Destroy:Ideas

Stackhouse lecture on harm-reduction sites

2011-10-26T16:53:00.000-07:00

This is a controversial subject, but it is important. The video is John Stackhouse, Professor of Theology and Culture at Regent College, with Meera Bai discussing harm-reduction sites that provide a safe environment for drug addicts to receive counseling, medical care, rehabilitation, and clean needles.

If you don't have time to watch the video (it's about an hour long), you can read an article on the subject at ChristianWeek.org.

I have come to the opinion that I cannot support ideas or policies that cost lives. Similarly, I cannot oppose ideas or policies that would save lives. There is a grey area where an idea or policy will cost lives and also save lives. That's more nuanced. But if there is something that can be done that saves lives that doesn't cost lives, it seems pretty clear cut that action is appropriate or even necessary.

Watch live streaming video from regentcollege at livestream.com

The end result of Muscular Christianity

2011-10-03T13:27:00.000-07:00

It's just too much. I don't really have words.

I've said it was dangerous theologically to prop up this alpha male masculinity as a model for Christian behavior, saying anything less means you're less godly. Yet it continues, and grows daily.

Stupid, idiotic pastors of questionable character keep using violence to sell their version of the Gospel of Peace, like somehow the message of the cross just wouldn't make it into the minds of young men unless someone was kicked in the balls first. As if the love of God to rescue all of creation from certain doom wasn't good enough, so we have to make somebody bleed first.

And now we have a story from a congregation in Tulsa, Oklahoma who stages boxing matches as part of their ministry. And now Muscular Christianity has taken a life.

Stop it. Just stop it.

Why we are adopting

2011-07-21T09:21:00.000-07:00

I wrote this about a month ago for the local Christian news magazine to be distributed to all of the churches in the area. When I submitted it, I was informed of the serendipitous nature of things as the next issue was going to focus on foster care and adoption, so it fits in quite well. However, I had to shorten it down considerably. It's over 1400 words, and the normal article space is 500 words. The version that will be published should be just under 800 words. To this is the full version.

At the end of the movie Schindler’s List, Oskar Schindler breaks down in tears. “I could have got more out,” he cries, “I could have got more.” A few years ago I had the opportunity to visit the Schindler factory in Krakow, Poland. Schindler had saved the lives of over 1,100 Jews during World War II, yet here he is admonishing himself because he could have done more.

“Why did I keep the car? Ten people right there. Ten people. Ten more people.” He intimates this thought to his friend Itzhak Stern. He takes his lapel pin off and continues, “This pin. Two people. This is gold. Two more people. He would have given me two for it, at least one. One more person. A person, Stern. For this. I could have gotten one more person,” he’s sobbing at this point, “and I didn’t! And I … I didn’t!”

This is one of the most powerful scenes in any movie ever produced. It’s also a stark reminder of the eternal reality we as Christians must face. Do we honestly believe what we say we believe? Is the world facing real eternal peril?

Jesus was very serious about this. He brought it up multiple times. One young man came to him asking what he could do to inherit eternal life, and Jesus responded, “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Mark 10:21) In the same way, he told his disciples, “Those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.” (Luke 14:33)

And I’m reminded once again of Oskar Schindler lamenting his inaction, “I threw away so much money.” He wasted his money on the temporary pleasures of life when he could have saved lives with the money and resources he had at his disposal.

There are a lot of very strong verses in the Bible about rich people. They aren’t opposed to wealth, but they do warn about what comes with riches. Temptations, idolatry, murder, slander, all forms of evil. I’ve always thought these verses were for other people. I don’t have much money, much less than a lot of people around here. But I live in the

United States of America

, and even though I’m well below the median income level, I’m still in the top 5% of the wealthiest people in the world (according to globalrichlist.com).

I’m not alone in this regard. Earlier this year, Fidelity Investments released the results of a survey that found 46% of millionaires “didn’t feel wealthy in 2009.” In fact, 58% of them claimed they needed $1.75 million to feel wealthy. In survey after survey, the majority of people don’t believe they are rich even when they are millionaires.

And I am still in the richest 5%. Half of the world’s population lives on less than $2.50 per day. At least 80% of humanity lives on less than $10 a day. I can’t even buy lunch for $10.

Needless to say, I cannot ignore these verses, like in 1 Timothy 6, that commands those who are rich to not “put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God.” Or in James 1, which instructs the rich to “take pride in their humiliation.”

But what is the response to all of this? Should I just feel bad about myself for having so much while many are perishing in this world?

The Apostle Paul commands us, “to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.” (1 Timothy 6:18) It leaves me with one solution: If I am blessed with good things, I am to give to those in need. God has provided me with food, clothing and a home. Anything past this is luxury for much of humanity. Certainly I can look at what I have and make sacrifices to my comfort to even save one more person.

The Apostle John went even further saying, “If anyone has material possessions and sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth.” (1 John 3:17-18) Does this really mean that if I hold onto my possessions when another is in need that God’s love is not in me?

James teaches us that, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:27) This seems to be a very straight-forward verse, yet why is it so radical? This word “religion” means “worship,” or “ceremonial observance.” Why doesn’t the Church view caring for orphans and widows as a vital part of our worship?

So this is what my wife and I are doing: Last year we started the process of adopting children. We contacted our local Department of Public and Social Services, had our background checks, attended many hours of training, and now we’re on the list to receive children any day now. This is something just about everyone can do, and unlike the common perception it doesn’t cost a thing.

We took a look at our budget, and we’ve decided the needs of children are more important to us, and to God, than owning two cars, owning a home, frequent restaurant visits, cable television, etc. These things that seem so inconsequential to middle-class

America

were barriers to “pure and faultless” worship. They were (literally) a car we sold to buy beds for the children. I don’t have a gold lapel pin, but I would have been willing to sell that as well if I could have “gotten one more.”

These are meager sacrifices for what seems like nothing compared to what Oskar Schindler managed, but we’re a meager family doing what we can.

Schindler lived just miles from the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camps, a real and present evil. We also visited these camps, and it’s really a life-changing experience. But we live in a world where 22,000 children die each day due to poverty-related issues like hunger, and preventable diseases. These are things we don’t see on a daily basis because they live in South-East Asia, or Sub-Saharan Africa.

But it also happens closer to home, and we ignore it, and even pass laws to keep it out of our neighborhoods - someplace out of sight. Nearly 21% of American children are living in poverty, facing food insecurity, poor health, abuse and neglect. With our income, we cannot afford to adopt a child from overseas, but we can help a few here in the Coachella Valley who are in need. I can’t make excuses anymore.

Jesus expressed how much it takes to enter the Kingdom of Heaven in severe terms - over and over again. At one point he even said that, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters - yes even their own life - such a person cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26) These are probably the harshest recorded saying of his. Yet I think I now understand somewhat what they mean. We are adopting children instead of having our own biological children. These aren’t children we will ever know, but we’re giving them up in order to “care for orphans in their distress.”

Jesus also taught us, “If you only greet your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:46-48) It is (generally) easy to love your own family, and stick with your own kin, but it takes a work of God to love without expectation.

Of course these children will be ours. They will be loved, and they will love us. We aren’t walking away from anyone, but into a new kind of love. God is the author of love, and giver of good gifts. These children are great gifts from God, and we praise him for the wonderful opportunity to care for these little ones. In receiving them we receive God. As Jesus said, “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.” (Mark 9:37)

You see, it is always pure joy to serve our Lord. What may seem like a sacrifice of time, money or possessions always ends up being worth 100-times that in the economy of the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 19:29)

Putting the Kingdom first

2011-07-19T13:04:00.000-07:00

When anyone addresses the words of Jesus concerning money, there is always the same answer given.

Jesus said:

"Sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)
"You cannot serve God and Money." (Matthew 6:24)
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal." (Matthew 6:19)
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Luke 18:25)

And the answer is, "God wants us to put HIM first!" That is, Jesus only meant we cannot love money more than we love God.

Of course Jesus didn't say, "You can serve two masters, so long as you only work for one of them on the evenings." He said, "You cannot serve two masters."

But what exactly does that mean? How does one tell if they're serving God or money?

Maybe you can see how much time you spend at work earning money and compare it with the time you spend working for the Kingdom of God. Maybe you can compare how much money you spend on yourself with how much you spend on the poor.

They will use this answer to weasel out of what Jesus plainly says, and then still fail to live up to their own definition.

If you have money and you aren't supporting orphans and widows with it, you are serving money, not God. (James 1:27) If you own anything and do not use it to help those in need, you are serving money, not God. (1 John 3:17)

We live in a society that is the wealthiest society to ever exist throughout time. We don't need most of the stuff we have, yet we keep moving the goalposts to include our luxuries under what is acceptable to God. Having two cars is more important than having one, and providing for a family in need. Having a home office is more important than using the dining room table in a smaller home and using the excess to provide housing for the homeless. Having a cappuccino maker is more important than providing water for a village without it.

We pat ourselves on the back thinking we're good because we tithe to the local church (to pay the pastor's salary), even give extra to a few charities, and even help out at the shelter during the holidays, while the poor continue to struggle. The hungry continue to hunger. The thirsty continue to thirst. The homeless remain on the streets.

We tell ourselves we don't love money, but we spend thousands on fertilization treatments when there are thousands of orphans available for adoption.

We wish we could give more, yet we spend excessively on creature comforts and entertainment.

Quenching the Spirit in women

2011-07-08T11:02:00.000-07:00

In 1 Thessalonians 5, Paul writes,

Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all

Yet the Church has become expert at doing just this. In fact it's codified in many denominations, and held up as an important value for Christian ministry. I am, of course talking about the practice of excluding women from ministry.

In 1 Corinthians 12, Paul lists off a series of spiritual gifts. Each of these are given to those within the Body of Christ. These include both men and women. They include wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miracles, prophecy, discerning spirits, tongues, and interpretation of tongues. The rest of the chapter goes on to express how important each member of the body is, and over the next couple of chapters how the gifts should be expressed in worship.

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

Yet women are excluded in our congregations today.

Even though Paul admonishes, "the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable," (emphasis mine) their spiritual gifts are relegated to support their husbands, or to minister to other women and children only.

Taking this last verse in tandem with 1 Peter 3:7, we've really got a crisis in hand.

You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered.

Yet women are excluded in our congregations today.

They're not excluded in the way that women are segregated in mosques, and for a completely different reason, but it's the fact that the spirit is quenched in women by disallowing their use in the greater congregation.

This is true of men too, as I have said before, but it's especially true of women. Our church structures disallow the use of gifts for everyone but the professional Christians. Yet women aren't allowed to be professional Christians. And even congregations that are more open to congregational involvement in worship tend to hold women back from full participation.

Stop it. Just stop it.

Blaming women

2011-06-02T19:19:00.000-07:00

The Church has been struggling over the past few decades with the drop in male attendance at services. There have been many answers to why we have this phenomenon. But it's not unique to the Christian world. The secular world is also seeing a trend of fewer men seeking college degrees, and fewer men in the work force.

Unfortunately, too many people come up with the same answer: women.

Yes. They blame women for the failures of men.

Here are a few statistics:

Women are more likely than men to graduate from high school
Only 44% of undergraduates at community or four-year colleges are men
Female college students have higher grade point averages than men, and are more likely to graduate
Among young adults, 35% of women and 27% of men possessed bachelor degrees in 2009
Women are 60% more likely than men to earn a bachelor's degree by the time they're 23
More women than men are earning advanced degrees; 9% of women and 6% of men
Nearly 6 out of 10 adults holding advanced degrees between the ages of 25 and 29 are women
There are now more women than men in the workforce, with 3/4 of the jobs lost in the Great Recession by men
A third of men aged 22-34 still live at home with their parents; in the ages 18-24, 56% of men and 48% of women still live with their parents

Looking at these statistics, we see that young men are checking out. They're choosing to be slackers while young women are being more disciplined.

Yet the blame falls on women? You have to be kidding me.

I've heard guys say it started with women's suffrage. Yeah, women voting has made men less inclined to make their own lives better.

Or they'll blame the feminist movement of the 1970s, saying women entered the work force and made everything worse for men.

This is completely and demonstrably false.

Woodoodles and Floopdeens

Let's do an object lesson:

There are 100 Woodoodles who work in a mine. They go to work every day and mine 20 kilos of diamonds. One day, the foreman says they need 40 kilos of diamonds, so he's going to bring in 100 Floopdeens, and expand the mine. Over time, as the mine grows, the Floopdeen workers grow as the mine grows to accommodate them. Now there are 100 Floopdeens mining 18 kilos of diamonds, but there are only 80 Woodoodles and they're only mining 14 kilos.

When there are openings for 100 Woodoodles and 100 Floopdeens, why are there only 80 Woodoodles when there were 100? Should the foreman hire a few more Floopdeens to cover the Woodoodle labor that isn't getting done?

It's possible that some Woodoodles are upset that Floopdeens are now working in their mines, but that's irrational behavior, and may even be racist. It's not the Floopdeens' fault the Woodoodles don't want to work any more. It's not their fault they're hated by some of the Woodoodles.

There is clearly a different answer for this problem, because laming women for the failings of men is ridiculous.Women don't keep men from going to college, or earning good grades. And women don't keep men from attending church services.

Belonging and purpose

I've been attending a lot of parenting classes recently as my wife and I are preparing to take foster children with the intention to adopt. In the last class, it was stressed over and over than children act out when they do not feel belonging or significance. These two things are the basic desires of everybody once food, shelter and security are met.

They explained that in the agrarian society, the children worked alongside their parents, so they had significance, and belonging. Now children are to be seen and not heard. They're to go to school where belonging is lacking, and pass tests where significance is lacking. At home, children aren't asked to carry much of the load either.

This is why I think men are failing - especially in the church communities. Our institutions don't provide belonging or significance for men. And this isn't because women are present, it's because they're treated as sheep or machines.

Over the past thirty years, when the churches began noticing the trend of male attendance reduction, we also saw a new type of church structure being formed. These congregations moved away from an elder-centered community, and more into a cult-of-personality around an individual man. It was this one man's vision, and it was this one man's authority that the congregation was asked to submit to. And I know many men who have become sick of this, and have left the typical church community because they weren't given a voice, and when they attempted to exercise their spiritual gifts, they were admonished and sometimes told to leave.

It's not because women took over, or the churches started catering to the needs of women than caused men to leave. It was because the alpha-male model of vertical authority took over, and pushed out the other men.

Bigger, stronger, faster

Recently, I watched a documentary called Bigger Stronger Faster, a discovery of the American infatuation with steroid use and bulging muscles. The host and narrator talked about how the 1980s introduced a new model of masculinity into American culture; a lone wolf with rippling muscles, and kickass attitude. One guest showed how the GI Joe action figure went from a normal-sized guy in the '60s to a muscular guy in the '80s to an inhuman size in the '90s.

Over these years, male culture has praised machismo over brains. Brawn over skills.

Since the 1980s, we’ve been inundated with a new image of man. It was no longer Sean Connery’s multi-skilled gentleman, Cary Grant’s casual elegance, or even John Wayne’s meek toughness. It was Arnold’s biceps, Jean Claude’s speed, Sly Stallone’s will, and Hulk Hogan’s anger.

Men have sloughed off the complete man in favor of the warrior.

Being smart isn’t manly. Being gentle is the price we pay to keep the company of women (but who needs them, right?). Manners are for sissies; ties are for idiots.

And along with this machismo comes homophobia. Having a nice hair cut is gay. Being fit is gay. Wearing nice clothes is gay. Cooking is gay. Reading books is gay. Doing well in school is gay.

It seems like the more we see how gay men are exactly the same as us, the less we want to be like ourselves. So we turn to being fat sloths to get away from the appearance of being gay.

The answer

I'm not really interested in the cultural aspects of masculinity as much as I am the Christian aspects. What can we do to help men in the church?

Look to Christ, of course.

The first chapter of Hebrews says that Jesus Christ is "the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being." (v.3) If we want to be perfect as the Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), we should model our church communities and our lives after the Son. (1 Peter 2:21)

Church discipline should no longer follow the feudal system of vertical authority. This is not how Christ lead his disciples, nor is it how the Apostles taught the leaders to behave.

If Jesus is the "exact representation" of God, and he came not to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:28; Luke 12:37), than God's example for us is to serve one another. (Luke 22:26-27; Galatians 5:13) This is especially true of the leaders. Too often the leadership demands service to their needs, and they punish those who do not fall in line with their vision. This is contrary to the way Christ exemplified and taught.

Mark 10:42-45

Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."

Peter told the leaders the same thing, as Jesus taught him as he washed Peter's feet. (John 13:12-17)

1 Peter 5:2-3

Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.

Leaders, provide significance in the congregation for all participants. Find the gifts of everyone and encourage them to use them. Don't hinder their use. You're purpose is not to guide the "sheep" but to provide a place for them to have belonging and significance. You encourage men to be leaders, yet won't let them lead within their church community because you're the leader. Let them lead. Let other men have visions.

This is the same for women. Women find significance in hearing others, so it's not difficult for women's ministries to grow by providing a place of belonging. But women have other gifts as well, and they need to be allowed to participate fully in the congregation as well. All members need to have belonging and significance, and all of their spiritual giftings need to be encouraged and allowed.

Hate America

2011-05-09T15:40:00.000-07:00

This idea is a continuation of my previous post about this same topic, Undivided devotion to the Lord. Since it is the same argument but a different text of scripture, I will simply just copy that argument verbatim, with just a few modifications. This passage is Luke 14:26

Jesus says,

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his country, fellow-citizens, place of birth—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.

This is a powerful passage. This pericope isn't about patriotism and politics, but about discipleship. It is one of those passages that the American church has done away with completely, or at least largely marginalized. It's usually explained away by saying it's an order of magnitude. The strongest wording on it comes from David Platt in his book Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream. He says it means our devotion to Christ should be so strong, our earthly relationships should look like hate in comparison. Most people just say it means you can't love man more than God, and should it come down to it, you should give up your relationships - for example - if your family were to expel you because of your beliefs.

Family is placed even above patriotism. The duty to your family is before the nation. (There are some ultra-nationalistic people who claim duty to country comes first, but in general, the family comes first.) This is why I even went back to talking about family before I went into patriotism.

If the family is the highest priority for Christians, even above our duty to the nation, how much more does this passage apply when you put it in context of politics? Or employment? Or any lesser thing?

Yet I assume phrasing this passage in this way may be even more scandalous for many.

Christ immediately follows this saying,

Suppose one of you wants to build a tower. Won’t you first sit down and estimate the cost to see if you have enough money to complete it? For if you lay the foundation and are not able to finish it, everyone who sees it will ridicule you, saying, ‘This person began to build and wasn’t able to finish.’

I added emphasis here. It's usually said, "count the cost." Christ is challenging us to really consider what earthly attachments we possess, and how they affect our place in the Kingdom of Heaven. He wants us to let go of our attachments to this world.

We're very much attached to our national politics. Our government. Our money ... Isn't that why we have protests against taxation? We want to hold onto our money. Some are calling for revolution, because they're willing to fight and kill to hold onto the treasures they've built up in this world.

If anyone comes to me and does not hate America, such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not submit to government oppression while you carry out my work cannot be my disciple.

Understanding the evildoer

2011-04-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

Matthew 9:11
When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

Purpose driven creation

2011-04-15T11:01:00.000-07:00

In many circles, it seems like the good deeds prepared for us (Ephesians 2:10) are primarily for evangelic purposes. That we love our neighbors in order to win them over to the Kingdom. We care for the needy in order to redeem their souls.

This is contrasted with the actual reason we're called to do this, which is obedience, and actually participating in the Kingdom. It is the very purpose of the Gospel as it is pertains to living our lives as sojourners in this land. In fact, we were created specifically to do these works.

We aren't called to a new way of living as much as we're called back to our very purpose in being. Saved from our selfish sinful nature which has perverted our created purpose to serve one another.

Undivided devotion to the Lord

2011-04-10T16:36:00.000-07:00

I was just reading a bit in 1 Corinthians, and I came to a striking realization. Let me just post what it says here with a minor tweak, but with the same reason.

I would like you to be free from concern. An unpolitical man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs — how he can please the Lord. But a political man is concerned about the affairs of this world — how he can serve his country — and his interests are divided. An unpolitical woman is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a political woman is concerned about the affairs of this world — how she can serve her country. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

This is a powerful passage. This pericope isn't about patriotism and politics, but about marriage. It is one of those passages that the American church has done away with completely. They've killed it; expunged it from the Bible. They want nothing to do with it. They value family above all else. It is the most godly thing you can do. Family is an idol.

Yet there are many fellowships in this country that refuse to hire a pastor who isn't married. They look down on anyone who would serve in the church body who doesn't have a family.

Family is placed even above patriotism. The duty to your family is before the nation. (There are some ultra-nationalistic people who claim duty to country comes first, but in general, the family comes first.) This is why I even went back to talking about family before I went into patriotism.

If the family is the highest priority for Christians, even above our duty to the nation, how much more does this passage apply when you put it in context of politics? Or employment? Or any lesser thing?

Yet I assume phrasing this passage in this way may be even more scandalous for many.

Before this passage, Paul instructed,

What I mean, brothers and sisters, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

I added emphasis here, for Paul is opening this whole teaching up to anything we have in this world. To let go of our attachments to this world.

We're very much attached to our national politics. Our government. Our money ... Isn't that why we have protests against taxation? We want to hold onto our money. Some are calling for revolution, because they're willing to fight and kill to hold onto the treasures they've built up in this world.

From now on those who have national identity should live as if they do not.

The evolution of Orthodoxy

2011-03-25T10:07:00.000-07:00

It struck me this morning. The definition of what a Christian is has changed significantly over time.

The Apostles Creed is this,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

Amen.

This creed has long been the very basics to claim orthodoxy. If we were ecumenical in this, and made this our basis for communion, we could really claim to believe in "the holy catholic church." As it stands, each of us, and especially institutionalized bodies, add to this creed their own bits. And then they make the claim that these additions are essential to the whole matter, and their understanding is the one true understanding which is "biblical" and authoritative. And in doing so, they're already disposed of the belief in the "holy catholic church."

It may be anything here. I'll just provide a few examples from my own personal experience.

The bible is inerrant and infallible
Biologic evolution is incompatible with faith
Marxist economic theory is contrary to Scripture
American Conservative political ideology is godly (I've literally heard someone say, "I'm not a Democrat, I'm a Christian.")
Women must not have authority over a man in any way
"Big bang" cosmology is demonic
The Trinity is hierarchal
God must not be addressed with a feminine name or virtues
You must receive the gift of tongues
Baptism is fully submerged, and never of a child

I'm sure all of us can add in things to this list. My point is that every tradition includes their own demands to be included in orthodoxy, essentially cutting the holy catholic church into bits.

I know a lot of people who don't really "go to church" anymore. They're not withdrawing from the church, they're being pushed away. They don't fit into the pastor's agenda, their beliefs are toxic, or they voted for the wrong person. Maybe they watch movies with the wrong MPAA rating, or listen to the wrong kinds of music. Maybe they want real fellowship instead of kowtowing to the agenda of the church expansion plan.

They're making it harder to enter the Kingdom of God. By including so many litmus tests, we're preventing people from fellowshipping with us, adding schism into the body in place of unity.

The irony is, Jesus made it hard to enter the Kingdom of God, telling those who would enter it to "count the cost." Yet his litmus test was to love God and love others, in a sacrificial way. We're turned this around completely, and we make it hard because others aren't sacrificing enough for us.

Their hearts are far from me

2011-03-21T14:03:00.000-07:00

It is not enough that we worship the Lord with a fervent heart, and a steadfast loyalty. The prophets reign down woes on those who worship the Lord with all of the proper religious fixings, yet remain callous to the social inequality and suffering of the poor outside their doors.

James writes these words to us today, when the world is smaller than ever, and our doorstep reaches all the way around the world,

Religion deemed pure by our heavenly Father is this: When we care for the orphan, the widow and oppressed. When we do not conform to the powers of this world.

A question of Universalim

2011-03-10T08:48:00.000-08:00

The internets are abuzz with criticism of Rob Bell's new book, Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived. They are accusing Rob Bell of Universalism. Is this true? I don't know, I've only read two reviews of his actual book (not the teaser video) and one said he was and one said he wasn't. Regardless of what I think, everyone has to struggle with these questions.

Our modern view of hell has been shaped by writings of fiction or allegory outside of theological purview, like Dante's Divine Comedy. The Reform movement lead to a binary belief in "one saved always saved" and the opposite, "once damned, always damned." Yet the Bible itself isn't a systematic theology book, no matter how strongly people suggest it's "clearly" detailed. There appear to be different views on both heaven and hell in the Bible. To hold such a narrow view of both is to discount other passages in the scriptures.

This isn't surprising, because every dispensation of the Church on earth holds up some passages and ignores others.

So I simply have a series of questions for those who hold that Heaven is where faithful Christians go when they die, and Hell is where unbelievers will suffer for eternity once they die.

What do you make of 1 Peter 3:19-20?

After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits — to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

What about the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds, still the benchmark for orthodox faith?

He descended into hell.

If hell is eternal, when Christ ministered to the souls imprisoned there, wouldn't all souls past present and future have been there?

If Christ indeed ministered to only the spirits from the past, why would he be excluded from doing the same for those of the future? After the advent of Christ on earth the rules changed, so after the resurrection everyone is held account differently?

What about the traditional view, held long before Christ's coming, that Sheol was a place all souls went in waiting for judgement? Christ himself uses this view in the Parable of Lazarus. (Luke 16:19-31) The Apocalypse of Zephaniah (which predates Christ) describes Sheol this way.

The Book of Enoch (approx same date range as the Apocalypse of Zephaniah) describes Sheol has having four sections: one where the faithful saints blissfully await Judgment Day, one where the moderately good await their reward, one where the wicked are punished and await their Judgment at the resurrection, and the last where the wicked who do not even warrant resurrection are tormented. Wouldn't an ancient Hebrew text have been influenced by the views of Sheol of the ancient Jewish faith?

These are things to ponder.

The violence of religion

2011-03-03T16:12:00.000-08:00

Over the past decade, the Christian church in America has been so distracted attacking Islam, it has failed to provide a witness to this extremely large segment of global society. There is outright hate for these people.

This is a video of some Americans seething hate at their neighbors:

How is that a loving witness to the gospel of peace? How is that being an ambassador for Christ?

With that said, consider what the Christian response would be when a venerated leader of a powerful Islamic community writes to his followers,

Anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before Allah and the country; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and the executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job.

I can imagine the criticism he would face, and rightly so. This isn't a proclamation for the law to suppress criticism, or imprison offenders. This is vigilantism.

Recently in Pakistan, one of the nation's Christian leaders was assassinated. This is a real problem we face in this world. So what should our face be, as representatives for the Sovereign Lord?

Humility.

The quote above is actually from Martin Luther. I just changed a few words from the English translation, though they would be similar words if it was in the original German. The English translation is,

Anyone who can be proved to be a seditious person is an outlaw before God and the emperor; and whoever is the first to put him to death does right and well. For if a man is in open rebellion, everyone is both his judge and the executioner; just as when a fire starts, the first man who can put it out is the best man to do the job.

The Christian world is looking at violent Islam and being appalled at the violence, and condemning the whole religion and its adherents (whether they're practicing or not), completely forgetting our own religion's violent past. Christian extremists even exist today. It seems like we've completely forgotten the Christian terrorism in the 80s and 90s. Or even recently the assassination of Dr. George Tiller recently. Or even this year we had Christian extremists planting bombs in Washington state. The list is very, very long.

Jarrod McKenna said sometimes Christians "treat grace as a dogma and not a practice." I think that's a very stunning phrase.

We need grace, long-suffering, humility, and compassion.

The different views of salvation

2011-03-01T11:30:00.000-08:00

It's West vs. East. Not really. It's more like Protestant (substitutionary atonement) vs. Eastern Orthodox (Cristus victor). Roman Catholic is kind of in the middle of these two.

Timely scene from On The Waterfront

2011-02-24T20:50:00.000-08:00

This is a great speech from Father Barry in On The Waterfront.

...You want to know what's wrong with our waterfront? It's the love of a lousy buck. It's making the love of the lousy buck -- the cushy job -- more important than the love of man! It's forgettin' that every fellow down here is your brother in Christ! But remember, Christ is always with you -- Christ is in the shape-up. He's in the hatch. He's in the union hall. He's kneeling right here beside Dugan. And He's saying with all of you, if you do it to the least of mine, you do it to me! ...

The Hangman

2011-02-23T10:34:00.000-08:00

This is a pretty powerful animation.

It is based on the poem by Maurice Ogden, which was influenced by the famous poem by Pastor Martin Niemöller.
‎

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Winter Solider

2011-01-20T17:11:00.000-08:00

The terrorist-loving liberal media hasn't been coving this story.

If God is omniscient, why pray?

2011-01-04T17:46:00.000-08:00

"If God is omniscient, why pray?" This question assumes two things:

That prayer is telling God things.
That omniscience relates to determinism. That knowing a future outcome is determining the outcome.

Talking to God

Prayer isn’t just telling God things, letting him know what you think or feel. It’s not just giving Him information. It’s not just saying things He already knows. It’s a physical act, born out of these thoughts and feelings. A manifestation of our hearts and minds.

Prayer is an act of obedience. God commands his followers to pray to him. Again, this is to show that prayer is not just telling God something He doesn’t already know.

Friends talk to each other not just to share information, but the act of conversing builds the friendship bonds stronger. Most of what is said is not important, and it isn’t even consciously stored as information to be retrieved, it is rather remembered in the emotion centers of our brain. It provides attraction, joy, and other positive emotions.

But there’s even more to it than that. Asking why we pray if God is all-knowing is similar to asking these other questions:

If I know what an almond tastes like, why eat it?

Just because I know what an almond tastes like, it doesn’t mean there isn’t any reason to eat it. There are other reasons why I would eat an almond. It provided nutrition to my body. It changes my biology.

If I know what a song sounds like, why listen to it?

Just because I know what a song sounds like, it doesn’t mean I have no reason to listen to the song. Mainly it’s because listening to the song pleases me. I appreciate the song.

If you know what I want, why do I ask for it?

There is something different between something that in internal, a desire, and something that is external, a request.

If you know I’m thankful, why do I say “thank you?”

Gratitude is more than just a feeling, it is an action.

If my wife knows I love her, why do I say it?

Love is more than just a feeling, it is more than just a thought.

Omniscience and free will

Omniscience and free will are non-contradictory. To argue that knowing the future means you control the future is begging the point. Greg Boyd argues that while God knows all, he has also created man as independent agents, providing them with the ability to alter creation of their own volition. His explanation says that God’s omniscience means he knows what was and what will be through infinite possibilities, not that our linear space-time dimensions are set in stone, so to speak.

How does free will relate to prayer?

Knowing the hearts and minds of man does not mean God controls the decisions of man. Prayer is a physical act, which accompanies the internal thoughts and desires. What one imagines in one’s own head does not alter time or space without it being spoken and acted upon.

The scriptures say prayer is an act, and it is one of humility. If someone wrongs another person, being sorry in their heart isn’t the same as the humble act of apologizing, even if the wronged party knows of the other’s feelings.

Boyd argues that “God set up things up in the beginning such that his influence in the world is increased when his human partners align their will with his will through prayer.” Which is one thing Jesus said we should pray for; that His will would be done “on earth as it is in Heaven.” It is because there are other free agents in our world at play other than God (including spiritual entities) Boyd says, “Prayer can make a difference only if things genuinely hang in the balance.”

No Easy Decision

2010-12-31T09:02:00.001-08:00

What are your thoughts on this?

No Easy Decision - MTV Shows

There is an extended interview on the website that is also worth watching.

Social justice is not just a personal matter

2010-12-29T08:58:00.000-08:00

In the public debate over social programs that provide dignity to the poor, I often hear people say that care for the poor is for the individual, not for the state. They say Jesus told us to care for the poor individually, and leave the state out of it.

This is clearly a message Jesus nor the prophets before him heard. Amos chapter 5 says,

You levy a straw tax on the poor
and impose a tax on their grain.
Therefore, though you have built stone mansions,
you will not live in them;
though you have planted lush vineyards,
you will not drink their wine.
For I know how many are your offenses
and how great your sins.

There are those who oppress the innocent and take bribes
and deprive the poor of justice in the courts.

Unless individuals are implementing taxes, this is directed at the rulers of the land. Unless the justice system is an individual endeavor, this is directed at the government.

I know pointing out hypocrisy doesn't make for a strong argument, but I just wanted to point out that these same people who claim the government should not care for the poor also claim that the government should reflect our moral values, as society. In fact, they have whole lobby groups and other organizations with this purpose as a goal. To promote "family values" in government. To oppose same-sex marriage on moral grounds. To promote religious celebrations and national days of prayer. To oppose sex education. To promote religious mottoes. The list goes on.

I've never argued that we should not include our morals in politics. Every law is a moral decision. Foreign policy reflects moral positions. But there is a moral dissonance in a nation that has a motto of "In God we trust" while one side of the political spectrum argues against caring for the dispossessed, the oppressed, the poor, the orphan, and the widow.

We the people should not turn our backs on the poor.

We the people can do better than this.

David Platt - What The Gospel Does To Our Hearts - Mark 10:17-31

2010-12-28T06:36:00.000-08:00

This is a great sermon about the gospel of grace.

Put the Mass back in Christmas

2010-12-25T05:00:00.000-08:00

Every year, I'm surprised how American Christian culture takes the "most wonderful time of the year" and turns it into a time of bitterness and strife through this so-called "War on Christmas."

The argument is that Christmas is about Christ. "He's right in the name." So they try to force everyone to celebrate the holiday ("It's a Holy Day!") their way. They plaster "Happy Birthday Jesus" all over everything, and spitefully add "Merry Christmas" in an offending tone when offered a "Happy Holiday." They want everyone to know "the reason for the season."

Let's get this straight: Christmas is a secular holiday. It always was. It was secular celebrations surrounding the Christ Mass at the apex of Advent.

Most of these culture warriors don't celebrate Advent, and many evangelical congregations don't even have a service if the holiday lands on Sunday.

They've taken the Mass out of Christmas, and keep the celebration. They embrace the secular part of the holiday, and then pretend an evergreen tree is a sacred Christian icon.

Who cares what it's called? It's a time to reflect of "peace and goodwill towards all men."

The gentrification of the Church

2010-12-20T11:58:00.000-08:00

Recently, a lot of congregations, especially the "cutting edge" congregations with loud music and pastors in jeans, have been moving a lot of the congregational fellowship to social media. Twitter during services, and Facebook through the week. "Download our app."

Maybe it provides a way for more constant connection with the congregation - and especially the leadership. But is it also excluding poor people from fellowship? (Or even the elderly?)

If you have to own an iPhone to be a part of Christian fellowship, we're charging an entrance fee. Jesus overturned the tables in the temple because the establishment was making it too expensive for the poor to worship.

I'm not a technophobe, but the digital age has created barriers between humans, and created new challenges in creating meaningful human relationships. It is disguised in exactly the opposite. Technology is said to reinforce relationships, and we certainly know this is true because we have a number next to our "friends" list on Facebook. We know how many friends we have. We know what they're doing every day. But we don't really have friends if we're not sharing our lives with one another.

I've criticized the modern congregational service industry we've forced into people's lives every Sunday. It doesn't offer real relationships with the people sitting in the chairs next to you. It certainly doesn't create real relationship with the aristocracy of the congregational leadership. We're going in the wrong direction making worship bite-sized. We're offending the Gospel by making sanctification consumable.

Yet on top of this inhuman structure we call "church," we've added a digital layer only the tech-savvy participate in. We can't learn from our elders this way, because they barely know how to use a cellphone, let alone a Blackberry. They need help sending an email, and have no idea "there's an app for that."

The poor, if they have a mobile phone, use pre-paid services, and disposable phones. Their access to the internet is at libraries or internet cafes. And we're building technological walls around our congregations so that they cannot participate.

I've really had enough of the American church's history of white flight, class segregation, and special-interest groups. If the church does not fellowship with all people, of all races, all genders, all classes and backgrounds, the church is not fellowshipping at all.

Galatians 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Taking America back for God

2010-11-02T14:57:00.000-07:00

Sorry about two Greg Boyd posts in a row, but this is really good.

Greg Boyd - Taking America Back For God

Boyd gave this sermon during the run-up to the 2004 elections, and about 20% of the congregation left. I don't think it's that controversial, I think their election-cycle emotions clouded their decision-making skills.

Of course some far-right Christian organizations would say it is a big deal. Organizations like Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and Wallbuilders. Of course these organizations definitely lean more towards political organizations than religious ones.