The Aletheia Project

Welcome to The Aletheia Project!
A list of essays and resources to facilitate informed discussion on the nature of truth from a variety of perspectives.

About the Aletheia Project
Purpose: Facilitate informed discussion on the nature of truth from many different perspectives.

The Links of Truth - A variety of good web resources on truth.

Recognizing Truth - Can we recognize truth on a non-intellectual level???

Greg Koukl on Truth - Koukl (from Stand to Reason) came to Grace College and Seminary and I had the opportunity to hear some of his thoughts on truth and briefly interact with him.

Truth Seeker - What is a truth seeker? A few points for discussion.

Is Truth Relative or Absolute? A few discussion points.

A Theology of Truth - A few brief thoughts on a theology of truth.

The Use of Aletheia in the Gospel of John - This essay is exegetical, but with an eye on philosophical concerns.

Aletheia and the Correspondence Theory of Truth - An academic paper that examines the necessity and sufficiency of the correspondence theory of truth in light of aletheia in the Gospel of John.

Truth Dichotomy - An academic essay linking contemporary philosophy of truth with the Gospel of John.

About the Aletheia Project

This little corner of my blog is dedicated to truth-talk. I have listed some essays here that might help guide the discussion on truth whether it be from a philosophical perspective, biblical perspective, or from a cultural perspective.

The purpose of the Aletheia Project is simple:
Facilitate informed discussion on the nature of truth from many different perspectives

Questions and discussion points:

• What does the Scriptures have to say about truth?
• Does truth have an “essence”?
• Is the question of truth a meaningful one?
• How does a person’s view of truth impact their lives?
• Does our culture’s view of truth impact the way we live or the way we perceive the world?
• Is it possible to know truth?
• Is it meaningful to have a debate on “absolute” vs. “relative” truth?

Discussion about truth is more necessary than ever in my own tradition – conservative Christianity. Brian McLaren in a recent Christianity Today article questioned the value of discussing absolute truth in contemporary evangelism. Doug Groothuis in Truth Decay proclaimed that the correspondence theory of truth is the only biblical view of truth. J.P. Moreland in his plenary address to the Evangelical Theological Society in 2004 declared that not only were postmodern views of truth and knowledge “confused,” but he went on to say that postmodernism, itself “is an immoral and cowardly viewpoint.”

I was cruising in my car recently and heard James Dobson on the radio discussing a recent poll that very much disturbed him. I do not recall the exact statistic, but it was something to the effect that a majority of Christians do not believe in absolute truth. This baffled Dr. Dobson so much that he was having difficulty speaking or saying anything. He clearly could not even begin to conceive of any Christian not believing in absolute truth, and he seemed reduced to lecturing his audience about how important absolute truth was. One of the things the Dobson reaction illustrates, I think, is that there is a broad gulf of understanding between the varying viewpoints. If someone like Dr. Dobson has a hard time understanding the thinking of a majority of Christians, then clearly there is a great divide.

In the philosophical world things are just as diverse, perhaps more so. There are traditional robust theories of truth, which themselves are diverse: The correspondence theories, coherence theories, pragmatic theories, etc. There are deflationary theories that question whether it is appropriate to talk of truth even having a nature. Recently there have been various advocates of pluralist approaches to truth. And add to this certain “existential” theories of truth, like Kierkegaard or Heidegger where truth is defined in terms of the subjective state of the individual, not in terms of an object to be defined. This is to say nothing of Nietzsche’s perspectives on truth.

The essays, resources, and any ensuing conversations of the Aletheia Project are dedicated to intelligently discussing the question Pilate asked so long ago: What is truth?

[Back to the Aletheia Project main page]

The use of aletheia in the Gospel of John

This is a summary of the use of alehteia in the Gospel of John. The method is exegetical, but with an eye on the philosophical concerns. As such I see it as bridging the gap between exegetical and philosophical studies on truth.

excerpt...
There are many good and worthy contributions that assist us in understanding the use of alētheia in the Gospel of John. Among these are the commentaries of Johannine scholars who contribute to our understanding of alētheia by placing them in their textual and cultural contexts. Also, there is the study by Anthony Thiselton, which is perhaps the landmark study of alētheia. In light of the alēthic biblical scholarship to date the present study does not claim to add a great deal of original exegetical insight. Rather, the goal is to build on the exegetical work of previous scholars, particularly Thiselton, to provide a summary of categories that would be useful to the current philosophical and theological discussion on truth. So, while there are many profound resources currently available on a biblical study of alētheia we are seeking, in the present analysis, to build a bridge between the biblical world of exegetical studies on alētheia and the philosophical world of truth-talk.

The reason for the selection of the Gospel of John is that for John alētheia is a critical part of the theological development of the Gospel and shows up in the midst of key passages. In the Christological theology that is arguably the book’s dominant theme we find that the Christ is the self-proclaimed “way and the truth (alētheia) and the life.” (14:6) When the Christ speaks of the Spirit we find that alētheia is used to describe the “Spirit of truth” (14:17, 15:26, 16:13). Alētheia is also a useful apparatus in the dualism that is so often commented upon: When Christ says to Pilate “everyone who is on the side of truth hears my voice” this continues the dualistic motif that separates those who embrace the Christ as coming from God from those who reject him.[2] Of all the portions of Scripture that utilize “truth” the development in the Fourth Gospel seems to be, by far, the most extensive, and the development that has the most philosophical ramifications. For this reason the Gospel of John is an important starting point for anyone interested in developing thoughts on truth in the context of Christianity...[3]
[1] Anthony C. Thiselton, “Truth,” New International Dictionary of NT Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1978).
[2] Crf. 1:10-12 in the important prologue and 8:42-47. The chapter 8 passage will be developed later in this paper.
[3] Morris comments on the importance of alētheia in John and also recounts the frequency of its usage concuding, “Plainly, this concept matters to John.” Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing, 1971), 294. For more on the significance of alētheia in the Gospel of John also see S. Aalen, “Truth, a Key Word in St. John’s Gospel,” in Studia Evangelica (ed. F.L. Cross; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1964), 3-24. In reading Aalen’s essay it becomes clear that the alētheia concept is a “highly developed one” and critical part of John’s Gospel and Johannine theology.

For full text .pdf file:
http://erdman31.googlepages.com/2006-GospelofJohnuseofAletheia.pdf

Comments welcome.

[Back to the Aletheia Project main page]

Truth Dichotomy

This essay examines certain philosophical trends in truth-research in light of the Gospel of John to ask the question of whether it is possible that truth has many forms (polymorphous) and also question whether truth has an "essence."

excerpt...
In the present essay we are taking note of a dichotomy that has taken place in philosophical research and reflection on the nature of truth. This dichotomy is between what we will call the analytic project, which looks at truth as an object and what we will call the existential project that focuses its attention upon the subject and the subjective process. We will take particular note of Kierkegaard, who provides us with the most emphatic declaration of this dichotomy.
After exploring the nature of this dichotomy we will turn to the Gospel of John for a summary analysis of the use of avlh,qeia. We will note the highly developed and philosophically pregnant use of this term in the Gospel of John and make a few, brief observations germane to our topic. Armed with the alēthic concepts of the Fourth Gospel we will then be ready to transition into our last point, which will be to question whether this dichotomy in philosophical truth-discussion is legitimate, desirable, or even useful in our development of a philosophy of truth.

Find the entire essay here:
http://erdman31.googlepages.com/TruthDichotomy.pdf

This essay is being submitted to publication. Comments are welcome.

[Back to Aletheia Project main page]

Truth Seeker

A few scattered thoughts of mine on what a truth-seeker is.

Is a truth-seeker someone who "follows truth wherever it leads" as Groothuis suggests? Truth for truth's sake?
Or is truth more holistic?
Is a truth-seeker really a God-seeker?
If we are not God-seekers are we really truth-seekers?

http://erdman31.googlepages.com/TruthSeeker.pdf

[Back to Aletheia Project main page]

A few brief words on a Theology of Truth

I would like to very briefly discuss a general direction for developing a theology of truth. The purpose of discussing a theology of truth, as opposed to a philosophy of truth is that a theology of truth will be developed within the context of a Christian worldview. As such, a theology of truth will take seriously the biblical account of truth, and will also quite naturally incorporate truth-talk into the work of evangelism and missions.

As I see it, there are three main areas that are addressed and help to define a theology of truth: the biblical testimony, philosophical discussion, and the cultural climate. I would like to briefly discuss each of these in the hopes of providing a general outline within which intelligent conversation can take place within the Christian community on the nature of truth and its place in the mission of the church.

The first issue that is addressed in a theology of truth is the biblical witness. This I see as the examination of the Scriptures to determine what we can say about truth. Generally speaking, there seems to be two dangerous extremes when looking into the Bible. The first is to not take seriously the witness of Scripture. In this case the revelation of God is treated far too casually and the Bible is seen as outdated and unable to really speak to the contemporary situation. On the other extreme are those who take the Bible seriously, but try to make it speak on issues it does not speak on. For example, in the past, there has been a tendency to look for a “biblical” view of truth, or to look for the “biblical” view on anything. The problem with this approach, however, is that the Bible may not speak to a particular situation and, as such, we may end up looking too deeply into certain passages and assuming that these passages speak to our issue when, in fact, they do not.

In regards to the issue of truth the danger of looking for a “biblical” view of truth is that it simply does not exist. What I mean by this is that there is no one, common element that we could apply to every use of the biblical word(s) for “truth.” Even in the Gospel of John, where truth is used more frequently than any other book in the New Testament, the word “truth” takes on different forms. So, rather than look for one, unified view of truth it may be more appropriate to look at the biblical views of truth. The goal in doing this, I believe, would be to take note of how the Scripture presents truth to us and perhaps also to note what it does not say about truth.

The second area of concern for a Christian theology of truth is to seriously engage the philosophical developments of truth. In the last hundred years or so there has been a great deal of philosophical writing and research on the nature of truth. We have seen the development of the correspondence theory, the coherence theory, pragmatist theories, various deflationary theories of truth, existential theories, and more recently various pluralist theories of truth. An investigation of these theories reveals a wide range of thinking and a many very diverse approaches to the subject. Exploration into the philosophical theories of truth can help to sharpen our discussion on truth and help guide our thinking.

If we find ourselves investigating the Scriptures and also engaging the various philosophies of truth the next question that naturally arises is: What is the relationship between philosophy and the Bible? This is a rather complicated discussion, and there will be different answers depending upon which issue is being discussed. In relationship to a theology of truth I believe that the relationship is reciprocal. That is, our study of Scripture will inform our philosophical investigations and our philosophical investigations will inform our study of Scripture. Our study of Scripture must inform our philosophy if we are at all serious about the Bible being the revelation of God. But anyone who reads Scripture will naturally do so by using their minds to think and to interpret. When we use our minds to think and interpret we are simply doing philosophy. As such, as we study philosophical theories of truth – both Christian and secular – we sharpen our ability to think and interpret Scripture.

The third area of examination for a theology of truth is the cultural. How is “truth” used in culture? What is the reaction to “truth”? By answering these questions I think that we will then be able to examine how our biblical and philosophical conclusions on truth will apply to the mission of evangelism.

In recent days there has been a great deal of debate amongst Christians regarding “absolute” and “relative” truth. The debate here is whether truth is objective, universal and fixed for all time and for all people, or if truth is relative to a specific culture or social setting. And yet I believe that as we seriously examine Scripture and think critically about these terms we may find that these distinctions are less important than we have made them out to be. For example, there are clearly truths of Scripture that are fixed for all time. These primarily relate to God and to the revelation of Jesus Christ. These are absolute claims. And yet on the biblical account there is also a very temporal dimension to truth. Truth must be lived. Truth must be proved in one’s life. Truth, in fact, seems to be about a person’s relation with God through Christ. And, so, perhaps the distinctions between “relative” and “absolute” might give way to a holistic theology of truth that recognizes the validity of the absolute and temporal perspective.

Regardless of where one falls in this debate it is critical to examine one’s theory of truth in light of contemporary culture and the presentation of the Gospel in that culture. It is also important to ask how a theology of truth impacts life and how our theology of truth impacts ourselves.

As such, we have our three components of a theology of truth: the biblical testimony, philosophical investigation, and cultural considerations. A Christian worldview will seek to engage the issue of truth on these three playing fields.

[Back to Aletheia Project main page]

The Links of Truth

The Links of Truth

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Some excellent articles on truth. The best truth-resource on the web…well, besides my site!
Truth
Axiomatic Theories of Truth
Coherence Theory of Truth
The Correspondence Theory of Truth (aka the Doug Groothuis View)
The Deflationary View of Truth
The Identity View of Truth
The Revision Theory of Truth
Tarski’s Truth Definitions



Chuck Colson
A few paragraphs on the knowability of truth from a cultural perspective
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/006/17.72.html

DuckRabbit
A blogger addresses the value of truth in “Gimme some truth”
http://duckrabbit.blogspot.com/2006/06/gimme-some-truth.html

Doug Groothuis
In “What is Truth?” Doug argues for the correspondence view of truth against relativism and pragmatism: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/groothuis-truth.html
“Staying True to Truth” – Cultural/Christian perspective on truth.
Doug’s article “Why Truth Matters Most” online. Originally published in JETS.

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
A good introductory article on truth: http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm
The Prosentential Theory of Truth – A deflationary-type view of truth

Soren Kierkegaard
“The crowd is untruth!” – An excellent essay by SK
Doug briefly blogged on it here: http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2005/10/against-crowd-soren-kierkegaard.html

Michael Lynch
An important philosopher of truth – A “Pluralist” view of truth. He is editor of one of the best anthologies on truth (The Nature of Truth). This is his home site with a few very useful essays.
http://www.philosophy.uconn.edu/department/lynch/lynch.htm

Scot McKnight
A brief blog entry on postmodernism and truth
http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=516#comments

J.P. Moreland
“Truth, Contemporary Philosophy, and the Postmodern Turn”
This is a reprint of Moreland’s address at ETS in 2004. I have referenced this a few times in my essays.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5682
Here is a very brief essay on truth:
http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000911.html

Wikipedia
Wiki always has something to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Kevin Winters
A series of blog entries on Heidegger and truth – this link is for the first in a series of blogs. Kevin’s blog primarily explores Heideggerian issues.
http://heideggerian.blogspot.com/2006/05/on-essence-of-truth-usual-concept-of.html


Please leave comments on other recommended Links of Truth. It would be nice to have links from many diverse perspectives. Any blogs or research you have written is welcome as well.

[Back to Aletheia Project main page]

Truth - Relative or Absolute?

Is truth relative or absolute? A few discussion points


These terms (“absolute” and “relative”) are vague and very unhelpful
What do we mean by “absolute” – that truth never has a reference point that is relative to the individual? And what do we mean by relative – that if we wake up in the morning and do not like the fact that “it is raining outside” we can immediately change the statement to “it is not raining outside” and that the weather will change accordingly?!

These terms set up a false dichotomy
They are meaningful enough to communicate something, but vague enough to confuse the issue. As such they force us to choose a side based upon our rejection of something, i.e. “I don’t want to be a one of those crazy post-modern types, so I think truth is absolute.” These terms often force a debate based on the perceived shortcomings of the other side and the use of stereotypes to categorize the other side. The terms are loaded with baggage. We see this every election year in the political system.

These terms seem to encapsulate the worst of the spirit of two ages: Modern and Postmodern
The Modern era seemed to be obsessed with the search of the absolute, unchanging, and timeless ideas. The Postmodern seems to be obsessed with its own narrative and historical situation. To speak of a dichotomy between “absolute” and “relative” seems to focus upon the extremes of each of these methods of thinking.

An exclusively Absolute truth is unable to see the person-relative and time-relative nature of truth
What good are absolutes if they do not touch time? Yet as soon as the absolutes touch our world they are relative to a given situation such that, if that situation had never occurred, then truth would not exist in that context. Even a traditional correspondence theory would recognize that truth is relative to the reality it expresses. Truth is relative to the person or situation being described, i.e. “the frog is on the log.” Truth, in this instance is relative to both the frog and the log.

An exclusively Absolute truth would seem to have a difficulty dealing with the variety of ways in which “truth” seems to be used in Scripture, particularly in Johannine literature.

What does “absolute” actually mean???

On the other hand…If truth is completely reduced to my own whim then we would be reduced to complete absurdity.
If even the most committed relativist, let us call him Bob, crosses the street at the same time that the bus is roaring by then the statement “Bob was squashed by the bus” is true for everyone – especially Bob!

What we see is that truth seems to have many forms and that in each of its forms there is an element of the “absolute” and an element of “relativity”:

• Absolute in the sense that I cannot determine, at my own whim, my own truth such that I would be able to say either “there is a hair in my food” or “there is not a hair in my food.” The reality of the situation holds regardless of what I may or may not wish to believe.
• Truth does seem to hold a relative element in terms of an action. I get this from the Gospel of John (3:21) where we find the expression “doing the truth.” In this passage truth is an action. Truth has ethical ramifications. We encounter truth in the decisions we make to act.
• And truth also seems relative to the individual. Ex. in John 18:37 of those who are ‘of the truth’ and ‘no truth in him’ of 8:44. Also see Kierkegaard’s notion of truth: “in the mouth of this or that person something that is truth can become untruth.”[1] And “the inwardness of the existing person is truth.”[2]
• Truth is relative to our relation to the Divine, but also absolute in that the Divine is eternal and will never perish.

In theology as well as philosophy one must be ever cautious of the dichotomies that one sets forth because these dichotomies lock one in to certain possibilities.
The dichotomy of “absolute” or “relative” might lock us in to undesirable situations. If we are relativists then we are absurd and are not honest about the fact that we live according to absolutes. If we are absolutists then we are in danger of failing to see that truth touches the temporal world and that truth is always relative to people or situations. If we are absolutists then we may lose the ability to capture the ethical and existential aspects of truth that we see in the Gospel of John, for example.[3]

The “Relative/Absolute” distinction must be abandoned in favor of a more holistic view of truth that is more aware of the subtle nuances of the various forms of truth.

The Absolutist might reply that I have missed the point:

• We (the Absolutists) are not trying to say that truth is not relative in some way to the temporal world, rather, we are trying to prove that truth does not depend upon the whim of each individual. The person cannot determine, willy-nilly, what truth is for himself, and thus spin out into utter relativity and complete irrelevancy.
• But the Absolute/Relative distinction does not help in getting to the concern of the Absolutist. So, the above objection goes to my point: Let us define our concern and not confuse and convolute the issue by using obscure terms like “Absolute” and “Relative.” Let us recognize both the absolute and relative nature of truth and then, from that point, we can express our particular concerns more precisely (i.e. that truth is not to be determined at the whim of the individual’s personal preference).

Conclusion
The distinction between “absolute” and “relative” seems to be vague and unhelpful. They are terms that come loaded with baggage. Unless these terms are more clearly defined it may be better to conduct the truth-discussion on other grounds.

Footnotes:
[1] Søren Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments, Vol. 1, Translated by Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1992), page 202.
[2] Ibid., p. 205
[3] See my Truth in the Gospel of John: A summary of key alētheia passages useful for philosophical discussion at www.theosproject.blogspot.com.

[Back to Aletheia Project main page]

Preaching - Doctrine or Experience?

In the past it seems to have been the case that theology has divided sharply between doctrine and experience.  Doctrine is the theory of “truth.”  They are statements like “God is good,” or “Jesus was God,” or “Once save, always saved.”  They are the so-called timeless truths of the faith.

Experience, on the other hand, is the actual life we live as believers.  Our experiences vary wildly depending upon who we are and what circumstances we encounter.

The result of this great divide between doctrine and experience seems to have been preaching that goes one way or the other.  I say this because I have heard an infinite number of sermons in my lifetime – more than I care to recall.  And it has always amazed me at how those who claim to be preaching doctrine can be so incredibly out of touch with the real Christian life.  Conversely, it baffles me how inconsequential preaching can be if it finds its basis in experience and only afterwards cares to reference biblical revelation.

This is certainly not the time or place to explore all the options here, and some might say my above distinction is generic and overly-simplistic – fair enough!  But I do think that if I am at least partially on target here then a great deal can be said for beginning to view the Bible as a doctrine of experiences.  Often the dogmatic doctrine-types will scour the Bible looking for the timeless truths – these they call “doctrines.”  On the other side a preacher may scan the Bible in search of a story line that fits his experience and sermon topic.  

But maybe we should blur the lines a bit and begin to view Scripture as a doctrine of experiences.  In this sense the Written Word of Scripture is primarily concerned with leading us to the Living Word of Christ.  And, in fact, in much theologizing today there is a return to the focus on the narrative and on God’s redemptive actions in history to draw people to himself.

Job - A model of Christian leadership and ministry

Could Job ever be a great leader of men? Job is sickly and pale, wretched and foul. He stinks of vomit and rotting flesh. He is foul and disgraceful – a picture of the disgust of mankind. He is the worst of us all. The picture of Job is a portrait of the pathetic.

Job does not draw a crowd. On the contrary, he is repulsive. He repulses the masses. He is a byword and the refuse of the world. And like refuse his best place is to be discarded and buried. Flushed away, far, far away. Away from our sight and far away so that his stench can no longer turn our stomachs and offend all of our sensibilities. Because it is only his friends who can stand to bear the sight of him in order to pull him out of the depth of his sins. And they only come out of duty, or perhaps it was pity – pity of the worst type.

And Job’s friends must plead for Job to put aside the evil of his life, which is another reason why Job is no leader of men. He is too sinful. No one can follow a leader who has offended God and sits in such a pitiful position of condemnation. He is a reject of his own making. Men can follow a man of vice if that man is a success. If that man is brazen and proud and can make the world jump at the snap of his fingers. But Job…what a pathetic picture! He sits in his ashes and stench – in his misery and his torment – and he demands an audience with God. As though he were innocent! But we know he is a sinner tormented by God. And God will break his will and Job will repent. But no one will follow Job now. Not in his shame. Only a pathetic wretch stands against the good advice of his devoted friends and maintains his innocence in the face of all the facts and all the evidence. We pity such a pathetic and laughable wretch. We pity him, but we do not follow him. We condemn and, perhaps, seek his salvation. But we do not follow one who has so obviously missed the answers and has so obviously missed the point. Repent, Job! Be saved!

Would you follow Job? Would you follow, John David, the representative of the masses? Job has no vision to offer you. He has no inspiration. He cannot inspire you to action or create within your heart a burning for something better. He cannot speak the rally cry to desperate troops. This is not Braveheart, and Job has no courage for you. No courage to give your own heart a steadfast spirit. He is a stubborn fool who persists in his innocence. He cries out to God day and night. Night and day he cries out for an audience with God. Job persists in his plea in the face of all of the masses who tell him to turn around. Even in the face of his wife – the only person who remains who can testify that Job really is innocent. Even in the face of the wife who has lost all faith in the Justice of God and can only curse God and hope for death. Because the God who did this was not the God she believed in. It was time to give up. Death was sweet compared to life. Job could not even muster an inspiring word for his own wife. He called her a fool. Surely such a man has nothing to offer us!

Job has nothing to offer us: No direction, no guidance, no wisdom, no answers, no peace, no courage, no inspiration. He cannot even give us a reason for holding on to faith. And what is this faith of his, anyway. It is nothing that we were taught. Sitting in his ashes he scraps his body with the rough edges of broken pottery and when he can stand the pain no more he screams out for an audience with God. He exists as an anomaly – as a paradox of the faith. Job’s faith is nothing to imitate. If anything it is something to try to explain away: Job is an example of a bad man who got what he deserved. God does not punish good men in such ways. God is good and God is just. Job is receiving the justice he deserves. God does not punish the righteous. God punishes the wicked.

And how great was Job’s wickedness! How deep is the well of his unrighteousness! So many had admired him as righteous. He sat amongst the elders. He was rich. When he spoke we listened. He had much to offer us then! But in the dark what evils lurked. What had Job done in the secret places to draw the ire of the righteous God? This we can only speculate upon. And, of course, there are those who have stepped forward to testify to Job’s wickedness. They seem to be more and more these days – those who would step forward to testify to some aspect of unrighteousness in Job. We hear them. We see Job’s suffering. We turn our faces from the cursed one. A wicked man under the curse of God. We turn away. But we do not follow. What does he offer?

What a duplicitous life Job had led! This is, perhaps, the greatest crime of all! We praised him as righteous. But he was up to no good. We followed him then, for he offered us so much. He spoke words that gave us insight into how to resolve disputes. He spoke of God in a pious way that gave us spiritual insight. So, we sat back and marveled. What a following he had! See how the crowds had followed him! He gave us insight. And we benefited from the riches of his estate, for Job was a man of financial insight. He gave us so much. And we followed. But it had all been an double life. We know that now.

Job has nothing to offer the masses. He has nothing to offer the crowds. He is not a leader of men. He is to be pitied above all. He has no “Cause” that he believes in, save his own innocence. Does he even believe in God’s righteousness anymore? Does he love God? Does he even believe, anymore?

Job is not a man I will follow. He does not inspire me. He repulses me.

Women and Christianity

I wandered across an excellent article on the status of women today in Christianity written by Rebecca Groothuis. Regardless of your position on this issue this article is of immense benefit for two reasons:
1 – There is a primary focus upon the biblical text as the grounds for arguments.
2 – The arguments are clear, logical, and rational.

The view expressed below is very close to my own. Here is an excerpt from the article:

What is Biblical Equality?
Evangelical egalitarianism, or biblical equality, refers to the biblically-based belief that gender, in and of itself, neither privileges nor curtails a believer’s gifting or calling to any ministry in the church or home. In particular, the exercise of spiritual authority, as biblically defined, is deemed as much a female believer’s privilege and responsibility as it is a male believer’s.
Biblical equality does not mean women and men are identical or undifferentiated. Biblical egalitarians recognize average differences (both learned and intrinsic) between women and men, and affirm that God designed men and women to complement and benefit one another.
Although it shares with feminism the belief that unjust treatment of women should be remediated, biblical equality is not grounded in feminist ideology, which is derived from cultural factors and philosophies. Rather, biblical equality is grounded simply and solely in the properly consistent interpretation of God’s written word. On this basis, biblical egalitarians (a) affirm that the gifts and callings of the Spirit are distributed without regard to gender, and that all believers in Christ stand on equal ground before God, and (b) repudiate the notion that the Bible grants to men spiritual authority and other religious privileges that it denies to women…..

For more go to: http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/rebecca/archives/000262.php#more

Today In History: 06-06-06!

Today In History - June 6, 2006
(AP) Today is Tuesday, June sixth, the 157th day of 2006. There are 208 days left in the year. Today’s Highlight in History: On June sixth, 1944, the “D-Day” invasion of Europe took place during World War Two as Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy, France. On this date: In 1606, 400 years ago, French dramatist Pierre Corneille was born in Rouen. In 1844, the Young Men’s Christian Association was founded in London. In 1918, the World War One Battle of Belleau Wood, which resulted in a US victory over the Germans, began in France. In 1925, Walter Percy Chrysler founded the Chrysler Corporation. In 1934, the Securities and Exchange Commission was established. In 1942, Japanese forces retreated in the World War Two Battle of Midway. In 1966, 40 years ago, black activist James Meredith was shot and wounded as he walked along a Mississippi highway to encourage black voter registration. In 1968, Senator Robert F. Kennedy died at Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles, a day after he was shot by Sirhan Bishara Sirhan. In 1978, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13, a primary ballot initiative calling for major cuts in property taxes. In 1985, authorities in Brazil exhumed a body later identified as the remains of Dr. Josef Mengele, the notorious “Angel of Death” of the Nazi Holocaust. Ten years ago: The Senate narrowly rejected a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution as outgoing Majority Leader Bob Dole and the Democrats clashed over deficit reduction. A family of four became the first persons to leave the Freemen ranch in Montana since April. Five years ago: Democrats formally assumed control of the US Senate; the unprecedented shift in power came about after the decision of Vermont Republican James Jeffords to become an independent. A jury in Los Angeles awarded more than three billion dollars to lifelong smoker Richard Boeken, deciding that tobacco giant Philip Morris was responsible for his incurable lung cancer. (The jury award was reduced by a Superior Court judge to 100 (m) million dollars, then cut to 50 (m) million by an appeals court; the U-S Supreme Court refused in March 2006 to consider tossing out the award altogether; Boeken died in 2002.) One year ago: The Supreme Court ruled, 6-to-3, that people who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws. A judge upheld Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire’s victory—by 129 votes—in Washington state’s 2004 election. Actor Russell Crowe was arrested for throwing a phone that hit a hotel employee in New York City; he later pleaded guilty to third-degree assault. Death claimed actress Anne Bancroft at age 73 and actor Dana Elcar at age 77. Today’s Birthdays: Actress Billie Whitelaw is 74. Civil rights activist Roy Innis is 72. Singer Levi Stubbs (The Four Tops) is 70. Singer-songwriter Gary “US” Bonds is 67. Country singer Joe Stampley is 63. Actor Robert Englund is 57. Folk singer Holly Near is 57. Singer Dwight Twilley is 55. Playwright-actor Harvey Fierstein is 52. Comedian Sandra Bernhard is 51. Tennis player Bjorn Borg is 50. Actress Amanda Pays is 47. Comedian Colin Quinn is 47. Record producer Jimmy Jam is 47. Rock musician Steve Vai is 46. Actor Jason Isaacs is 43. Rock musician Sean Yseult (White Zombie) is 40. Actor Max Casella is 39. Actor Paul Giamatti is 39. Rhythm-and-blues singer Damion Hall (Guy) is 38. Rock musician Bardi Martin is 37. Rock musician James “Munky” Shaffer (Korn) is 36. Country singer Lisa Brokop is 33. Rapper-rocker Uncle Kracker is 32. Actress Staci Keanan is 31. Thought for Today: “To win without risk is to triumph without glory.”—Pierre Corneille, French dramatist (1606-1684).

Taken from:
http://cbs2.com/watercooler/local_story_158033653.html

Also see:

“Superstitious Mothers-To-Be Take Steps to Make Sure Babies Aren't Born on June 6, 2006”

Hell shines in its apocalyptic moment in the sun
HELL, Michigan (Reuters) - The road to Hell was crowded with the curious on Tuesday -- as well as devils-in-disguise, hearse enthusiasts, Christian protesters and merchants trying to cash in on the apocalypse.
Hell, Michigan, a tiny town about 60 miles (97 km) west of Detroit, threw itself open for a once-in-a-millennium party to mark the passage of June 6, 2006 -- or 6-6-6, a number long associated with the Antichrist.
Home to only about 70 souls on an average day, Hell's population swelled to the hundreds by Tuesday afternoon, with dozens waiting in line to buy T-shirts emblazoned with "666."...
...Auto salvage worker Ken McKeny, 43, pulled his customized, casket on wheels into town with the "4MLDHYD" licence plates, part of a Michigan-based hearse enthusiasts group that call themselves "Hearsin' Around."
"I went to work this morning but my boss told me to get out and go to Hell," he said.

6-Foot, 6-Inch Grandfather Turns 66 On 6/6/06
(CBS) MANCHESTER, N.H. Paul Porter was born on June 6. He was always good with numbers. He just didn't realize how good."A couple of weeks ago, I happened to think about the irony of 6-6-06. And I'll be 66 and I'm 6 feet, 6 inches."....
..."I don't believe the world is going to end because I have 12 years left on my mortgage," he said. "I don't think the bank would allow it."An Army veteran, Porter has his birthday on his Veterans license plate. It is a reminder of one of the most important days in American history: the allied invasion of Normandy in World War II."I often think of the significance of D-Day more than anything else."But this year, he's just having fun with the numbers.By the way, did we tell you he has six grandchildren?
(© MMVI, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)