Category Archives: Apologetics
Meant to tackle this topic last week, and the wheels came off of my planning cart.
A few months ago I wrote a response to the New Mexico Supreme Court ruling that a photographer could not legally refuse to participate in a homosexual wedding regardless of that photographer’s religious belief. In the weeks/months that have passed since that ruling the accounts of courts and judges forcing people to accept and even participate in what they view as aberrant behavior have just mushroomed. In my last post I mentioned I would suggest a way forward for the church, but in reality what I have to say is not new – either to me or to others. So, I am not claiming originality here, but I would like to share once again what I believe the church must do, or must continue to do if it is already doing so.
By way of reminder, I do not see the United States as a Christian nation. Perhaps we once were: that point can be debated. But we should no longer use the phrase if we are to have any respectability. At one time those who lived in the United States but were not Christians managed to smile when Christians invoked the phrase. Now, the American world is no longer smiling. The quaint little expression “Freedom of Religion” now is interpreted to mean, “Freedom to keep your religion to yourself.” When Americans no longer have the right to LIVE their religious beliefs, we in effect no longer have that freedom.
We must accept this fact or nothing else we do will ever matter.
So, how is the church to move forward in a post-Christian world? Once again – I make no claim to originality, but here are some preliminary thoughts:
1. We are going to have to get over the fact that people will hate us. For too long we have been thinking and acting as if we can change people’s hearts by changing our beliefs and practices. If I have heard once I have heard a thousand times, “if we do not change [x] (where “x” can be just about anything) then our young people will leave us and no one in the community will want to join us.” So, churches change names, worship styles, language styles and incorporate the newest, flashiest equipment on the market. And what happens? Their young people leave for an even edgier church and the people in the community do not want to join them because they are simply the latest in a long line of churches who have changed names and core values.
Is my Bible the only one that has John 15:18-25 in it? Or is this the first generation in which speaking up for one’s beliefs has caused a negative reaction? Why do we believe that changing OUR beliefs will cause others to change THEIR hearts? I am not suggesting that we should be hateful, or that we should never ask questions about what we believe. But legitimate self-examination is a far cry from running in absolute panic away from any criticism or unwarranted attack.
No – we are going to have to overcome this irrational fear of being disliked and we are going to have to realize that the new “normal” is for God’s people to stand out in stark contrast to a bent and broken world.
2. We are going to have to ACT like we believe what we say we believe. We say we believe in a lifetime of marriage between one man and one woman, but we practice the acceptance serial marriages like we owned a wedding chapel and our livelihood depended upon as many “re-marriages” as we can possibly create. We say we do not believe in pre-marital co-habitation, yet we allow our children and grandchildren to “try out” marriage partners as if they were test-driving a new vehicle. We say we oppose graphic violence, sexuality and adult themes, and we buy millions of dollars of movie tickets every month, and allow our teens and pre-teens to do likewise. We fill our minds with the same base lyrics that non-Christians fill their minds with, and salve our consciences by attending a worship hour a week and re-proclaiming how much we hate words and actions that blaspheme our God.
But, if we ditch the cable and turn off the satellite, our neighbors might think we are weird or un-American or something. See point #1.
3. We are going to have to re-evaluate this entire “The Constitution as the 67th Book of the Bible” mantra that “conservatives” have been repeating for so long. Oh, no – no one actually ever says that, but that is exactly what is meant in many of our good conservative (read “Tea Party”) speeches.
Brothers and sisters, ladies and gentlemen, the Constitution is a wonderful document. Maybe the best human government document that has ever been written. But, strictly speaking, following the Constitution is exactly what has brought us to this point in history. The words “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Bible,” or “Christian” simply do not appear in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence. The framers of the Constitution did not want a theocracy, and certainly not a Christocracy, and they made sure we did not get one. But human seeds grow up into human trees, and the fruit of a Christ-neutral document is now becoming ripe. Yell and kick and scream all you want to, but how else are you going to interpret the protections ingrained in the Constitution that prevent one religion from becoming physically forced upon all citizens? If we have the freedom to exercise religion, we also have the freedom not to exercise religion, and when you allow (or actually mandate) broken, sinful, human judges to decide what is or is not constitutional, then bingo – welcome to the U. S. of A. in the year 2014. So, what was brilliant in terms of human government has proven to be utterly disastrous in terms of discipleship to Christ.
But, to quote that out-dated and horribly non-American apostle Paul, “Our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ.” (Philippians 3:20)
4. The church is going to have to start practicing some old-fashioned discipline. The church has boundaries. We are not everyone and everything. Not everything is holy. Not everything is “set apart.” There is clean and un-clean, holy and un-holy, Christian and un-christian, saved and lost. It is ridiculous to suggest that a congregational leadership cannot exercise any kind of discipline because “if they do then people will get their feelings hurt and they will leave.” This is not to suggest that the eldership “withdraws fellowship” from someone just to rattle their swords. I have witnessed that and it was a stain against some good men and a good congregation. But for a biblical leadership to allow, or to even sanction, blatant immorality within the congregation is just unconscionable. The same is true of doctrinal beliefs. A congregation cannot condone or sanction contradictory beliefs. You cannot have a separate worship service for every competing feeling or doctrine. If everything is acceptable then nothing is sinful. And we wonder why people look at us with our three different services with three different worship formats and laugh? We are not demanding discipleship – we are offering a circus.
Sorry for the wordiness today – I guess I got a little carried away. But the world is not smiling at us anymore – if it ever did. And we, as God’s people, are going to have to learn a new way to act. Or, conversely, we are going to have to start acting like we’ve known how to act all along.
One more post on an issue that is really a burr under my saddle. Hopefully I can get this out of my system with this entry.
Was the apostle Paul a moral monster? Did he, in his teaching, leave a group of Christians to practice something that he knew was wrong, indeed was sinful? Did he, by writing a letter (or better, letters) exacerbate that error by the thousands, perhaps millions, of mislead disciples? These are serious questions, and in the discussions that are so prevalent in the church today these questions must at least be asked.
The argument that I object to so strenuously, and that was presented in all earnestness by a young man in Bible class yesterday, goes something like this: the apostle Paul knew certain behaviors were wrong, or at the very least were sub-Christian in nature, but because of the prevailing culture in the communities in which he was trying to preach, he faced a dilemma. He could either teach what he knew to be true (and later proved that he knew was true) and risk upsetting the mores of the people that he was trying to teach; or he could swallow his tongue, actually support the unjust and ungodly behavior in the hopes that he could teach them about Christ without raising their self-defense mechanisms. In other words, the apostle Paul actively condoned certain behaviors, even though he knew them to be against God’s will, so that he could teach the people about Jesus.
I have three huge, nay, monstrous, objections to this line of thinking.
1. To suggest this behavior means that Paul violated his own integrity. When you teach something that you believe to be true, and later find to be false, you are guilty of an error of fact, but your integrity is not affected (assuming you correct your mistake). But, when you teach something you know is false in order to achieve another goal you have violated the very basic aspect of integrity. It does not matter the ultimate goal here – you are guilty of the theory of “the end justifies the means.” That theory treats your students as mere pawns in helping you achieve your status. It is fundamentally demeaning to those you are trying to teach. It is philosophically corrupt as well as theologically corrupt. When your students find out that you have not only lied to them, but lied to achieve an ulterior goal, they will not only lose respect for you, but also for the subject about which you are attempting to teach them. For someone to suggest that Paul knew a behavior was wrong (or conversely, that it was blessed by God) and then for him to condone it (or conversely, that he condemned that which God had blessed) makes Paul out to be the worst of deceivers.
2. To suggest that Paul knew a behavior to be wrong, yet taught so as to condone it meant that not only did he teach his audience error, but he taught it is okay to promote that error if the situation demanded it. A student learns not only the content of lessons, but the method and the philosophy behind those lessons as well. For Paul to say, “Listen, I know full well that behavior ‘X’ is wrong, but I’m going to bless practicing it as a command of God so that I can get my point across” was to teach his audience that it is perfectly okay to lie if there is an “acceptable” ulterior motive. Conversely, if Paul knew a behavior was perfectly acceptable to God, yet taught that it was a sin, then the lesson is clear – our teaching is pure regardless of the content so long as we have a “pure” motive behind our erroneous content.
3. If Paul knew a behavior was wrong, and yet taught in such a manner as to condone it meant that he violated a much higher standard of honesty: he falsely involved the activity of the Holy Spirit. Paul did not just say, “Behavior ‘X’ is wrong because our culture says it is wrong and so we should avoid it” he said, “Behavior ‘X’ is wrong because it is condemned in the written word of God.” Likewise, when Paul blessed a certain behavior he used God’s word to verify that claim. Thus, and make no mistake about this, if Paul knew a certain behavior was wrong, and he condoned that behavior by appealing to God’s word, then he is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is one thing to teach a lie under your own authority. When you knowingly and intentionally invoke God’s name in your lie you have violated the very nature of the true God.
I really know of no other way to state this. If Paul knew a behavior was wrong (or, that a behavior was acceptable to God) and yet he taught and wrote in such a way as to promote that sinful behavior (or, on the flip side, he taught and wrote that an acceptable lifestyle was sinful before God) then he (1) violated his own integrity, (2) taught and promoted that others could violate their integrity if the situation demanded it, and (3) by invoking the word of God to defend his arguments (which he knew were false) he blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
What would we think of a preacher today who taught what he knew was a lie, taught others to practice the same lie, and invoked God’s name and God’s word to support his lies? I would call him a moral monster – a reprobate in the fullest sense of the term.
Why should we think the apostle Paul to be any less of a moral monster?
(BTW – if Paul was thoroughly ignorant of the error of his way the issue is not thereby resolved. It simply makes Paul to be, in the words of C.S. Lewis, a pathetic lunatic – someone who was greatly deluded and someone whose rantings are to be steadfastly avoided.)
Brothers and sisters, fellow exegetes and preachers, before we go around spouting off that Paul only taught that such-and-such behavior was right because the culture of his day demanded it; or that such-and-such behavior was sinful because the culture of his day demanded it even though he knew the opposite to be true let us stop and ask a critical question – What does that behavior turn the apostle Paul into?
I cannot accept the moral morass into which that argument places the apostle Paul. The apostle Paul may be many things: confusing, obtuse, opaque, bewildering, hyperbolic – just to name a few. But a moral monster?
Disclaimer here – I was not able to watch the debate last night between Bill Nye (the “Science Guy”) and Ken Ham. (I was busy feeding about 75+ hungry college students). But I have read some news reports and commentary today and I am generally familiar with their arguments, so I would like to offer some commentary of my own.
First, where Bill Nye is wrong.
Nye is wrong in that he seems to think that “science” is a pure subject. It is not. I know this sounds esoteric, but when Nye says, “science is just about studying facts” he is in fact (no pun intended) working under a larger philosophical concept of “scientism.” Nye, and many other evolutionists, confuse the examination of particular artifacts as “science” when in fact their examination of those artifacts is being driven by an earlier presupposition to accept certain results and reject others. When Nye and other evolutionists claim that a certain rock or fossil “proves” evolution, they are in fact rejecting other possibilities because those possibilities do not fit the theory that they are indeed trying to prove. To be specific, there is not just one “missing link” in the chain of “evolution,” there are many. But, you will never hear an evolutionist even mention those gaps, because their “scientism” will not allow them to ask the question that might allow for a Divine Creator – how can you explain these gaps? On the other hand, the scientist who believes in the Creator God can look at the exact same evidence and argue that the “gaps” in the evolutionary chain are the fatal flaws of evolution. Their examination of the facts, or “science” is disavowed by Bill Nye and others because it does not fit within their “scientism” – a philosophical belief that will not allow for a creator God in any way, shape or form.
Now, where Ken Ham is wrong.
Ken Ham goes to the other extreme. Ken’s failsafe position is “because the Bible says so.” In effect, Ken turns the Bible into a scientific text book, complete with an inerrant chronological record and specific history of all things created. The Bible was never meant to be used in such a fashion. Perhaps the one thing that distresses me the most about Ham’s position is his relentless promotion of the “6,000 year old earth” argument. I wrote about Archbishop Ussher and his computation of the 6,000 year age of the earth a long time back, but the salient facts bear repeating. Archbishop Ussher was a profound Christian apologist and quite a remarkable mathematician. By combining various chronological lists in the Bible along with some intricate mathematical computations, Ussher arrived at the age of the earth as being around 6,000 years. His findings finally found their way into the introduction of one of the early editions of the King James Bibles, and it has been sacrosanct ever since. But I know of no current (or even relatively recent deceased) Old Testament scholars who hold that you can take the various genealogical lists given in the Old Testament and come up with anything even remotely bearing certainty. That was NOT the purpose of those genealogical lists! Just one example: in Ruth 4:18-22 we have the “genealogy” of King David, from Perez (the son of Judah) to David. The list includes 10 names, but the time period involved (from before the time Israel entered into Egypt leading all the way to David) involves at least 800 years! (Note: I am assuming that the reigns of the judges were sequential, and not that some of them were “co-regents” of a sort) The various genealogical lists are provided for various reasons (theology being one, and perhaps the most important!) but calculating the age of the earth is NOT one of those reasons!
I believe Ham lost a very important opportunity here to point out that the debate is not between science and theology – it is between one philosophical view of science (the idea that science can solve all of our questions, or the above mentioned “scientism”) and another view of science (that science can lead us to ask better and more appropriate questions, but will never provide all, or even a majority, of the answers). Instead, Ham more or less let Nye hold the high ground (or so Nye supposed) and tried to argue from a philosophical foundation that Nye and other evolutionists reject entirely.
Where both Nye and Ham were absolutely correct.
Both men argued their positions in a calm fashion, both made salient points, and both were respectful (by virtually all accounts). I think they were both absolutely correct in saying that this issue is critical for our children to be able to discuss. Where I would disagree vehemently with Nye is that I believe this discussion SHOULD take place in our science classrooms, in addition to our philosophy classrooms and religion classrooms. To deprive our children of the right to hear and discuss these questions (as I believe Nye is promoting) is simply to abdicate our position as educators. Education is all about the examination of all possible facts and the various theories that those facts lead different scholars to believe. To eliminate 50% of those conclusions and resulting theories because they do not fit some very limited concept of “scientism” is just blatantly irresponsible. So, whether he wanted to or not, I think Nye made a very important point: this discussion DOES deserve to be in the science classroom.
This is true if for no other reason that our children deserve to discover that evolutionists cannot answer even the most basic questions about their theory: why is there “anything” to begin with? From whence came the “stuff” that started this whole process?
For the answer to that question we must turn to God. And that, my friends, is exactly what terrifies Nye and his comrades.
Okay, I realize I am opening up myself to big time criticism here. But let’s be honest – if you are going to write about theology is the fog, there is no greater fog than the current pea-soup murkiness of the glorification of near death experiences (NDE) or back from the dead experiences.
Some time ago I read the book Heaven is for Real because I was requested to do so by a church member. I found the book cute in a way, but also deeply troubling. In fact, I found its cuteness to be the most disturbing facet of the book. It is so cute, and the protagonist so adorable, that the reader cannot see the dangerous message hidden in the book.
For those of you who have not read the book, the story involves a little boy, the son of a pastor, who experiences excruciating abdominal pain that is initially misdiagnosed. By the time the correct diagnosis is made the boy is virtually catatonic. An emergency surgery heals the boy, and some time later the little boy starts revealing to his (astonished!) father that he had died and gone to heaven, where, by the way, he meets God, Jesus, his long dead grandfather and a sister that he never knew he had. The story is so popular that a movie is now being made of the event.
The book is not exactly The Grapes of Wrath quality, but hey, if you include dead grandpas and sisters, how can you go wrong?
Well, let me explain. You can go wrong in a number of ways, some of which may be inconsequential, but some are spiritually lethal. Let me address the entire body of near-death and back-from-the-dead stories, and not simply focus on one mega-popular story.
Observation #1 – These stories always glorify the recipient of the “vision.” Notice the visions of God recorded in the Bible. The recipient is introduced, and then immediately fades into the background or falls to the ground in abject terror, or has to be purified from their sinfulness. The recipient always magnifies God, not the event nor himself or herself. In these modern near-death or post-death stories it is always the recipient (or his or her family) that receives the lion’s share of the press. To paraphrase, “I had this vision of God, but first a few chapters about ME!” It is crass commercialism. And, the fact that a number of young children are being used by adults (parents, ghost writers, publishers, movie makers, etc) makes the process even more repugnant.
Observation #2 – These stories are always couched in such loaded language/scenarios that anyone who challenges them is forced into a “why do you want to kill kittens and puppies” type of accusation. I have nothing against young children who claim to see God or Jesus. For all I know these young people are delightful, mischievous, insightful youngsters who genuinely believe that what they “saw” was real. Do I believe they went to “heaven?” Not for a minute. I have had enough experience with pain, anesthesia, pain medications, and even old age and dementia to know that such visions are all too common, and real, but yet are not true. I had a profound and very disturbing “vision” when I was a young man and suffering from an extremely high fever. Was my vision real? Absolutely! I will go to my grave believing with all my heart that I saw what I saw. Was it true? Not even close. There is a huge difference.
Observation #3 – These near-death and post-death revelations are so incredibly vapid – they are meaningless. Do you mean to tell me that God interrupts the space/time, life/death continuum to give someone a message that heaven is for real? Do you suggest that the God of creation would allow someone to visit His throne room to pass along a message that God loves us? What kind of kindergarten God do these people think we worship, anyway? Do you mean to tell me that Jesus’ death on the cross was not good enough to tell mankind that God loves us? Do you mean to suggest that, with all the words and parables that Jesus spoke on this earth, that we need a vision from the near-grave to tell us that heaven exists? Honestly, how illiterate do some people think non-Christians are? And why would God send his Son to die for us if a simple little near-death or post-death vision could solve all of our problems?
Which then leads me to my final, and most important point, Observation #4 – These near-death and post-death experiences, while undoubtedly very vivid and very real to the recipient, are specifically refuted by the words of Jesus! Read Luke 16:19-31. In the story of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus quotes Abraham as telling the rich man (who is in torment and who has begged Abraham to send Lazarus from Abraham’s side back to convert his 5 sinful brothers)
But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if some one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be convinced if some one should rise from the dead.’ Luke 16:29-31, RSV, emphasis mine.
People, brothers, sisters, those who love me and those who hate me – if Jesus himself tells a story that specifically eliminates the possibility of someone returning from the dead in order to preach to a skeptical public, why in the world would he send a little child, or a grown person for that matter, back from the shadows of death with such an anemic message such as “heaven is for real” or “God loves us and wants us to get along?”
That is not just taking liberty with a wonderful story. That is heresy bordering on blasphemy. I know those are harsh words. But Jesus warned about charlatans and false prophets who would tell fanciful stories and who would always be pointing to the heavens and announcing His coming. Jesus told us to be innocent as doves, to be sure. But he also told us to be wise as serpents.
I am not denying that these individuals had the experiences they relate. I am not denying that to these people these experiences were as real as the computer I am using right now. They may be valuable and beneficial to the recipient and to their immediate families. I am, however, flatly denying that God would contradict the words of His Son in order to propagate truths that have been clearly taught and even personified in His incarnate Son. We must discern the spirits.
This is one fog bank that really demands our clearest theological thinking and Spiritual wisdom to fly through. The stakes are simply too high.
(Note: upon some post-publishing review, a couple of phrases have been re-worded from my original rant)
I have been thinking on a universal theme the past day or so. Literally – the universe.
The author of Psalm 8 did not have the advantage of looking at images from the Hubble telescope. All he could do was look up on a dark night and contemplate on the moon and stars. His penetrating question still has no answer:
What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? (Ps. 8:4, RSV)
Our earth is just one tiny little speck of dust floating in amongst billions of other little specks of galactic dust – and that is just in our galaxy. Multiply that times hundreds of galaxies that our super-telescopes have been able to see. Our little home gets smaller and smaller the further out into space we go. We measure distances in space by light years, the distance that light can travel in an entire year. And then those numbers are followed by a whole host of zeros. That just does not boggle the mind – it stupefies it.
And yet our earth is so perfectly balanced for us to live here. Just the right amount of land and water, just the perfect mixture of oxygen, the right amount of sunshine, all the food we need to sustain far more people than are alive today.
In all the incredible, unfathomable vastness of the universe – why are we so well taken care of? Evolution? Just mere chance? A few billion random accidents happening in the one perfect sequence to create just one amino acid, and then every other building block of life requiring a similar number of random accidents? And then all those building blocks randomly lining up in a perfect sequence to create one living organism? How many billions of random accidents are we talking about here? And for how many billions of years? And with how many billions of failed accidents leading to disastrous results?
No, there has to be more. I can’t explain why this little speck of dust should be any more blessed than any of the other countless billions of specks of dust in our galaxy. If the inspired psalmist cannot answer that question then I should not even attempt to try. But I can praise God and worship him that we do have this home, that He has created us just a little lower than his angels, that He has given us dominion over the rest of this earthly creation.
Understand, no. Believe, yes. Worship, absolutely.
O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! (Ps. 8:9, RSV)
When you read broadly in the religious world today you begin to identify certain trends. Some of these trends are ostensibly about the direction the church is moving. Some of these trends are about what the trendy authors think the church is moving. I think it could be argued that the church is not moving at all, that its own lethargy and inertia is what is killing it. But that is a point for people far more schooled in trends within the church to figure out. I just read what they write.
However, I have identified one facet, or quirk, or “trend” if that is what you want to call it, that I find both significant and troubling at the same time. That trend has two opposite, and actually totally conflicting components.
The first is this: one group of analysts points out that the church has, over the past 50 years or so (if not much longer) become entirely consumeristic. We have identified a “target” audience, tailored a message to reach that audience, created an atmosphere that would attract that audience and put everything into motion in order to please that audience. So, we have whiz-bang youth ministries, tremendous toddler teachers, mothers day outs, senior Tuesdays – a ministry for every “niche” group there is from the bassinet all the way to the retirement home. The problem with this compartmentalization is that it cheapens the gospel. The church was never intended to be a shopping mall or a cafeteria, where you could walk down an aisle and say, “Well, I’ll take a helping of Tuesday morning moms day out, a side of young married’s class, two or three helpings of Super Teen night, and, while we’re at it, how about a helping of mind-bending worship service for dessert!” When a church fails to meet each and every demand from each and every socio-economic group in their “church,” the offended party simply goes shopping for a “church” that offers something to meet their perceived “needs.”
The second, and diametrically opposed component is this: another group of analysts have noticed that an increasing number of people, mostly young, are leaving the church and have proposed any number of “fixes” to get them to either stay, or to come back. Those fixes include making the worship experience more “experiential” – meaning more theatrics, more video, more “sensory” type experiences, as well as adding more “experiential” type activities so that a generation that has been raised with high definition TVs and complicated computer games will not be “bored” with an “old-timey” worship service.
Did you see the contradiction here? On the one hand we have become too consumeristic, we have bowed the knee to King Choice, we have completely given up on making the demands of discipleship plain, and on the other hand we need to create an entirely new set of consumeristic options in order to repair the leaky back doors on our church buildings.
Sometimes I wonder if these analysts even read what each other are writing. But it is enough to give the rest of us whiplash.
Personally, I am “all in” with the first group. As I look back on my teenage years I realize how the church bent over backwards to make sure I was a happy, contented, and active teen in the youth group. We had retreats and lock-ins and pizza parties and ski trips and I don’t know what else – and we even had a fairly large dose of teaching and service opportunities. But I really do not remember ever having a serious discussion of what discipleship was all about, and what it might ultimately cost me. Everything that was done was done with me and my age group as the main concern. In my most humble and beyond question correct opinion, that approach has failed miserably and we are reaping the fruit of the failure of that experiment.
And so, when I read or hear some 20 or early 30 something speak or write that the way to reverse the current exodus in the teen to young married age group is to bend even further toward the consumeristic side of the aisle I get pretty churlish. We have done everything under the sun to make people happy, to “meet their needs” to make the worship service “meaningful” (whatever that could possibly mean) and what has happened? More and more young people are leaving because every time we work to reach the bar, they just raise the bar a little higher. Instead of one screen with a simple PowerPoint presentation, we need three screens with multiple images and “surround sound” audio. We need incense so that we can have an olfactory experience. We need bells – literally, we need bells – to help our ears tingle. We need a blue-light special on aisle six. One song leader is just so twentieth century. Now we need a Praise Team to lead us so that our worship will be exciting and vibrant and, well, so today.
I say hogwash and balderdash. What we need to do is to return to a sane, healthy and challenging theology that exalts God as the creator and returns us to the position of created being. We need to return to the image of the book of Revelation where Christ is an awe-inspiring manifestation of strength and power instead of our best buddy. The church grew when it realized that God was God and not the local super-mall manager.
I look at the young people who are chasing their tails and I wonder what will happen when they turn 40 or 45 and observe that their children and grandchildren examine all their “perfect solutions” to the church and simply sniff and walk away. At some point (hopefully) these twenty-somethings will come to realize that the mere externals of what they are attempting to change means not one little bit if the internal commitment to Jesus and His church is not there. The fact is we have been trying to find the “perfect solution” for over a generation now and the answer is pretty clear – if you try to market the church, someone is always going to have a flashier preacher, a better sound system, a louder praise band, a flashier video projector. Trying to “out consumer” the king of this world is simply not going to work.
I have an idea – let’s try teaching discipleship: self-sacrifice, dying to self so that others might see Christ, giving instead of getting, blessing instead of searching for endless ways to be blessed, worshipping the King of kings instead of the tyrant inside our selfish hearts.
Let’s work on being the church of Christ for a change. We have a far better story to proclaim than the garbage that Hollywood and Wall Street are producing. Why can’t we see that?
Then a blind and dumb demoniac was brought to him, and he healed him, so t hat the dumb man spoke and saw. And all the people were amazed, and said, “Can this be the Son of David?” But when the Pharisees heard it they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this man casts out demons.” Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand; and if Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?” (Matthew 12:22-26, RSV)
I’m feeling rather rantish this morning, so if this post seems a bit prickly I apologize. Or, maybe I don’t. Maybe I intend to be prickly.
A person cannot follow any kind of Christian literature today, either print or online, without being assaulted by two deafening drum beats: one, that the church is declining, and two, that the solution to the decline of the church is to become more like the world so that the world will quit hating us so much and then they will come and be a part of us because we are so much like a part of them. I’ve heard of circular reasoning before, but that has to take the cake.
The manner in which this doctrine is presented is actually quite multifaceted. On one extreme you have the “we have to start all over from scratch” crowd that looks upon the current church situation with disgust and unfeigned superiority. All mostly under 30 years of age, these folks have all the answers to all the questions (even as they suggest there are no definitive answers to the questions), and they view anyone over the age of 40, especially those of us who still love and cherish the church, with utter disdain. If anyone even tries to identify the group they meet with as a “church” they are dismissed. Heaven forbid the group try to own the facility in which they meet, or have any type of creedal or doctrinal statement. Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed – no difference. All roads lead to heaven, God is love, anyone who thinks different needs to get over it.
On the other end of the spectrum are those who say they want to maintain a doctrinal or creedal form of the church, but they just want to do so in culturally relevant ways. Now, these folks are up against it, because it is pretty much impossible to be doctrinal in a doctrinally adverse culture. So, the church assembly is still important, but the preacher, or preacherette, needs to “preach” in ripped blue jeans and a ratty “Grateful Dead” t-shirt. While this “preacher” is “preaching,” there needs to be a YouTube video or a carefully selected clip of an “R” rated movie shown on three (count ‘em, three) larger than life video screens. If someone gets too bored with the “sermon” (and we all know that boredom is the chief killer of the post-modern Christian faith) the “congregant” (by the way, you don’t have to profess any kind of allegiance to be a member of this church) can go down the hall to a “prayer labyrinth” where they can indulge in any one of a number of Eastern religious practices, all under the guise of deepening their “Christian” faith. Buddha and Mohammed still will get you to heaven, but these folks will argue that their pagan roads will eventually at some point intersect with the Jesus highway. There are quite a number of goatee-growing (except for the “preacherettes”) ripped-jean wearing advocates, although I’m not sure they would feel comfortable being in the same room with each other. Sometimes even the brand of ripped jeans does matter.
What does all this have to do with Matthew 12:22-26? Just this: I’m not sure that Satan has to fight very much anymore. I truly believe he has already captured a large section of the “church” and he is perfectly content to let his minions do their thing. Satan is certainly not going to fight against Satan, so if the disciples of Christ are not going to fight him, why does he need to be militant at all? All Satan needs to do to maintain his kingdom today is lay back in a hammock and sip lemonade.
During this summer break I have been trying to zero in on the culture that I am attempting to address. So I chose two books to help me, Chap Clark’s Hurt 2.0, and Christian Smith and Melinda Lundquist Denton’s Soul Searching. Talk about your depressing summer reading. It’s not that the books are poorly written. They are both excellent books – I highly recommend both of them. But the results of both books are terrifying. The generation of young Christians now in high school and college are profoundly ignorant of the basic Christian truths. Many young people do not think that Christianity does have exclusive claims, and even if they are vaguely aware of those exclusive Christian claims, they are totally incapable of verbalizing or embodying those claims. I grew up hearing the phrase, “It only takes one generation for the church to go into apostasy.” Folks, it is here.
I write as a member of and minister to the Churches of Christ. In less than a generation (slightly more than half of my life) the changes that I have seen in congregations of the Church of Christ are staggering. I realize we are not alone – in the late 1950′s C.S. Lewis was writing that the Anglican Church (American Episcopal Church) would never even allow female priests. They now have openly practicing homosexual bishops! So much for Anglican doctrine. The practices that I hear preachers openly advocate today would not even be whispered 30-40 years ago. Progress you say? Maybe for the kingdom of darkness. We have effectively let Satan go on vacation. Why does he need to work if the disciples of Christ are so effectively accomplishing his goals?
I know I am a dinosaur. One day those who agree with me may become extinct. If it is the will of God, so be it. But for the time being I long for the day in which a preacher will actually stand for Christ and against pagan culture. I want to hear preachers preach for holiness and against making peace with the world. I want to hear the distinctive nature of the church praised instead of condemned. I want to hear Christ lifted up and exalted instead of lowered to the ranks of Buddha and Mohammed. In other words, I want to be encouraged to “march into hell for a heavenly cause” and take the fight to Satan on his turf, instead of having to defend myself from my fellow disciples simply because I believe the Bible teaches inviable, Incarnate Truth with a capital “T.”
Really, people. If the human race is so depraved that we cannot listen to a 30 minute sermon and grasp the truth of the gospel without being assaulted by an “R” rated movie clip, then let’s turn out the lights and all go home.
I’m tired of hearing the church fight Satan’s battles for him. Can we please stand up and fight for Jesus?
Yesterday I closed my post with the words of Jesus in Mark 4:40, “Why are you afraid? Have you no faith?” (RSV) This morning, through no other intention other than following my daily Bible reading schedule, I read Daniel chapter 3. The chapter focuses on Daniel’s three friends, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, and the golden statue that Nebuchadnezzar had set up. Anyone not bowing down to the statue would be thrown into a fiery furnace. Anyone who has attended a Vacation Bible School in their life knows that the three faithful Israelites refuse to obey, and they are called before Nebuchadnezzar to hear their sentence.
Regardless of how many times I have previously read this story, today I was struck by the forcefulness of their response. I repeat it here in its entirety:
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego replied to the king, “Nebuchadnezzar, we don’t need to give you an answer to this question. If the God we serve exists, then He can rescue us from the furnace of blazing fire, and He can rescue us from the power of you, the king. But even if he does not rescue us, we want you as king to know that we will not serve your gods or worship the gold statue you set up. (Daniel 3:16-18, HCSB)
Because there are three verses, it seems only poetic to make three observations about this text.
One, the three men don’t need to give a response to the king. Their lives have already told the king the answer to his question (read from the beginning of the chapter to get Nebuchadnezzar’s question). In today’s world we are all terrified that we will not have the right answer if someone asks us a tough question. This text lets me know that if it depends on my answer I have already lost the debate. If a non-Christian cannot see my faith, no amount of verbalizing my faith will accomplish anything. What an amazing thought. “Why are you afraid, have you no faith?”
Two, the three men begin with what might be considered an ominous statement, “If God exists…” But it is clear from the context that the if is merely rhetorical. They are proclaiming God’s existence by their lives and in their words. They know God exists, and that means two other iron clad truths – God can rescue them from the furnace and from the power of the earthly king. Do not be fooled here. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are not quibbling about the existence of God. For them God was as real as was Nebuchadnezzar. It is just that they knew who the real King was, and who was the impostor. “Why are you afraid, have you no faith?”
Three, and the most amazing statement, “But even if he does not rescue us…” I love the way the Holman Christian Standard Bible phrases this response. Few, if any, other translations put the word, even, in the sentence, but I think it needs to be there. The statement is emphatic. The three men are fully trusting in God’s power to deliver, but even if he does not they will still refuse to offer worship to a false god. “Why are you afraid, have you no faith?”
This story is just so terrifying for Christians today. We have become so used to bending over, to capitulating, to kissing the feet of false gods, to compromising with the enemy, that when we are confronted with genuine acts of faith we want to turn and run. We want to excuse ourselves. We want to minimize the story that is convicting us. We trivialize it. We turn it into a warm and fuzzy vacation Bible school story that we can quickly tell so that we can get to the punch and cookies.
Those who are opposed to God demand that we redefine the word “family” to mean any group of people that live under one roof, whether or not they are related by blood or marriage. Those who are opposed to God demand that we accept any form of sexual release whether it is heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, bi-gender sexuality or poly-amorous sexuality. Those who are opposed to God demand that we create and pledge allegiance to humanistic doctrines, whether they be political or religious, and if we do not bow the knee to them we are accused of both treason and atheism. Those who are opposed to God demand we put our faith and trust in guns and our military. Those who are opposed to God demand that we strip any mention of God out of our schools, marketplaces, and halls of justice. Those who are opposed to the one true God demand that we acknowledge every godless religion as being equal to all others, and especially equal to faith in that one true God.
And, like the pitiful, spineless little amoebas that we are, we follow along, weakly hoping that those big, mean, nasty bullies won’t dislike us, or if they do, they will not beat us up too bad.
To be perfectly blunt, and profoundly non politically correct, let me set the record straight:
“Family” means one daddy and one mommy living in a committed marriage and, if blessed to have children, raising them to understand right from wrong and male from female. The act of sexual intercourse is reserved for one male and one female who have committed themselves to each other in the sacred rite of marriage. There is one God to whom we pledge allegiance, and His constitution has no amendments and no flags. The kingdom of our God has no guns and no military. We are called to defeat spiritual enemies with spiritual truths. Those who follow God are not embarrassed to mention His name, regardless of the consequences. And, finally, the Godless religions of Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed, and dozens of others are mere phantoms – they are powerless and are meaningless.
I know any of those statements could get me in a lot of trouble in today’s world. Maybe not a fiery furnace, but certainly into the metaphorical “hot water.” But, I need to learn how to repeat the words of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (why do we not use their Hebrew, and thus people of faith, names?).
My God can and will take care of me if and when the time comes for me to confront my enemies.
But, even if he does not, I will not bow the knee to a false god.
“Why are you afraid,” Jesus asked. “Have you no faith?”
(P.S. – I chose the picture of my toothy little friend above because, one day if the Good Lord allows me to, I really want to get face to face with one of these fellas. Just one way in which I can “jump the shark” in a literal way.)
Nothing deep or profound today (if there ever is…). I just wanted to mention something that I felt today.
I don’t get the opportunity to preach very often anymore. That is kind of bittersweet for me, because what my new position allows me to do is teach much more frequently, and in a university setting. So, I lost something I love very much and I gained an opportunity to do something I love very much. My glass is totally full – not half empty – its just full of different things now.
So anyway, where was I… oh, yeah. Today I had the opportunity to preach again and I realized just how much I enjoy it. I did not give one of those Dietrich Bonhoeffer type sermons, just an “oldie but a goodie” that I like to preach when I am speaking to an audience that I am not familiar with. The sermon was pretty simple and allowed me to say some things that I feel deeply, but in a way that (hopefully) was not too intimidating.
Preaching is a special art, and I am in no way saying I have mastered the art. Preaching is one public event that should not be measured by any type of “normal” speaking metrics. The most efficient preachers can come from diametrically opposed styles of preaching. But to be effective, preaching must be genuine. Preaching should be measured, not by theatrics or voice modulation or histrionics or any other such scale. Preaching should be measured by faithfulness to the Word of God and by the willingness of the preacher to sound a clear trumpet (see Ezekiel and Jeremiah, for example).
So, today I spoke about why I am a member of the church of Christ. I hope I helped someone along the way. But most of all I hope I was faithful to the text. And I hope somewhere down the line to have more opportunities to preach the word.
One thing I can say about Postmodernists – they sure love to talk about culture. Everything, it would appear, is connected to and limited by one’s place of birth, and especially one’s time of birth. If you were born in a patriarchal age, you were doomed to slave under a patriarchy. However, if you were born in the late 20th or early 21st century you are blessed to be an egalitarian – and a postmodern as icing on the cake.
Postmoderns do not like anything to be authoritarian, but they are especially opposed to having an ancient text provide any type of authority. For disciples of Christ this poses somewhat of a dilemma – because Jesus certainly used an ancient text (the books we refer to as the “Old Testament”) as an authority in his life. It was not a “god,” but it certainly contained the words of the true and living God; and he used the Torah not only as example but as it was designed – as a light for his feet.
Those who wish to claim a Christian lifestyle while challenging the role of the written text have come up with some ingenious methods to deal with the texts that, at least on the surface, appear to be authoritarian. Many simply deny that they belong in the canon that we call the Bible. (The word canon itself means “rule,” implying authority.) Thus, for many the letters that we call the “Pastoral Epistles” (1 and 2 Timothy and Titus) were not written by the apostle Paul as the texts claim, therefore they are not authoritarian for the life of the disciple today. Others, while not willing to remove entire books, will remove certain verses within those books.
Finally, the “trump card” that many Postmoderns use is the “culture card.” Briefly stated, this argument posits that, because the authors of these ancient texts lived in times so far removed from our advanced culture, the texts they wrote cannot possibly be thought of as being an authority for our life today. Thus, these exegetes can keep the objectionable books in the canon, but they simply ignore the verses that have been found to be patriarchal, homophobic, capitalistic, militaristic – the list is almost inexhaustible. In the Postmodern setting the text is not the judge of the reader or listener, the reader or listener is the judge (and far too often, the executioner) of the text.
The Postmodern interpreter can do wonders with certain texts by pointing out the cultural differences between the time period of the various biblical authors and our own, but they have a significant problem when they come to the letter we know as 1 Corinthians. This letter is also a major point of emphasis for Postmodern interpreters, as they have issues with the apostle Paul’s apparent homophobia and male chauvinism. Thus, the letter of 1 Corinthians provides both a test case, and, in my opinion, the rock on which the ship of Postmodernism founders.
As I see it, in order for Postmodern exegetes to win the battle of interpretations they must prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the ancient texts of the Bible were written for one specific audience, and that the only way for the texts to be valuable today is if they are “re-contextualized” to meet modern (or, better yet, Postmodern) sensibilities. On this point I will offer partial agreement. Especially in regard to the writings in the New Testament I will agree completely that they were written as “occasional” pieces – they were written to address specific questions or issues in concrete situations. However, that is where the Postmodern ends his or her exegesis, and it is at that point that I offer my strongest disagreement. And, as evidence exhibit “A,” I offer the letter of 1 Corinthians.
In terms of specific situations, we can learn that the letter we know as 1 Corinthians was written to the church of God in Corinth in approximately the middle of the first century. It’s author, destination, and approximate date are among the least debated in New Testament studies. Paul specifically mentions the issues that “occasioned” the writing of the letter – division, sexual immorality, issues of congregational life and spiritual giftedness. Therefore, the “concrete” and specific questions that the letter addresses are not to be debated. We could argue, if we so desired, that the answers that Paul gives to these issues and questions were to be used solely by the congregation in Corinth and only during the time period the original readers were alive. That is the path that Postmodern interpreters want us to walk. That would be a very easy conclusion to make – and in fact it is argued by a great many brilliant minds.
The only problem is, as I see it, the whole argument is destroyed by the text of the letter itself. Four times in the letter Paul tells the Corinthian disciples that what he is writing to them (and what he has taught them previously in person) is what he teaches “everywhere and in every place” (see 4:17, 7:17, 11:16 and 14:35). That means that in Jewish Jerusalem, in Gentile Ephesus, in Greek Athens and Corinth, and soon to be in Latin Rome Paul preached the same message and made the same points. Across multiple cultural platforms and in reaction to multiple socio-economic and political situations Paul did not “contextualize” the content of his message, although he may have contextualized the manner in which he presented it. The mode of communication may change, the content cannot be changed.
I once heard a lecture by an individual whose classical scholarship cannot be questioned. He is perhaps one of the finest scholars the Churches of Christ have produced. He was lecturing, oddly enough, on the letter of 1 Corinthians. I will never forget his conclusion. He stated that the doctrine of the living church should never be limited by the aberrations of the first century congregations to which the bulk of the New Testament was written. I was dumbfounded. If the doctrine of the church cannot be limited by the writings of the apostles to address those very aberrations, to what can we appeal for the formation and limitation of our doctrine? I had not heard of “postmodernism” at that point in my life but I have come to understand that speech in an entirely different light now than when I first heard it. What I understand now is that this scholar, who in my estimation is beyond questioning in his knowledge of the Greek language and the history of the New Testament, came to a conclusion that was in direct opposition to the words of the text. Therefore the ancient text had to be “re-contextualized” to fit his new conclusion. All he had to do was anchor 1 Corinthians to the city of Corinth in the first century, and he could advocate basically any interpretation he wished.
I have no problem accepting the fact that our Bible, and the New Testament in particular, was written by very human beings in concrete, specific situations. I would even argue that is true of the Old Testament as well. I have been taught and I believe that the more we come to understand those cultures and time periods in which our ancient texts were written we can understand and interpret the books more faithfully. I am all for learning more about the ancient world in which our Bible was written.
But I refuse to accept the conclusion that we are to leave our Bibles in the dust of those ancient civilizations. The writers of the New Testament certainly did not think that the texts of the Torah were to be left in the musty caves of Mesopotamia, Egypt or Arabia. Those texts were alive and brought life to the early church. So today, we do not abandon our New Testaments on the pillars of ancient Rome, Ephesus or Jerusalem. The text is living, it speaks to today – the spirit of God is breathing out of the text just as surely and the Spirit of God was breathed into it as it was first written. The heresy of the Postmodernist is that of turning the living and active Word of God into a dead and decaying clump of leather, papyrus or clay.
Surely we need to speak God’s word in a manner that is appropriate to the audience that is called to hear it. We must not transport our western culture into places where it would be harmful and confusing to do so. And we must be careful not to read into the text concepts that are not there, but that we wish were there, due to our specific culture and issues.
But the content of God’s revealed word is not up for negotiation. God does not change his mind simply because the calendar changes or because the reader moves from a democratic culture to a dictatorial one, or from a patriarchal culture to a matriarchal culture. God’s will and His words are eternal.
And that is a situation the Postmodernist simply cannot contextualize.