When a dream convinces you to marry your cheating girlfriend

We now come to Matthew 1:18-25, which explains the birth of Jesus from Joseph's point of view. In summary, Joseph found out that his fiancee, with whom he had never had sex, was pregnant, so he was going to break up with her, but he had a dream which said to marry her because the baby was totally from God. So he did.

Seems legit. Image source.

Here are my thoughts and questions:

What was Mary and Joseph's relationship like? There seems to be a serious lack of communication.

How did Joseph find out Mary was pregnant? Did he hear it from other people, or did she tell him herself? Communication is perhaps the most important thing in a relationship- shouldn't there be at least some conversation between them before he makes the decision to divorce her?

You'd think Mary would know that this is a situation where she needs to explain everything to Joseph. Does she not know what he's going to think if he hears through the grapevine that she's pregnant? Or did she know there was no chance he'd believe her (because, seriously, that is not how abstinence works) so she just assumed it was over, so no use trying to explain to him?

The way it's worded, it sounds like Joseph just heard about it secondhand. Maybe my criticism is completely invalid because "dating" back then was not at all like "dating" now, but ... dude, COMMUNICATION.

Joseph is a good guy.

It's amazing how much respect he has for Mary. He knows that since she's pregnant, they have to break up, but he's not interested in getting revenge on her.

Actually, I don't know the typical procedure for this situation- was stoning an actual possibility?

Is this because dating then was different than dating now, and it was more about arranged marriage and economic/social reasons to get married, rather than the high emotions that come with dating as we know it today? Like, was Joseph heartbroken over Mary's (supposed) cheating, or was he just like "meh"?

Here's another aspect to consider: he's a great guy, and he's acting out of love and respect for Mary- but his plan to divorce her is actually the "wrong" choice. You could say it's "against God's plan." Joseph is trying his best to do the right thing- and given the information he has (including his knowledge of sex ed), breaking up with Mary in a respectful way, without humiliating her, is the best thing to do.

But it's not what God wants. But there was no way Joseph could have known that. God had to tell him. And since his relationship with Mary seemed to be suffering from terrible communication skills, God had to tell him in a dream.

Does this mean that if we try our best to follow God and do what's right, but we make a wrong conclusion because of our own lack of information (or whatever other weaknesses we may have), God understands and will help us out?

Because that would be awesome- that would give me a lot less to worry about in terms of my plans for the future.

Okay, how often do you base major life decisions on dreams?

It seems like in the bible everyone knows when God is talking to them. In my life, sometimes a thought pops into my head and I wonder "was that from God, or did I just think it up?" So how does Joseph know whether this dream is a message from God, or whether he's just crazy?

Which is more likely: Mary cheated on him OR she is the one person in the history of the world who was specially chosen by God and got pregnant without having sex?

And perhaps Joseph's judgment on this is a little off because of all the emotion involved. Doesn't it seem like he's a little bit in denial? Like he's looking for any excuse not to accept the fact that it's over, she's cheating on him, she's having someone else's baby.

My point is, this must have been a super-legit type of dream in order for him to take it so seriously.

I really hope the angel explained more than what Matthew wrote down.

According to Joseph's dream, "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit." Sooooo... I really hope it was more explicit than that. Because the message for Joseph is actually "Mary is TOTALLY NOT cheating on you- God just made her magically pregnant- she is still a virgin though."

Can Joseph reasonably draw that conclusion from the abstract, bible-y language "what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit"?

I think there was more to it- somehow, God communicated to him the completely bizarre circumstances.

Joseph's obedience.

But somehow, Joseph did know this was from God. And he was obedient- he married Mary and raised the kid as his own. And that's a big deal.

Maybe it was the hardest thing he'd ever done.

Because people probably judged him. And maybe there were times Joseph doubted. And maybe sometimes Jesus was a bratty little kid and said "you're not my REAL father!"

Summary/ take-home message:

Sometimes God asks us to do things that are incredibly hard, things that redirect the whole course of our life- like raising someone else's kid. 

Also, God knows and appreciates our good intentions. Matthew points out that Joseph was righteous and that's why he wanted to divorce Mary "quietly." However, it was the wrong choice, so God spoke to him to clarify what he should do.

It seems like the message is: If you honestly are trying to do the right thing, God knows, and God's not going to punish you for making "the wrong choice" if it comes from good intentions- but remember, part of those "good intentions" include being open to hearing God's voice, and being humble enough to realize you misjudged the situation and you need to change your plans in order to obey God.

One last thing: The passage mentions that Jesus would also be known as Immanuel, which means "God with us." That's beautiful- don't ever forget this promise.

Disclaimer: Yes I believe in the virgin birth, but a few times in this post I mentioned how Mary was cheating on Joseph, and I didn't qualify it with a "supposedly." That's because the passage focuses on Joseph, and from his point of view, he can't possibly conclude anything else, until God shows up and clarifies it for him.

Seriously, is Joseph going to think "She's probably cheating on me, but the other possibility is that God made her magically pregnant, which has happened exactly 0 times in history"? No. She's totally cheating on him. You know, until God steps in and clears up everything.

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

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: A Bunch of Names (Matthew 1:1-17)

Next post: The Wise Men Found Jesus In Another Religion (Matthew 2:1-12)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

The Bible and Homosexuality: There are 2 arguments

The bible is NOT clear on this, and I'm about to explain why. I believe there are 2 different positions that Christians can take:

Side A: Gay people can totally go ahead and have monogamous relationships/marriage with someone of the same sex.

Because the bible never mentions gay marriage. Whenever it mentions homosexuality (only 6ish times), it's in the context of promiscuity or prostitution or something else that Christians think is bad anyway. For example, Genesis 19 tells us that homosexual gang rape is wrong. Well, no kidding.

And then there's Leviticus 18:22, which says "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (Which, there's some sexism in this verse- did you notice? It assumes the reader is male.) So... was that command just for ancient Israel or for everyone forever? There are a lot of commands that we totally don't follow today. How do we know if this is one of them?

Also, it just doesn't make sense that if two people are in a committed relationship and they're trying to seek God and honor God, the relationship is automatically EVIL because they're the same gender.

So, this view treats homosexual relationships the same as heterosexual ones. Like, don't have sex outside of marriage, don't get overcome by lust, don't manipulate someone's heart, etc, things that you need to do in order to be obedient to God, in the context of attraction/dating/marriage. 

Side B: All homosexual relationships are sinful.

Because every time the bible mentions homosexuality, it's portrayed negatively. And the ideal for marriage, as presented in the bible, is one man and one woman. (Though there was a lot of polygamy and stuff- but you can see that never worked out too well.)

For example, in Genesis 2 you have God creating the first couple- male and female (though if anyone makes the "Adam and Steve" joke as if it's an actual argument rather than something appropriate for a snarky bumper sticker... seriously?). When Jesus answers a question about divorce in Matthew 19, he points to the first marriage, and his teaching assumes marriage is between a man and a woman. Everywhere the bible talks about what marriage should be, it assumes a man and a woman.

That's the way God made it- he made men and women to be different and work together. So same-sex relationships just don't make sense/ they're unnatural.

So, gay Christians are called by God to be celibate.

(I got a lot of this info from here. And if I missed any important points in either of these arguments, please tell me.)

Both sides need to be accepting and loving towards gay people, because, you know, Jesus said that. Both sides need to agree that bullying is wrong, that treating people like political issues rather than children of God is wrong, and that mocking/stereotyping the other side is wrong (don't accuse Side A of not taking the bible seriously, and don't accuse Side B of being homophobic bigots).

But which view is correct, side A or side B? Both of their arguments seem reasonable to me. I really don't know which is right.

But the piece that is missing is the reality of God speaking to individual Christians. I will let gay Christians pray about this and listen to God, and whatever answer they come up with, I'll believe it, because they obviously know themselves better than I do. For me, this is just an abstract philosophical discussion- it doesn't really matter to me in real life. For other people, this issue is incredibly huge and personal. I respect their conclusion above my own. (And there are gay Christians on both side A and side B.)

(Oh, and for gay non-Christians: I can't tell them what to do.)

Because I'm not gay, but I know about how conscience works- how I feel when I know I'm doing something wrong. I know how it feels to lust for some hot guy, and to know that what I'm thinking is wrong. I know how it feels to be angry at boys, to desire power over boys, to want to manipulate them- and I know the guilt that comes with that, because I know it's wrong.

Does same-sex attraction feel like that? Or does it feel like a healthy desire to show love to someone, to work together and be better off than if you were separate?

I will never know the answer to that. I'm not gay.

And it's totally possible that in some cases it's healthy and some cases it's unhealthy. In the same way that me being attracted to boys can lead to both healthy and unhealthy thoughts and behaviors.

So whatever a gay Christian says about God wanting them to be in a relationship or not- I'll believe them. And I'll try to listen and be humble, because I know they have a very different perspective/experience than I do, and I'd like to understand.

And this is different from what I used to believe. I used to think obviously the bible said it was wrong, because, well, that's gross, obviously. And if someone tried to make an argument about how homosexuality is mentioned so few times, or we don't follow the rules in the Old Testament anyway, I would think "okay it doesn't say it SUPER-EXPLICITLY but you know that's what it means." Because, obviously, that's wrong.

And then I decided to actually see what the bible had to say, rather than starting out with the conclusion that "well gay sex is gross, obviously" and only seeing the evidence that fit that view.

So here I am now. Turns out, the bible is NOT clear. I respect both side A and side B. I don't know which one is right. But I want people to know that both sides have legit Christians who are doing their best to follow Jesus.

Blogaround

1. Just some cute animal pics I got from reddit:

Image source.

Image source.

Oh, China. Click here to see the full-size image: Image source.

2. Today was one of the best days of my life... (posted August 27) An American blogger talks about his visit to Sri Lanka, where he witnessed a huge celebration- a "going away party" for World Vision. World Vision has been working to help a community there for 15 years, and now they are self-sufficient and no longer need World Vision. This is great. This is beautiful.

3. The Cost of Your Call (posted August 24) This is an article about young people serving God by going into the mission field. It comes at the issue from several different sides: obstacles like college debt, the idea that moving to a faraway impoverished country is more romantic/exotic but sometimes less useful than working in the US, and willingness to endure risk/persecution for Jesus.

4. Why America Lacks Global Leaders (posted August 23) A ton of really great insight here about the usefulness of learning a foreign language- because it changes the way you THINK. (However, I only half-agree with this article- I think it's way too critical of Americans, without offering a comparison of how other nations may or may not be doing it better.)

5. How long will women pastors be news? (posted August 27) "Why must we live with a reality that a female senior pastor is presumed less qualified? Why do we still perpetuate this blatant sexism?"

6. Why Women Don't Get Promoted or Hired- and How to Level the Field (posted August 28) My initial reaction is I DO NOT LIKE the suggestions this article makes. But it's something to think about.

7. Confessions of an accidental feminist by Rachel Held Evans (posted August 29) This. So much this. She explains that she is a feminist not because of some evil, radical, anti-Christian influence, but because she saw and experienced oppression and sexism firsthand in the church, and because she read in the bible about Jesus' respect for women, about both daughters and sons prophesying, about "in Christ there is no male or female."

She says, "I am a follower of Jesus first and a feminist second." Amen. Me too. At some point, I will post my own story of how I became a feminist.

8. I hope some other Star Trek fans out there find this as hilarious as I do:

Image source.

9. To the Boys, Her Role Is Simple: Teammate (posted September 2) A girl quarterback on a high school football team. Good for her. ^_^

"It would have happened anyway."

All right, we're gonna bring this small group meeting to a close now- time for prayer requests!

"My family's traveling to Chicago- pray that we have a safe flight."
"My sister is sick today- pray that God heals her."
"Pray that we all get through final exams!"

And sometimes I roll my eyes at this. Do you know how many hundreds of planes take off from every airport in the United States every day? And ALL OF THEM are fine? And okay, your sister has the common cold. God better intervene on this one or she might miss a whopping 2 days of school! Also, guess what- no matter what happens, a week from now all the finals will be over.

You have access to the power that created the universe and raised Jesus from the dead, and all you can think to ask is that your luggage doesn't get lost? Image source.

(So, in other words, perfectnumber likes to judge other people's prayer requests...)

But that's not what I want to write about today. I want to write about when we pray for something and then it happens.

Suppose I prayed for the safe flight to Chicago. And then I had a safe flight to Chicago.

If I don't stop and thank God, I'm kind of a jerk.

Ah come on, thousands of people have "a safe flight to Chicago" every day. (67 million passengers came through O'Hare International Airport in 2011. Oh dude, I just realized I'm one of them!)  Regardless of whether they prayed for it. God didn't do anything- it would have happened anyway.

All right, if you're so sure "it would have happened anyway," then why did you pray for it?

Sometimes I pray for stuff, and it's stuff that I totally expect to happen, so I don't even remember that I prayed about it- I definitely don't remember to thank God.

And I wish I remembered more.

But it's not big epic stuff. It's not "oh look at the awesome power of God answering prayer." It's just a plane and a clear sky and a pilot who has done this exact same route for the past 10 years. It's just me not getting sick on the first day of school. It's just a good grade on an easy physics test.

"Thank you, God, that I didn't have to draw an elephant on my exam." Image source.

When I pray, do I really think I'm talking to God? Because if I'm not gonna take him seriously when he does what I asked, why should he take me seriously when I pray?

Yes, we could debate whether "it would have happened anyway." But the fact is that I prayed for it and then it happened, and it's a slap in the face to decide that "nope, that wasn't God, that would have happened anyway."

Because either I was not certain that "it would have happened anyway", so that's why I prayed, or I just pray things that I don't mean at all. I just say the stuff you're supposed to say. Yeah God, help us be safe, help us have fun, thank you for the food and the hands that made it.

(Actually I personally never use the "hands that made it" line because I take everything literally and it sounds like some disembodied hands made pasta for us...)

Dig in! Image source.

What to do? What if I completely forget I prayed for something? How to remind myself to check later and see if God did it and then thank him?

Realizing my tendency to be kind of a jerk in this area (by not remembering to thank God) has caused me to focus more on prayer lately. To dedicate time to pray every day with no distractions (with my computer off). To think about people I know- friends and family- by name, and pray for them. To be thankful for everything God has given me, and lay out all my concerns about my future in front of him.

And I pray that God keeps reminding me to do that.

A Bunch of Names

Matthew kicks off his account of Jesus' life by tracing Jesus' genealogy, all the way from Abraham to Joseph (Jesus' "father"). Read it here: Matthew 1:1-17.

Here are my thoughts/observations/questions:

There are "extra people" in the genealogy.

Typically I would expect just the father, paternal grandfather, great-grandfather, etc to be in the genealogy. Matthew also includes some mothers and brothers of Jesus' direct male ancestors. Here they are, with the names of the "extra people" in bold:

"Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers..." I assume the brothers (or half-brothers- there was polygamy) are mentioned here because they are the fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel. Judah also had at least 1 sister (see Genesis 30:21). Probably more than 1- what are the odds of having 12 sons and only 1 daughter?

Really? Just one girl? Image source.

"Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar..." Perez and Zerah were twins, so I guess that's why they're mentioned together. The story of how they were born is told in Genesis 38 and it's pretty bizarre... Tamar (who had been married to Judah's son, but he died) pretended to be a prostitute, so Judah paid her for sex, not realizing she was his daughter-in-law... then it got really awkward when Judah turned out to be the father of her babies.

"Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab..." Rahab was not an Israelite- she was a prostitute who lived in Jericho, you know, before Joshua had everyone walk around it and destroy it and kill everyone. Rahab helped out the Israelite spies (Joshua 2) so she and her family were not violently killed when the Israelites took over the city (Joshua 6:25).

Then they made it into a story for little kids. Yay, war and genocide! Image source.

"Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth..." The story of Ruth and Boaz is great! (Here's a link to the first chapter of Ruth.) Ruth was also totally not an Israelite- she was a Moabite, a widow, very poor, until she married Boaz. And by the way: Ruth totally did not "wait" for Boaz.

"David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife." Well, this is awkward. Why did Matthew write it like this? It's like he's blatantly pointing out "David totally stole another guy's wife." The story of David and Bathsheba is in 2 Samuel 11-12. In summary: David had sex with another guy's wife, then she got pregnant, then David sent that guy (Uriah) into battle so he'd get killed.

The whole thing was just really bad. Bathsheba's baby died, as punishment for David's sin (yes, I've already told God I have some problems with that), but Bathsheba ended up having another son, Solomon. Why did Solomon get to be king, instead of one of the sons of David's many other wives? I don't know.

"Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon..." Jeconiah was also known as Jehoiachin, and he was one of the last kings of Judah. (See 2 Kings 24.) Not sure why his brothers are mentioned too- maybe because they all got exiled together?

"Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." We'll talk more about Mary and Joseph next week.

So why did Matthew include these "extra people"- particularly the women? Most of them were a little sketchy- they were foreigners, or having sex with people they shouldn't be having sex with.

It seems like Matthew was drawing his readers' attention to the sketchy parts of Jesus' family. Perhaps the reason is to show history as it really happened, uncensored. Matthew didn't HAVE TO include those particular women's names. (Also, why only those few? It's not like they didn't know the names of some the other mothers.)

Why does Matthew do this? I'll leave that as a discussion question for my readers.

Here's another question: Why did God use a family line that had adultery, prostitution, and murder? Was he unable to build a line of people who were "pure", who only had sex with their husband/wife? You can make the argument that the odds of not having even 1 illegitimate kid, over several dozen generations, are incredibly low- but he's God! He could have set that up.

I think the answer is God does not prefer the "pure" people over the "impure." How can we claim that God accepts everyone, but that only those who are "sexually pure" are worthy of being part of God's plan? Yes, God could have brought Jesus through a line of people who didn't hold hands until their wedding day- but then the message would be "God doesn't need you- he found someone else, someone with a better reputation- you're not good enough to be part of God's plan." And while it's true that God has access to whatever resources he wants, I don't think he rejects people that way.

(Though this line of thinking kind of contrasts with the whole "virgin birth" concept... we'll see what I end up writing for that next week...)

Why is this Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's?

Now you might be thinking, wait a second, Christians believe in a virgin birth. So what's the point of listing Joseph's ancestors? They're NOT Jesus' ancestors.

Don't know why Joseph has a halo here. He's not the father. Image source.

Indeed. Luke 3 records Mary's genealogy- well, that's what they say... it's totally not obvious from reading it- it seems to be presented as Joseph's genealogy. But the bible scholars say actually Luke wrote Mary's genealogy, so, okay whatever. I believe them.

I hypothesize that Matthew recorded Joseph's genealogy because it included Judah's kings. From David to Jeconiah, they're all kings. Matthew is presenting Jesus as royalty.

Some people are skipped.

Matthew 1:8 claims "Jehoram the father of Uzziah" but that's just not true. Actually, Jehoram was the father of Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:24), the father of Joash (2 Kings 11:2), the father of Amaziah (2 Kings 14:1), the father of Azariah/Uzziah (it's his nickname, or something) (2 Kings 14:21).

So he totally skipped Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah.

Matthew 1:11 claims "Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers", but actually Josiah was the father of Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34), the father of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah (again, it's a nickname, I guess) (2 Kings 24:6).

So he totally skipped Jehoiakim.

And I found no Old Testament references past Zerubbabel, so who knows whether any more generations near the end got skipped?

So why is Matthew skipping people? Is it a mistake? Maybe- I feel like if you're going to make a mistake copying the bible, a huge list of similar-sounding names is the place to do it.

I have also heard that in Jewish genealogies, sometimes they skipped people, and everyone knew that, and it was fine. Everyone knew that "father" didn't always mean father- could be grandfather, great-grandfather, whatever.

Did Matthew skip those 4 kings because they were less important than the others? Was there a reason? Was it because their names all sounded too much the same? I don't know. Readers, please discuss.

The count at the end is wrong.

Oh dear. Matthew 1:17 says, "Thus there were fourteen generations from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ."

From Abraham to David- if you count every direct male ancestor along the line (so, excluding the "extra people"), you get 14 people. So far so good.

From David to the exile- again, if you count every direct male ancestor, from Solomon (we already counted David in the previous section) to Jeconiah, it's 14 people. But remember, 4 people have been skipped. Were they skipped so the numbers would work out nicely? Wow, that's just dishonest.

From the exile to the Christ- There are 13 people in the direct line from Shealtiel to Jesus. Is "the exile" also getting counted as a "generation"? Seriously?

So, why does Matthew point out the "14 here, 14 here, 14 here" thing? It's not true. Seriously. I'm a math nerd so this is really important to me. My first reaction after reading the "14 here, 14 here, 14 here" bit was "WOW THAT'S COOL! God worked it out so the numbers would fit so nice- clearly this was the work of God!" But guess what, he didn't.

What Matthew should have said is "If you skip some people and then count 'the exile' as one of the generations, then look how cool the numbers work out!" Oh, wonderful. Look, if we arbitrarily make rules and process data inconsistently, cool patterns emerge!

I'm not a fan of this, Matthew.

I'm fine with skipping some of the generations. If that's how genealogies were understood in that culture, that's great. But you can't skip them and then say "WOW LOOK HOW COOL THE NUMBERS WORK OUT!"

I don't have an answer- I am unable to understand this verse as anything but incredibly dishonest/deceptive, and I don't know why it's in the bible. Anyone have some ideas?

Why is it important to start with a genealogy?

To introduce Jesus to his readers, Matthew starts with a bunch of names. Why?

I have heard that the gospel of Matthew was intended for a Jewish audience. That's why Matthew traces Jesus' ancestry back to Abraham (Luke traces it all the way to Adam). Also, as I mentioned above, Judah's line of kings is included in this genealogy.

Perhaps Matthew is trying to make a point that Jesus is the King of the Jews. Perhaps it was important that his readers know where Jesus came from, before they can consider what he did and taught. He's not just some random guy.

Summary/ take-home message:

In writing this genealogy, Matthew establishes Jesus as both a Jew (descendant of Abraham) and a king (descendant of David). Also, Matthew includes some reminders of the sketchier parts of Jesus' family history, perhaps to show that everyone can be accepted by God, no matter what they've done, and that God uses the sketchy/sinful things to bring good- in this case, to bring Jesus into the world. Also, the inclusion of Ruth and Rahab, who were not Israelites, points toward racial/ethnic reconciliation, and the fact that God loves people of all nations.

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

Appendix: Old Testament accounts of the people in the genealogy.
(For the ones with only a "mention" and not a whole story, I only listed the first or most important mention- they may appear in several similar genealogies throughout the Old Testament. Also, note that many of the stories in 2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings are retold in 1-2 Chronicles.)

Abraham - Genesis 12-25
Isaac - Genesis 21-35
Jacob - Genesis 25-49
Judah and his brothers - Genesis 29-50
Perez, Zerah, Tamar - Genesis 38
Hezron - mentioned in Genesis 46:12
Ram - mentioned in Ruth 4:19
Amminadab - mentioned in Exodus 6:23
Nahshon - mentioned in Numbers 2:3
Salmon - mentioned in Ruth 4:20
Rahab - Joshua 2, 6
Boaz, Ruth, Obed - Ruth 1-4
Jesse - 1 Samuel 16-17
David - 1 Samuel 16- all the rest of 1 Samuel, all of 2 Samuel, 1 Kings 1-2
Solomon - 1 Kings 1-11
Uriah's wife (Bathsheba) - 2 Samuel 11-12, 1 Kings 1-2
Rehoboam - 1 Kings 12, 14
Abijah (aka Abijam) - 1 Kings 15
Asa - 1 Kings 15
Jehoshaphat - 1 Kings 22, 2 Kings 3
Jehoram - 2 Kings 8
Uzziah (aka Azariah) - 2 Kings 15
Jotham - 2 Kings 15
Ahaz - 2 Kings 16
Hezekiah - 2 Kings 18-20
Manasseh - 2 Kings 21
Amon - 2 Kings 21
Josiah - 2 Kings 22-23
Jeconiah (aka Jehoiachin) and his brothers - 2 Kings 24-25
Shealtiel - mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:17
Zerubbabel - Ezra 3-5, Haggai 1-2
Abiud - no information
Eliakim - no information
Azor - no information
Zadok - no information
Akim - no information
Eliud - no information
Eleazar - no information
Matthan - no information
Jacob - no information
Joseph, Mary, Jesus - lots about them in the New Testament

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

This post is part of a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Previous post: "Healings of Jesus" Infographic

Next post: When a dream convinces you to marry your cheating girlfriend (Matthew 1:18-25)

Click here to go to the beginning of the series.

Cameras and Vegetarianism

A supermarket in Australia may start requiring its meat suppliers to have cameras in their sheds and slaughterhouses, in order to be sure they are following the standards for animal welfare, according to this post: Coles Supermarkets in Australia Wants Camera Surveillance In Supplier's Slaughterhouses, posted August 20.

Image source.

My first thought, upon reading this story, is "WHYYYYYYY would you want that?" Really? Cameras? Why would you want to digitally store footage of a bunch of pigs, so you can watch it and think, "All these pigs, which look quite alive in this video- they're all dead now. They were killed one by one and their bodies were cut up and covered in plastic wrap and sold."

That's horrifying. Why would anyone want MORE information available about what goes on in slaughterhouses?

But any line of thinking that says "the less you know, the better" is highly suspicious.

So here is my question: Do people who eat meat have a responsibility to know where it comes from?

In an ideal world, the right thing for me to do is become a vegetarian for now, do some research, decide what meat sources I'm okay with, based on how the animals are treated, and then only eat those kinds of meat. Right? Maybe everyone should try being a vegetarian for some short period of time.

But I can tell you I'm not about to do that. Being a vegetarian is incredibly inconvenient. And I have other things in my life that are more important than looking for information about slaughterhouses.

So I'm not sure what to conclude about this...

But here's another thing: Why is there this idea in American culture that eating meat is "manly" and vegetarians are weak and wimpy? And that caring about animals is just for crazy hippies? I've never tried being a vegetarian, but I imagine it's really hard- it's hard to find stuff you can eat when you're out somewhere, the vegetarian choices are so limited at restaurants, plus you have to deal with people thinking you're wimpy/over-sensitive/unreasonable for not eating meat. If anything, the vegetarians are the ones who are strong.

Blogaround

Thank you, reddit. Image source.

1. What Does it Mean to Pray in Jesus' Name? (posted August 20)

2. The 50% Divorce Rate Is A MYTH. I'll Tell You Why. (posted March 4, 2012) This is encouraging. Some analysis of different ways to use statistics to predict divorce rates.

3. Once Broken, Never the Same (posted July 2012) A story of a Cambodian girl who sold herself into sex slavery because "My virginity was the most valuable possession my family had." This stuff is so sad, I don't know what to say.

4. Why "Did You Have Fun?" is the Wrong Question (posted August 19) Instead, ask your kids about the ways that they loved others- this is so much more important than their own personal entertainment.

5. What the Affordable Care Act Means for Transgender People (posted August 14) Transgender people often have a really hard time getting medical care- they face discrimination from doctors and insurance companies. The Affordable Care Act includes some parts that help fight against the discrimination.

6. The Bible Is Not a Diet Plan (posted August 13) Excellent post about how completely absurd and selfish it is to base a diet plan off the story of Daniel. Wow.

7. Ask An Indigenous Theologian (Response) (posted August 21) A Native American pastor talks about how the gospel is present in every culture, and how Christians need to first look for what God is already doing in a foreign culture, and be willing to learn and be changed. I totally love this post.

8. Why people think Christians are fake (posted August 22) Admitting that we are "prone to wander, Lord I feel it, prone to leave the God I love."

9. 40% of U.S. food wasted, report says (posted August 22) I like this article because it talks about the reasons why food gets wasted, at various points along the supply chain- by farms, stores, restaurants, consumers- instead of just "YOU'RE WASTING FOOD YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD YOU'RE KILLING THE EARTH."

10. Number of the Day (posted August 22) According to a recent poll, 0% of African Americans plan to vote for Romney. Wowwwwww.

11. iSideWith.com A pretty simple questionnaire that tells you which presidential candidate's views are closest to yours. I totally recommend this. (But it made me feel horribly not-knowledgable about politics...)

"Healings of Jesus" Infographic

Get excited! Starting next week, I'll be blogging through the book of Matthew- each week 1 post will be dedicated toward my best attempt at some awesome, legit bible study, where I ask the weird questions and I'm okay with not having all the answers- but somehow, through it all, we'll learn more about why Jesus is AWESOME.

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

This post is part of a series on the book of Matthew.

Previous post: "Words of Jesus" Wordle

Next post: A Bunch of Names (Matthew 1:1-17) 

I was wrong about being right

"All truth is God's truth." The writer of this excellent post, Without Fear: Books & Truth (posted August 20), says that though she has always claimed to believe this, she used to only read books written by Christian authors. She kept her reading list safe, censored, sanitized. But finally she realized that "All truth belongs to God. No truth, despite its origin, threatens God or diminishes His authority." Since then, she has taken every opportunity to read and learn from tons of different authors, even though she may not agree with them on everything. And it's been awesome.

I love this! It reminds me of how much of a n00b I was in the past...

I used to think that everything written by a Christian was true. Christian books, articles in Christian magazines, Christian music, anything said in a sermon- all of it was just wonderful and completely true. And that there was one right answer for "What do Christians believe about [fill in the blank]?"

I remember going to a seminar about creationism at a church many years ago. During Q&A time, a member of the audience expressed concern about the lack of "peer-reviewed research" or something. And I thought, "hey, whose side are you on?" Because CLEARLY this is what Christians believe. If you question it, that means you hate the bible. Or something.

I remember reading an apologetics book, with answers to a lot of common questions about Christianity. One of the questions was "If we say the universe is so complex that it requires a creator, doesn't that mean the creator is even more complex? Who created God?" And I thought, "wow, that's a good question." I read the answer given by the book, and I didn't understand it. But I thought, this is The Answer. I need to memorize this so I can recite it if anyone ever asks me this question. Something about God being eternal and not created.

I know, I was a n00b. This was back in middle school or high school, okay?

I thought becoming a Christian was about arguing. People would debate, and then if one of them ever didn't have an answer, they'd have to change religions. And the "answers" weren't things I'd decided after thinking through everything on my own- they were from books of apologetics, written by experts who were totally infallible.

It was a very "us vs them" mentality, about arguing and needing to always be right. Actually, I guess I subconsciously thought being right was more important than being honest.

Because under this "always right" mentality, let's suppose someone asks a hard question about Christianity. Here's what happens:

1. Someone asks "if God is good, why do bad things happen?"
2. I have a moment of fear- this is a hard question, and if I don't come up with an answer, then we'll all have to convert to atheism right now.
3. Oh my goodness, I remember reading about this question in a book! Here's what it said: I list a couple points, with all the emotion of a computer program checking a look-up table.
4. Good, crisis averted.

Soooo... that's incredibly insensitive. Yeah, as if people just need to have all their doubts and questions shot down by "oh, I've heard that argument before, and here's the answer." And then they'll become Christians.

Pictured: Helping people come to Jesus. Image source.

I don't believe that any more. I believe in actually wrestling with those questions. If God is good, why do bad things happen? Perfectnumber, take a minute to actually consider it, and understand why it's such a tough issue with so much emotion behind it. And maybe people don't need a bunch of words in the form of an argument- maybe they need my understanding and whatever compassion I can give.

And maybe it's okay for me to say I don't have an answer. Or, I have a couple thoughts but I understand if that doesn't answer it for you.

And all of this brings me back to the conclusion of the post I linked to above. Just like the writer of that post concluded that no truth threatens God, I conclude that no question threatens God. Now I believe everyone has something to say, and everyone is worth listening to. And I realize more and more that I was wrong about a lot of things- and that's okay, everyone is wrong about a lot of things- but I try not to be.

And "trying not to be" means actually thinking about these questions, not being afraid of doubt. It means listening to people. It means that compassion is more important than informing others about what "the right answer" is.

"Words of Jesus" Wordle

Click here to see the full-size version.

Get excited! Starting next week, I'll be blogging through the book of Matthew- each week 1 post will be dedicated toward my best attempt at some awesome, legit bible study, where I ask the weird questions and I'm okay with not having all the answers- but somehow, through it all, we'll learn more about why Jesus is AWESOME.

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

This is the first post in a series on the gospel of Matthew.

Next post: "Healings of Jesus" Infographic