Tag Archives: Church

Why Church and Christians Suck (My Church in Particular)

…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.

Perpetually Single

Bashing the Church is all the rage these days, especially from folks within (or who, in some instances, claim to be within) the Church itself.  I’m not a big fan of this trend, partly because it’s a trend.   It’s hip.  It’s cool.  And let’s face it, it’s kind of easy.  It’s incredibly easy to sit back, point the finger at whatever you think you see is wrong in the church, and just be bitter about it.  Grumbling takes little horsepower.  Much more difficult to actually positively spur the Church on to greater love and good deeds (kinda like the fellas who wrote Why we Love the Church did in that book).  I admit I’m a partaker…I just think so much of the critique is no critique at all, but bitter grumbling, and it’s not helpful.

So there’s the caveat to this post.

The other night I was having a conversation with a close friend of mine who is going through a rough time in his life.  Without getting into many of the specifics, he is feeling burned by some of his past experience in the church, and is reacting in rather self destructive ways.  He’ll be the first to admit that the buck stops with him, however I can’t deny that he’s been sold a false bill of goods by some well meaning people in the church.  I’ve actually had quite a few friends go through the same thing recently, and all of them have this one thing in common: their struggle deals with marriage, dating, and singleness.

He made a really good point in the middle of our conversation, one that could pass as grumbling, but at the same time it’s an accurate critique.

“The ‘singles groups’ in churches teach people to be perpetually single,” he said.

I think he’s on to something.

In far too many singles groups, there is no one from the outside, say an older man for the guys or older woman for the gals, exhorting them to be proactively seeking a spouse (which is ok, you know..even good!).  The same could be said about finding a career, though not nearly to the same extent.  Virtually no one is even teaching them how to move towards marriage.  The result is a bunch of people in the same age group reinforcing the same single lifestyle and habits.

You might not think that’s a big deal.  Go ask my friend (as previously mentioned, there are actually more than one in this exact position), though, and he’ll tell you about his struggles after banking for so long on advice from his fellow single peers.   He sorely wishes he had an older man in his life saying, “hey, get off your duff.  Get a job.  Get married.  Church service and ministry are good, but you need to get up and get going…now.”

Now, I’m down with the whole “content in your singleness” mantra.  I’ve seen some go to the opposite extreme and make marriage, sex, and relationships an idol, and I’ve seen them get burned as a result.  After you’ve pursued your idol fo so many years withou success at attaining it, the bitterness that results from that is often worse than all the downsides of singleness put together.  Better to look to Christ for your self worth than a relationship.  Still, though, I think that slogan is over-used as a knee jerk reaction.  Encouraging a single person to actively seek a spouse is entirely appropriate and good.  You can be “content in your singleness” and actively seek at the same time.

I hasten to add that celibacy is a high calling deserving of honor for those that choose it.  These people devote their all to the Lord in a lifetime of service as a single person.  If someone can do that and not be lonely and bitter from it, they deserve praise and honor of the highest degree.  For the rest of us, though, marriage is our calling, and it’s unwise to passively prolong the singleness period.   It’s one thing to be proactive but not meet success; it’s another thing entirely to be passive about it and just wait around, letting the best years for getting married roll by.

Singles groups are doing no one a favor by leaving their attendees uncounseled when it comes to actually moving towards marriage.

Dealing with an Atheist Gadfly

Just on a whim the other day, I stopped by a Christian student group on campus.  I stopped by because a fellow faculty member was supposed to be giving a testimony of something God had recently done in his life.  While I’m the sponsor for one group, there are actually quite a few Christian groups on campus–a student can pretty much go to some sort of Bible study every day during lunch.  I usually don’t frequent them, but due to my colleague, this day was different.

Well, the colleague never made it to the study.  But I’m still glad I came, because of the two guys that actually did make it to the meeting.

Not that they were the only two guys there…the room was jam packed.  But they were atheists.  Hey, who let these guys in?  Juuusst kidding.  It’s good when non-Christians come to Christian meetings.  To a certain extent, that’s kinda the point.

As far as I could tell, they simply walked in on a whim…and afterwards, they really let it out.  Come to find out, these guys weren’t there to make friends or check out the claims of Christ.   One of the guys was really hanklin for an audience.  Well, pretty soon, he got one.  No sooner than the meeting ended, and he started layin’ into some of the regulars there.  In a few minutes, there were about 10 or so gathered around either watching the “conversation” or actively participating.

I label it a conversation lightly.  The guy must have been a Hitchens devotee:  the arguments, assertions, manner, and vitriol seemed directly cut out of his playbook.  When the Christian students would attempt to answer his challenges, he would interrupt, throwing every loaded term and straw man in the book at them.
Rather than jumping in, I sat back and listened.  After a few minutes, one of the Christian students pulled me aside asking for help: “can you please step in and help us out?  We could really use it.”

Nope, I said.

His challenges were the typical ones I hear: God’s omniscience excludes human freewill, the God of the OT is a God of violence, there’s no evidence for life after death, you mean you believe in a God who fathered himself through a virgin? religion causes wars like the Holocaust (not making this up…the guy really said that, verbatim), blah blah blah.  They needed to take care of this on their own, however.

All year long I have been subtly communicating to the Christian students in my charge the importance of learning how to defend the faith.  When I’ve pressed it, they’ve agreed with me to my face, but then nothing happens.  They haven’t changed their behavior and values.  They simply keep churning out the same ‘ol same ‘ol youth group Bible studies.  The whole year, they’ve devoted 2 Bible studies to apologetics, theology, and defending the faith…and that’s just the group I sponsor.  All the other groups, to my knowledge, have devoted zero Bible studies to those things.  The Bible studies they’ve had have value, because they’ve been focused on the relational and emotional aspects of the faith.  Can’t be a real good ambassador for Christ if you’re a jerk.  Having a Christ-like character is one pillar of an ambassador, but there are other large pillars that have been almost completely neglected.

This is a recipe for a bunch of future atheists, not because Christianity itself as a worldview is anemic, but because their training is.  They fail to see their study times as times of training for a future test(s).  If they keep it up, one day they’ll get out of the confines of their youth Bible clubs and the secular world will pick em apart.  An wholly unprepared Christian youth without much depth meets a hostile secular world…I can figure out the outcome of that one.  If Anderson Silva took their training philosophy and applied it to his fighting, Joe Dirt could knock him out.

Despite what I’ve discussed with the students, this has gone on unabated.  They have not seen their need.  Sometimes, it takes a good thrashin’ to see your need.  You know what they say: sometimes you don’t know you need a belt until your pants are hanging around your ankles.  Because of all this, I was hoping that the atheist student would really hand it to them, though I didn’t tell anyone this directly.

And you know, they really had a tough time with him, for a number of reasons.  His aggressive and abrasive manner really threw them, for one.  They didn’t know quite what to make of his loaded language (they really couldn’t even see that it was loaded language.  They just bought it and didn’t call him on it) either.  Furthermore, I’m willing to bet that none of them had actually heard of his challenges.  Good grief, some of them go all week by going to a different Bible study every lunch period.  They are quite comfortable and content staying in the Christian bubble.  Pretty soon, they were “punting” to faith.  You know, I think it kinda shook them.

I’m not the type to leave them like that, though.  All I wanted was for them to get a swift kick in the pants so they’d be motivated to take the intellectual life of the Christian disciple more seriously.  Heavens ta mergatroy, its front and center in the *first* commandment! You’d think that would be enough.  Anyway, afterwards I let all who were in on the convo know to come to my room today to debrief.  The plan was to tackle the atheists arguments and assertions one-by-one in a calmer, more “practice-like” environment.  This was going to be a teachable moment.

How many do you think showed up today?  2…yep...2.

Of all the vices, apathy, I’ve found, dies the slowest, hardest death of all.  I’m dealing with the same sort of blahse` attitude with the wrestling team I coach.  Apathy just gloms onto suburban kids like you wouldn’t believe.  This is going to take some stick-to-itiveness to address adequately.

I held back the debriefing for a day, and spread the word that those who missed were not to skip out again.  They can’t afford to.

I’m just not going to let this one go.

I’ll let you know what happens.

Sunday’s Coming

Gotta get your “contemporvant” every week!

Check this very funny video clip out about the way many churches “do church”

As Dan Kimball says, “so uncomfortably true.”  This nails (save one or two details) every church I’ve been a part of for the last 12 years.  Perhaps that says more about me than it does those churches.

I haven’t been able to get the “this is the song that everyone knows” out of my head since I’ve seen the video

Reason to Pause

“Christians get divorced at a rate equal to non-Christians.”

Ever hear that one?  If you’ve ever gone to church for any length of time, especially a more hip and “modern” church, you’ve probably heard that said again and again and again.  If you have Christian friends, you’ve probably heard it repeated ad nauseum on Facebook and Twitter.  Strange thing: I’ve never heard any non-Christian talk about it…only Christians (well, I take that back…one gay man brought it up in a discussion on Facebook.  Link below.). 

It is common knowledge amongst believers nowadays.  The thing is that the research it’s based on is kinda shoddy.  I’ve blogged about it before, and the other day I ran into another one who has analyzed that often-quoted stat.  Brad Wright is a sociologist professor at the University of Connecticut, and he evaluates the research that birthed that stat on his blog in a whole series.  It is all well worth a read.

The main flaw he points out is that Barna, the research group that published the stat (it was soon therafter picked up by Ron Sider in his book The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience, which Wright also reviews in the series), erroneously compared Christians to Christians in their anaylsis.  That is, they only counted evangelicals as Christians, while all other groups they collapsed into one category: all Catholics, Mainline Protestants, etc, were grouped with atheists and agnostics.  Perhaps many of the Catholics et al were not Christians, but no doubt some were.  If they wanted to compare evangelicals to, perhaps, Mainline Protestants and/or Catholics, that would have been interesting, but to lump them into one category with those of other religions and those of no religion was sloppy…this is especially so given that Barna labeled the latter group “non-Christians.”

Wright also analyzes other data outside of the Barna Group and suggests that we should question the conventional wisdom.  He also shows how frequent church attendance correlates strongly with a low divorce rate.  For example, when it comes to Evangelicals alone, in the data, frequent attendance makes an almost 20% difference.  While he is careful to note that there might be other causal explanations other than Christianity lowering divorce rates (afterall, correlation does not mean causation), at the very least his analysis is a strong reminder to be discerning in what we accept.

Should we now pat ourselves on the back and comfort ourselves that “it’s not as bad as we think?”  Well, no.  Exhortations to greater holiness are always a pressing concern for the faithful.  What should we take away from this, then?  A few things:

For one, no matter the righteousness of one’s cause, we must remember a greater duty: a duty to the truth.  It might be mighty persuasive to our fellow Christ-followers if we toss out an alarming stat.  Such is the way of sensational news.  However, we are first and foremost people of the truth.  Our Lord was the Way, the Truth, and the Light. We need to reflect that, and this includes what we use to convince others to do better in their devotion.  Simple as that.

Relatedly, even if the stat/data/evidence/persuasive support is useful, we should pause and do the necessary work to discern the details behind the scenes.  This applies to Wright as well, by the way.   Perhaps he’s missing something somewhere.  Actually, there are a few things about his analysis that smell off to me.  For instance, that data he cites marks only professed belief, not actual.  The former isn’t exactly 100% accurate.  Secondly, the frequent church attendance marker says nothing about the theological content of said church.  While attendees are separated by Evangelical/Mainline/Catholic markers, this is far from sufficient.  There are churches out there that call themselves Evangelical (or at least they are categorized by others as Evangelical) that have the theological consistency of a frightened bat.  Jesus wouldn’t recognize those folks even if they wore t-shirts picturing His face with the word “hope” under it.

Perhaps the markers above are the best sociologists have.  If so, they can’t be faulted I reckon, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t shortcomings of the research.

You might be tempted to dismiss what I said above about the need to not cite useful stats that aren’t exactly truthful.  Maybe your experience convinces you.  Perhaps you think that there’s no harm in it, and there is actually much good that could come out of shocking our fellow Christians into obedience.  “That’s simply what it takes these days.  If we didn’t do that, no one would listen,” you reason.

Call this the “by any means necessary”  approach.  This leads to a third lesson: when we take that approach, we lose credibility.  To paraphrase C.S Lewis, when we shoot for truth, we get both persuasiveness and the truth.  When we shoot for only persuasiveness and disregard the pure truth, we get neither.  It’s one of those “boy who cries wolf” things.  Speaking personally, when I’m interacting with someone who has not been discerning in the past, I tend not to trust them, even if their cause is just.  I’ve always got a thought lingering in the back of my mind: what are they not telling me?  I now have this attitude towards anyone who has used the common stat Wright takes to task.  While there will always be quite a few folks in the pews and in our circle of friends that will buy what we’re selling no matter what, I’m willing to bet there are many, especially non-Christians, who aren’t as easily convinced.  If you give them a reason to withdraw trust, they will.

Wright puts it well:

Obviously we would like both useful and accuracy, but if we had to let one go, which would it be?

I can understand why people want to emphasize the useful. Why not use statistics, as well as anything else we can find, to advance the Kingdom?

And yet… if we’re not 100% accurate in our creation or use of research, then that starts to eat away at the credibility of our work.

Here’s an example of how this might play out. Suppose an author is concerned about Christians having some moral problem. S/he then finds all the statistics consistent with this “problem” hypothesis, ignoring ones that might contradict it. The end result: A skewed presentation of who the world works, but a presentation designed to get Christians to do the right thing.

I suppose this issue revolves around questions of the ends justifying the means. I would even say that some of the egregious misuse of statistics about Christianity are done with the best of intentions. Me, I want to go wherever the data lead me, though I realize that I have my own biases and limitations that can get into the way. Ultimately, if it is truth we’re after, cutting corners on our means of getting there isn’t going to help.

Perhaps your attitude is that of one commenter on Wright’s blog: Christians should always assume the worst and apologize, so we should embrace the conventional wisdom, even if it’s not 100% true.
I don’t know about that.  It might lead someone to being walked on more, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to more respect.  I learned that from one of my past relationships.  I was frequently apologizing to her, even when the accusations were trumped up.  She finally got tired of it and told me to shut up.  She soon broke up with me.  Might the same dynamic apply in Christians’ relationship to the world?

I have found that Christians often latch onto bad news about the church and run with it.  I even do this from time to time.  It’s almost like the self-flagellation featured in The DaVinci Code.  We think it brings purification.  We are so apt to do this that we seldom pause to question the news that we recieve.   In the rush, we tend to trust well-known Christian sources (such as Barna) whose information might be sensational, but isn’t subject to the normal academic peer review process (which has its own shortcomings, I admit).  Sometimes we get egg on our faces from this habit.

Think: can you really see Jesus endorsing the “by any means necessary” approach?  Do you think He EVER fudged just a little bit to get more followers?

Becoming a Three Thirds Disciple

My friend Brett Kunkle, who works for apologetics organization Stand to Reason, recently sent me his newsletter.  I’m going to quote some of it to you, for it highlights something about the role of apologetics in disicpleship that people often miss.

A bit of background: oftentimes when Brett speaks to Christians in high school and to youth pastors, he first poses as an atheist to the crowd.  They don’t know he’s really a Christian, so he engages them and slowly picks apart their faith.  He “comes out” later and walks them through the challenges, but his main goal in doing the posing is to wake the audience up to their need to learn how to defend their faith.  Most can’t do it very well.  Most can’t do it at all.

On to the letter:

It was eighty against one.  Not good odds, but when I role-play an atheist with the typical Christian students, I like my chances.  But these weren’t students.  They were adults.  And not just any adults, but Christian leaders on the East Coast.  Pastors, youth pastors, parachurch leaders, school teachers, and administrators.

I launched in to my “Why I’m not a Christian” arguments.  Debate quickly followed.  From the start, a number of adults appealed to their experience of the Holy Spirit–”I know God is real because I’ve experienced His Spirit.”  I quickly shot back, “How do you know that’s really God?  Mormons say the same thing.  Do you think they’re experiencing God as well?”

One man in particular was emphatic.  “I just know it’s the Holy Spirit speaking to me.”  He tried to bolster the argument, declaring God had spoken to him through the Bible as well.  I responded with a typical atheist challenge.  “The Bible tells us that God spoke to Abraham, asking him to sacrifice his son.”  Then I looked him in the eye and questioned him, “If God asked you to kill your son, would you do it?”  He joked about his son sitting there next to him, but he could not answer the challenge.

In fact, there were only two leaders out of those 80 who gave me real trouble during the exchange.  The first, a youth pastor, launched into the moral argument for God’s existence.  I tried to take the “morals are determined by society” route, but he calmly pinned me down.  The second, a deacon and Sunday school teacher, offered a design argument, articulating Michale Behe’s argument from irriducible complexity.  I quickly changed topics.

 

Brett goes on in the letter to reveal that both men had included thinking skills training in their discipleship to Christ: both made extensive use of the training materials from Stand to Reason.

Then, Brett continues:

Later, the man who claimed he just knew it was the Holy Spirit speaking to him approached me.  He wanted my help.  “My son, sitting next to me, is doubting everything.”  Then he burst into tears.  Embarrassed, he grabbed my arm and pulled me around the corner.  As he wept bitterly, his son’s story emerged.  A bright kid, grew up in a Christian home, led friends to the Lord, on fire for Christ, even preached in their church.  But now, he questioned it all.  He begged me, “Will you talk to him?  Please, will you talk to him today?”

After my final teaching session, the son approached me, quickly launching into a laundry list of objections to Christianity.  A lenghty conversation ensued, covering topics like objective moral truths, utilitarian ethical theory, Kant’s categorical imperative, retributive justice, divine hiddenness, intelligent design, and the experience of the Holy Spirit.  From the conversation, I guessed he was a graduate student in philosophy.  Wrong.  He was a high school senior.

His objections boiled down to this:  “I’ve been taught that Christianity’s truthfulness is confirmed by my experience.  I am no longer having powerful Christian experiences.  In addition, I’m reading arguments against Christianity.  I now wonder if it’s rational for me to remain a Christian.”  He had just rehearsed his father’s argument for Christianity…and its shortcomings.

I listened, offered thoughts to reframe his view of Christianity’s truthfulness, put personal experience in its proper place, and introduced him to apologetics.  He thanked me and we parted ways.

He ends by making a request to pray for the young man.

Brett’s letter underscores a few important things.  First, the Christian worldview has the resources to answer the objections and questions that are posed to it, but few believers are actually even partially equipped to grasp and communicate those resources.  Brett’s experience of the majority in the Church that he recounts in this letter is pretty standard for him. Just think: these were not youth group kids, but adult leaders.  When pressed, the only resource all but two of them fell back on boils down to a certain felt experience.  That is a biblical part of the life of the Christ follower, but it is of little help when doubts from within and challenges from without come…and both of those will come.

Secondly and relatedly, when we as the Church fail to value the life of the mind, we leave our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ naked and defenseless against the harsh winters of doubt, and we leave non-believers (those who are not easily persuaded by an appeal to a felt experience–which is most non-believers, I’d think) with nothing to grasp onto but “I know because I know because I know.”  Brett’s conversation with the high school senior bears this out.  Seriously, how is that valuing and loving them?  There are lots of smart folks outside the church.  When we have nothing to appeal to but the experience of the Holy Spirit, does that take their intellect seriously?  If we truly love them, the least we can do is prepare ourselves to be able to walk them through the answers to some of their nagging questions and doubts.

All this reminds me of a friendship I had with a colleague at my former school.  We talked about questions and objections to Christianity often (he was an agnostic) in the same manner that Brett talked with the young man.  After a few years, one day my friend remarked to me how satisfying it was to be able to talk to me intelligently about such things.  I was the only Christian in his life he could do that with.  Though the compliment meant a lot to me, I had a certain sadness in my heart: I was the only one?

Thirdly, I know many shy away from training their minds because they think that it’s somehow unChristlike and they view it as combative.  Visions of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly quickly pop into their heads, and they say, “no thanks.”** 

But apologetics need not be like that.  Used properly, it is conversational and relational.  The conversation Brett engaged in was natural.  I know the guy: he doesn’t walk around with a Evidence that Demands  a Verdict holster, and he doesn’t have a belt of William Lane Craig bullets strung across his chest.  He’s normal.  Furthermore, because he has trained his intellect, he can confidently converse with any non-believer, whether he be seeker or skeptic, full-time professor or full-time mom.

If you have nothing but an experience to stand upon, consider devoting your intellect to Christ too.  You need not get a phd in philosophy, though that’d be nice.  All you gotta do is…do something.  You can begin here.

**That’s not to put down either man; it’s just that many would rather not be so aggressively combative, and the two men fit the stereotype.

Raising Awareness for Uganda

A few years back, a couple of  green teenage boys somewhat randomly ventured into Africa, hoping to catch some footage of the conflict in Sudan so they could make a film about it.  While they never made it to Sudan, they didn’t come home empty handed.  Instead of filming in Sudan, they ran into the thick of a conflict between the Uganda government and a rebel army based in that country.

 

The rebel army–known as the “Lord’s Resistance Army”–acted as a terrorist organization in order to topple the government.  Long story short: they would go into villages late in the night and steal children, forcing them to be a part of the army.  The army full of abducted children struck fear into the hearts of the citizens in that country, yet virtually no one in the United States knew of it.
The aforementioned…teenage boys…brought awareness to a deep problem that was tearing Uganda apart, wreaking havoc on its citizens, and creating a child refugee tragedy of unimaginable proportions.

 

These young men proved that it’s never too early to do hard things by not only making a fantastic film on the conflict, but by creating an organization called Invisible Children, with the goal of ending the conflict, bringing peace to a war torn area, and helping the refugees integrate back into society.

My church, RockHarbor, has been in the mix for the last five years.  One outgrowth of that effort has been a partnership with both Invisible Children and Africa Renewal Ministries–a Christian ministry based in Uganda.

 

This weekend RH kicked off a week of raising awareness for the conflict in Uganda.  If you live in the Southern California area, attend the Awareness Forum at RockHarbor church on Tuesday, November 17, from 7-8:30 to hear what you can do to help bring peace and wholeness to a land in need.  The forum will feature a pastor from Gulu, the village in Uganda that has been most affected by the rebel army.

 

There is so much to do.  The task is daunting.  RockHarbor.org puts it best:

 

5 years ago, a team from ROCKHARBOR visited northern Uganda. They saw first hand a nation in the midst of a 20-year war. They walked among those in an idp camp that had been forced out of their homes and villages, and in that same instance, they heard God inviting our church into this story.

 

In the half decade since, we’ve seen God move in significant ways in the northern Uganda town of Gulu. Through a partnership with africa renewal ministries, Gulu Bible Community Church has been planted in the heart of Gulu. Each year, RH sends teams to help this church with medical clinics and vacation Bible schools and outreach events for the community.

 

While there has been 2 years of peace in northern Uganda, Gulu is still a land of challenges. Fresh water; Self-sustenance; Education; AIDS and war orphans. But God is certainly on the move as change has already begun.

 

Beginning this weekend at our celebration services and continued over the next couple of days, we invite you to find your place in this continued story. Join us at any of these events and find out how to get involved with God’s renewing of lives and hope in Gulu.

 

You know, this is why I’m a part of this church.  This Saturday when my wife and I were at the service, a lady who has been on one of the aforementioned trips to Uganda spoke of her experience.  She told of how she ran into three women in the street one day.  As she began to converse with them, she told them her story of how Christ had changed her, and through an interpreter, invited them to begin a relationship with Christ.  That day they bent the knee to Jesus.  The woman walked away, wondering if she would ever see them again.  Well, the next day they showed up to the church in Gulu, toting their kids along!

 

This story would be quite unremarkable if that was all there was to it.  The woman soon found out that they were actually prostitutes from the Congo who were attempting to find a new life in Uganda.  Not only was their eternity secured the day before, not only would the church go on to spiritually disciple these ladies, but the church was also able to help them get out of prostitution and learn a trade.  Their lives have completely changed due to one seemingly random conversation.  What’s more, there are countless stories just like that of how ARM in Gulu–and RH along with it–is making a difference.

 

Christopher Hitchens, are you watching?