This blog originally founded by Blogger who holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Weighing in on Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson
I will confess
that though I have spent my entire adult life studying the Scriptures, including a seminary degree, I still do not know what Paul was saying here. But because Phil has shoved the Scripture out there into the public eye, I will share some random thoughts explaining my confusion.
1. I always keep the main thing the main thing. The main thing for Paul is Soteria (deliverance from the molestation of enemies) by Chiros (Yahweh’s loving kindness); and, above all not by Nomas (The Law--a working principle that regulates conduct). Paul's place in Christianity, not to mention in human history, is his contribution that Soteria is not based on right behavior but by the acceptance of Yahweh's gift --the atonement.
2. The second problem I have is with the statement "shall not inherit the kingdom." First a quick background about the importance of kingdom of God: In Genesis 1, Yahweh creates humankind in His own image and gives him dominion over everything. But a Nahcash (a fallen Eloheem, a spiritual being), takes the dominion away, becoming the god of this world–Google ‘god of this world.’ In Matt 4:7 the nahcash (New Testament diabolos) even offers to give dominion over the whole world to Jesus if Jesus will worship him instead of Yahweh. Note, Jesus does not deny the nahcash has that authority, even acknowledging a nahcash as archon ("ruler of this world." John 12:31.)
4. Thus Jesus declared His main purpose coming here is to establish the Basileia (the kingdom of Heaven, the rulership of God, Sovereignty of God which includes the realm over which the reign is exercised) over the nacash/diabolos Hebrew/Greek).
5. Jesus cast out the daimonion (divine beings inferior to Yahweh), saying that to do so is the visible evidence that the sovereignty of Yahweh (Kingdom of God) was now being established (Matt 12:28) over the sovereignty of the nachash.
So where does all this discussion take me about the Phil Robertson uproar? From my understanding of the Scriptures and my own personal experience, Jesus’ casting out the daimonion of the nahcash is the visible evidence of establishing the Kingdom of God. Thus the evidence that the Kingdom or Sovereignty of God is being established is a demonstrable, empirical activity, not some "I wonder if " pie in the sky out there in the future. So, because I know some well known homosexuals who can demonstrate this power, then where does that leave them when it comes to not inheriting the kingdom of God?
Above all, I just wish high profile people who can grab the microphone and suck out all the oxygen, would stay away from Scriptures which have never been settled by Biblical scholars, in this case Romans 1:24-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-10; and 1Tim 1:10, obviously problematical in that they contradict St. Paul’s major raison d’etre.
Doing so makes it hard on those of us who try to keep the main thing the main thing