Tag Archives: God

Aurora, CO

Posted on August 4, 2012 | Leave a comment

What happened in Aurora, CO is yesterday’s news, eclipsed by the latest media firestorm. That is an unfortunate consequence of our fast paced, super-technologically-connected modern life.

This facet of modern life tends to leave me in the dust, for I am not one to blog quickly about something. I do converse in the moment on an individual level, but try to avoid saying something large scale until things have died down a bit and until I’ve had time to sort through things.

So, for what it’s worth, here are some reflections on the shooting that happened in Aurora, CO, during the opening night of The Dark Knight Rises:

First, any response or reaction must start from copious prayer, compassion, and empathy for the victims. Even saying this runs the risk of cheapening it, because I do not know any of the victims personally nor will I be able to travel to Aurora to put boots on this compassion. I am but a distant observer, and I therefore realize a lot of this will sound hollow, so I reflect with a good amount of hesitation. But that makes the beginning point above no less true and necessary to acknowledge.

Second, I’m sure what the victims don’t need is a philosophical treatise on the problem of evil or anything like that. They simply need a silent shoulder to grieve on. I’m not going to offer an intellectual answer anyway. Nevertheless, people in wider society are discussing this event, and folks have questions and thoughts, so a certain amount of reflection is appropriate.

Third, reflecting on the lives of those affected rocks my soul.  Each one of these victims had lives, loves, goals, ambitions, and desires.  Reading of their lives and seeing their pictures brought to my attention their simple humanity.  Heavy stuff.  Thankfully, this event is not the end for those that lost their lives, though the victims left behind will carry this grief for a long, long time.

Fourth, there are a lot of words being used to describe the event, some of which are more accurate than others. Some, for instance, are calling it “senseless.” Why call it “senseless” as if it, well, somehow doesn’t make sense? This was, no doubt, surprising to the victims, for we all tend to assume that the next moment will be like the previous one. Were I to lose a loved one that I assumed would still be there in the morning, I’d feel surprised because I wouldn’t expect it. Afterall, when my daughter goes to sleep at night, I don’t worry at night that someone’s going to snatch her. I just assume she’ll be there when I wake up. Anything out of the ordinary would be an existential shock. But apart from the existential shock of the victims, it makes perfect sense to me. Far from this evil being something the Bible can’t make sense of, the Bible predicts it! Ever since the garden, humans have been deeply fallen. Cain slew Abel, and it was downhill from there. We humans have the divine spark still visible in us and therefore are capable of great things, but since we have chosen to go our own way and set up camp under our own terms, we are also deeply flawed and capable of deep and tragic evil. It’s only “senseless” if we are basically good and our natural inclinations align with True North. Sadly, they do not.

Plus, it’s not like our modern age is a grand utopia of love and good tidings. We haven’t “evolved” much, and to paraphrase C.S Lewis, education has simply made for a more clever devil. Witness the many mass shootings in the last 20 years or so. We’ve castrated and bid the geldings be fruitful. We raise men without chests and are shocked when they act sans virtue. I realize there’s the possibility that Holmes is genuinely mentally ill (or demon possessed!), but that does little to nothing to blunt this observation. This would have been surprising in another age (an age that would have its own shortcomings, sure), but after so many events of a similar nature, it’s no longer surprising now, at least to me.

Tragic? Yes. Wicked? Yes. Horrible? Yes. Incredibly, gut wrenchingly sad? Yes. That much is true.  Senseless? Not really.

Fifth, this tragedy shows that our world is a little too like Gotham, yes? Moral decadence, corruption, and injustice reigns, yet there is always a glimmer of hope. There is still good in Gotham, and that’s why Batman sticks around to fight the good fight, rather than torching the whole place. Yes, after watching our response to the shooting, the parallel is not lost on me.

Sixth, speaking of that “glimmer,” some who were present at the shooting are reporting that their boyfriends gave their lives to protect their girlfriends. Here is one example, Julia Vojtsek, recounting the actions of her boyfriend, John Larimer: “John immediately and instinctively covered me and brought me to the ground in order to protect me from any danger,” Vojtsek wrote in a statement. “Moments later, John knowingly shielded me from a spray of gunshots. It was then I believe John was hit with a bullet that would have very possibly struck me. I feel very strongly that I was saved by John and his ultimate kindness.”

It is sometimes difficult to verify stories like this. Whenever intense media attention surrounds chaotic events like this, certain things can get exaggerated, some forgotten in the moment, some details changed, etc, by no fault of anyone. Just happens. Nature of the beast. We saw this pan out in the Columbine shootings: some reports turned out to be a little inaccurate, so I confess a certain sense of caution here. Nevertheless for now I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. These reports speak very deeply to me as a man. That instinct in men to shield and protect is not totally dead. When the chips are down, we men are to protect, yes even sometimes at the cost of our lives, and we know it. That is deep in our dna. Would Julia have been killed had John not protected her? We will never know, but it is possible. These four men deserve recognition, for they saved the women in their lives.  Their deaths leave their loved ones in the wake of incredible grief, but I think it’s also appropriate, as these women are doing, to recognize their sacrifice as sacrifice, not stupidity.

This is not to deny that women also seek to protect, especially children. I simply seek to applaud the men here, in this situation, who in a moment of crisis instinctively used their strength to protect women.

Seventh and last, some are asking, understandably, “where was God?” Seems to come up whenever a grand evil like this happens. Answer: closer than you think.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

Real Jesus Vs. Republican Jesus?

Posted on January 1, 2012 | 4 Comments


The comic above–titled “real Jesus vs. Republican Jesus”–was posted on Facebook recently by one of my friends. In addition to criticizing Christian Republicans (I take it that the “Jeezus” on the right is suposed to be symbolizing that group.  I don’t know who else it would be aiming at.  Plus, that’s the title my friend gave it, so seems like he got the message, at least.) for being out of touch with what the Bible says on certain issues, it advances certain ideas about religion, politics, and the interaction between the two.  Is the challenge it offers and the ideas it puts forth sound?

You’ve probably guessed that I wasn’t amused.  I get that in the comic genre, we give writers some leeway when it comes to caricaturing and the like.  However, this comic takes it to extremes.  Going through it all would take all night, but let me catalogue some of the reasons why I wasn’t amused by addressing the overall way the comic author advances his ideas, and by examining a few of the ideas themselves:

For starters, notice the way in which it argues that certain ideas are “Christian:” by simply quoting a Bible verse…emphasis on verse.  This is a tell-tale sign that the author started with a pre-conceived notion of who he thinks Jesus was/is, and he cherry-picked some verses to fit that pre-conceived notion.

With this way of reasoning, you can make any piece of communication say anything you want.  That is not a mark against whatever text you are using; it’s a mark against you.  Were I to use the same methods of this author, I could make Barak Obama sound like Sarah Palin.

With these sorts of methods, its quite easy to make Jesus sound like he eschewed any and all moral judgment (except the judgment of left wing secularists…that’s legit), thought sexual activity outside of man/woman marriage (including homosexual behavior) is completely fine, held single payer health care to be a moral obligation of any democratic society, thought all religions are equally valid, held any and all war to be automatically immoral on its face, that increasing the size and scope of the state is always the way to go when attempting to usher in utopia (and: utopia was what he was shooting for anyway), and similarly, that communism is the rational form of government to bring about human flourishing.

Lest anyone think I’m singling out left-wing views, the same goes for pet projects of some on the other side too: incredibly easy to make Jesus say that all he wants is “your best life now” and that his number one agenda was/is to make you materially prosperous.  Yeah, it bugs me when its done in Christian circles too.  Point is: I’ve heard it all when it comes to Jesus.  That’s not a fault of Jesus or the Bible, it’s the fault of those who forget that meaning in a text flows from the whole to the parts, and the fault of those who look at Jesus as if looking in a mirror.

So no, just by quoting some verse somewhere and insinuating a conclusion, the author’s work is not done.  I am not impressed.

A simple case of the tail wagging the dog here.  I’ve seen time and time again where those on the left and/or secularists do this in regards to Jesus and their pet views, though its also quite common in Christian circles too.  Usually when this happens, most of what follows is junk.

Where else in do we reason like this?  Answer: nowhere.  There are certain rules of communication that we all take for granted when trying to infer what a piece of text–written or otherwise–means.  Context, genre, et al are all important, and we all automatically utilize those rules when it comes to communication, however, for some reason, those rules fly out the window when otherwise intelligent people address the Bible.

I simply remind PI readers that the Bible is no different than other communication, and you do not get a pass from using the rules of inference when determining its meaning.   It is not made of silly putty.

The point here isn’t that the author is wrong for simply supposing to know what Jesus said/thought, etc.  I do that in my own arguments so it would be hypocritical for me to take him to task for that.  Rather, I object to the method used–starting with a Jesus-of-his-own-understanding, and playing fast and loose with the Bible to justify that Jesus and argue against some folks he doesn’t like.

Of course, this observation alone doesn’t mean the author is wrong.  He could have gotten it right despite his sloppy methods.  You know what they say about broken clocks and blind squirrels.  But: its a red flag, and just by glancing at the comic, I’m on alert.

Armed with that as the background, let’s take a look in detail at one of the rows.

“If any one of you is without sin, let him cast the first stone.”  This is a quote from the famous passage in John where Jesus comes to the defense of a woman caught in adultery.  The Pharisees want to stone her, and use her to try to catch Jesus in His words.  Jesus stops their quest by noting they are all standing in hypocritical judgment of her.

The author of the comic contrasts the supposed non-judgmentalism of Jesus with the intolerant attitude of Christian Republicans, who supposedly “hate fags.”  What idea is the author advancing?

It is this: those that are truly loyal to Jesus would not judge, ie, would not pronounce anything–at least in the area of sexuality–as morally wrong. Why? Because everyone–including those loyal to Jesus–are fallen and sin themselves, and by this they relinquish their footing on which to stand and make moral judgments.

Never mind that in the passage, Jesus tells the woman caught in adultery to “leave (her) life of sin,” and never mind that plenty of times elsewhere in the Bible He makes plenty of moral judgments as to sexuality (and other areas) and commands His followers to do the same.  Therefore, using this one verse to suggest Jesus recommended an attitude of non-judgmentalism (defined as, “you should not say anything in X area is wrong”) towards sex or any other area is quite off.

Jesus actually does say plenty about hypocritical judgment, and judgment that is done with an intent of hatred/lack of compassion towards human persons.  He had strong words about that kind of judgment, but that is a far cry from the suggestion implicitly made in this comic.

Let me put it this way: if I were to slam homosexuals on Facebook with my pet Bible verses, but then I left my computer and went cruising, and I found nothing wrong with my crusing, that would be hypocritical and the kind of contradiction Jesus condemmed.  Likewise if I were to speak against homosexuality as a way of showing my own superiority, without regard to the well-being of those who identify as gay and/or live a homosexual lifestyle. That, too would be condemned by Jesus.

Well, there’s plenty of that to go around in Christian Republican circles, right (think: Ted Haggard)?  Sure, but its there aplenty on the left too, so I don’t know where this would get you.  Seems to be a critique against human nature, sure, but cannot be used to argue against a political view.

The author’s got one thing right: at least when it comes to me, I’m fallen.  Actually, he probably doesn’t know the half of it: I’m much worse than he probably thinks.  So any moral judgments I make are made in the context of my own falenness, not because I want to parade any supposed moral superiority around.  I am simply convinced by the arguments that the views I embrace are true and thus conducive to human flourishing.

Though it is possible I’m mistaken, I argue based on principle and conviction, not any supposed hatred, and there are plenty of Christian Republicans out there who are in the same boat.

Are there those who claim to be Christian who “hate fags”?  Yes.  Are there even Christians who “hate fags,” or who at least have an improper attitude towards gays and lesbians?  Yes.  Are there those who vote Republican who have that attitude?  Yes.  The author of the comic, therefore, should address those groups.  It is completely out of bounds to paint all Christian Republicans (keep in mind the target of the comic, as referred to in the title: the Jesus of the Republicans) with that brush.

This is a problem in addition to the problem earlier mentioned, namely, that the author is just making a plain silly suggestion: that no one should judge at all (at least in the named area) because we’re all fallen.  Such a position is unsustainable.  Afterall, the author himself is fallen, yet has no problem making moral judgments (namely, that guys like me are wrong).  I guess when I, as a Christian Republican, make judgments, I’m intolerant, but when he makes moral judgments, he’s just right?

What’s more, if an action harms people and is not conducive to human well-being, then to pretend its not isn’t tolerant: it’s cowardice.

Perhaps the author could respond by pointing to things that are more commonly held by Republicans.  “You guys are for traditional marriage,” he could say, “you think the only valid marriages are those between one man and one woman.  You are discriminating against gays!  Most of you Christians also think homosexual behavior is wrong.  See!?  You do hate fags!”

This brings up arguments for and against same-sex marriage, and the reasons why many Christians and conservatives hold homosexual behavior–as well as all other sexual behavior outside conjugal marriage (and some inside it!)–to be immoral.  Some reasons are biblically based, some not.  I can’t get into all that here, so I’ll simply refer you to links here and here for those interested.  I do want to venture a few comments that are directly relevant though.  First, notice that the response equates a moral point of view with hatred.  In other words, if you don’t accept homosexuality as a completely legitimate form of sexual expression, you are a homophobe and you hate gays.

Such an assertion is common enough, but think about it for a minute: just because I’m against a certain lifestyle, or hold something to be wrong, etc etc, does that mean I hate those who do it?  Obviously no.  I’m glad my parents didn’t take that attitude in raising me, for one.  They understood that growing up, certain things I did were wrong, harmful to me and others, or both, and they staunchly stood against such things because they loved me, not because they hated me.

Of course, the author could respond by saying that the difference here is that being glbtqia_ _ _ _ is part of “who one is,” ie, biological, or at least part of one’s makeup akin to skin color.  To question the behavior is then to question one’s very being.

This is very controversial and needs to be argued for, not asserted.  I don’t know how the author would proceed himself, but it’s typically asserted based upon feelings or some notion of “s/he just knew.”  If studies are mentioned, usually they are mentioned without regard to a full scope of the literature on the topic, and those who mention the studies take huge liberties with what the studies actually show and prove.

Sexuality is simply more complicated than that, and more to the point, one’s desires are not his destiny, and is does not mean ought.  One thing that separates us from the animals is that we have the capacity to take stock of our inclinations and say no to them, especially when such inclinations are harmful or wrong in themselves….just ask anyone (like me) who has been a part of a 12 step group at one time or another in their lives.  Doesn’t make it easy, but it’s doable.

So, bottom line: I simply don’t buy the assertion that moral objection to a certain lifestyle means we “hate.”  It’s especially laughable to suggest our moral objections mean we use the derogatory slurs referred to in the comic.

The rest of the comic is just as–if not more–confusing.   Are drug and alcohol consumption justified by mere reference to Matthew 15:11?  What can we conclude about Jesus’ attitude towards them from that verse?  I have no idea.

Here’s the worst of it: the author insinuates that Jesus never spoke of abortion.  Correct.  What should we conclude from that?  What follows?  Certainly not that Jesus had nothing agaisnt abortion, certainly not that Jesus thought it was no big deal, certainly not that its ok in and of itself.  That is a clear non-sequitur.  Need I point out that Jesus also never spoke of incest, sex slavery, or rape?

Next row: what should we conclude about war from the mentioned verse?  What was its context?  What was the situation in which Jesus said it, and what issue was He addressing?  What’s more, how does it fit in with other verses in the gospels and the Bible as a whole that pertains to war and the role of government?  Should we be out and out pacifists?

It doesn’t get any better.  What can we conclude from the verse offered about the separation of church and state?  That phrase is a very loaded one anyway with all sorts of ideology that doesn’t come from the consitution, and who knows what it means, but really: I see how the verse applies to giving taxes per se, and to other things that rightly belong to the government in the first place, but therein lies the rub.   Jesus doesn’t really say in that verse what, exactly, belongs to the government.  The verse has nothing to say about limited vs. big government, what amount of taxation will lead to economic flourishing, or about the role of religious motivations in forming public policy.  It doesn’t even say anything about the role of religious arguments (as opposed to motivations…the two are different) in the public square.

The last row is somewhat intelligible.  I see how it is a critique against some televangelists’ practice of using patron donations to make themselves rich.  What makes it confusing is putting it in the context of an attack against Christian Republicans–in other words, making a political point.  Maybe he intends it as an attack against many Republicans’ friendliness towards capitalism, or the notion that we’re fans of the free market, or even as an attack against policies of de-regulation in the free market.  I have no idea.  If so, it’s a strange juxtaposition, and the verse used falls prey to the same critique all the others do.

In sum, 1) if the author wants to attack the attitude of certain groups or individuals who call themselves Christian Republicans, fine, but he should address those particular groups or individuals, not the whole lot of us.  2) If the author wants to attack certain public policies or views held by Christian Republicans, fine, but use actual arguments, not half-hearted eisegesis.  3) If the author wants to argue that the views held by many Christian Republicans are out of step with what Jesus thought and/or what the Bible teaches, fine, but do so with passages that actually pertain to the issues and with arguments that make sense, rather than utilizing random verses and coupling them with insinuations that only confuse rather than clarify.

→ 4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Richard Dawkins Exposed

Posted on October 26, 2011 | 5 Comments

So Richard Dawkins has spoken, explaining his refusal to debate Christian philosopher William Lane Craig.

Forgive me if I’m not impressed with his explanation. Given that the debate is supposed to take place tomorrow, and that the event organizers will have an empty chair at the event (in his absence, Craig will deliver a critique of his God Delusion book), seems like an appropriate way to warm up to it.  It’s not like I’ll be able to add anything to the already lengthy conversation–minds much smarter than mine have already said it all–but I can’t resist, so here goes.  I’ll just proceed in point-counter-point style.

Dawkins begins with a bang:

Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”. For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: “That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine”.

This is quite a rhetorical backhand. Dawkins has his nose turned way, way up at Craig in this comment. It is typical of him. A close examination of the facts shows it to be flatly false, however.

All fine and good. I simply see no reason to buy that, though. I need an argument, a good one, not just a series of rhetorical jabs and loaded words—which is what he usually offers for this view.

First, before I get to the facts, though, let me address the “theologian” comment. In normal parlance, calling someone a theologian is not an insult, for theology is a body of knowledge and is a discipline of study every bit as legitimate as other academic disciplines. However, when guys like Dawkins says it, it is an insult. To him and his ilk, theology is utterly silly and is such junk that it cannot even come close to being a discipline of study.  In addition, if asking some philosophy professors if they’ve ever heard of WLC before is all he did to investigate who Craig is, he is being seriously negligent in his homework.

On to the main claim: is Craig a small-fry? A look at his credentials weighs in decisively against this. He would have a point if Craig were actually, say, The Pugnacious Irishman. He does not have an obligation to accept any and every challenge that comes his way. If I were to challenge him to a dual to be held at the Kiwanis Club of Cole County, Mo, a refusal would be reasonable. I really am a small-fry.

But in Craig’s case, it is not as if he just runs a puny blog or has just published a few creationist tracts and pamphlets by Tilamook County First Baptist Press. He has not only debated the best contemporary atheism has to offer over the last few decades, but he has published frequently in scholarly publications in a wide variety of topics. He has not only established himself in philosophy, but has shown himself conversant in science, cosmology, and history as well. In other words, he’s the real deal.

Consider just a small sampling of his publications:

  • “On Truth Conditions of Tensed Sentence Types.” Synthese 120 (2000): 265-270.
  • “The Extent of the Present.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 14 (2000): 165-185.
  • “Why Is It Now?” Ratio 18 (2000): 115-122.
  • “Timelessness, Creation, and God’s Real Relation to the World.” Laval théologique et philosphique 56 (2000): 93-112.
  • “Timelessness and Omnitemporality.” Philosophia Christi 2 (2000): 29-33.
  • “Omniscience, Tensed Facts, and Divine Eternity.” Faith and Philosophy 17 (2000): 225-241.
  • “ Relativity and the ‘Elimination’ of Absolute Time.” In Recent Advances in Relativity Theory. 2 Vols. Vol.1: Formal Interpretations, pp. 47-66. Ed. M. C. Duffy and Mogens Wegener. Palm Harbor, Flor.: Hadronic Press, 2000.
  • “Theistic Critiques of Atheism.” In The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, pp. 69-85. Ed. M. Martin. Cambridge Companions to Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2007.
  • “The Metaphysics of Special Relativity: Three Views.” In Einstein, Relativity, and Absolute Simultaneity, pp. 11-49. Ed. Wm. L. Craig and Quentin Smith. Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy. London: Routledge, 2007.
  • “Creation and Divine Action.” In The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Religion, pp. 318-28. Ed. Chad Meister and Paul Copan. London: Routledge, 2007.
  • “Naturalism and Intelligent Design.” In Intelligent Design, pp. 58-71. Ed. R. Stewart. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2007.
  • “The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality.” In Ethics, Society, and Religion . Ed. K. Clark, Z. Qingxiong, and X. Yie. Christian Academics 5. Shanghai: Guji Press, 2007.

This is all just a partial list from two years of a publications list that spans over 35 years.  It is all a matter of fact. It is all right there in his credentials.

In sum, Dawkins and co. saying it doesn’t make it so…adding sarcasm and such doesn’t help.

Heck, it’s not like I’m worshipping Craig; a debate with any top Christian scholar will do. Alvin Plantinga; J.P Moreland; Stephen Meyer; Darrell Bock; Paul Copan; Paul Moser. The list goes on and on. All these guys and more are widely recognized scholarly authorities in fields in which Dawkins has often commented, and I’m willing to be they’d be willing to have an exchange or two with him.

Dawkins’ fans have been quick to insist that “rigorous Christian scholar” is an oxymoron. That is a load of Tosh. Such a claim only shows that those who say it have shut themselves in a skeptic ghetto and have not substantively engaged with their opposition. Disagree with them if you must, but calling them “country bumpkins” does not inspire confidence on your behalf.

All this makes Dawkins’ words quite strange, for he has gone after much lesser opponents.

In an epitome of bullying presumption, Craig now proposes to place an empty chair on a stage in Oxford next week to symbolise my absence. The idea of cashing in on another’s name by conniving to share a stage with him is hardly new. But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn’t only Oxford that won’t see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

Normally I would think such an action to be presumptuous, but in this case, given the circumstances, I think it entirely called for. Recall that Dawkins has been eager to engage much lesser opponents. In addition, keep in mind that Dawkins has not merely rested content with academic study, experimenting in his lab and publishing the results in academia. He has gone public, often, brashly so, practically shouting from the rooftops that God “almost certainly” does not exist, and if He did, at least the biblical God would be guilty of crimes against humanity. He has made a career of doing so.

I have no problem with Dawkins proclaiming so. He–and his skeptic friends–have every right to do so and every right to insist that guys like me are actually, objectively wrong. However, the confidence (dare I say cockiness?) with which he does so should be in direct proportion to his willingness to engage the best the opposition has to offer. This is the main reason why I’m making such a big deal of this refusal. A guy who says the sorts of things he says and is as influential as he is deserves a bit of a ribbing if he refuses to do this. Though he has willingly shared a platform with religious folk, he cannot seriously lay claim to the supposition that he has done so with the best. Like I said above, he has plenty to choose from, though Craig is a game choice right in front of him.

I therefore find his list of other places he won’t be quite off, for there is a big difference between the event in Oxford and those other places. At Oxford tomorrow, he has a chance to put all the talk and questions to rest. He has a chance to put his best against the best of his critics, and to do so in front of an international audience. I doubt those other invitations—if they actually represent real invitations—offer that sort of shot.

It’s as if I, as a high school wrestling coach, make a consistent practice of trash talking our cross-town rivals, and when the opposing coach offers me the chance to put my money where my mouth is by dualing his team on a certain day, I reply with, “Bah. Self-promotion! I decline, just like I decline to wrestle Bathgate Elementary school, Newhart Middle School, and Arborland Montessori.”

But Craig is not just a figure of fun. He has a dark side, and that is putting it kindly. Most churchmen these days wisely disown the horrific genocides ordered by the God of the Old Testament.

What follows this is a lengthy tirade against Craig’s defense of God’s actions regarding the Canaanites, concluding with, “Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn’t, and I won’t. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.”

A few observations here. First, when he says “most churchmen” disavow the part of the Bible in question, he exaggerates. There are plenty of “churchmen” and plenty of “scholars” who do no such disavowing. But that’s neither here nor there. The main point is that Dawkins’ response is simply an argument by outrage, which is not very rigorous, and the only ones who find it persuasive are ones who already agree with Dawkins, or those who are easily cowed by people who act offended.

What’s more, if Craig really is an “apologist for genocide,” here’s Dawkins’ chance to put him out to pasture. If he were to debate Craig, that does not amount to an endorsement of Craig’s beliefs, afterall. If Craig really is a fiend, he’s an influential one, and Dawkins has stated many a time that it is his life’s goal to wipe this sort of belief from the earth. This is as good a chance as it gets.  Dawkins would be defending the thesis of one of his best selling books.  Seems like a great opportunity for him.  Why so gun shy?

Thirdly, Dawkins can’t be serious. Afterall, elsewhere he has said:

The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

(“God’s Utility Function,” Scientific American, November, 1995, p. 85)

(HT: Wintery Knight)

Out of one side of his mouth, he denies the reality of evil and wickedness, but out of the other side of his mouth, he calls Craig’s beliefs wicked. He cannot have it both ways. He is either flatly contradicting his own worldview, borrowing capital when it is convenient, or he is merely expressing a personal dislike with Craig’s beliefs, as if saying “ewwww, broccoli.” In any case, he is not inspiring confidence.

What else can be said about all this? Dawkins and co. are quick to insinuate that Craig seems impressive simply because of his command of rhetoric. Craig “bamboozles his faith-head audience,” is how he puts it.

This is just beyond silly. If you ever watch him debate, you’ll see that Craig’s “debate style” is to stick to logical arguments, with premises backed up by historical and scientific evidence, and said premises lead deductively or inductively to a conclusion. He presses his opponents to either refute or rebut with premises more plausible than the ones he offered. He stays focused on the issue and does not rest content with rhetorical jabs and evasions from his opponents. Again, disagree with the arguments if you must, but don’t call this “bamboozling.”

Many who are outside the faithful (of Dawkins’ camp) are recognizing this for what it is. Richard Dawkins is being exposed.

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , ,

You Hope They Serve Beer in Hell?

Posted on October 10, 2011 | 1 Comment

I asked the students to raise up their free reading books.  I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell the title said.  By some guy named Tucker Max.  Hmmm, interesting, I thought.  Curious metaphor.  If the author does believe in hell, I said, he is tragically misinformed about it.  He probably doesn’t.

Over the past few years I’ve encountered the book frequently because many of my students were reading the book for free reading time.   Every student has told me that it’s a good read, so I left it at that, content, ignorantly so, in the knowledge that they were at least enjoying reading.  I had no clue what was actually in the book, nor did I know who Tucker Max is.

After recently reading The New Dating Game, an article by Charlotte Allen about the hookup culture, and doing a little snooping around,  I am no longer confident in my ignorance.

Turns out, the book is basically about Tucker Max and his, umm, “adventures,” mostly involving the opposite sex and certain bedtime activities.

So given the content of I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, I was right: Tucker Max doesn’t believe in hell…well, he is still misinformed about hell, though in a different way.  But I digress.

I’ve seen the book around enough that I decided to address it in class.  Time to pick that fight.  Yes, risky. But I’m like that.  Still, I approached this cautiously, by asking some questions after I saw a student reading the book in class:

  • What ideas are advocated in the book, about the good life, happiness, “liberation,” etc?  For those that had trouble with this, I simplified it: fill in the blank–according to Tucker Max, the good life/happiness means _____________.  According to Tucker Max, “liberation/freedom” for a woman means _______________.
  • Are these ideas true and worthy of embracing?
  • For those that saw no point in the discussion:  why is thinking about a book in this way important?  If you don’t pause to think about what you imbibe for entertainment purposes, who is really controlling the puppet strings?
  • Who, really, does this hurt?

“Why go there?” you ask.  Simple: first, its not like I came looking for any of this.  Students brought the book into my class, and lit brought into my class needs to be addressed.  I could just censor the book with no explanation, but the “nothing to see here” line without explanation probably wouldn’t help.

Secondly, the hookup culture is alarmingly common currently.  Peruse the nightlife in any college town or any urban area for that matter, and you’ll find scores of twenty, thirty, and even forty somethings of both genders prowling for a hookup.  There’s even a new genre of literature that frequently pops up on best seller lists: Pick-up-Artist lit.  The male equivalent of chick lit, it actually has a practical application: its goal is to coach men on how to get any chick into bed.  There was even a reality show on VH1 that ran for a few years based off this lit, called, somewhat obviously, “The Pickup Artist.”

It gets better.  I recently read of an incident at Yale where a frat surrounded a sorrority and shouted, “no means yes! Yes means anal!”

I simply ask, “Should our culture be concerned about this?”  Yes, of course.

“But reading a trashy book by Tucker Max and laughing at his adventures is one thing, but boys shouting their mysogyny at the top of their lungs is another.  The two have nothing to do with each other.” you say.

False.  The two are intimately connected by a culture at large that winks at and even encourages the type of behavior in both scenarios.  For one, winking at the Tucker Maxes of the world as having “innocent fun” makes possible the sinister chant of the Yale frat boy.  For another, recall the quote: “Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny.”  How do you sow your thoughts?  Easy: what you imbibe for entertainment.

Thirdly, why should we be shocked at the Yale boys?  It is exactly the destiny that we as a culture have wrought. With a thousand “small” things like the Tucker Max book, we pave the way.  “We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst…We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”  We are a hyper-sexualized culture, and this comes through in countless ways.

Events like the “Yale boys incident” are the culmination of a culture that adopts an attitude about sex that says its merely a bodily function to be enjoyed, no commitment necessary.  Its the culmination of a culture that adopts a ”boys will be boys” attitude regarding hookups and taking advantage of inebriated girls, who are often all too willing themselves.  It is the culmination of a culture that teaches its girls that true “sexual liberation” means giving into one’s worst instincts, and “equality” means the “freedom” to act like a manboy at his absolute lowest.  It is the culmination of a culture that insists right and wrong are merely relative personal choices, and one man’s personal choice to do what he thinks is cool is just as good as the next person’s choice.  It’s the culmination of a culture that thinks the young cannot resist their urges, so we might as well teach them how to be “responsible” with those urges (once the first lesson is taught, the second is a forgotten afterthought, however. Anyone ever try on the novel thought that we should actually expect the young to keep it in their pants until marriage?), and its the culmination of a culture that says that there is no objective purpose to life and there is no greater cause than the self.

Is it any wonder that adolescents flock to sex to escape their boredom?  This is simply the modernist-sexual-revolution rooster coming home to roost.  Forgive the pun.

Some might dismiss this, saying that every generation is wild, and this is merely the old generation putting down the new.  They are only partly right. Every young generation has its daliances, but one big difference here is the degree…this seems to be “youth gone wild” on steroids.

Spending your teens sneaking out at night going steady with your heart throb, or going out on the town swing dancing and having a few drinks underage is one thing….spending not only your teens, but your twenties and thirties having a split personality where you are a professional during the day, but a raging drunk at night who opens her legs for the hottest looking anonymous alpha male or a male who prowls around looking for one of these gals is a horse of a dif’rent color.  Sure, I guess there were some like this back then–we’ve all heard the Fitzgerald-like stories–but the numbers now are of much greater proportion.

You might also balk at me including women in my assessment of blame, but there’s plenty of blame to go around, and some honest soul searching is in order for both genders.

For society at large, for winking at the Tucker Maxes of the world and believing that this is merely a temporary stage with few long-term hangovers.

For the men (dare I call them men?) who have foolishly equated manhood with being a pick up artist.  For the dads who’ve left their sons vulnerable to such a lie because they have either been absent or have passively let the culture teach the boys what manhood is.  For the male friends that laugh at their buddy’s stories of adventures, as if treating a woman like she’s a condom to be discarded when done with is even remotely ok (“what if that was your daughter?” is a question I always feel like asking, and often do.)

For the women who’ve bought into the rather warped view of liberation of Radical Feminism that I mentioned above…yep, for some academics, today’s “liberated woman” is what they’ve been shooting for.  This is simply what you get when you try to remove the stigma of being promiscuous.  If you doubt that’s the message of many on the college campus, just check out Yale’s “Sex Week.”  There’s many a college sponsoring similar activities.  Read something by Naomi Wolf.  She’s got lots of little gems for you.

While there may be a student group or two in the mix advocating for chastity, the overwhelming message is clear, and the aforementioned student group is usually seen as kind of an oddity.  Definitely not a group worthy of praise.

An aside: it’s ironic, you know.  You’d think that they’d advocate for equality by telling men to knock it off, instead of telling women to “go ahead.”  Perhaps that’s just me.

There are plenty of “health centers” on college campuses designed to help students avoid things like STD’s when it comes to their sexual choices, whatever those choices are.  But where are the centers on campuses designed to help the many who want to live chastely, but who feel pressured by a hypersexualized culture to give in?

Back on topic, here. To a society that insists this is a harmless temporary stage: what, I’m supposed to believe that you can spend your 20′s and part of your 30′s sleeping around, then suddenly flip a switch when you’re 35 and become an honorable husband/wife and father/mother?  Such a thought is the height of stupidity.

Purposely delaying marriage to later in life is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.  I can understand when people say that most in their 20′s simply aren’t mature enough, but the common solution to that–”have fun now.  Marriage is a drag.  You can get married later” strikes me as an odd way to bring someone to greater maturity.  Protracted adolescence protracts the problem.

“Consent” is as far as this society is willing to go when it comes to moral instruction.  That is a tragically low bar.

To a culture that has nothing to offer the young in terms of objective meaning, purpose, and a solid metaphysical ground in which to put down roots: this is really the bottom line.  When the self is number one, the empty self is what results.

To the pickup artists: you’re a tool.  When you die, your only legacy will be a list of women you’ve slept with, and a list of boys who you have taught to do the same.  Perhaps a VH1 show.  That’s it.  What an utter worthless and banal life.

Even if the fun lasts past the morning, you have gained an orgasm, but lost the source of your strength.  You have traded a life well lived for a subjective feeling that’s here today, gone tomorrow.  You have no ability to self restrain, and you are sowing habits that erode your ability to sacrifice for a greater good.  Plus, when your own daughter or sister falls for one of these predators, just remember: you had it coming.  You reap what you sow.

To the passive, feminized dads and the absent fathers (whether in body and/or mind/emotion): you matter.  You can put a stop to this.  Don’t leave it up to your wife.  She is willing and able, but shouldn’t have to do it without you.  You must bear the majority of the burden and duty to lead your son into manhood and give your daughter the male attention she craves.  If you don’t know what a man is, learn.  It is never too late to grab an older male mentor who has character you respect, sit at his feet and learn.  Engage your family.  Sit them down at the dinner table every night, eat a meal with them, and talk to them.  Monday Night Football can wait.  If you remain passive, they won’t get it from mom…they will get it from Lil’ Wayne, guys like Tucker Max, or the first predatory alpha male to take them under their wings.  The ball is in your hands; you must run to the goal line.

To the ladies: I guess saying “falling for” isn’t the right word, as if it was akin to “tripping,” because many of the women who engage in the hookup scene actively throw themselves at these guys.  Check out the following summary of a girl who recently slept with Tucker Max (she posted the story online):

Next to her story she posted a photograph of her with Max that she had a friend take at the bar. The photo shows a rosy-cheeked strawberry blonde who, although no Scarlett Johansson, is no Ugly Betty either (her C-cup bustline, much in evidence both underneath and spilling over her strapless top, doesn’t hurt). She is also grinning from ear to ear, her smile as wide as a cantaloupe slice. Max, mugging for the camera, has his arm draped proprietarily, if not exactly affectionately, around her shoulder as she leans into his chest. No disapproving peers, either. When Courtney left her apartment to meet Max at the bar, her roommates called after her, “Make sure to bring him back.” She and Max rode off to the inn “with everyone at the bar waving and giving the thumbs up.”

Remember: you teach people how to treat you, and you teach the culture how to treat your future daughters.  Admittedly, most who get caught up in the hookup culture don’t actively start out that way, but they do end up there by a thousand small steps.  Sow a thought, reap a habit…by now you know the rest.  My daughter and your future daughter will have to live in the world you help to create.  Therefore mind your thoughts and actions.

And lest I leave anyone out, to me: I remember some years ago being so desperate that I actually flirted with buying the e-book of one of these pick up artist fools. How stupid!  Those guys’ confidence was paper-thin.  Why did I even think of going for that?

And: this is a sober warning to me to love my own daughter by spending time with her.  That is how kids spell “love.”  T-I-M-E.  That is, afterall, how I reacted to the “New Dating Game” article above: I put the article down, and played with my daughter.  It all reminded me of the Chris Rock line: “fellas, if your daughter grows up to be a stripper….you failed.”

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged , , , , ,

Taking Religion Seriously

Posted on October 3, 2011 | 1 Comment

Do you ever get the sense that talking religion is something that’s not done in polite company?  It is easy to talk about religion at a distance, perhaps as a sociologist would, but talking about religious convictions–especially one’s own–is kinda a faux paux.  We don’t take religion seriously around here, so it is uncouth to bring it to the public square as if it was a serious matter.  Keep it where all hobbies belong–in your own closet.

At least that’s the feeling I get. It often turns out differently when I actually do have conversations about religion–most people I’ve talked with are quite willing and don’t find it offensive–its just a subjective sense I get and, judging by how other people, especially Christians, talk, I sense I’m not alone in feeling this…sense.

Sorry for all the vague speak so far.  All I’m suggesting is that many people feel somewhat uneasy when it comes to discussing religious claims on one’s life.  Why?

Well, there’s that whole “claims on one’s life” bit.  People don’t want to have their autonomy breached, and they recognize that the claims of many a religion do just that.

That’s true enough, and deserves to be confronted, but the reason I want to challenge today is that most believe there’s really nothing to say about religious convictions besides, “well, good for you.”  That is, we’ve gotten the notion in this culture that once someone has finished talking about their convictions, they can’t be evaluated.  All we have to do is nod, mumble something about it not being “my cup of tea,” and move on.  That’s all that can be said about a subjective choice from the smorgasboard, and that’s how we see religion–as an endless buffet of equally good, subjective, choices.

I want to challenge that.

Consider this: religions make claims that can be verified or falsified.

Are all religious convictions like that?  No.  Do all adherents of religion think of their beliefs like that?  Again, no.  Talk to many who sit in the pews on Sunday, and they’ll describe Christianity as the smorgasboard above, or at least they’ll describe it as something that cannot be evaluated by logic and reason.  More of a feeling than anything else.

Notice how many times people categorically assert, without hesitation, without thinking about it, that it is all about “faith,” and you can’t “prove” it?  Ask them what they mean by “faith” and “proof,” and they really struggle to put something sensible together….well, there you go.

However, the core claims of many religions can be evaluated by logic and reason, and science also has something to say about them.  This is why they should be taken seriously.

Take, for instance, the lynchpin of Christianity: the resurrection.  The Bible claims that at a time in our actual history in this world, a real man named Jesus a) claimed to be God, b) predicted His death, c) predicted that He would defeat death by rising from the grave three days after his execution, and d) He actually, truly pulled it off.

That is, the Bible claims that the empty tomb is a figment of history, not imagination.

This puts it in the realm of verifiability.  Not in the same sense as a claim from a biologist can be verified, granted, but verified nonetheless in that evidence and reason has something to say in evaluation.  It is possible to offer reasons for its truth, and vice versa.  This means that it, along with any other claims logically connected to it, are real players in the game that deserve to be taken seriously in the public square.

Other claims from other religions and worldviews are no different.  Mormonism and most forms of Hinduism, for example, are committed to an eternally existing universe (in the sense that matter is eternal for Mormons), and thus you betcha–science has plenty to say about that.

Islam is committed to the notion that Jesus of Nazareth did not die on the cross, and history has plenty to say to that.

I could go on. The point: much can be offered in terms of evaluating religions for truth and falsehood, since they make claims about reality.  Arguments from philosophy can be offered pro and con, complete with premises defended from various other fields of knowledge–like science and history–that deductively lead to rational conclusions.  We don’t have to stop at “well, I’m glad you are happy (pat on the head).”  In fact, we shouldn’t even go there.  Treating religion like that is a radical category mistake.  Since religions make claims on reality, they should be treated like anything else in the public square.

They are not second-class belief systems.  They get a spot at the table.

→ 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 , , , ,