Experts! Experts!
Nov 3rd, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 2 Comments |
60 Minutes is outing a guy they say was a source of faulty intel about Iraq’s biological weapons program. He wasn’t an expert at all, they say. (Remind you of that other time 60 Minutes was doing a story with/about purported fakery? The two aren’t connected, of course, I just think it’s ironic.)
And did you see that Wal-Mart, when it isn’t working with Bill Clinton, is selling talking Jesus dolls? We Christians would have to wonder about whether, through the doll, the manufacturer was “taking God’s name in vain” (in this case, speaking for God without authorization), but it seems the doll only quotes Scripture and tells the story of the Feeding of the 5000.
(Though it’s very easy to quote Scripture in such a way that you are using God’s name without authorization. I think this is what Phelps & Co. do.)
And here’s the kicker, from the end of the article: “Retail experts said it’s unclear how big a seller the Jesus doll will turn out to be.”
Which leads me to this: “The latest report on employment conditions nationwide was better than economists anticipated.” As Rush points out again and again: The experts are always surprised.
| Stumble It! 
| Digg This!
| Add to del.icio.us! 
| Reddit? 
|
One of my heroes, Rob Bell, had some really interesting (I think) stuff to say about taking God’s name in vain.
He said the way we usually think of taking God’s name in vain is sort-of banal… It’s not a good thing, but it’s not the worst way we can take his name in vain.
Bell claims (and I don’t have a reason to dispute it) that the Greek and Latin that usually get translated as “taking the Lord’s name in vain” actually carries with it all sorts of implications around not treating God’s words seriously enough.
This actually jibes closer to the way we use the phrase “in vain” as applied to other things… If I said all my work was in vain, I’m basically saying that there was no reason or point to it… by this argument, taking God’s name in vain is invoking Him without having a real reason to; it’s playing the God-card.
I guess all this is just a long-winded way of agreeing with you: it’s hard to imagine how a Jesus doll sold by Wal-Mart could possibly invoke God’s words in a way that God would approve of.
This is encouraging for me to hear! (Not the part about the doll, but about how to understand the Commandment). I couldn’t remember where I first heard it expressed the way I was trying to express it, so it’s nice to have an authority person who knows the original text better than I do so I can check up on it.
Thanks!