Monthly Archives: January 2009

A Christian’s Freedom: License or Responsibility?

Mark Daniels has some good thoughts here about our freedom as Christians and our tendency to abuse it. He gives some good corrections to the practice of using our freedom as license.

werkkrew.com

credit: werkkrew.com

I’ve seen the “freedom as license” type of thinking much among my friends. I remember going to a party a few years ago that was hosted by a man in my church. He was a very popular guy and was highly respected in my circle of friends. When I arrived, I saw that they had MTV on as background noise. This wasn’t the problem per se; the problem was that the videos being shown were *highly* sexual. The scenes were pretty suggestive, and the women hadn’t finished dressing.

Needless to say, it was enough to rev up the engine of any fella with a heartbeat.

I asked him to change the channel, noting that there were people at the party that struggled with sexual addiction. He completely brushed me off. This really taught me a lot about him, and it was discouraging, for this wasn’t the first time respected folks in my church used their freedom as license.

Like Daniels, though, if I’m honest with myself, I’m in the same boat. When its convenient for me, I put self first as well. Thus, Mark’s post was a good correction to my sin as well.

Smorgasboard Theology

It seems like every time Barna comes out with poll results, its just more bad news for the Church.  This poll, which shows that an alarming number of professed believers think of theology as a buffet table, is no different.

The results of this poll have been around the block for a few weeks, but I can’t resist commenting.

peachcateringma.com

credit: peachcateringma.com

This poll is another sign among many that shows that the tail is wagging the dog; the American values of individualism and rejection of authority have crashed the gates of the church.

It’s been a long time coming.  Ideas that had their genesis hundreds of years ago have started to take their toll the last 50 years or so.  It just goes to show that today’s ivory tower ideas will become tomorrow’s battle cries.  Tomorrow’s battle cries will become next week’s assertions.  Next week’s assertions will become next year’s taken-for-granted habits.

Individualism and rejection of authority is the air we breathe in the West.  Even postmodernists, who perhaps claim to reject individualism and such the most staunchly, fall victim to their own little hip version of individualism: “post-whatever-ism.”

Who are we kidding?  Who in the world conned us into thinking that truth is a “pick and choose” thing?  We take it for granted, but is there any substance to it?  I’d like to hear just one person rationally justify that thought.  I’ll tell you one thing:  Jesus didn’t think like that…at all.  You take all of Him, or none of Him, not just what you can stomach.

I’m going with Jesus on this one.  He has a much, much better perspective on spiritual matters than I or anyone else I’ve come across.

The article comments,

“Christians expressed a variety of unorthodox beliefs in the poll. Nearly half of those interviewed do not believe in the existence of Satan, one-third believe Jesus sinned while on earth, and two-fifths say they don’t have a responsibility to share their faith with others.

The most striking divergence from orthodoxy, however, was first revealed in the 2007 US Religious Landscape Survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. That comprehensive survey of 35,000 Americans found a majority of Christians saying that people of other religions can find salvation and eternal life.”

How did things get this way in the Church?  The answer to that question is multifaceted, and I can’t answer in this post…start here.

What can we do to change it?   I’m definitely no guru, but here are a few thoughts:

1)  Church leaders must boldly proclaim the whole truth, even the parts that people don’t want to put up with.  The stakes are too high to be catering to itching ears, yet that is what many a church leader unwittingly does.  We are more concerned these days with our image than our allegiance to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.  Avoiding the tough stuff, even if done in the best of intentions or unwittingly, will make us a tool to those who want to destroy Christianity (see David Strauss link above).

2)  We must take theology and apologetics seriously, and we must put them on the front burner.  We don’t have a choice about being theologians.  We do have a choice about being good or bad ones.  Furthermore, we must integrate them with service outreach that is already being done.

3)  Enough with the wrong headed slogans that subtly disparage theology.  If I hear “Yeah, theology is great and all, but Christianity is about a relationship.  Jesus doesn’t care if you can recite the Nicene Creed” one more time, I will up-chuck.  Do you really think our problem is that we know the Nicene Creed too well?  How many people at my church can even quote one line?

4)  Churches need to run, sponsor, and plug classes on how to share the salvation message.  We sheep are so fearful these days, and much of this comes from not knowing how to share the message.  Many don’t even know what the message is.  We need all disciples, not just the especially gifted, to be able to share the salvation message with clarity.  General references to Christ bringing the Kingdom of God (though I think Kingdom theology is legit) is not a clear presentation of the salvation message.  We must understand that sharing the message is often the most loving thing a follower of Christ can do, and it is something for all, not just those with a passion.

5)  All of this goes especially for our youth. (see also here) If we want them to stay faithful at all, we will heed this warning.  I mean, c’mon, if Christianity is just a pick and choose thing, I’m going fishin’.  The youth will see it this way too if we keep neglecting the mind.

6)  For now, I think we have enough authors writing books and treatises.  From J.P Moreland to William Lane Craig to Ravi Zacharias, that base is covered.  What we need is proliferation in the market square.  Therefore, we need to focus our efforts in getting that great already-existing material into the hands of the “everyday Joe.”

7)  All this will do no good if Christians do not have discipline, yet that is something in short supply these days.  A life of study is no cotton-candy thing; it takes considerable perseverance and will.  Therefore, training in the spiritual disciplines is imperative.  Put down the IPOD, put down the video game console, and be still.

8)  Along the same lines, we need better thinking on how the church should relate to technology.  Noise is Satan’s hobgoblin, and it often zaps our strength to engage in study.

Those are some of my thoughts.  What do you think?  I know one thing for sure; we cannot go on doing the same ol thing being blown about by the winds of popularity.

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar) and/or stumble it (Stumbleupon button found below).

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Another Obama School

….this time in Compton, CA.

This is old news by now.  Other schools have done the same or plan to do so.

the signs are fake)

ht: michelle malkin (note: the signs are fake)

The fist sentence of the article is so funny: “In honor of everything Barack Obama has accomplished as 44th president of the United States…”

Heavens ta mergatroy.  When this article first appeared, Obama hadn’t even been sworn in yet!  Yes, being the first black man to be elected president is somethin’ else, but one’s values and the decisions based on them trump race.  I don’t know who , exactly, decided to re-name the school, but imagine the egg on their faces if he does not do a good job.

A question to the more historically initiated: has *any* other president had a school named after him in honor of his presidency *before* he was inaugurated?

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar) and/or stumbling this post (stumbleupon button below).

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Where are all the Good Guys?

At first glance, it’s kinda hard not to be sympathetic to a gal who asks that slightly rhetorical question. But on second thought, the idea behind the question is complete bullfeathers. It really gets me hot under the collar….pugnacious, even.

Usually, there’s a good guy standing right next to her, listening, as she gives complaint.

My advice to those who espouse the idea: you get what you want. You might say you want a good guy, but when one comes around, most of the time he fails to make you giggle, so you brush him off. His fate is to eternally be in the “friend” zone. Then, when a “bad boy” comes along, you give him a try in a moment’s notice. If you, deep down (again, its not what you say you want, necessarily), want the bad boy, you will get the bad boy.

wackyarchives.com

credit: wackyarchives.com

If I had a dollar for every time a chick gave that complaint to me when I was single, I’d own a Mercedes by now.

Notice I’m not saying “nice guys.” My definition of “nice guy” isn’t a compliment. “Nice guys” are feminized, emasculated males who try to please others. It’s no wonder you aren’t attracted to them. This is different from a good guy.

Chances are that you are using the wrong gauges for who you date. Many women (and men, I’ll admit) I know, both within the church and outside the church, go off that feeling in the gut. That is, if the guy doesn’t make her heart flutter right away, he’s a friend, not a potential date. If he doesn’t excite curiosity or make her stammer right off the bat, she doesn’t give him a moment’s notice. Whether we like to admit it or not, this is how many of us operate.

If you operate like that, no, you won’t find or even see any of the many good guys out there. Becoming attracted to a good guy takes time. Many, many times, he’s right there in front of you, but you actually have to give the fella a chance. His qualities aren’t the type of qualities to make your knees weak quickly, and that’s a good thing; the types of qualities he possesses make him a good husband, not a good one night stand.

That’s not to say dating and marrying him won’t be exciting! If he’s a good guy, he has a passion, an orbit, that he can catch you up in…IF YOU LET HIM. But for heavens sake, don’t write him off because he doesn’t show up on a Harley, in a leather jacket, with the looks of Christian Slater, the bravado of Indiana Jones, the “wildness” of William Wallace, and the musical genius of Matt Redman.

“But I’m really looking for a good guy, but I don’t find any.”

Honey, what are your circle of friends like? It’s not that good guys don’t exist, and its not that they are few and far between. You probably aren’t hanging around any of them. Find a good, solid church that faithfully and boldly preaches biblical truth, honors the Bible as God’s word, and is serious and excited about the Great Commission. Then, jump in. Find a small group Bible study. Join a few ministries where you can give your talents away for the good of others. Most importantly, keep your eyes peeled. I will go to Vegas on the thought that you will start seeing *plenty* of good guys.

“But I’m already doing that.”

Then enlarge your circle! Hey, if you are in a pond with few fish, find a larger pond. Try online dating. Yes, I know, there are some drawbacks to online dating, and therefore it’s wise to proceed with caution. But there are some gems out there to be found in the online world.

“But I don’t want to be known as the desperate loser who can’t find a date the real way.”

Well, if that’s the tradeoff, I think it’s a stellar deal. I mean, c’mon, I’ve found quite a catch online. People, I’m about to pull off the steal of the century. If that earns me the label “desperate loser”….so be it, I’m sold.

And I have to say: Christians, isn’t it about time we start paying attention to Scripture? God knows what He’s talking about when He instructs us to not be “unequally yoked.” We say we want to date a fellow Christian, but I am absolutely gobsmacked at the number of people–serious followers of Christ, mind you–who compromise on that in a heart beat. And then I hear many of the women who do that complain about there never being any “good guys around.”

Newsflash: you get what you pay for. If you date a nonbeliever, you won’t pull him up. He will pull you down….sure as the sun rises. If he ends up becoming a strong follower of Christ, it still wasn’t a good idea to date him. You still disobeyed God. Consider yourself lucky, in the truest sense of the word.

While there are a few exceptions to the rule, they are going to want to sleep with you before marriage, they are going to want to live with you before marriage, they will play games, they will play video games, and they won’t completely jibe with your love for Christ. It’s not because he’s wicked or anything; it’s because you both have completely different value systems.

I mean, duh. You follow Christ. He follows self. That’s not a good combination. Why do we persistently question the obvious?

And it goes without saying that you can’t just go by church attendance. Regretably, the description above applies to many fellas in the pews every Sunday. All that to say: don’t fool yourself. Choose wisely.

I’m not even counting myself among the “good guys.”  I’ve been a bone head more times than I care to admit.  I also realize that perhaps you earnestly desire marriage and are earnestly seeking, but none of the good guys want to be in a relationship.  That sucks, seriously.  I know the feeling (but from the other side of the gender divide!), and I dare not make light of it.

All I’m saying is that don’t come blathering about there being no good guys out there if all, especially if  you are hanging around and/or falling for males who don’t take discipleship to Christ seriously. Like I said, you get what you pay for.

Check out the following related posts:

Should you Wait Until Marriage (Follow-up)?

The Definition of Insanity

Singleness: all the Rage
The Cost of Delaying Marriage

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar) and/or stumble it (Stumbleupon button below).

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Pro-Lifers Rallying Cry

The blogosphere has been set ablaze by Pelosi’s recent comments about adding “family planning” (Aaaand you know what that is a euphemism for…the family planning doesn’t just stop at condoms.  It’s kinda funny to think that contraception would stimulate the econ0my anyway, but I digress.) funding to the stimulus package (even though it looks like that suggestion might be tabled for now) and by Obama’s decision to repeal the Mexico City Policy.

Many, including me, wonder just how is providing federal funding for abortions both here and abroad going to actually reduce abortions.

Anyway, there’s absolutely nothing I can add that hasn’t already been said by those more gifted than I, so I figured I can add to the conversation by linking to many of the best in one post:

John Piper lays it straight.

Chris Neiswonger weighs in, calling Obama’s actions the beginning of his “war on the unborn.”  I’d call that accurate. He’s got some good comments on the language games being played.

Brett Kunkle says the most uncool thing anyone has ever said: the most important social justice issue of our time is abortion.

What  makes abortion plausible?  What makes it unthinkable (part 3 in a 3 part series, with links to parts one and two)?

Jim Wallis and E.J Dionne confuse spin with bipartisanship. Why they made their remarks is anyone’s guess.  If Obama’s actions are supposed to pass as bipartisanship, we’re in trouble…T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

Candace Watters analyzes Pelosi’s stimulus shlock.

Russell Moore gives a bit of perspective on being pro-life in the age of Obama.

Taxpayer funded abortion a free-speech right? That’s a slap, as the kids say.

Rachel Motte posts a rallying cry for pro-lifers in the midst of FOCA.

Dustin Steeve, in response to the comments on Rachel’s post, comes out with a strong statement. Included is a great reading list of links.

A team of intellectuals has started moralaccountability.com, aimed at calling Obama out on his decisions and views regarding abortion.  This one is a must read for *anyone.*

A short primer on the Mexico City Policy.

Our Struggle for the Soul of our Nation

Robert George argues that the soul of our nation hangs in the balance in regards to abortion.

I agree.

If you like what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar.).

How to Turn a Church Away from the Truth

David Strauss, in his book Life of Jesus (1835), writes:

In his discourses to the church, the (speculative theologian) will indeed adhere to the forms of the popular conception, but on every opportunity he will exhibit their spiritual significance, which to him constitutes their sole truth, and thus prepare…the resolution of those forms into the original ideas in the consciousness of the church also. Thus, to abide by the example already chosen, at the festival of Easter he will he will indeed set out from the sensible fact of the resurrection of Christ, but he will dwell chiefly on the being buried and rising again with Christ, which the Apostle himself has strenuously inculcated. This very course every preacher, even the most orthodox, strictly takes, as often as he draws a moral from the evangelical text on which he preaches: for this is nothing else than the transition from the externally historical to the inward and spiritual. It is true that we must not overlook the distinction that the orthodox preacher builds his moral on the text in such a way that the latter remains as an historical foundation; whereas, with the speculative preacher, the transition from the biblical history or the church doctrine, to the truth which he thence derives has the negative effect of annihilating the former.

Strauss thought the life of Jesus proclaimed in the Bible was a bunch of bunk. A liberal theologian to the bone, he was one of the first who popularized a dichotomy between the “historical Jesus,” a first century cynic peasant, and the “Christ of faith,” the risen Christ proclaimed from the pulpit (The “Jesus Seminar” is the latest group to take up this debunked way of thinking.). He argued that the former was the actual Jesus that historically lived, while the latter, much like a placebo or a legend, was and is the “spiritual” view that accrued over the centuries, that lives on only in the hearts and emotions of the faithful. Strauss thought that the church would be better served if it forsook the Jesus described in the Bible.

The question for him near the end of his book was “how should a liberal (“speculative” in his terminology) theologian go about bringing that change in his congregation? He can’t just go out and boldly proclaim it; he’d be run out of his church. Neither can he just keep his true beliefs tucked away; that would be hypocrisy.

Strauss’ solution was an emphasis/de-emphasis method of preaching. If a pastor avoids preaching a certain doctrine, over time, his congregation will stop believing in it. This won’t happen overnight, but it will happen. By persistent neglect, “progress” will be achieved.

The example he gives above is the Resurrection. “Don’t preach about the historicity of the resurrection,” Strauss says. “Just preach that the resurrection is about a ‘risen’ life in the heart…just tell your congregation that its ‘all about faith, man.’” After a generation or two, over the course of one’s pastorate, the congregation will go from believing in the historicity of the resurrection, to thinking that its not that important, to thinking that it never happened.

I find this an absolutely genius method of turning a congregation away from biblical truth: just de-emphasize something. Stop preaching about it, and your congregation will stop believing it.

Here’s the kicker, though: orthodox evangelical preachers do this all the time. Its not their intention, but, because they like the praises of the people, they avoid unpopular doctrines (some avoid doctrine wholesale) such as hell and evangelism (in the latter case, they often change the definition of evangelism, leaving out the “vocally proclaiming the salvation message” part and emphasizing the “serving the poor” part). If you cornered them and asked them about these controversial doctrines, they’d admit, after a few drinks, that they do, indeed believe in them. They might even be in the church’s statement of faith.

You wouldn’t know that by what is proclaimed from the pulpit, though. There’s hardly ever a mention of them.

So, evangelical pastors, do you want your church to start believing that its not necessary to share one’s faith? Or, even further down the rails, do you want your congregants to think that it’s immoral to share one’s faith?

Take uncle David’s advice: all you have to do is stop preaching about evangelism. Simple as that.

If you liked what you read, please consider subscribing to my RSS feed (RSS button found at the top right in the sidebar), and/or stumble it (Stumbleupon button below).

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook