The Desert of the Real

On my wife’s request I was making a quick run into the grocery store today to pick up a few things. Heading past the magazine rack my eye was, unfortunately, caught by a special "collector’s" edition of US News and World Report. Easily twice the size of a regular edition, with a better binding and different cover. The topic? The Davinci Code. Interviews with Dan, articles about him, about his book, etc. However, since there’s not enough there to fill a special edition they also culled the very bottom of the barrel for theories like Brian’s written by other authors. Especially those that agree with him.

Positively disgusting. It made me want to spit, just glancing through a paragraph or so of a few articles. The complete disregard for God’s revelation, for the very concepts of truth and even history. AND people are paying EIGHT DOLLARS for it. Yeesh. Talk about throwing good money after bad. As if it’s not enough people bought the book…

According to the Dallas Morning News, experts in Britain, Germany, Russia, Egypt, and the United States have launched a four-year project to digitize a reunited version of the codex.

Of course, make sure you take your blood pressure meds before you click, as this was written by a religion reporter. So be prepared for such gems as:

“Obviously, the way the editing works … is exceedingly interesting. What is the process leading to this or that correction? Whether it was merely editorial, or if they were following a theological lead” in altering the message, Mr. McKendrick said.

and

Ray Bruce, a film director who is producing a documentary on the project, cited the Book of Mark as an example of how much the modern Bible has been altered from the codex. In the codex, he said, the Book of Mark ends at Chapter 16, Verse 8, with the discovery that Christ’s tomb was empty.

A film director…yeah…that’s a great expert to consult for a story on ancient manuscripts. I guess now we know where AOL’s tech support people go when they become “overqualified” for that job. They become religion reporters.

So, I’m driving to church this morning, and I’m cycling through the presets to find something to listen to. It’s only a five minute drive, but it’s habit. I stopped on a local Christian station, where there was a guy preaching. Specifically, he was preaching out of John 4:

9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

From this verse I heard 3 primary teachings during my short journey. The first was the fact that Christ broke down ethnic barriers. I only heard the tail end of this however. I’d like to say there’d be nothing in there I’d disagree with but given his second two points I can’t be sure of that.

Next he pointed out the religious barriers. Jews and Samaritans weren’t exactly on speaking terms. Yet Jesus spoke to her. In the course of their conversation, she questioned Him on a theological point, attempting to redirect the discussion. However, His response kept things in focus.

19“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.”

An excellent and very important passage to be sure. Yet this preacher then proceeded to abuse the text, twisting and bending it to make it fit his point. From this passage, he claimed that Christ demolished both mountains, eliminating any religious differences. He taught that our religions are irrelevant, that God is to be worshiped in spirit and in truth. What does that mean? Well, apparently it means that we worship in different ways but the same God, as he went on to say suggest that divisions between Christians, Muslims, and Roman Catholics are somehow artificial, and not part of worshipping God in spirit and in truth. I wish I could give a fuller explanation of his position, but he didn’t provide one himself. Apparently, we are just supposed to accept this in spite of the warnings regarding false teachers that are found throughout the new testament.

Last, he mentions her gender. Christ spoke to her even though she was a woman. It is true that this was, culturally, considered a bad thing. To speak to a Samaritan woman particularly would not exactly get you praised by the jewish community. Apparently this woman in particular, since Jesus goes on to reveal that she’s guilty of adultery. This sort of cultural faux pas was a hallmark of Christ’s ministry though. He spoke with tax collectors and other unpopular folks as a matter of course. To this preacher however, this has much greater significance. He suggested that in doing so, Christ was offering to “share a cup” with her, and in this way was breaking down all gender barriers such that they would have equal roles within the church. The particular example given being that of being a pastor.

Again I wish I could tell you how he came to this conclusion, and how he then explains the teachings in other new testament passages which teach otherwise, particularly in the roles of Elders, but again he didn’t elaborate on any of those points. He did however, feel it appropriate to slander the Baptist denomination. He went on for several minutes in complaint about all these baptist women who go to Seminary and how so many Baptist churches won’t accept them as pastors. Why? Well, according to this man, because they’re afraid people will leave, and in leaving, take their money with them.

That’s a pretty harsh accusation. I was glad I was sitting down, because I was completely floored by this man’s audacity. To ascribe such motivations to an entire denomination of Churches is rather bold, especially if you have no evidence, or at least (as in this case) are not going to provide any. It is unconscionable for a man to stand in his pulpit and make such slanderous accusations against people he doesn’t even know, worse, slanderous acusations against the elders of those churches.

In some cases, maybe that is the only reason, but anyone familiar with baptist and/or reformed theology is well aware of the core reason that women are not invited to be shepherds of a church, and it has nothing to do with membership, or money. In fact, in this day and age such a position is more likely to push people away than to draw them in. Their official position is based on scripture, and the specific provisions for the structure of the church given in the new testament. While he may be aware of specific examples of what he states, that he may speak of accurately, he certainly is not aware of the thoughts and attitudes of an entire denomination of leaders.

If he wants to take issue with the teaching, then that’s fine. Let him take issue with the Baptist view, and engage it biblically. That is well within the bounds. But this attack was completely outside, and I hope, and pray, that Godly men in his congregation will confront him on this.