Christianity and America, a Marriage made in ...

I often wonder what America looked like back when it belonged to God.  Without a memory that extends much beyond 1981, I can only assume that there must have been a time in its relatively short history when America looked more like Christ.  It couldn't have been too long ago.  It seems every good fundamentalist preacher has in his repertoire at least a few references to the days when God was feared, the church sacred, and the Bible respected.   I'll avoid the rant, but ask the question.  What would America look like if it really was dedicated to the things of God?  I'm guessing we wouldn't recognize it.  What do you suppose has had the greatest influence on the other?  Christianity on America, or America on Christianity.  Some would say that Christianity has shaped America into the great nation that it is.  Maybe so.  You cannot argue that we are blessed.  But I can't reconcile the brand of christianity I've become familiar with to the one preached by the Gospel and the Cross.   Consumerism, capitalism, excess?  May work for the nation but not for the church.  Unfortunately each could be used to describe much of the American church.  I'm not down on America.  Just not to pleased with what it's done to Christianity.   I get a little bothered and then a little embarrassed by both the truths and untruths of articles such as this one from the Huffington Post a few days ago.

What do you think?  Is this an accurate caricature of American Christians?

The End is Near! The End is Near!

Summer plans?  Go ahead and scratch them.  Apparently the rapture will be occurring on May 21st of this year, starting a string of catastrophic events of judgment which will culminate with the end of the world on Ocober 21st.  Here's the CNN story.  Here's the explanation of how the date was determined.  I find it amazing the lengths some take to understand the hidden meanings of scripture when the obvious message is so often ignored. 

On a side note.  I remember as a kid in the car having the station tuned to 106.9 listening to Camping and Family Radio.  Not that my parents really liked it, but it was one of very few Christian stations available.  Makes me thankful for the wide selection of Christian stations here in central Indiana.  With each station having its share of annoying DJs playing silly songs, it's nice to have alternatives. 

Haiti trip video slide show

Thoughts from Haiti

The drive from the Port-au-prince airport to Gonaives is a little more than 100 miles.  You can see a lot from your seat in the festively painted “Let’s Go Missionaries” bus.  Masses of people fill the streets and markets of each town we pass through.  Goats, pigs, and dogs wander about freely, scavenging what they can.  Large trucks, busses, and SUVs dominate the narrow roads, making their intention known with loud horns directed at the wall of people bustling about on foot and motorbikes.  Traffic laws and signs are apparently a luxury this government cannot afford.  As I peer out my window into a world very foreign to my own, I’m struck by the poverty and chaos openly on display.  What is it that these people really need?  How can all this be fixed?  The humanitarian in me seeks answers in the provision of clean water, sanitation, a better road system, education, just to name a few.  All these carry an importance that cannot be overstated.   But I wonder if any of these things in themselves are sufficient.  The Haitian people have made a life surviving on band aid fixes. Wires providing electricity to the few fortunate homes that have it are strung together like the Christmas lights decorating Clark Griswald’s house.  Many of the vehicles look to be about a single bolt away from abandonment.  Though it is welcomed, are there any real answers in relief?  The evangelical Christian in me, on the other hand, says that the answer to what people need will only be found in the Gospel (cue all men in the congregation to respond in unison, Amen!)  This of course applies to all people: the rich, the poor, the simple, the educated; but for some reason it seems to carry special importance to the impoverished souls living in third world countries such as Haiti.  And so we send out our missionaries, with pockets full of gospel tracks and savvy witnessing tools, to give the gospel to a hurting world as if the gospel could be tossed like candy from a flowery float in a parade of piety.

Come to Christ, or the Altar

The beginning of the modern invitation system's popularity is most commonly attrubited to 19th century evangelist Charles G. Finney. Over the past 200 years or so, the "mourners' bench" has become a staple in the conclusion of most Baptist church services. I, for one, have grown up in churches where it was believed that not giving an "invitation" at the end of a service was bordering on sinfulness. "How can someone "come to Christ" if we don't give an altar call?" it is asked.

But is this practice misleading? Are there dangers in the altar call system? What do you think?

The World Isn't Worthy

As I’ve said in previous posts, we are studying through Hebrews in our Sunday AM worship, and this week, the text has really worked on me in a big way. Studying this book has constantly challenged me to examine the reality of my faith, and my own priorities.
In the book, there is a consistent theme of enduring persecution through faith. The climax of this is found in chapter 11:35-38 (which is where we are studying this week at church), where the readers are reminded that their persecution has been preceded by many others who have suffered for their faith. The truth of this passage goes completely against the lie that is so prevalent in American Christianity today: that suffering and hardship is only due to a lack of faith. It’s said that if we truly have faith, we will prosper and have whatever we want, because after all, our best life can be now if we just have enough faith and speak favor into our lives. The people in this text it says “were tortured, refusing to accept release, so that they might rise again to a better life”. These people did not suffer because of their lack of faith. In v. 39 it says that they were “commended for their faith”. So if they had faith, why were they stoned, sawn in two, killed by the sword, and destitute hiding caves and dens?
The answer is that faith may lead to conquering kingdoms and obtaining promises, but in God’s sovereignty, it may also lead to suffering and pain, even in 2011. Somewhere in N. Korea, there is a prison guard ready to torture a Korean Christian for their faith. Somewhere in Iran or Iraq or Saudi Arabia or Yemen, there are Christians losing property, freedom, or being abused, and it is not because they don’t have enough faith, but it is because they actually do have real, deep, genuine faith. Not that God will make their life good now, but that he will be their reward later. The world truly isn’t worthy of these people.
I think when we receive our eternal weight of glory, and when those who have suffered for the cause of Christ receive theirs, we will wish we had sacrificed more and suffered more for the glory of Christ and the gospel. Comfort and ease in this life will mean nothing in that moment. Do we as American Christians that don’t face this persecution sacrifice and pray and weep for those that do? Our faith may not lead to severe persecution, but is it real enough that it would endure if it did?
www.persecution.com

Just tell me what I need to know!

To me, faith is something to be wrestled with.  I'm suspect of any faith in which everything can be explained and be worked out perfectly.  Not that the exercise of seeking to explain God and His works is not beneficial, but let's face it, God didn't exactly spell it out for us.  I find Theology fascinating, but I'm reminded that it is not revelation.  Which, in itself, I think says a lot about God and the relationship with Him He intended for us.  I find Theology fascinating, but even as I read and listen to it, I'm reminded that it's not revelation.  God reveals Himself through His Word in paradoxes and narratives, not lists and charts.  Growing up I often heard the Bible illustrated as as a textbook or road map for life.  I have now added those references to my "Things I learned in Sunday School that I won't Pass Down to my Kids" list.  The Bible is both better than and more confusing than any textbook I've read.  And as far as maps are concerned, I'd rather the details not be left up to interpretation.  The Bible does more than answer questions.  It invites us into a lifelong an everlasting conversation with God. 

Letter from a Birminham Jail

Here is a portion of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail.  It's well worth your time to read the letter in its entirety here, or elsewhere around the web.

Flawed, still called

For the 28 NFL teams no longer playing, focus has already shifted from the triumphs and failures of the 2010 season to fresh hope in 2011.  Over the next couple of months, dozens of finely tuned athletes will train harder than they've ever had to before, desperate to impress a host of scouts and coaches looking for a unique package of speed, power, strength, and positional skill.  From playground competition to professional collaboration, it is in our best interest to surround ourselves with the best and the brightest.  What if God worked this way?  What if God chose us based on our ability to meet certain criteria or a particular skill set?   Where would that leave the majority of us?  Sometimes I think we'd rather have it that way.  Would take some of the pressure off, wouldn't it?  

Evolution Exposed, Exposed, Chapter 2: The Big Bang?

Continuing our discussion of AiG's Exposing Evolution high school textbook supplement.  There is both an earth sciences and biology edition available.  For the sake of this series, I'll be using the most recent edition, which happens to be the one on Earth Science.

In this chapter we are told that the Big Bang was developed using naturalistic and uniformitarian principles. Over the last century, the Big Bang has won out over many other competing models, such as the Steady State model which attributed an eternal value to the universe, and is now widely supported as the model for the origins of the universe. The discussion in Chapter 2, as expected, questions the legitimacy of the Big Bang model as an explanation of material origins and hinges its discussion on Chapter 1 which, as we discussed in the last post, questions the legitimacy of science as a whole in order to legitimize its own version of pseudo-science. Once again, evidence for or against evolution and an old earth, although pertinent to the conversation, is not the subject of these posts. This book is aimed toward Christian high school science students. So, as a scientist and a Christian, I’m more interested in the underlying philosophies being fed to impressionable students. The facts will work themselves out if they choose to pursue an education and career in science.

Merry Christmas from the Fools!

Evolution Exposed, Exposed. Chapter 1: What is Science?

Last week I introduced this series of posts taking a look at AiG’s Evolution Exposed series of classroom reference material for the young earth creationist.   I do not intend to argue for or against young earth creationism, but rather take a critical look at some of the philosophies and claims that those of us who hold to the authority of Scripture may be tempted to endorse.   As a parent, I want to be able to answer my kids’ questions without deterring them from science as well as respond appropriately to those who may want to teach them differently.

This week we are looking at Chapter 1: What is Science and once again will be using the online guide (yes - because I’m too cheap to go out and get the real material).

What is Science?   A proper view of science is foundational to the debate raised by Evolution Exposed and a great lead-in to any discussion on the merits of science.  Unfortunately, despite the chapter title, an opportunity to properly ground the target audience in the philosophy of science from a God honoring perspective is missed.   From the opening paragraph, Chapter 1 sets up its defense of creation science by attacking mainstream science.  According to the authors, science, at least to the ‘outspoken part of the scientific community’, is the ‘systematic method of gaining knowledge about the universe by allowing only naturalistic or materialistic explanations and causes” and by this thinking, in effect rules out God.  We also learn that mainstream science has been ‘hijacked’ by those holding a materialistic worldview.  We read that it is based on faulty presuppositions and works out of a bias against God.   I want to use these three claims to frame our discussion here. 

Just believe: It's easy right?

Once again, some thoughts from Hebrews 11. This week I'm teaching on Noah and Abraham's faith, and something that I have been burdened about for a while comes up in this text.

Somewhere in Mesopotamia between the Tigris and the Euphrates River, miles of miles from any ocean, Noah’s whole life was one continued concentrated prepara­tion for that which God said would happen. What would possess him to do that?? He believed God. Saving faith leads to obedience. Don’t think, as so many modern Christians do, that the faith you see in this chapter is just add on to Salvation and has nothing to do with it. That these are super saints. The faith that saves will lead to a life of obedience. Not perfection, but a measure of obedience nonetheless.

Let’s think for a minute. Let’s say God warned Noah, and he said, “Oh, ya I believe you God, that’s gonna be terrible”, but then he never built an ark. Would he have been saved? No. But this is key!!!! Why not? Was it primarily because he didn’t build the ark, or because he didn’t really believe God? It was because he didn’t really have faith.
Put it in today’s terms. Let’s say God warns someone, “If you don’t receive my son as Lord and Savior, as the one who paid the price for your sins, you will have no forgiveness of your sins, and you will face judgment for eternity. Repent and believe!” And that person says, “Oh ya, I believe you God, I’m saved, I did that back when I was a kid ya, it’s gonna be terrible”, but then their life is characterized by complete disobedience and they couldn’t care less about God. According to the example of Noah, will that person be saved?? No. Is it because they didn’t obey and love God? Not primarily, it is primarily because they didn’t have saving faith. They didn’t really believe God.

That is what this chapter is all about, because if these Hebrew Christians to whom he is writing, left following Jesus and went back to temple Jewish worship, they weren’t Christians. They never really believed. That’s why the verse right before this chapter says “But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.” In other words, the evidence of authentic, real, saving faith is the fact that it presses on, it doesn’t draw back.

Praying a prayer one time, "asking Jesus into your heart", and then living for yourself is not salvation, it’s delusion, and it’s playing games with God, and it reveals the fact that you never really believed him.

I am so burdened about this, because I feel that there are so many people in our small town American Christian culture where everybody’s a "Christian", that will say, Lord, Lord, I did this in your name, and he will say, depart from me, I don’t know you. How many people have a false assurance of some prayer they prayed as a kid, or the fact that they grew up in church, or whatever, and they don’t know God. This is serious.

Noah’s faith pleased God because it was real, and that was evidenced by the fact
that he built the ark.

Evolution Exposed, Exposed 1

Any discussion on faith and reason will inevitably engage itself into the thick of the creation wars. The battle at times slips into the courtroom but largely finds itself in the arena of the classroom. In one corner is the young earth creationist. Refusing to acknowledge Curious George as his long lost brother, he demonizes widely accepted claims of science in order to protect his Genesis model. In the other corner, the smug evolutionist. Full of confidence, reason, and himself, he spews an onslaught of verbal vitriol aimed at tearing apart the faith of all those who refuse to bow to Science. Okay, so that's a bit dramatic. Truth is, the spectrum between the extremes is filled with both good Christians and good scientists. But, as it often seems, it's the outlying fundamentalists from both camps that tend to have the biggest mouths. One such mouth is Answers in Genesis. In an effort to equip Christian high school students for battle against the Evil Evolution Empire, AiG has published Evolution Exposed in both a Biology and Earth Sciences edition. Intended as a reference guide to be used in the classroom, Evolution Exposed takes aim at four of the most popular high school biology books by summarizing key sections of each textbook while exposing evolution indoctrination throughout and highlighting inconsistencies in their presentation of evolution concepts as appropriate. The evolution debunking cheat sheet even comes complete with questions the students can ask teachers concerning the ideas presented in class.

Since Young Earth Creationism is mostly assumed and not often looked at critically in our circles, I'd like to take a few posts to review the Evolution Exposed on-line guide here on Fools with the hope that it will generate some healthy discussion (even its just among our 3 readers).

A few questions to consider for now.
What do you think? Is this something you'd like to have for your teenager as he engages with his high school science curriculum?
Do you think tactics like this impedes the development of young scientists? (The best way to fight indoctrination by the 'system' is to teach kids to think reasonably for themselves tell them what to think and how to express it - Really?)
Does the faith of Bible believing Christians need protecting?, and if so, does this help?

Depraved Indifference

Smitty, Fitzy, this clears it up a bit, doesn't it.
Thank you Sarah for sending me the link.

The Church's Purpose? Outreach or Each Other

In Smitty's recent post, "Luxury liner...", the point was made very well that Christians are not redeemed so that they can live a life of comfort and security, but rather radical sacrifice for the glory of Christ and the good of others. I agree, and was provoked in my own heart after reading the post.

However, there is an important distinction that is crucial. Krook touched on this and I felt like it deserved a post. Is outreach the purpose of the collective body of Christ? Is the primary objective of the assembly and life of the group of believers in the local church to provide for the needs of others, or is there a different objective for the church's existence? Is being salt and light the purpose of the church (collectively), or of the Christian (as an individual)? Maybe the reason that Christians are, in many cases in America, living lives of comfort with indifference toward the world is precisely because the church is not performing its primary function, which is not outreach, but discipleship, teaching doctrine, exhorting, building up, etc. (Eph. 4) What do you think? Should the church (as a group) be more concerned with outreach, each other, both??

Foolish news, 12/1 edition

Here are some not-so-noteworthy news stories that briefly grabbed my short attention span today.

If you watched any of the NFL highlights from this past weekend, no doubt you saw Buffalo Bills WR Steve Johnsons drop of a perfectly thrown ball in the end zone that would have clinched an OT victory over the highly favored Steelers.  In the post-game press conference, he shared his devastation from the podium,

"I'll never get over it. Never. The Buffalo Bills will get over it. I'll never get over it.''  While in the car yesterday, on one of the Moody radio programs, the hosts and callers were talking about a recent Tweet put out by the WR.  I only heard bits and pieces of the conversation, but the discussion seemed to be on whether or not this Steve Johnson is a believer and what he met by his Tweet.    Was he really blaming God for his gaffe?  After seeing the tweet, and reading the rest of his recent posts, I think the radio hosts should have done more background due diligence.  Here is his tweet page.  What do you think?  I tend to think that if King David tweeted, that some of the Psalms may look a bit like this.  Also of note, check out Kurt Warner's tweets of encouragement here, here, and here.

In lieu of our recent conversations on faith and reason, check out this billboard paid for by the American Atheists. 

Just one more, seems like the guys at AiG are planning to one-up their Creation Museum with an all out Noah's Ark themed amusement park.  Aside from the fact that an amusement park is going to be themed on the last time God obliterated the earth and all but a few of its inhabitants, this makes me a bit uneasy - but that's just me.  What do you think about a creationism themed amusement park?

Troop Carrier or Luxury Liner

I am currently reading the last few chapters in a book that has taken me about a month to get through (not because it's a long book, but because I take so long to read something). The book is called "Radical: Taking Back Your Faith from the American Dream". The author used an illustration when talking about the design and purpose of the church that I thought was worth getting out there for discussion. This is not meant to be a post born out of cynicism, just an honest observation. Here is what he says. . . . .(paraphrased of course)

"In the late 1940s, the US government commissioned the construction of an eighty-million dollar troop carrier for the navy. It's purpose: to have a ship that could speedily carry 15,000 troops during time of war. After it's completion, it could carry 15,000 troops @ 51 mph, and it could travel 10,000 miles without stopping for fuel or supplies. It could outrun any other ship and travel nonstop anywhere in the world in less that 10 days. The SS United States was the fastest and most reliable troop carrier in the world.

The only catch is, she never carried troops. She was put on standby once during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, but otherwise she was never used in all her capacity by the U.S. Navy.

Instead, the SS United States became a luxury liner for presidents, heads of state, and a variety of other celebrities who traveled on her during here 17 yrs of service. As a luxury liner, she couldn't carry 15,000 people. Instead she could house just under 2,000 passengers. Those passengers could enjoy the luxuries of 695 staterooms, 4 dining salons, 3 bars, 2 theaters, 5 acres of open deck with a heated pool, 19 elevators, and the comfort of a fully air-conditioned ship. Instead of a vessel used for battle during wartime, she became a means of indulgence for wealthy patrons who desired to coast peacefully across the Atlantic.

When I think about the history of this ship, I wonder if she has something to teach us about the history of the church. The church, like the SS U.S., has been designed for battle. The purpose of the church is to mobilize a people to accomplish a mission. Yet we seem to have turned the church as a troop carrier into the church as a luxury liner. We seem to have organized ourselves, not to engage in battle for the souls of peoples around the world, but to indulge ourselves in the peaceful comforts of the world. This makes me wonder what would happen if we looked squarely in the face of a world with 4.5 billion people going to hell and 26,000 children dying every day of starvation and preventable diseases, and we decided it was time to move this ship into battle instead of sitting back on the pool deck while we wait for the staff to serve us hors d' oeuvre."

We have undoubtedly turned the church into something it was never intended to be. . .a luxury liner. We have sat by long enough and turned our nose up at suffering, dying world long enough. It is high time we stop reading and writing and blogging about it and do something about it.

I'm not beating around the bush here or simply dropping hints. I am being as suggestive as I can. We have glazed over passages like Luke 12 long enough. "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. . . . .but rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. Sell that ye have, and give alms;. . . . .for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." This is coming from someone (and I say this as humbly as possible) who is finally beginning to take this literally, (as it was intended to be) and trying to change the way I think and live in order to fulfill this.

~Smitty

continuing the conversation on the interplay of faith and reason

As I stated in a comment to Fitzy's recent post, I am a skeptic by nature, and honestly, faith does not come easy for me. Faith and evidence are in a constant tangle in the arena of my head. Though I will not look for proof for my faith in the measurable, I also cannot, in good conscience, ignore my sensual perceptions. While I can nod my head in agreement with those who pronounce boldly, 'Faith is the only evidence I need!', I can also understand the hesitation of the one who says, 'faith only exists out of an absence of evidence.' I find myself somewhere in the jumble in between.  Is faith the only evidence I need? Does faith result from a lack of evidence? Yes, but...

I will be the first to admit that you cannot prove God. Faith is, in its very essence, a belief in the unseen.  This opinion of Faith does not need to be defended.  God is who he is and does as he does whether or not I see evidence for it or believe in it.  But that does not mean that faith is without reason or even at the least at odds with it.  Neither should it stunt the exercise of weighing the evidence nor cause us to distrust those who do.  Not surprisingly, popular author and speaker Richard Dawkins portrays a very negative view of faith:

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”

If this were true.  Shame on Faith.  Faith should never cause us to cover our ears and sing la la la in the face of evidence.  Must we outwit the atheist?  Most of us probably can't (and would be foolish to try).  Must we have all the answers?  No body ever will.   But the active evaluation of the evidence can and should be a healthy exercise of faith.  As Paul said, "test these things, see if they be true!"  I'm pretty sure God isn't afraid of the evidence.  Neither should we be.  Nor should we feel the need to construct complicated, logic defying, conspiracy theory-worthy mental exercises to explain the portrait right in front of our nose.  

If faith has no need of being substantiated by physical evidence, does it follow that 'Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence"?   Intelligent as he may be, what Dawkins fails to see is that while the evidence does not prove God's existence, it also does not disprove His existence.  Realizing a feasible explanation for anything says nothing of the supernatural that may or may not be behind it.  Evolution, if it is to be understood as true, says nothing of God's role or existence.  Evidence for it is not evidence against God.  Such evidence does not exist (or would be impossible to detect).  By faith Dawkins accepts that his reality is the only one.  The evidence itself cannot disprove that, but neither can it disprove a reality that includes God. 

So faith really is not existing in the absence of evidence, or despite the evidence, but rather working with the evidence.  Faith and reasoning do not have to be at odds.  The data is what it is.  Reasoning and faith give it meaning.

Ehrman

I read this post on my Professors blog, thought it was quite amusing!

When Bart Ehrman was introduced today at one of the text crit sessions (in honor of Eldon Jay Epp), the chairman said,

Prof. Ehrman is best known for misquoting Jesus and, more recently, interrupting him.

Although it was intended humorously, I think it was more true than the chairman intended.