Sunday Sermon: Divided Tongues

We don't normally get into conversations about Christianity here in any detail, although our opinions about the world--political, economic--are often formed from some underlying relational stance to what we believe a Christian should do or believe.

So this little mini-sermon about the Holy Spirit will either prove extremely boring and irrelevant for some, interesting or amusing for others, and quite off base for a third group who is the intended target.

In the Christian world there is often a debate about the role of the Holy Spirit, and whether things like tongues and healing are "for today." Most of this debate will tend to be among conservative Christians who take the Bible literally as God's word. One segment, like Baptists, might shy away from the supernatural and things like tongues, but a great handful of your born again evangelical types hue closely to the idea that  everything you read in the book of Acts should be happening today.

The outcome of this usually results in a kind of Christian schism, centered around the role of the Holy Spirit. It manifests itself under the general question of "Are you saved and filled (or baptized) with the Holy Spirit?" That question is usually quickly followed by "And do you speak in tongues?" The assumption is that when you truly accept Jesus as your lord and savior, you become baptized or super stuffed with God's spirit, and the evidence of this (your changed nature not being instant proof) is the speaking out in tongues.

In certain circles and churches, those members or pastors who speak in tongues are considered somehow closer to God, on fire, full of the spirit. Those without tongues to prove the indwelling of the spirit are always considered wanting and not fully formed as a useful tool for God. If you are debating some issue, invariably your view will be dismissed because you are not filled with the spirit and seeing everything with God's eyes. It's Christian dyslexia that you will maintain until tongues appear.

We know from the book of Acts and elsewhere that the Holy Spirit as an entity is important. During one of the few "vengeful God" episodes that can be found in the New Testament, Ananias and Sapphira died on the spot for being deceptive about what they were offering to the church by lying to the Holy Spirit. (Incidentally, these two can be placed at the center of a whole sermon regarding tithing that I won't get into here).

Understanding how the Holy Spirit works at the time of conversion, as evidenced in the Bible, should really serve to bring Christians into a less questioning stance regarding each other, but it involves jettisoning preconceived notions passed down from preacher to congregation to child and back again. Often enough the ones trying to divorce tongues from the authentic Christian equation are merely seeking to practice a Christianity somewhat removed from Biblical practice. At the other end of the perspective, those who speak in tongues often worry that removing tongues as an automatic part of the true conversion experience somehow makes their own activity suspect.

Let's look at some parts of Acts.

In Acts 1:5 we have Jesus telling us that John baptized with water, but that his followers will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days. We can notice two things here. First, that the face of God in front of the world is changing. In the Old Testament it was a fiery God interfacing with man directly and instantly. The New Testament brings God among men in a body in the form of Jesus, where he is seen interacting with those around him. After his death and going forward today, it's God in the form of his Holy Spirit. Unseen, but living within us. The second thing we can note is that water baptism is not enough: God's spirit is necessary.

We travel forward to Pentecost in Acts 2:4 when the Apostles were "filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues." This attracted a crowd of observers who were amazed to hear Galileans speaking in other languages, and some concluded the Apostles were drunk. We won't get into the debate here about whether there are multiple types of tongues (known languages versus God's tongue), but simply note that the Apostles all did speak in tongues as the Spirit guided them. In Acts 2:14 Peter goes on to explain what is happening as something new between God and man.

In Acts 2:37 we see the response to Peter's words. Those listening asked, "Brethren, what shall we do?" after being pierced to the heart. Peter said, "Repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." This is a pretty clear statement about how to be "saved." Note that tongues are not mentioned in the process, and yet the gift of the Spirit is affirmed strongly.

Three thousand souls came to God and were baptized and began living the Christian life, sharing things in common, breaking bread together. Many wonders and signs took place, "through the Apostles".

Thus far we have seen tongues evident among the Apostles, but not native to every experience. In Acts 4:8 we get an interesting contra-point regarding the function of the Holy Spirit. Those who tend to get hung up over people getting baptized or filled with the Spirit on conversion (and with tongues), often fail to note the many places in the Bible where believers are situationally "filled with the spirit". In this verse Peter becomes filled with the spirit before speaking to officials. This is one of the many clear examples that indicate that God's spirit can come more strongly when necessary to help the believer. Conversely, it indicates that the concept of "filled" or "baptized" to completion is a misnomer when it relates to conversion. In essence during conversion you simply get God's spirit, giving him access to your life. How much the Holy Spirit is actually in you is variable, situational, dependent on you and God.

This is an important point, because often the tongues enthusiasts carry a related yet convoluted idea that while everyone surely gets the Holy Spirit, that to be a truly powerful Christian, you must be FILLED. And you will know you are filled when tongues are evident. Actual Biblical evidence indicates otherwise. Christians are not a gas tank that is either filled or empty, filled or faulty, filled or weak, nor did the Apostles walk around "filled" every moment, as we see them getting "refilled".

A good example of "refilling" can be seen in Acts 4:31 after Peter and John get released. It says, "And when they had prayed, the place where they had gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak the word with boldness." We don't see this as a new manifestation of Christians as this group is referred to as "companions" of the two. What we do see here are two things: people being refilled and, no tongues. In Acts 7:55 we see Stephen filled with the Spirit and gazing into heaven.

Chapter Eight introduces us to Saul, a hunter of Christians, and an anonymous Ethiopian official. But first we see Peter and John popping into Samaria. They, Samarians, had received the word of God, but not the Holy Spirit. The believers there were baptized in water. Clearly, they had not received the full message about the necessity of the Holy Spirit. Peter and John prayed for them, they received the Spirit (no mention of tongues) and all was good. We also note the general flaw in Philip's ministry, who basically let Simon the magician be his sidekick. That the believers did not receive the Holy Spirit could be reflective of the influence of Simon, who ultimately gets rebuked by Peter.

Let's pause a moment. We see tongues pared with salvation only among the Apostles thus far. Everyone else just receives the Holy Spirit in some quantity. The Holy Spirit is the necessity and the gift to every believer.

We next see Philip being used to bring God's message to an Ethiopian, so apparently his hanging around with Simon didn't do permanent damage to his usefulness for God. (And of course the Bible is full of great men of God making mistakes and doing stupid things, while still being useful to God). Philip preaches Jesus to the Ethiopian Eunuch, baptizes him, and the eunuch goes on his way rejoicing. We might question whether his salvation is complete, for while we see the Holy Spirit snatching Philip away, we don't see explicit reference to the Holy Spirit falling on the Ethiopian. We can cautiously assume the spirit fell (since an angel sent Philip in the first place), while noting, again, no tongues. The greater purpose of this conversion example is to prepare the way for God's message to be opened to the Gentiles. Biblical foreshadowing.

Saul, murderer of disciples, enters the scene in Acts 9, and by Acts 9:17 Saul is a new man. Ananias lays hands on brother Saul, he regains sight, is filled with the Spirit, and gets water baptized. He then has a snack, but no tongues. Interesting that.

We get to the pivotal Chapter 10, which begins the opening of God's message to everyone, gentile and Jew alike. Up until now, and before the Ethiopian conversion, the message was centered among the traditional Jewish population that had the history and relationship with God.

In Acts 10:45:

And all the circumcised belivers who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out upon the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God."

The new believers are then baptized in water. This first outpouring en masse to Gentiles mirrors the events with the Apostles, the first Jews to receive the Holy Spirit. Peter gets some flak (11:2) from his fellow Jews about cavorting with and converting Gentiles, and he explains the new paradigm.

"And as I began to speak the Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon as at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, and how He used to say, "John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit". If God therefore gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"

(Acts 11:15-17)

This is the second place we will see tongues paired with conversion and it's momentous. In the first instance it was God coming to his chosen people, and signaling this new vision with tongues. In the second it's God coming to the rest of the world, and signaling this new vision with tongues. But in between and individually, and from person to person, each salvation moment is highlighted not by tongues, but by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Both Lydia and the jailer of Paul and Silas in Chapter 16 come to God: no mention of tongues.

Tongues finally returns in Acts 19 when Paul goes to Ephesus. But this event is much like what happened with Philip, where believers had not received the Holy Spirit. The message in Ephesus was the message of John the Baptist and the believers were not aware that something beyon water baptism was needed now. Paul asks them if they received the Holy Spirit and they respond, "Uhm, what Holy Spirit?" (Acts 19:2).

Here we have a major body of believers who never received the full message that went to everyone else. So Paul lays hands on these 12 men, they speak in tongues, and thus the word of God expanded into Asia. (As earlier some Apostles had been told by the Holy Spirit not to head that way).

That pretty much sums it up. Nowhere do you get the impression that tongues is an automatic indicator of authentic Christian conversion. You can wander around other books of the Bible to get greater clarification on the gifts of the spirit and come to the general conclusion that different people get different gifts and can request gifts. But you can't rightly read Acts and then leap to an assumption that every Christian should be speaking in tongues, or that without tongues there is no Holy Spirit inside a person, or filling a person.

And yet Christians will continually dance around the idea that an ongoing manifestation of tongues is indicative of a greater understanding of God's ways, or a closer walk with God. This allows certain Christians to be overwhelmingly and undeservedly confident in their walk with God, and leads others to be highly insecure in the truth of their own conversion. Others of us don't care too much, knowing better, but sit silent when the tongues brigade preaches or pushes assumptive theology not based in scriptural reality. Usually those who use tongues as a barometer of spirituality are far too sure of their rightness to question or do a verse by verse analysis of what they believe.

In the end it's important for Christians to recognize each other, love one another, and work together for God's good. We each are imparted with the Holy Spirit to guide us in this task. We won't always agree to the task at hand either. The Apostles and disciples often disagreed, and chose opposing options, but remained unified in love. And that's the true symbol of real Christianity. They will know us by our love for the world, and for each other, and for Jesus.

Attorneys General About To Go Poindexter on For-Profit Education

We suspect that the for-profit education industry will follow in the footsteps of the mortgage industry and lead to widespread defaults. It's actually a perfect industry to question the canard that the private sector excels at all things. The problem is that certain for-profit institutions primarily excel at getting their hands on federal funds, while not providing or insuring adequate educations. It's all bodies in the seats, or rather, money from the government for the bodies in the seats.

And while the University of Ubiquity (Phoenix) probably takes some care to really teach, it does so at a high cost to those who choose it, and the industry as a whole has a dreadful default rate out of proportion to the students served.

The for-profit higher education industry, which includes a vast swath of colleges ranging from the more than 400,000-student University of Phoenix to small mom-and-pop beauty schools, is facing intense scrutiny from the federal government due to growing federal student loan default rates at many schools. Although only about 10 percent of college students nationwide attend such for-profit institutions, the schools account for nearly half of all student loan defaults, leaving the government to pick up the tab.

(Huff Po)

The schools are attracting wider scrutiny now, with attorneys general across several states taking a harder look.

Given Wall Street's and off-Wall Street's (hedge funds) recent proclivities, we have to wonder if some industrious soul is not even now concocting an elaborate financial bet to coincide with either 1) the defunding of half these institutions or 2) the negative impact of legal consequence. Revenues should start taking a hit, eventually.

We've never been pleased with the democratization of education, nor the rising fascination with internet based education at the lower elementary and high school levels. Such indirect instruction defies human nature-specifically, the propensity of humans to seek the quickest path to reach a goal. We always delude ourselves that students will willingly seek out knowledge and not shortchange themselves by variations of the cheat, but in a competitive world, the temptation and lack of oversight is too much for many to resist.

It's all a house of students that will come tumbling down. There is no reason to assume that what students cannot learn in a physical setting with an instructor right in front of them will come easier with that instructor and classmates removed to the vague distance of a computer monitor. Nor is there reason to expect that everyone should have a degree, regardless of degree quality or degree price.

Obama Kills Osama

The "empty suit" strikes again, finishing off the man that Bush could not catch. The comments from the haters across the internet seem to follow these pattterns of gibberish:

• Obama did not literally kill Osama, it was the troops and they alone deserve credit.
• I will believe it when I see physical evidence, otherwise it is more Obama lies.
• It's Obama's plot to distract attention from his long form birth certificate, which has yet to be closely inspected. 
• Obama had no involvement in this operation and was lucky it happened on his watch.
• It was drones, and again, he got lucky.

That said, Bush started the hunt, Obama finished it. Nicely done by both presidents. Of course true credit to the CIA operatives, special forces troops and other military who stayed on point, always. 

Obama's Empty Suit, Or Other Lies People Tell

Sometimes it's necessary to remind ourselves what President Obama has accomplished, because if we tossed out our brains and its resident memory, it would be easy to listen to some voices out there and assume he has accomplished nothing. When you begin to take a look at the various people wanting to be president, some are far more accomplished (Romney) than others Bachmann (whose Wiki page is one long list of nothing), and yet, Obama's record eclipses them all.

When looking at Obama's tasks, you have to first deal with those pieces of legislation that helped prevent collapse. The 2008 meltdown was real, and lacking active remedies, things would be far worse than they are now. You cannot evaluate Obama while ignoring the unexpected pleasure of economic doom.

• The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or stimulus, was the target of much criticism, but this $828 billion piece of legislation included $288 billion in tax incentives for individuals and businesses, $155 billion for healthcare, which included Medicaid help for states and aid to veterans. $100 billion went to education, including to the states to prevent teacher layoffs and maintain funding for Head Start; another $82 billion went for aid to the unemployed, seniors and the poor. This was a stopgap measure to reverse the tide of a sudden contraction in the economy, and it was necessary, practical, and unavoidable.

• Obama bailed out the auto industry, and supported Bush's TARP (under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008), which bailed out the banking system. Both of these actions were likened to socialistic government interference, but it can be noted that without a functioning banking system, there is no capitalism, and that saving American auto companies had stimulative effects geographically and across several related industries.

• Obama returned to tax cuts again in a deal with Republicans in 2010, signing the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. While it was probably not the wisest measure to sign in terms of debt considerations, it is proof positive that those things Obama is accused of not doing (like cutting taxes), he has done, while remaining concerned about working people in need of unemployment aid. 

• While focusing on measures to spur economic activity and protect individuals from lack of said activity, Obama managed to pass healthcare legislation in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care  Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.  One might disagree on the merits of parts of the legislation, but this legislation exists in contrast to others who opted to do nothing. Further, given ongoing increases in spending, this healthcare reform effort served the manifold purposes of improving health, increasing coverage, and reducing or slowing increasing costs. In effect, doing this imperfect bill was much better than doing nothing, and all presidents preceding Obama had the perfect record of doing nothing.

• Obama can also claim the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was an attempt to reform some of the bad practices that led to the 2008 meltdown. It includes the creation of a consumer financial protection agency, and splits off many of the riskier investment bank trading activities from their banking function. Greater regulation of derivatives is directly related to the role derivatives played in ballooning the notional value of financial loss in the mortgage collapse. 

None of the above were intrinsically popular or easy to pass, but include reforms that relentlessly address existing structural problems in the American economic system. In all cases Obama attempted to include components that address middle American problems, while also trying not to overstep in terms of regulation. In other words they are bills that make no entrenched parties completely happy, but nevertheless signal progress.

• We don't automatically suppose that women are smarter or more astute than men, or vice versa. But we do know that men and women think differently, solve problems differently, and take interest in different things. Example: nursing/bond trading, ice dancing/porn, weight-watchers/beer. The sexes are different, and thus, having female representation on the Supreme Court makes sense. Obama named two women to the court, including the first Hispanic female. If you are a woman, you should be roundly satisfied at this affirmation of female importance. And while we don't necessarily agree with the judicial temperament of the women named, Obama nevertheless picked highly qualified women, and without a circus atmosphere.

• With all the increases in bank fees, you have probably heard (from your financial institution) that this was caused, in part, by passage of the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009. While attempting to protect consumers from bad corporate credit policies, the side effects created by the banks--cancelling accounts, raising other fees--says more about the necessity of even greater regulation and reform than anything else. The banks were rightfully bailed out. The banks are making profits. That they are arguing for the maintenance of high profits over moral business practices should be noted. Ultimately this will be righted by the market, in that companies like USAA, or credit unions, will have an expanded pool of new customers. But here is another piece of legislation with President Obama attempting positive action by banning retroactive rate increases, fee traps, and other hidden or hard to notice fees (like inactivity fees on gift cards).

• Nobody seems to notice the New START Treaty that passed; it further limited nuclear arms between Russia and United States. While such treaties were often glorified in the past and counted as legislative progress, it's interesting to note the thorough lack of credit the President gets for getting the current treaty passed.

• President Obama also reformed student aid, stripping out the middleman (those bailed out banks) who received subsidies for providing what the Federal government could provide directly. By passing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, money was freed up for more student aid; the legislation also will help to make loan payments more affordable for students in low wage jobs. 

We could go on indefinitely, and in greater minutiae, about passed legislation, but it's all there for those really willing to look at things with open eyes. In most cases the laws are not nearly perfect and often have onerous side effects. But what that means is that greater support has to be given to those willing to make changes. When a law gets passed that helps consumers, and then already profitable banks add more fees to more than offset the loss in profits, and then use the passage of the law as an excuse for the cash grab, then the right direction for public ire should be the banks, not the lawmakers. Nor can you argue for improvements in how business is done, while kneecapping legislation when it comes to enforcement, regulation and funding.

We need to ask questions of our wanna-be officials about how they would improve laws, create new law, and solve existing problems. When they respond with stupid answers, like "cutting taxes" or "empowering the entrepreneurial spirit," then follow up questions need to be asked. It's not enough to say that low taxes and low regulation somehow miraculously lead to prosperity when the problems that leave us shaking now stem from lack of regulation and low taxes.

We have to discern better. Pull Michelle Bachmann's wiki page. Among all her accomplishments, there are very few accomplishments that have resulted in meaningful legislative success that effects the average person. Obama is the virtual and clear opposite. He is not really progressive, nor conservative, but the pragmatist who is concerned with creating an indelible legacy that history will smile upon.

Armadillo Trump Transmits Mental Leprosy

Found myself experiencing a bit of pain the past couple of weeks and landed in the doctor's office after a year of general medical complacency. Job loss and procrastination delayed my implementation of my doctor's last instructions, so today they scold-eyed me when I turned up generally unhealthier and more blubberous than before. It's funny how disease just kind of creeps up and in, and can sap your strength and resources, even when insured. The potential of some kind of universal health insurance was why I voted for Obama, in addition to my belief he would actually keep our financial institutions from collapsing. And yet, we struggle on, since change--personally or nationally--is hard.

In the past week the papers had a writeup about leprosy and its unorthodox connection to armadillos.  They discovered a link between leprosy cases here in the United States and armadillos, noting the ability of man and beast to transmit it back and forth.

Using genetic sequencing machines, researchers were able to confirm that about a third of the leprosy cases that arise each year in the United States almost certainly result from contact with infected armadillos. The cases are concentrated in Louisiana and Texas, where some people hunt, skin and eat armadillos.

(N.Y. Times)

Along with SARS and HIV, this demonstrates the ability of many modern diseases to be carried and transmitted across species, though leprosy seems like the last one we might imagine to function in this manner. My primary knowledge of "lepers" came from my father's mandatory Saturday morning Bible studies, and for a while I feared picking up the disease in some unimaginable New York way. A few of those Biblical epic dramas from the fifties and sixties also reinforced my general fear that leprosy was the be all and end all of disease and suffering. I believe it was the epic 1959 movie "Ben-Hur," where Charlton Heston's mom and sis end up in a leper colony, that really put the fear of unlikely things into my little soul. Eventually they get healed of their sickness in a supernatural way, but their plight freaked me out and had me worried about my own future health. Thank God for Jesus, I often thought to myself.

In the movies, Jesus heals, and faith goes a long way.

That was back when Heston was busy living out the Bible on screen, and before we had people like Trump on scene to help stir the pot of life. Today some people are fighting healthcare reform after many years of ignoring rising costs and the structural faults in the delivery of services and coverage. But mostly, we have people fighting Obama. His critics on the right tend to mock those on the left, who they feel idolize this president as some type of Messiah who can fix all wrongs.

Of course with the help of people like Trump (and Palin, and Beck, and Bachmann, and silent others), we have discovered that the true point being made is that a man so black, so foreign sounding, so different, could not possibly be any sort of savior. If you think he might actually do something, a morally challenged Republican political class will be on hand to play Pharisee to the Christ of their own imagination. Obama might talk of fixing things, or saving this or that, but just in case he can, they will do all in their power to nail him down, and mock the failure while he bleeds for their sins.

He can be anything except what he is. He can be anything but a hard working, accomplished fellow American citizen. Trump has seen to that. He talked of birth certificates and once provided, he moved the marker, for who is this fraud in the top job trying to lead us? Obama is a fraud until proven otherwise. He plays basketball. He is a community organizer. He comes from monkeys (or so some Orange Country Republicans imply).

People today are amazed at the level of hate and try their best not to reduce it down to mere racism. We applaud that instinct to protect people's high opinions of their own motivations, however inaccurate an approach that may be. When a man has done so much, and when critics have spent so much time ignoring what he has done in order to focus on imaginary failings, and while ignoring the real failings of others, well then, there is disease in the mind at play. There is bias and hate at the foundation, but artfully masked as concern for the Constitution or for the American way of life.

Trump, vile in his desire to play the armadillo and spread disease across the land, came out of nowhere bearing his false witness. Indeed his past support leaned toward Democrats and his lifestyle would not be the type that would generally lead to enthusiastic support from conservatives, religious conservatives, Tea Partites and others.  In fact Trump represents the opposite of principal when matched up against those giving him the vocal support. The only thing that links him together with his supporters is their disease, and his willingness to be an unexpected carrier spreading it.

You always knew the leprosy was there, and that treatment was necessary. You thought it might be too late for many though. You never imagined a self aggrandizing pseudo billionaire from a cosmopolitan city would take up the disease and become a carrier. I mean, we saw Trump on television, and with blacks. We mentioned earlier that a black contestant won Trump's Apprentice in one of the early seasons, though perhaps we should have wondered what was up when Trump suggested out of the blue that the second place finisher share the award. It was a humiliating request, and unasked of any other contestant. The winner, MIT educated and black, was supposed to be happy just to be there and worthy of only 50% of the attention and reward, in Trump's bent frame of thinking.

Who knew that little armadillo was carrying so much more than mere animal magnetism? In the end you never know the source of potential doom or mayhem. It creeps and sneaks, or kabooms down. Eyes must be open.