Caption Contest

Previous contest winner

WINNER: John Wilks:

2006 Wookie of the Year

Don't charge the mound- Wookies have been known to pull people's arms out of their sockets.

Art Blogging: William Betts

Today, Katherine and I went to the Blue Star Contemporary Art Center in San Antonio. There, I discovered the work of William Betts. This is 01:58:31 and reflects a body of his work which imitates surveillance cameras. Betts uses proprietary technology to transfer pixels from a digital photograph to dots of acrylic paint onto a canvas, forming a grainy but coherent image. It's machine-made pointillism. Brilliant!

Sermon on Canvas: The Kingdom of Heaven

This is The Kingdom of Heaven by Evelyn De Morgan.

Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.

Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you. Matthew 5:3-12


The Kingdom of Heaven is a land of promise. We shall not be bent over in anguish, for the Lord will wipe away every tear. We will not be blind, but live in truth. We will not be chained down by the forces of sin, but freed into righteousness.

Now we may look up to our Lord. Now we may ascend his mountain of holiness. Now we may sing praises with the angels. Now we may fly to the inheritance of our Savior!

And we live in this Kingdom today. Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.

My Skin Crawls Upon the Discovery of My Inner Warhol

Who Should Paint You: Andy Warhol

You've got an interested edge that would be reflected in any portrait You don't need any fancy paint techniques to stand out from the crowd!

What Artist Should Paint Your Portrait?

Hat tip

Art Blogging: George Barbier

Getting to see so many museums and galleries in the past few days and increasing exposure to the early 20th Century has put me in an Art Deco mood. It is an era that I simply adore, from painting to sculpture to fashion to design -- every element of that era has a simultaneously glamorous but relaxing geometry.

Today, let's look at French illustrator George Barbier (1882-1932). He debuted in 1911 and was swept to fame in illustration, fashion, and set design, as well as contributing to jewelry, wallpaper, and glasswork. Barbier's works are reminiscent of the languishing, indealized portraits of Greco-Roman life by Alma-Tadema and Godward.

This is La Villa D'Este (1923). I love his selection of colors, strikingly different but building unity in whole composition. Compare it with this picture to see what I mean by Neoclassical idealism. Barbier and Alma-Tadema were appealing to the same elegance.

Ah, idyll joys of being idle! This is Un Peu (1913). As I've noted before, engaging with art is like taking a mini-vacation away from the troubles of the world. Godward thought along the same lines.




Barbier captured the self-deluded ecstasy of the Roaring Twenties, much like the playful oblivion of the French Rococo period. This is L'Escarpotette (1924).

Sesame Street Parodies Law & Order: SVU

I had no idea that Sesame Street was a sophisticated comedy. Has it always been intended to be understood at two levels?

Divorce, Homosexuality, and Priorities

John Meunier wonders why the UMC considers homosexuality scandalous, but not divorce:

As we all know, though, marriage is under direct attack. Divorce rates are high and continue to be. Long before the wider culture and entertainment industry started to embrace homosexuality, it positively gloried in the easy divorce and the disposable marriage. Celebrity news is practically an unending paen to the idea that marriage is only to be preserved as long as it is convenient.

And here, we have clear New Testament texts from no less than Jesus Christ himself (and St. Paul to boot).

And yet, I hear and read very little attack and condemnation of the official UMC position on divorce. There is hand wringing about divorce, but no threat of schism over allowing it to continue. Divorced ministers are not a scandal.

By any quantifiable measure, divorce is a much deeper crisis than the "threat" of gay marriage or gay ministers.

So, why do we talk so much about the second and so little about the former?

That's a good question.

Why Am I Concerned About Belief in the Virgin Birth?

Al Mohler:

Bishop Joseph Sprague of the United Methodist Church offers further evidence of modern heresy. In an address he presented on June 25, 2002 at the Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado, this bishop denied the faith wholesale. Sprague, who serves as Presiding Bishop of the United Methodist Church in northern Illinois, has been called "the most vocally prominent active liberal bishop in Protestantism today." Sprague is proud of this designation and takes it as a compliment: "I really make no apology for that. I don't consider myself a liberal. I consider myself a radical." Sprague lives up to his self-designation.

In his Illiff address, Bishop Sprague claimed that the "myth" of the virgin birth "was not intended as historical fact, but was employed by Matthew and Luke in different ways to appoint poetically the truth about Jesus as experienced in the emerging church." Sprague defined a theological myth as "not false presentation but a valid and quite persuasive literary device employed to point to ultimate truth that can only be insinuated symbolically and never depicted exhaustively." Jesus, Sprague insists, was born to human parents and did not possess "trans-human, supernatural powers."

I've asked why any Christian would reject the Virgin Birth. What possible reason would exist for doing so? I've been a bit coy because I know quite well why those who reject the Virgin Birth do so -- because they reject the divinity of Christ. If Jesus was just a great, but human teacher who talked about turning the other cheek and so on, then his birth from a virgin, miracles, and bodily resurrection are impossibilities derived from myth, not historical fact. Mohler, unlike me, however, is not interested in tap dancing around this issue:

Thus, Sprague dismisses the miracles, the exclusivity of Christ, and the bodily resurrection as well as the virgin birth. His Christology is explicitly heretical: "Jesus was not born the Christ, rather by the confluence of grace with faith, he became the Christ, God's beloved in whom God was well pleased."

Can one be a Christian and reject the divinity of Christ? Mohler is more generous than I by responding to this preposterous question:

Can a true Christian deny the virgin birth? The answer to that question must be a decisive No. Those who deny the virgin birth reject the authority of Scripture, deny the supernatural birth of the Savior, undermine the very foundations of the Gospel, and have no way of explaining the deity of Christ.

Anyone who claims that the virgin birth can be discarded even as the deity of Christ is affirmed is either intellectually dishonest or theological incompetent.

Exactly. As I stated previously, rejection of the Virgin Birth is not in and of itself heretical, but is symptomatic of heresy. One only rejects the Virgin Birth after one has rejected the divinity of Christ.

So if there is some reason why anyone would reject the Virgin Birth but support the authority of Scripture and the divinity of Christ, I would like to hear it. That is the challenge that I lay down to skeptics of my position: explain why anyone would reject the Virgin Birth while simultaneously upholding the authority of Scripture and the divinity of Christ.

Louis-Ernest Barrias and the Gods of Modernism

Today, I glanced through the works of Louis-Ernest Barrias (1841-1905), a French Academic and Art Nouveau sculptor. Although his style and training were Academic, it was his subject matter which broke him from Academic norms -- and in a fascinating way.

Art Nouveau was a profoundly optimistic movement. It expressed hope and anticipation for the future of the 20th Century. You can see this vividly in three of Barrias' works in particular.

Nature Unveiling Herself Before Science (1889) at the Musee D'Orsay.


Electricity, which was at the entrance to the Gallery of Machines at the 1889 Paris Exposition. I don't know where it is now.















Nubian Alligator Hunters (1894), at the Musee D'Orsay.



Academic art derives directly from Renaissance Humanism, and much of Neoclassicism can taken from the Enlightenment (hence the precipitous decline in religious subject matter in the 19th Century). This central thread of Academic art, then, could be said as culminating in Barrias. Just as the Greeks and the Neoclassicals personified concepts (such as Wisdom, Liberty or Victory) as divine personages, so Barrias created idols to the gods of the new 20th Century religion -- Science. The old gods of religion are dead, hail the new gods (middle) of the scientific method! There are no more mysteries, but only a natural world to be fully exposed (top) and subdued (bottom).

As a recovering humanist (five years clean and sober!), I find this fascinating.

UPDATE: Two content changes made to clarify a couple of points.

In Other UMC News...

Ben Affleck's daughter has been baptized in a United Methodist congregation.

Another UM congregation in Nashville has begun celebrating Kwanzaa.

The UMC has initiated a global health care initiative.

Is the Doctrine of the Virgin Birth A Fundamental of the Faith?

Michael Westmoreland-White:

I don't believe the Virgin Birth is a "fundamental of the faith." Nonsense. It is not mentioned anywhere in the New Testament except for Matthew and Luke. [There are hints in Mark and John that the rumor that Jesus was a bastard was widespread.]Paul does not seem to have heard of it and, in the First Century, it was probably possible to be converted, live a Christian life, and die without ever hearing about, never mind believing in, the Virgin Birth. It is not necessary to believe in the Virgin Birth in order to believe in the Incarnation or Christ's pre-existence. John's Gospel and some hymns in Paul's letters indicate Christ's pre-existence without ever mentioning virgin birth. We get our very WORD "incarnation" from the prologue to John's Gospel without ever a mention of the Virgin Birth. Although some later theologians say the Virgin Birth guarantees Jesus' sinlessness, the New Testament never makes that connection--and doesn't promote a belief in the biological transmission of sin.

[snip

But, as a matter of fact, that is not MY view: I believe the virgin birth to be literal, historical fact. Because I believe the Resurrection is literal, historical, fact, I believe in a God whose relation to the world allows for miracles. So, nothing in my worldview prevents belief in the Virgin Birth. A God that created this cosmos (yes, using evolutionary and other natural processes, but STILL) and can raise the dead would have no trouble with a pathenogenetic conception in a species (Homo sapiens) where that is usually impossible.

Be sure to read the whole post, which is an excellent examination of the doctrinal implications of disbelief in the Virgin Birth [nota bene: I do not necessarily agree with Michael. I simply suggest that you read him.].

I do not think that there would be any causal relationship between professed disbelief in the Virgin Birth and reprobation. But I do think that disbelief in the Virgin Birth would be symptomatic of serious theological error. What possible reason would a Christian have for disbelief in the Virgin Birth? I cannot see any reason to proclaim the Gospel writers liars. If they fabricated the Virgin Birth, did they also fabricate the Sermon on the Mount?

The burden of argument lies on the laps of those Christians who declare that there was no Virgin Birth. On what basis do they declare the Biblical account false?

Caption Contest

Previous contest winner

WINNER: Soon to be featured on TLC: "American Chopper: The Early Days."

Art Blogging: The San Antonio Museum of Art

Today, Katherine and I visited the San Antonio Museum of Art. It possesses and immense and diverse collection, from Ancient Egypt and Greece, China and Japan, as well as selections from Oceania, the Islamic world, and India. It also has impressive collections of Wedgewood porcelain and Latin American art. Here are a few interesting items that I saw.

This is The Dancing Lesson (1880) by Edgar Degas. The SAMA is currently holding a special exhibit of Impressionists on loan from the Clark Art Institute.

The Onions (1881) by Pierre-Auguste Renoir was also at the special exhibit. Renoir's unique use of light delicately depicts the translucent skins of the onions.



At the Concert (1880), also by Renoir, who is by far my favorite impressionist. Renoir was a master of luminescence. This canvas radiated with a warm glow, particularly in the subtly shifting flesh tones. I was also impressed by the roses, which took the forms of whirlpools of reds, pinks, and whites.









There was also a collection of 19th Century Japanese prints in a sideroom. Yoshu Chikanobu was a woodblock printer of the Meiji Period. He usually depicted mythological, historical, or familial scenes. Blessed With Children, like many of his works, were written in response to a perceived threat to traditional Japanese values by Westernization.

Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Allan Bevere has the latest Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup in place. Thanks for your ministry, Allan!

He's very good at picking up the best items from the week.

Mitchell Lewis expounded that God is not only capable of anger, but it is essential for his loving and just character:

The Mothers against Drunk Driving see what is happening to their children as a result of drunk driving, and say “Something has to be done about this.” Their concern for their children says to the offender, “You will have to change, or we will not tolerate you.” It says to the politician and to the judge, “You will have to change, or we will sweep you out of office.” It says to business, “You will have to start being responsible, or it will hurt you financially.” Their love for their children makes their safety the highest priority. Everything else, however important, is secondary. Their anger, their relentless pursuit of justice, is a result of their love for their children.

God’s anger, just like theirs, is a result of his love. Because God loves, he has sworn that he will eliminate everything evil from the face of the earth. The things that hurt and destroy people will not be allowed to remain.

I can imagine God looking into your home and mine, and seeing the thousand different things that scar our souls, wound our hearts, and rob us of joy and love, and saying, “Something has to be done about this.” I can see him looking down on sickness and hunger, slavery and death, hatred and despair, and saying, “Something has got to be done about this.”

Beth Quick wrote about the odd nature of calling in ministry. Being an ordained minister (well, any Christian, really) means having great ambition, but not personal ambition. Yet personal ambition is part of human nature:

I respond this way because people are constantly teasing me about becoming bishop or DS or General Secretary or something equally thrilling. But, truth be told, if I was asked by my bishop and the DS to take an appointment at a three-point charge like the itty-bitty one I grew up in, with average attendance of 25 or less, in a town that makes Oneida, NY look like a mega-city, I would have a very, very hard time getting excited about things. Do I think I'm actually called to something else than this scenario in my ministry? Yes. But also, my personal ambitions wouldn't fit well there either.

Sermon on Canvas: Christ, the Light of the World

This is The Light of the World (1851-1853), now hanging at Oxford, by English Pre-Raphaelite painter William Holman Hunt. Click on the image for a larger view.

John 1:9-13: There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

In this image, Christ bears the lamp of his grace -- the light of forgiveness, truth, and hope. We live in a world of whole darkness without him, but we are unaware that it is even darkness! Christ alone makes it possible for us to even perceive the light.

On this day, we remember that wonderful moment when Christ entered into the flesh to sojourn with us, and guide us back to home. He lifts up high the lamp so that we may see the way.

Onward, my master! We shall follow!

[cross-posted]

Divorce and Homosexuality

Jeff the Baptist:

I often wonder if the prevalence of divorce is one of the reasons why homosexuality is on the rise in American culture. Geek deals with the debasement of the sanctity of marriage over at his place. And he's probably right. Once upon a time, the failure rate of homosexual relationships was a pretty good reason to oppose same-sex marriage. Now the heterosexual failure rate is also huge so that's a wash.

But I often wonder if divorce isn't promoting the homosexual lifestyle in other ways than just debasing the institution of marriage. I've heard a lot about strong correlations between gay lifestyles and poor parental figures (distant fathers or weak mothers depending on the sex of the individual). I wonder if there is also a correlation with divorce for similar reasons. It seems to me that divorce would often degrade one parent as a role model. The current high divorce rate would increase the likelihood of children growing up under those conditions.

It would be an interesting subject to study, although even correlation would not delineate causality.

I can't put any statistics behind it, but I would speculate that one of the causes of American divorce is romantic perfectionism. In world history, it's quite unusual for a society to consider love to be a prerequisite for marriage. And I've met people who considered perpetual romantic bliss (puppy love) to be essential for a marriage worth continuing. Such people are doomed to a string of failed relationships. Love is more than a feeling that overcomes us; it is a conscious decision that we make.

Weekend Rabbit Blogging

The origin of the rabbit from the Watership Down mythos:

Meeting Another Methoblogger

On Thursday, I met Methoblogger Dale Tedder at a Panera in Jacksonville.

He introduced me to yet another requirement of the candidacy process in the Florida Conference (the list is forever growing). I cannot go to the Board of Ordained Ministry for probationary conference membership until I can snatch a pebble from the hand of my DCOM chair.

George Bailey vs. Howard Roark

Joe Carter as an interesting post comparing the character of George Bailey from It's a Wonderful Life and Howard Roark from The Fountainhead:

But what makes George Bailey one of the most inspiring, emotionally complex characters in film is that he continually chooses the needs of his family and community over his own self-interested ambitions and desires – and suffers immensely for his efforts.

Although sentimental, Capra’s movie is not a simplistic morality play. In the end, George is saved from ruin but the rest of life remains essentially the same. By December 26 he’ll wake to find that he's still a frustrated artist scraping out a meager living in a drafty old house in a one-stoplight town. In fact, all that he has gained is recognition of the value of faith, friends, and community and that this is worth more than anything else he might achieve. Capra’s underlying message is thus radically subversive: it is by serving our fellow man, even to the point of subordinating our dreams and ambitions, that we achieve true greatness.

Carter then moves on to Howard Roark:

For instance, Roark lives to create inspiring works of architecture but cannot do so without relying on others. When society fails to appreciate his “genius”, his egotistical purity leads him to engage in a massive destruction of private property. By the end of The Fountainhead Roark is revealed to be an infantile, narcissistic, parasite.

Bailey, on the other hand, has all the marking of a repressed, conformist, patsy. He lives for others (a sentiment that would make Ayn Rand gag) rather than “following his bliss.” He compromises everything but his integrity. And yet he discovers that he has all that makes life worth living.

I'll agree with Carter on all but two points. It is true that there is no joy in the path of Objectivism (I've tried). Because Objectivism places selfishness as the highest virtue, it is completely incompatible with Christianity. It is infantile and narcissistic to suggest that a person can be completely self-sufficient in all areas, especially the emotional. But Roark did not destroy private property because society failed to appreciate him. He destroyed his own private property which was stolen from him.

Roark was both superhuman in his self-sufficiency and subhuman in his uncaring nature toward his fellow man. But he was not a parasite. In fact, he was the opposite of a parasite. He strove to burden no one else with his own needs. He took from no one, but only acquired through voluntary exchange.

Roark was wrong on everything else, but his unwillingness to steal was a virtue that we all should emulate.

UPDATE: Henry Neufeld wondered if it is possible, if not necessary, to have elements of both Bailey and Roark in our personalities.

How the Sith Stole Christmas

An animated classic. 16 minutes long.

If the Charlie Brown Christmas Special Had Been Written by Scientologists

It would be like this.

Christmas + Fine Art + Photoshop

...equals fun.

Art Blogging: The McNay Art Museum in San Antonio

Katherine and I spent our morning at the Marion Koogler McNay Art Museum in San Antonio. Ms. McNay built up an impressive collection of Impressionist and Expressionist works and then turned her mansion into a public gallery. The museum has added extensively to it since her death.

A guard told me that despite Ms. McNay's death, she has not been absent from the parts of the museum that formed her house. There have been numerous sightings of her ghost dressed in period 1920s garb moving about the domicile. The most amusing related to McNay's loathing of Georgia O'Keefe. In the mid-90s, there was an exhibit of O'Keefe's works in the wing of the museum beyond the original house. The museum store, however, is part of the old house. One morning, the staff entered the building to find all O'Keefe-related items in the store trashed and shredded, but everything else left alone.

I took a few pages of notes and thought that I would share a few images from the McNay's collection.

This is Haymakers Resting (1891) by Camille Pissarro. It is an idealized portrait of rural life. Pissarro was influenced by Neo-Impressionist Seurat's pointillism, which created a shimmering effect across the canvas.


This is Portrait of Hans Frisch (1907) by Ernst Ludwig Kirchner. Kirchner was a German Expressionist who conveyed the anxiety of urban life before World War I. He made this painting by squeezing paint from tubes directly onto the canvas and then shaping it with a palette knife.






This is War Mother by Charles Umlauf. Umlauf (1911-1994) was a native of Michigan who studied at the Art Institute of Chicago and later taught at the University of Texas. He was an Expressionistic figure sculptor. War Mother, created on the eve of World War II, is an attempt to depict the ghastly suffering of innocent people during war.





The McNay also had a gilded bronze cast of Philopoemen (1837) by Pierre-Jean David d'Angers. This was one of the handful of Academic pieces in the collection. Philopoemen was a 3rd and 2nd Century B.C. Achaean general who ably defended the Achaean League against vastly larger Spartan, Macedonian, and Roman threats. He was a brutally self-disciplined soldier who eschewed vanity and luxury. Plutarch called him "the last of the Greeks":

Philopoemen wore humble clothes and behaved like a plain man. Once, after he had become general of the Achaeans, a hostess at Megara received word that Philopoemen would be coming to dinner, and she began preparing a suitably grand reception. While the household was in an uproar with these preparations, Philopoemen arrived early. He was dressed in his usual humble clothes, so the hostess thought he was a servant sent ahead by her husband, and she ordered him to chop wood. Without a word, Philopoemen obeyed. The host arrived, and was surprised to find the guest of honor hard at work. "I am paying the penalty for my ugly looks," said Philopoemen.

Art Blogging: Thomas Hart Benton

Thomas Hart Benton (1889-1975) was an American painter, printmaker, and muralist. He was born in the Ozarks, the son of a Congressman. After dropping out of high school, he studied art in Chicago and Paris, before setting up an atelier in New York City in 1912. He built a successful career and then moved to Kansas City 1941 to become director of the City Art Institute there, remaining the duration of his life. Benton rejected both Academic and Modernist norms for Regionalism -- a 20th Century American movement that celebrated small-town and rural life. This movement, which peaked in the 1930s, reflected American conservativism and nationalism.


The Trail Riders (1964-1965).







Approaching Storm (1938) -- a lithograph.








Island Hay (1945) -- a lithograph.

I've chosen these three particular images because they show Benton's mastery of the line. His works are vast collections of swirling, curved lines. It's kind of like Van Gogh's Starry Night, don't you think?

I'm Away For the Next Two Days

Guess as to why in the comments.

The funniest commentor wins a date with Beth Quick.

UPDATE: The winner is, of course, Matthew Johnson:

It takes two days to find the right Festivus pole? Seriously, much can one aluminum pole differ from another?

Indeed it does. Especially when I'm trying to impress my in-laws. That's where I am, in scenic Schertz, Texas. In the morning, I shall engage in the local rite of manhood among the natives of this land, which is to rise far too early in the morning to journey down to the Dairy Queen with my father-in-law and the men of the town to eat breakfast.

Our very first act, upon crossing into the state this afternoon, was to venture to a Whataburger for real food -- as my wife sees it.

My beloved tries to hide a central plank of her worldview: that the world beyond Texas is -- at least --- mildly uncivilized and in need for conversion into a more Texas-like culture. Out of politeness to her friends in Florida, she tries not to express this publicly. "They just don't know any better." As we have journeyed into the Lone Star Republic, she has been increasingly less inclined to hide this perspective. I'm sure that my Texas readers understand why.

Caption Contest

Previous contest winner

WINNER: DannyG:

How trans-fats came into widespread use in fast-food: the untold story.

Protecting the Cultural Heritage of Klingon-Americans

Patrick Stewart Performing Hamlet on Sesame Street

My New Devotional Pattern

A couple of weeks ago, I finished my fourth read-through of the Bible. These daily readings were my primary form of daily devotions. I read four chapters out loud, and then prayed. But I have concluded that this method is no longer adequate. It was effective for immersing myself in Scripture, but now I need something more concentrated. I've been reading through the Bible too quickly for it to have as much impact as it can. So this is what I've been doing lately:

1. Find a quiet place and pray the Bible study prayer of Bede.

2. Read one chapter out of my study Bible out loud.

3. Look up relevant materials to that chapter in a Bible dictionary that I have.

4. Read the chapter outloud again, letting the Scriptures sink deeper into me.

5. Pray.

I'm going to replace the Bible dictionary with a good commentary as soon as I can find one appropriate for my purposes. It also has to be available for checkout at my seminary library, which narrows down the list considerably. I'm cerebral enough as it is, and need something more spiritually formative than a dictionary.

Methodist Blogger Profile: JD

JD of Proverbs 19:20
I was born in 1973 in Florence, AL. I have lived in South Louisiana and South Texas. I went to High School in Victoria, TX, college at St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, TX, and now reside in Spring, TX, a little suburb of Houston, TX, where I work for an Offshore Gas Pipeline Company.

I was a cradle Catholic attending Catholic school from Kindergarten until I graduated college. About 5 years ago, in March 2001, I started attending First United Methodist Church in Houston, after I allowed my life to stray from the church down a path that involved lots of alcohol and really stupid activity. I met my wife in June 2001. I got married in November 2002. Found out we were having our daughter in April 2003, and completely quit drinking and rededicated my life to Christ shortly there after. Beside my faith, my wife and daughter keep me grounded. My wife helps me balance my mind and my heart in all that I post and discuss. My daughter gives me inspiration and encouragement everyday of my life.

I help my congregation with the television ministry and have helped coordinate Financial Peace University.

Why do you blog?
Well, on my first post, I put the following: “I am starting this blog to share my thoughts on specific topics that I am studying within the Bible. Sometimes, they will be on a specific verse through which the Holy Spirit has spoken to me. Other times, it will be on a lengthy reading...over time. You may disagree with my thoughts, you may agree, and hopefully you have an opinion. That is fine. The important thing is that you are thinking about the Word of God!”

I still believe in that endeavor, although, getting involved in the Methoblogosphere has opened up some more intellectual discussions about faith that I never imagined I would have. That being the case, my posts have morphed into somewhat of a mixture of my faith walk, addressing issues that I am dealing with, and some fun stuff that I may be doing with my family as well as my original intentions.

I have recently realized, as a few of my fellow bloggers have, that I need to back away from some of the conversations that I get involved in, unless God really calls me for my input, and focus on spreading the truth of Christ. I do my best, with the help of my wife, to attempt to not be too “religious:” to always put Christ first, and my denomination second.

What has been your best blogging experience?
The friends and mentors I have made as well as the intense intellectual discussions that can occur every now and then. Even though I am not as well read as some of the individuals posting, I really enjoy their input and insight on the topics that we discuss.

What would be your main advice to a novice blogger?
A wise man once told me, who was told by someone wiser than him(a blogger article), “When I began blogging last January, I read an article that advised that in order to keep readers 1) update your blog often and regularly and 2) keep it short. I know that for myself, I'm much more likely to read short postings than longer ones. Shorter and more frequent works well for me. It forces me to be succinct and allows readers who don't have much time to get the point. keep experimenting!”

I can honestly say, I have really tried to keep with that, but my next big topic blows that theory out of the water. I think I have been reading your (John the Methodist) blog too much and your posts are rubbing off on me…as far as length goes.

If you only had time to read three blogs a day, what would they be?
Jason Woolever, Angela Messenger, and John the Methodist
The last one is not a suck up read, I enjoy the intellectual debate and the broad range of readers who comment on Locusts and Honey. But my mood does change and I have been known to frequent other’s blogs.

Who are your spiritual heroes?
Jesus, of course

St. Augustine; Pope John Paul II; Martin Luther; St. Paul; C.S. Lewis

Different reasons for each, but the one thing they all have in common, is no matter the struggles they faced in life and the temptations that arose, they always stayed focused on my first choice, Jesus Christ, and did all that they could in their teachings to be true to the gospel.

What are you reading at the moment?
The Bible by The Holy Spirit (The ultimate Life Guide)
The Silver Chair by C.S. Lewis (Great fiction and story)
Every Man’s Battle: Winning the War on Sexual Temptation One Victory at a Time by Stephen Arterburn, Fred Stoeker, Mike Yorkey (Because, as the title suggests, every man in this world, no matter how close they are to God, struggles with sexual temptation, especially within the American culture. Men could use all the help they can get.)

What is your favorite hymn and why?
Contemporary - How Great is Our God by Chris Rice (the title says it all)
Traditional – On Eagle’s Wings (Probably because it is one of the few hymns I loved in the Catholic Church and can continue to sing in the Methodist Church. The cool upside to this hymn, I can actually sing it.)

Can you name a major moral, political, or intellectual issue on which you've changed your mind?
Through recent treading, prayer, and discussion I have come to a different, but not all-together changed, understanding of homosexuality and the debate in the church.

It is my understanding that many of the debates, tirades, and hurtful things said about homosexuality in the context of the Christian/Methodist church are more politically driven that faith driven. If we all were to look at homosexuality for what it is in God’s eyes, and not so much in society’s eyes, we may be able to better reach those individuals that are challenged by homosexuality and attempt to comfort their affliction as we do adulterers, divorcees, sex addicts, alcoholics, drug addicts, abusers, etc.

I know I opened a can of worms on that front, but I sort of do that sometimes…stir the pot and see what happens.

What philosophical thesis do you think is most important to combat?
Religious pluralism and the denial of basic Christian tenets in an effort to make Christianity more palatable to today’s modern culture.

If you could effect one major change in the governing of your country, what would it be?
Term limits and the ability of all peoples, in all levels of government, across the entire United States, to have the ability to recall an individual that is voted into office under false pretenses. (That is probably the extent of any discussion you will get from me regarding politics. To have a real, honest discussion about faith issues, I believe all politics must be removed from the discussion.)

If you could effect one major policy change in the United Methodist Church, what would it be?
Get back to truthfully standing-up for the traditions and scripture that we base our faith on, as well as return to the original evangelical tradition of the church that allowed us to grow and have such an impact in the US. I appreciate that we are inclusive and that we minister to all, as we should, but I also would like us to start practicing what Christ called all Christians to do in Matthew 18:15-17. “Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector.” There are too many leaders in the church that are placating to the norms of society instead of focusing on the unchanging truth of God and His Word.

What would be your most important piece of advice about life?
Let Go and Let God.

What, if anything, do you worry about?
Finances and am I being a good steward of the blessings God has provided my family.

If you were to relive your life to this point, is there anything that you'd do differently?
No. I am the sum of all that I have lived so far in my life. I may not like some of the stuff that I have done, and even be ashamed of certain things, but I know that the man that I am in Christ, the husband I am to my wife, the father to my daughter and the friend to co-workers and friends is only because of what I have lived so far. Knowing what I know now about faith and such, would I make different choices? Maybe, but the one thing about being Christian is that the right thing to do is not always the easy thing and as Christians, we still fall from time to time.

Where would you most like to live (other than where you do now)?
Denver area (so my wife could be closer to her sister and we could REALLY enjoy nature) or somewhere in Pennsylvania (I have visited there once and found it to be one of the most beautiful places in the US)

What do you like doing in your spare time?
Spending time with the family, blogging, reading, watching movies.

What is your most treasured possession?
My family.

What talent would you most like to have?
Either to sing and play guitar (at the same time), or to really be able to put all the visual ideas I have in my head to paper.

If you could have any three guests, past or present to dinner, who would they be?
St. Paul, Martin Luther, John Wesley

What Andy Bryan Is Called To and Is Not

The definitive list.

Living Your Epistemology

We had a fun time last week debating religious pluralism. I took it to be a self-refuting statement and came up with analogies focusing on Gavin's posterior. My central argument was the Law of Non-Contradiction -- that a thing cannot be both what it is and what it is not at the same time. Of this, Medieval Persian philosopher Avicenna wrote:

Anyone denies the law of non-contradiction, let him be beaten and burned. Until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.

Heh! I like that. It points out that no one actually adheres to high postmodernist epistemology, all claims to the contrary. I've never heard a postmodernist say "Well, my truth is that I can fly" and then go jump off a cliff to prove it. They might be pomo about spiritual concerns, but never truly live as though all truth is subjective.

That's why I find the Chicken Little screams of "The world is becoming postmodern!" farfetched. People may be approaching theology and philosophy increasingly through pomo lenses (much of it to good effect), but until people can jump off cliffs and fly around, the world will never be postmodern.

This Means That I Now Have Something In Common With Adolf Hitler

Time magazine's Person of Year is me. Or you. Something like that.

The Lost Ending to It's a Wonderful Life!

Art Blogging: Hans Makart

Hans Makart (1840-1884) was an Austrian Academic painter. He studied in Munich, London, Paris, and Rome. Makart was immensely popular in Vienna, where he built a grand home and atelier. He composed portraits, architectural renderings, but most importantly, huge sprawling works of the the grandiosity that only an empire in its death throws is sufficiently self-deluded enough to embrace. He painted immense canvases from classical themes and courtly life in a way reminiscent of Boucher and French Rococo on the eve of the guillotine's arrival.

The Anniversary Parade: Hunting Party with Treasure Wagon (1879) at the Historical Museum of Stadt Wien in Vienna.

Abundantia -- The Gifts of the Earth. (1870) at the Musee D'Orsay. All of the delightful absurdity of Rococco conveyed through Neoclassical norms.
Snow White Sleeping (1872) also, at the Stadt Wein. Makart was not immune to the revival of European folklore that swept the 19th Century.

Caption Contest (Bumped)

Previous contest winner

WINNER: Brett Royal:

Bling Bling Bells
Bling Bling Bells
Bling Bling All the Way

Zombie-Proof Vehicles

A couple of weeks ago, I sketched out a design for a vehicle appropriate for traversing a zombie-dominated landscape. There were some good comments about my design.

Jeff the Baptist put his engineering skills to use:

Just use a diesel. You get the torque you want, better mileage, and you can run it off any vegetable oil you find if you use the proper seals, lines, and gaskets.

Solid rubber tires are only for Car Wars. You need a good contact patch to get all that torque to the ground. Consider a tracked or half-track vehicle instead if you are worried about standard tires not being rugged enough.

I considered a diesel because of the low torque that I consider necessary. A zombie-proof vehicle should be able to, from a dead stop and completely surrounded by a mob of zombies, push its way forward. That's a lot of zombie flesh to move without any interia. I decided against it because of fuel availability. But if vegetable oil can work as a substitute, then it's best to have a diesel engine.

Kurt Boemler reflected from his military experience:

Humvees use a magnezium "donut" inside thier tires as a run flat technology. If something gets through the thick bias ply tire, it can still roll about 30 miles at a top speed of 30 mph.

The problem with such a design is replacing the old tire. I would suggest having one spare, spares cached at friend's and families' homes (with food and water supply) and a catalog of lacations spares can be found. You'll need them already mounted. Otherwise, you need to learn how to mount a tire on a rim, know where you can find the tools to do it (the big pneumatic ones found at garages) and practice it for time.

You may want to also equip it with a central tire inflation system (CTIS) which will allow you to continually refill the tire with air as you roll. It can also be used to power air tools or maybe even homemade defensive/offensive weapons on the KAZCV.

Speaking of water, you probably want a high water fording kit like on Marine Corp HMMWVs. You'll also need a rain catch and filter system. Remember the rule of threes:

Humans can survivethree:
hours without shelter
days without water
weeks without food

Last but not least: cover you butt. In other words, get a wide crossmesh for your toilet exit. Small (former children) zombies could be industrious and come up the toilet.

These are all very sensible ideas that I will incorporate into the design.

Kurt brings up the "Rule of Threes". There's one applicable to surviving in the open in a zombie-dominated area. You have at most three hours. Zombies are slow, but they never get tired. You, however, will. So if you can jog and weave around attacking zombies, you can keep going. But only the fittest of athletes will be able to do that for more than three straight hours. That's how long you have to find a more or less permanent shelter, because as soon as you stop, you will be beseiged.

Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup #96

...is up.

The Methoblogosphere on the Move

Stephen Fife has a great idea for a great cause.

Heifer International is a charitable organization that provides livestock to impoverished people around the world so that they can become economically self-sufficient.

Let's set a goal for the Methoblogosphere -- bloggers, commentors, and readers alike. Let's together contribute a total of $1,000 to this cause.

Who's up for the challenge?

Does Political Art Subvert Political Discourse?

Fernando Teson:

A noteworthy case of discourse failure is political art. Many people regard art as a legitimate vehicle for political views. Indeed, many have insisted that artists ought to be politically committed. The aesthetic experience may raise peopleÂ’s political awareness. And, if one believes in moral-political truths, it seems natural to recommend that artists convey those truths in a way people can readily understand. Thanks to the emotional power of beauty, art can, at least sometimes, help noble ideals reach the general public. Many of these works have great artistic value (Picasso's Guernica, for example), and some of them have surely contributed to worthy causes.

However, political art is a special form of discourse failure. Art is a type of concrete imagery, and as such it evokes a "fact" that may activate default theories in the audience. Those willing to challenge the political stances represented by the artifact have to overcome the suggestive power of beauty. Political paintings (say, Diego Rivera's murals) often suggest causal connections that, for the reasons I indicated in my previous posts, permeate theories that people hold by default. Political art's appeal to emotion usurps reasoned political argument. If you think big oil is responsible for the evils in the world, make an argument. The movie Syriana will not do. (A related puzzle: why is all political art of the left? We have answers to this too.)

[snip]

Many people see political art as a healthy form of social criticism. For them, consuming and appreciating political art epitomizes the critical attitude. I disagree. political art hinders critical thinking. It reinforces people’s fundamental default beliefs, and sometimes it does so by questioning their superficial beliefs. Thus, a novel may convince readers that their prior belief in the kindness of the police is wrong, and that in reality the police are henchmen of the ruling class. No doubt these readers may regard this novel as having transformed their beliefs on the matter, and in that sense political art may be seen as challenging their beliefs. At a deeper level, however, the novel may well have appealed to the reader’s default theories, for example by showing the role of the police in making some people rich at the poor’s expense – a zero-sum explanation that is inferior to explanations derived from reliable social science.

I will completely dispute that Guernica, or anything else by Picasso, has great artistic value. Otherwise, I generally agree with Teson. Political art has no more nuance than a street protest. Street protests have value, as well as art that protests injustice. But bothoversimplifyversimply complex issues.

The difficulty is that some issues are complex, and some are very simple. And we all seem to disagree about which is which.

My preference is that art remain untained by the ugliness of politics. In the midst of incessant bickering between angry, shouting voices, it would be nice to have a pristine refuge of sanity and peace. Who wants to be perpetually outraged?



Hat tip: Glenn Reynolds

Should Biblical Ethics Be Translated Into Public Policy?

In our discussion on what the Bible says about property rights, Dan Trabue wrote:

I'd love to discuss the Jubilee Laws and implications. I'm with you that we can't really implement them today our societies being apples and oranges - but that we CAN and should implement policies (individually, locally and nationally) that are in their spirit.

I think the notion of the Jubilee Laws are sufficient reason to dismiss the notion that we ought not institute policies on a societal level to assist the poor. What were the Jubilee Laws and some of the other Levitical laws (leaving behind some of the field to be gleaned by the poor) if not a form of taxation?

Enforced not by a military but by a God?

I responded that I fully approve of God implementing such policies. To this, Dan replied (in contradiction to his first proposal that such policies be enforced by God, not the military):

And God did so, in the nation of Israel whose people implemented such a policy. God merely recommended it (commanded, actually).

Ought we not stand ready to do as a people - a Christian people - what the Israelis did? Not that we can force an issue in and of ourselves, we are only one voice in a nation of many.

But we can advocate for rules that mimic the Jubilee Laws and Levitical laws (the reasonable ones in our society) and, if our reasoning is sufficient to sway the masses, those policies may be implemented and there would be nothing at all biblically wrong with doing so.

It's an interesting idea, but I don't think that Christian Ethics should necessarily be codified in public policy. For example, the Bible at no point presents a positive portrayal of homosexuality, and at one point even commands that those who engage in homosexual activity to be executed. If we were to follow this model, then Christians must push for homosexuality to be criminalized.

Here's another example. Biblical teaching, as Dan has pointed out, clearly and repeatedly condemns greed and encourages charity. In my post, I listed a long string of verse citations which encourage if not demand charitable giving to the poor.

Here's an even longer string of verse citations:

Ex 20:3-5, Deu 6:14, 2 Kin 17:35, Jer 25:6, Jer 35:15, Ex 15:11, Ex 20:23, Lev 19:4, Lev 26:1, Deu 4:15-19, Deu 27:15, Ex 23:24, Jos 23:7-8, 2 Kin 17:35, Deu 4:23, Jos 24:19-20, Ex 34:13-14, Deu 5:9, Ex 34:17

Anyone want to guess what moral problem these verses deal with? Idolatry. And that's with just five minutes of searching. I don't have time right now to compile a complete account of every passage which condemns idolatry. But there's a whole heap of them. Why the Book of Hosea is wholly devoted just to idolatry!

Clearly, idolatry, like greed, is incompatible with Christian Ethics. So if we follow Dan's reasoning and implement the condemnations against idolatry into public policy, then worshipping other gods should be criminalized.

Any takers?

Giftwrapping and the Wisdom of the Magi

Follow the example of the Magi:

This is the time of year when we think back to the very first Christmas, when the Three Wise Men; Gaspar, Balthazar and Herb, went to see the baby Jesus and, according to the Book of Matthew, "presented unto Him gifts; gold, frankincense, and myrrh."

These are simple words, but if we analyze them carefully, we discover an important, yet often overlooked, theological fact: There is no mention of wrapping paper. If there had been wrapping paper, Matthew would have said so:
"And lo, the gifts were inside 600 square cubits of paper. And the paper was festooned with pictures of Frosty the Snowman. And Joseph was going to throweth it away, but Mary saideth unto him, she saideth, 'Holdeth it! That is nice paper! Saveth it for next year!' And Joseph did rolleth his eyeballs. And the baby Jesus was more interested in the paper than the frankincense."

But these words do not appear in the Bible, which means that the very first Christmas gifts were NOT wrapped. This is because the people giving those gifts had two important characteristics:

1. They were wise.
2. They were men.

Hat tip: Jeff the Baptist

Christmas Tauntauns

A classic Star Wars Christmas carol.

Pastoral Listening

Stanley Hauerwas on Job's friends:

For in spite of the bad press of Job's companions usually receive (and in many ways it is deserved!), they at least sat on the ground with him for seven days. Morever they did not speak to him, "for they saw that his suffering was very great." That they did so is truly an amazing act of magnanimity, for most of us are willing to be with sufferers, especially those in such great pain that we can hardly recognize them, only if we can "do something" to relieve their suffering or at least distract their attention. Not so with Job's comforters. They sat on the ground with Job doing nothing more than being willing to be present in the face of his suffering.¹

This reminds me of the single most useful thing that I have done in seminary: read The Lost Art of Listening by Michael Nichols. The author advances that people rarely listen to each other and painstakingly details exactly how we fail to listen to other people. I found it to be a big eye-opener. Nichols key message is "Shut up!" Don't interrupt the speaker. Wait.

Dr. Burrell Dinkins, who taught the class in which I read this book, gave a simple technique to help pastors discipline themselves when they want to interrupt a counselee. "Whenever you want to interrupt, take your thumbnail and jam it into the palm of your hand until it bleeds, or you decide that you don't want to talk afterall, whichever comes first."

¹Stanley Hauerwas, "Salvation and Health: Why Medicine Needs the Church." From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics. Wayne G. Boulton et al, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 386.

How Brian Russell Grades Exams

The secret is out about Brian's quick way of completing grading before the Christmas holidays.

Hat tip

Caption Contest

Previous contest winner

WINNER: Keith McIlwain:

...this year, the pastor's patience at Vacation Bible School ran a little short...

Ten Bible Verses Never Preached On

I love a challenge.

Hat tip: Bruce Alderman

A Bizarre Animated Film About Greed

Stop-Motion Brawl Between Two Buddies

No plot to speak of, but magnificent photographic work.

A Biblical View of Property Rights

For my Christian Ethics class here at Asbury, I've written a paper discerning a Christian view of property rights. Here is the slice of my paper (most endnotes removed, but emphases added) dealing with what the Bible has to say on the subject:

--------------------------------------------------------

There are four central principles to property rights in the Christian context. The first is the moral prohibition against theft, enshrined in Ex 20:15 “You shall not steal.” The second is that the whole world belongs to God, as exemplified by Ps 24:1 “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world and those who dwell in it.” The third is that humans are temporary tenants upon God’s property, as King David said in 1 Chr 29:15 “For we are but sojourners before You, and tenants, as all our fathers were; our days on earth are like a shadow, and there is no hope.” The fourth guiding principle is that Christians must give their property freely to those and need and that the personal property of Christians is held in common for the Church, as seen in Acts 2:44-45. When synthesized into a concise ethical statement, the conclusion is that humans are stewards of God’s property in a rental relationship and are accountable to him alone for the disposition of that property. He holds them accountable not to abuse their property, or devour that of others so that people suffer needlessly. It is a laissez-faire system with strong moral checks against abuse.

We shall examine each of these principles individually in depth. The first of these is that theft is morally wrong. Ex 20:15 and Lev 19:11 state these rules directly. Jesus repeats them in Mat 19:18 as a valid commandment in his encounter with the rich young ruler who sought eternal life. Paul argues in Rom 13:9-10 that those who steal lack love for their neighbors. One particular form of theft which the Bible addressed specifically was withholding wages from workers who had earned them. Lev 19:13 establishes that doing so constitutes robbery. Deu 24:15 and Jam 5:4 describe this heinous act as one that infuriates God.

Of the books of the Mosaic Law, Exodus 22:1-15 most directly addresses propertarian relationships. It describes violations of property rights and legal remedies thereof. Violation of property rights is a crime, but not a terrible one, given the scaled and varied penalties levied against perpetrators. For example, if a person steals an ox or a sheep and kills it, s/he must make restitution in the amount of four to five times the value of that stolen and destroyed property (v.1). If the thief is caught with the property alive, s/he shall compensate only double (vv. 4,7). If a person accidentally damages the field of another due to neglect, s/he shall only make restitution (v.5-6). If a person holds the property of another in safekeeping, and it has been stolen from him/her, then s/he shall make restitution (v.12). If a court determines that the trustee has actually stolen the property, s/he shall compensate double the value (v.8-9). If the property is destroyed through natural causes, s/he shall not make restitution (v.10, 13). If the property dies in the presence of the trustee, s/he shall make restitution (v.14), but if in the presence of the owner, s/he shall not (v.15). The two variables determining penalties are the degree of criminal intent and the amount of harm absorbed by the victim.

Of particular note is the limitation on the right to defend one’s property. One may kill an intruding thief in the confusion of the night (v.2), but to kill a thief in the clarity of the day is an act of murder (v.3). A thief has not necessarily forfeited his/her life as a result of the crime of theft. The right to defend one’s property is far from absolute.

So we may discern that if theft is a crime, by logical necessity, there must be a right to property. Where is there is no property, there can be no theft. These passages place limitations on how severe a crime one may describe theft and therefore a diminished rather than absolute importance of the right to property.

One of the limiters on this right to property is the second principle of property rights: the whole world belongs to God. A secular libertarian view of property rights begins with self-ownership and personal ownership of both physical and intellectual property. A Christian view, however, must begin with God owning the entire world, as this is clearly and repeatedly established in Scripture. Ps 50:12, Ps 24:1, and Ex 19:5 quote God directly as making this assertion. Deu 10:12-14 quotes God as claiming that his authority to make moral demands on the Israelites rests on his personal ownership of the entire world. In 1 Cor 10:26, Paul quotes the Psalms passages above and argues that Christians shouldn’t worry about whether or not the meat that they purchase in the marketplace has been used to make idolatrous sacrifices because the whole world belongs to God, including the meat presented to idols. Therefore the statement that God owns the world has theological implications beyond the deed claim.

The third principle is that humans are tenants upon God’s land or stewards of his property. King David (1 Chr 29:15) describes humans as “tenants”. This Hebrew term is synonymous with sojourner or temporary resident. This concept is how the first two principles are reconciled. How can there be thievery against other people if God owns all property? The tenant relationship between people and property establishes that there are two levels of property ownership in Christian ethics: God at the higher level and humans at lower level. Both can possess the same property simultaneously.

How can these two claims not conflict? We may discern that God owns all property – the whole world belongs to him. This principle can and has been misinterpreted to say that there are no property rights. This is clearly incorrect by the many injunctions against theft and requirements for compensation for lost and stolen property. These would be pointless if there was no property. Rather, the Christian view of property is somewhat like leasing. All property is leased from God, who owns all property at the higher level. The human in leased possession owns the property at the lower level. God may step in and lay claim to his property, but humans other than the lower-level owner may not. Because God is the sole owner of property, he alone may determine and object to how leased-out property is used.

Here is a practical example: a person has rented an apartment from someone else. The rental owner may enter at will as the ultimate holder of the property. Any other person, however, cannot enter without the consent of the rented owner. This tenant relationship is a close parallel to God’s claim on property and the leasee’s simultaneous claim on the same property.
This relationship is explained in the complex sacred and legal event known as the Year of Jubilee. There is no historical record of Israel ever fulfilling this command. Nor is it an event that we can directly translate into public policy today, as no nation lives under the land-based covenant that God established with ancient Israel. But the moral character of God described in the text can and should be applied by Christians today.

The Year of Jubilee, outlined in Leviticus 25, is a limitation on laissez-faire property transactions. It is a highly complex series of legal obligations between various parties that fluctuate with different conditions. The whole land belongs to God (25:23), who distributed it according to his will. The human legal owners are really “aliens and sojourners with me” lacking a total legal claim. At the end of fifty years, whatever exchanges have taken place must be reversed (25:10-13), but must include compensation for the temporary owners of the land (25:15-16). The relative relationships of authority over the property are substantially akin to the modern real estate practice of sublet. God does not evict the present resident of the land without requiring compensation (25:24-28). Should complete compensation not be provided to the present resident within one year, then the property is permanently deeded to the present resident (25:30). This is the sole exception to the demand that land revert to the prior owner. In the Year of Jubilee, the tenants switch roles, but God remains the ultimate property owner (25:23). A person cannot sell property permanently anymore than a person renting an apartment can sell the apartment outright to a third party.

The fourth principle of Christian property ethics is that Christians should give freely to those in need and that the distribution to those in need should be governed by the Church, who holds Christian property in common. On the surface, these may seem to be two different principles, but the primary account of them is in Acts, which establishes that they are complimentary – that the Church holds goods in common for the purpose of meeting the needs of the less fortunate. This was a core value of the early Church. The followers of Jesus shared freely and allowed the apostles to determine how this common property would be distributed (4:34-35). God’s punishment for those who attempted to deceive the Church about giving is death (5:1-10). This passage supports the claim that Christians are to be generous about their property and to give freely for the common good of the family of God.

This passage must be read in the context of the non-coercive nature of Christian ethics. That a person is morally obligated to give to others does not entail that others are right to take from the person who refuses to give generously. Gordon Graham:

It is to be observed first of all that claims of justice (and consequent claims of “rights,” which share this rhetorical value) justify the involvement of third parties in the way that charity and the duties of benevolence (more properly, “beneficence”) do not. For instance, if a wealthy man passes a drunk who, entirely as a result of his own indolence and folly, is desperate for a few cents to get himself a little more of the satisfaction he can now appreciate, charity or beneficence may be thought to dictate that the wealthy man should give him something. But, if so, the man’s charitable duty does not generate a right on the drunkard’s part. From the fact, if it is one, that the man ought to give him something it does not follow that he has a right to what he ought to be given. Should the rich man pass by on the other side, the fact that he has not done what he ought to do does not imply that he has violated the drunkard’s right. Consequently, we as third parties might think him heartless or simply very mean, but the truth of our judgment upon him does not give us the right to interfere. We would not be entitled to seize his wallet forcibly, for instance, and extract something from it for the drunkard. He has done wrong, we might say, but he has not done a wrong.(1)

Despite the moral imperatives of God upon people, the individual is sovereign to dispose of his/her property as s/he wishes. God may judge and punish the parsimonious (e.g. Acts 5:10), but we humans may not interfere in individual property decisions. We may use persuasion, but not coercion. Graham continues:

Suppose the rich man does give the drunkard a couple of dollars and someone else, on the true but inadequate ground that the money will go on more drink, takes it away again. He believes that the rich man did wrong to give it, no doubt, but even if he is correct in this belief, he does not have the right to take it away. The money, for good or ill, has now been given to the drunkard and is his. It is his now, by right…The point is: though it was not his by right before he was given it (even though he ought to have been given it), having been given it, it is his by right. Third parties, when they insist upon the rights of others, act justly. But they do not act justly when they try to bring about the same material result (two dollars in the pocket of the drunkard) without that right.

This principle of non-coercion is clearly present in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ. He preached at length about living a holy, virtuous life and unhesitating rebuked sinners. But at no point did he force people to be virtuous. Christ commanded the rich young ruler to sell all he had and give to the poor. But he did not rob the rich man’s house and distribute its goods to the poor. Jesus never used coercion in order to force people to give up sin. The Apostolic-era church which he established never forced people to acknowledge Jesus as Lord.

Likewise, nothing in these passages in Acts 2-4, however, suggests that the Church used force to take property from those unwilling to give, nor that the state has the right to do likewise. Christians must live out the virtue of generosity, but we see nothing to suggest that the Church or the state has the power to enforce this virtue with coercion. Therefore this passage does not undermine the right to property, but supports it.

With this clarification established, let us continue to explore this fourth principle. There are numerous passages in both Testaments addressing charitable giving of property, but this principle may be summarized with Deu 15:7-8:

If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.

The poor are a permanent feature of earthly life (Mar 14:7, Mat 26:11, Joh 12:8, Deu 15:11). God promises rewards to those who care for the poor (Prov 19:17, 28:27, Lu 6:38). But the stated rationale for caring for the poor is to reflect God’s own generous character to people in need (Deu 24:19-22, 15:12-15, Lev 19:9-10, 23:22, Ps 68:10). The New Testament writers expand upon this theme. Those who have wealth but refuse to share it with those in need lack the indwelling love of God (1 Jn 3:17) and are, in fact, not saved (Ja 2:15-16, Mat 25::31-46). Humans should give generously because God has given generously to us (2 Cor 9). Open charity to all is a holy and penitent act (Mat 19:16-24, Lu 19:8). This is so because the Messianic promise is that God has a preferential option for the poor (Mat 11:5).

These, then, are the sum of Biblical teaching on property rights: all the world belongs to God, who establishes tenant-based covenants with his people. These tenants hold a legitimate claim to their leased property, therefore one may not steal from them. But the tenants can and should give generously of God’s property to the needy, for God loves and cares for the poor.

These property rights can be abused, and God will pour out his wrath on those who do so. For example, a person may charge excessive rent (Amos 5:11, Mic 2:1-5) thereby brining on God’s anger. Those who drive the poor into starvation and homelessness are attacking God’s own children (Mic 2:9). God prefers that people have economic self-sufficiency, rather than fear of destitution (Mic 4:4). These proscriptions indicate than an absolutist (moral, not legal) view of property rights is incompatible with the character of God, and therefore Christian ethics.


(1) Gordon Graham. “Justice and Christian Charity.” From Christ to the World: Introductory Readings in Christian Ethics. Wayne G. Boulton, et al., eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994) 262.