Hank Hanegraaff said in his blog that pastors at a luncheon were asking him questions about whether or not the Magi were astrologers and thus practicing astrology by following a star that lead them to the messiah and if so, how could God do such a thing. http://www.hankhanegraaff.blogspot.com/ I do not have a problem with either question.
But I do have a problem with both how and why those questions were asked.
So what is so bothersome about how they asked? They asked from an inferior mindset that Hank knows better than they do. It is a false premise to begin asking a question from only because Hank is just as fallible as they are. People shouldn’t just ask for someone’s opinion. They should also ask for the sources that shaped that one’s opinion so that they may also form an opinion of their own from the same supposed facts. They shouldn’t just take Hank’s word because that mentality forms the problem of “group think.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
So what is so bothersome about why they asked the question? I could be wrong, yet from the way Hank describes it, they were asking simply to make Hank feel honored. There is a certain social etiquette at luncheons and such that one should avoid insulting the guest of honor, in this case, Hank. I would agree, but let’s not insult ourselves in doing so. I think it disrespectful to go to such an extreme to avoid insulting and end up idolizing instead. In order to love your neighbor as yourself, one must have self respect otherwise the love given toward the neighbor is nothing more than a fake persona which is dishonest and thus insulting.
Now, moving on to the Magi being astrologers, Hank concludes that since God used the star to guide the Magi, the Magi were not really using astrology. He needs to maintain that God and astrology are incompatible because, according to his interpretation, astrology is tantamount to divination and divination is forbidden by God. If Hank acknowledges that God used divination, then firstly that contradicts his interpretation, secondly that would be admitting that scripture contradicts itself, and thirdly that would then open up a whole door to a place Hank is afraid to go and would thus loose his status which he worked so long and hard to build for himself. He would loose his position of psychological authority! If that happened, his understanding of reality would have to change and that would be too humbling for him…too scary and unpredictable. But people in general don’t like that place and I must respect their decision not to go there. I don’t have a right to force them to go there just like Hank doesn’t have a right to force his beliefs upon a world which is capable of making up its own mind. As long as there is someone trying to force their interpretation of existence upon another mind, there will be conflict. In addition, as long a mind believes it is inferior to another mind, there will be control. Self control, not authoritarian control, is a fruit of the Spirit. The command is to love your neighbor as your self. Peace, as with everything, begins with the self. Make up your own mind and agree or disagree, but don’t put words into my mouth by saying I’m forcing you who are reading this to believe what is written above.
In conclusion I think Hank should use his status among Christians and lead them by loosing the “Answerman” arrogance and be more honest with himself and the public.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You are correct that any human being, no matter how inspired by the spirit they believe themselves to be, should be able to explain why, on what commonly respected authority, or at least on what uncommonly understood basis, they offer a conclusion as to any question. That was the essence of John Wycliffe's assertion that we must each read the Bible for ourselves, having no earthly spiritual overlord but Jesus. But it is a fair question, were the Magi astrologers? If that leads to a tangled web of theological and moral contradiction, one might resort to what a learned rabbi told me: There is no contemporary source which suggests that any Magi visited King Herod or sought out a manger in Bethlehem at all. It may have been a well-intentioned embellishment. That way, we don't have to worry that God may have used astrology, but, we have to worry that the Gospel may not be accurately presented in unadulterated purity in the texts which have come down to us. After all, Luke not only makes no mention of the Magi, but writes that after giving birth at Bethlehem, Mary and Joseph took their baby to Jerusalem, then home to Nazareth, not to Egypt. Mark doesn't mention the Nativity at all. So, maybe Matthew was taking poetic license?
Post a Comment