We all remember the story. A 19-year old girl, a supply clerk for the U.S. Army was captured by the Iraqi forces and later rescued by a team of U.S. special forces. Jessica Lynch, however, was no ordinary POW, so the media told us. She was a female Rambo who didn't go down without a fight. Shortly before Jessica returned home, she was a national icon.
There was one little problem with the female Rambo part-it was purely fiction. Jessica Lynch did not fire at the people who attacked her Humvee. Her gun was jammed, she was knocked unconscious, and the next thing you know she woke up in an Iraqi hospital.
While the media hyped her as a female warrior, the real hero was Jessica's conscience. Jessica could have very easily went along with the hype while the country was hailing her as G.I. Jane, but she did not. Jessica chose reality over fantasy.
Yesterday Jessica appeared before Congress to set the record straight.
It's time for a reality check.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
A strange similarity
Flashback: I'm watching a video in church. In the video there is a man who is in prison for the sole crime of being a Christian. The man tells his son how in the recent past his dad could even pray in school, but then "they" took that away from him. Then it became politically incorrect to talk about Jesus. The next thing you know the man is about to be executed. In an emotionally gripping moment, the man tells his son to pray like he taught him to, to take care of his mother, and to remember that God is the Father to the fatherless. In the end the man joins the cloud of witnesses in heaven as one in a long line of martyrs for the Christian faith. For an impressionable young Christian raised in red-state America, the message was loud and clear. This is what will happen if liberals (aka..democrats and secular humanists) are allowed to take over.
Flash forward: I'm on an airplane flying to a country where Christians actually have been persecuted in the recent past and I watch a movie called V for Vendetta. In the film, Britian has been taken over by a dictator who came to power on the promise to restore Britain to its former glory by bringing God back into the government. The man proceeds to wage war against gays and Muslims and creates a Big Brother society along similar lines of Hitler's Nazi Germany. The message of the film was loud and clear. This is what will happen if fundamentalist Christians are allowed to take over.
Does anyone else but me find these similarities strange? What are the lessons we can learn from the two opposing viewpoints?
Flash forward: I'm on an airplane flying to a country where Christians actually have been persecuted in the recent past and I watch a movie called V for Vendetta. In the film, Britian has been taken over by a dictator who came to power on the promise to restore Britain to its former glory by bringing God back into the government. The man proceeds to wage war against gays and Muslims and creates a Big Brother society along similar lines of Hitler's Nazi Germany. The message of the film was loud and clear. This is what will happen if fundamentalist Christians are allowed to take over.
Does anyone else but me find these similarities strange? What are the lessons we can learn from the two opposing viewpoints?
Friday, April 20, 2007
Wedding dresses needed
I thought this was interesting.
TURKEY - WEDDING DRESSES NEEDED
from: Turkish World Outreach (http://www.two-fot.org) email
- April 12, 2007
Ladies, do you have a wedding dress you would be willing to part
with for the cause of Christ? If so, please consider sending
it to Turkish World Outreach!
Turkish World Outreach
508 Fruitvale Court
Grand Junction, CO 81504 USA
This Christian organization is collecting wedding dresses to
provide destitute believers in Turkey with a means of employment.
Many have been fired from their jobs because they have chosen
to leave Islam to follow Jesus. Wedding dresses from western
nations are greatly admired in Turkey, and Turkish believers
will be able earn a living by renting such dresses.
TURKEY - WEDDING DRESSES NEEDED
from: Turkish World Outreach (http://www.two-fot.org) email
- April 12, 2007
Ladies, do you have a wedding dress you would be willing to part
with for the cause of Christ? If so, please consider sending
it to Turkish World Outreach!
Turkish World Outreach
508 Fruitvale Court
Grand Junction, CO 81504 USA
This Christian organization is collecting wedding dresses to
provide destitute believers in Turkey with a means of employment.
Many have been fired from their jobs because they have chosen
to leave Islam to follow Jesus. Wedding dresses from western
nations are greatly admired in Turkey, and Turkish believers
will be able earn a living by renting such dresses.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Maybe I'm not so crazy
For the past year I've been blogging about some very challenging concepts. Some of my ideas (especially the idea that separation of church and state is a Christian idea)have made me feel like a spiritual maverick within the American Christian church. For a while, I was wondering if there was anyone out there who really understood the way I see things.
Now that I am almost finished with Philip Yancey's book What's So Amazing About Grace?, I am delighted, and perhaps a little disappointed, to know that I may not be as crazy as I thought after all. Now that I have found a book that basically explains what I have been trying to say all along, I am wondering, what can I blog about now?
St. Louis Rams anyone?
Now that I am almost finished with Philip Yancey's book What's So Amazing About Grace?, I am delighted, and perhaps a little disappointed, to know that I may not be as crazy as I thought after all. Now that I have found a book that basically explains what I have been trying to say all along, I am wondering, what can I blog about now?
St. Louis Rams anyone?
Monday, April 16, 2007
Living with Islamists
Check out this article from Christianity Today called Living with Islamists. Joshua White is an excellent example of incarnational witness for today's Christian leaders seeking to build bridges of friendship with the Muslim world. Having been to Pakistan, I found his description of the Pakistani people and, especially, the plight of the Christians, fascinating. Pay special attention to how Joshua, a Christian missionary, learned to respect the people and the culture of the people he went to reach. Knowing that Peshawar is the most violent and lawless region of Pakistan, even I was a little surprised by his rather generous portrayal of the people.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Slavery, baby killing, and forgiveness
Question:
From what i understand, the bible instructs us to obey the government unless the law of the land contradicts God's law. i really can't say whether or not it was a good idea or God's will for the States to fight back against Britain. i'm glad they did, though.
it may not be what you had in mind, but i don't really have an answer for that question. i agree with what you said regarding what scripture says about government. which brings me to a question that i have been kicking around lately.
was God against the institution of slavery?
the reason I ask this is because there are several examples in the OT where God gives laws on how to treat slaves. and as you mentioned, in the NT, paul actual told the slaves to obey their masters. yes, perhaps the idea of every believer being equal in Christ led to the abolition of slavery, but the interesting thing was it seems that God never condemned the institution.
now we may get hung up here if we have different definitions of slavery. it seems doubtful to me that God would ever approve of the many cruel atrocities that happened because of slavery. but if we're talking about indentured servants (wiki it) and/or slavery in which the slaves were treated decently (in a humane way), i don't remember reading any biblical disapproval of it (OT or NT).
please know that i'm not saying slavery is a good thing or that we should bring it back. like i said, many horrible things happened because of it. but most people probably think of this type of slavery when they hear the word without considering how things were done in Biblical times and what the Bible actually says or doesn't say about it.
Answer: First of all, thank you very much for your question. To answer your question, I am going to try something new. I am going to answer your question with a question and I'll leave it to you, and my readers, to draw your own conclusions to the point I am making.
Let me give you two passages both found in the Bible. The first passage is Psalms 137: 8-9 which says,
The second passage, found in Acts 7:60 is from the lips of Stephen the martyr who prayed these words as stones were crashing against his skull,
My question is this: Both passages are found in the Bible. Which passage is morally superior?
From what i understand, the bible instructs us to obey the government unless the law of the land contradicts God's law. i really can't say whether or not it was a good idea or God's will for the States to fight back against Britain. i'm glad they did, though.
it may not be what you had in mind, but i don't really have an answer for that question. i agree with what you said regarding what scripture says about government. which brings me to a question that i have been kicking around lately.
was God against the institution of slavery?
the reason I ask this is because there are several examples in the OT where God gives laws on how to treat slaves. and as you mentioned, in the NT, paul actual told the slaves to obey their masters. yes, perhaps the idea of every believer being equal in Christ led to the abolition of slavery, but the interesting thing was it seems that God never condemned the institution.
now we may get hung up here if we have different definitions of slavery. it seems doubtful to me that God would ever approve of the many cruel atrocities that happened because of slavery. but if we're talking about indentured servants (wiki it) and/or slavery in which the slaves were treated decently (in a humane way), i don't remember reading any biblical disapproval of it (OT or NT).
please know that i'm not saying slavery is a good thing or that we should bring it back. like i said, many horrible things happened because of it. but most people probably think of this type of slavery when they hear the word without considering how things were done in Biblical times and what the Bible actually says or doesn't say about it.
Answer: First of all, thank you very much for your question. To answer your question, I am going to try something new. I am going to answer your question with a question and I'll leave it to you, and my readers, to draw your own conclusions to the point I am making.
Let me give you two passages both found in the Bible. The first passage is Psalms 137: 8-9 which says,
"O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed. Happy the one who repays you as you have served us! Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock!"
The second passage, found in Acts 7:60 is from the lips of Stephen the martyr who prayed these words as stones were crashing against his skull,
"Lord, do not charge them with this sin."
My question is this: Both passages are found in the Bible. Which passage is morally superior?
Thursday, April 12, 2007
The day I got "Left Behind."
The year was 1988. I was 11 years old and my younger brother, Paul was 7 years old. Our family was visiting my aunt who lived in what we called at the time the "boondocks" of Missouri. I'm not sure if the word is still around today, but back then it meant "in the middle of nowhere" and, with the nearest neighbor being a mile away, that is exactly what it felt like the day my brother and I were walking and talking in a nearby field. As my brother and I were talking and minding our business, something out of the ordinary happened that we still haven't been able to explain to this day. From seemingly out of nowhere, we heard a piercing trumpet blast .
For most young children, this would be an insignificant incident, but not for us. It just so happened that the day we heard the trumpet blast was the exact day the Rapture of the Church was predicted to happen by the author of the book "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will Happen in 88."
For those unfamiliar with the Left Behind series, the Rapture is the event that millions of evangelical Christians who follow the dispensational interpretation of Scripture believe can happen at any time without a moment's notice. In the Rapture, Jesus snatches Christians away from the earth to take them to heaven while leaving the rest of the world to suffer the horrors of the Seven Year tribulation.
As children of the charismatic movement, we knew full well the verse in the Bible that says, "In the twinkling of an eye, the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible," (I Cornithians 15: 52). The day we heard the trumpet blast, my brother and I fully expected that after we blinked our eyes, we would be in heaven. After blinking hard a few times, we both looked at each other with the same horriffied expression on our faces. "Oh no! We've been left behind!" we thought. Immediately we ran inside my aunt's house and discovered that our parents and our cousins and aunts and uncles were still standing. For the rest of the day we were thinking to ourselves that not only had we been left behind, but our entire family had been left behind as well. As I went to bed that night, I remember racking my brain trying to figure out what my entire family could have done so wrong to suffer such an aweful fate. Neither my brother nor I were fully convinced that the rapture had not taken place until the next day when the family decided to visit a nearby church. To our relief, we were happy to see a church filled with Bible Believing Christians worshipping the Lord together. We figured that all these Christians could not have been left behind, especially not the pastor. As our family worshipped the Lord together that day, I was inwardly thanking God that I wasn't going to have to take the mark of the beast or swim in a river of blood any time soon. The relief quickly turned to disappointment when I realized that I still had to go to school the next day.
As innocent as this story is, I've told it for a reason. An evangelical Christian may read this story and reminesce about the wonders of child-like faith, but a secular American reading this story is likely to have a different reaction. For millions of secular Americans, the Left Behind theology promoted by TBN, the 700 Club, and bestselling prophecy pundits is not only delusional, but dangerous. The thinking goes something like this. If millions of Americans believe this doctrine, and these same Americans are the most powerful voting block in the country, why would people who believe the world is heading for an apocalyptic meltdown care about global warming or protecting the rainforest? To further complicate matters in the minds of secular Americans, the leading advocates of the Rapture theory are also the most vocal advocates for neo-conservative politics, which, in their minds, is the belief that America should back Israel unconditionally, wage pre-emptive wars to establish pro-Western democracies, and give little to no regard to what the U.N. has to say about it.
At least, that's how the "left" sees things. No longer are we evangelicals the persecuted minority. We are the ones holding the cards with our Aposlte -in -chief holding the highest office in the country. As unfounded as many of the theocracy accusations from the far-left are, American evangelicals, especially those raised on Left Behind theology, are facing some tough questions right now, and will face many more in the future. American evangelicals are still the most vocal supporters of the Iraq war, a war that is a quagmire in the eyes of many, and it seems that hardly a day goes by without a TV preacher calling for war with Iran. To make matters worse, these same T.V. preachers also raise millions of dollars to finance Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, giving little to no consideration to fact that the people they are displacing might actually be human beings with families to feed. Never mind the fact that both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have committed atrocities against each other beyond anything we in our fast food, mall shopping, church hopping, American culture can conceive of. Never mind the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and yet, when Israel was blasting the Lebanese to smitherings last year, preachers were calling it a "miracle of God" despite the fact that the war actually strengthened Hizbollah's presence in the region. To top it off, according to the Left Behind theology, if someone comes along with a solution to stop the two sides from slaughtering each other, according to the same interpretatin of Scripture, that person has to be the devil (the antichrist to be exact)!
All of the sudden, a cute little story about a boy thinking he has missed the rapture isn't so cute anymore. If millions of others hold to the same beliefs, it could lead to a a self-fulfilling pre-mature apocalypse....at least that's how the other side sees it. The question I am asking is this: If a Biblically-based belief system has potentially dangerous consequences for humanity, should it be abandoned (in preference to other interpretational approaches to Scripture) or reformed? How about when high profile evangelicals make statements to the media that we wish would have never been said. Do we get angry at the minister for making us look like bufoons, or do we start questioning the theological underpinnings that produced the statement? There are many in my generation choosing the latter. As a non-official representative of evangelicals approaching 30, I would like to ask those older and more mature in the faith to pray for us younger evangelicals. Pray that God will guide us as we look to the Scriptures and formulate new wineskins for the 21st century. Trust me. We're going to need all the prayer we can get.
For most young children, this would be an insignificant incident, but not for us. It just so happened that the day we heard the trumpet blast was the exact day the Rapture of the Church was predicted to happen by the author of the book "88 Reasons Why the Rapture will Happen in 88."
For those unfamiliar with the Left Behind series, the Rapture is the event that millions of evangelical Christians who follow the dispensational interpretation of Scripture believe can happen at any time without a moment's notice. In the Rapture, Jesus snatches Christians away from the earth to take them to heaven while leaving the rest of the world to suffer the horrors of the Seven Year tribulation.
As children of the charismatic movement, we knew full well the verse in the Bible that says, "In the twinkling of an eye, the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible," (I Cornithians 15: 52). The day we heard the trumpet blast, my brother and I fully expected that after we blinked our eyes, we would be in heaven. After blinking hard a few times, we both looked at each other with the same horriffied expression on our faces. "Oh no! We've been left behind!" we thought. Immediately we ran inside my aunt's house and discovered that our parents and our cousins and aunts and uncles were still standing. For the rest of the day we were thinking to ourselves that not only had we been left behind, but our entire family had been left behind as well. As I went to bed that night, I remember racking my brain trying to figure out what my entire family could have done so wrong to suffer such an aweful fate. Neither my brother nor I were fully convinced that the rapture had not taken place until the next day when the family decided to visit a nearby church. To our relief, we were happy to see a church filled with Bible Believing Christians worshipping the Lord together. We figured that all these Christians could not have been left behind, especially not the pastor. As our family worshipped the Lord together that day, I was inwardly thanking God that I wasn't going to have to take the mark of the beast or swim in a river of blood any time soon. The relief quickly turned to disappointment when I realized that I still had to go to school the next day.
As innocent as this story is, I've told it for a reason. An evangelical Christian may read this story and reminesce about the wonders of child-like faith, but a secular American reading this story is likely to have a different reaction. For millions of secular Americans, the Left Behind theology promoted by TBN, the 700 Club, and bestselling prophecy pundits is not only delusional, but dangerous. The thinking goes something like this. If millions of Americans believe this doctrine, and these same Americans are the most powerful voting block in the country, why would people who believe the world is heading for an apocalyptic meltdown care about global warming or protecting the rainforest? To further complicate matters in the minds of secular Americans, the leading advocates of the Rapture theory are also the most vocal advocates for neo-conservative politics, which, in their minds, is the belief that America should back Israel unconditionally, wage pre-emptive wars to establish pro-Western democracies, and give little to no regard to what the U.N. has to say about it.
At least, that's how the "left" sees things. No longer are we evangelicals the persecuted minority. We are the ones holding the cards with our Aposlte -in -chief holding the highest office in the country. As unfounded as many of the theocracy accusations from the far-left are, American evangelicals, especially those raised on Left Behind theology, are facing some tough questions right now, and will face many more in the future. American evangelicals are still the most vocal supporters of the Iraq war, a war that is a quagmire in the eyes of many, and it seems that hardly a day goes by without a TV preacher calling for war with Iran. To make matters worse, these same T.V. preachers also raise millions of dollars to finance Jewish settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, giving little to no consideration to fact that the people they are displacing might actually be human beings with families to feed. Never mind the fact that both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict have committed atrocities against each other beyond anything we in our fast food, mall shopping, church hopping, American culture can conceive of. Never mind the fact that Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and yet, when Israel was blasting the Lebanese to smitherings last year, preachers were calling it a "miracle of God" despite the fact that the war actually strengthened Hizbollah's presence in the region. To top it off, according to the Left Behind theology, if someone comes along with a solution to stop the two sides from slaughtering each other, according to the same interpretatin of Scripture, that person has to be the devil (the antichrist to be exact)!
All of the sudden, a cute little story about a boy thinking he has missed the rapture isn't so cute anymore. If millions of others hold to the same beliefs, it could lead to a a self-fulfilling pre-mature apocalypse....at least that's how the other side sees it. The question I am asking is this: If a Biblically-based belief system has potentially dangerous consequences for humanity, should it be abandoned (in preference to other interpretational approaches to Scripture) or reformed? How about when high profile evangelicals make statements to the media that we wish would have never been said. Do we get angry at the minister for making us look like bufoons, or do we start questioning the theological underpinnings that produced the statement? There are many in my generation choosing the latter. As a non-official representative of evangelicals approaching 30, I would like to ask those older and more mature in the faith to pray for us younger evangelicals. Pray that God will guide us as we look to the Scriptures and formulate new wineskins for the 21st century. Trust me. We're going to need all the prayer we can get.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Random thoughts
Here are a few thoughts I've been working on this week.
1. Those who separate the world into us verse them and see everyone else as void of light and reason are destined to embrace a value system where might becomes right; however, those who underestimate the sinfulness of man are destined to surrender too much power to the hands of too few people.
2. In order to love your enemies, you must first believe in their humanity.
3. The Apostle Paul says to "Speak evil of no one." I wonder how that applies to me in the ministry?
4. Paul did not attack the institution of slavery in his day, but he did teach that all people, whether male or female, Jew or barbarian, slave or free, were potential bearers of the Christ image through faith. It was this idea, which is supposed to be lived out in the life of the church , that eventually led to the abolition of slavery.
5. Isn't corn good?
1. Those who separate the world into us verse them and see everyone else as void of light and reason are destined to embrace a value system where might becomes right; however, those who underestimate the sinfulness of man are destined to surrender too much power to the hands of too few people.
2. In order to love your enemies, you must first believe in their humanity.
3. The Apostle Paul says to "Speak evil of no one." I wonder how that applies to me in the ministry?
4. Paul did not attack the institution of slavery in his day, but he did teach that all people, whether male or female, Jew or barbarian, slave or free, were potential bearers of the Christ image through faith. It was this idea, which is supposed to be lived out in the life of the church , that eventually led to the abolition of slavery.
5. Isn't corn good?
Monday, April 09, 2007
The absent revolutionary
No more Mr. nice blogger. It's time to start asking some tough questions. For most of my life, I have believed that America is a nation founded by Christian men on Christian principles. If you look at our constitution, I would agree that the principles of separation of powers as well as the emphasis on personal freedoms are thoroughly consistent with a Christian worldview (even though many of our founders were, in fact deists at best or secular humanists at worst...but I digress)
I love the 4th of July. For purely sacrilegous reasons, it is probably my favorite holiday because it is simply the most fun. I love the fireworks, the bratwursts, and, most importantly, the pool party at my aunt Ruth's house every year that allows me to catch up with my dad's side of the family. For one day out of the year, I remember the sacrifice of those who fought for the freedom that I now enjoy and I feel very proud to be an American.
Here is my problem. I look for examples in the New Testament of Christians plotting revolutions to overthrow the Roman government, which was far more oppressive than the British government that our forefathers overthrew, and I find absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada. Not even a hint.
Think about it for a moment. Nero was one of the worst dictators in human history. At the Ripley's wax museum in Dallas, he is (or at least was when I was there)put right alongside Hitler as one of the most evil men that ever lived and yet, all we get from Peter is "Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."
If you look to find a revolutionary in Paul, much less Jesus, your search will come up dreadfully short. If you look to Paul for answers to how a Christian should relate to governing authorities, about all you are going to get is instruction to pay taxes, obey the laws of the land, and to pray for your leaders (Romans 13:1-7, I Timothy 2:1-3). In fact, it was Paul that told the Christian slaves of his day to obey their masters, and encouraged other Christians to aspire to lead a quiet life and to mind their own business (Colossians 3:22 and I Thessalonians 4:11). Not exactly Boston Tea Party material! I imagine if I were a patriot in the 18th century looking to overthrow the British government because of illegal search and seizures and taxation without representation, I think Peter and Paul would be the last people I would look to for inspiration.
And yet, in all of this, how many American Christians do you know that question the idea that our forefathers were acting out the will of God when they fought against the British? How many American Christians question the idea that God initiated the Revolutionary War?
Interesting question indeed. The flip side of the issue is that since the New Testament teaches that government is a God-ordained institution, it logically follows that it is not wrong for a Christian to serve as a policeman, congressman, military officer, or as a president of a country.
Hindsight can be a strange creature. I don't know too many people, including me, that would argue that the U.S.A should rejoin the British Commonwealth. Somehow I don't think the British want that either. Having said that, I think the question is still relevant...could it have happened another way or perhaps at another time?
I love the 4th of July. For purely sacrilegous reasons, it is probably my favorite holiday because it is simply the most fun. I love the fireworks, the bratwursts, and, most importantly, the pool party at my aunt Ruth's house every year that allows me to catch up with my dad's side of the family. For one day out of the year, I remember the sacrifice of those who fought for the freedom that I now enjoy and I feel very proud to be an American.
Here is my problem. I look for examples in the New Testament of Christians plotting revolutions to overthrow the Roman government, which was far more oppressive than the British government that our forefathers overthrew, and I find absolutely nothing. Zilch. Nada. Not even a hint.
Think about it for a moment. Nero was one of the worst dictators in human history. At the Ripley's wax museum in Dallas, he is (or at least was when I was there)put right alongside Hitler as one of the most evil men that ever lived and yet, all we get from Peter is "Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."
If you look to find a revolutionary in Paul, much less Jesus, your search will come up dreadfully short. If you look to Paul for answers to how a Christian should relate to governing authorities, about all you are going to get is instruction to pay taxes, obey the laws of the land, and to pray for your leaders (Romans 13:1-7, I Timothy 2:1-3). In fact, it was Paul that told the Christian slaves of his day to obey their masters, and encouraged other Christians to aspire to lead a quiet life and to mind their own business (Colossians 3:22 and I Thessalonians 4:11). Not exactly Boston Tea Party material! I imagine if I were a patriot in the 18th century looking to overthrow the British government because of illegal search and seizures and taxation without representation, I think Peter and Paul would be the last people I would look to for inspiration.
And yet, in all of this, how many American Christians do you know that question the idea that our forefathers were acting out the will of God when they fought against the British? How many American Christians question the idea that God initiated the Revolutionary War?
Interesting question indeed. The flip side of the issue is that since the New Testament teaches that government is a God-ordained institution, it logically follows that it is not wrong for a Christian to serve as a policeman, congressman, military officer, or as a president of a country.
Hindsight can be a strange creature. I don't know too many people, including me, that would argue that the U.S.A should rejoin the British Commonwealth. Somehow I don't think the British want that either. Having said that, I think the question is still relevant...could it have happened another way or perhaps at another time?
Is masturbation a sin?
Question: Is masturbation a sin?
Answer: This is a question that has puzzled Christians for centuries. The short answer is that nowhere in the Bible is masturbation referred to as a sin. In fact, the word is not even in the Bible. Having said that, I feel that excessive masturbation coupled with pornographic fantasies is an addiction that needs to be broken. Here is an excellent article that deals with every Scripture related to this issue.
The article is a bit long, but very thorough. I don't agree with everything the author says on his website, however, I feel that the author does a good job answering tough questions from a Biblical perspective. Since the author has researched this more thoroughly than I have, I'll defer to him on this matter.
Answer: This is a question that has puzzled Christians for centuries. The short answer is that nowhere in the Bible is masturbation referred to as a sin. In fact, the word is not even in the Bible. Having said that, I feel that excessive masturbation coupled with pornographic fantasies is an addiction that needs to be broken. Here is an excellent article that deals with every Scripture related to this issue.
The article is a bit long, but very thorough. I don't agree with everything the author says on his website, however, I feel that the author does a good job answering tough questions from a Biblical perspective. Since the author has researched this more thoroughly than I have, I'll defer to him on this matter.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Shivering for Jesus
When Rhiannon and I used to live in Senegal, distributing gospel literature was one of the primary aspects of our ministry. Every week, we would go to the University and distribute gospel tracts, cassettes, and New Testaments. Today I felt like I was back on the mission field again. A friend of ours from church called us the other day and invited us to distribute the Jesus Video at a local mosque.
In honor of Good Friday, and because I thought it would be a productive way to spend an afternoon (after all, I am still a missionary/evangelist), I decided to join the fun by going to the local mosque and handing out the Jesus Video to the people as they left the parking lot.
First of all, let me say that it was cold. I can not remember a time in April where it has been this cold. The thought kept reocurring to me that this is the least I can do considering the amount of suffering that Jesus went through on my behalf.
After a few minutes, the mosque leaders came up and talked to us and asked why we didn't just go in and talk to them and have a dialogue. Since I wasn't the leader, I pretty much played dumb. Our leader was a fiesty Egyptian woman who converted to Christianity in Egypt, but then basicallyl had to flee for her life before escaping to the U.S. I was awestruck at the woman's resilience. First of all, we had the right to be there. We were not trespassing on their property. We were on the sidewalk and we had permission from the police. For a while, the mosque leaders stood out in the parking lot telling the people not to take our literature and videos. All the while we stayed...shivering.
The funny thing is that the mosque leaders eventually left and we were able to distribute the rest of our videos. The people were more eager to take what we had than they were to listen to those who urged them not to take it. My Egyptian Christian friend said that we gained their respect when we stood our ground, especially out there in the cold. Placing myself in her shoes, I could tell that for her, the gospel was a form of liberation for her. And by liberation, I mean it in the same sense that many feminists use it, liberation from male oppression. I could sense the same thing from a few of the women who took the videos from her.
One of the things I thought to myself was: "I wonder if it would be more effective if we just had a dialogue with these leaders?" I actually thought for a moment about what we looked like out there and wondered if we were making things worse by evangelizing in such a bold way. And then I remembered the simple fact that because of what we were doing, hundreds of Muslims would see and hear an authentic presentation of the gospel for the first time. I remembered that, although we may have looked crazy and irrational out there in the cold trying to proselytize a people of another faith, it is a genuine fruit of the gospel that we live in a society that allows the freedom that we have to propogate our faith. And, yes, it works both ways. Muslims are evangelizing here in the U.S. with much vigor and tenacity and, as long as I am alive, I will defend their right to do so. I remembered that those living in Muslim countries around the world do not have the freedom to make an authentic choice about their religion without fear of death or imprisonment.
I realize that there is a time for dialogue. I strongly believe that in the age that we are living in, Christian leaders and Muslims leaders need to build bridges of understanding and mutual respect. Much of my speech in the upcoming film "Hoy Wars" is about how we in America and the Western world need to remove the speck from our own eyes so that we can understand how millions of Muslims around the world view us. I believe this is especially true when it comes to political realities that are not quite as black and white as we would like to believe. Having said that, I believe there is a time to dialogue and a time to preach. I'm glad that I can boldy say with the Apostle Paul, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to all who believe."
For our Egyptian friend today, the gospel meant freedom and liberation. Let us pray that we as a nation will never lose our liberty to shiver for Jesus.
In honor of Good Friday, and because I thought it would be a productive way to spend an afternoon (after all, I am still a missionary/evangelist), I decided to join the fun by going to the local mosque and handing out the Jesus Video to the people as they left the parking lot.
First of all, let me say that it was cold. I can not remember a time in April where it has been this cold. The thought kept reocurring to me that this is the least I can do considering the amount of suffering that Jesus went through on my behalf.
After a few minutes, the mosque leaders came up and talked to us and asked why we didn't just go in and talk to them and have a dialogue. Since I wasn't the leader, I pretty much played dumb. Our leader was a fiesty Egyptian woman who converted to Christianity in Egypt, but then basicallyl had to flee for her life before escaping to the U.S. I was awestruck at the woman's resilience. First of all, we had the right to be there. We were not trespassing on their property. We were on the sidewalk and we had permission from the police. For a while, the mosque leaders stood out in the parking lot telling the people not to take our literature and videos. All the while we stayed...shivering.
The funny thing is that the mosque leaders eventually left and we were able to distribute the rest of our videos. The people were more eager to take what we had than they were to listen to those who urged them not to take it. My Egyptian Christian friend said that we gained their respect when we stood our ground, especially out there in the cold. Placing myself in her shoes, I could tell that for her, the gospel was a form of liberation for her. And by liberation, I mean it in the same sense that many feminists use it, liberation from male oppression. I could sense the same thing from a few of the women who took the videos from her.
One of the things I thought to myself was: "I wonder if it would be more effective if we just had a dialogue with these leaders?" I actually thought for a moment about what we looked like out there and wondered if we were making things worse by evangelizing in such a bold way. And then I remembered the simple fact that because of what we were doing, hundreds of Muslims would see and hear an authentic presentation of the gospel for the first time. I remembered that, although we may have looked crazy and irrational out there in the cold trying to proselytize a people of another faith, it is a genuine fruit of the gospel that we live in a society that allows the freedom that we have to propogate our faith. And, yes, it works both ways. Muslims are evangelizing here in the U.S. with much vigor and tenacity and, as long as I am alive, I will defend their right to do so. I remembered that those living in Muslim countries around the world do not have the freedom to make an authentic choice about their religion without fear of death or imprisonment.
I realize that there is a time for dialogue. I strongly believe that in the age that we are living in, Christian leaders and Muslims leaders need to build bridges of understanding and mutual respect. Much of my speech in the upcoming film "Hoy Wars" is about how we in America and the Western world need to remove the speck from our own eyes so that we can understand how millions of Muslims around the world view us. I believe this is especially true when it comes to political realities that are not quite as black and white as we would like to believe. Having said that, I believe there is a time to dialogue and a time to preach. I'm glad that I can boldy say with the Apostle Paul, "I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation to all who believe."
For our Egyptian friend today, the gospel meant freedom and liberation. Let us pray that we as a nation will never lose our liberty to shiver for Jesus.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
The role of the Church in society
I've been thinking a lot lately about the responsiblity of the Church to be salt and light in the earth. I immediately think of great leaders such as William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King whose faith made a positive impact on society. Within Christianity, there are numerous views on how the Church relates to the State. Some believe that the Church is not doing its job unless it excercises worldwide political influence. The idea is that Christ is Lord over all of creation, therefore, the Church must redeem the culture and take dominion over the earth as part of the original mandate given to Adam. Others say that given the fact that Jesus refused political power when the people tried to make Him king and given His words, "My Kingdom is not of this world", Jesus wasn't interested in building an earthly kingdom.
Here is an interesting verse of Scripture I have been pondering for a while. I think it is very relevant to the question of the role of the Church in society.
The Apostle Paul says to the Corinthian Church,
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Here is an interesting verse of Scripture I have been pondering for a while. I think it is very relevant to the question of the role of the Church in society.
The Apostle Paul says to the Corinthian Church,
"For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? For those who are outside God judges."What do you think this verse tells us about the role of the Church in society? Note to self: this is a huge topic!
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Is forgiveness of sins required?
Below is an interesting article by Pastor Tim O Brien.
I've posted it because it raises an interesting question: Does God require that a person's sins be forgiven before they can experience His presence? According to Pastor Tim, the answer is no. According to Pastor Tim, much of evangelism is centered around getting a person to recognize their sinfulness. If you have ever heard of Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron or seen the television show "Way of the Master", you will know what I am talking about. Cameron and Comfort believe that the use of the law (specificallly as revealed in the 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount) for the purpose of showing a sinner their sinfulness is indispensable to salvation. Cameron and Comfort would also question someone's conversion experience if they have not been "awakened by the law." While I agree that Comfort and Cameron have discovered a valid Biblical principle, I have to ask: Is it true that the use of the law is the only valid form of evangelism? Pastor O Brien says no. I would like to know what my readers think.
It is often said something like, “You have to get forgiveness of sins before you can experience God.” The idea is that someone has to recognize their sinfulness and ask God’s forgiveness before they can expect anything from Him. This, however, was not the attitude of Jesus.
Jesus went about graciously healing the blind, freeing the vexed, granting the crippled to walk, and lifting up with gracious words those of ill reputation. He did not demand them to recognize their sins or to cry out for forgiveness in order to receive His favor. He would often say something like, “What do you want me to do for you?”
Jesus rebelled against the religious system of His day. That system not only categorized actions as clean or unclean, but it categorized people as clean or unclean. The “unclean” could not expect any favors from God.
Ironically, the evangelical church often does the same thing today. We categorize people as saved or unsaved. Now, I understand that there is a theological correctness to whether someone has received a saving knowledge of Jesus or not, but this was never supposed to exclude someone from experiencing God’s favor.
When God’s presence is clearly abiding with us, then everyone in the room can experience God, saved and unsaved. God will heal. God will touch. God will speak. God will grant favor to anyone.
If we demand that people say a sinner’s prayer before they get God’s attention, we are not following the pattern of Jesus. Once they are touched, then they can make their decision, just like the lepers that Jesus healed.
So much of the time Christian religion is focused on getting people to recognize their sinfulness. Although sinfulness is certainly an issue, it is often not something that stirs the heart of the non-believer. They either do not think they are sinful or, even if they do, they don’t believe it will do any good to feel bad about it.
The fact is that God can open up a heart that doesn’t even recognize it’s own sinfulness. God can reveal His presence to them or grant their request. God loves to do great things for people, to display His goodness.
All God needs is a people who are inviting Him into their midst. Jesus said, “My house must be a house of prayer for all,” not a house of robbers. When we make God’s house a house of prayer, then the robbery stops. People stop being robbed of their chance to experience God.
When we steward the presence of God, we give everyone a chance. Everyone gets to touch Him. But to steward the presence of God, it takes our very lives. Who is willing to give their life to host the presence of God so everyone can get a chance?
[People are gathering in the dozens at Rock of Ages Mondays at 7pm to deliberately call on God for a visitation. We are experiencing Him in greater and greater measure. If your heart is for revival and a move of God, come help us call on Him. Reference: Luke 17:12]
NOTE: We have Jesus Camp T-shirts for $8 XL and $9 2XL.
by Pastor Tim O’Brien
Rock of Ages Ministries
Author may be reached at tnt5@jobe.net
For Daily Guide 6 Apr 07 edition
I've posted it because it raises an interesting question: Does God require that a person's sins be forgiven before they can experience His presence? According to Pastor Tim, the answer is no. According to Pastor Tim, much of evangelism is centered around getting a person to recognize their sinfulness. If you have ever heard of Ray Comfort or Kirk Cameron or seen the television show "Way of the Master", you will know what I am talking about. Cameron and Comfort believe that the use of the law (specificallly as revealed in the 10 Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount) for the purpose of showing a sinner their sinfulness is indispensable to salvation. Cameron and Comfort would also question someone's conversion experience if they have not been "awakened by the law." While I agree that Comfort and Cameron have discovered a valid Biblical principle, I have to ask: Is it true that the use of the law is the only valid form of evangelism? Pastor O Brien says no. I would like to know what my readers think.
It is often said something like, “You have to get forgiveness of sins before you can experience God.” The idea is that someone has to recognize their sinfulness and ask God’s forgiveness before they can expect anything from Him. This, however, was not the attitude of Jesus.
Jesus went about graciously healing the blind, freeing the vexed, granting the crippled to walk, and lifting up with gracious words those of ill reputation. He did not demand them to recognize their sins or to cry out for forgiveness in order to receive His favor. He would often say something like, “What do you want me to do for you?”
Jesus rebelled against the religious system of His day. That system not only categorized actions as clean or unclean, but it categorized people as clean or unclean. The “unclean” could not expect any favors from God.
Ironically, the evangelical church often does the same thing today. We categorize people as saved or unsaved. Now, I understand that there is a theological correctness to whether someone has received a saving knowledge of Jesus or not, but this was never supposed to exclude someone from experiencing God’s favor.
When God’s presence is clearly abiding with us, then everyone in the room can experience God, saved and unsaved. God will heal. God will touch. God will speak. God will grant favor to anyone.
If we demand that people say a sinner’s prayer before they get God’s attention, we are not following the pattern of Jesus. Once they are touched, then they can make their decision, just like the lepers that Jesus healed.
So much of the time Christian religion is focused on getting people to recognize their sinfulness. Although sinfulness is certainly an issue, it is often not something that stirs the heart of the non-believer. They either do not think they are sinful or, even if they do, they don’t believe it will do any good to feel bad about it.
The fact is that God can open up a heart that doesn’t even recognize it’s own sinfulness. God can reveal His presence to them or grant their request. God loves to do great things for people, to display His goodness.
All God needs is a people who are inviting Him into their midst. Jesus said, “My house must be a house of prayer for all,” not a house of robbers. When we make God’s house a house of prayer, then the robbery stops. People stop being robbed of their chance to experience God.
When we steward the presence of God, we give everyone a chance. Everyone gets to touch Him. But to steward the presence of God, it takes our very lives. Who is willing to give their life to host the presence of God so everyone can get a chance?
[People are gathering in the dozens at Rock of Ages Mondays at 7pm to deliberately call on God for a visitation. We are experiencing Him in greater and greater measure. If your heart is for revival and a move of God, come help us call on Him. Reference: Luke 17:12]
NOTE: We have Jesus Camp T-shirts for $8 XL and $9 2XL.
by Pastor Tim O’Brien
Rock of Ages Ministries
Author may be reached at tnt5@jobe.net
For Daily Guide 6 Apr 07 edition
Monday, April 02, 2007
Scattered thoughts
For those of you who would like a snap-shot into the mind of Aaron Taylor, here are a few thoughts I have been working on lately. Feel free to comment on any or all of them.
1. Anthony is vindicated! Last week Rocky, the bully who taunted Anthony for being a girl and not standing up for himself, was blind sighted when the tribe voted him off. The main reason was that he was overly critical and difficult to get along with.
2. When I was a kid, I used to want to act in movies. I've discovered that making films is actually very boring. Last week, during the filming for Holy Wars, a feature length documentary in which I am one of two main characters, the director was filming me doing my daily routine (like walking the neighborhood) and we had to do several takes. It was very tedious. I told him I thought that making movies was actually pretty boring. He said that most of the time, the actors sit around for hours in their trailers waiting for the directors to call on them. I saw Kevin Spacey on the Today Show today and he said the same thing, that making movies is boring. I think that fantasy often becomes a bore when it meets with reality.
3. Flushed Away is one of the funniest cartoons of the year. Loved the singing slugs.
4. Blood Diamond was excellent, though not free from controversy. Perhaps the most significant theme of the movie was not the blood diamond issue (which is still an issue, but not to the degree that it was 8 years ago), but the use of child soldiers in guerilla conflict. I think everyone should be aware of this issue.
5. The Apostle Paul says to the Corinthian Church,
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
1. Anthony is vindicated! Last week Rocky, the bully who taunted Anthony for being a girl and not standing up for himself, was blind sighted when the tribe voted him off. The main reason was that he was overly critical and difficult to get along with.
2. When I was a kid, I used to want to act in movies. I've discovered that making films is actually very boring. Last week, during the filming for Holy Wars, a feature length documentary in which I am one of two main characters, the director was filming me doing my daily routine (like walking the neighborhood) and we had to do several takes. It was very tedious. I told him I thought that making movies was actually pretty boring. He said that most of the time, the actors sit around for hours in their trailers waiting for the directors to call on them. I saw Kevin Spacey on the Today Show today and he said the same thing, that making movies is boring. I think that fantasy often becomes a bore when it meets with reality.
3. Flushed Away is one of the funniest cartoons of the year. Loved the singing slugs.
4. Blood Diamond was excellent, though not free from controversy. Perhaps the most significant theme of the movie was not the blood diamond issue (which is still an issue, but not to the degree that it was 8 years ago), but the use of child soldiers in guerilla conflict. I think everyone should be aware of this issue.
5. The Apostle Paul says to the Corinthian Church,
"For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? For those who are outside God judges."What do you think this verse tells us about the role of the Church in society? Note to self: this is a huge topic!
I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Standing up for yourself?
Please read "I am Anthony" before reading this.
Question: At what point does the responsibility to stand up for yourself get transferred to those around you?
and does this post have anything at all to do with Jesus' words regarding turning the other cheek?
Answer: I think it is always an individual's responsibility to stand up for those who are being being bullied.
I do think this has something to do with Jesus's words, "Turn the other cheek." I'm not sure what Jesus would say about the idea of "standing up for yourself." The New Testament definitely teaches the idea of not returning evil for evil.
Can anyone think of any Scripture regarding the idea of standing up for yourself? Perhaps an example of someone who did and did it right? I'd like to hear some thoughts on this matter. I'll be fairly busy this week, so I think we should get a robust discussion going on this one.
Question: At what point does the responsibility to stand up for yourself get transferred to those around you?
and does this post have anything at all to do with Jesus' words regarding turning the other cheek?
Answer: I think it is always an individual's responsibility to stand up for those who are being being bullied.
I do think this has something to do with Jesus's words, "Turn the other cheek." I'm not sure what Jesus would say about the idea of "standing up for yourself." The New Testament definitely teaches the idea of not returning evil for evil.
Can anyone think of any Scripture regarding the idea of standing up for yourself? Perhaps an example of someone who did and did it right? I'd like to hear some thoughts on this matter. I'll be fairly busy this week, so I think we should get a robust discussion going on this one.
Friday, March 23, 2007
I am Anthony
I feel that it is now time to reveal another of my deepest, darkest secrets. Besides watching the Today Show every morning and American Idol every week, my wife and are dedicated Survivor fans. I started watching the show during the first season and have been hooked ever since. I justify this by saying that for me, the show is a fascinating sociological experiment. The truth is that I know I am just one of millions of Americans that, instead of getting out and socializing with my neighbors (like people used to do in the "good ole days"), I prefer to sit in front of the tube to enjoy mindless entertainment.
If you did not catch Survivor this last Wednesday (recorded on my DVR, no, I did not skip church for this...I am not that sacrilegious) let me tell you that I have never been more upset about a "reality" T.V. episode than I was after I watched this last episode.
The episode revolved around two characters, Anthony and Rocky. Anthony is a skinny and sensitive African American male who lacks social skills. Rocky is one of those macho men who enjoys cutting people down and making people feel inferior. For several episodes, Rocky had been shown teasing and taunting Anthony and making him feel whimpy and inferior. Anthony, although he could have retaliated, for the most part, held his peace.
During this last episode, things really came to a head when a tribal trade-off occurred and poor Anthony found himself in a tribe with all men. While the men were off fishing, they asked Anthony to stay back and boil water. Knowing that Anthony was the weakest tribe member, and thus unfit to help in the immunity and reward challenges, the rest of the men knew that Anthony needed to be voted off the island, but were not particularly mean or cruel to him.
During the tribal council the real showdown began. As Rocky went on a rant calling Anthony all kinds of names (like girly, effeminate), he asked Anthony, "Why don't you stand up for yourself?" Anthony's reply was that he didn't want to become a jerk like him. By this time, even the other guys were hanging their heads in shame at Rocky's treatment of Anthony. It probably didn't occur to Rocky at the time that while he was spewing hatred and insults at the supposedly inferior Anthony, he was baring his wicked soul to the exposure of millions of viewers.
In the end, Anthony was voted out and Rocky stayed. Typical. Yes, we really do live in a world of the survival of the fittest. This being said, it is not the Anthonys of the world that I fear for. I fear for the Rockies. I fear for those who feel they have to trample on others to make themselves look strong and powerful. History shows that men such as this will always come to a tragic end if they do not amend their ways.
Perhaps the reason why I was so upset watching the episode is because I remember being the last one picked for sports. I remember being told that I was whimpy and girly. I was the brainy kid compared to Screech on Saved by the Bell. Although I don't recall coming across people as belligerent as Rocky, I know that there are millions of young people across this nation who have. Rocky was constrained by a camera. Most of the Rockies in this world are not. They use their fist to intimidate.
Anthony left the show with tears in his eyes, but his head held high. He defeated Rocky without becoming like him. Although there are probably many viewers who despised Anthony for his failure to stand up for himself. Let me say to those who feel this way that I am proud to say to the world that I am Anthony.
If you did not catch Survivor this last Wednesday (recorded on my DVR, no, I did not skip church for this...I am not that sacrilegious) let me tell you that I have never been more upset about a "reality" T.V. episode than I was after I watched this last episode.
The episode revolved around two characters, Anthony and Rocky. Anthony is a skinny and sensitive African American male who lacks social skills. Rocky is one of those macho men who enjoys cutting people down and making people feel inferior. For several episodes, Rocky had been shown teasing and taunting Anthony and making him feel whimpy and inferior. Anthony, although he could have retaliated, for the most part, held his peace.
During this last episode, things really came to a head when a tribal trade-off occurred and poor Anthony found himself in a tribe with all men. While the men were off fishing, they asked Anthony to stay back and boil water. Knowing that Anthony was the weakest tribe member, and thus unfit to help in the immunity and reward challenges, the rest of the men knew that Anthony needed to be voted off the island, but were not particularly mean or cruel to him.
During the tribal council the real showdown began. As Rocky went on a rant calling Anthony all kinds of names (like girly, effeminate), he asked Anthony, "Why don't you stand up for yourself?" Anthony's reply was that he didn't want to become a jerk like him. By this time, even the other guys were hanging their heads in shame at Rocky's treatment of Anthony. It probably didn't occur to Rocky at the time that while he was spewing hatred and insults at the supposedly inferior Anthony, he was baring his wicked soul to the exposure of millions of viewers.
In the end, Anthony was voted out and Rocky stayed. Typical. Yes, we really do live in a world of the survival of the fittest. This being said, it is not the Anthonys of the world that I fear for. I fear for the Rockies. I fear for those who feel they have to trample on others to make themselves look strong and powerful. History shows that men such as this will always come to a tragic end if they do not amend their ways.
Perhaps the reason why I was so upset watching the episode is because I remember being the last one picked for sports. I remember being told that I was whimpy and girly. I was the brainy kid compared to Screech on Saved by the Bell. Although I don't recall coming across people as belligerent as Rocky, I know that there are millions of young people across this nation who have. Rocky was constrained by a camera. Most of the Rockies in this world are not. They use their fist to intimidate.
Anthony left the show with tears in his eyes, but his head held high. He defeated Rocky without becoming like him. Although there are probably many viewers who despised Anthony for his failure to stand up for himself. Let me say to those who feel this way that I am proud to say to the world that I am Anthony.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The cheapening of fame
I have a confession to make. When I was growing up I wanted to either be either a baseball player or a movie star (that was after the phase of wanting to be a trashman) I realize that I am probably not the only one who had childhood dreams of fame and recognition.
Now that I am older, I think that I, along with the hundreds of thousands of teenagers who butcher Edwin McAin's "I'll Be" in front of Paula, Randy, and Simon on American Idol, need to find something else to live for.
In an age of You Tube, where grown men putting on leotards and acting like ballerinas can have over a million people watching them, fame is now a cheap commodity.
Perhaps Jesus really did know what He was talking about when He said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses His soul." This world is passing away. It will do us much better to live for the next one.
Now that I am older, I think that I, along with the hundreds of thousands of teenagers who butcher Edwin McAin's "I'll Be" in front of Paula, Randy, and Simon on American Idol, need to find something else to live for.
In an age of You Tube, where grown men putting on leotards and acting like ballerinas can have over a million people watching them, fame is now a cheap commodity.
Perhaps Jesus really did know what He was talking about when He said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses His soul." This world is passing away. It will do us much better to live for the next one.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
The gospel in Darfur
Besides Baghdad, if there is one place on this earth that could be described as hell on earth, it would be the region of Darfur in the country of Sudan. Unless you have been living in a cave and have never heard of the actor George Clooney, you probably have heard about the senseless slaughtering and displacement of the Darfur people carried out by the Janjaweed, an Arab militia group tied to the Sudanese government.
Into this atmposphere of chaos, a few brave missionaries have gone to deliver much-needed humanitarian relief along with the true bread of life-the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I just received a report last week about how missionaries from a certain agency are risking their lives every day to deliver much needed humanitarian relief to the people of Darfur. According to the report, several Muslim sheiks have approached them to ask them about how to find peace in their lives. When the missionaries told them about how Jesus could release the burden of guilt over their lives because of what He did on the cross, they did not respond with "How dare you come into our country and try to convert us!" or "You are just an arm of the CIA (an often propogated Muslim myth)". Instead, the response was "How do we get the word out to our villages?"
I've been hearing reports like this from all throughout the Muslim world. People and cultures are not artifacts to be kept in a museum. Behind a lot of what we see happening in the world are real human beings longing for peace. Too often in our over-stereotypical western media culture, we forget that.
Into this atmposphere of chaos, a few brave missionaries have gone to deliver much-needed humanitarian relief along with the true bread of life-the gospel of Jesus Christ.
I just received a report last week about how missionaries from a certain agency are risking their lives every day to deliver much needed humanitarian relief to the people of Darfur. According to the report, several Muslim sheiks have approached them to ask them about how to find peace in their lives. When the missionaries told them about how Jesus could release the burden of guilt over their lives because of what He did on the cross, they did not respond with "How dare you come into our country and try to convert us!" or "You are just an arm of the CIA (an often propogated Muslim myth)". Instead, the response was "How do we get the word out to our villages?"
I've been hearing reports like this from all throughout the Muslim world. People and cultures are not artifacts to be kept in a museum. Behind a lot of what we see happening in the world are real human beings longing for peace. Too often in our over-stereotypical western media culture, we forget that.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Is the world improving?
Let me give you a shocking statistic. In 2007, despite the dismal gloom of health professionals that say that Americans are the sickest people on the planet, the raw numbers reveal that the average life expectancy in America is 77 years.
Can you guess what the life expectancy was in 1900? The answer is 47 years. I am 28 years old right now. If I were living in the first half of the 20th century, I would be past my mid-life crisis by now (a crisis I am very much looking forward to when I turn 50).
A provocative new book called The Improving State of the World suggests that, despite what advocates of the modern green movement say, economic development actually helps the environment, not hinders it. The book suggests that it is actually the richer nations that are more environmentally friendly.
As a missionary who has been around the world, this news came as no surprise to me. As a general rule, I have found that the poorer the country, the more pollution there is. I'm not sure if this outweighs the fact that the U.S.A. has only 4% of the world's population, yet we burn 25% of the world's fossil fuels. That would be an argument for the other side of the debate.
In the debate of economic development verses environmental stewardship, I am not sure who is right. Perhaps they both are right in their own ways. Like all things, the truth is probably somewhere in between The Improving State of the World and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. This being said, I doubt an economist would ever win an Oscar.
Can you guess what the life expectancy was in 1900? The answer is 47 years. I am 28 years old right now. If I were living in the first half of the 20th century, I would be past my mid-life crisis by now (a crisis I am very much looking forward to when I turn 50).
A provocative new book called The Improving State of the World suggests that, despite what advocates of the modern green movement say, economic development actually helps the environment, not hinders it. The book suggests that it is actually the richer nations that are more environmentally friendly.
As a missionary who has been around the world, this news came as no surprise to me. As a general rule, I have found that the poorer the country, the more pollution there is. I'm not sure if this outweighs the fact that the U.S.A. has only 4% of the world's population, yet we burn 25% of the world's fossil fuels. That would be an argument for the other side of the debate.
In the debate of economic development verses environmental stewardship, I am not sure who is right. Perhaps they both are right in their own ways. Like all things, the truth is probably somewhere in between The Improving State of the World and Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. This being said, I doubt an economist would ever win an Oscar.
Monday, March 12, 2007
A woman's courage
I was watching Glenn Beck last week on CNN and he was at a summit in Florida for secular Muslims who are trying to reform Islam and make it into a more tolerant faith. I have had conversations with secular Muslims in the past, so the idea that there are moderate Muslims trying to change things was no surprise to me. One of the interviews was with a young girl (around 23 if I'm not mistaken) who has been an outspoken leader in the reformation movement. She also happened to be a lesbian.
Scripture does not permit me to share the woman's sexual values, but I couldn't help but admire the woman's courage. Just for speaking out against the oppression of women by people of her faith, she has received numerous death threats, including threats of bodily mutilation-and yet she still did the interview despite the threats. I think that Christians can take a valuable lesson from this courageous young woman. We should be just as willing to sacrifice our personal security and comfort for the cause of Christ.
One thing the woman said I thought was profound. The reason why she receives so many threats by Muslim men is because she shows them that a woman can actually have a mind. Her point was that the root of oppression for women is based on the idea that women are sex objects and have little to offer in terms of intellectual value. When women speak up and show that they actually have an intellect, insecure men are threatened and the only thing they can do about it is to assert their sexual power over them-hence the threats.
Jesus would agree. When Martha challenged Jesus for why He allowed Mary to sit and listen to His teaching while she was doing her domestic duties, Jesus said that Mary had chosen the better part. In His day, that was a revolutionary concept-the fact that women could actually learn.
Jesus stood up for women's rights, and so should we. I find it odd that secular Muslims are getting the message out while many Christians are sitting on the sidelines.
Scripture does not permit me to share the woman's sexual values, but I couldn't help but admire the woman's courage. Just for speaking out against the oppression of women by people of her faith, she has received numerous death threats, including threats of bodily mutilation-and yet she still did the interview despite the threats. I think that Christians can take a valuable lesson from this courageous young woman. We should be just as willing to sacrifice our personal security and comfort for the cause of Christ.
One thing the woman said I thought was profound. The reason why she receives so many threats by Muslim men is because she shows them that a woman can actually have a mind. Her point was that the root of oppression for women is based on the idea that women are sex objects and have little to offer in terms of intellectual value. When women speak up and show that they actually have an intellect, insecure men are threatened and the only thing they can do about it is to assert their sexual power over them-hence the threats.
Jesus would agree. When Martha challenged Jesus for why He allowed Mary to sit and listen to His teaching while she was doing her domestic duties, Jesus said that Mary had chosen the better part. In His day, that was a revolutionary concept-the fact that women could actually learn.
Jesus stood up for women's rights, and so should we. I find it odd that secular Muslims are getting the message out while many Christians are sitting on the sidelines.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
A cause for our times
For the past year, I have been studying about the issue of global poverty and how our government's economic policies are enslaving the world's poor. The things that I have studied have led me to give my heartfelt support to the One campaign, the only bipartisan movement that I know of that has people like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, the Pope, the Dalai Llhama, and Madonna all supporting the same side. Concentrating on this issue has led me to believe that the issue of global poverty is the greatest moral issue of our generation.
I was wrong.
If you haven't seen the film Amazing Grace yet, you need to. William Wilberforce was a man who read his Bible and came to the conclusion that Jesus wanted His followers to rescue the oppressed (Luke 4). His passion ended slavery.
Or did it?
In my studies, I was shocked to find out that over the hundreds of years that the British African slave trade was legal, approximately 11 million slaves were shipped overseas.
Guess how many people there are in the world right now who are victims of human trafficking? 27 million!
For a generous kick in the rear, read this article about a 15 year old named Zach Hunter who is leading the charge to end modern day slavery.
As a Christian evangelist, I feel it is my responsibility to pick up the baton and speak out on these two moral tragedies of our generation. I would like to incorporate advocacy for these issues, the issues of global poverty and human trafficking, in my festival events, including Riverfest, an event I am hosting at Keener Plaza in downtown St. Louis on September 8th.
I would like to ask you, my readers, for advice on how to best go about advocating for the poor and the oppressed during my evangelism campaigns. I believe that, together, we can make a difference.
I was wrong.
If you haven't seen the film Amazing Grace yet, you need to. William Wilberforce was a man who read his Bible and came to the conclusion that Jesus wanted His followers to rescue the oppressed (Luke 4). His passion ended slavery.
Or did it?
In my studies, I was shocked to find out that over the hundreds of years that the British African slave trade was legal, approximately 11 million slaves were shipped overseas.
Guess how many people there are in the world right now who are victims of human trafficking? 27 million!
For a generous kick in the rear, read this article about a 15 year old named Zach Hunter who is leading the charge to end modern day slavery.
As a Christian evangelist, I feel it is my responsibility to pick up the baton and speak out on these two moral tragedies of our generation. I would like to incorporate advocacy for these issues, the issues of global poverty and human trafficking, in my festival events, including Riverfest, an event I am hosting at Keener Plaza in downtown St. Louis on September 8th.
I would like to ask you, my readers, for advice on how to best go about advocating for the poor and the oppressed during my evangelism campaigns. I believe that, together, we can make a difference.
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Throwing tantrums part 2
Please read the post "Throwing tantrums" before reading this. You will find it right underneath this post. I went ahead and posted this conversation from the comments section of my last post because I think it is relevant to the discussion. Feel free to weigh in on the discussion.
Pete said...
Aaron,
I have two thoughts on what you posted.
1. I always oppose bills for hate crimes. To hate is a right, no matter how wrong, so the the crime is what we punish. The whole idea weirds me out.
Prosecutor-"I intend to prove that this man killed John.."
Court- [murmurs]
Prosecutor- " and I will also prove that it was a hate crime!"
Court- [ entire crowd gasps and somewhere a baby starts crying ]
Is the murder of the person not enough to put someone behind bars for life. What an insult to the victim!
2. There are two main classes of people who are against these kind of challenges to Christianity- The Simple and the Scared.
The Simple are those who got saved because it sounded good and they want to be on the winning team. They feel good being called a christian and haven't really studied it for themselves and this is the level that is comfortable for them. They stand against anything that challenges their faith because it is inconvenient for them and causes them to have to get out of their comfort zone in order to maintain their faith.
The Scared are those who have studied Christianity and want to believe it so bad that they may go their whole life saying that they do, but have never felt God move in their life because they are unwilling to give up certain sins. These people know that their faith hangs by a thread and are scared of anything that will challenge it, because they are hoping that eventually their life will change based on the fact that they proclaim to be a christian. They are convinced of the reality of God, but what they aren't convinced about is that they will ever have a relationship with him. If someone shows them something that challenges their knowledge then they may stop claiming their christianity and just give up because they know that they will never be able to get themselves to stop sinning with all of the knowledge that they have. Therefore it is easier for these people to simply stamp out anything that may possibly challenge their religious knowledge before it ever meets with their eyes or ears. These people live very tortured lives because they are proud of their knowledge yet are caught in a lie about who they really are/aren't in Christ.
People who truly believe in the Bible and have studied it meet these challenges head on with glee because it usually stands to strengthen their faith.
Wow, I can see my house from on top of this soap box!
Pete
10:09 AM
Delete
Aaron D. Taylor said...
Pete,
Thank you for your comment. I think what you said was well thought out.
Let me give you some food for thought on the hate crime issue. I understand exactly what you are saying and have thought the same things before. I agree that murder is murder and we shouldn't make it a crime to hate someone. Having said that, I do understand the logic behind hate crime legislation. Someone who kills for ideological reasons (like neo-nazis and klansmen) are far more dangerous to society than someone who kills because of a personal vendetta. I think that those who kill just because they hate black people or homosexuals are more likely to kill again for the same reasons. This is why I feel that hate crimes should receive harsher punishement , for the protection of would be targets of hate crime. I think there can be sane standards to determine what is a hate crime and what is not.
Having said all that, I certainly understand those who take your position. That is not what disturbed me about the e-mail from the American Family Association. What disturbed me was the hypocrisy. The same bill that the American Family Association said would supposedly make homosexuals a special class with special rights applied equally to Christians. No concern was displayed in the e-mail about making Christians a special class, only homosexuals. It's like they were saying, "We don't mind if we get special rights. We just don't want anyone else to have them."
Even if you disagree with hate crimes legislation, the question still remains. If Jesus were around today, would He be spending His time bombarding people's e-mails trying to lobby the government against protecting gays?
Pete said...
Aaron,
I have two thoughts on what you posted.
1. I always oppose bills for hate crimes. To hate is a right, no matter how wrong, so the the crime is what we punish. The whole idea weirds me out.
Prosecutor-"I intend to prove that this man killed John.."
Court- [murmurs]
Prosecutor- " and I will also prove that it was a hate crime!"
Court- [ entire crowd gasps and somewhere a baby starts crying ]
Is the murder of the person not enough to put someone behind bars for life. What an insult to the victim!
2. There are two main classes of people who are against these kind of challenges to Christianity- The Simple and the Scared.
The Simple are those who got saved because it sounded good and they want to be on the winning team. They feel good being called a christian and haven't really studied it for themselves and this is the level that is comfortable for them. They stand against anything that challenges their faith because it is inconvenient for them and causes them to have to get out of their comfort zone in order to maintain their faith.
The Scared are those who have studied Christianity and want to believe it so bad that they may go their whole life saying that they do, but have never felt God move in their life because they are unwilling to give up certain sins. These people know that their faith hangs by a thread and are scared of anything that will challenge it, because they are hoping that eventually their life will change based on the fact that they proclaim to be a christian. They are convinced of the reality of God, but what they aren't convinced about is that they will ever have a relationship with him. If someone shows them something that challenges their knowledge then they may stop claiming their christianity and just give up because they know that they will never be able to get themselves to stop sinning with all of the knowledge that they have. Therefore it is easier for these people to simply stamp out anything that may possibly challenge their religious knowledge before it ever meets with their eyes or ears. These people live very tortured lives because they are proud of their knowledge yet are caught in a lie about who they really are/aren't in Christ.
People who truly believe in the Bible and have studied it meet these challenges head on with glee because it usually stands to strengthen their faith.
Wow, I can see my house from on top of this soap box!
Pete
10:09 AM
Delete
Aaron D. Taylor said...
Pete,
Thank you for your comment. I think what you said was well thought out.
Let me give you some food for thought on the hate crime issue. I understand exactly what you are saying and have thought the same things before. I agree that murder is murder and we shouldn't make it a crime to hate someone. Having said that, I do understand the logic behind hate crime legislation. Someone who kills for ideological reasons (like neo-nazis and klansmen) are far more dangerous to society than someone who kills because of a personal vendetta. I think that those who kill just because they hate black people or homosexuals are more likely to kill again for the same reasons. This is why I feel that hate crimes should receive harsher punishement , for the protection of would be targets of hate crime. I think there can be sane standards to determine what is a hate crime and what is not.
Having said all that, I certainly understand those who take your position. That is not what disturbed me about the e-mail from the American Family Association. What disturbed me was the hypocrisy. The same bill that the American Family Association said would supposedly make homosexuals a special class with special rights applied equally to Christians. No concern was displayed in the e-mail about making Christians a special class, only homosexuals. It's like they were saying, "We don't mind if we get special rights. We just don't want anyone else to have them."
Even if you disagree with hate crimes legislation, the question still remains. If Jesus were around today, would He be spending His time bombarding people's e-mails trying to lobby the government against protecting gays?
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Throwing tantrums
I received this e-mail today. I thought it was very interesting. I have to admit that I signed the petition described in this e-mail. I now think that was a mistake. I've received e-mails from the American Family Association before and have signed some of their petitions, but some of them I have not signed because I found them disturbing. For example, one petition was against a bill that would make killing a homosexual a hate crime. They said that it would lead to making homosexuals a protected class and listed numerous special privileges they could eventually receive if the bill was passed. I actually read the bill and, the ironic thing was that the same bill mentioned religious groups as potential hate crime targets as well. So, the American Family Association wanted special protection for Christians but not homosexuals? I wrote them back and said "you ought to be ashamed of yourselves", but, of course the e-mail was bounced back to me. Feel free to weigh in on this issue of Christians bullying non-believers. I fear that much of what passes for American evangelical Christianity has become radicalized in a way that is not consistent with the portrayal of Jesus in the four gospels. Do you agree? Let me know what you think.
Wailing at the Tomb?
Christians Should Face the Facts in The Discovery Documentary
By Gregory Koukl
The documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” hadn’t even aired yet and many Christians were already in a panic. Just the suggestion that someone found Jesus’ bones in a limestone box had believers by the droves shaking their fists or sticking their heads in the sand in a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts posture.
The Lost Tomb of Jesus Apparently, many Christians don’t even need to see the evidence to pass judgment. When one Evangelical web site polled its visitors with the question, “Do you believe the ‘Tomb of Jesus' documentary, which denies the resurrection of Christ?” 97% said no. This was three days before the documentary even aired. Blind faith is so convenient, isn’t it? You never have to actually confront your critics.
Then there’s the bullies. One media watchdog demanded Discovery “cancel this slanderous ‘documentary.’” Another prominent Evangelical organization composed this letter for their constituents to hammer Discovery with:
"I resent the Discovery Channel's attempt to demean and belittle Christianity by saying it is based on a lie. It is hard for me to believe that The Discovery Channel would dare do such a 'documentary' on any other religion.
"It may turn out that you have done Christianity a favor by awakening millions of Christians to your anti-Christian bias and bigotry. Perhaps they will no longer stay silent."
This kind of bullying is profoundly embarrassing to me, a follower of Christ, and should be discomfiting to every thoughtful Christian. It is not only a dismal retreat from a legitimate challenge that must be answered; it’s obscurantist.
Look, if the Bible says it and you believe it, that might settle it for you, but it doesn’t settle it for millions who might be interested in your ideas and are waiting to hear a thoughtful response to what appears on the surface to be a fair challenge.
There are good reasons to doubt the conclusions of this documentary, but no one will ever know them if Christians pull up the drawbridge and bellow from the parapet. Having seen the documentary, here are some problems that quickly come to mind:
*
Scholars have known about these tombs for over 25 years. There’s a reason they haven’t taken these names seriously. Only three have any direct biblical significance: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And that cluster of names is statistically unremarkable. In fact, it would be odd if a family with those three names was not found in a tomb together, given their common use (there are at least four ossuaries discovered inscribed “Jesus, son of Joseph,” and one in four women were named Mary, so it’s even money that one of these tombs would have that combination). And connection of Jesus to any of the other names? Wild speculation. So what you have here is a creative guessing game.
*
The entire argument is based on the statistical significance of the names in a cluster. If Jesus was married, and if Jesus was married to a woman named Mariamne, and if Mariamne was also a nickname for Mary Magdalene, and if Jesus had a brother named Matthew, and if Jesus had a son named Judas, and if the now-famous James ossuary belonged to James the brother of Jesus, then you’d have all the members of Jesus’ family together in one tomb. But that’s a lot of “ifs.
*
Even though this is called the “Jesus Family Tomb,” there is no hard evidence that any of these so-called “family members” is even related. The only DNA testing that’s been done—between Jesus and Mariamne—came up negative. Let me repeat that: The DNA test came up negative. That is fact. The rest is speculation.
*
The documentary claims, “Jesus and Mary were married, as the DNA evidence suggests.” This is nonsense. Think about it. How can DNA evidence suggest someone is married? DNA can’t “suggest” anything about legal relationships, only biological ones. In this case, the DNA evidence showed Jesus and Mary were not related by a mother, not that they were husband and wife. The truth is, she could have been married to any one of the males in the tomb, or to none of them for that matter. The DNA “suggests” nothing.
*
The researchers claim they’re just trying to connect the dots? Fair enough. But why connect the dots the way they did? I’ll tell you why. Because it tells their story. There are many other legitimate ways to connect those same dots—some much more probable than the way the documentary connects them, but won’t give the story they’re promoting. But, of course, that wouldn’t create breaking news, would it?
*
Jesus’ family was a poor family from Nazareth, not a middle- to upper-class family from Jerusalem. So this tomb is the wrong kind of tomb located in the wrong city.
*
The documentary claims Jesus spoke in codes. This is false. Jesus spoke in parables, like many of the teachers of His day, not in codes that needed to be deciphered. They say Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ most trusted apostle. But you have to wait 400 years before this evidence pops up in any alleged historical record. They said that Jesus’ family members were executed because He was a pretender to throne of Israel. This is pure fiction. Notice what this accomplishes, though. All of these little exaggerations and inaccuracies make an unlikely tale sound more plausible when, on its own unembellished merits, it is not.
*
What we have here are two different characterizations of what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago. One is based on artifacts—the ossuaries—and one is based on documents—the historical records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. Now granted, these kinds of things are not entirely exact science, but all things being equal, which do you think gives us more precise information, bone boxes or written records? The written records, obviously.
*
The claim of Jesus’ resurrection, was part of the earliest, most primitive testimony regarding Jesus. And it was made by those very same people that the documentary suggests knew Jesus’ bones were actually secretly buried in Jerusalem. Why would so many of them die for this lie when they knew it was a lie? It doesn’t add up. But that’s what you must believe if you take seriously the conclusions of this documentary.
If Christianity stands or falls on the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection, as the Apostle Paul said, then Christ’s followers have no liberty to retreat behind blind faith or hide behind an angry scowl.
No, if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t run, whine, scream, or have a religious tantrum. Instead, you should be thanking the Discovery Channel for giving you the chance to step up to the plate and knock this soft ball out of the park.
Wailing at the Tomb?
Christians Should Face the Facts in The Discovery Documentary
By Gregory Koukl
The documentary “The Lost Tomb of Jesus” hadn’t even aired yet and many Christians were already in a panic. Just the suggestion that someone found Jesus’ bones in a limestone box had believers by the droves shaking their fists or sticking their heads in the sand in a don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts posture.
The Lost Tomb of Jesus Apparently, many Christians don’t even need to see the evidence to pass judgment. When one Evangelical web site polled its visitors with the question, “Do you believe the ‘Tomb of Jesus' documentary, which denies the resurrection of Christ?” 97% said no. This was three days before the documentary even aired. Blind faith is so convenient, isn’t it? You never have to actually confront your critics.
Then there’s the bullies. One media watchdog demanded Discovery “cancel this slanderous ‘documentary.’” Another prominent Evangelical organization composed this letter for their constituents to hammer Discovery with:
"I resent the Discovery Channel's attempt to demean and belittle Christianity by saying it is based on a lie. It is hard for me to believe that The Discovery Channel would dare do such a 'documentary' on any other religion.
"It may turn out that you have done Christianity a favor by awakening millions of Christians to your anti-Christian bias and bigotry. Perhaps they will no longer stay silent."
This kind of bullying is profoundly embarrassing to me, a follower of Christ, and should be discomfiting to every thoughtful Christian. It is not only a dismal retreat from a legitimate challenge that must be answered; it’s obscurantist.
Look, if the Bible says it and you believe it, that might settle it for you, but it doesn’t settle it for millions who might be interested in your ideas and are waiting to hear a thoughtful response to what appears on the surface to be a fair challenge.
There are good reasons to doubt the conclusions of this documentary, but no one will ever know them if Christians pull up the drawbridge and bellow from the parapet. Having seen the documentary, here are some problems that quickly come to mind:
*
Scholars have known about these tombs for over 25 years. There’s a reason they haven’t taken these names seriously. Only three have any direct biblical significance: Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. And that cluster of names is statistically unremarkable. In fact, it would be odd if a family with those three names was not found in a tomb together, given their common use (there are at least four ossuaries discovered inscribed “Jesus, son of Joseph,” and one in four women were named Mary, so it’s even money that one of these tombs would have that combination). And connection of Jesus to any of the other names? Wild speculation. So what you have here is a creative guessing game.
*
The entire argument is based on the statistical significance of the names in a cluster. If Jesus was married, and if Jesus was married to a woman named Mariamne, and if Mariamne was also a nickname for Mary Magdalene, and if Jesus had a brother named Matthew, and if Jesus had a son named Judas, and if the now-famous James ossuary belonged to James the brother of Jesus, then you’d have all the members of Jesus’ family together in one tomb. But that’s a lot of “ifs.
*
Even though this is called the “Jesus Family Tomb,” there is no hard evidence that any of these so-called “family members” is even related. The only DNA testing that’s been done—between Jesus and Mariamne—came up negative. Let me repeat that: The DNA test came up negative. That is fact. The rest is speculation.
*
The documentary claims, “Jesus and Mary were married, as the DNA evidence suggests.” This is nonsense. Think about it. How can DNA evidence suggest someone is married? DNA can’t “suggest” anything about legal relationships, only biological ones. In this case, the DNA evidence showed Jesus and Mary were not related by a mother, not that they were husband and wife. The truth is, she could have been married to any one of the males in the tomb, or to none of them for that matter. The DNA “suggests” nothing.
*
The researchers claim they’re just trying to connect the dots? Fair enough. But why connect the dots the way they did? I’ll tell you why. Because it tells their story. There are many other legitimate ways to connect those same dots—some much more probable than the way the documentary connects them, but won’t give the story they’re promoting. But, of course, that wouldn’t create breaking news, would it?
*
Jesus’ family was a poor family from Nazareth, not a middle- to upper-class family from Jerusalem. So this tomb is the wrong kind of tomb located in the wrong city.
*
The documentary claims Jesus spoke in codes. This is false. Jesus spoke in parables, like many of the teachers of His day, not in codes that needed to be deciphered. They say Mary Magdalene was Jesus’ most trusted apostle. But you have to wait 400 years before this evidence pops up in any alleged historical record. They said that Jesus’ family members were executed because He was a pretender to throne of Israel. This is pure fiction. Notice what this accomplishes, though. All of these little exaggerations and inaccuracies make an unlikely tale sound more plausible when, on its own unembellished merits, it is not.
*
What we have here are two different characterizations of what happened to the body of Jesus of Nazareth 2,000 years ago. One is based on artifacts—the ossuaries—and one is based on documents—the historical records of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Paul. Now granted, these kinds of things are not entirely exact science, but all things being equal, which do you think gives us more precise information, bone boxes or written records? The written records, obviously.
*
The claim of Jesus’ resurrection, was part of the earliest, most primitive testimony regarding Jesus. And it was made by those very same people that the documentary suggests knew Jesus’ bones were actually secretly buried in Jerusalem. Why would so many of them die for this lie when they knew it was a lie? It doesn’t add up. But that’s what you must believe if you take seriously the conclusions of this documentary.
If Christianity stands or falls on the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection, as the Apostle Paul said, then Christ’s followers have no liberty to retreat behind blind faith or hide behind an angry scowl.
No, if you’re a Christian you shouldn’t run, whine, scream, or have a religious tantrum. Instead, you should be thanking the Discovery Channel for giving you the chance to step up to the plate and knock this soft ball out of the park.
Things I learn than on the Today Show
I've got five minutes to write this, so I need to think fast. I'm at a hotel in Chicago and will be leaving in a few minutes. Can't think of anything profound (at least not off the top of my head) so I must recourse to writing a list of what I learn from daily watching Meredith, Al, and Matt on the Today Show every morning. Here is a brief list.
1. Men really do like chick flicks, even though they don't want to admit it.
2. Eat healthy
3. Eat healthy
4. Eat healthy
5. Bald isn't really that bad (just ask Matt Lauer)
6.If I want to be famous, I should do something really outrageous on You Tube (like belly dancing or pretending I'm Luke Skywalker)
7. Stress is bad
8. Stress is bad
9..Stress is bad
10. If I want to be on TV, all I have to do is talk about sex from an "evangelical perspective" (that will be sure to book another interview)
1. Men really do like chick flicks, even though they don't want to admit it.
2. Eat healthy
3. Eat healthy
4. Eat healthy
5. Bald isn't really that bad (just ask Matt Lauer)
6.If I want to be famous, I should do something really outrageous on You Tube (like belly dancing or pretending I'm Luke Skywalker)
7. Stress is bad
8. Stress is bad
9..Stress is bad
10. If I want to be on TV, all I have to do is talk about sex from an "evangelical perspective" (that will be sure to book another interview)
Friday, March 02, 2007
A painful discovery
Although I am only 28 years old, I have read hundreds of books on theology, philosophy, history, ,current affairs, and just about every subject in between. I feel I have a fairly decent grasp at what is going on in the world. I've even authored two books. I said all that to say that over the past two evenings I have made a very painful discovery about myself- I am not smarter than a 5th grader.
Yes, it is true. I, along with millions of other Americans (at least I hope) have discovered just how little I actually know by watching Jeff Foxworthy's (remember the red-neck guy?) show on Fox Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Even worse, I couldn't even answer some of the first and second grade questions. To put it rather mildly, I've been humbled.
Can anyone think of a spiritual lesson that can be learned from a guy who thinks he's intelligent to find out that he is not actually smarter than a 5th grader?
Again, seeking redemption.
Yes, it is true. I, along with millions of other Americans (at least I hope) have discovered just how little I actually know by watching Jeff Foxworthy's (remember the red-neck guy?) show on Fox Are you smarter than a 5th grader? Even worse, I couldn't even answer some of the first and second grade questions. To put it rather mildly, I've been humbled.
Can anyone think of a spiritual lesson that can be learned from a guy who thinks he's intelligent to find out that he is not actually smarter than a 5th grader?
Again, seeking redemption.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
In praise of C.S. Lewis
In a world of uncertainty and confusion, every once in a while voices rise from the ashes and stand out above all the rest. During the first half of the 20th century, a time when the world was falling apart and people were being slaughtered like animals, that man was C.S. Lewis.
What makes C.S. Lewis so great is that he presented to the world a reasonable faith without the dogma that is often associated with the more rigid belief systems within Christianity. C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity is a book that nearly all Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant can point to and say "this I believe."
It is also the best book to give to an honest seeker whose intellect is hindering him or her from accepting the essentials of the Christian faith. Just to keep myself fresh, I plan to read this book over and over throughout my life (perhaps at the start of every year). To those interested in propogating and defending the Christian faith, I would encourage to do the same.
What makes C.S. Lewis so great is that he presented to the world a reasonable faith without the dogma that is often associated with the more rigid belief systems within Christianity. C.S. Lewis's book Mere Christianity is a book that nearly all Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant can point to and say "this I believe."
It is also the best book to give to an honest seeker whose intellect is hindering him or her from accepting the essentials of the Christian faith. Just to keep myself fresh, I plan to read this book over and over throughout my life (perhaps at the start of every year). To those interested in propogating and defending the Christian faith, I would encourage to do the same.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Losing weight and feeling guilty
Last year, due to the overwhelming costs of our health insurance plan, Rhiannon and I decided to join a Christian based health insurance program. Though technically not insurance, the program effectively fulfills the function of protecting against the disastrous costs of terminal disease and accidents that leave you on the hospital bed while your life savings dwindles to nothing. For most of my life, up until a few months ago, I had been slowly gaining weight while appearing thin on the outside. Unbeknownst to me, my cholesterol and triglycerides were rising too-and fast. I was told that if I didn't lower my cholesterol, I'd be off the program.
To make the long story short. The program has a health specialist that has been calling me every week and keeping me accountable. I have to read a chapter in Dr. Fuhrman's Eat to Live book every week and then talk to a woman that calls me every Wednesday morning at 11:00 a.m. to ask me how I did the previous week. In case you'd like to know. I discovered that the secret to the greatest health is to eat as much whole fruits and vegetables (not supplements) and beans as possible and eat less of everything else. Although in no ways have I become a vegetarian, I've been doing that for the past few weeks and have lost 8 pounds, pounds that I had gained by stuffing my face with meat in Brazil and letting myself go while I was in Orlando last year. I'm losing weight and feeling great and I suspect that my cholesterol has been lowered too.
So why do I feel guilty? Part of the reason is because I know that while I am trimming my waistline here in the U.S. there are numerous missionaries around the world, especially in Africa who can not eat the leafy greens that make us so healthy because the salad is often contaminated. I also know that the awful white rice that is so bad for the body (because it's processed) is about all that people eat in Guinea Bissau. A bowl of rice a day. That's it. And what about my Pakistani pastor friend who spends all day visiting with people in their homes and praying for their needs? Each and every visit he is offered Pepsi and to refuse it would be a serious insult to the hosts. (We have a joke about being a victim of Pakistani hospitality, but it's actually quite serious)
A few years back, I was in Cambodia visiting a missionary friend who made a profound statement. He said that we Americans have a self-preservation mentality. In other words, we think that prolonging our lives is a virtue. If this is true, then what about those who put themselves in unhealthy living conditions for the sake of extending the gospel? Are they living unhealthy lives?
Lastly, there are other cultures who are not as weight obscessed as we are. In the Cook Islands, having a big belly is a blessing, not a curse. I'm sure they have diabetes and heart disease there too, but people don't seem to care that their diet is shortening their lives. To them, value is in relationships.
To throw another curve ball in this discussion, the Bible lists gluttony as a sin-something that statisticallly speaking Americans are the worst offendors. So which is worse? Gluttony or self-obscession? I don't reallly know. My current answer is to eat plants during the week and then pig out during the weekends. I have to soothe my conscience somehow.
To make the long story short. The program has a health specialist that has been calling me every week and keeping me accountable. I have to read a chapter in Dr. Fuhrman's Eat to Live book every week and then talk to a woman that calls me every Wednesday morning at 11:00 a.m. to ask me how I did the previous week. In case you'd like to know. I discovered that the secret to the greatest health is to eat as much whole fruits and vegetables (not supplements) and beans as possible and eat less of everything else. Although in no ways have I become a vegetarian, I've been doing that for the past few weeks and have lost 8 pounds, pounds that I had gained by stuffing my face with meat in Brazil and letting myself go while I was in Orlando last year. I'm losing weight and feeling great and I suspect that my cholesterol has been lowered too.
So why do I feel guilty? Part of the reason is because I know that while I am trimming my waistline here in the U.S. there are numerous missionaries around the world, especially in Africa who can not eat the leafy greens that make us so healthy because the salad is often contaminated. I also know that the awful white rice that is so bad for the body (because it's processed) is about all that people eat in Guinea Bissau. A bowl of rice a day. That's it. And what about my Pakistani pastor friend who spends all day visiting with people in their homes and praying for their needs? Each and every visit he is offered Pepsi and to refuse it would be a serious insult to the hosts. (We have a joke about being a victim of Pakistani hospitality, but it's actually quite serious)
A few years back, I was in Cambodia visiting a missionary friend who made a profound statement. He said that we Americans have a self-preservation mentality. In other words, we think that prolonging our lives is a virtue. If this is true, then what about those who put themselves in unhealthy living conditions for the sake of extending the gospel? Are they living unhealthy lives?
Lastly, there are other cultures who are not as weight obscessed as we are. In the Cook Islands, having a big belly is a blessing, not a curse. I'm sure they have diabetes and heart disease there too, but people don't seem to care that their diet is shortening their lives. To them, value is in relationships.
To throw another curve ball in this discussion, the Bible lists gluttony as a sin-something that statisticallly speaking Americans are the worst offendors. So which is worse? Gluttony or self-obscession? I don't reallly know. My current answer is to eat plants during the week and then pig out during the weekends. I have to soothe my conscience somehow.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Jesus family tomb discovered?
By now you have probably heard of the "recent" discovery of an ossuary in a suburb outside of Jerusalem containing bones of the holy royal family. Actually this is not a new discovery at all, archaeologists have known about the tomb for years, but never saw anything significant because of the comonness of the names Jesus Mary and Joseph among Jews of the first century.
If you haven't researched this one out, here are 10 reasons why the claims in the upcoming Discovery documentary are bogus.
What I find interesting in this whole discussion is that even liberal scholars can no longer dispute the claim that the family tomb of Joseph of Arimethea in which Jesus was buried (traditionally the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) was empty on the third day. Neither can they dispute the early apostle's claims to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Furthermore, as in times past, liberal scholars often claim that what became Orthodox Christianity (the belief in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus) did not evolve until centuries after His death. Now, even this idea most scholars have conceded is false due to the overwhelming evidence of the rapid growth of Christianity in the first century based on the belief in the resurrection.
It seems now the only credible way to undermine the core tenant of Christianity is to presume the body was stolen. This idea has serious problems though. For one, the tomb was heavily guarded. Secondly, the disciples would have had no reason to steal the body and then proclaim to the world a risen Jesus if they knew the claims to be false. Each and every witness to the resurrection paid a horrible price (the majority of them were crucified) for their claims. No one dies for something they know to be false. Given the growth of Christianity during the first century and the intense persecution that followed, wouldn't someone from the Roman government or the Jewish authorities or, better yet, from the family of Jesus wanted to produce the body to stop the unnecessary threat to peace?
Lastly, if there really was a family tomb of Jesus, don't you think that James, the brother of Jesus would have known about it? The fact that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church, a group of people who firmly believed in the resurrection of Jesus, does a lot to discredit this claim.
When the dust settles on this story, the same truth will remain. Jesus is risen!
If you haven't researched this one out, here are 10 reasons why the claims in the upcoming Discovery documentary are bogus.
What I find interesting in this whole discussion is that even liberal scholars can no longer dispute the claim that the family tomb of Joseph of Arimethea in which Jesus was buried (traditionally the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) was empty on the third day. Neither can they dispute the early apostle's claims to have seen Jesus alive after the crucifixion. Furthermore, as in times past, liberal scholars often claim that what became Orthodox Christianity (the belief in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus) did not evolve until centuries after His death. Now, even this idea most scholars have conceded is false due to the overwhelming evidence of the rapid growth of Christianity in the first century based on the belief in the resurrection.
It seems now the only credible way to undermine the core tenant of Christianity is to presume the body was stolen. This idea has serious problems though. For one, the tomb was heavily guarded. Secondly, the disciples would have had no reason to steal the body and then proclaim to the world a risen Jesus if they knew the claims to be false. Each and every witness to the resurrection paid a horrible price (the majority of them were crucified) for their claims. No one dies for something they know to be false. Given the growth of Christianity during the first century and the intense persecution that followed, wouldn't someone from the Roman government or the Jewish authorities or, better yet, from the family of Jesus wanted to produce the body to stop the unnecessary threat to peace?
Lastly, if there really was a family tomb of Jesus, don't you think that James, the brother of Jesus would have known about it? The fact that James was the leader of the Jerusalem church, a group of people who firmly believed in the resurrection of Jesus, does a lot to discredit this claim.
When the dust settles on this story, the same truth will remain. Jesus is risen!
Friday, February 23, 2007
Jim Carrey and Jesus
Now that I have been blogging a while, I feel it is time to reveal one of my deepest, darkest secrets. Are you ready? It's a shocker. I wake up very morning to Quaker Oatmeal (I'm trying to lower my cholesterol) and Al, Matt, and Meredith from the Today Show. There now. That wasn't so difficult. Now that I got that off my chest and you know my morning routine, which includes unloading spiritual wisdom on my worldwide readership of 4 or 5 (thank you Pete and Toby for sticking in there with me, when this blog wins a Pulitzer, you'll be glad you did), I may now proceed to the point of this post.
On the Today Show, Meredith was interviewing Jim Carrey about his new movie 23. As always, Jim Carrey was hilarious, just as I expected him to be. What interested me was when he shared about how before he made it big in Hollywood, he actually walked to the Hollywood mountain and wrote himself a check for $10 million dollars. This, of course, was before he was famous and probably only had a few dollars in his checking account. Five years later, he received his first 10 million dollar check.
Now let's look at the words of Jesus and see if we can find any similariies.
Very interesting indeed.
On the Today Show, Meredith was interviewing Jim Carrey about his new movie 23. As always, Jim Carrey was hilarious, just as I expected him to be. What interested me was when he shared about how before he made it big in Hollywood, he actually walked to the Hollywood mountain and wrote himself a check for $10 million dollars. This, of course, was before he was famous and probably only had a few dollars in his checking account. Five years later, he received his first 10 million dollar check.
Now let's look at the words of Jesus and see if we can find any similariies.
For assuredly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says.
Very interesting indeed.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Building Bridges
One of the most common criticisms against missionaries is that they worsen the problem of Muslim hostility towards the West. Here is a story that challenges that notion.
ARABIAN PENINSULA - AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE
from: PTAP (http://www.pray-ap.info) (Praying Through the Arabian
Peninsula) - Weekly Update - December 2006
A couple of [months] ago I went to what I can only describe as
a Muslim home group. The leader then introduced the guest sheikh
and the topic for the evening: How can we find unity again after
the recent political event in our country? The religious sheikh
spoke for about 20 minutes about four paths to unity: a pure
heart, drawing near to God, forgiving others, and spending time
with each other. I was astonished!
The home group leader ended by thanking the host and thanking
everyone for coming. Then he introduced me! "We're especially
glad that 'Brendan' could be here tonight. Of course, he's not
a Muslim. But he follows Jesus, and his Arabic is very good.
Brendan, is there anything you’d like to say to us?"
I couldn't believe it. I said, "...For me, what gives me the
power to forgive others is when I remember that God has forgiven
me. When I consider how much God has forgiven me, it's usually
easier for me to forgive others..." But just about everyone came
up to me afterwards and thanked me for being there and for what
I "spoke from my heart." Pray for this group of men, please,
as I spend Sunday nights with them.
ARABIAN PENINSULA - AMAZING OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE
from: PTAP (http://www.pray-ap.info) (Praying Through the Arabian
Peninsula) - Weekly Update - December 2006
A couple of [months] ago I went to what I can only describe as
a Muslim home group. The leader then introduced the guest sheikh
and the topic for the evening: How can we find unity again after
the recent political event in our country? The religious sheikh
spoke for about 20 minutes about four paths to unity: a pure
heart, drawing near to God, forgiving others, and spending time
with each other. I was astonished!
The home group leader ended by thanking the host and thanking
everyone for coming. Then he introduced me! "We're especially
glad that 'Brendan' could be here tonight. Of course, he's not
a Muslim. But he follows Jesus, and his Arabic is very good.
Brendan, is there anything you’d like to say to us?"
I couldn't believe it. I said, "...For me, what gives me the
power to forgive others is when I remember that God has forgiven
me. When I consider how much God has forgiven me, it's usually
easier for me to forgive others..." But just about everyone came
up to me afterwards and thanked me for being there and for what
I "spoke from my heart." Pray for this group of men, please,
as I spend Sunday nights with them.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
They'll still be eating
I was hoping to write a humorous post today, but the strange thing is, I can't really think of anything both humorous and enlightening (except for the fact that my trash truck woes continue to this day, you should have seen me jump out of bed this morning and running to the end of my driveway in my pajamas...on second thought...maybe you shouldn't have..but I digress)
If you look at the comments on my progress verses apocalypse post, you'll see an interesting essay on how our technological society causes us to over-think and also be over-entertained. The point was made that when we are not thinking or being entertained, we get depressed. The point of the comment was that technology eventually leads to emotional bankrupcy.
I have a hard time arguing with the thesis of the comment, I'm just not sure what should be done about it. Henry David Thoreau theorized that modern man is overworked and is much better off leading lives of quiet contemplation in closer harmony with nature. While that idea might sound a bit far-fetched to us today, we should keep in mind that while Thoreau was picking lilies at Walden Pond, he was developping concepts that eventually led to writing an essay called civil disobedience, an essay that influenced both Ghandi and Martin Luther King and laid the groundwork for peaceful human rights movements around the world.
I think any idea can be taken to the extreme, however, even this one. The Cambodian dictator Pol Pot developed the idea that modernization is evil and wanted to transform Cambodia into a strictly agrarian society. The result was a movement that slaughtered over two million people and set the country's economy back decades.
One last thought. I heard of a missionary to a native tribe in Mexico who was describing the agrarian lifestyle of the people he was serving. When asked how the people could live in such substandard conditions, he replied. Maybe their lifestyle isn't so bad after all. You Americans are storing food for Y2K, but if the entire world economy collapses, they'll still be eating.
If you look at the comments on my progress verses apocalypse post, you'll see an interesting essay on how our technological society causes us to over-think and also be over-entertained. The point was made that when we are not thinking or being entertained, we get depressed. The point of the comment was that technology eventually leads to emotional bankrupcy.
I have a hard time arguing with the thesis of the comment, I'm just not sure what should be done about it. Henry David Thoreau theorized that modern man is overworked and is much better off leading lives of quiet contemplation in closer harmony with nature. While that idea might sound a bit far-fetched to us today, we should keep in mind that while Thoreau was picking lilies at Walden Pond, he was developping concepts that eventually led to writing an essay called civil disobedience, an essay that influenced both Ghandi and Martin Luther King and laid the groundwork for peaceful human rights movements around the world.
I think any idea can be taken to the extreme, however, even this one. The Cambodian dictator Pol Pot developed the idea that modernization is evil and wanted to transform Cambodia into a strictly agrarian society. The result was a movement that slaughtered over two million people and set the country's economy back decades.
One last thought. I heard of a missionary to a native tribe in Mexico who was describing the agrarian lifestyle of the people he was serving. When asked how the people could live in such substandard conditions, he replied. Maybe their lifestyle isn't so bad after all. You Americans are storing food for Y2K, but if the entire world economy collapses, they'll still be eating.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Progress or apocalypse?
The can that I am about to pry open is a gigantic one, far greater than what will meet the eye at first. The implications deal directly with the belief system of millions of people in our nation and around the world, in particular as it relates to the Christian faith. Read carefully and think about it for a while before jumping to quick conclusions.
If we look at America today, it seems that we have two very different Christianities. One version of Christianity believes in societal progress and the other does not. Just to be clear, those Christians who believe in human progress are usually called Catholics, liberals, postmillenialists, kingdom-now, sometimes they are even called humanists. One of the newest forms of this line of thinking is the Emergent Church movement (a highly controversial movement within evangelicalism at the moment). The bottom line is that there are Christians who believe that Jesus came to the world to introduce a set of values (often called kingdom values) to institute a process of change that will eventually overthrow the works of darkness and restore creation to its original intent.
Those who think this way have good reason to think this way. After all, it was Jesus who went about preaching "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Since the Apocalypse did not happen in the first century A.D. (at least for the entire world) it is reasonable to say that Jesus was instituting God's reign of overthrowing evil by overthrowing evil in the hearts of men. Jesus also saw His mission in terms of Isaiah 61, which was (and is) to "set at liberty those who are oppressed." Isaiah also prophesied concerning Jesus, "of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end." This certainly speaks of linear progression. I know of very few Christian scholars who would not say that Christ's inauguration as king did not begin with Pentecost. Lastly, consider what the Apostle John said in his epistle, "because the true light is shining and the darkness is passing away." Again, this speaks of progress. It would be very strange for me as a Christian to believe that Jesus would take the time to give the world the Sermon on the Mount if He didn't believe it would have an impact on society when actually lived out. I call this dimension of Christianity the kingdom dimension.
The second group of Christians in America and around the world are those who hold to an apocalyptic view of Christianity. They say that this world is going to be destroyed (in a catastrophic way in fact) so the best that we can hope for is to rescue people from this present evil age by getting as many people as possible to confess Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Those who think this way also have good reasons to think this way. The Apostle Peter talks about the earth being destroyed by fire. The Apostle Paul said of Jesus, "who gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us from this present evil age." Even the most liberal interpretation of the Book of Revelation can hardly look over the obvious teaching that the end of this present age will not be a picnic for planet earth. To lend even greater credibility to this idea, despite those who say this worldview leads to trashing the environment and a shirking of social responsibility, this view also is in agreement with science. The law of entropy intitiated at the Big Bang guarantees that "the form of this world is passing away" just as the Scriptures teach.
So who is right? The answer is both. To hold a kingdom view of Christianity is to believe that by following the teachings of Jesus, one can make a real and tangible difference in the world in which we live. Holding an apocalyptic view keeps us from believing that mankind is capable of creating a utopia without God's direct intervention (as many socio-political movements have painfully discovered throughout history). As long as we are on this side of eternity, the wheats and the tares will grow side by side until God intervenes and throws the tares in the fire. In the end, only the wheat will endure. While not forgetting that we need to anticipate His coming, let's occupy until He comes.
If we look at America today, it seems that we have two very different Christianities. One version of Christianity believes in societal progress and the other does not. Just to be clear, those Christians who believe in human progress are usually called Catholics, liberals, postmillenialists, kingdom-now, sometimes they are even called humanists. One of the newest forms of this line of thinking is the Emergent Church movement (a highly controversial movement within evangelicalism at the moment). The bottom line is that there are Christians who believe that Jesus came to the world to introduce a set of values (often called kingdom values) to institute a process of change that will eventually overthrow the works of darkness and restore creation to its original intent.
Those who think this way have good reason to think this way. After all, it was Jesus who went about preaching "the kingdom of heaven is at hand." Since the Apocalypse did not happen in the first century A.D. (at least for the entire world) it is reasonable to say that Jesus was instituting God's reign of overthrowing evil by overthrowing evil in the hearts of men. Jesus also saw His mission in terms of Isaiah 61, which was (and is) to "set at liberty those who are oppressed." Isaiah also prophesied concerning Jesus, "of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end." This certainly speaks of linear progression. I know of very few Christian scholars who would not say that Christ's inauguration as king did not begin with Pentecost. Lastly, consider what the Apostle John said in his epistle, "because the true light is shining and the darkness is passing away." Again, this speaks of progress. It would be very strange for me as a Christian to believe that Jesus would take the time to give the world the Sermon on the Mount if He didn't believe it would have an impact on society when actually lived out. I call this dimension of Christianity the kingdom dimension.
The second group of Christians in America and around the world are those who hold to an apocalyptic view of Christianity. They say that this world is going to be destroyed (in a catastrophic way in fact) so the best that we can hope for is to rescue people from this present evil age by getting as many people as possible to confess Jesus as their Lord and Savior. Those who think this way also have good reasons to think this way. The Apostle Peter talks about the earth being destroyed by fire. The Apostle Paul said of Jesus, "who gave Himself for our sins that He might deliver us from this present evil age." Even the most liberal interpretation of the Book of Revelation can hardly look over the obvious teaching that the end of this present age will not be a picnic for planet earth. To lend even greater credibility to this idea, despite those who say this worldview leads to trashing the environment and a shirking of social responsibility, this view also is in agreement with science. The law of entropy intitiated at the Big Bang guarantees that "the form of this world is passing away" just as the Scriptures teach.
So who is right? The answer is both. To hold a kingdom view of Christianity is to believe that by following the teachings of Jesus, one can make a real and tangible difference in the world in which we live. Holding an apocalyptic view keeps us from believing that mankind is capable of creating a utopia without God's direct intervention (as many socio-political movements have painfully discovered throughout history). As long as we are on this side of eternity, the wheats and the tares will grow side by side until God intervenes and throws the tares in the fire. In the end, only the wheat will endure. While not forgetting that we need to anticipate His coming, let's occupy until He comes.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Beginning with I can't
Thousands of books are written every year and millions of dollars are spent on success seminars for the expressed purpose of telling people to believe the two magic words "I can." I find it rather interesting that Christianity actually begins with the words "I can't."
Christianity has very little to say to people who don't see living a moral life as a value to strive for. It has even less to say to those who believe they are already living a moral life. It is only when one has made a genuine effort and failed every time that the Christian faith steps in. For it is when we say "I can't" that we come to realize that He can.
The sooner we stop trying to earn brownie points with God, the better. As I was reading 1 Corinthians chapter one last night, I heard the voice of the Spirit inside my heart say, "Aaron, you have nothing to boast about."
Sobering, but true.
Christianity has very little to say to people who don't see living a moral life as a value to strive for. It has even less to say to those who believe they are already living a moral life. It is only when one has made a genuine effort and failed every time that the Christian faith steps in. For it is when we say "I can't" that we come to realize that He can.
The sooner we stop trying to earn brownie points with God, the better. As I was reading 1 Corinthians chapter one last night, I heard the voice of the Spirit inside my heart say, "Aaron, you have nothing to boast about."
Sobering, but true.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Red head beer drinking evangelist
Evangelist. The very word conjures up images of men with slicked back hair fleecing the ignorant masses or, if you have a more positive view, the ultra spiritual giant pleading with the masses of the world to turn from their sins and trust in Christ. The word probably doesn't bring to mind jobless beer drinking Vietnam vets, but that is exactly what my wife and I found one day as we were minding our own business taking a leisurely walk in Arnold Park.
It was a nice summer evening and my wife and I were enjoying the fresh air when we noticed a man throwing a stick to two big playful dogs who were having the time of their lives. As the dogs came near us, we began to pet them and, without intending to start a conversation, we found ourselves unable to walk away from the owner who just wanted someone to talk to. Without us asking, he began to tell us of his love for dogs and how one of the dogs he took in a week earlier because he had been abused and abandoned. He then began to tell us about his days in the Vietnam war and how much he despised the U.S. government.
Without necessarily sharing his disdain for my country, my mind immediately went back to the week I had spent in Vietnam during my Bible School days and the museums that showed me the awful things that both the Vietnamese people and the Americans soldiers suffered during the war. Given that I assumed that he must have experienced some terrible things that I couldn't even imagine, I decided to cut him some slack as he continued with his story.
The man proceeded to tell us how he had been kicked out of more than a few churches, how he had a bit of an alcohol problem (though he was not drunk at the time), how he had a very difficult time relating to people, and, lastly, just how much he loved his dogs. Judging from the dogs themselves it was obvious that they were well cared for, better than most dogs I know at least. I sensed a profound affection for these two K-9s that at the very least matched a good parent with human children. He proceeded to tell us that he believed that, although he couldn't relate well to people, that God had given him these dogs so that he could care for them and protect them. In essence, he said that this was his ministry.
As we stood there listening to his story, we could tell that he was wanting to say something, but was struggling for the words. Finally, he worked up the courage to ask me, "If you died tomorrow, do you know where you would go?" I had a choice at that moment. I could have said, "Why yes, as a matter of fact I do. Not only am I a Christian, but I am also a missionary to the nations" , but I did not. I knew that it took a lot of courage for this man to ask me that question, probably more courage than for me to stand on a platform and deliver a gospel sermon.
The man proceeded to apologize for not being a very good witness. As I looked at the two beautiful dogs staring back at their master in playful anticipation, dogs that had been abused, abandoned, and wihtout hope in this sometimes cruel world, I thanked him for taking the time out to talk to me.
It's been several months since that summer evening and I still can't get the man out of my mind. I may win millions to Christ or I may only reach a few. Perhaps, in the end, I have a feeling that's not what really matters. What matters is in the end is what I have done with what God has given me. This man, although he had very little to give, gave all that he had. As I walked away, I realized that my Father in heaven was teaching me, the aspiring world evangelist a valuable lesson that day through this red head beer drinking evangelist. God help me if I ever forget. Man looks at the outward appearance. God looks at the heart.
It was a nice summer evening and my wife and I were enjoying the fresh air when we noticed a man throwing a stick to two big playful dogs who were having the time of their lives. As the dogs came near us, we began to pet them and, without intending to start a conversation, we found ourselves unable to walk away from the owner who just wanted someone to talk to. Without us asking, he began to tell us of his love for dogs and how one of the dogs he took in a week earlier because he had been abused and abandoned. He then began to tell us about his days in the Vietnam war and how much he despised the U.S. government.
Without necessarily sharing his disdain for my country, my mind immediately went back to the week I had spent in Vietnam during my Bible School days and the museums that showed me the awful things that both the Vietnamese people and the Americans soldiers suffered during the war. Given that I assumed that he must have experienced some terrible things that I couldn't even imagine, I decided to cut him some slack as he continued with his story.
The man proceeded to tell us how he had been kicked out of more than a few churches, how he had a bit of an alcohol problem (though he was not drunk at the time), how he had a very difficult time relating to people, and, lastly, just how much he loved his dogs. Judging from the dogs themselves it was obvious that they were well cared for, better than most dogs I know at least. I sensed a profound affection for these two K-9s that at the very least matched a good parent with human children. He proceeded to tell us that he believed that, although he couldn't relate well to people, that God had given him these dogs so that he could care for them and protect them. In essence, he said that this was his ministry.
As we stood there listening to his story, we could tell that he was wanting to say something, but was struggling for the words. Finally, he worked up the courage to ask me, "If you died tomorrow, do you know where you would go?" I had a choice at that moment. I could have said, "Why yes, as a matter of fact I do. Not only am I a Christian, but I am also a missionary to the nations" , but I did not. I knew that it took a lot of courage for this man to ask me that question, probably more courage than for me to stand on a platform and deliver a gospel sermon.
The man proceeded to apologize for not being a very good witness. As I looked at the two beautiful dogs staring back at their master in playful anticipation, dogs that had been abused, abandoned, and wihtout hope in this sometimes cruel world, I thanked him for taking the time out to talk to me.
It's been several months since that summer evening and I still can't get the man out of my mind. I may win millions to Christ or I may only reach a few. Perhaps, in the end, I have a feeling that's not what really matters. What matters is in the end is what I have done with what God has given me. This man, although he had very little to give, gave all that he had. As I walked away, I realized that my Father in heaven was teaching me, the aspiring world evangelist a valuable lesson that day through this red head beer drinking evangelist. God help me if I ever forget. Man looks at the outward appearance. God looks at the heart.
Budget cuts for aids babies
This e-mail comes from Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost. Make sure to contact your congressman about this!
Don't like to pitch stories to bloggers, but this is an issue that I think deserves our attention. My sources say that the funding of this program--which funds HIV testing for infants to prevent HIV related infections--was blocked by low-level staffers from the CDC. Why? Who knows? But all too often this is "how things get done" in D.C. Some unelected staffer sneaks in wording that circumvents the will of both the American people and our representatives.
http://www.frcblog.com/2007/02/congress_blocks_funding_of_bab.html
Congress Blocks Funding of "Baby AIDS" Program
Every year thousands of babies, predominately from poor African-American families, are born at risk of developing HIV. Many of these children develop HIV related infections that could have easily been prevented by prenatal testing and treatment. States that have implemented HIV testing for infants have seen their infections rates drop dramatically. Such success even inspired Congress to pass the Ryan White Early Diagnosis Grant Program. The program authorized $30 million in funding to states with infant HIV testing in order to ensure that these vulnerable children are protected.
The program was created just two months ago yet someone has already included language in the appropriations bill to prohibit funding for the "Baby Aids" program. Section 20613(b) of H.J.Res. 20 states:
(b) None of the funds appropriated by this division may be used to: (1) implement section 2625 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33; relating to the Ryan White early diagnosis grant program)…
This provision does not save any money but simply prohibits funds to help identify these toddlers. In fact, the funding was already included in President Bush's FY08 budget request. So why would anyone insert this language into the bill?
Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) attempted to add an amendment to restore the funding. Unfortunately, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never allowed the amendment to be included before the bill reached the Senate floor for a vote.
One would think that protecting sick babies is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans would fully endorse. So who inserted this language? And why wasn't Sen. Coburn's amendment added? Every American who cares about children should be asking that question – and demanding that Congress give us an answer.
Don't like to pitch stories to bloggers, but this is an issue that I think deserves our attention. My sources say that the funding of this program--which funds HIV testing for infants to prevent HIV related infections--was blocked by low-level staffers from the CDC. Why? Who knows? But all too often this is "how things get done" in D.C. Some unelected staffer sneaks in wording that circumvents the will of both the American people and our representatives.
http://www.frcblog.com/2007/02/congress_blocks_funding_of_bab.html
Congress Blocks Funding of "Baby AIDS" Program
Every year thousands of babies, predominately from poor African-American families, are born at risk of developing HIV. Many of these children develop HIV related infections that could have easily been prevented by prenatal testing and treatment. States that have implemented HIV testing for infants have seen their infections rates drop dramatically. Such success even inspired Congress to pass the Ryan White Early Diagnosis Grant Program. The program authorized $30 million in funding to states with infant HIV testing in order to ensure that these vulnerable children are protected.
The program was created just two months ago yet someone has already included language in the appropriations bill to prohibit funding for the "Baby Aids" program. Section 20613(b) of H.J.Res. 20 states:
(b) None of the funds appropriated by this division may be used to: (1) implement section 2625 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300ff-33; relating to the Ryan White early diagnosis grant program)…
This provision does not save any money but simply prohibits funds to help identify these toddlers. In fact, the funding was already included in President Bush's FY08 budget request. So why would anyone insert this language into the bill?
Earlier this week, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) attempted to add an amendment to restore the funding. Unfortunately, Democratic Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) never allowed the amendment to be included before the bill reached the Senate floor for a vote.
One would think that protecting sick babies is an issue that both Democrats and Republicans would fully endorse. So who inserted this language? And why wasn't Sen. Coburn's amendment added? Every American who cares about children should be asking that question – and demanding that Congress give us an answer.
For or against?
Here is an interesting article that sums up a lot of what I have been saying over the past year. I think it will make for some interesting discussion.
HELP, I'M A VICTIM OF IDENTITY THEFT
from: Shane Bennett, Initiative360
(http://www.takeitglobal.org)
Identity theft. DUM duh dum DUM. It's the scary crime du jour.
Having not been a victim of identity theft, I probably overly
downplay its significance. (Similarly, I had to put on a jacket
this morning, therefore global warming is a myth.) But I do suspect
the Church, at least in the US - at least the evangelical Church
in the US - may have suffered identity theft on a grand scale.
We seem to be "the Church that is against stuff." We are defined
by what we oppose. Try this: Ask someone you don't know well
to list the things that Christians are in favor of and the things
that they're against. I'll bet you your subscription price to
Missions Catalyst that the second list is twice as long as the
first. (Either way, if the person gives you a combined list with
over five items, take them for a coffee and a conversation. It
might be enlightening.)
A quick ramble through the gospels seems to indicate that Jesus
was for a lot more than he was against. Consider the early part
of Mark's account. Jesus is for (among other things): announcing
the kingdom, praying, casting out demons, healing mothers-in-
law, forgiving sins, and hanging out with both stinky people
(fishermen and lepers) and nice smelling ones (Pharisees and
prostitutes).
At least as long as I can remember, we've had a long list of
things we are against and things we don't do: We don't play cards,
we don't dance, we don't listen to music with a "rock and roll
beat," we don't drink, smoke, chew, or go with girls who do.
Lately we've been against abortion, evolution, stem cell research,
gay people, and both liberal politics and politicians. This is
not to say that there is nothing we should be against. For instance,
I'm solidly against abortion. The point is that we've been framed,
rightly or wrongly, as "the people who are against stuff."
What would it be like if we were known for what we were for?
It would be pretty cool. What would you like Christians to be
known for? Here's my abbreviated list: Christians laugh and sing,
kiss their wives, work hard, give fun gifts, and keep standing
through disappointment and failure. They listen, throw decent
parties, and tell interesting stories. They always seem to be
making friends.
Assuming you are reading the Missions Catalyst because you're
into missions, and considering anyone who's into missions part
of my tribe, can I ask you a favor? We, of all people, should
be Christians who are for, rather than against. We are for the
growth of God's kingdom, in which he is known, loved, and followed.
We are for churches being all they can be, as well as the people
who make them up. And we are for peoples and cultures becoming
all God has in mind for them, living the best possible lives
under his loving authority. So here's the favor: In the coming
months join me in asking God and looking around for ways to reframe
the argument. Let's lead the way (If I can be that presumptuous)
in returning to a Church that is for God's good purposes over
and above one that is against the corruption of evil. If you
need a shallow place to step in, how about this Friday inviting
over some international students to play cards.
Thanks to John Smulo (http://www.snipurl.com/16xhv) for sparking
these thoughts.
HELP, I'M A VICTIM OF IDENTITY THEFT
from: Shane Bennett
(http://www.takeitglobal.org)
Identity theft. DUM duh dum DUM. It's the scary crime du jour.
Having not been a victim of identity theft, I probably overly
downplay its significance. (Similarly, I had to put on a jacket
this morning, therefore global warming is a myth.) But I do suspect
the Church, at least in the US - at least the evangelical Church
in the US - may have suffered identity theft on a grand scale.
We seem to be "the Church that is against stuff." We are defined
by what we oppose. Try this: Ask someone you don't know well
to list the things that Christians are in favor of and the things
that they're against. I'll bet you your subscription price to
Missions Catalyst that the second list is twice as long as the
first. (Either way, if the person gives you a combined list with
over five items, take them for a coffee and a conversation. It
might be enlightening.)
A quick ramble through the gospels seems to indicate that Jesus
was for a lot more than he was against. Consider the early part
of Mark's account. Jesus is for (among other things): announcing
the kingdom, praying, casting out demons, healing mothers-in-
law, forgiving sins, and hanging out with both stinky people
(fishermen and lepers) and nice smelling ones (Pharisees and
prostitutes).
At least as long as I can remember, we've had a long list of
things we are against and things we don't do: We don't play cards,
we don't dance, we don't listen to music with a "rock and roll
beat," we don't drink, smoke, chew, or go with girls who do.
Lately we've been against abortion, evolution, stem cell research,
gay people, and both liberal politics and politicians. This is
not to say that there is nothing we should be against. For instance,
I'm solidly against abortion. The point is that we've been framed,
rightly or wrongly, as "the people who are against stuff."
What would it be like if we were known for what we were for?
It would be pretty cool. What would you like Christians to be
known for? Here's my abbreviated list: Christians laugh and sing,
kiss their wives, work hard, give fun gifts, and keep standing
through disappointment and failure. They listen, throw decent
parties, and tell interesting stories. They always seem to be
making friends.
Assuming you are reading the Missions Catalyst because you're
into missions, and considering anyone who's into missions part
of my tribe, can I ask you a favor? We, of all people, should
be Christians who are for, rather than against. We are for the
growth of God's kingdom, in which he is known, loved, and followed.
We are for churches being all they can be, as well as the people
who make them up. And we are for peoples and cultures becoming
all God has in mind for them, living the best possible lives
under his loving authority. So here's the favor: In the coming
months join me in asking God and looking around for ways to reframe
the argument. Let's lead the way (If I can be that presumptuous)
in returning to a Church that is for God's good purposes over
and above one that is against the corruption of evil. If you
need a shallow place to step in, how about this Friday inviting
over some international students to play cards.
Thanks to John Smulo (http://www.snipurl.com/16xhv) for sparking
these thoughts.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Paul's epiphany
If there is one book in the Bible (besides the Book of Revelation) that could fill a library with commentary and still leave you confused after reading each and every one of them, it's the Book of Romans. It is primarily from Romans that we get the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works (although this doctrine is emphasized in Galatians and Ephesians as well).
Since the Book of Romans is the most systematic explanation of the gospel in the entire Bible (and also the most logical book in the Bible), I find it rather fascinating that so many diametrically opposite interpretations can be found. Perhaps some of the confusion is in the rather ambiguous nature of the book.
For example, Romans 2:5-10 seems to teach salvation by works, yet Romans 3:28 clearly says otherwise.
To complicate things even further, this jewel of Western literature seems to teach a number of morally problematic ideas. For example, many people say that Romans 9 teaches that God chooses some to be saved and some to be condemned to everlasting flames. Those who believe this say that God is just in doing this because those unchosen are very wicked and do not recognize His authority over their lives. Yet, the strange part about it is that these same wicked people who do not honor God (wicked by this definition could either be Hitler or your unsaved grandma), seemingly according to the Book of Romans have no other choice but to be wicked because they are simply living out their inherited sin nature passed down from Adam and Eve.
Even worse, many say that Romans 1 teaches that not only can the non-elect do nothing about their hopeless situation, but they also have enough light from God through nature and their conscience to increase their condemnation. In other words, not only does God withhold grace from the non-chosen, He gives them enough light so that He can damn them even more.
With all this in mind, I find it rather odd that Paul ends his theological discourse on the nature of the gospel with these words:
What would give Paul such an epiphany? Many would say that the reason for Paul's rejoicing is that God is glorified in the end. To this, I would agree. God's glory is supreme and there is absolutely nothing more important. But then they further say that we should rejoice that God is glorified even in the damnation of sinners. Some even say things like, "Even if my mother were frying in hell, I would give glory to God because I know that she would deserve it for the sin of failing to recognize the supremacy of God." (I'm not making this up, well-known theologians have made very similar statements to this)
Time out! Is this really what it means to believe that God is supreme over all? Does this actually mean that we should rejoice that sinners are damned because their very damnation gives glory to God? Some even say that God created hell to increase the glories of heaven. In other words, those in heaven will further enjoy their elect status by the reminder of the misery of the damned. The moral problem with this is that if I were in heaven worshipping God while delighting in the misery of others, then what kind of a monster would that make me?
Thankfully, I do not believe Paul intended for me to get my eternal jollies from the torture of the damned, nor do I believe Paul intends for us to believe that God derives everlasting pleasure from the misery of the wicked.
So what caused Paul to throw his hands up in the air and worship His maker? Let's read the verse before Paul's epiphany.
In the end, it is not God's wrath that should cause us to rejoice, but God's mercy. I find it interesting that many people derive so many different ideas from the first 11 chapters of Romans yet almost completely disregard the one verse that sums up everything that Paul has been saying up until this point.
I'll admit that, as much as I study the Bible, I am still very ignorant of God's ways (especially when it comes to salvation and damnation), but there is one thing I do know. And that is that God's desire is to show mercy to as many people as possible. I may not understand why there will be some (or many) who will be lost in the end, but I am content with the knowledge that my Father in heaven, whom I worship, is not only worthy of worship because of His power, but also because of His mercy.
Since the Book of Romans is the most systematic explanation of the gospel in the entire Bible (and also the most logical book in the Bible), I find it rather fascinating that so many diametrically opposite interpretations can be found. Perhaps some of the confusion is in the rather ambiguous nature of the book.
For example, Romans 2:5-10 seems to teach salvation by works, yet Romans 3:28 clearly says otherwise.
To complicate things even further, this jewel of Western literature seems to teach a number of morally problematic ideas. For example, many people say that Romans 9 teaches that God chooses some to be saved and some to be condemned to everlasting flames. Those who believe this say that God is just in doing this because those unchosen are very wicked and do not recognize His authority over their lives. Yet, the strange part about it is that these same wicked people who do not honor God (wicked by this definition could either be Hitler or your unsaved grandma), seemingly according to the Book of Romans have no other choice but to be wicked because they are simply living out their inherited sin nature passed down from Adam and Eve.
Even worse, many say that Romans 1 teaches that not only can the non-elect do nothing about their hopeless situation, but they also have enough light from God through nature and their conscience to increase their condemnation. In other words, not only does God withhold grace from the non-chosen, He gives them enough light so that He can damn them even more.
With all this in mind, I find it rather odd that Paul ends his theological discourse on the nature of the gospel with these words:
Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him? And it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.
What would give Paul such an epiphany? Many would say that the reason for Paul's rejoicing is that God is glorified in the end. To this, I would agree. God's glory is supreme and there is absolutely nothing more important. But then they further say that we should rejoice that God is glorified even in the damnation of sinners. Some even say things like, "Even if my mother were frying in hell, I would give glory to God because I know that she would deserve it for the sin of failing to recognize the supremacy of God." (I'm not making this up, well-known theologians have made very similar statements to this)
Time out! Is this really what it means to believe that God is supreme over all? Does this actually mean that we should rejoice that sinners are damned because their very damnation gives glory to God? Some even say that God created hell to increase the glories of heaven. In other words, those in heaven will further enjoy their elect status by the reminder of the misery of the damned. The moral problem with this is that if I were in heaven worshipping God while delighting in the misery of others, then what kind of a monster would that make me?
Thankfully, I do not believe Paul intended for me to get my eternal jollies from the torture of the damned, nor do I believe Paul intends for us to believe that God derives everlasting pleasure from the misery of the wicked.
So what caused Paul to throw his hands up in the air and worship His maker? Let's read the verse before Paul's epiphany.
For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all.
In the end, it is not God's wrath that should cause us to rejoice, but God's mercy. I find it interesting that many people derive so many different ideas from the first 11 chapters of Romans yet almost completely disregard the one verse that sums up everything that Paul has been saying up until this point.
I'll admit that, as much as I study the Bible, I am still very ignorant of God's ways (especially when it comes to salvation and damnation), but there is one thing I do know. And that is that God's desire is to show mercy to as many people as possible. I may not understand why there will be some (or many) who will be lost in the end, but I am content with the knowledge that my Father in heaven, whom I worship, is not only worthy of worship because of His power, but also because of His mercy.
Monday, February 12, 2007
A disturbing idea
At the risk of getting into trouble by opening my big mouth, something I have discovered I have a special talent for, I have decided to write a post regarding an idea I read by a well known actor turned Christian.
I read the idea in a secular magazine that was interviewing the actor about his newfound faith. In the interview, the actor was defending his criticism of Bono, the well known rock star who is the single greatest advocate for the poor in the world today (and also a self-professed Christian). The criticism went something like this: "Why should Bono spend all of that energy on helping Africa's poor when they are just going to go to hell if they don't accept Jesus?"
On the surface, this sounds like a noble idea for those of us who care about the eternal destinies of millions around the world. I must admit that I, myself, have or probably have made statements like this in the past, so this is not an attack on the personal integrity and faithfulness of the individual who made this statement.
So why am I, a man who has dedicated his life to world evangelism, disturbed by this idea? My concern comes not from a newly discovered theology that replaces preaching the gospel with opening soup kitchens. Nor does my concern mean that I do not want every human being on the planet to "receive Jesus." My concern comes from a nagging question that has been gnawing at my conscience for quite some time.
And that question is this: What does it mean to "receive Jesus" if it doesn't mean "live according to the values of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit"? Let me put it another way. If I, the evangelist, dedicate my life to telling the world to "receive Jesus" and yet, receiving Jesus to me doesn't include living according to the values of Jesus (aka..helping the poor), then what am I really saying if I tell the world that if they don't "receive Jesus" they will go to hell?
At the risk of sounding redundant, let me put it another way. Why should I tell the world they need to "receive Jesus" if "receiving Jesus" makes me less concerned about the values of Jesus than I did before?
A careful examination of the gospels shows that Jesus went out of His way to give dignity and value to those who are poor, broken, trampled on, abused, and despised by society. In fact, Jesus even indicated that, in the end, judgment will be based on how we treat "the least of these, my brethren."
If "receiving Jesus" has come to mean criticizing those who stand up for the world's poor,(as I suspect it does for the numerous people who would agree with that position, including myself until very recently) I think a serious reexamination is in order.
I read the idea in a secular magazine that was interviewing the actor about his newfound faith. In the interview, the actor was defending his criticism of Bono, the well known rock star who is the single greatest advocate for the poor in the world today (and also a self-professed Christian). The criticism went something like this: "Why should Bono spend all of that energy on helping Africa's poor when they are just going to go to hell if they don't accept Jesus?"
On the surface, this sounds like a noble idea for those of us who care about the eternal destinies of millions around the world. I must admit that I, myself, have or probably have made statements like this in the past, so this is not an attack on the personal integrity and faithfulness of the individual who made this statement.
So why am I, a man who has dedicated his life to world evangelism, disturbed by this idea? My concern comes not from a newly discovered theology that replaces preaching the gospel with opening soup kitchens. Nor does my concern mean that I do not want every human being on the planet to "receive Jesus." My concern comes from a nagging question that has been gnawing at my conscience for quite some time.
And that question is this: What does it mean to "receive Jesus" if it doesn't mean "live according to the values of Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit"? Let me put it another way. If I, the evangelist, dedicate my life to telling the world to "receive Jesus" and yet, receiving Jesus to me doesn't include living according to the values of Jesus (aka..helping the poor), then what am I really saying if I tell the world that if they don't "receive Jesus" they will go to hell?
At the risk of sounding redundant, let me put it another way. Why should I tell the world they need to "receive Jesus" if "receiving Jesus" makes me less concerned about the values of Jesus than I did before?
A careful examination of the gospels shows that Jesus went out of His way to give dignity and value to those who are poor, broken, trampled on, abused, and despised by society. In fact, Jesus even indicated that, in the end, judgment will be based on how we treat "the least of these, my brethren."
If "receiving Jesus" has come to mean criticizing those who stand up for the world's poor,(as I suspect it does for the numerous people who would agree with that position, including myself until very recently) I think a serious reexamination is in order.
Friday, February 09, 2007
Interesting story
ALBANIA - GUN-RUNNER EMBRACES THE MAN HE SET OUT TO KILL
from: ASSIST News Service (http://www.assistnews.net) - January
21, 2007
Interview with Fatmir Kaloshi by Paul Alkazraji
One day, I saw some Christian books at my house. My mother said
that they were from very good people. I started to tear the books
saying that I was a Muslim! I took a pistol and I went out to
the bridge. I said, "I'll kill them and throw them in the river."
I saw them coming in a white minibus. (In it was Pastor Dag Rane
Schjelderup.) The minibus stopped right in front of me. "Hello!
How are you? Come to my house," I said to them. I didn't want
to speak in such a friendly way. I still ask myself, "How is
it possible?"
I started to read the Bible. As soon as I read that part saying,
"Knock and it will be opened to you, ask and it will be given,"
I said: "I like it when others give to me!" I prayed to Jesus
Christ saying, "I will believe that you are alive only if you
help me. If you don't give to me, I will never trust you, and
I'll be worse than I've been before!"
Now, I say to him, "I am sorry for acting that way."
Now, I also say "Sorry" to Pastor Dag for wanting to kill him.
from: ASSIST News Service (http://www.assistnews.net) - January
21, 2007
Interview with Fatmir Kaloshi by Paul Alkazraji
One day, I saw some Christian books at my house. My mother said
that they were from very good people. I started to tear the books
saying that I was a Muslim! I took a pistol and I went out to
the bridge. I said, "I'll kill them and throw them in the river."
I saw them coming in a white minibus. (In it was Pastor Dag Rane
Schjelderup.) The minibus stopped right in front of me. "Hello!
How are you? Come to my house," I said to them. I didn't want
to speak in such a friendly way. I still ask myself, "How is
it possible?"
I started to read the Bible. As soon as I read that part saying,
"Knock and it will be opened to you, ask and it will be given,"
I said: "I like it when others give to me!" I prayed to Jesus
Christ saying, "I will believe that you are alive only if you
help me. If you don't give to me, I will never trust you, and
I'll be worse than I've been before!"
Now, I say to him, "I am sorry for acting that way."
Now, I also say "Sorry" to Pastor Dag for wanting to kill him.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
Jesus in an orange suit
I know it's been a while since I've posted. For those of you who anxiously check my blog every day for your daily dosage of wisdom and inspiration, I deeply apologize that I have let you down by not posting every day. For those of you who feel that this last sentence was far too generous, I understand. No..really...I do.
If you are wondering what the title means, let me explain. Last week, while I was in New Mexico visting my father in law, Eliot O Brien, I went to the county jail where he and a friend, Pastor Steve Marquez minister every week to the local inmates. I had been in jails in prisons in other countries, but, believe it or not, I can not recall ever visiting a jail here in the U.S. Every week, different inmates request Pastor Steve and my father in law for spiritual counseling. Many, if not most, are unsaved but hungry for God. When they get out of jail, often Pastor Steve and Eliot will drive them across the country to a faith-based rehab faciility so that they can deal with their addictions and find Christ at the same time.
Here we are sitting in a little room with nothing but a table and some chairs. We hear a knock on the door and the guard brings in the first man seeking spiritual counseling for that day. The three of us are sitting behind the table and on the other side is a drug attict with a list of felony convictions the size of a bulletin board: larceny, theft, you name it..he did it. The young man proceeded to tell us that his real problem was meth. As I looked into his eyes, I could see that he had lost all hope. As Pastor Steve and Eliot talked with him at length, I couldn't help but thinking that, although this man would be considered a loser by society's standards, the real person receiving the ministry was Jesus.
The brilliance of Jesus Christ is not only His love for the poor and the weak, but also how He identifies with them. Jesus said, "I was hungry and you fed me, sick and you took care of me, naked and you clothed me, in prison and you visited me." It is one thing to care about the downtrodden from a distance. It is quite another thing to identify with them. Jesus gives meaning and value to the pimps, the prostitutes, the drug atticts, in short..the losers.. by telling the world, "If you show kindness to them, you are actually showing kindness to me." If you think about it, this is what the message of the cross is really about. Jesus, the sinless one, identifies with our sin so that we can identify with His glory. This is why Christians should be the first ones to see people not for what it looks like on the outside, but for their potential on the inside.
After what He has done for us, I think that is the least we can do.
If you are wondering what the title means, let me explain. Last week, while I was in New Mexico visting my father in law, Eliot O Brien, I went to the county jail where he and a friend, Pastor Steve Marquez minister every week to the local inmates. I had been in jails in prisons in other countries, but, believe it or not, I can not recall ever visiting a jail here in the U.S. Every week, different inmates request Pastor Steve and my father in law for spiritual counseling. Many, if not most, are unsaved but hungry for God. When they get out of jail, often Pastor Steve and Eliot will drive them across the country to a faith-based rehab faciility so that they can deal with their addictions and find Christ at the same time.
Here we are sitting in a little room with nothing but a table and some chairs. We hear a knock on the door and the guard brings in the first man seeking spiritual counseling for that day. The three of us are sitting behind the table and on the other side is a drug attict with a list of felony convictions the size of a bulletin board: larceny, theft, you name it..he did it. The young man proceeded to tell us that his real problem was meth. As I looked into his eyes, I could see that he had lost all hope. As Pastor Steve and Eliot talked with him at length, I couldn't help but thinking that, although this man would be considered a loser by society's standards, the real person receiving the ministry was Jesus.
The brilliance of Jesus Christ is not only His love for the poor and the weak, but also how He identifies with them. Jesus said, "I was hungry and you fed me, sick and you took care of me, naked and you clothed me, in prison and you visited me." It is one thing to care about the downtrodden from a distance. It is quite another thing to identify with them. Jesus gives meaning and value to the pimps, the prostitutes, the drug atticts, in short..the losers.. by telling the world, "If you show kindness to them, you are actually showing kindness to me." If you think about it, this is what the message of the cross is really about. Jesus, the sinless one, identifies with our sin so that we can identify with His glory. This is why Christians should be the first ones to see people not for what it looks like on the outside, but for their potential on the inside.
After what He has done for us, I think that is the least we can do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
