Author Archives: Rich Bordner

The Effects of Cohabitation on Children

Posted on October 2, 2011 | 1 Comment

Brad Wilcox of Univ. of Virginia was recently interviewed in the Wa Po about the effects of cohabitation on children.  Interesting interview.  The title says it all: “Why Cohabitation is Worse than Divorce for Kids.” Like I tell my students all the time who ask about my life as a father, I recommend it…but get married first.  That helps.

I’ve found from rubbing shoulders with people out in the world that very few people actually think through decisions like this.  Raw desire and convenience are often the forces driving the decisional bus (“convenience” defined in a very narrow sense…really, given the stats, cohabitation isn’t at all convenient in any robust way).  The ‘ol analogy between choosing a mate and test driving a car is often all that’s needed to justify cohabitation, despite that fact that if the significant other paused to think about it, s/he wouldn’t really appreciate being compared to an Audi or Honda.

I know this subject is politically incorrect, and it will hurt the feelings of some because it suggests their lifestyle choices are wrong and/or unwise.  Oh well.  Truth is truth, and, however untasteful, we do people a disservice if we shield them from it in the name of protecting emotions.  And even on the emotional plane, such a shielding just might be counterproductive in the long run.

To somewhat ironically paraphrase feminist Naomi Wolf on a slightly different topic, to insist that the truth is in poor taste is the very height of hypocrisy.

HT: Wintery Knight

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , ,

Why Home Schooling Just Might be for Us

Posted on September 5, 2011 | 5 Comments

If you ever want to worry your friends, acquaintances, and colleagues, just share with them that you want to home school your kids.

That has certainly been my experience.  The only time that we get anywhere near a sympathetic reaction is if we share that info with someone who already home schools their kids or who actually knows a home school kid/family well.  For the majority of others–most of whom don’t interact substantially with any home schooled kid or home schooling family–the reaction is one of concerned looks.

This brings up a question: is our desire justified?  Our reasons for wanting this are many, and therefore the objections are also many, so I can’t deal thoroughly with every concern.  Let me deal with a few of the most salient ones, however.

First, the default position for my wife and I is that it is the parents’ job to educate their kids.  Too often the knee-jerk, un-examined default position is in the other direction: for most, the default is public schooling, alternative methods are only considered in extreme cases.  Many presume that it’s obviously someone else’s–most often the state’s–job.  But we simply disagree.  Our daughter’s (and our future kids’) minds and souls are ours to mold–that is one responsibility that God has given us, so this means that us doing the educating is the default position, and public schooling, though still a viable option, is the alternative, not the other way around.

Let’s be careful, however, what this exactly means.  I don’t pretend to suggest that this means that home schooling is a moral obligation for every family: some families, due to circumstances beyond their control, simply cannot work it out time-wise or financially-wise.   This is why I think public schooling is still needed.  What’s more, each family has the freedom to outsource (and given what our default position is, sending your child to public school is outsourcing, though that doesn’t automatically mean it is bad) their child’s education to another party, if they intimately know and are comfortable enough with the competency of said party.  In fact, even most home school families choose to outsource to tutors or co-ops to a degree.

All our starting point means is that home schooling and other “alternative” methods of education are on the table for us as viable options as we seek to be faithful in our duty to educate our children, and furthermore, these are not just “alternative” choices: they are the preferred options unless other factors outweigh (some of which are mentoined above).

With that in mind, what are some of the primary objections we hear from concerned onlookers?  Perhaps surprisingly, it is not the quality of the academic education they might receive at home–and on that score, there is evidence to suggest home school kids do just fine .  If it were a common objection, it wouldn’t be very striking to us anyway–we are competent as educators, and even if social studies were to show that home schooled kids as a group academically perform below public school kids, their knowledge of, say, math, though important and useful in life (my wife is an online math tutor, afterall!), by no means trumps other,  more important concerns.

The main objection we hear goes something like this: “What about their social development?  Won’t your home schooled kids not know how to interact with their peers?”

This objection, far from mitigating against home schooling, actually underscores a big reason why we are considering it.  A question I have in response (one that Brett Kunkle alerted me to), is, “what are kids being socialized towards?”

I really have to ask my concerned friends, “What, exactly, are you conerned about socially?”  Are you concerned about their knowledge of pop culture, or being cool, or knowing how to dress in a way that is accepted by most teenagers?  Perhaps you are concerned with their ability to talk like a typical teenager?

I don’t care a whit about any of that, and that’s a good thing.

Though you will always find peers of good character in any school, far too often what youngsters are socialized to in public schools is not a pretty picture.  If you doubt that, just be a fly on the wall for a day or two in the halls and cafeteria.

This is one reason why anti-bullying measures are such a focus in recent years.  Kids are far too often simply mean and exclusionary when it comes to those who don’t fit in, and the peer pressure to conform to the thought and behavior patterns of the group is often overwhelming to someone raw and unformed.

You might ask, “can’t you steer them away from that as their parent and walk them through how to behave, while being in the midst of all that?”  Yes.  This is yet another reason why we’re considering home schooling: it gives the parent a measure of control that is not available to them otherwise.  This is why we have so many kids being raised in strong Christian homes, who faithfully go to church and youth group, but they end up being thoroughgoing relativists.  I’d rather them being socialized by me and my wife than by the peer group from 8-3.

Kids need friends their own age they can relate to, but when they spend the majority of their time with an overly large, ofen unregulated peer group , being socialized to act and think like the peer group (which usually isn’t good) is simply the nature of the beast when they are with the group more than they are with adults.  Adults are there at school, and oftentimes do influence the kids (that is why I continue to be a public school teacher despite my misgivings), but when it comes to which force socializes them more, its a simple factor of numbers and time.

Being with the peer group most of the time does very little in helping youngsters properly relate to adults, and this is a much more important social need.

“But won’t they be socially awkward?”

Even if they will end up being “socially awkward” (and it’s not anywhere near obvious they will), I don’t care: as I previously mentioned, what is defined as “socially with it” is mostly superficial, and being “with it” is not my principal focus anyway: character is.

Public schools have precious little resources to attend to character education.  Some try, by doing such things as sponsoring “character” weeks and so on, but their curriculum cuts against all that–the principal might announce over the PA that “today’s character word of the day is ‘compassion,’ blah blah blah,” but they continue on to the science class room where they learn that only science gives knowledge…morals are a matter of personal preference.  They then go to the English classroom where that lesson on what is real is reinforced: they learn that when it comes to morality and religion, “what is true for me might not be true for you,” and it again all boils down to subjective taste. Relativism is the air they breathe.  The school thus schitzophrenically combats its own feeble efforts in character education.

Why are schools shocked when they find things like rampant sexual harrassment, alohol abuse, bullying, and frequent steroid use on campus?  This is just what you get when you teach that there is no moral knowledge, and it is all a smorgasboard of equally valid choices.  To paraphrase C.S Lewis, our schools castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.

What’s more, I have to ask if folks who give the “won’t they be socially awkward?” line have ever met a home-schooled kid.  Every single one I have interacted with does just fine socially.  They often know how to relate to adults much, much better than their publically educated peers, and can hold a more-than stimulating conversation with anyone.

Plus, they do get interaction with peers through co-ops, sports, and other extra curriculars.  They interact with peers and adults frequently while with their parents.  This, far from socially-stunting children, simply helps the parents socially mold the kids more directly while in the midst of society and culture.  This is far from a disengagement with the outside world; it is an engagement of a different type, while the parent is more directly involved in the education of the child.

The stereotype of a kid locked behind closed doors at home not able to interact with anyone is just that–a stereotype.

If you ever do meet a socially awkward kid, just look to the parents.  Most often what you’ll find is socially awkward parents.  This is not an indictment against home schooling, but an indictment against the individual parents.

A few times I have met a home schooled kid that, when put with a peer group after a while, has had trouble fitting in and relating, but for all the right reasons: the kid was genuine, courteous, thoughtful, with manners, while the peer group was anything but.  She was teased a tad and failed to pick up on some of the outcasting cues of the group, but this was ok.  The fact that the kid had trouble relating was actually an encouragement.  Fitting in is not the end all be all, and many times not fitting in is a virtue to be pursued, not a vice to be avoided.

“But I was publicly schooled, and I turned out just fine.  My kids are publicly schooled, and they are upstanding citizens with character.”

I have no doubt.  There are many like you.  But consider yourself blessed.  The peer group and the institution overall is not designed to turn out an individual like you.

Recently I heard an interesting one from a friend: “doesn’t this teach your kids that the world is to be avoided and separated from, rather than engaged with?  I’d rather walk my kids through that without taking them out of it, showing them how to love others as Christ did.”

It’s a good objection, but the short answer is no.  First, it again trades on a stereotype of home schooling as isolating your kids behind the closed doors of a home.  There can be and is plenty of engagement with a lost and hurting world. Brett, whom I mentioned above, home schools his children and takes his children out on missions trips to Cal Berkely and other universities, where they primarily interact with atheists, agnostics, and folks from all sorts of backgrounds.  There’s much interaction with non-Christians besides that.  It is just with the parent as primary educator

Secondly, does the obligation to actively engage with and love a non-Christian world obligate us to put our kids into any and every educational situation whatsoever, in the name of love, especially in their most formative years?

Consider the following analogy: say there is a nearby school that has as its featured explicit goal to make kids into life-long radical-Islamic terrorists.  The implausibility of the existence of such a school on American soil is beside the point.  From a Christian perspective, the kids in that school definitely need Jesus.  They definitely could use a witness there in that school, especially because they have so many other influences pushing them the other way.  Would I, as a follower of Christ who takes the Great Commission seriously, be obligated to put my kids in that school so that they could be that witness?

No, such a venture would be foolish.  My kids wouldn’t have a fighting chance: their minds, souls, and characters have not been fully formed yet.  Why would I put them in such an environment when they are at their most vulnerable?  Things would be quite different after they’ve been thoroughly discipled, mentored, etc.  They would presumably then have the skills to be able to be a good witness in such an environment (but even then, though…).  But *defnitely* in the younger years–which is the focus of this post–putting them in that school would most likely have the opposite witness–the chances are good that my efforts at home would be totally undermined.

Our public schools aren’t (quite) that far gone, so the illustration obviously breaks down, but it touches upon what I’m arguing, that the Christian duty to engage with the world does not justify putting the education of my unformed children into the hands of just anyone.  If I am concerned with the kind of person a given institution frequently produces, I am quite within my biblical mind to maintain the ability to educate my children myself.

Thirdly, the objection misses that this is less a matter of separating from the world than it is opting for greater educational control of one’s children, rather than outsourcing it to the state.  In my view, I am more able than the state is to form my children into productive Christ-centered ambassadors with sharp minds and holy characters who can winsomely and attractively love others.

“Isn’t your job as a teacher at a public school at odds with all this?  Why are you a public school teacher?”

The fact that I work in a certain environment does not mean I want my children educated in that environment, and just because I operate within a certain institution doesn’t mean I want my children educated by that institution.  I might work in law enforcement in juvenile detention, but I don’t want my kids to be there.  I might work as a social worker to help kids find their way, but that doesn’t mean I prefer my kids be in the state system.

My motivation to be in public education is the same as it would be if I worked in the juvenile detention center or in social work: there are kids in each environment who desperately need the influence of caring adults, and I’m trying to fill that need.  This does not conflict with my misgivings on public education in the least.  I can still work in an instutution that I think is broken and needs fixing.

Despite the effects of the large peer group and the effect of the overall institution, I aim to “stem the tide” of those negative influences.  There are many other like-minded colleagues of good faith in public schools, but not enough for me to be comfortable enough putting my kids in public schooling.

I admit that there might come a “tipping point,” where my efforts would no longer  be fruitful, the majority of my resources being used against my will by the institution to erase the good, true, and beautiful.  That is the case to a certain extent already (example: I must be a member of the union, and my dues are automatically removed from my paycheck.  I cannot opt out, to my knowledge, and my dues go to causes that are anathema to everything I am about), but not enough to override the good my presence can bring.  If I ever become convinced that the tipping point has been reached, I will most certainly pack up and move on to another occupation where my efforts won’t be wasted.

So this is where we’re at.  The jury is still out on whether we will actually pursue home schooling.  Maybe there will be something we encounter in the near future that will move us in the other direction, and even if we do end up homeschooling, we might still have our kids go to some outside school when they reach 9th grade. For now, though, we are trying to plan for and make room for the possibility of home schooling our kids in the most formative years.

The possibility of social retardation is a boogeyman of which we need not worry.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged ,

A Presumption that Should be Questioned

Posted on August 13, 2011 | 2 Comments

When talking about same-sex marriage with an ssm advocate, I’ve found the trickiest thing is that often a host of presumptions and background assertions are silently and subtly stipulated from the get-go.  These presumptions are taken for granted and unquestioned by your conversation partner.  The problem is that they are just that: presumptions.  Presumptions deserve to be brought to the surface and questioned.  Perhaps, in the end, they will be found justified.  But they need to be examined explicitly.  Most presumptions on behalf of the ssm advocate turn out to be ill-founded in the end.

Amy Hall of Stand to Reason has some good points about one of those presumptions:

One common misconception in the same-sex marriage debate is the idea that the traditional legal definition of marriage is a violation of equal rights. Since this is an extremely emotionally charged accusation, it’s difficult to get past it into a real discussion of the issue.

 

Here’s the approach I usually take:

 

1. Nearly everyone who thinks the government ought to issue marriage licenses favors defining marriage in some way. That is, they favor excluding some combinations of people (polygamy, incest, etc.), not individuals, from the definition. Even judges. Even you!

 

2. You can’t consistently argue that by excluding certain combinations of people, traditional marriage violates equal rights—unless you also argue to remove every single boundary from the definition of marriage and say anyone can marry anyone, in whatever combination of numbers they like.

 

3. If you’re not willing to argue this, then you’re for having a definition with boundaries, which puts you on equal footing with the traditional marriage supporters.

 

4. So the question is, which definition should we use? It’s fine for you to argue that your definition of “two people who love each other” is better than my definition of “one man, one woman,” or someone else’s definition of “one man, multiple women,” but we need to start off by understanding that we’re arguing definitions, not rights.

 

It’s not unconstitutional to adopt either my or your definition, as long as it’s applied equally to every individual. Remember that the Constitution doesn’t recognize rights for combinations of people; rights only belong to individuals. So one can’t say that a man and five women have a right to get married; one can only say that each individual man or woman has the right to enter into marriage (no individual is excluded). This right is then acted upon according to the boundaries set by the state’s definition of what marriage is—boundaries which are equally applied to every individual. You would like to equally apply the boundary of “two people who love each other” (excluding some other combinations), and I would like to apply the boundary of “one man, one woman” to each individual equally.

 

But I agree that the boundaries we place on marriage need to be relevant to the institution of marriage in order to be legitimate, so why don’t we sit down and talk about the reasons why we each think the country should use our definition?

 

This definition-vs.-rights issue needs to be clarified. Otherwise, if you’re arguing for the boundaries of traditional marriage, you’ll enter the argument having already been unfairly declared an unconstitutional bigot before any of your reasons are explained (despite the fact that your opponent also favors certain boundaries), and anyone would be unlikely to listen to the reasons why you’re an unconstitutional bigot. We have to get past this first barrier if we want to be given the chance to make our case.

 

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Brave New World Visited

Posted on August 13, 2011 | 1 Comment

32 years old and until last week, I hadn’t read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  I know: can you believe it?

Much ink is spilled over the main themes of the book, such as governmental totalitarianism, the use of technology to control society, a moribund consumer culture, and how pursuit of a thin version of happiness erodes human responsibility, intellect, and dignity.

When it comes to these themes, there are many parallels to modern day society.  We might not have travelled down the spiral enough to emulate the BNW society totally, but there are parallels and they are striking.  In fact, Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited twenty seven years later, and noted that our slouch towards the BNW society was preceeding much quicker than he thought it would…and just think, that was in 1958!  He was quite wrong on some things (the need for population control), but on the right track on others (effectiveness of propaganda).

I have to admit, though, that those themes above don’t really jar me that much.  A plethora of books have explored the dangers of an all-powerful government, and for all that’s great about technological progress, the sticky situations it can get us into are pretty evident to anyone willing to pause and think.

Allow me to deviate from where I’m going for a moment to dwell on this.  Here’s an example: donor insemination.  In the final analysis, it might be morally permissable.  But even those who staunchly advocate for it must recognize that it has, in key places, created some hairy questions.  For one, the very meaning of fatherhood has been muddied by this advance.  In years past, paternity was much more straightfoward.  But now, what if the donor suddenly decides he wants to parent the fruit of his loins?  Who’s your daddy: the one from whom you biologically come, or the man tied to the mother at the time?

Even if this question can be worked out satisfactorily in the end (not a stretch, but not the focus of this post), you do have to admit the situation donor insemination has created is not straightforward, either philosophically or legally.

But I digress.  Issues like these that the book raised, for some reason, didn’t really draw me that much.  There were other themes that did, though.

Many might recoil from the BNW society because of it’s culturally coercive methods to get rebels to act “in line” with the culture’s values.  Actually, that doesn’t give me much pause: all cultures must have bedrock values that are taken for granted, and those that flaunt them must be outcast.  If someone in our society had valued rape or human slavery, it would be right for us to use just about everything we could to get that individual to fall in line.

What I think is shocking in BNW is not that the society and government used coercive methods to get Bernard and Helmholz to get their act together; its the specific values that the culture took as bedrock and worthy of coercion that’s so shocking.

It is taken for granted that each individual is a commodity to be consumed sexually, rather than a human being with dignity.  It is taken for granted that running away from difficulty, problems, and the truth was the ultimate good (this was the point of Soma).  It is taken for granted that only the present is valuable, and history is bunk.  The list here could get quite long, but you get the point: a society that musters its resources to get rape fans and misogynists to fall in line is entirely appropriate; a society that counts you strange and isolation-worthy simply for preferring not to “have” the pneumatic co-ed in the cubicle next to you on a Wednesday night is another…the BNW’s values violated what Martin Luther King Jr called the “Law above the law,” and our souls intuitively recognize this and recoil from it.

Another thing I think is noteworthy about the citizens of BNW is their utter inability to even begin to understand someone who doesn’t fit their mold.  It’s not that they see the alternative worldview/values of the Savage and Bernard (and I’m not claiming here that both are pristine heroes…Bernard is loathsome and the Savage is extreme), evaluate them, and find them false…it’s that they can’t even begin to make sense of them.  Lenina’s sexual advances toward the Savage are a case in point.  To say she missed where he was coming from would be to painfully state the obvious.

Asking those in the BNW society to evaluate their own worldview would be tantamount to asking the fish what its like to be wet.

Again, while our society isn’t as far gone as the BNW culture, there’s a strong parallel on both fronts.  On the first, witness the rampant hook up culture and sexual mores common at most colleges.  If your high schooler has conservative and/or biblical sexual values now before they hit college, those will be drastically challenged as soon as they hit campus.

Those who don’t adopt the laissez-faire attitude on sexuality popular on campus(those who continue to hold that sex is a sacred act reserved for the boundaries of marriage) are simply seen as beyond strange, and the campus culture’s resources are utilized to change this.  Seemingly everywhere you go, from the main quad to the dorms, from the lecture hall to the Student Health Center, the bent is that these values are oppressive, out dated, and boring, and so not worthy of anyone who wants to be considered “modern.”  And we all crave membership into that exclusive club, right?

There are those out there who will share your conservative and biblical values, and you will find still others that verbalize a certain respect for you, but the overall thrust of the culture is entirely in the direction of extreme sexual license, and even those who profess a respect for your values often unwittingly contribute to the cultural pressure to cave in.

On the second front, witness the utter confusion when trying to get a typical American to evaluate and question relativism. If you are not a relativist and make that known, many will often take your words and principles and reinterpret them to be relativistic, no matter how hard you try to get them to understand your rejection of relativism…so no matter how staunchly you resist and clarify, you always come out looking like a fellow cool-aid-drinker.  I’ve been in that situation too many times to count, and it’s not due to my lack of communication skills.

Those are two themes that your typical Sparknotes page won’t cover, but I think they are prevalent in the novel.  Do you see any others?

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , ,

Why Evangelicals Should Keep Evangelizing

Posted on July 27, 2011 | 3 Comments

…In short, because Jesus and His disciples did, and I have every reason to think both Him and the Bible writers expect us to as well.

I can see why folks like Carl Medearis would write books on the Art of Not-Evangelizing, and why guys like him encourage Christians to stop.   It’s hard to keep doing what’s unpopular, and evangelizing is definitely not popular in our postmodern age that tends to equate exclusivity (and evangelism is, of necessity, exclusive) with all that’s wrong with the world.

It’s almost like Medearis and friends are downright evangelical about not-evangelizing….at least when it comes to Christians.  Muslims, secularists, and new agers, go ahead.  Others may, Christians may not.

Which is weird, because Jesus, Paul and co. had no problem with it, and they had no problem encouraging disciples of Christ–that means us Christians…today–to do the same.

When Paul writes

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:  Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.  For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.  They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.  But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.

and when Jesus said

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

I don’t know how you could miss it.  Yes, I know, Paul was writing to Timothy, a pastor, but I don’t think it follows that we’re exempt from that.  Hey, when Jesus said “teach them to obey everything I have commanded,” that means everything. 

In addition, why would we want to keep the Gospel from others?  Put aside, for the moment, the fact that telling others about the Gospel, with its message about the universality of sin and need to be saved, and its message that only in Jesus is the proper solution found, is incredibly unpopular in our ear-itching age.  Gospel means, even though exclusive,  good news.  Hey, if a cure for cancer was found, that’d be exclusive too, but we’d unequivocably call that good news.  Why would it be any different for the cure to spiritual cancer?

I get that Christians might need to communicate that message differently in the twenty first century.  No need to rely upon sandwich sign and bullhorn, and you don’t need to share the whole gospel in every conversation, but we must be willing, able, and ready….communicate it we must.

Christians, think for a moment.  What if–just go with me here–the things that Jesus said are actually true–not just “true for us,” but true in every sense of the word?  (That’s part of it, right?  If this stuff isn’t truly true, then why be a Christian?  Just hang it up.)

We hold that humans are many times over criminals in God’s court.  Every day we break His law.  What we’ve earned for our rap sheet is hell.  Not nice, but it’s justice.  God, in His mercy, offers us a pardon, but its on His terms, not ours, and His terms are forgiveness through Jesus, who was not just a great leader, but God incarnate.  Take it or leave it.

What if that is actually true?  Then we’d better tell it to people, if we really love them.  Just like if a loved one had a fatal disease and was using ice cream to cure it…if you had the cure in your backpack and refused to give it to him, just encouragaing him to be a better “ice cream eater,” you could not lay claim to love him/her.  If we stick to seminars about how Jesus was a great leader, we are being derelict of our duty.

Some of what Medearis says sounds great, but the problem is that upon inspection, his words do not bring clarity, but confusion.

Here’s a sampling:

Even the Apostle Paul insisted that it’s faith in Jesus that matters, not converting to a new religion or a new socio-religious identity.

What if evangelicals today, instead of focusing on “evangelizing” and “converting” people, were to begin to think of Jesus not as starting a new religion, but as the central figure of a movement that transcends religious distinctions and identities?

Jesus the uniter of humanity, not Jesus the divider. How might that change the way we look at others?

When I used to think of myself as a missionary, I was obsessed with converting Muslims (or anybody for that matter) to what I thought of as “Christianity.” I had a set of doctrinal litmus tests that the potential convert had to pass before I would consider them “in” or one of “us.”

Funny thing is, Jesus never said, “Go into the world and convert people to Christianity.” What he said was, “Go and make disciples of all nations.”

Encouraging anyone and everyone to become an apprentice of Jesus, without manipulation, is a more open, dynamic and relational way of helping people who want to become more like Jesus — regardless of their religious identity.

A few thoughts.  First, yes, Jesus united people, but He united people around Him, God incarnate, the only solution to man’s problem.  He didn’t come to simply inaugurate a general, vague, content-less unity centered on human good will and interfaith dialogue.  He came to divide too: those who embraced His Father’s offer of forgiveness, and those who rejected it.  If you miss that, just ask the Pharisees; they were often at the receiving end of His division.

This does not mean that Christians circle the wagons and adopt an “us-vs-them” mentality.  It does not mean we make our love conditional or that those who disagree with us are dirty or unworthy.  I don’t know why anyone would think it does mean that.

Our invitation (aka, the “Gospel”) to embrace Jesus as Lord is to always remain open to all.  But this “rough side” of Jesus is one that needs to be reckoned with, not ignored.

Secondly, “doctrine” is another four letter word in our age, and Medearis treats it as such, but it need not be.  Doctrine is simply “belief.”  Everyone, including Medearis, has doctrines.  You cannot separate apprenticeship to Jesus from doctrine.

True, no need to obsess over infralapsarianism or make the Five Points of Calvinism a necessity for salvation…but you cannot divorce devotion to Jesus from beliefs about Jesus.  I can’t even do that with my wife.  If I tried, sooner or later I’d end up smooching the wrong woman, which wouldn’t go over well with her.  Doing the same with Jesus wouldn’t go over well with Him either.

Third, his comments reflect a false dichotomy.  Yeah, I know, “religion” is a dirty word these days, but it should not be.  A religion is simply a worldview or set of beliefs, often accompanied by certain rituals or disciplines, about ultimate questions such as “who are we?  How did we get here?  What is the problem with humanity and what is the solution?”  Did Jesus teach about answers to those questions?  Yep.  In that sense, did He start a religion?  Yes, centered around Himself.

Fourth, I don’t know what the big deal about “conversion” is.  Conversion is simply persuading someone to adopt certain beliefs, practices, etc.  Medearis’ beliefnet column is an effort in conversion…he wants me to drop by current beliefs/practices about Jesus, Christianity, and religion, and pick up his.  Why does he do what he wants me to stop doing?

Granted, some methods of persuading are better than others.  Jesus was not a fan of the sword, but He definitely was a fan of vocal proclamation about all He taught and represented.

Finally, though it sounds nice to think someone can be an apprentice of Jesus and still remain a member of another religion–say, Islam–that is a bunch of hooey.

While some beliefs in the Islam religion overlap with what Jesus taught, much of it conflicts.  For instance, the belief that Jesus is *only* a prophet, calling Him “God incarnate” is a grand sin, and He did not die on the cross.  All these are central to Islam, and any good Muslim believes them.  Any apprentice of Jesus who is worthy of the name will categorically reject them.

You just can’t get around these things.  Trying makes you an apprentice of someone other than Jesus…or perhaps it makes you an apprentice of a Jesus-made-in-your-own-image.  Neither will be ultimately helpful to you and your loved ones.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Why Church and Christians Suck (My Church in Particular)

Posted on June 12, 2011 | 5 Comments

…attitudes like that are all the rage these days, even within Christian circles.

You might have clicked on this post because you’re one of those disinchanted, used-to-go-to-church-but-now-am-anti-church folks, you judged a blog post by it’s title (not always a bad thing), and you’re seeking some confirmation of your attitude.

If that’s you, this blog post will disappoint.  Ha!  Gotcha.   Might as well keep reading, though, since you’re here anyway. 

This weekend I had plenty of time on my hands, so I read a book–Why we Love the Church: in Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion.  I’m used to seeing titles like Everything Must Change (an actual title) or Why Your Church Sucks and Jesus Never Came to Start a Religion (a title I made up, but it’s probably out there).  The last ten years or so has seen a large proliferation of folks disengaging from their churches, “doing church on their own,” and such.  The book was written as an antidote to much of the anti-church rhetoric that is popular these days.  The book gave me much to ponder, and I found it the proverbial “breathe of fresh air,” something I don’t hear much these days.

The book was full of good theological and historical critique of the “anti-institutional church” side.  The authors did a great job showing how that movement makes their case based upon unbiblical views and false assumptions about history, and they did a great job pointing out the practical value of institutionalizing, which isn’t necessarily unbiblical.  But biggest payoff for me was on a more personal note.

I gotta admit up front, though I still faithfully go to my church–RockHarbor in Costa Mesa, CA–I count myself as one of those above who, at times, has been disenchanted with church.  Some, no doubt, in the anti-church crowd have been burned by a church and/or individual Christians–more on that later–but in my case, I sometimes just have a plain old sour attitude.

Frequently on this blog I’ve written posts critical of things I hear in Church and in my own church.  I stand by all that, partly because I happen to think I’m right, and mostly because my critique deals with beliefs and doctrine of the false kind.  Hey, if Paul and the apostles can do that, so can I. :)   

But herein lies the rub: oftentimes I get upset with Christians and church because, though I’d never explicitly admit this, I subtly expect perfection from my pastors and church staff.  I forget that no church is perfect and cannot deliver heaven on earth.  I exaggerate the faults and sweep the (many) good parts under a rug, giving much less grace than I give myself.

The authors, in the book, make this point: my generation is given over to utopian thinking, and this is where much of the anti-church attitude is coming from.  The church is full of “sinning saints and sinning sinners” (“saint” simply being the New Testament word for Christians, not the modern usage of the term denoting someone who led a pristine life–though you’d hope the two go hand-in-hand.), and everyone in the pews on Sunday–me, you, and those who have left the church in disgust–fit in one of those two categories. 

This week I have come into very intimate contact of my own sinfulness.  I am a fallen man.  Everyone in church is like that…it can be no other way.  Therefore, there are bound to be a few–nay, even many–rough edges.  This is the nature of the beast and it is therefore unfair to subtly expect the pews and pulpits to be filled with Mother Theresas and MLK jrs.

Secondly, yes it is true, Christians and the church often sin, and very public examples of grave failures in Church leadership are a dime a dozen.  We can admit that they are all over the place.  However, the utopian types (and I put myself in their number), somehow never get around to admitting that there is an awful lot the Church–and my church–is doing right.

As to RockHarbor, my church does a good job of combining deeds and creeds, which is all you can ask.  On any given weekend, you’ll see evangelism, classes in theology, ministry to the homeless, financial support of relief efforts overseas, missions trips to India, Taiwan, and Uganda, house building trips to Mexico, mentoring foster kids, and tutoring.  And that’s just off the top of my head.  The actual list is much, much longer.  Every week I get an email in my box detailing opportunities to give of myself to service causes, and let’s just say that the email is usually pretty long.

My church somehow does this with limited funds and utilizing much less than 50% of our membership.  Just think what it could do if everyone was involved!  I’m willing to bet my church isn’t the only one out there like this.

Yea, yea, there are a ton of things I wish RH was doing better, and false beliefs abound in the church that need confronting.  But the problem is that for guys like me, there’s always the “next thing” that I think the church should focus on, and then they’d be doing a great job.  I’m never satisfied! 

If not apologetics and evangelism–which, really, is lacking in most churches.  I will die on that hill–then it’s AIDS ministry.  If not AIDS ministry, then its freeing the Invisible Children in Uganda.  If not freeing the IC, then its urban invasion.  If not urban invasion, then its deep theology classes.  If not that, then classes on analyzing contemporary film through the eyes of a biblical worldview.  If not that, then its campaigning politically against this or that evil.  If not that, then its getting out of politics…and on and on and on.  The pinacle is always on the next hill.

Thus, with an attitude like this–which is popular–the church will always be failing.

I need to acknowledge that there’s an awful lot that’s right, and therefore a more balanced assessment is called for.

The pastors and elders are great leaders.  The last teaching pastor–Mike Erre–was about as genuine and authentic as they come.  For all the flack I gave him about isolated things in his teaching, he was an upstanding man of God and a great teacher…yep, it needs to be said: I’m glad I had the chance to be under his tutelage for 5-6 years.

And for the record, were I up there on stage, I don’t think I could get even close to doing as good a job as he.  I have my own blind spots, I tend to want to please people, and that combination would make for some real bad teaching.  And I don’t think I could handle the criticism either.  I’d crumble.

The current teaching staff is just as great.  I think they strike an appropriate balance between deed and creed, head and heart, and this balance is hard to find.

Another source of sourness in myself comes from another false expectation: I expect “revolutionary” experiences 24-7, when life, in fact, is more of a plodding along in the boring, simple life, day by day, hour by hour.

The authors make this point: which is more difficult–being a rockstar who travels to foreign countries, calling their governments out about their treatment of the poor and forgiving debts, or being a blue collar mechanic dad of four kids, who faithfully and famelessly works every day to provide for his family, and who serves in his church every week in the background, without reckognition, again without fanfare?

The point here is not really to suggest that one is more difficult than the other, but that our culture definitely lifts up the former and pays little attention to the latter.  The result is that utopian types get easily bored with the day-to-day doings of life.  We want to upset the apple cart, topple regimes of evil, and turn the world upside down, but we get church instead.  So we get disgruntled and leave.  The culprit is not the day-to-day life, but the false expectations of mountain top experiences placed upon life.

Another confession: I frequently am bored in church.  I think “geez, another week of insipid worship songs…another sermon…more worship…prayer…why does it have to be the same every week?  I’d rather be watching football.”

The problem isn’t the church service–the problem is me.  I forget that the Bible calls us to coorporate worship of God.  I forget that the teaching from the pulpit is a necessity in my life, for it has, on many occasions, corrected false attitudes in my thinking.  I forget that the songs of worship calls me to ponder a greater orbit than my own personal one.  I forget that organization is not diametrically opposed to the Holy Spirit’s agency (the Holy Spirit sometimes–often–works through excellently executed, organized human agency).  I forget all the benefits of weekly attendance at church. 

I am thankful that a team of knowledgeable men spend 20+ hours per week in study and research, preparing the week’s teaching.  I am thankful that there is an opportunity to worship through song.  I’m thankful that there is space for prayer.  I’m thankful there’s always an opportunity outside of the Sunday service to get involved and make a difference, and boy am I thankful that there’s always an opportunity for me to respond personally to the truth shared.

God calls each one of us to simple obedience and faithfulness.  For a select few–like Bono–that will mean a life of excitement and stardom, but for most of us, it will mean plodding along, in mechanic-dad-of-four-like fashion.  We should make peace with that.

So in conclusion–warts and all, I love the Church.  I love my church.

Post script: I sometimes wonder what would happen if all the anti-organized religion folks suddenly got together, formed a group, and organized.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Relationship, not Religion?

Posted on June 7, 2011 | 2 Comments

“Christianity is a relationship, not a religion.”

If you’ve been around Christian circles for any length of time, you’ve heard that one, no doubt. I myself have said it…lots. That slogan was a main feature of the sermon on Sunday.

I have a tremendous respect for the pastor who said it, and he carries an authenticity, authority (in the sense of “speaking knowledgeably,” not the “power-authority” kind, which is usually perjorative), and conviction that few possess. As a pastor in India, he ministers to the weakest of the weak and the poorest of the poor. He provides for them both spiritually and physically, for the long haul. He unashamedly preaches Christ crucified and risen, the only solution to man’s universal sin problem. He gives hope, real hope–not faux-spiritual vague hopey hope–to tens of thousands of destitute people. He is tireless and rarely rests. His passion is matchless, something I am in awe of.

So when a guy like that says something, you listen.

I can understand why he would say “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion,” and I get what he’s trying to say. Think about the cultural context he comes from. The major religion in India is Hinduism, a hugely oppressive religion that deterministically marginalizes scores of people by labeling them “untouchable,” which is a caste supposedly cosmically assigned and not to be tampered with by do-gooders. It is the poster child of an oppressive system of rules. This guy was trying to distance Christianity from something like that, and for good reason…that’s not Christianity. Christianity is not a system of dead orthodoxy and ritual, performed mindlessly in the hope of impressing a finniky and distant god into letting you slide. At the heart of the Christian faith is not karma, but a person, One who is alive and well today and hence can be known as you and I can be known.

Ok…I’m on board with that message.

But (and you knew a “but” was coming, didn’t you?), I’m afraid that when that gets put into another cultural context–in this case, post-modern, individualistic, Oprah-ish pop -spirituality-drunk America–that the message gets lost in translation.

It really is unfortunate, for Christianity’s relational element is something that most other religions don’t grasp much. However, it is the case that most Americans–churched and unchurched alike–possess some awfully unbiblical thought patterns and categories. We’re pretty biblically illiterate, so that slogan, as sincerely as it is shouted from the rooftops, often gets twisted into something entirely alien to the Gospel.

Oftentimes, when an audience in America hears that phrase, even if the person saying it means it in a biblical way, the audience hears that Christianity is a low commitment, do-it-yourself, just-you-and-Jesus, design-it-yourself spirituality that’s unique to You and devoid of rules. The Christianity of the Bible is anything but those things.

First, there’s that whole “die to yourself and pick up your cross” thing. Then there’s submission to Authority–the Supreme Authority. God is holy, not a hang out buddy. There’s plenty of good old fashioned doctrine to go around, and yup, there are rules too. Now, those rules are not meant to be spiritual resume builders, as if you can get right with God simply by following them. We’re rebels against God, and thus can’t pay for our bad deeds with good deeds. But still, there are rules, and though they have a limited role and aren’t the main point, they have a role and they have a point.

Think of it this way: even every relationship has rules and ritual. Uh, take the rule, “don’t sleep with a woman that is not your wife.” If I break that rule, my relationship to my wife will be harmed. That’s a euphemism if I’ve ever heard one. Then why would we expect it to be any different with a relational God? He’s even said point blank, “if you love me, you’ll obey my teaching.” (John 14:23).

Same thing goes for ritual. My wife and I have a date night. We celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, and such. We have routines that help us nurture our relationship. These are all rituals, after a fashion. Again, they aren’t the point–they are a means to an end–but they have a point. This applies to God too. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Same goes with the label “religion.” I know it sounds pithy and edgy to say Christianity is not a religion and that God hates religion, but really pause to think about this. I just went to the online dictionary and looked it up. Here’s definition numero uno: “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.”

Here’s definition numero dos: “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.”

Pretty standard, as far as definitions of “religion” goes. So how can Christianity be defined apart from that? Yes, Christianity is so much more than that, but Christianity includes that. Am I sounding like a broken record yet?

No matter what kind of Christian you are, whether a stodgy fundamentalist or hipster liberal, you’ve got beliefs about the cause and nature of the universe and ultimate meaning. You’ve got rituals (and admit it, meeting at Starbucks once a week with a buddy to engage in faux spiritual banter might not be high church, but it’s ritual.), you’ve got people that agree with you and join you in practicing, and you’ve got a moral code. For anti-institutionalized religion folks, it comes through loud and clear in the way they bash the church about its failings, both real and imagined.

I therefore find the whole “Christianity is a relationship, not a religion” thing to be a huge false dichotomy. If well meaning folks want to communicate that Christianity is not a rote set of guidelines that’s superficially followed, they should just say that.

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,