Searching for Evidence

I recently overheard a conversation about a group of Christians who were apparently closing in on the discovery of Noah's ark. Yes, the Biblical one (not to be confused with the one going up not far from here.) What prompted this little response though was not that bit of news. The possibility of such a discovery seems to resurface every few years. Frankly, I would no sooner expect such a discovery than photos of Sasquatch surfing on the back of old Nessy being published in next month's edition of Nature. But that's for another day. Tell me though, why are these people risking their lives in search for an ancient ark? As the conversation went, 'to provide evidence that God's Word is true.' Seriously? When will we stop trying to help out God and His Word? When will our own fears and insecurities stop getting in the way of the kind faith that God's Word actually promotes? Where will the best evidence supporting the truth of God's word be found? In the lives of those who actually believe it. Maybe finding the ark isn't such a long shot after all.

Christianity and Politics

Well, I just saw Krooks' wake up call to the fools, so I thought I would wake up.

Something I have been thinking about lately might generate some discussion on here (that is if there are still some readers checking this blog). It has to do with Christians and political views. How does our allegiance to Christ and the Word inform our decisions in the political sphere? There seems to be a trend among younger evangelicals to lean more to the left than older generations of evangelicals did. Maybe I am misreading the landscape here, but I think this is the case. At this point, I am not commenting whether this is a good or bad thing. I am of the firm opinion that no one political party can capture what Jesus would have us to do, and thinking that this is possible is a dangerous road to travel.  With that said, are there specific issues that are non-negotiable for Christians? Say - abortion? There does seem to be a particular party that is united in supporting women's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion legally. Should this issue be debatable among Christians? Can Bible believing Christians come down on either side and still be being faithful to Jesus? How are we to think about this issue?

I understand some of the complexities of the issue (the role of poverty in abortion to name one), and I also understand that simply withholding votes from a pro-choice politician does not guarantee anything. However, it seems as if the arguments for a Christian advocating pro-choice beliefs are weak, at best.

Most common is to say that we should attack the problems that cause the demand for abortion (such as poverty), rather than trying to slowly push back against legalized abortion, which probably will never be banned anyway. But why must it be an either or for a Christian? Could we not do all we can to fight poverty in our communities, advocate for adoption, and also oppose legalized abortion? Further, simply because we cannot imagine a world where abortion is illegal does not mean we should concede, and give up on that prospect.

Another argument I have heard is that women would have unsafe, illegal abortions were it to be banned. I don't deny this might be the case, but would it be at the massive, millions of babies scale that we are allowing legally in our country today?

The last argument from pro-choice Christians I will mention is this: voting for a pro-life candidate does not guarantee abortion will be banned. As I said earlier, there is some truth to this statement. However, do we think that voting for a pro-choice candidate will help ban legalized abortion? It is true that we over-estimate the power of the President if we think a pro-life president can change things on his own, but what if Senators, Representatives, State legislators, local officials, were all pro-choice. Would that make a difference?

So, what do you think? Is pro-choice a legitimate position for a Christian to take, and still be faithful to Jesus? Are there other arguments that I am missing? Why the shift among younger evangelicals?

Arise! Oh Fool

It's time to awaken the fools. The year old posts staring at me from my homepage feeds have taunted me for far too long. Who will be foolish enough to begin the conversation? Is anyone still here? Find your login info and pull up a chair lest our silence be mistaken for wisdom.

The Church has Changed, or so they say

Earlier this week, Scot McKnight over at the Jesus Creed blurbed on 'How the Church has Changed.'  The post lists 12 observations on how the church McKnight grew up in differs from the ones he experiences today.  The post highlights many of the changes we see in today's churches, and although McKnight claims to write as an 'exercise of comparison', and not a 'journey into nostalgia', the list does at least read a bit nostalgic at times.  His observations got me thinking though.  How has my church and my experience of church changed through the years?  That was about 3 days ago, and here I am now, still trying to craft a well thought out list of my own.  I've got nothing. The church I'm in now is pretty much the same church I've been going to since my earliest memories.   Propensity for change is certainly not a trait of Fundamentalism.  Sure the location, the personalities, and the environment have all changed, but the organics of the church, how it thinks, how it behaves, how it displays itself, has remained fairly static.  I say that not to begin a grievous rant.  There is something to be said about consistency and standing firm in who you are.  It shows confidence and a realization of identity.  However, I wonder how the local church, a gathering of believers committed to worshipping God by the actualization of effectively serving each other and the community they live in, can continue to be relevant to a changing culture both inside and outside its cracking plastered walls.
     I can only speak for myself of course.  Many in my community do not share my struggles (which of course makes the struggle all the more intolerable).  While I strain to highlight changes my church has gone through over the greater part of the last decade, I can write easily of changes to my thoughts and faith over those same years.   What do you do then,when you come to the realization that although you've changed, your church hasn't?  Doing nothing is an option only for the lifeless and disinterested.  Which leaves us with the option of either changing churches or seeking (and hoping for) change in the church.  I've struggled over this off and on for years now.  As evidenced by my continuance, I find the latter the more desirable, albeit more difficult, option.  Mcknight's last observation is that we now live in a 'change-your-church world.'  I find that about as irritating as I do true, and my stubbornness resists the desire to seek out another church.  The question that needs to be answered is where can I and my family be the most effective (notice I did not say affected, which is, if were honest, what we really want the most).   I'm still trying to work that one out.  Ask me today and my answer will likely be different than the one I gave yesterday and may or may not be the same I give you tomorrow.

What do you think?  How much change is too much change in a church?  Do you tend to think the changes  seen in today's church are positive or negative? 

Grace and the DIYer

I am a die hard do-it-yourselfer.  I love the pleasure that comes from creating.  I get high on accomplishing new things.  It's not always pretty.  I'm fairly good at creatively hiding flaws and am by no means Norm Abrams, but that usually doesn't stop me.  Conversations in our house will often begin like this,
    Wife:  Can you make something like that? 
     Me:  Sure. 
    Wife:  Do you know how? 
    Me:  No idea.  When do you want it finished?

I'd like to think that my motives are always noble, and typically, for my simple home projects they usually are.  Unfortunately, my DIY attitude spills over into just about every area of my life.  For me, asking for help is often more painful than the ensuing hurt that often comes from going at it alone.   What is that, pride?  Delusion?  A little of both?  I'm sitting here thinking about this after just putting my 5 young children down for the night.  The screaming has stopped, the tears have dried, and here I relax, reverently bowing to a large bowl of icecream (of which I had to steal from my in-laws, there's a good reason we don't stock this stuff in our house).  My wife has been away now for 4 days visiting our other kids in Haiti.  I think most would agree that parenting is not meant to be done alone.  It sucks.  But that won't stop me from trying.  Now, I'm no martyr.  I've certainly had help.  My parents and Kristin's parents have stepped in and helped a lot.  But, honestly, a part of me resists the help.   Part of me wants to prove that I can do it alone.  The house won't fall apart.  The kids will get to school properly dressed, with hair combed, and on time.  In all likelihood, I won't lose a single one.  In this case, I've accepted help, but truthfully, I've been slow to ask for it, which brings us to grace. 

Grace comes when I realize that not only can I not do it alone, I can't do it at all.  When I think about the last decade of my life, I wonder how much effort I've wasted trying to make myself right before God?  How many times have I tried to pick myself up after failure, vowing to try harder next time?  How many well intentioned promises have I prayed in an effort to fix myself of my flaws?  All for what?  Here I am now, 10 years later, not much better than I was then.  Still deeply flawed.  Still struggling to maintain a fluent relationship with the Creator.  Attaining nothing near the quality of spiritual maturity I thought I'd be at by now.   Somehow I missed grace. Could it be that it is grace all along that makes me acceptable before God?  Why can't I realize that it is not what I am doing but what Christ has already finished that earns me favor with God.  Maybe God isn't sitting on the edge of his throne, waiting on my every move, ready to hurl lightning bolts or sprinkle goodness on me.   It's amazing how that little change in thought changes your whole perspective on living.  No, the do-it-yourselfer and the Gospel do not mix.  For some reason, the acceptance of grace is relatively easy to accept in salvation, but so difficult when it comes to daily living, or sanctification if you'd prefer the big theologically sounding words.   But, if I couldn't earn God's favor then, when I was lost in sin, and if I needed the obedience of Christ and the cross to set me free from my sin, am I living in any more freedom now as I obsess over how I'm doing?  It seems that I'm still a slave to the sin, past and present, that is keeping me from God.  What if sanctification is not about reaching a somewhere-out- there potential in Christ, but rather is about living up to who you already are in Christ?  How would that change how I think  and act?  No more wondering if I'm doing enough.  Christ did enough.  No more frustrations over failure.  Christ didn't fail.  No more lamenting over unfinished work.  Christ finished his.  No longer will I find myself looking at myself, but instead will be free to find awe in Christ working in me.  My fear of not living up to God's expectations will be replaced with a passion to become exactly who he created me to be.

Why would we choose to see it any other way?  Because we've all got a bit of do-it-yourselfer in us.  Some more than others.

My neurosis and the effect it has on my ability to sit still in church

Friends of mine who sit behind me in church enjoy a good laugh from time to time at my expense. I am absolutely horrible at hiding irritation and for some reason they find it amusing. The shifting in my seat. Attempts to releasing tension building in my shoulders and neck. I don’t know. I’m not sure I believe them. Apparently, when the wheels in my head start turning, there is an involuntary physical response that follows. What is the source of the irritation? Well I it’s not the discomfort caused by ergonomically deficient church pews (though chairs are a wonderful invention, I’m just saying…). Nor is it the lack of reverence displayed by my not so perfect kids struggling beside me, though they invoke a certain response in their own right. The irritation that I’m referring to here, the one that makes my friends laugh and my wife nervous, wells up in me when I find something disagreeable in the message (or sometimes the messenger, which more often than not happens to be a guest speaker). I’m feeling that right now. No, I’m not in church (but wouldn’t that be great – live venting!), but I’ve been thinking about yesterday’s morning message and a couple of thoughts won’t leave me, so I’ll just let them out here and be done with it. So if you are one of the ones laughing at my discomfort, here is a look into my neurosis. Why can’t I just let comments slide? Why can’t I just shut down my critical part of my mind? I don’t know. But here we go….

It’s not that I disagreed with the message, because I don’t. It was organized, thought out, and the advice sound and well presented. But, as it usually begins, a single point, not necessarily even a central point, got me thinking, and well, once that seed is planted in the neurotically critical grey space in my head, that thought sprouts a shoot, which soon branches, and before you know it, I’ve got something that resembles that obnoxious shrub covering the front of your neighbor’s house growing in my head. Yeah it’s uncomfortable, so don’t laugh. It’s a disease. The context is this. Your teenager’s bedroom. What’s in it? What does it reveal about your teenager? What can you change to protect them and avoid losing them to the world? Once again, I’m not picking apart the sermon. There was a lot of good advice provided, but I’m wondering if it (and I’ll add that this ‘IT’ is typical of the youth programs I grew up with and still see prevalent in youth and adult programs within fundamentalism today)really addresses the core of the problem. The problem is real. Kids growing up in the church don’t tend to stay there. I don’t know the correct percentage, but I’ve heard claims such as 2 out of every 3 children that grew up in the church leave it in early adulthood. Without doing a quick Google check, I wouldn’t be surprised if there weren’t a few studies to back up that claim. The comment that got this flake of insanity snowballing in my head was in reference to music. Yep, the portal to hell located in your child’s room known as the radio (my words of sarcasm, not intended to mock the speaker). What I found interesting is that he didn’t even really talk about the dangers of secular music (I assume that he assumed that that one had already been beat to death), but rather offhandedly attacked Christian music (that dreaded CCM!). Surprising not because I haven’t heard the arguments before, but surprising because making this argument in this context assumes that what is tearing your child away from a relationship with God is music about God. That to me is absurd. You may dislike the music. You may find the lyrics shallow . You may find the industry to be a bit of a contradiction. I’ll resonate with you on many of those opinions, but tell me that this is something that I as a parent need to be concerned about? Really? Image worship – yes. An obsession with self gratification –yes. Materialism – yes. Laziness – yes. Pornography and misappropriation of sex – yes. It is scary raising kids in today’s culture. But CCM -- Are you kidding me?

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing for an outright acceptance of all things under the umbrella of CCM. But isn’t that the problem. The outright acceptance or rejection of some thing or some activity on the basis of poorly formed argumentation or anecdotal red herring? As a parent, it may seem good to construct these all encompassing boundaries qualified by lists of yes’s and no’s in order to protect our kids, and don’t misunderstand me, boundaries are necessary, but is it possible that we fail our kids in the end by under emphasizing discernment? Isn’t it possible that not all music written in the last century (and not produced by the Wilds) is bad? Could some movies being put out today by Hollywood actually be edifying? How do we discern what is good and to what is the standard we measure those things against? That is the conversation to be had over and over again. Kids today aren’t dumb. Eventually, they are going to see through the shallowness of our arguments and if we’re not careful, even our faith. Hopefully, they’ll yearn for more, but more likely I’m afraid they’ll look for less. Why are kids leaving their parent’s faith? Maybe it is the influence of the world. We need to have a handle on what our kids are plugged into. But I believe the greater influence is us. What are we communicating about our faith? Is it mere behavior modification? Is it conformation to a standard that may or may not be universal? Is it a futile attempt to make God happy with us so he’ll in turn make us happy (or the reverse, not make God angry so he’ll in turn zap us)? Or is it a yearning to know God more? A humiliation of self sufficiency at the foot of the cross? A transformation of who they are and an unquenchable desire to be everything that God created them to be, nothing else, nothing less? What’s the difference? The Gospel. The Gospel does more than just save us. It keeps us. It motivates us. It makes us. Why then do we sell our children short?  To echo and skewer a line from the Sprint commercials --there is no limit to what Grace can do.  So why would anyone want to limit Grace? 

I know I'm guilty.  You?

Faith (and popcorn)

A few weeks ago, Kristin and I took our two oldest boys to a monster truck show at Lucas Oil stadium. The boys were thrilled to watch Grave Digger, Maximum Destruction, and about a dozen other oversized, obnoxiously loud toys race around the arena field. And they certainly weren’t alone in their excitement. Fifty thousand or so other children, of all ages, made the trek to the big city to cheer on their favorite Hot Wheel as it crushed its way around a manufactured dirt course. Shortly after finding our seats, which was quite the journey in its own right, I was tapped to make a popcorn run. I figured this would be easy enough. I was pretty sure I saw the lines forming at the concession in the vestibule not far from where we entered our section. Unfortunately, the concessions closest to our gate just sold the last of their popcorn. But succumbing to my hunter/gatherer instincts and refusing to return to my family empty handed, I forged on. Apparently, the popcorn planning committee greatly underestimated the redneck fan base’s hankering for popcorn. I passed concession after concession only to find remnants of kernels what once were. Stubbornly I pressed on. Oh, but there was hope. A fellow gatherer had found the elusive popcorn spring. The popcorn maker behind the counter was empty, but every few minutes a tub of popcorn would mysteriously appear from the back. I thought it better not to ask questions and quickly forked over a small fortune for my prize. Finally, with the sense of satisfaction that can only come from a giant tub of popcorn in one hand and a large coke in the other, I began my hike back to my family which were now, of course, halfway across the upper deck seating.

Heading back to my seat I had a pretty good idea of where I needed to go, but didn’t have hard confirmation with me. I maneuvered my way through the crowds (aimlessly searching for popcorn for themselves no doubt) and entered the tunnel that led to the section I thought would lead me to my seat. Upon entering the expanse of the crowded stadium, I turned to look up at the seating hoping to get confirmation that I was indeed where I should be. Hundreds of unfamiliar faces stared back at me. Confident that my instincts were right though, I took the first step. As I climbed the seemingly endless flight of steps, I searched intently for my beautiful wife and two boys. Where were they? Each step brought an increasing measure of doubt. Were my instincts wrong? Was it section 525 or 526? What was that row number again? Why don’t I see them yet? I kept climbing. And climbing. It wasn’t until they were just a few feet away that I noticed them. Relief. I excused myself to my seat , handed over the bounty, and settled in for show. As it turned out, my instincts were right after all.

For me, following God is not that much different. There might be some that move confidently through life without doubt. That’s not me. When I look ahead, I can’t see the end. I look for something substantial, but often only see unfamiliarity staring back at me. I wonder if I’m going in the right direction. If I didn’t miss something along the way. Sometimes I wish God didn’t seem so elusive, that his directions were more obvious. Sometimes I wish I didn’t have to rely on the subtle nudges of the Spirit. Wouldn’t a pillar of fire or a puffy white cloud be much easier to follow? Why leave room for doubt? Because I think that’s where faith begins. Questions leave the seeker unsatisfied and creates within him the desire to pursue. I think that’s what God wants from us, pursuit. Faith is taking that first step, and each step after, even when you have questions. We can take those steps, even in uncertainty, because Christ became man to show us the way. He gave us the cross to make us a way. And He gave us the Spirit to guide us along the way. In this I can be confident. Unlike my own instincts, or sense of direction which has fooled me a time or two, the Spirit always points me to the Father. I can doubt myself and I can doubt my ability to figure out God, but I can’t shake my faith in God. I guess that’s because He gave it to me in the first place. If it was anything of my own making, I’m not too confident I wouldn’t have lost it along the way.

So long Peyton ...

It's a sad day in Indy.  After giving Indianapolis 14 record setting years, a perennially winning team, a championship, a new stadium, and even a Super Bowl, Peyton Manning has officially been cut by Irsay and the Colts.  I guess I understand that it's a business, but what about loyalty?  I have to admit, I won't be too upset if he comes back with the Texans and kicks the Colts butt for a couple of years. 

And now for your Peyton Manning tribute... (Warning, PG-13)

Why I gave up on young earth creationism, part 2

It’s funny how our attitudes about certain things change over time.  You know that slightly uncomfortable feeling you get when you look back at your old photos from high school?  Pegged jeans, high tops, shelved hair?  Doesn’t look so cool anymore, does it?  How could something so cool then look so ridiculous now?  What has changed?  You?  Maybe a little, Maybe you’re a little thinner up top and thicker around the middle.  But I’d bet when it comes down it, you probably haven’t changed much.  Has the world changed?  Maybe a bit on the surface, but once again, at its core, it’s pretty much the same.  So why do I look like such an idiot with these parachute pants on today?  Maybe it just my perception that has changed.  My eyes capture images of my surroundings and feed those images to my brain.  My brain then convinces me how cool I look when I blend in to those images I’m seeing.   Take me out of that world and place me into another one where I perceive something different and I don’t look so cool anymore.   The same is true with entertainment.   Not too long ago,  I got a little excited when I saw that the complete series one of my all time favorite shows was on now on Netflix.  That’s right.  I’m talking about one of the greatest TV shows of all times. MacGyver.   As a kid, I loved that show.   Come on, admit it, you did too.  Give him some duct tape, a ball point pen, a stick of gum, and maybe some old chemicals lying around your garage and he couldn’t be beat.   Genius!  So with great joy I jumped into the pilot episode.     It was horrible.  Bad acting.  Ridiculous story.  Laughable special effects.  Will it alter my idolatry for MacGyver?  Not if I can help it.  I’m afraid to watch another episode in fear that he may lose some of his awesomeness.     So what does this have to do with creationism?  Hang on, I’ll get there.  Bear with me.  Why are skinny leather ties not cool?  Why is MacGyver (though still awesome) now cheesy?   The ties haven’t changed.  Still stiff and hard to tie.  The show hasn’t changed.  Still in its original format.   But the backdrop I’m placing them into has changed, and they don’t fit.   They are out of place.  I’ve experienced more, seen more, hopefully learned more, and now I see things differently.  Unless I immerse myself back into the world of MacGyver and Saved by the Bell, those styles and images will never be quite as right as I thought they were.   The point?   I would liken the push for Young Earth Creationism as sort of an Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite.  It might have made sense a while ago, but not in the context of the current state of knowledge we live in.  Like someone living in the 80’s, it is disconnected.  Either the brain is not picking up on proper images of the world it belongs in (bad Science?), or it just doesn’t care (bad Theology?).   Either way, it is disconnected.   

So the question I have is should we read Scripture in light of how we perceive the world today?  Some say that we can’t and shouldn’t because our perceptions are constantly changing.  How can we trust the words of fallible humans over the spoken truth of an infallible God?  Admonishments such as, “It is time to stop compromising the clear words of God’s inspired Word and start trusting fully in what He said He did”  sound great but does it make sense in the context of the creation wars?   Science has had a history of faultiness, but does that mean it can’t be trusted at all? 

The problem I’ve grown into is that it’s just not that simple.  How can I ignore the reality I live in for something that seems so ancient?  Is it even possible?  I’m yet to meet a Christian that takes all of Scripture at face value (though I hear a few that claim to).  Ever stone your children for disobedience?  Women, have you ever spoken in church?  If so, was your head covered?  Silly, off target examples I know, but we all read scripture in context, as we should.  We also all read scripture with glasses on, which is not necessarily bad, but should be recognized.  The same is true of Genesis and the other creation stories mentioned in the Bible.  Though there are few today that believe the earth is flat, that is the picture we get from Scripture (Psalm 24:2, Dan 4:7-8, Matt. 4:8, Gen 11:4).  I don’t know of anyone who subscribes to the ancient idea that the sky consists of a dome holding an expanse of water held up by solid pillars, though that is the picture we get Scripture (Job 38:22, Psalm 104:3, 13, Gen 1:6-7, etc.)  How about geocentricism?  Should we hold to that?  See Joshua 10:12-13, Hab. 3:11, I Chron. 16:30, Psalm 93:1, and Job 9:6, among others.  It’s one thing to describe the sun rising and setting as we still do today.  It is another to actually believe it, as ancient civilizations did.  The cosmic view proposed in Scripture is consistent with the cosmology of the day as witnessed by other ancient texts.  It was written within a certain framework.  So when it’s obvious that we can dismiss the descriptions of a solid firmament held by great pillars or a flat earth located in the center of the cosmos in light of our current understanding, how can we show consistency in our understanding of cosmos as revealed to us by God in His Word?  How is it rationally possible to believe that flat-earthers are somehow “detached” from reality and at the same time dismiss those who trust that the earth is very old as “compromisers”?  I cannot answer that within framework of young earth creationism.  It seems to me that the testimony is inconsistent.  By telling people to reject science and listen to God’s word, all the while reframing some aspects of Scripture in light of science hints of hypocrisy.  As it is, Christians are often accused of picking and choosing the Scriptures they choose to follow.  This is just one more example and potentially a poor testimony to those outside the church. 

I am no longer a young earth creationist because I cannot read ancient literature in the framework of a modern cosmos and convince myself that I am consistent in my interpretation.  It would be like watching Macgyver today and convincing myself that it is well scripted drama or better yet, squeezing my butt into some skinny jeans and telling myself that I look good.  It’s just not right.  Compile that with the lack of scientific integrity I see coming out of some young earth publications, and you have me well on my way out the door.  Those reasons though could be argued to be insufficient in themselves if God really did mean for us moderns to believe that the earth was created in six 24 hour days.   Of course I don’t think that’s the case, but I’ll save that for part 3.

Another new find involving something very old...

Not quite Encino Man, but a pretty dang cool discovery nonetheless.  Russian scientists have managed to regenerate fertile plants from 30K year old fruit tissue buried in Siberian permafrost.  The ancient fruit was found in animal burrows in permafrost of the so-called Late Pleistocene ice complex found throughout the eastern Arctic.  The fossil burrows contain thousands of plant material and are located in layers containing bones of large mammals and other animals you'd expect to see in any of the three Ice Age movies.  Radiocarbon dating of the plant material places the deposits as being 28k-32k years old.  The burrows are actually storage chambers, created by squirrels or similar small animals to keep their food.  Apparently, when the little animals went about making their on-site crawl-in freezers, they deposited seeds and fruit against the walls of the ice, which then remained frozen until now.  Although several plant species of differing maturity were tested, researchers found the most promise with the fruit of Silene stenophilla, which according to the paper were "dominant... and in a state of good morphological perservation" (AMS radiocarbon dating showed them to be 31,800 +/- 300 years old).  How'd they get them to flower?  Clonal Micropropagation.  Micropropagation is essentially plant multiplication in vitro.  They took placental tissue from immature seeds and in test tubes containing growth medium, initiated the growth of shoots from the tissue.  The primary shoots grew into rooted plants and the rooted plants grew to sexually mature plants.  The flowers of the mature plants were cross polinated with other ancient plants and so on. 

What's the significance?  Well, other than the fact that something that was placed in a icy hole by a burrowing squirrel was brought back to life in a lab 30 thousand years later (how cool is that?), the experiment provides insight to the long term conservation of biological material, tissue resilience, and phenotypic plasticity (the amount of physiological change the plant underwent through the years when compared to modern representatives) and of course, begs the question of what else can be brought back to life?    Fun to think about.

New discovery of an a very old Copy of the Gospel of Mark?

Pretty exciting stuff.  If this pans out as authentic, this 1st century fragment of the Gospel of Mark predates the existing earliest MS by 100 to 150 years and places it's origination within the lifespan of some of the original followers of Christ.  Pretty cool. 

The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

Lent

Here we are, almost a week into Lent.  Are you observing?  Apparently Lent is not just for Catholics.  Who knew?  I'm kidding of course, sort of.  I've never really thought much about it before.  Unless I ran into a person who apparently didn't see the smudge on their forehead before they left their house in the morning, Ash Wednesday would most likely come and go without me even noticing.  It's a shame really.  A practice that once was ubiquitous in the early church remains largely ignored by much of the modern church.  But there does seem to be a resurgence of late, enough of one to catch my attention at least.  And rightly so.  It's a shame that many of the practices that influenced the early church have been lost under the envelop of Grace.  I understand that practicing Lent does not earn me any points with God.  It won't influence my redemption.  What I don't understand is why this extended time of reflection, repentance, and penitence, while it doesn't impress God, isn't impressed on more people of the church today.  My church is silent on it, as I expect most to all Fundamental Baptist churches are.  Why wouldn't this be something every Christian gets behind?  I often lament how empty Easter feels.  Maybe its just me, I don't know, but what should be the most joyous and moving day of worship for Christ followers comes and goes about as fast as the ham that follows.  Come on people!  Easter is not the greatest of Sundays because of the special music!  So this year, I'm preparing... and it began last Wednesday.   

To be honest, I'm not sure what to expect.  I'm hoping that I will find Easter to be the pinnacle it's meant to be.  I'm hoping to reach a certain harmony with what God is doing with me and my family.  I'm hoping to experience God in a fresh way.  But ultimately, it's not about me.  So we'll see.  35 days to go.

Why I Gave Up On Young Earth Creationism, part 1.

There was a time when I was passionate about young earth creationism.  I absorbed as much material put out by ICR and AIG and other young earth groups as I could.  I subscribed to their newsletters, read their books and watched their videos and even had the privilege to hear Ken Ham speak.  I even studied biology under some pretty good young earth scientists at a fundamentalist university with the intent of advocating young earth creationism some day.  I loved it, and what else could a knowledge hungry Christian believe?  Sure there were old earthers, and gap theorists, and worse yet, theistic evolutionists hovering on the fringes of Christianity, but none of those groups were consistently faithful to the Word of God, right?  And the scientific evidence, well it was consistent with the Genesis account, as long as it was interpreted with the correct 'world view', right?

So what happened?  Well, I guess I grew up.  I'm not saying that those hanging on to young earth creationism are immature, uneducated, or lacking in any way.  I totally get that compared to many young earth advocates, I'm pretty much an idiot.  But I just don't get it anymore.  By don't I mean can't.  By growing up I mean that I see things differently now.  Like a child learns and grows through play, through seeing, feeling, and experiencing, what I see, feel, and experience in creation has a profound influence on how I think and ultimately, my faith.  And while I understand why many Christians hold onto it with such passion, I can not be honest with myself and subscribe to 'scientific creationism.'  

As a young earth creationist, I found myself more concerned with finding holes in evolution theory than supporting young earth theories.  And now, looking back, that makes sense to me.  Young earth creation is not based on science.  It's based on a particular interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis.  If science doesn't agree, it must be wrong.  Evolution, on the other hand, is based on science.  And with just about all science, it is a work in progress and as such, open for criticism.  Despite what some may purport, it does not explain everything.  It is not perfect.  I'm confident that decades from now, as more of this world is revealed to us, many of the theories in evolution will have changed.  Some changes may be subtle.  A few revisions may even be drastic.  That is science.  Though as a science, evolution will not go away.   I don't see the lack of surety as a bad thing.  We are constantly learning, adjusting, pursuing.  I don't believe God gave us the Bible so that our knowledge would be full.  It's not a matter of God's words versus man's words as so often repeated by Ham and his followers.  It's about good science and pseudoscience.  Good science refines itself.  Pseudoscience does not. It does not adjust itself to new information but rather looks for new information to confirm itself.  Creationists ask evolution for irrefutable proof (an impossible demand) while providing not an inkling of evidence (a seemingly simple expectation) for itself. 

Almost every Christian I know personally would rebuke me for giving up on young earth creationism.  I'm fine with that.  That's the circle of fellowship I've put myself in.  I'm not out to change anyone's mind, just come clean about mine. 

Creationism in the Classroom and Indiana

The Indiana Senate recently passed a bill allowing for the teaching of creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes as reported by Fox News.  As with other states that have passed similar legislation, bills like this tend to attract national attention and the ensuing backlash will likely kill this before it gets any further (Science).   Even if a bill like this could make it all the way to law, I'm having a difficult time understanding the practical aspects of it.  Would schools districts introduce creationism into its science curriculum?  Not likely, but even if it did, and as the bill states, it allowed for Christian, Judaic, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, and Scientology interpretations of origins, who would be qualified to teach it?  How many high school science teachers out there can claim expertise on world religion and alternating views on cosmic origins?  Even still, what do these alternating views have to do with science?  There was a time when I favored the push to 'teach the controversy' and thought it was good due diligence.  What would be the danger?  But, scientifically speaking (and that's all we should be concerned with in science class), there is no controversy.  The controversy exists somewhere outside the lab.  That's not to say that evolution has all the answers and is without its flaws.   It, like any theory of science, is under continual revision and adapts to the accumulation of knowledge, but any honest approach to the empirical data available today will suggest an evolution of life that at least somewhat resembles Darwin's theories. 

I also wonder what the instruction of creation theories in science class says about the usefulness of science?  On one hand we teach the importance and practicality of science, of making observations, formulating and testing hypothesis, honestly reporting conclusions, and finally arriving at theories that best explain the observations, and then follow up with instruction in theories not based on observations, that are not testable, that weren't arrived at by pouring over the data.  All in the same science class?  Does good science (peer reviewed, repeatable, demonstrative) have value when bad science (imagination, hand waving, and conjecture) is legitimized as an equal counterpart? 

I'm not saying that creationism (non-evolution kind) cannot be true.  It may be.  I'm also not suggesting that it shouldn't be studied.  I enjoy the entertainment that is provided by 'fringe' science and I think it has its place.  I'm open to everything.  But, even though I find the hunt for bigfoot and the accounts of non-terrestrial experiences fascinating, I wouldn't want them taught in science class (not yet at least).  If science as we know it today is to be trusted, the probability that theories supporting the views of young earth creationists are correct are slim, which, as a side note, explains the demonization of mainstream science by certain young earth groups.  Science education (especially at the high school levels) should focus on available data, and if the data suggests a certain origin for humans, so be it.  As a Christian, I should accept that.  I am not forced  to believe it, but I should at least acknowledge the fact that science does say something about the world we live in and suggest a certain history for it.  What we do with what science suggests and how we choose to integrate it into our belief systems makes great discussion for the philosophy class that meets down the hall, I just don't see how it fits into a science curriculum, unless of course we are on the verge of a dogma shattering discovery, and then, of course, fringe will become mainstream and get its own chapter.

Took a stroll to the Super Bowl today... which apparently is a stop on the way to Hell!

Another beautiful winter day in Indianapolis.  Those warm climate host cities have nothing on us.  With the Super Bowl festivities climaxing a few hours from now, I decided to take a stroll down to the Super Bowl village to mingle with the rich and famous.  Not really.  Though the streets were filled with limos and police escorts, the walkways swarmed with red & blue jersey wearing, bud-light toting, happy to-be-here fans.  Swarmed might be an understatement.  The pilgrimage of the faithful brought thousands to Indianapolis.  I must admit, I felt a bit of pride in our small market city, formerly only known to some in association with corn fields and race cars.    The zip line was running at full capacity.  The music stages boomed.  The party tents rocked.  Fans cheered.  The street preachers preached.  Yep, no gathering of people en masse would be complete without the megaphone preacher and his sign holding side kicks.  In the few blocks I walked, I counted a half-dozen men declaring boldly their claim of the Gospel.  Most were fairly innocuous.  For the most part, people just strolled by, some mumbling under their breath, others pretending not to hear.  I always wonder about the effectiveness of this type of evangelism.   Preaching to those who want to listen is one thing, but preaching to those who don't, well that's just being a nuisance.  Does God call Christians to public nuisance?  I don't know.  Not all were mere obstacles to get by though.  One man was a bit of a traffic stopper.  He managed to gather a bit of a congregation.  When I first saw him, he was battling a not entirely sober man over the mic.  You couldn't miss him.  All mic'd up, he stood above the crowd and was adorned with boldly printed signs declaring that "ALL drunkards, whore mongers, homosexuals, thieves ... are going to HELL!".  His spoken message was pretty much that as well.  His list of hellians included Rappers, rock singers, and pretty much all those football worshiping fans within earshot.  The crowd mockingly loved him.  I couldn't help but shake my head and laugh a little,  though hoping that this wasn't the only impression of Christ these people get.  

Sometimes its easy to get discouraged, frustrated, even embarrassed by those claiming to serve the same God as I do.  I find myself falling into this trap often.  The thing is though, God isn't phased by all this.  His plans are still sure.  His work is still evident in those faithful to the truth of the Gospel.  People have been getting in the way of God since the beginning of, well, people.  I guess that's part of what makes him great.  Though we are dependent on him, he is not dependent on us (though wants to use us, imagine that.) He is always God always sovereign.  And though I often wonder about the specifics of what He is doing, and get frustrated by questions and insecurities, I know that He is still at work in this world, despite the actions of those who bring evil on fellow humans, despite the hubris of those who mock His name, despite the foolishness of those who make a mockery of His Name, despite those who are faithful to church but not their calling, despite me.  Though he made us all image bearers, God doesn't seem too worried too much about His image.  Maybe I should worry less about it as well, while reminding myself that he has called me to bear it.

Nuttin' better than some good ol' gospel music!

There isn't much more indicative of the diversity in the American church than a congregation's use of and appreciation of music.  For those of you familiar with the unpolished church music 'special', I give you this....
The best part of the video is the end, but not for the obvious reason.    After "Looking for that City" for a painful 3 minutes, the performer steps back and in a quick moment of reflection, thinks to himself... 'Nailed it!'.

This is Great... "What God Thinks of the Theology Books We Write"

From Peter Enns blog, who by the way has a new book that I'm looking forward to reading.

What we think of the theology books we write:

Well, I’ve worked for years on this, and I have to say I think I nailed it. It’s not perfect, but I am sure this will be a lasting contribution to thinking Christians everywhere. It’s a thoughtful piece that raises many pressing, indeed, perennial issues, that have not been addressed quite as clearly as I do here.

You’re welcome.

What God thinks (as told through dramatic metaphor):

Five year old: Daddy, do you like my picture?

Father: [Dear God, if there is a God, have mercy on me and tell me what this random series--if series is even the right word--of lines and squiggles is supposed to be. Please. Help. Me.] Ah….woooooow! That’s A-M-A-Z-I-N-G!

Five Year Old: Can you tell what it is? [no clue what's happening]

Father: [Merciful and Almighty God. I do not know what this is. Either tell me or make it stop. I will promise you anything.] Of COURSE.  Yeah.  It’s a cccaaaa….

Five Year Old: [slightly puzzled but not discouraged] It’s a reindeer in a boat.

Father: [Capricious God, was I asking too much? A little help. Still, not too bad. Damage control time.] Sure. Here are the antlers…and look…it’s nose…and there is the outboard motor…..and that’s the water, right?

Five Year Old: That’s the sail.

Father: [A sail? Why didn't you warn me to leave well enough alone?] Oh, riiiight. The sail.

Five Year Old: Isn’t that a great picture, Dad.

Father: It’s beAUTiful. I love it. And everyone else who sees it will love it, too. Let’s hang it up on the fridge to make sure everyone sees it. Everyone needs to see this picture of a …reindeer…in a boat….

Five Year Old: ….with a sail.

To the Island of Misfit Blogs?

I can be indecisive.  At the store, I tend to ponder more than I purchase.  Yeah, I'm the guy who carries stuff around the store for a good 30 minutes before putting it back on my way to the door.  My wife knows not to send me to the grocery store unless absolutely necessary.  What she could do in 20 minutes takes me 2 hours 13 minutes.  So as I sit in a rambling internal debate on whether or not to finally bury this failure of blog, I'm trying to remember why I thought it would be a good idea in the first place and maybe, just maybe, find reason for its continuance.  Sure, along with the millions of other blog owners out there, it's nice to think that I have a voice, albeit insignificant, but I'm not so far disillusioned to think that I've got anything important to say or even worth reading.  There are a lot of good blogs out there, but this isn't one of them.  Thus the moniker "Fool".  No, the blog is not very good and hardly worth reading to the casual passerby.   Maybe it's time to just let it go.

But that's never been its intent.  The League's inception was supposed to be about community and  was started as an effort to share ideas, questions, and observations on life and church with friends in a private setting, since getting together for discussion proved to be difficult.  After a year or so struggling to keep the conversation going we decided to take the site public with hopes of adding some accountability to the posts.  And here we are again, a year or so later, still struggling to keep the conversation going.   Like the new exciting toy that now sits in the closet with the other crap, the League has lost its luster.  Yeah, I should just let it go.

The thing is, I need the conversation ... I don't get it at work.  I don't get it at church.  I don't get it at home (unless you consider the near constant repetition of  "Hey Daddy, watch this" a conversation).  Without it, I trend towards idleness.  Let's face it, life gets wearisome.  After investing so much of your day into your family, and kids, and work, and the general maintenance of living, it is so easy to just want to shut down and turn it off... and for me at least, waste away intellectually and spiritually.  It would certainly be easier to just let it go.  Free time for me usually starts around 8:30pm and ends a couple short hours later.  To be honest, I'd rather lose myself in the television or fling birds at smiling green pigs than force myself to think.  As pleasurable as learning can be there is something to be said for unhindered slothfulness .... But then there is that wasting away tendency.  Now I'm not so sure.

So I suppose I'll try to keep it going.  For my own mind's sake.  Though the League of Profound Fools may be down to a single fool, I'm not sure at this point, but the Island of Misfit Blogs will have to wait... For now at least. 

Happy New Year!!!

2011 is minutes from over and it's just about time to reset the calendar.  I like resets.  Sure, I realize that it's just another day, that the run of events that make up this life don't pause, skip, or reset. But this fool can convince himself that it does.  It's a fresh start, and for some reason this year is going to be different.  This is the year I'm going to get back into shape, read more, learn more, listen more, spend more time with my neighbors, and daggonit, finally learn to play that stupid guitar. This year I'm going to be better at keeping in touch with family and friends.  Maybe even make a friend. (maybe that's a little too optimistic...)   

New Year's Day is for resolutions and predictions, so here is my bold 2012 prediction.  Exactly 1 year from now, Dick Clark, well-tanned and timeless, will lead us into 2013, and I'll be able to reset once again and look ahead into a new year with a fresh look at these worn out expectations.

Happy foolish New Year!

Anti-intellectualism and the Subculture of Fundamentalism

Though my increasingly exiguous mental capacities prevent all notions of me being even casually intellectual, the last thing I want to be accused of is being 'anti-intellectual.'   As a Christian, and even worse, a Christian who is a member of a fundamentalist church, I align myself with a culture that is often portrayed as just that.  I find this a frustrating place to be.  In a single conversation I will find myself shaking my head at the smug, twisted attacks from the left and then wincing at the declarations from the loud mouthed representatives of the right.    The idea of the "Christian", or maybe more descriptive ''Evangelical", subculture has been on my mind lately and was the subject of this Op Ed from The New York Times.  From 'The Evangelical Rejection of Reason':

Like other evangelicals, we accept the centrality of faith in Jesus Christ and look to the Bible as our sacred book, though we find it hard to recognize our religious tradition in the mainstream evangelical conversation. Evangelicalism at its best seeks a biblically grounded expression of Christianity that is intellectually engaged, humble and forward-looking. In contrast, fundamentalism is literalistic, overconfident and reactionary.

I can't disagree.  'Biblically grounded', 'intellectually engaged', 'humble', 'forward-looking'.  Right on!  And yeah, this idea of a sub-culture, one that has significantly lost its influence in contemporary society and has been reduced to the joke in an SNL skit, stems largely from an 'overconfident and reactionary' response to the threat of liberalism.  But I think the authors take a misstep from there.  In their article, Giberson and Stephens present an expression of Christianity that may be engaged, humble and forward-looking, but I wonder about the intellectual effort to be biblically grounded.  Does societal norms influence (dare I say dictate) biblical interpretation?  What does it mean to be concertedly 'biblically grounded' and 'intellectually engaged'?    While I think anti-intellectualism runs deep in evangelical and fundamental circles, I don't think holding fast to a particular (often literal) hermeneutic places a person in the anti-intellectual camp.  While I do believe the rejection of science to be anti-intellectual, I don't think that holding to a literal interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis is necessarily anti-intellectual.   While it is unreasonable to gauge a society's conscience on its rejection of homosexuality alone, to dismiss what the Bible does have to say on the matter as irrelevant is no more an intellectual stance.   

The way I see it, an intellectual mindset is no more the acceptance of a certain tenant than anti-intellectualism is the rejection of that same tenant.  Reason is in the conversation in-between.   Reason has more to do with the arrival to the conclusion than the conclusion itself.  And what I find frustrating in the fundamentalist/evangelical circles I'm a part of is not the dogma that is held on to, but the lack of conversation that surrounds it.   "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" has got to be one of the stupidest phrases ever pronounced from the pulpit or put on a refrigerator magnet.  The problem with the church and its sub-culture is not that it doesn't agree with the masses, but that it spends far too much time protecting and defending itself against culture rather than engaging it with the Gospel of Christ.

The incredible Abert Pujols

I love baseball.  I don't give much time to it anymore, but when I get the chance to watch a game, I still get those warm fuzzy feelings.   With the World Series in full swing, I stayed up late last night to watch game 3  ... and it was worth it.  Pujols is absolutely amazing.   His swing makes my insides smile.  And although his name will go down among the best ever to play the sport, I love that as my son grows up to love baseball, I can point to this guy as someone who is as great off the field as he is on. 

I couldn't embed this video, but it's worth the click.  Albert Pujols on 60 minutes.

Fool's (ramblings and) Movie Review: Courageous

Let me be clear.  I hardly qualify as a movie critic.  The last time I saw a non-Pixar film at the movies?  I have no idea.  But, since it's been awfully quiet around here from the Fools and I recently had the rare opportunity to get out and see a movie with friends, I thought it might be blog worthy.  Yes, my standards are low, as was my expectations for 'Courageous' (how's that for a lead in?).  My wife says I have a bad attitude.  She's probably right.  She says I'm too critical.  She's definitely right.  I'm a Christian.  I belong to the Church.  Why am I so critical of Christianity and the church?  For some reason, the expectation of another 'Christian Film' doesn't excite me.  I don't expect to see excellence.  Rather, I hear descriptors like cheesy and hoaky in my mind, I feel my shoulder cringe, and my eyes roll.  Maybe it's because Christians have been nothing more than poor imitators in the arts for so long.  Slap 'Christian' on anything and it sells right?  But I guess that's for another post at another time.  Back to the topic on hand:  'Courageous'.

'Courageous' is the fourth film made by Sherwood Pictures, the movie making ministry of Sherwood Church in Albany, Ga. Its last film, “Fireproof,” received some attention and did fairly well at the box office.  Whereas 'Fireproof' spoke to integrity in marriage, 'Courageous' trumpets the importance of integrity in fatherhood and challenges fathers to re-examine their level of commitment to raising their children.  The film tells the story of 4 policemen, invoked by tragedy and their friendship to each other, to commit themselves against the sin of passivity and to press toward being the father God has called them to be. 

To be honest, I'm not sure how to judge a film like 'Courageous'.  By Hollywood standards, I can't imagine it will impress too many.  Film critiques will have a heyday with the thin plot, forced dialogue, and general emptiness of the characters.  The presentation was oddly familiar.  Growing up in churches prone to bring in the occasional revival meeting evangelist, attending a Christian university with daily chapel services, and working my college summers at a Christian youth camp all have made me quite familiar with the traveling evangelist and the style in presentation they bring.  If an evangelist could preach a movie, it would look a lot like 'Courageous'.  Like so many of the messages I've heard, it was longer than it needed to be, sprinkled with humor offset with a lot emotion, and had points drawn in from here and there with disregard for their fit in the narrative.  And, of course, the most important part of any evangelist's message, the invitation.  Without thinking, at the conclusion of the movie I stood up to sing 'I Have Decided' before realizing those were just the credits rolling.  With that said though, evangelists exist because they tend to be effective, at least in the short term.  And in that sense, 'Courageous' is effective.  Despite its shortcomings as a mainstream film and debatable worthiness of the ridiculous $10 movie ticket price, 'Courageous' is not a failure.  This movie is not about the characters, the plot, or even the'Snake Kings'.  It's about the message.  It's about the need for fathers to step up and be fathers.  It's a sermon wrapped in a hollywoodish setting and as far as sermons go, it was pretty good.  One that every daddy should listen to.  Fatherhood is challenging and should be handled aggressively.  I need that reminder.

So while the film does not exceed my low-bar expectations, it has value.  The movie goer should probably consider that this film was not created for the sole purpose of entertainment (though it does have some entertainment value).  The viewer's enjoyment is not it's main driver.  It was made by a church, often sounded like something you'd hear in a church, and because of that, will likely have it's greatest effect on the church.   To it's credit, 'Courageous' doesn't embarrassingly masquerade itself as a Hollywood film with Jesus undertones.  It's blatantly Christian.  And for that, you have to applaud the church that puts these films together and promotes them for the world to see.  I'd say that's pretty courageous.

Fool's Book Review: Forged

 

Misjudgment, misfortune, or just plain foolishness.  Anyway, I had a little extra time to read this past vacation.   So when I opened ‘Forged’, Bart Ehrman’s latest popular level work on Biblical criticism, only minutes after finishing Sarah Held Evans’ ‘Evolving in Monkeytown’, I knew it would be a great lesson in contrast.   Both Ehrman and Evans tell a similar story of conservative roots.   Ehrman began his forge into academia a conservative, born again evangelical.  In fact, it was his love of Scripture that led him to his criticism of it.  He began his education at Moody, graduated from Wheaton, and earned his PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary under the advisory of Bruce Metzger.  If Evans’ story is an illustration of how a faith can evolve in the face of adversity, Ehrman’s illustrates what can happen when faith is not free to converse with evidence.  In Ehrman’s case,  when his study began to conflict with what he believed to be true about God’s word, more was lost than just his view of Biblical inerrancy.

Let me begin by saying I like Ehrman.  I like his writing.  I like his honesty.  I like his perspectives.  I like his willingness make the discussions usually held among the egg-heads accessible to intellectual simpletons like myself.   He is both an expert and good communicator.  Forged is much like Ehrman’s previously popular books, Misquoting Jesus (an introduction to textual criticism that questions the reliability of the Gospels) and Jesus Interrupted (a look at Bible contradictions) in that it brings the issues and developments raised by modern NT textual criticism to the non-scholar.   He’s open about his now deceased faith as a ‘Fundamental Christian’ and uses his story as a bit of a straw man that fell hard in the face of reason and evidence. 

  

In Forged, Ehrman aims to inform [his] readers about an important ancient literary phenomenon, correct mistakes that other scholars have made, invoke the reader to think more deeply about the roles of lies and deception in the Christian religion, to show the irony in the fact that lies and deception have historically been used to establish the ‘truth’, make the reader aware that there may be forgeries in the New Testament, to share interesting stories about intriguing and relatively unknown writings from antiquity, and finally, to entertain [his ]readers.