Angels In The Tanakh (the Hebrew Bible)

Introduction

In this paper I will survey many issues concerning angels as presented in the Tanakh (or as Christians would say, the Old Testament). Due to the extensive frequency of angels in the Tanakh, I will cover some of the most interesting passages. The first section will address the definition and word usage for angels. In the second, I will cite several passages, deal with varying interpretations, and sometimes add a few brief comments of my own. For my last section, I will address the main point of conflict between Christians and Jews concerning angels, as well as attempt to summarize the roles and themes concerning angels in the Tanakh.
Angels, Cherubim, and Seraphim, and ‘sons of God’

Before we begin addressing various passages, I want to address where the word angel comes from. Webster’s defines the word angel as “a spiritual being serving God especially as a messenger or as a guardian of people,” and gives Old French, Late Latin, and Greek roots. (3) The English transliteration for the Hebrew word for angel is ‘mal’ak’. Strong’s Bible Concordance defines it this way: “messenger, a human representative; angel, a supernatural representative of God, sometimes delivering messages, sometimes protecting God’s people; the “angel of the LORD,” sometimes shares divine characteristics and is sometimes thought to be an manifestation of God himself, or of the preincarnate Christ:” This Hebrew word is translated different ways depending on the passage: angel (101 times), messengers (74 times), messenger (24 times), angels (10 times), and ambassadors (4 times). (7)
What many consider the first “angel” mentioned in the Tanakh may or may not be an “angel” at all. Chapter 3 of Genesis records that “God placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden.” There is a different word used here in the text. The usual rendering of this Hebrew word (k’rub) is cherub (cherubim, pl). Strong’s defines these as, “…a class of supernatural beings that serve in the presence of God; used as ornamental figures in the atonement cover of the ark of the covenant and in the temple as well as on the walls and doors of the temple.” It seems that these creatures have similar standing in relationship to God, but have a different role.
Another group of beings in the Tanakh that are commonly lumped into the angel “genre” are seraphim. Strong’s defines the Hebrew word (sarap) as “venomous snake, seraph (six-winged being).” It is rendered three times as ‘fiery’, twice as ‘fiery serpent’, and twice as ‘seraphims’. Like cherubim, these beings appear to have similar makeup, but yet another distinct role. It appears that this role has to do with abiding in the presence of God and worshipping and singing to Him.
It is sometimes suggested that the “sons of God” in Genesis 6 are indeed angels or heavenly beings. It is doubtful in my opinion (and also from the Jewish perspective, I believe) that this could be likely for two main reasons. First, the same Hebrew word for son is used and therefore makes no reference to angels. Second, the fact that these “sons of God” “took wives” and had children bore to them. It appears that the passage is referring to ordinary men and the universal “fatherhood” of the Creator God.

The Angel of the LORD, or an angel of the LORD?

Feminists might find it interesting that the first mention of an angel is an appearance to a woman. It is found in Genesis 16, where Hagar (Sarai’s maid) had fled away from Sarai. This is the first of many passages in the Tanakh in which the angel (Angel?) speaks as the LORD himself, and is even called so by those who interact with him (Him?). The indications that this is a manifestation of the LORD himself are many in this passage. For example, in the same fashion as the LORD called to Adam in the garden, “Where are You…” the Angel calls to Hagar, “…where have you come from, and where are you going?” He (Himself) also promised Hagar to “multiply your descendants exceedingly,” which (in chapter 17:20) is an action claimed by God Himself. Even more indicative is when she (Hagar) calls “the name of the LORD who spoke to her, You Are-the-God-Who-Sees; for she said, ‘Have I also here seen Him who sees me?’” (8)
Shortly after this passage is another, more puzzling, lengthier, passage. Beginning in Chapter 18, this passage describes the LORD appearing to Abraham, him seeing three men, addressing them (or one of them) as their (His) servant, feeding them, them asking about Sarah and telling Abraham that she would bear a son, ‘catching’ Sarah when she laughed about it, the men going toward Sodom, and Abraham and the LORD bargaining over the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah. Chapter 19 records two of the ‘men’ (now called angels) meeting up with Lot, avoiding capture by men with ‘wicked’ desires, and rescuing Lot and some of his family before the city is destroyed. Several interesting points are addressed by Rav Elchanan Samet in an online article named, “PARASHAT VAYERA: Rashbam's Interpretation of the Story of Avraham and the Angels.” He posits the following: “when God seeks to treat a person as His "friend," out of an intimacy that allows even for free argument, then He does so through the agency of His angels. On one hand, the agent represents his Master, and the emissary is considered like the One who sent him…” (6) He suggests that the angel was not a manifestation of God, but a man-like angel who bore the exact message of God. My personal interpretation is that the three men that Abraham initially saw were two angels and the Angel of the LORD. The Angel of the LORD is the one who speaks as God (since He is), and He is the one who converses with Abraham after the two ‘men’ head for Sodom and Gomorrah. This would explain Abraham’s reverence in communicating how he does.
Once more, the Angel of the LORD shows up in Chapter 22. This time, it is when God is testing Abraham to offer his son as a burnt offering. Right as Abraham takes up the knife to slay his son, the Angel of the LORD calls to him, this time from heaven, and stops him. Abraham finds a ram, offers it instead, and names the place YHWH Yireh (The LORD Will Provide). The Angel of the LORD has a couple of interesting things to say the second time He calls from heaven. First, he says, By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, …I will bless…I will multiply…” Second, He says, “In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, because you have obeyed My voice.” The Angel swears by Himself, calls Himself the LORD, and blesses Abraham’s descendants for obeying His voice.
Another familiar passage concerning an appearance of God is in Genesis 32, where a “Man” wrestles with Jacob until dawn. The “Man” tells Jacob that he will now be called Israel, because he had “struggled with God and with men…” Later Jacob declares the name of that location to be Peniel (Face of God), because he had “seen God face to face,” and his life was preserved. Clearly this is not a ‘man’ but God in this instance. Jacob has several other ‘face to face’ encounters with God in the following passages.
Gideon has yet another encounter with the Angel of the LORD in Judges 6. He asks the Angel, “show me a sign that it is You who talk with me.” The Angel does indeed give Gideon a sign (consuming meat and bread with fire) to prove who He is. The following text is paramount: “Now Gideon perceived that He was the Angel of the LORD. So Gideon said, “Alas, O Lord GOD! For I have seen the Angel of the LORD face to face.”
Probably the most apparent passage testifying to the Angel of the LORD being God is in Judges 13. Manoah and his wife were pondering who the ‘Man of God’ who had a ‘countenance like the countenance of the Angel of God’ who had appeared to his wife was. The third time He appeared to them both. They asked Him what His name was, and He replied, “Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?” After another sign with fire consuming an offering, the Angel ascended in the flame. The passage states that, “then Manoah knew that He was the Angel of the LORD. And Manoah said to his wife, ‘We shall surely die, because we have seen God!’”
Indeed, the Rash bam, quoted by Rav Elchanan Samet is (in my opinion) just off base in saying that – "When an angel appears, he is called in the name of the Shekhina.” My only question is why can’t the Angel be who He says He is?
Obviously, the Angel is at times speaking the exact words of God, and the text states that people talked to, ‘stood’ or ‘bowed’ before God. In light of these passages (and others), I am led to interpret the Angel of the LORD as a theophany (a direct appearance/manifestation of the LORD Himself). Every time this ‘Angel’ shows up, people tend to see it as a life-altering event, evidenced by the fact that they build altars, bow and pray, etc. To take it further, one would not be foolish at all in suggesting that every (or most) appearance of the LORD in the Tanakh is indeed in the form of the ‘man-Angel’ of the LORD. What a practical and memorable way to communicate with His people.

Angels with free will? Fallen angels?

Jewish doctrine holds that all angels are perfectly in sync with God. Here is a quote from Philip Birnbaum: “The myth of the fallen angels has been degrade in midrashic literature because of their sensuality. The Persian idea of two opposing empires, with Satan as God’s enemy, has persisted only in non-Jewish literature, in which Lucifer is identified with the rebel archangel, Satan. The so-called ‘fallen-angels’ appear in the Midrash under seven designations…all of which characterize their gigantic size and limitless boldness.” (1) This is very interesting in contrast to Christian popularization of nearly universal idea that Satan is the eternal “bad guy”. For many Christians it is hard to picture the serpent in the Garden as an agent of God, or Satan as portrayed in the book of Job as a servant of the LORD.

The Book of Daniel

The Angel of the LORD makes yet another appearance in the Book of Daniel. King Nebuchadnezzar, in the famous passage, has built an image of gold that was 60 cubits (90 feet) high, and all the people were called to the dedication ceremony. Shadrach, Meshach, and AbedNego would not bow down at the que, so the king threw them into a blazing furnace. Take a look at the King’s astonishment at what he sees shortly after putting them in: “…he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, ‘Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?’ They answered and said to the king, ‘True, O king.’ ‘Look!’ he answered, ‘I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.” Later, in repentance, the king spoke: “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and AbedNego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him…” So here we have yet another mysterious Angel, this time labeled as being ‘like the Son of God, making an appearance.
Traditionally, the Book of Daniel is said to contain at least two angels whom are given names. Gabriel is described as ‘one having the appearance of a man’ and is asked by another voice to ‘make this man understand this vision’. The next mentioning of Gabriel is when Daniel is still in his ‘vision’, and he was praying and the ‘man’ Gabriel was ‘caused to fly swiftly’ and reached him ‘about the time of the evening offering.
The second angel is traditionally named Michael. He shows up in Daniels second vision. “But the Prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; and behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left alone there with the kings of Persia.” He is apparently much help to Daniel, because Daniel later writes “No one upholds me against these, except Michael your prince.” Daniel paints a symbolic picture of the end times. He puts Michael in the signaling role of the end of the age: “At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people.” Due to the nature of the context of both of these accounts, and their visionary content and interpretation, it is difficult to sum-up the consensus as to what these texts intend to say.

Regular Old Angels

After reading thus far in this paper one could easily deduce that the only angels that exist are not even angels at all, but God Himself or another type of heavenly being. That of course is not the case in Jewish or Christian theology. Many ‘average’ angels appear in the Tanakh.
Psalm 91 declares that God gives ‘His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways. They shall bear you up in their hands, Lest you dash your foot against a stone.’
Psalm 103 elaborates on their prescribed duty: “Bless the LORD, you His angels, Who excel in strength, who do His word, heeding the voice of His word.”
From these two passages alone, we get the picture that ‘regular old angels’ are created to care for humans and obey God in everything as well.

Jewish Angel v. Christian Angel?

As we discussed earlier, one point of conflict between Jews and Christians on angels is that Jews believe that all angels are good, and they worship and serve God just as He intends to. More specifically, they don’t ever rebel or act against God. Several Jewish writers have no problem identifying God as the creator of evil. For example, Satan is seen as an obedient servant in the Book of Job as he takes away every precious and good thing from Jobs’ life. Of course, we don’t have the time, nor is it the purpose of this paper to delve into the origin of the problem of pain and suffering, but this contrast of philosophy is noteworthy.
Of course, the main point of conflict between Jews and Christians that is relevant to this paper is not concerning many angels but one. Jewish doctrine on the angel of the LORD seems to be that it is merely an angel that is speaking for God. Many Christians, however, see the Angel of the LORD as the preincarnate Jesus Christ. Some Christians could care less who the Angel is, and others find it vital to the defense of their faith.
At best I will say that the Jewish view of “the angel” seems to be very consistent with the rest of their beliefs. God remains intact, and simply chooses to send messengers to reveal Himself. Also, the Christian view of “the Angel” is a nice fit with the Christian doctrine concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. For Christians, there is absolutely only one God, but that one God is eternally revealed in three persons. The Father, the Son (Angel), and the Holy Spirit. It is exciting for Christians to think about the pre-existence of their Savior. And the theophanies provided in the Tanakh (Old Testament) are a handy way of explaining what Jesus was doing before His incarnation (according to Christian theology).

Roles and Themes

As we have discussed, angels take on various tasks and are called different names in the Tanakh. They range from messengers of divine truth appointed and created specifically for that purpose, to fiery creatures that are simply created for the sole purpose of singing and existing in the presence of God. When they fulfill this task, they give glory to God, their creator. Some are ‘guardian’ angels, per se. Their job is simply to look out for humans, protect and guide us as we live our lives.
I have enjoyed learning more about the varying roles of angels in the Tanakh, as well as gaining a more full understanding of the points of contrast between Jewish and Christian angelology. I am grateful for the opportunity to study this topic.

Bibliography

Birnbaum, Philip. “A Book of Jewish Concepts.” Hebrew Publishing Co. New York, Revised Edition, 1975
Jewish Heritage Online Magazine, Angels: Angels in the Bible http://www.jhom.com/topics/angels/bible.htm Viewed 5/12/04
“Merriam Webster’s American English Dictionary.” Merriam Webster, Inc. 2003
Moore, George Foot. “Volume 1, Judaism In The First Centuries of The Christian Era, The Age of The Tannaim.” President and Fellows of Harvard College, 1927
Rabbi Melanie Aron, http://www.shirhadash.org/rabbi/970905-angels.html
Rav Elchanan Samet, Virtual Beit Midrashhttp://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.63/04vayera.htm
Strong, James. “The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.” Zondervan. 2001
The Holy Bible, New King-James Version. Thomas Nelson, Inc. 1984
TutorGig.Com Encyclopedia. Angel TutorGig.com http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia/getdefn.jsp?keywords=Angel

The Trinity according to the New Testament

For my New Testament class...

According to the New Testament, the one and only God is revealed in three eternal, equal, yet distinct persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is called the doctrine of the Trinity. Within the religion of Christianity, this is a very common doctrine. Most Christians would even say that it is the most important or even essential doctrine one could hold. I will demonstrate the accuracy of this doctrine using various sources.
Before I begin, I want to point out that I will be approaching the issue with the presupposition of the existence of the supernatural. Because my theory deals with a doctrine based on textual contexts, and not with the historicity of an event in the New Testament, this will not affect it much. Nonetheless, it should be known.
In my opinion, most Christians “believe” in the Trinity, not because of what they read in the New Testament (moreover, the entire Bible), but because they have heard this doctrine their entire lives. I recently interviewed two gentlemen from the Jehovah’s Witness church, and we had quite an interesting discussion concerning the Bible’s revelation of the nature of God. As I will point out, it really all comes down to the interpretation of various texts, based on the method of interpretation one uses.
It does seem (in my opinion) that the “ground” held by Trinitarians is slipping. Even movements “within” Christianity stray from the historical definition of the doctrine of the Trinity. I will discuss and refute the two main opposing groups: Anti-Trinitarians, and Modalists.
One of the most well known Non-Trinitarian groups is the Jehovah’s Witnesses. One of their most well known publications against the Trinity is the booklet, “Should You Believe The Trinity?” It poses the question, “Is Jesus Christ the Almighty God?”
As far as the “origin” of the concept of the Trinity, the Witnesses refer to various “triune” or “three-headed” gods that were “prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ.” (4) In my recent interview with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I learned several things about their reasoning. I believe that in order to refute a Jehovah’s Witness, or any anti-Trinitarian for that matter, you must learn to “scale the language barrier”.
The verses they use to prove that Jesus is not God, but only the “Son of God,” are the very verses I would use to draw a distinction between the Father and the Son. For example, when Jesus cries out from the cross in Luke 23:46, “Father into Thy hands I commit my spirit,” the Witnesses, reason that “If Jesus were God, for what reason should he entrust his spirit to the Father?”(4) At this point, I would reason that this is merely an example of two distinct persons of the Godhead that are demonstrating their relationship. Jesus has a relationship of obedience and humility to the Father. An example of this humility is given in an additional passage in the New Testament. Philippians 2:6-8 (NKJV) reads, “who (Christ Jesus), being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but …being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Not only does this passage describe Jesus’ obedience, but also it speaks of His equality with the Father.
I found an embarrassing misquote in the Witnesses booklet. It reasons that if Jesus were God, and He was dead (in between the crucifixion and the resurrection) for parts of three days, “then Habakkuk 1:12 is wrong when it says: “O my God, my Holy One, you do not die.”(4) I was astonished when I looked up the verse in my own Bible to see that a very important word in the verse was radically different! My Bible (Amp) reads, “Are You not from everlasting, O Lord my God, my Holy One? We shall not die. O Lord, You have appointed…(emphasis added)” This is no minor discrepancy! Who is it that doesn’t die? All of my translations read the same, using “we” instead of “you”.
The Witnesses also view the Holy Spirit as God’s “Active Force”, not divine, and definitely not a “person” of any sort of ”Godhead”. There are many different interpretations of various passages of Scripture. The line seems to be between the idea that the Spirit is “from” God or “of” God, and the idea that the Spirit “is” God, or a “person” of the Godhead. I think a powerful passage for the deity of the Holy Spirit is Acts 5:3-4, which reads (NLT), “You lied to the Holy Spirit, and you kept some of the money…like this. You weren’t lying to us but to God.” First of all, I don’t logically know how a person can “lie” to a “force” or “power”. Second, the thought of lying to the Holy Spirit is extended logically to the fact that the lie was to God. Many passages refer to the Spirit as “he”, which suggests the “person-hood” of the Spirit. The original Greek word that is translated “he” in most Bibles (except probably the New World Translation), is ekeinos (Strong's Greek #1565). It is a demonstrative pronoun that can mean “that”, “he”, or “those” as well as others. The Jehovah’s Witnesses would love for all of these passages to render the term the impersonal “it”, but only once in the entire New Testament is it rendered this way (1 John 5:16 -  If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it. KJV). In addition, the booklet states that “when the neuter Greek word for spirit (pneu’ma) is used, the neuter pronoun ‘it’ is properly employed.” I looked up the term “pneu’ma” in my Strong’s Greeks concordance and it simply labeled the term as a noun, not neuter. It seems that the context does and should suggest the rendering of the terms. And the context of many passages about the Holy Spirit imply that the Spirit has “authority”, “will”, a “name”, “feeling” etc. All these should lead a translator to render the term as “he”.
For every suggestion from Scripture that Jesus or the Holy Spirit is a “person” of the Godhead, the Witnesses have a “different” hermeneutic. For every direct attribution of “personhood” or deity, they have a different or “better” translation for the word used. As I mentioned earlier, the “language barrier” is difficult to scale.
The next group is not as “abrasive” as the Witnesses. They include themselves within evangelical Christianity, although their modalistic view of the nature of God may have serious implications.
Put simply and possibly offensively, modalists believe that God is like a chameleon in that He can “change costumes” between all of the persons of the traditional Trinity. Sometimes He is/was the Father, then also He is/was Jesus the Son, and also sometimes He is the Spirit. Here is a belief statement from T.D. Jakes’ church, The Potter’s House: “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” (1)
At first read, this may sound just like the traditional Trinity. But there is a language barrier here as well. In Modalism, the “manifestations” are not coequal, coeternal or distinct from one another. This is not only different from the traditional definition of the nature of God, but it is also hard to swallow in light of passages such as Matthew 26:14 where Jesus prays to the Father, which couldn’t happen unless the persons of the Trinity are eternally distinct. This is not the only example of relationships within the Godhead. The Son loves the Father, the Father loves and is pleased with the Son (Matthew 3:17), the Father sends the Son (John 3:16), the Father sends and gives the Spirit (John 14:25), the Spirit testifies of the Son (John 15:26), etc.
One can feel quite “worn-out” after tromping through the battlefield of biblical terminology and semantics. Next, and lastly, I want to summarize and support what I feel the New Testament says about the nature of God.
Why the Trinity? The One and Only God wanted to reveal Himself. That is what it’s all about: The way in which God chooses to reveal Himself to humanity. Three persons. Forever distinct. Forever equal in nature. Forever God. Christopher Hall quotes Gregory on the Father: “The Father is the begetter and the emitter; without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner.” (3) Seeberg summarizes various “apologists” concerning the Son: “…they thought of Him as God, in God, and with God, and hence selected a term such as ‘Logos’…” (5) Last but not least, I love the way Tillich addresses the deity of the Holy Spirit. “It is the Spirit in whom God ‘goes out from’ himself, the Spirit proceeds from the divine ground. He gives actuality to that which is potential in the divine ground and ‘outspoken’ in the divine logos…. The divine life is infinite mystery, but it is not infinite emptiness. It is the ground of all abundance, and it is abundant itself.” (6) I’ve also heard it said that the Father initiates, the Son implements and the Spirit empowers. Sounds good, huh?
In closing, I’d like to quote Hank Hanegraaff (Christian apologist). “We can never ‘comprehend’ the Trinity, but we can ‘apprehend’ it from Scripture.” As far as what my opinion on the study of the nature of God is: it is wonderfully complex.

Index of Supporting Scriptures
Matthew 26:14 Matthew 3:17
1 John 5:16 John 14:25
Acts 5:3-4 (NLT) John 15:26
Habakkuk 1:12 (Amp)
Philippians 2:6-8 (NKJV)
Luke 23:46
John 3:16
Bibliography
1. Belief Statement. (n.d.). Retrieved November 19, 2003, from http://thepottershouse.org/PH_beliefs.html
2. Strong, James LL.D., S.T.D. (2001) The strongest Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the Bible. Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan.
3. Hall, Christopher A. (Christopher Alan). (2002) Learning theology with the church fathers. InterVarsity Press. Downers Grove, Illinois
4. Jehovah’s Witnesses Publication. (1989) Should You Believe in The Trinity? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. Brooklyn, New York.
5. Seeberg, Reinhold. (1952). Textbook of the History of Doctrines (Charles E. Hay, Trans.). Baker Book House. Grand Rapids, Michigan.6. Tillich, Paul. (1951). Systematic Theology: Volume I. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago, Illinois.

My Understanding of Religion

At Southwest Missouri State University, all Religious Studies majors have to write this paper. Here's mine...

Religion is (in my opinion) the most controversial subject extant today. If you are ever in the mood to argue with someone, just bring up religion. It is at the core of every difference of opinion, and behind every conflict. I personally do not see this as a challenge, nor does it discourage me from discussing religion. I am aware that some people hate discussing religion, but frankly, I enjoy it. I think people have lost (or never had) the ability to debate. This is true not only in religious debates, but most any area. The first thing we must do is not take offense with someone disagreeing with our point of view. Secondly, we must know why we believe what we believe. In my opinion, a person does not really believe something unless they know why they believe it.
Aside from how controversial religion is, I also would like to comment on what I believe religion to be. Religion is quite an interesting word. It is hard to define it without excluding a certain group of adherents to what we would normally call a “religion”. ‘A belief in God’ doesn’t apply to Buddhists, ‘a system of moral guidelines’ doesn’t really apply to Taoist thought as well as a host of other “religions”, and the list goes on. This is why I strongly prefer the term worldview. Everyone has a worldview. You cannot be a conscious human being and not have one. I define a worldview as a system by which one interprets the way the world operates. Sharing your worldview means answering the famous list of foundational questions, such as: how, when, where, who, why and what.
Because everyone has a system by which they interpret this existence and on which they base all of their decisions, it goes without saying that a worldview should be of the utmost importance to the one holding it. A worldview is not something you choose by spinning a wheel, tossing dice, or Russian roulette. It should be carefully weighed out and constantly reviewed and tested as one lives out life. Also, it should be noted that one need not know every detail concerning his/her worldview in order to posses it. I would even go further to say that it is not possible to know every detail of any particular worldview. As we journey through this existence, we should continually be open to new ideas and learning experiences. Failure to do this is the perfect example of close-mindedness. I do, however, believe that we can be so “open-minded” that our brain might fall out. I am not advocating relativism, or the idea that “all beliefs and worldviews are created equal.” Some individuals take the principle of open-mindedness further that it should be taken. It is NOT close-minded to have a STRONG belief or worldview. However, it IS close-minded to NOT listen to or consider another’s view in light of your own. In closing, I will also say that a “religion” or “worldview” is something that should affect every aspect of your life. As I discussed earlier, a worldview is a system by which one interprets how the world works, and on which all decisions are made. What could be more important or foundational? In a world full of choices to make, what standard or system will we embrace to guide our steps? In truth, every person has, in fact, already chosen a standard or system to under-gird their decisions. I believe that one who claims a given “religion” or “worldview”, yet has not come to this decision on their own, cannot truthfully and whole-heartedly adhere to it. And just as strongly, I believe that the assertion that one has not associated with any particular “religion” or “worldview” is a self-refuting assertion. All one has to do is ask that person why they don’t associate with any “religion” or “worldview.” Their response will likely be a rather specific explanation of the worldview that led them to the assertion that they don’t hold to any specific worldview.

Rich Mullins- two great insights

(when asked what kind of legacy he wanted to leave)
“...If my life is motivated by my ambition to leave a legacy, what I’ll probably leave as a legacy is ambition. But if my life is motivated by the power of the Spirit in me, if I live in the awareness of the indwelling Christ, if I allow His presence to guide my actions, to guide my motives, those sorts of things, that’s the only time I think that we really leave a great legacy. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. My ambition to be a good guy is a fleshly ambition. And when Christ calls us to take up our cross and follow Him, a lot of us think that what that means is that were supposed to lay down our vices, and we’re supposed to cling to virtues. But I think that unless Christ is Lord of our virtues, our virtues become dangerous to us, and dangerous to the people around us."
“I think that when Christ calls us to take up our cross, what He means is You must die not only to whatever vices are in your life (which He will eventually kill out), you must also die to whatever virtues are in your life. You life is not valuable because you’re an articulate speaker. Your life is not valuable because you’re a generous person. Your life is not valuable because of any of that…If we empty ourselves of everything, and allow God to be present, then it’s no longer us, it’s Him. Then it becomes a spiritual thing. And that which is born of the spirit is spirit. And that’s when I think Christianity really begins to make sense."

(talking about Christian legalism and self-righteousness)
“I think I would rather live on the verge of falling, and let my security be in the all-sufficiency of the grace of God, than to love in some kind of pietistic illusion of moral excellence. Not that I don’t want to be morally excellent, but my faith isn’t in the idea that I am more moral than anybody else, my faith is in the idea that God and His love are greater than whatever sins any of us commit.”

Amen,
-Dale

Creed for the Modern Thinker

This is really good stuff. Enjoy. (written in 1980)
Dale

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin.
We believe everything is OK as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy's OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything's getting better despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated.
You can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes, ufo's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man just like Buddha Mohammed and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher although we think his good morals were bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same, at least the one we read was.
They all believe in love and goodness.
They only differ on matters of creation sin heaven hell God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes The Nothing
because when you ask the dead what happens they say Nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average. What's average is normal. What's normal is good.
We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors and the Russians would be sure to follow.
We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that-lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust. History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.

From Nice and Nasty by Steve Turner. 1980 by Marshall, and Scott.

Religion...Open or Close-minded

Religion.
World View.
Faith.
Belief System.
Denomination.
Conviction.
Morality.
Free Will.
Predestination.
God.
Monk
Nun.
Buddha
Mohammed
Jesus
Angels
Spirit
Christ
Prophecy
Bible
Koran
Joseph Smith
Mormon
Jehovah’s Witness
Revelation
Resurrection
Reincarnation
Meditation
Prayer
Heaven
Hell

Religion is one of the most (if not THE most) controversial subjects known to humanity. The evidence of this is quite obvious. It seems that as far as religion is concerned, either two people agree totally and can engage in a lengthy, harmonious conversation, or they disagree. And we all have seen various instances of what that can look like. When two persons reach a point of disagreement, there are logically two paths they can take. They can either change the subject in order to have a more congruent discussion, or they can choose to substantiate their opinions to one another. There are logically two possible ends to the latter path. One being that one of the two persons changes their opinion in light of the perceived weight of the other persons’ position. The other end, which is also the most common, is when the conversation eventually ends with the two still in disagreement.
It is interesting to me that in the case where two people disagree and decide to engage in a debate, the debate usually turns into a heated argument. Sure, the levels of “heat” may vary. But usually one or both of the persons involved is quite animated in their defense of their position.
Why is this? What is the big deal?
We want to be right. And whether we can admit it or not. When you believe differently than someone else concerning a given subject, you believe that they are wrong, at some level, concerning that same subject. Some would say such a person would be close-minded to say “dogmatically” that another person is wrong. I would encourage that person to reconsider what it means to be open or close-minded. A closed-minded person will not consider the opinions of others. An open-minded person will. That is it. Open or closed-mindedness has to do with whether or not a person will consider others’ opinions. Not whether they agree or not.
I believe that we have a misconception of what it means to be open or close-minded. It is very common for a person with a strong opinion to be called close-minded. Why? I disagree. I believe that regardless of how “strong” of an opinion a person has, as long as that person is willing to hear other opinions and test his/her opinion against it, he/she remains open-minded.
The problem is that we have lost the ability to debate effectively. We live in a society that embraces differences of opinions as long as they don’t grow too strong. The instant an opinion grows “too strong” the person holding it becomes “close-minded” or “dogmatic.” What ought to take place is a scholarly debate. The two people should substantiate their opinions to one another. Surely it is agreed that if a person has a “strong” opinion, they should be prepared and willing to defend and support it. A correct opinion should be easily defended.
Now I have just used a term that is very controversial. Correct. How could anyone be so “close-minded” or “dogmatic” to believe that his/her opinion is “correct?” Unfortunately, this is the way a lot of people think. The idea of such a thing as true and false or right and wrong is all but dead. It is popular to think that wrong exists only in certain situations. One “sneaky” way of presenting this idea is seen when we hear someone say something like this…”Yeah, I think that’s definitely wrong, but I can’t tell someone else that they shouldn’t do it.” Here’s another example I myself heard from a gas station attendant during a discussion about the pornographic magazines in the store. “Well, no, I wouldn’t want my daughter doing that when she grows up, but otherwise I don’t have a problem with it.” It seems that people have regressed to the point to where they don’t care about others…until it affects their world. Just like the man in the gas station. He “has no problem” with pornography…until his daughter would want to be a part of it. There has been a major paradigm shift in this country. What used to be a “dirty movie” is now an “adult feature.” Strip clubs used to be low quality. Now many are frequented by business groups and financially secure individuals who are willing to pay a high price for this “entertainment.” This is what we get from the idea of ‘relative truth.’At any rate, people should be able to talk about anything. A debate doesn’t have to be a shouting match.

Pre-marital Gratification

In today’s culture and heritage, it is common to find the person who holds the opinion that it is not only acceptable, but quite beneficial to “test the merchandise” (sexually speaking) before any serious commitment is made between a man and a woman (hopefully we can assume that we are talking about a man and a woman).
The view is supported by some of the following thoughts…
“Sex is such a BIG part of a marriage relationship, so it would be crazy to enter into marriage without knowing how sexually compatible the two of you are.”
Carnal reasoning and empty philosophy supporting this behavior is such as this….
“I’m not saying that we should go out and have sex with everyone we are interested in, but it is definitely smart to do so when you find someone you are seriously considering marrying someone.”
Clearly these thoughts are only derived from our natural tendency to justify what we have always known and always will know to be improper behavior. As humans, we fall into temptation so easily and the first natural reaction is the great deal of guilt that we feel for what we have done. So, the natural thing that we then do is to come up with a really good reason, excuse, pardon, or exception to the rule, which makes our mistake look not only justified, but in some cases, an “acceptable personal decision”.
Time and time again we hear people say, “Oh, but I am really in love with her!!!”
Or, “We are merely showing our love for each other in the most natural way possible….”
Or, “Hey, to each their own. We all have to make choices we will pay for later…”
Or, “It is different with us, we have a special understanding about that kind of stuff…”
Or, “Hey, sex is not any worse that any other stuff that you can do….”
Empty philosophy to me…
God clearly has designed sex to be for within marriage and not to be abused or toyed with. Sex is God’s blessing and gift to two people who are not only in love, but are totally and 100% committed to each other.
Here is the point that I must make concerning this topic. A popular non-Christian view is that the goal of pre-marital sexual experimentation is to avoid the “devastating” possibility of winding up spending the rest of your married life with a sexual partner who is not as good as you. They obviously think that unless the two people in a sexual partnership are not equally matched with sexual level of ability, the sexual partnership will simply be unfruitful. NONSENSE!!!! This idea suggests that only people who are “good” at sexual intercourse have any business participating in it!!! How ridiculous!!! Here is what I hope to be a useful analogy: In sports, there are different “levels” of talent. In the sport of basketball, you have many different levels ranging from Professional and Olympic, all the way to small local leagues or pick-up games. Not only can the basketball players with the least amount of natural talent have fun playing the sport, most commonly they usually possess a great attitude towards the game and those they are playing it with. We have all seen what can happen when tempers and egos collide in professional sports.
To take this analogy a little further, we observe that to be perfectly honest to ourselves, we must admit that what really is fun about sports is who we are playing with and how well we get along and help each other from a “team” perspective. I believe that this concept applies directly to a successful marriage. The two partners or “teammates” have to be not only committed to each other in love, but they must strive to “get along” and “help each other”. This goes for other activities other that sex. Is it not clear that when one basketball player is more gifted with natural ability that the other, the last thing that he should do to promote a “good basketball experience” for all persons involved, is to be cocky, or impatient with the others’ shortcomings? Is it not clear that this also applies to marriages?
My point in a nutshell, is that I believe that the physical QUALITY of the act of sex isn’t and shouldn’t be the criterion of a successful sexual relationship. And furthermore, I believe that what really and truly edifies a relationship is the level of love and commitment that is in it. God designed sex as a gift of ecstasy to bless two people who are totally in love with each other and committed to one another. The mindset of a spouse or mate should not be, “How much will he/she give me?” or “What has he/she given me lately?” Instead, “How much can I give him/her?” or “What have I done for him/her lately?” At the very heart of such attitudes, we find the Christ-like, unconditional love, which I believe to be the only kind of love that can ever begin to be the foundation of both a successful marriage and a healthy sexual relationship experience. This may seem simplistic and ridiculously idealistic, but we have forgotten what to shoot for in a marriage. We simply think that if we have found a person that we don’t argue with, we have an ideal marriage. NOPE!!! Folks, we owe it to ourselves to strive for the ultimate marriage achievement. The kind of marriage that God wants us to be blessed with!!! Let’s not settle for the worlds’ idea of a successful marriage, but strive for the blissful uniting of two people that are crazy about pleasing one another for as long as they are together, both sexually and non-sexually. Let’s face it…how long are your bodies going to be “sexually admirable”, and when that passion fades, what will be there to sustain the marriage?
In closing, is it a mere coincidence that our divorce rate has steadily risen over the years, as has the growing acceptance and encouragement of premarital sex? How are we to clearly discern, reason, and evaluate the condition of a relationship if our minds are clouded with passion and intimacy, which were designed for after we make our final decision and commitment? My belief is that experimenting sexually before marriage NEVER helps that relationship. I have never heard ANYONE say, “Man, I am glad that me and my spouse had sex before we got married!!!” Let’s not kid ourselves. Stay pure and save that beautiful God-given gift for the right time.

Church is an interesting word

Church is an interesting word. What does it mean? Well, last I checked my Greek dictionary it still means “called-out ones”. How should that meaning affect us today? Well, I think it deals with identity. We define what people are by what they do. Police officers wear uniforms, have guns and protect people. Firemen know how to use a hose, are always ready, and drive red trucks. Sadly, what the world expects from Christians is attendance at “church”, always smiling, opinionated, oh, and don’t forget that fish symbol on their car. That is not the identity Christ wanted for those who bear His name. We are “called out” to prepare people for heaven. To “go and make disciples of all the nations” and “teach them to observe His commands”.

Many church (lower-case “c”) leaders would say, “Yep, and that’s what we’re doing here at (fill in the blank) church.” I would say that yes, this does happen at some “lower case ‘c’” churches. But while most of us will admit that it doesn’t happen at enough churches, I rarely see anyone say that it doesn’t at their church. That is the first problem with many church bodies today. They think things are “fine” at their church. And while things might very well be “fine” at their church, things aren’t “fine” in the world. Let’s think about the attitude behind saying that things are “fine” at a church. I would bet that the person, who says that, when questioned, would say that they, of course, didn’t think that their church is perfect, but it’s healthy enough. I want to make sure and point out that I am not killing all churches. There are some really good churches in this world. What is the difference from a “good” church and a “bad” church, though? Well, again, I think it has more to do with identity.
Let’s remember that (as we’ve heard again and again) the church (upper or lower-case “c”) is not a building. It is a body of believers. Called-out ones. So can’t we admit that the things that make a good church are probably the same or close to the same things that make good church members? And can we admit that it’s just as wrong to think that we are “fine” spiritually as our church is (as mentioned above). Again, few people are proud or conceited enough to say that they are perfect, but virtually every day we tell many people that we are “fine”. And again, I’m not killing people either. But I think it is important to realize that churches and the Church are made up of called out Christians, and the health of churches and the Church has, does and always will depend on the lives of the members.
Having said that, let’s take a moment and list some of the things that DON’T define the health of a church.
Good music
The right witnessing program or structure.
Location, location, location.
Size
A good pastor
Style of worship
A building to meet in.
Etc…
Every item in this list is a good thing. There is nothing wrong with any of these items; they just won’t get the great commission done alone.

On The Origin of the Opportunity

So...(as if there millions of people that have been waiting to hear), this is how I stumbled upon my opportunity.

I heard about a trip to New Zealand at my prarents' house, Christmas '03. A man named Dr. Bernard Holmes (who is a native of NZ) was attending Christmas with us, and he was leading the team (of which my older sister, Sherri 31, was a part). The trip was for an entire month, and I assumed that it would cost a small fortune. We would be assisting a local church with its' ministry.
I kinda thought, "Wow, that would be cool, but I can't afford it and I could never get off work." After I heard how much the trip would cost, however, I had to think again. Church members were going to provide housing and 2 meals a day! This left us to cover only the plane ticket, occasional meals, and souvenirs. We thought the tickets would be around $1200. That's basically it! For a month, only $1200!.
I eventually decided that if God wanted me to go, He would make it happen. So, I asked my work. I knew I would have two weeks of vacation to spend. Keep in mind, it is hard to even take off both of your weeks together, much less to be gone for an entire month! Well, God had other plans, because not only was my boss going to support my desire to go, but he commented, "Well, this sounds like something you should definitely do."
So, now that I had permission, I still had to come up with the funds. I recieved an email from Dr. Holmes requesting credit-card info. from all the team members, so he could purchase the tickets. I decided to trust God, and gave him the info.

You wouldn't guess how much my federal income tax check was for.

Yep, $1200.

So I found myself boarding a plane and heading for NZ. The trip went great. We all were learning a great deal, and serving in various areas of ministry at the church we were at. Then, about 2/3 of the way through the trip, the chairman of the elders sat me down in the sanctuary one day, and offered me the youth pastor position that had been available for 1 1/2 years. I was floored. I initially thought, "Why New Zealand?", but after consideration and some council, I began to think, "Why NOT New Zealand?"

I met several times with the elders, and agreed to take the offer back to the U.S., and pray and seek more council, then make a decision.

I had 4 plane trips to get back, and I was coming back alone. Auckland to Tahiti, to L.A., to Denver, and finally to Kansas City. As I was about to sit down on the last plane, I realized there was a girl in my seat. She asked me if she was in my seat, and began to gather her things. I offered 3-4 times to sit in the seat intended for her, and assured her that it was no problem, but she insisted that I sit in my scheduled seat. I (as other passengers were trying to sit down) agreed. A husband and wife were sitting next to me. He confidently introduced himself. I gave him my name, and he asked me where I was from, I answered and returned the question, and he said he was from around Orange Co., California. I knew of a very famous church in Orange Co, so I said, "Hey, cool! Maybe you've heard of Saddleback Church, Rick Warren (teaching pastor), Purpose Driven Life (book)?" He chuckled and answered, "Well, actually I am the executive Pastor of Saddleback." It turns out that he (Glen Kruen) was the perfect individual to answer some of the questions I had. We talked church the whole plane ride. He and his wife were very encouraging. He offered very biblical, practical advice. He was not out to 'fan the flame', but he didn't 'pour cold water' on my opportunity either. It was not a coincidence. God had planned this encounter.
Well, after prayer and seeking more wise council, I decided once more to trust God, and walk toward the open door and ask as I walk, that He would close the door if it wasn't his plan.
Every door concerning this decision has been wide open since.

Trusting Him,

Dale