I believe those verses apply to today (see my reasons why here), but to my knowledge, no where in the Bible does God command any group of women to wear a covering all the time. This is the only good reason I have, because my other reasons are
   
2. I don't want to
3. It's weird
4. I really don't want to
5. I look stupid in hats, scarves, and pretty much anything else that might be considered a covering
6. All of the above, especially 2 and 4.

But if it's not a direct Biblical command, why am I even considering it? Because the Bible isn't just a rule book. Sometimes God doesn't spell out a rule in the Bible, and yet we still are guided by godly principles that make the rule a good idea, even if it isn't an explicit Thou Shalt or Thou Shalt Not. The best example I can give of this is abortion. There is NO command in the Bible forbidding abortion, but the Scriptures are littered with verses that demonstrate that God values the lives of the unborn. The question for me is whether there is enough Biblical evidence to support full-time Christian head covering.

So what is the case for covering? I think there are several points that might make it a good idea:

1. 1 Thessalonians 5:17 - "Pray without ceasing." If I am supposed to wear a covering when I pray, and if I am supposed to pray without ceasing, then it seems to follow that I should wear a covering all the time.
2. Old Testament examples - we see from Old Testament examples (and extra-Biblical Jewish accounts) that it was the Jewish custom for women to be veiled all the time. We are not Jews, but based on what many commentators think Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 11, I think the Old Testament evidence is important.
   
3. Modesty. Obviously, we are not required to wear a covering for modesty, but we are commanded to dress modestly. So depending on whether hair is sensual or not (and I'll leave that up to the men to decide), you could make a case for covering separate and apart (haha) from 1 Corinthians 11.
   

Let's look at these in more detail.

1. "Pray without ceasing."

Honestly, I think this one speaks for itself. A woman should pray with her head covered, and Christians should pray without ceasing. It seems simple enough to me. But 1 Thessalonians 5:17 is widely considered to be hyperbole - obviously Christians are not praying all the time. But even with this verse only encouraging us to pray often and not being a command to spend every minute in prayer, I think this applies. Since developing a conviction about wearing a covering while praying, I have noticed that I don't pray as much as I used to. The reason for this is very simple: if I'm not already wearing a covering, I tell myself that I'll pray about it later, when I have my covering on. But I forget, or life happens, and it never quite gets done. I really think wearing a covering most or all of the day would improve my prayer life. Perhaps you are different, but this is probably the best argument for me on the subject.

2. Old Testament examples/Jewish tradition

Numbers 5:18 - And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD and unbind the hair of the woman's head and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. And in his hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse.

The Hebrew word translated "unbind" in the ESV means to uncover, or to make naked. The sense is that the priest has to take off her veil. Now if we're going to be nit-picky about this verse, we could say that the priest was required to hold to the letter of the law, and so one could say that the necessary inference (pardon my use of CENI *smile*) of this verse is that Jewish women should otherwise be veiled. The removal of her veil is supposed to be shameful, as though he had taken off more clothing. He is making her head naked. That assumes that she is accustomed to wearing something on her head. Have you ever made a comment that you felt naked without your watch, or your glasses? You wear it all the time, so often that it becomes part of your normal attire. If that was not the way OT women felt about their veil, then this verse would make no sense.

Likewise, Isaiah 47:2 ("Take the millstones and grind flour, put off your veil, strip off your robe, uncover your legs, pass through the rivers.") speaks of taking off a veil, and then goes into verse 3, where God explains the humiliation and disgrace involved in removing a veil: "Your nakedness shall be uncovered, and your disgrace shall be seen. I will take vengeance, and I will spare no one." So to the Jewish women (and to God, it seems), the veil was a necessary article of clothing. It was universally worn, and to remove it in public was a humiliation.

Now let's relate that to 1 Corinthians 11. As I discussed before, Greeks and Romans covered their heads far less often than Jews, and Greek women in particular didn't cover during worship. The city of Corinth is in Greece, and the predominant culture would probably have been Greek. Many of the commentors I've read have suggested that Paul is addressing the Christian women attempting to emulate the Greek custom of worship, and that's what he took issue with. McGarvey says,

"The Jew and the Roman worshipped with covered, and the Greek with uncovered, head. Naturally a dispute would arise as to which custom was right. Moreover, as the women were beyond all doubt acquainted with the principle that there is neither male nor female in the spiritual realm (Gal 3:28), they seem to have added to the confusion by taking sides in the controversy, so that some of them asserted the right to worship with uncovered heads after the fashion of the Greeks."

So, potentially, what Paul is doing in 1 Corinthains 11 is judging between the customs of the surrounding cultures. Which is right? Paul says it's the Jewish custom. Why does he say this? In other matters (circumcision, meat sacrificed to idols, etc) he takes the Gentile side, so that makes it even more clear to me that he is judging the Jewish custom to be right in God's eyes. And that makes me wonder if we shouldn't give the Old Testament examples more weight.

3. Modesty

"[W]omen should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire," 1 Timothy 2:9

Modest dress is essential for a Christian woman. So if it is immodest to uncover my head, then I ought to wear a covering. But that's a sticky subject. I think most people would agree that a woman is more modest with her hair covered, but does it necessarily follow that an uncovered woman is immodest? I don't know. Some cultures (Muslim, Amish, Anabaptist) certainly believe so, but my gut feeling is that most men in America wouldn't say anything of the sort.

Among men who completed the Modesty Survey (Christian men, mostly younger men), 61% agreed that a woman playing with her hair is not a stumbling block. This means that 39% thought that at least in some ways, playing with hair could be tempting. So I think you could make a case for a head covering being a modesty issue, in which case wearing it in church or just when you pray isn't going to cut it.

I admit to being drawn to the Jewish idea that

"the bride and groom are totally and utterly dedicated to each other in a holy coupling. This dedication manifests itself in both an internal and an external form, in many ways, and for both partners.

One of these ways is by a woman covering her hair, which is viewed by Judaism as a sensual and private part of a married woman’s appearance. By covering her hair (even with a wig, which may be mistaken for real hair*) a woman is expressing her exclusive devotion, love for, and unique connection to her husband."

I'm a hopeless romantic, so the idea of a covering not only representing my obedience to God, but also my devotion to my husband, is incredibly appealing. But it is a tradition of man and not a command of God, as lovely as the symbolism is.

(*J, if you're reading this, I thought that was especially interesting given your conversation with your Orthodox Jewish friend....)

...

And so I wonder. To cover or not to cover. My conclusion is that the reasons to cover probably outweigh the reasons not to (especially reasons 2-6). The issue of my prayer life seems to be the biggest pro. I think I probably ought to wear a covering more often for that reason alone. All the time? Well, I don't know. I'm not there yet. And I really, really wish I looked better in hats and scarves. I'm also a bit scared of telling family (not the family that reads this blog, but other family) and friends who have known me for ages. This is such a small thing, but it seems like a complete upheaval in my life that I can imagine certain family members making a stink about. I hope they don't. It was hard enough to start wearing one at church, and there are even other women at church who cover!

But if I need to wear a hat or a scarf in order to more closely follow Christ, then that is what I must do.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, "The just shall live by faith."

Headcovering the Reprise, Part 2

Continued from part 1

2. Head covering is a cultural custom not applicable today

There are two main reasons (aside from the fact that culture/custom arguments against Biblical teaching almost always lead us away from the will of God) why I think this is a weak argument.

A. The history of the veil

First let's address the first century customs regarding veiling. An excellent resource I found for this is a dissertation on the book of 1 Corinthians. The pertinent section is here, about halfway down the page. Please read the entire thing, but in case you're pressed for time here are some gems:

"In addition, 41 pictures show 63 Roman women from art objects ranging in date from the eighth century B.C. to the sixth century A.D. [....] An examination of the data in the tables reveals that there was no uniform practice [regarding headcovering] in either Greek or Roman customs."


"It is sometimes maintained that for a Greek woman to appear in public bareheaded was a sign that she was a prostitute [...]. Zinserling's work contains nine illustrations of Greek hetaerae (i.e., 'companions') taken mostly from Greek pottery; these show thirteen women and date from the sixth to the fourth century B.C. Of these one is bareheaded, six are wearing headbands and six are wearing a special type of headdress shaped something like a horn-of-plenty. [....] Still further, Zinserling's book contains eight pictures that show fifteen Greek women in various acts of worship. A picture dating from the fifteenth century B shows three Cretean women worshiping at a tree, one bareheaded, one with a headband, and one with head covered."


"Jewish women, as well as most women in Tarsus and to the east of there, did wear a head covering in distinction to the Greek custom, a fact worth mentioning since there was a Jewish community in Corinth (cf. Acts 18:4-5). It would seem that most oriental women covered their heads in public, in the east if not in Corinth. Philo [...], a first century Alexandrian Jew, describes the head-covering (επίκρανον) as "the symbol of modesty, regularly worn by women who are wholly innocent"; and it is related that a certain woman named Qimchith, who was the high priest's mother, was always veiled, even in the house [...]."

So it appears that the strongest community of head coverers in ancient Corinth were the Jews. And we are well aware of how much Paul liked pushing Jewish custom onto Gentiles. Oh wait. That was the Judaizers.

So to me the cultural argument falls flat right there, but in case you're not convinced let's examine church history. First, what did the church fathers have to say about this passage? Tertullian had the most to say, and I'm more interested in what his writings say about church culture than his exact positions. Specifically, that the controversy in Tertullian's day was not over whether women ought to cover when praying, but over whether the covering could be sheer, whether women needed to be veiled all the time or just in prayer, and whether the command applied to married women only (hence the title On The Veiling of Virgins). Tertullian took the conservative position on all those issues, by the way.

In later centuries, Christian women continued to be veiled. Do a google image search sometime for "woman praying" and compare the modern images to those from previous centuries. I went through about 20 pages and the earliest I could find an uncovered woman was around 1890. All the older paintings and pictures show women in veils, bonnets, or hats. Let that sink in for a minute. From the mid first century through the late 19th century, virtually all Christian women covered themselves. For one thousand eight hundred years. And we think we can dismiss it as custom just like that?

Obviously, though, 1800 years of custom isn't Scripture. But 1 Corinthians 11 is, so a custom argument is going to have to be pretty strong to overturn it.

B. Paul's argument

Paul is a master of making a case. He's like a lawyer, laying out all the facts just so, and 1 Corinthians 11 is no exception. Here is the reasoning he gives:

1. The order of creation: "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (verses 8-9); "For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God." (verse 12)
   
2. Angels: "For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (verse 10)
3. God's natural order: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering." (verses 14-15)
4. The way things are done: "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God." (verse 16)

Now, aside from the last point, those seem to be incredibly timeless reasons. How can you argue that the order of creation has changed, or that "the very nature of things" is cultural? No, Paul's point here is obviously that God designed things this way, so therefore we ought to obey Him.

Now if we believe that Paul was inspired by God to write this, then we must conclude that Paul's point is God's point. And the only thing to do then is obey.

Headcovering the Reprise, Part 1

I tackled head covering nearly three years ago, and it's been a while since we stirred up trouble on the blog, so I thought I'd revisit the subject. Actually, this was prompted by some events going on in "real" life right now and some conversations I've had in the past week. And because I think at least one regular reader will would appreciate it right now. I will attempt to refute the two main objections made against Christian women wearing a covering.

1. Hair is a woman's covering

The root of this objection comes from 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, which says,

"Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering."

Well that seems pretty clear-cut, doesn't it? But there are a few problems. First, it's using one verse to refute the rest of the passage. Verses 5-6 say,

"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head."

So if hair is the covering the passage is referring to, these verses make no sense. "If a woman doesn't have long hair she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off, she should have long hair." That's just ridiculous - but it's what this argument is making Paul say.

Moreover, the people who make this argument never seem to follow it through to its logical conclusion for men (isn't it funny how we only ever talk about the women when we bring up this passage?). Verse 4 says that "Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head [Christ]." If hair is a covering, there ought to be a lot more men in this world who shave their heads.

Another point of interest is that two different Greek words are used for covering. The words used in verses 4-7 are variations of κατακαλύπτω, which means "to cover up" or "to veil". The word used in verse 15 is περιβόλαιον, which means "a covering thrown around" or "a mantle". The definitions are very close, so using that argument alone doesn't settle the matter in my mind, but it does serve to strengthen the argument I presented above. It seems perfectly clear to me that what Paul was saying was that God gave women long hair as a natural covering, and because of that it should be obvious why God wants women to wear an extra covering when praying or prophesying.

To be continued...

For Christians - Halloween or Not?

(otherwise known as "let's have some controversy on the old blog.")

As the title states, the question is for the Christian readers of this blog. I am particularly interested in the opinions of the church of Christ readers, especially since it seems like we are the only family in our church who does not celebrate Halloween. But I will gladly accept opinion of those in other denominations ;)

Do you or don't you? Why? Have you ever considered doing the opposite? At any point, did you do differently than what you do now? What convinced you to do differently?

It is a conscience issue for me, per Romans 14. It bothers my conscience to take part in such activities, so I do not do it. I will leave it at that, unless you want to take it to the comments. As I mentioned before, it seems like it's us and a smattering of Baptists who do not take part. This means we miss out on a big Halloween party every year. In a few years we will no doubt have to explain to Pearl why everyone else gets to do it, but she (we) does not. Believe me, sometimes I wish my conscience were fine with it; life would be a bit easier.

I also feel similarly about Christians' propensity for the traditional Easter things like egg hunts and Easter bunnies and whatnot.

Let's hear your opinions.

Can Christians Ever Disobey Ridiculous Laws?

(ah finally, it's been too long since a Christianity + politics and junk and stuff blog post...)

The subject of this post has come into my mind a few times recently, brought on because Harmony is pumping breast milk for a friend of our's who is staunchly committed to breastfeeding, is due with her fourth child, but has been troubled by low milk supply (I'm sure she's tried all the remedies) with all previous children (I think).

Christians are supposed to subject themselves to the laws of the land. So says Romans 13:

1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.

3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.

7Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Obviously we are supposed to obey God rather than man, so unless man's law contradict's God's, we are to follow it. If the government were to pass some sort of ridiculous law saying that any/all breast milk must be tested in an expensive procedure before being allowed the possibility of being shared, what to do in that situation? (Think that's too ridiculous to be plausible? Go to the Common Room blog and search for the term "CPSIA," for extensive blog entries about the subject) I have a bad feeling that a law such as that one would not directly violate any of God's laws...

BUT...

Perhaps there would be loopholes in the law that Christians could find and heavily exploit, as long as exploiting the loophole did not involve any sort of deceit or illegal activity (notice the phrasing where I do not include deceit as an illegal activity, for if it were so, all politicians would be in jail, where probably most of them belong anyways). Then again, would that sort of interpretation/exploitation of loopholes be Pharasaical? Would we cease to be following the spirit/intention of the law? (then AGAIN, we are not dealing with exploitation of perceived loopholes in God's law, but man's.)

Of course, some would say "but think of the CHILDREN...what if someone were to try to hurt your children by passing them bad milk...??? So we must outlaw unregulated breast milk in all forms." My question does not pertain to getting milk from a milk bank or whatever; it concerns getting milk from someone you know, from a friend who would never think to give spoiled milk to anyone, much less a friend with a new baby.

I know that this blog has several readers (maybe even the vast majority) who are firmly supportive of breastfeeding, who also happen to have similar Christian worldviews as we do. You know who you are, and I would like to hear from you. I'll also take comments from people who do not share similar views as we do (and you know who you are) ;) What do you think?

Learning Korean through Bible study

One of the ways my in-laws have encouraged me to learn Korean has been by giving me small items like calendars or pictures that have Bible verses written in Korean on them. I can always understand a handful of the words, but because the Bible is written in a more formal style of Korean I've always struggled to understand the full meaning without a translation. Luckily, most of them have English translations written below the verses, which makes it a fabulous teaching tool. I can place some of the words and deduce the meaning of the others based on the translation below. But now they've found a brand new teaching tool, and one that I don't even need a translation for: a baby Bible.

The book has some short re-tellings of Old Testament stories. The title is 하나님과 나/"God and I" (there is a sequel that has New Testament stories called "Jesus and I", but we don't have that book yet). The writing is really simple, so even someone as bad at Korean as I am can figure out what it means. You can see a big picture of the first page of the book by clicking on the photo at the bottom of the linked page. Here is what it says (in English):

God made this world. The heaven and the sun and the moon, the earth and the animals and the plants, everything was made by God. God has made everything for me.

Easy, right? At least, it is much easier than "Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for your brothers, love one another deeply, from the heart" which is the verse on our calendar this month. ;-) Anyone who knows a bit of Korean can read that verse in Korean here. Yeah... not exactly beginner's material, is it?

A Nazirite From Birth

Yesterday, we began studying Samson in the 1st grade Sunday school class. The lesson was quite a breeze, as we only had one student, who also happens to be somewhat of our star pupil (don't tell the other students' parents I said that).

We chose to focus on the Nazirite aspect of Samson's birth. When Harmony and I read the account of Samson's parents' dealings with the angel foretelling Samson's birth/life, I initially thought that the angel told Samson's mother Zorah to take a Nazirite vow as well, since he told her to avoid unclean foods, fermented drinks, and anything from the grapevine. However, the Nazirite vow also dictates that the Nazirite must not his/her hair and also avoid corpses and graves. So was she told to do part of a Nazirite vow?

Sort of. Take note of the Judges 13:7:

7"But he said to me, 'Behold, you shall conceive and give birth to a son, and now you shall not drink wine or strong drink nor eat any unclean thing, for the boy shall be a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death.'"

In fact, the angel only told Zorah to abstain from actions that would directly affect Samson in the womb. So anything related to consumption was something that she had to follow, because Samson would be affected by whatever his mother ate. Conversely, if his mother were to touch a corpse or cut her hair, Samson would not be partaking in those actions.

Fascinating.

At this point in the post, I was going to vent about how inaccurate most pictures of Samson were, what with the short hair and European features. But upon closer examination of the conditions of the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6 might provide some enlightenment:

9'But if a man dies very suddenly beside him and he defiles his dedicated head of hair, then he shall shave his head on the day when he becomes clean; he shall shave it on the seventh day.

It is possible that Samson, having killed quite a few people in his lifetime, is depicted in artwork in his post-shaved state. Perhaps because these slayings were of Philistines, he did not lose his great strength, even after possibly having to shave his head. Who knows.

This post has the label "Christianity," which is not entirely accurate. It should be "Judaism," but this label would likely only have one or two posts for a very very long time.

We're Teaching Sunday School

This quarter, Harmony and I are teaching the kindergarten / 1st grade Sunday school class. Although usually by the second or third week I am not nerve-wracked, I don't think I ever got nerve-wracked to begin with, because I had my wife to help me.

I don't even know what we're supposed to be teaching. I learned my lesson from the last time I taught, and I remember telling myself that the next time I teach Sunday school, I am going to make up my own curriculum.

<aside>
I saw a coloring sheet of what the Wednesday class had learned about. It was a cartoony drawing of a boy, Jesus, and fish. Verbage on the page said something about "A boy shares with Jesus." That annoys me a bit. The purpose of the feeding of 4/5000 story is not that a boy shared his stuff. The purpose is to illustrate the miracle. Sharing is a good thing in most cases, and parents should teach their children...but Sunday school is a time to learn about God and His Word and what it contains. This is the main reason why I do not even have a copy of the curriculum materials. I do not wish to take the Bible and turn it into Mr. Rogers or Sesame Street.
</aside>

This quarter, our main topic is Judges. This is apparently somewhat of an unorthodox topic for young children, but these scholars can handle it. It does get a bit verbose and complicated at times, but they will still understand the main points. The class is small and mostly girls (3 girls 1 boy is the usual line up). There is only one boy who is a regular in this class (but he hasn't been there 2 of 3 Sundays that we've taught). That's too bad, because I think boys would like all the battles and violence and stuff. Regardless, they are all smart and come from good families. One of the girls appears to have some sort of audio recording capability in her head, as she is able to repeat every single detail (however minute) of every lesson that we teach. (her parents read this blog and probably know who they are) One of the other girls seems to be still half-asleep during class, but still understands the material.

Part of the reason I picked Judges is because 1) I was not entirely too familiar with the period, 2) it's not a usual Sunday school topic, and 3) owing to #2, they probably hadn't ever learned it before. Teaching something is a great way to motivate yourself to learn the material.

We are glossing over the judges who only have a couple of verses written about them, such as Othniel, Shamgar, Tola, etc. Most of our time will be spent learning about the ones who have significant details recorded about them.

Our sequence will go as follows: Ehud, Deborah, Gideon, Gideon, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Samson, Eli/Hannah (Hannah not a judge, I know), Samuel. There might be a lesson in there on Abimelech, and either Eli or Samuel might have an extra lesson. So far we have learned about Ehud, Deborah, and Gideon's destruction of his father's idols. I will post more about the lessons we have already done, and after that I will tentatively post each week on the lesson/craft and how it went. I have not received picture posting permission from all of the parents, so you might see a bunch of blacked out faces.

Jesus and the Children

My dad recently taught a Sunday Bible class on what Jesus had to say about children. I may be biased, but I think it's a really good lesson that people that don't go to his congregation should hear. Go listen to it.

Haggai and Hard Times

Our sermon this Sunday was on the book of Haggai, and its parallels with the economic situation in America today. The book of Haggai is takes place about 10 to 15 years after the Israelites had started rebuilding the Temple - but they had stopped just after the foundation was complete. They started focusing on material things, like building their homes, and Israel sunk into a "recession". They had drought and famine, and during those times they completely neglected God's temple. Haggai reminded them that their priorities were way out of order. The theme of Haggai is pretty much the same as Matthew 6:25-34, particularly verse 33: "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

I left church today with a lot of thoughts in my mind about the worries I've had about our current economic situation. God never promises us prosperity - in fact, we're warned many times against the dangers of riches - but we can be sure that God takes care of His people.

I have been young, and now am old;
Yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken,
Nor his descendants begging bread.
Psalm 37:25

"We're the White House and we approve this prayer"

I read on Albert Mohler's blog that the White House is apparently vetting prayers said at White House events.

Since the White House appears to be taking over everything else, it might as well take over theological matters too.

Your Thoughts: Alcohol Sales on Sunday?

(This post inspired by a prospective 2010 Georgia gubernatorial candidate shopping for votes)

In Georgia, it is illegal to sell alcohol in grocery stores or liquor stores. I learned today that in some states, retail sales or other commerce are also restricted, to certain degrees.

I don't think it's morally wrong to drink alcohol, unless you cannot control yourself and your drinking leads to drunkenness. Then it's wrong for you. I believe it is wrong to drink in front of someone who struggles with alcoholic tendencies. Personally though, I never really developed much of a compulsion to have alcoholic drinks on a regular basis, so no habits or compulsions of mine are at stake here.

Alcohol seems to be a rather peculiar thing to single out. While drunkenness is a sin, there are other vices that are not banned on Sundays. Materialistic people can still go shopping on Sundays. Smokers and people who play lottery (puzzling people that they are) can continue their habits. "Gentlemens'" clubs can remain open. While I'm at it, I'll just list the text of Galatians 5:19-21:

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Yep, drunkenness sure is in that list. So are fits of rage, so perhaps some of us should not drive on Sundays, watch C-SPAN, or watch football. So is envy, so maybe it should be illegal for you to look at your neighbor's house or driveway on Sundays.

My point is that it doesn't really make sense for a government that claims (or is supposed to claim?) neutrality in religious affairs to, well, enact religious restrictions. It doesn't even enact them all, or even enact them well - while you can't buy yourself a 6 pack at Publix after church, you can go to a restaurant and order up a cold one. I believe people here usually stock up on beer on Saturdays before big football games anyways. (I wouldn't know though, nobody I know really does the beer thing, so don't quote me on that)

Of course, I am but a young man, who could be totally off his rocker in regard to this topic. What is your opinion on puzzling and incomplete Sunday commerce restrictions?

Sunday School Memoirs: Elements of Charlotte Mason

I also found myself (sort of) incorporating two aspects of Charlotte Mason education: short lessons and narration. Neither of those were conscious decisions on my part. My reasons for doing both were somewhat intertwined.

I probably started last year's quarter doing long lessons. Although I can't remember exactly what I did, I would imagine that lessons got shorter as the Sundays went by. What would typically happen is this: we'd do a long lesson (i.e. directly from the curriculum) and some sort of craft, but due to distractions, attention span, or comprehensive ability, the students would not be able to tell me the whole story behind the craft. That did not sit well with me. When I teach Sunday school, I am not doing it to entertain the kids while their parents are in their own class; my students are there to learn Bible stuff and be able to explain what they learned.

So I began to shorten my lessons. This was easier to do once I finally threw off the chains of curriculum and started making up my own lessons (again, regrettably late this quarter). Towards the end of this quarter, I don't think the actual lessons lasted more than 20 minutes, including distractions. For example, I did a number of lessons on various characteristics of Jesus. My focus was to drill in the one important point and ensure that they knew what Jesus did and how that differentiates Him from us. I also found that when I asked each child about the craft/drawing/whatever, he could explain fairly well what he'd learned about that day.

Student age is probably also a factor. As I've mentioned before, many of my students this year were also in my class last year, due to how we group by age. Longer attention spans + increased comprehensive ability.

If you did long lessons in Sunday school and your students were able to properly recite back what they learned, what were your strategies? Obviously this question only applies for younger ages, since their attention spans are generally shorter.

Sunday School Memoirs: What I Didn't Do

There are a couple of things that, for whatever reason, I never did this year in my Sunday school class. They are singing and memorization.

Last year, I did both of these. I don't remember how much or how often...only that we did them one more than one occasion. Every now and then, I would come to class with a craft prepared for the children to do, and I'd get so engrossed in having them work on that that I would totally forget to sing and do a memory verse. I believe as time went by last year, I forgot to do those two things more often, and by the end, it didn't even cross my mind.

I don't know why it worked out this way for my class. There's absolutely nothing wrong with singing or memorizing verses in Sunday school (unless you are one who's opposed to the whole concept of Sunday school). In fact, I would say it's important to do so at some point. I suppose I found myself wanting to emphasize strongly the learning of the lesson.

In retrospect, praying and singing probably would've helped spend some time waiting for the later-comers. What usually happens is that the kids stream in and I have a period of free time until I decide it's time to start. At that point, we start in on the lesson, which means starting on the craft, as I try to have the two integrated. Usually someone (who I thought wouldn't be there) will come in later, while the others are halfway done with their activities. This usually results in me either doing the craft for him/her (it's usually a specific her).

Now, if I were the only source of Christian education for the children in my class, I would probably place more emphasis on things like singing and memorization. But the majority of my students come from families with good parents and where everyone comes to church. There's only one boy in my class who comes from a less-than-ideal situation (I don't even know what it is, only that it's usually his grandmother bringing him and his siblings to church). Now that I think of it, during my next tour of duty, I should probably modify my approach depending on the least-ideal family situation in the class.