Normally Monday morning brings us a syrupy, ecumenical plea from USA Today’s On Religion column, something about how we can all get along. Not today! Today we get a ham-fisted attack on all sorts of religion from the University of Chicago’s Jerry Coyne, an avowed atheist who by the way has a book cleverly titled Why Evolution is True . No conciliatory talk will be found in his essay Science and religion aren't friends. No way! In the same vein as other authors who find a profitable topic in telling unbelievers that they are right, Mr. Coyne lambastes religion for the cause of every ill in the world and extols the virtue of “scientists” as the calm, cool, rational folks. If only we would all listen to them, things would be so much better (or at least he would sell more books).
What is ironic and sad about this attack is that Mr. Coyne is at the very least as dogmatic and strident as he claims us poor ignert religious folks to be. He makes this bold statement: “We now know that the universe did not require a creator”. Oh, well that settles it, now that “we” know this. Just don’t ask any follow-up questions. Like for example…where did everything in the universe come from? Some “Big Bang” perhaps? But where did the matter that allegedly exploded and randomly turned into croissants and sea turtles come from? It can’t possible have always existed, doesn’t it need some sort of first cause? Matter doesn’t just create itself. Even if you hide behind sweeping claims of billions of years of existence, at some point you have to ask where it all came from and the claim that it has always “just been there” requires far more blind faith than belief in a Creator because scientists are bound by their own rules whereas God makes the rules. There simply is no “first cause” that is plausible other than a Creator God.
Perhaps the most risible of his statements comes late in the essay when he rolls out the old canard of “religious people are violent”:
The religious approach to understanding inevitably results in different faiths holding incompatible "truths" about the world. Many Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as savior, you'll burn in hell for eternity. Muslims hold the exact opposite: Those who see Jesus as God's son are the ones who will roast. Jews see Jesus as a prophet, but not the messiah. Which belief, if any, is right? Because there's no way to decide, religions have duked it out for centuries, spawning humanity's miserable history of religious warfare and persecution.
In contrast, scientists don't kill each other over matters such as continental drift. We have better ways to settle our differences. There is no Catholic science, no Hindu science, no Muslim science — just science, a multicultural search for truth. The difference between science and faith, then, can be summed up simply: In religion faith is a virtue; in science it's a vice.
Ah, the “multicultural search for truth” (and grant money of course). Puh-leeze. I guess we are supposed to believe that unlike the hordes of religious people constantly clubbing one another over the head, scientists are always rational folks who gather together in their lab coats, smoke pipes and discuss everything rationally and for a peaceful purpose. As the Climategate emails and subsequent cover-up demonstrate, “scientists” are every bit as ideological and agenda driven as any religious person.
As for this notion that religious folks are violent extremists and scientists are peaceful and concerned with human well-being. Really? Scientists didn’t experiment on black airmen in Tuskegee, Alabama or innocent people in Guantemala and intentionally infect them with diseases just to see what would happen? Scientists didn’t create the atom bomb that incinerated tens of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki not to mention the countless others who died horrible deaths from radiation later? Scientists in the Third Reich didn’t experiment on Jews in ways that are unmentionable? Look back at the horrors of the 20th century and what do we see? You don't see religious wars causing massive death and destruction. Nazi Germany which was not a religious state unless you count National Socialism as a religion, which it sort of is in the same way atheism is a religion. Millions at the hands of that horror. How about Soviet Russia? How many died at the hands of that atheist state? At least a million in the gulags alone. The killing fields in Cambodia? The Korean War? The Vietnam War? Not only are the irreligious at least as violent as the religious, they are far better at killing. Radial Muslims killed 3000 people in one day, their “best shot” on September 11th, 2001. The United States killed 80,000 people at Hiroshima in one day on August 6, 1945 using the new toy created by…scientists. If some wars are started by religious people, we often find scientists right alongside, finding new and better ways to slaughter people: nuclear weapons, incendiary bombs, Agent Orange, tanks, poison gas, machines guns. I would argue that as the world becomes more “civilized” and less religious, we are even more callous about human life.
Can we generalize and say that all scientists are involved in experimenting on Jews and blacks or creating new and better ways to kill people? Of course not, but it is equally dishonest to snidely imply that religious people are responsible for all the ills of the world and that we deal with disagreements by shooting each other at the drop of a hat or flying planes into buildings.
When one makes bold claims about the origins of the universe with what any honest “scientist” would admit are at best infantile understandings of the big picture, you get a free pass as long as you self-identify as a scientist. Sort of like creating all manner of visual garbage and claiming it is “art” because you have declared yourself an “artist”. Some in the academic and scientific establishment, like Mr. Coyne apparently, are seeking to install themselves as the new clerical class, wearing white lab coats as their vestments and demanding that the laity of “non-scientists” bow to their demands.
After all they are smarter than us and it is for our own good.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Shedding no tears for the end of Christendom
Very insightful quote pointed out by Dave Black, coming from Larry Hurtado:
In the Western nations where Christendom once was dominant, it is dominant pretty much no more. I for one don’t grieve this one bit. I regard “Christendom” as a morally dubious phenomenon that probably did as much harm to the gospel as it ever did any good. It consisted more in the promotion of institutional power of churches and church officials. It may have had some effect in shaping professed public morals, and perhaps even some effect on moral practice. But I don’t like the idea of any religion being able to exercise social coercion, and I think that religious faiths should live or die solely by their ability to commend themselves to the consciences of people.
I love it, he says what I have said many times but far more eloquently. I would take Larry's statement a step farther and say that Christendom by and large was a force opposed to the Gospel. When Christianity becomes institutionalized and formalized, the Gospel is squeezed out and the community of the saints is reduced to ritual. In the nearly 2000 years that have passed since the cross, over 50% of that time the "church" was ruled form Rome and the Gospel was anathematized. Even in the years since 1517, Christendom has reigned in most of the West. I feel hopeful that we are on the cusp of revival, a real revival that will take place in homes and on the street instead of in cathedrals and seminaries. A revival that will invite persecution and that will not wilt, but instead thrive under that persecution. I have no illusion of an easy, comfortable, church-going middle-class life for my children that are Christians but I would rather equip them to be witnesses to a hostile world than accomplices to a Gospel-less Christendom.
In the Western nations where Christendom once was dominant, it is dominant pretty much no more. I for one don’t grieve this one bit. I regard “Christendom” as a morally dubious phenomenon that probably did as much harm to the gospel as it ever did any good. It consisted more in the promotion of institutional power of churches and church officials. It may have had some effect in shaping professed public morals, and perhaps even some effect on moral practice. But I don’t like the idea of any religion being able to exercise social coercion, and I think that religious faiths should live or die solely by their ability to commend themselves to the consciences of people.
I love it, he says what I have said many times but far more eloquently. I would take Larry's statement a step farther and say that Christendom by and large was a force opposed to the Gospel. When Christianity becomes institutionalized and formalized, the Gospel is squeezed out and the community of the saints is reduced to ritual. In the nearly 2000 years that have passed since the cross, over 50% of that time the "church" was ruled form Rome and the Gospel was anathematized. Even in the years since 1517, Christendom has reigned in most of the West. I feel hopeful that we are on the cusp of revival, a real revival that will take place in homes and on the street instead of in cathedrals and seminaries. A revival that will invite persecution and that will not wilt, but instead thrive under that persecution. I have no illusion of an easy, comfortable, church-going middle-class life for my children that are Christians but I would rather equip them to be witnesses to a hostile world than accomplices to a Gospel-less Christendom.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
Best of the week entry 3
Is another late entry from Eric Carpenter (frankly he has had a lot of great posts this week) and deals with the love affair the church has with our buildings: Buildings, Money, and Passing the Plate. He starts off talking about the odd practice of Roman Catholic churches of donating money so you can light a candle and using those funds to keep "churches" running but then points out that evangelical churches are not much better:
When we pass the offering plate and use most of the money to pay off large mortgages on large buildings that sit empty for the vast majority of the week, what are we saying about our priorities?
I remember one time about seven years ago when a church we were a part of had fallen behind on its $27,000 per month mortgage (yes, that figure is correct). The pastoral staff made a really big deal about a special offering that would be collected in November in order to get back on schedule with the bank. The church family sacrificially gave just enough to cover the payment. The pastors made a huge deal about thanking God. So, what impact did this have? It completely torpedoed the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering that year. That church of 700 or so people gave less than $10,000 to the international missions offering. The reason is simple: they had already given a lot to their own sacred building. Our family wasn't at that church long after that debacle.
I agree with Eric and think that we should make do with less when it comes to the various expenses for running a "church" so that we can focus less on building our own little kingdoms we call "churches" and "ministries" and focus on His Kingdom which doesn't need or want our vain attempts to curry favor with God by building Him temples.
When we pass the offering plate and use most of the money to pay off large mortgages on large buildings that sit empty for the vast majority of the week, what are we saying about our priorities?
I remember one time about seven years ago when a church we were a part of had fallen behind on its $27,000 per month mortgage (yes, that figure is correct). The pastoral staff made a really big deal about a special offering that would be collected in November in order to get back on schedule with the bank. The church family sacrificially gave just enough to cover the payment. The pastors made a huge deal about thanking God. So, what impact did this have? It completely torpedoed the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering that year. That church of 700 or so people gave less than $10,000 to the international missions offering. The reason is simple: they had already given a lot to their own sacred building. Our family wasn't at that church long after that debacle.
I agree with Eric and think that we should make do with less when it comes to the various expenses for running a "church" so that we can focus less on building our own little kingdoms we call "churches" and "ministries" and focus on His Kingdom which doesn't need or want our vain attempts to curry favor with God by building Him temples.
Best of the week entry 2
The next entry comes from Dave Black:
Wednesday, October 6
Wednesday, October 6
7:33 PM In my study of Paul this week I remembered something Ronald Hock once said in his book The Social Context of Paul's Ministry: Tent-making and Apostleship (Fortress, 1980). In his treatment of 1 Cor. 9:1-23, Hock notes that in the early church there existed a group of patrons who likely provided material support for the early Christian apostles. According to Hock, it is also probable that those apostles who did accept pay from the rich patrons were beholden to them as clients. Paul's refusal to accept support from the church, then, amounted to a rejection of the claim of these wealthy patrons on him. By refusing their support he undoubtedly would have offended some of them – a risk he apparently was willing to take. Paul thus makes clear to whom he owes his ultimate allegiance – Christ Himself and Christ alone. I suppose this is one reason Becky and I have never begun a "ministry" or become "incorporated" as a 501(c)3 organization. Once one goes that route, the emphasis almost invariably becomes that of supporting and perpetuating the organization rather than the kingdom. The psycho-social forces at work are, I think, almost too complicated and powerful to be overcome. The exclusive content of Paul's message was "Jesus Christ and Him crucified." In reading Paul in 1 Corinthians 9 we get a glimpse, I believe, of how the freedom of the Gospel can find concrete expression in the life of the community. By emphasizing the weakness and foolishness of the cross, which included his own embodiment of that weakness through his complete dependence upon God, he critiques the cultural values that are so often prized by the Eddie Longs of this world. I'll have more to say about this in my book on Paul.
The "ministry" often becomes the main thing, as evidenced by all of the appeals for money to keep a myriad of ministries operating. We need this much to keep our programming on the air or that much to operate our webpage. Keeping the ministry running seems to trump the very purpose of these ministries in the first place. I am looking forward to Dr. Black's upcoming book on Paul.Best of the week entry 1
Comes from Guy at The M Blog where he blogs about the idea of Kingdom giving instead of "storehouse giving" (a perpetuation of the idea of tithing from the Old Testament into the New Covenant church). Gus is a missionary and as he points out the "storehouse" model is what helps to support him in the field. Rather than heart-string appeals to give more to your local church, bring more to "the store house", he has a somewhat different take. Here is a lengthy excerpt from Kingdom Giving trumps Storehouse Tithing:
While storehouse giving can certainly in line with Paul's admonition to give what one purposes in his heart (2 Cor.9:7), it should not be seen as the one and only biblical way of giving. For me, kingdom giving trumps storehouse tithing.
But if everyone practiced kingdom giving, the argument goes that our churches and programs would crumble overnight. The economic system of financing church-as-we-know-it would collapse. Would this be a bad thing? Undoubtedly things would be terribly chaotic for many of us, especially for those of us like myself who depend upon storehouse tithing/giving to pay our bills and buy our food. But I am convinced that after the dust settles from such a 9.0 magnitude earthquake by this transfer of assets from the storehouse to the kingdom, there would be a dramatic surge forward towards the fulfillment of Kingdom purposes in all spheres of life and giant steps forward in making Christ known amongst the nations.
Yes, some people, ministries, churches, organizations would suffer and probably die off within days. I am not saying it would be pretty! Many of us would suffer the consequences of this upheaval. But others, who have long been neglected or underfunded, would flourish with fruit bearing 30,60, and 100-fold.
To me there is little doubt the current storehouse financial system under which Christendom operates is crumbling. It would seem the Lord himself has allowed the current global economic crisis to set the stage for the next major shift in Christianity where storehouse tithing gives way to kingdom giving.
As a missionary, all around me on a daily basis I see need. I see pain, suffering, disease, violence, poverty, and hopelessness. Within the community of Christ followers in just the city where we live, there is ample human and financial resources to make a major impact upon not only this city but the nation of Ecuador. Yet, very little is being done. Why? All the resources are tied up within the budgets of maintaining local church ministries, programs, salaries, buildings, etc. When will we begin to break out of the storehouse giving mold that retains between 90-98% for our own use, and truly start seeking first the kingdom? What would our world look like if we retained between 2-10% for ourselves and gave 90-98% to Kingdom causes?
The prevailing Christian mindset wrongly assumes that if a believer is faithful to tithe to one's local church, the remaining 90% is ours to spend as we deem best upon ourselves. This flawed example has long been modeled by the very churches we give to week by week. The typical church retains 90-98% as it's storehouse "right" to spend how it deems best. The time has come for kingdom giving to become the norm for Christ followers. This doesn't mean we neglect or turn our backs on those who serve us in the Lord, but it does mean we get serious about seeking first the kingdom, rather than seeking first the needs of our local storehouses.
Great stuff. We need to seek first the Kingdom and not what the local storehouse needs to keep operating.
I recall quite clearly when my friend James questioned a pastor about the applicability of the tithe in the New Covenant church and how hostile the response was. This is one of those doctrines that we are just supposed to accept on face value because that is what our tradition tells us. Unfortunately I don't see that the Bible calls believers to bring their tithe to the local church storehouse to support the operation of that local church.
For an alternate view, check this post out from Evangel that perpetuates the idea of 10% tithing to the local church organization: Is That a Tithe-Deductible Expense?
While storehouse giving can certainly in line with Paul's admonition to give what one purposes in his heart (2 Cor.9:7), it should not be seen as the one and only biblical way of giving. For me, kingdom giving trumps storehouse tithing.
But if everyone practiced kingdom giving, the argument goes that our churches and programs would crumble overnight. The economic system of financing church-as-we-know-it would collapse. Would this be a bad thing? Undoubtedly things would be terribly chaotic for many of us, especially for those of us like myself who depend upon storehouse tithing/giving to pay our bills and buy our food. But I am convinced that after the dust settles from such a 9.0 magnitude earthquake by this transfer of assets from the storehouse to the kingdom, there would be a dramatic surge forward towards the fulfillment of Kingdom purposes in all spheres of life and giant steps forward in making Christ known amongst the nations.
Yes, some people, ministries, churches, organizations would suffer and probably die off within days. I am not saying it would be pretty! Many of us would suffer the consequences of this upheaval. But others, who have long been neglected or underfunded, would flourish with fruit bearing 30,60, and 100-fold.
To me there is little doubt the current storehouse financial system under which Christendom operates is crumbling. It would seem the Lord himself has allowed the current global economic crisis to set the stage for the next major shift in Christianity where storehouse tithing gives way to kingdom giving.
As a missionary, all around me on a daily basis I see need. I see pain, suffering, disease, violence, poverty, and hopelessness. Within the community of Christ followers in just the city where we live, there is ample human and financial resources to make a major impact upon not only this city but the nation of Ecuador. Yet, very little is being done. Why? All the resources are tied up within the budgets of maintaining local church ministries, programs, salaries, buildings, etc. When will we begin to break out of the storehouse giving mold that retains between 90-98% for our own use, and truly start seeking first the kingdom? What would our world look like if we retained between 2-10% for ourselves and gave 90-98% to Kingdom causes?
The prevailing Christian mindset wrongly assumes that if a believer is faithful to tithe to one's local church, the remaining 90% is ours to spend as we deem best upon ourselves. This flawed example has long been modeled by the very churches we give to week by week. The typical church retains 90-98% as it's storehouse "right" to spend how it deems best. The time has come for kingdom giving to become the norm for Christ followers. This doesn't mean we neglect or turn our backs on those who serve us in the Lord, but it does mean we get serious about seeking first the kingdom, rather than seeking first the needs of our local storehouses.
Great stuff. We need to seek first the Kingdom and not what the local storehouse needs to keep operating.
I recall quite clearly when my friend James questioned a pastor about the applicability of the tithe in the New Covenant church and how hostile the response was. This is one of those doctrines that we are just supposed to accept on face value because that is what our tradition tells us. Unfortunately I don't see that the Bible calls believers to bring their tithe to the local church storehouse to support the operation of that local church.
For an alternate view, check this post out from Evangel that perpetuates the idea of 10% tithing to the local church organization: Is That a Tithe-Deductible Expense?
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Suffering fools
There is a very interesting and simultaneously very troubling case before the U.S. Supreme Court involving Fred Phelps and the father of a U.S. serviceman killed in action in Iraq. The issue stems from the lawsuit that resulted from Mr. Phelps and his band of miscreants protesting the funeral of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder.
This case is dangerous ground for American evangelicals because it pits two competing impulses. One is the natural respect most Americans have for those who serve and die in military service, regardless of our own opinions of the conflict they are involved in. The other impulse is the protection of free speech, especially religious free speech.
Let’s be clear. What Mr. Phelps preaches and propagates are views that are so skewed, such a perversion of Biblical Christianity that I am left no choice but to assume he is a deluded unbeliever. I read a few things on the cesspool of a webpage published by his “church”. There are plenty of people who I disagree with, even vehemently, that I don’t necessarily question their salvation but in this case? I am afraid that the lack of any sort of Christian love (not tolerance but love) coupled with misguided theology and twisting of Scripture can only lead one to conclude that this man doesn’t know Christ. Just so we are clear, I don’t see this as an issue of a Christian against the state but a deluded individual and false teacher and the question of whether there are any legal, Constitutional limits on his ranting.
So what to think about this? I think the tragic but undeniable truth is that young men like Matthew Snyder, whatever your views on the Iraq War and the military in general, died for a cause and it is men like Matthew Snyder who defend the Constitution of the United States and make it possible for malcontents and misfits to hold up signs that declare that the death of a U.S. soldier is God’s judgment upon America or threaten to burn a Koran for whatever reason or to produce “art” that is perverse, deviant and blasphemous.
We are left with a Constitutional and ethical quandary. It is clear from precedent that the right to free speech is not an absolute right (i.e. the famous “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater” example) but the right to free expression that is inherently and intentionally offensive seems to be protected by plain reading of the First Amendment and precedent. I don’t see where the lawsuit against Mr. Phelps should stand, no matter how offensive and ugly his “protests” are or how deeply the parents of these fallen soldiers are hurt. I do think that Christians have a responsibility to distance ourselves from Mr. Phelps and his deluded followers and to present to the world an alternate, Christ-honoring witness that is firm and bold but where the only offense is the offense of the cross, not the offense of grotesque behavior.
This case is dangerous ground for American evangelicals because it pits two competing impulses. One is the natural respect most Americans have for those who serve and die in military service, regardless of our own opinions of the conflict they are involved in. The other impulse is the protection of free speech, especially religious free speech.
Let’s be clear. What Mr. Phelps preaches and propagates are views that are so skewed, such a perversion of Biblical Christianity that I am left no choice but to assume he is a deluded unbeliever. I read a few things on the cesspool of a webpage published by his “church”. There are plenty of people who I disagree with, even vehemently, that I don’t necessarily question their salvation but in this case? I am afraid that the lack of any sort of Christian love (not tolerance but love) coupled with misguided theology and twisting of Scripture can only lead one to conclude that this man doesn’t know Christ. Just so we are clear, I don’t see this as an issue of a Christian against the state but a deluded individual and false teacher and the question of whether there are any legal, Constitutional limits on his ranting.
So what to think about this? I think the tragic but undeniable truth is that young men like Matthew Snyder, whatever your views on the Iraq War and the military in general, died for a cause and it is men like Matthew Snyder who defend the Constitution of the United States and make it possible for malcontents and misfits to hold up signs that declare that the death of a U.S. soldier is God’s judgment upon America or threaten to burn a Koran for whatever reason or to produce “art” that is perverse, deviant and blasphemous.
We are left with a Constitutional and ethical quandary. It is clear from precedent that the right to free speech is not an absolute right (i.e. the famous “yelling fire in a crowded movie theater” example) but the right to free expression that is inherently and intentionally offensive seems to be protected by plain reading of the First Amendment and precedent. I don’t see where the lawsuit against Mr. Phelps should stand, no matter how offensive and ugly his “protests” are or how deeply the parents of these fallen soldiers are hurt. I do think that Christians have a responsibility to distance ourselves from Mr. Phelps and his deluded followers and to present to the world an alternate, Christ-honoring witness that is firm and bold but where the only offense is the offense of the cross, not the offense of grotesque behavior.
Pigeonholing God
USA Today has a cover story today that ought to generate a lot of conversation about a new study out of Baylor University that breaks down American views of God into four categories: Authoritative, Benevolent, Critical and Distant. Based on response to survey questions, they categorized people on how they understood God. The article, Americans' views of God shape attitudes on key issues, is a fascinating look at American religious attitudes and a troubling one. Americans are somewhat unique in the world, especially the Western world, because we are such a religious people but as this survey demonstrates being religious is a far cry from being a Christian.
What I found odd, or perhaps not, is that none of the four predominate views of God are terribly accurate. More importantly, there are aspects of each that are more or less Biblical. Is God a God of wrath and judgment? Certainly but not in the way that some people see it and especially not as it applies to nation-states. Is God a God of love and compassion? Yes but not in a weak way that says He loves everyone just as they are and without a whiff of judgment toward anyone (except judgmental people of course). Is God critical in the sense of preparing to mete out justice in the time to come at the Judgment Seat? Of course, although I wouldn’t see it as entirely a rich versus poor thing or that the downtrodden in this life are going to have Cadillac’s in eternity.
The only one that didn’t have any resonance at all is the distant God view, the view that God wound up the universe and let ‘er rip. That is completely incompatible with the Biblical record that shows a God that is both in contact and in action with mankind on a regular basis.
What I think is instructive for Christians from this report is that in spite of our assumption that most Americans are Christians and that America is a Christian nation, at a minimum most Americans, including church goers, have a fatally flawed view of who God is and what He is all about. Most Americans claim to believe in God and a great many of those people are somehow associated with a “church”. I am firmly convinced that many if not most of the vaguely religious people in America, the cultural Christians, are as lost as a Muslim in Saudi Arabia. I know that statement rubs many people the wrong way, i.e. “who are you to judge” but I am afraid to say that having your name on a membership roster at a local church is not going to cut it. This country is full of people who need Christ and to compound the problem a lot of the time the “church” is a hindrance to that effort because people associate being a generally moral person and occasional church attender with being a Christian and take umbrage at suggestions that what they are is religious, not redeemed.
To reach the lost in America is going to require we step back from the church on the corner with a marquee out front model and get to know people outside of suits and tie Sunday life. Simply inviting people to religious services is by and large not getting it done. Even in a “good” church, the focus has to be going out there instead of getting them in here. Americans are becoming more and more comfortable with eschewing “church” and those to do go are rarely getting even a watered down Gospel message. We need a proclamation focused mission view instead of a church focused view. By that I mean that we need to be focusing on going out to the lost and “preaching the word” like the early church did in the days of persecution (Acts 8:4 ) instead of waiting for them to come to us.
Christ did not sit around in heaven and wait for the lost to come to Him, He became flesh and dwelt among us. We likewise as His followers cannot wait around for the lost to “come to church” because frankly they aren’t coming and even the ones that do, as evidenced by this survey and many others, don’t know who Jesus is and what He has done and commanded. The way to show we are serious about proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ is not by spending more time in church and listening to more sermons. It is taking the Gospel to the lost even when it is hard and inconvenient and scary. This report from Baylor should wake us up to see just how great the need is all around us in spite of all of the church buildings and religious people in America.
What I found odd, or perhaps not, is that none of the four predominate views of God are terribly accurate. More importantly, there are aspects of each that are more or less Biblical. Is God a God of wrath and judgment? Certainly but not in the way that some people see it and especially not as it applies to nation-states. Is God a God of love and compassion? Yes but not in a weak way that says He loves everyone just as they are and without a whiff of judgment toward anyone (except judgmental people of course). Is God critical in the sense of preparing to mete out justice in the time to come at the Judgment Seat? Of course, although I wouldn’t see it as entirely a rich versus poor thing or that the downtrodden in this life are going to have Cadillac’s in eternity.
The only one that didn’t have any resonance at all is the distant God view, the view that God wound up the universe and let ‘er rip. That is completely incompatible with the Biblical record that shows a God that is both in contact and in action with mankind on a regular basis.
What I think is instructive for Christians from this report is that in spite of our assumption that most Americans are Christians and that America is a Christian nation, at a minimum most Americans, including church goers, have a fatally flawed view of who God is and what He is all about. Most Americans claim to believe in God and a great many of those people are somehow associated with a “church”. I am firmly convinced that many if not most of the vaguely religious people in America, the cultural Christians, are as lost as a Muslim in Saudi Arabia. I know that statement rubs many people the wrong way, i.e. “who are you to judge” but I am afraid to say that having your name on a membership roster at a local church is not going to cut it. This country is full of people who need Christ and to compound the problem a lot of the time the “church” is a hindrance to that effort because people associate being a generally moral person and occasional church attender with being a Christian and take umbrage at suggestions that what they are is religious, not redeemed.
To reach the lost in America is going to require we step back from the church on the corner with a marquee out front model and get to know people outside of suits and tie Sunday life. Simply inviting people to religious services is by and large not getting it done. Even in a “good” church, the focus has to be going out there instead of getting them in here. Americans are becoming more and more comfortable with eschewing “church” and those to do go are rarely getting even a watered down Gospel message. We need a proclamation focused mission view instead of a church focused view. By that I mean that we need to be focusing on going out to the lost and “preaching the word” like the early church did in the days of persecution (Acts 8:4 ) instead of waiting for them to come to us.
Christ did not sit around in heaven and wait for the lost to come to Him, He became flesh and dwelt among us. We likewise as His followers cannot wait around for the lost to “come to church” because frankly they aren’t coming and even the ones that do, as evidenced by this survey and many others, don’t know who Jesus is and what He has done and commanded. The way to show we are serious about proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ is not by spending more time in church and listening to more sermons. It is taking the Gospel to the lost even when it is hard and inconvenient and scary. This report from Baylor should wake us up to see just how great the need is all around us in spite of all of the church buildings and religious people in America.
Monday, October 04, 2010
In-vitro Fertilization
Today it was announced that Robert G. Edwards was awared the Nobel Prize in medicine. Unlike a certain unpopular President who won the Nobel Peace Prize because he...um, because he...well I am not sure why, Mr. Edwards was a pioneer in the field of in-vitro fertilization and clearly made an enormous breakthrough that has led to an estimated four million people being born who otherwise presumably would not have been:
STOCKHOLM—Robert G. Edwards of Britain won the 2010 Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday for the development of in-vitro fertilization, a breakthrough that has helped millions of infertile couples to have children.
"His achievements have made it possible to treat infertility, a medical condition afflicting a large proportion of humanity including more than 10% of all couples world-wide," the medicine prize committee in Stockholm said in its citation.
Mr. Edwards, an 85-year-old professor emeritus at the University of Cambridge, started working on IVF in the 1950s. He developed the technique, in which egg cells are fertilized outside the body and implanted in the womb, together with Patrick Steptoe, who died in 1988.
On July 25, 1978, Louise Brown in Britain became the first baby born through the groundbreaking procedure, marking a revolution in fertility treatment.
"Approximately four million individuals have been born thanks to IVF," the citation said. "Today, Robert Edwards' vision is a reality and brings joy to infertile people all over the world."
This raises all sorts of questions for me. Not whether he should have won, clearly this was a breakthrough in medical science. My question is one for believers and I want to open it up for discussion. Is in-vitro fertilization something that Christians should embrace as a means to have the blessing of children when married couples are unable to conceive naturally or is this an unwarranted way to step in when God has prevented conception for whatever reason.
This is an interesting, important and fascinating question. What do we think about it?
STOCKHOLM—Robert G. Edwards of Britain won the 2010 Nobel Prize in medicine on Monday for the development of in-vitro fertilization, a breakthrough that has helped millions of infertile couples to have children.
"His achievements have made it possible to treat infertility, a medical condition afflicting a large proportion of humanity including more than 10% of all couples world-wide," the medicine prize committee in Stockholm said in its citation.
Mr. Edwards, an 85-year-old professor emeritus at the University of Cambridge, started working on IVF in the 1950s. He developed the technique, in which egg cells are fertilized outside the body and implanted in the womb, together with Patrick Steptoe, who died in 1988.
On July 25, 1978, Louise Brown in Britain became the first baby born through the groundbreaking procedure, marking a revolution in fertility treatment.
"Approximately four million individuals have been born thanks to IVF," the citation said. "Today, Robert Edwards' vision is a reality and brings joy to infertile people all over the world."
This raises all sorts of questions for me. Not whether he should have won, clearly this was a breakthrough in medical science. My question is one for believers and I want to open it up for discussion. Is in-vitro fertilization something that Christians should embrace as a means to have the blessing of children when married couples are unable to conceive naturally or is this an unwarranted way to step in when God has prevented conception for whatever reason.
This is an interesting, important and fascinating question. What do we think about it?
Conservative Evangelicals Are In Large Part Responsible For Big Government
How did Evangelical Christians, so proud of our political conservatism, get to the point of effectively abdicating the care of the poor to the political left and surrendering the cause of mercy to the government that we then rail against for trying to do what we should be doing?
We have turned over care of the fatherless to the child welfare system. Widows are relegated to being cared for the Federal government for income, health care and food. The homeless, the drug users, the prostitutes are all problems for the police to handle. Keep them out of our way and more importantly keep them out of our sight. The last thing we want our kids to see on our way to church wearing our Sunday best is some bum or a hooker. We need to focus on worshipping Jesus, not on the downtrodden that probably deserve to be on the streets anyway.
Where did we lose our way?
This is by no means a call for larger government. Quite the opposite. The net result of the Federal government’s “war on poverty” has been generationalized poverty and an enormous welfare state that has done nothing to alleviate poverty. Disincentivizing work and achievement and subsidizing poverty has led to an entitlement nation. Bigger government doesn’t lead to more income equity, it just leads to more misery equity for everyone.
Conversely, free markets are clearly the better choice for the greatest number of people. Creating incentive to work hard, to save and invest leads to greater prosperity for more people. As an economic policy, I see no contradiction whatsoever between Christianity and free market capitalism. The other option, a social welfare state, replaces the church with Caesar in the care of the poor and downtrodden and is inherently inefficient and proven to worsen poverty over the long term, not help it.
But being in favor of free markets is not enough. Voting Republican does not get us off the hook. There will always be those who are not able to thrive or even survive in a free market environment and saying "tough luck" to them is not an option. In trading away the mutual misery of a welfare state, free markets inherently will have people falling through the cracks. In a competitive marketplace, some people win, some people lose. Some catch all the breaks or make breaks for themselves but some people don’t. I am the most conservative person I know, a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” kind of guy but I fully recognize that a child born to a single teenage mother in the inner city of Detroit is going to have a much harder time being successful than the child born to an intact upper class family. How much more so for the orphan in the Sudan or the child sold into prostitution in Thailand. What to do about those that are unable to succeed is the elephant in the room for evangelicals.
While we are smug about our superior political position and cast aspersions on political liberals, conservative Christians have effectively abdicated our responsibility to the poor, widows and orphans to the very government we love to hate and complain about (thanks to Jason Anspach for this insight). Why are we surprised and outraged that the inherently inefficient government is inefficient at caring for the poor and orphans that we are not caring for? More importantly, why have the redeemed people of Christ left this important task by and large up to the very government we despise? At least liberals in their misguided way and with their solutions that make things worse are at least concerned about the poor. Granted, many churches do a lot for the poor as do many individual Christians but I think by and large if you look at where the focus of the Christian church is, it is more often than not on sustaining church organizations, whether that is local churches (programs, staff, buildings, etc.) or parachurch ministries.
When Paul was commended to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, he was encouraged to remember the poor: “Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:10). The distribution of care to the widows in the church was such a big deal that when it became contentious, the church called seven men with good reputations who were “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” to care for the widows (Acts 6:3), including Stephen “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5). This was not the creation of the “office” of deacon, it was reflective of how important this whole topic is, caring for those who are most in need and most vulnerable. The focus of the early church was on the proclaiming of the Gospel to the lost and the care for the needy. The focus of the church today is the church.
Some may reply (as I would have) that we show mercy by preaching the Gospel to the lost. I say amen to that but there is far more to the justice and mercy ministry of the church than people who already Christians are listening to the Word and being content with that. Polls consistently show that many, if not most, people who claim to be evangelical Christians rarely or never share their faith with others. So if you are not preaching the Word and you are not caring for the poor, explain to me how exactly you are following Jesus? By dressing up and going to church? By listening to sermons? By grudgingly putting a couple of bucks in the plate when it is handed to you? I will be the first to admit that I haven’t been terribly faithful here. I used to content myself with teaching in the church and homeschooling our kids and thinking that was being a faithful servant of Jesus but now when I see the pictures of children without much hope around the world and look at what I have done to help them, it is like a punch in the stomach. I can no longer hide behind God’s sovereignty as a cover for my inaction.
The words of James are a searing indictment of the church and the general apathy of many of us who claim the name of Christ but reject any claim He has on our lives.
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1: 22-27)
Anyone who thinks he has the promise of life everlasting in the future and no calling to be a follower of Christ in deed as well as word in the present doesn’t really understand what the Bible is saying to us in the first place. “Hey thanks for heaven Jesus, I will check back in with you when I die” is not the mantra of a faithful, born-again follower of Jesus. Take up your cross daily does not equate to show up at church once a week.
I have been guilty of storing up treasure on earth for too long and I am fixing to do something about it, not because I think it will make me more righteous but because the One who is righteous, the One who paid for my sin and redeemed me from an eternal hell and imputed His righteousness to me has commanded me to store up treasure in heaven. Jesus didn’t spend His time hanging around in the religious establishments talking about theology and planning out budgets, He was out among those that society rejected: the lepers, the poor, the lost. We who claim to follow Him ought to be doing the same instead of hiding in our sanitary church buildings.
We have turned over care of the fatherless to the child welfare system. Widows are relegated to being cared for the Federal government for income, health care and food. The homeless, the drug users, the prostitutes are all problems for the police to handle. Keep them out of our way and more importantly keep them out of our sight. The last thing we want our kids to see on our way to church wearing our Sunday best is some bum or a hooker. We need to focus on worshipping Jesus, not on the downtrodden that probably deserve to be on the streets anyway.
Where did we lose our way?
This is by no means a call for larger government. Quite the opposite. The net result of the Federal government’s “war on poverty” has been generationalized poverty and an enormous welfare state that has done nothing to alleviate poverty. Disincentivizing work and achievement and subsidizing poverty has led to an entitlement nation. Bigger government doesn’t lead to more income equity, it just leads to more misery equity for everyone.
Conversely, free markets are clearly the better choice for the greatest number of people. Creating incentive to work hard, to save and invest leads to greater prosperity for more people. As an economic policy, I see no contradiction whatsoever between Christianity and free market capitalism. The other option, a social welfare state, replaces the church with Caesar in the care of the poor and downtrodden and is inherently inefficient and proven to worsen poverty over the long term, not help it.
But being in favor of free markets is not enough. Voting Republican does not get us off the hook. There will always be those who are not able to thrive or even survive in a free market environment and saying "tough luck" to them is not an option. In trading away the mutual misery of a welfare state, free markets inherently will have people falling through the cracks. In a competitive marketplace, some people win, some people lose. Some catch all the breaks or make breaks for themselves but some people don’t. I am the most conservative person I know, a “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” kind of guy but I fully recognize that a child born to a single teenage mother in the inner city of Detroit is going to have a much harder time being successful than the child born to an intact upper class family. How much more so for the orphan in the Sudan or the child sold into prostitution in Thailand. What to do about those that are unable to succeed is the elephant in the room for evangelicals.
While we are smug about our superior political position and cast aspersions on political liberals, conservative Christians have effectively abdicated our responsibility to the poor, widows and orphans to the very government we love to hate and complain about (thanks to Jason Anspach for this insight). Why are we surprised and outraged that the inherently inefficient government is inefficient at caring for the poor and orphans that we are not caring for? More importantly, why have the redeemed people of Christ left this important task by and large up to the very government we despise? At least liberals in their misguided way and with their solutions that make things worse are at least concerned about the poor. Granted, many churches do a lot for the poor as do many individual Christians but I think by and large if you look at where the focus of the Christian church is, it is more often than not on sustaining church organizations, whether that is local churches (programs, staff, buildings, etc.) or parachurch ministries.
When Paul was commended to take the Gospel to the Gentiles, he was encouraged to remember the poor: “Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do. (Galatians 2:10). The distribution of care to the widows in the church was such a big deal that when it became contentious, the church called seven men with good reputations who were “full of the Spirit and of wisdom” to care for the widows (Acts 6:3), including Stephen “a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 6:5). This was not the creation of the “office” of deacon, it was reflective of how important this whole topic is, caring for those who are most in need and most vulnerable. The focus of the early church was on the proclaiming of the Gospel to the lost and the care for the needy. The focus of the church today is the church.
Some may reply (as I would have) that we show mercy by preaching the Gospel to the lost. I say amen to that but there is far more to the justice and mercy ministry of the church than people who already Christians are listening to the Word and being content with that. Polls consistently show that many, if not most, people who claim to be evangelical Christians rarely or never share their faith with others. So if you are not preaching the Word and you are not caring for the poor, explain to me how exactly you are following Jesus? By dressing up and going to church? By listening to sermons? By grudgingly putting a couple of bucks in the plate when it is handed to you? I will be the first to admit that I haven’t been terribly faithful here. I used to content myself with teaching in the church and homeschooling our kids and thinking that was being a faithful servant of Jesus but now when I see the pictures of children without much hope around the world and look at what I have done to help them, it is like a punch in the stomach. I can no longer hide behind God’s sovereignty as a cover for my inaction.
The words of James are a searing indictment of the church and the general apathy of many of us who claim the name of Christ but reject any claim He has on our lives.
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing. If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person's religion is worthless. Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. (James 1: 22-27)
Anyone who thinks he has the promise of life everlasting in the future and no calling to be a follower of Christ in deed as well as word in the present doesn’t really understand what the Bible is saying to us in the first place. “Hey thanks for heaven Jesus, I will check back in with you when I die” is not the mantra of a faithful, born-again follower of Jesus. Take up your cross daily does not equate to show up at church once a week.
I have been guilty of storing up treasure on earth for too long and I am fixing to do something about it, not because I think it will make me more righteous but because the One who is righteous, the One who paid for my sin and redeemed me from an eternal hell and imputed His righteousness to me has commanded me to store up treasure in heaven. Jesus didn’t spend His time hanging around in the religious establishments talking about theology and planning out budgets, He was out among those that society rejected: the lepers, the poor, the lost. We who claim to follow Him ought to be doing the same instead of hiding in our sanitary church buildings.
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Two views of the church
The first one comes from champion of tradition Kevin DeYoung. He is irate about local gatherings of the church who cancel Sunday "worship services" to go serve their neighbors. His post, Should Churches Trade in Services for Serving?, starts out with...
It’s become popular in recent years for churches to skip the worship service periodically (once a year? a quarter? once a month?) in order to serve their communities. “No church this morning, we’re picking up trash in the park.” Is this thoughtful cultural engagement or another example of good intentions gone astray?
Well, you can probably guess I’m more apt to say the latter, but let’s not assume the worst about these churches. Let’s assume the people love Christ and love to worship him. Let’s assume they value preaching and believe the chief end of man is to glorify God. Let’s assume the sole motivation behind churchless Sundays is outreach. No one is trying to be trendy. No one is hating on the church. They simply want to help their communities, show they care, and maybe even have an opportunity to talk about Jesus. Assuming these are gospel-believing Christians trying to do gospel work, what’s the big deal about taking four (or two or twelve or whatever) Sundays out of the year to hit the streets and do something for others?
Awfully nice to presume that they probably actually love Jesus and are not superficial., "church haters" (because everyone who questions the traditional church "hates" the church). Then he gives five reasons you shouldn't cancel your Sunday services including:
4. Consider what it may communicate when you replace services with serving. It sounds like a good idea: let’s do something for the community instead of going to church for ourselves. But ultimately we worship because God summons us to worship. It is for ourselves (see below), but it is also for God. He commands it. So why cancel it instead of something else? But why not do the soup kitchen on Saturday or pump people’s gas on Friday night? I suppose it’s possible you can have some meaningful conversations explaining why you are a Christian and not in church. But it also seems quite likely that churches replace Sunday services with Sunday serving because that’s the time they are already meeting. It’s the best time to get most of your people doing something and it doesn’t require any more time out of their week. Except for doctors, police officers and the like serving in their professions, are there really service projects the church has to do on Sunday morning?
Absolutely! I mean, what will non-church going people think? They expect churches to be in church buildings on Sunday morning. If I want to hear what they have to say, I can go to them and if I want to avoid them I can not show up. I know where the Christians are on Sunday, in the church buildings and not out causing trouble where I might run into them. Service can wait because we need to worship and of course you can only worship on Sunday morning and in the church building led by the clergy. After all God commands right in the Bible that we should worship Him on Sunday morning and do so in a building labeled "church". If we are "closed" on Sunday what will the unbelievers think?!
Well, they might that you are more concerned with serving the people of East Lansing than you are providing a comfortable place for Christians to come to so they can engage in religious rituals. They might be more prone to talk to someone in jeans helping their neighbor about Jesus than if they have to come to us, on our turf and on our terms, to hear a lecture about Jesus observed by a room of mute observers.
On the other hand, there is another church group doing something a little different...
FAYETTEVILLE, GA -- A church in Fayetteville is closing its doors but not its hearts. Rolling Hills Baptist Church is challenging traditional ideas and selling the church and using the money to help people.
It took about a year for the church to find a buyer. On Monday, they closed on a sale to a Peachtree City church. It is now time for Senior Pastor Frank Mercer and more than 100 parishioners to fly free of the four walls that have surrounded their congregation for more than 20-years. "We feel free, free to do what god commands us to do," Pastor Mercer said about the sale.
The church has a new mission. Instead of investing in the property that consumed most of their budget, they will use the more than $1-million dollars from the sale to invest in people who have needs. "It's just a way of looking at this property differently," Pastor Mercer said. "We saw it as an asset we could liquidate and turn around and use that resource to meet the needs of people."
In October of 2008, the church decided to sell the building and the 20-acres it sits on. Pastor Mercer said the church was too much of a burden on his cash-strapped church members.
The congregation will celebrate its last service this Sunday at the church on Redwine Road in Fayetteville. The next Sunday the congregation will begin to meet at the Tinseltown Movie Theater on Pavilion Parkway in Fayetteville. Pastor Mercer said the cost of renting the theater is about a third of the cost to operate the current church.
So this group, Rolling Rock Baptist Church, decided that having an expensive building to meet in was less important than acts of mercy to people in need. I don't know much more about them, their webpage sounds in many ways like a traditional Baptist church, just without the tether of a church building to keep the Christians contained and restrained by a crippling budget. If every church sold their building and cut their operating expenses by two thirds, how many orphans could they help couples adopt? How many foster kids could be helped? How many widows?
So which is more in line with the Biblical vision of the church? Complaining about local churches who spend a couple of Sunday's a year serving lost people where they are and taking the Gospel to them or selling an expensive building and using a cheaper alternative so you have more money to help people in need? I think you know the answer to that question.
(HT on the second: Alan Knox )
It’s become popular in recent years for churches to skip the worship service periodically (once a year? a quarter? once a month?) in order to serve their communities. “No church this morning, we’re picking up trash in the park.” Is this thoughtful cultural engagement or another example of good intentions gone astray?
Well, you can probably guess I’m more apt to say the latter, but let’s not assume the worst about these churches. Let’s assume the people love Christ and love to worship him. Let’s assume they value preaching and believe the chief end of man is to glorify God. Let’s assume the sole motivation behind churchless Sundays is outreach. No one is trying to be trendy. No one is hating on the church. They simply want to help their communities, show they care, and maybe even have an opportunity to talk about Jesus. Assuming these are gospel-believing Christians trying to do gospel work, what’s the big deal about taking four (or two or twelve or whatever) Sundays out of the year to hit the streets and do something for others?
Awfully nice to presume that they probably actually love Jesus and are not superficial., "church haters" (because everyone who questions the traditional church "hates" the church). Then he gives five reasons you shouldn't cancel your Sunday services including:
4. Consider what it may communicate when you replace services with serving. It sounds like a good idea: let’s do something for the community instead of going to church for ourselves. But ultimately we worship because God summons us to worship. It is for ourselves (see below), but it is also for God. He commands it. So why cancel it instead of something else? But why not do the soup kitchen on Saturday or pump people’s gas on Friday night? I suppose it’s possible you can have some meaningful conversations explaining why you are a Christian and not in church. But it also seems quite likely that churches replace Sunday services with Sunday serving because that’s the time they are already meeting. It’s the best time to get most of your people doing something and it doesn’t require any more time out of their week. Except for doctors, police officers and the like serving in their professions, are there really service projects the church has to do on Sunday morning?
Absolutely! I mean, what will non-church going people think? They expect churches to be in church buildings on Sunday morning. If I want to hear what they have to say, I can go to them and if I want to avoid them I can not show up. I know where the Christians are on Sunday, in the church buildings and not out causing trouble where I might run into them. Service can wait because we need to worship and of course you can only worship on Sunday morning and in the church building led by the clergy. After all God commands right in the Bible that we should worship Him on Sunday morning and do so in a building labeled "church". If we are "closed" on Sunday what will the unbelievers think?!
Well, they might that you are more concerned with serving the people of East Lansing than you are providing a comfortable place for Christians to come to so they can engage in religious rituals. They might be more prone to talk to someone in jeans helping their neighbor about Jesus than if they have to come to us, on our turf and on our terms, to hear a lecture about Jesus observed by a room of mute observers.
On the other hand, there is another church group doing something a little different...
FAYETTEVILLE, GA -- A church in Fayetteville is closing its doors but not its hearts. Rolling Hills Baptist Church is challenging traditional ideas and selling the church and using the money to help people.
It took about a year for the church to find a buyer. On Monday, they closed on a sale to a Peachtree City church. It is now time for Senior Pastor Frank Mercer and more than 100 parishioners to fly free of the four walls that have surrounded their congregation for more than 20-years. "We feel free, free to do what god commands us to do," Pastor Mercer said about the sale.
The church has a new mission. Instead of investing in the property that consumed most of their budget, they will use the more than $1-million dollars from the sale to invest in people who have needs. "It's just a way of looking at this property differently," Pastor Mercer said. "We saw it as an asset we could liquidate and turn around and use that resource to meet the needs of people."
In October of 2008, the church decided to sell the building and the 20-acres it sits on. Pastor Mercer said the church was too much of a burden on his cash-strapped church members.
The congregation will celebrate its last service this Sunday at the church on Redwine Road in Fayetteville. The next Sunday the congregation will begin to meet at the Tinseltown Movie Theater on Pavilion Parkway in Fayetteville. Pastor Mercer said the cost of renting the theater is about a third of the cost to operate the current church.
So this group, Rolling Rock Baptist Church, decided that having an expensive building to meet in was less important than acts of mercy to people in need. I don't know much more about them, their webpage sounds in many ways like a traditional Baptist church, just without the tether of a church building to keep the Christians contained and restrained by a crippling budget. If every church sold their building and cut their operating expenses by two thirds, how many orphans could they help couples adopt? How many foster kids could be helped? How many widows?
So which is more in line with the Biblical vision of the church? Complaining about local churches who spend a couple of Sunday's a year serving lost people where they are and taking the Gospel to them or selling an expensive building and using a cheaper alternative so you have more money to help people in need? I think you know the answer to that question.
(HT on the second: Alan Knox )
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Best of the week entry 2
Is from Al Mohler. Dr. Mohler deals with the scandal of divorce in the evangelical church: Divorce — The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience. He refers to and interviews political scientist Mark Smith on this topic (there is both a blog post and an audio file, you should definitely listen to the audio file as well)
The sanctity of human life is a cause that demands our priority and sacrifice. The challenge represented by the possibility (or probability) of legalized same-sex marriage demands our attention and involvement, as well.
But divorce harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage. Children are left without fathers, wives without husbands, and homes are forever broken. Fathers are separated from their children, and marriage is irreparably undermined as divorce becomes routine and accepted. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin, and it is a sin that is condemned in no uncertain terms.
Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.
Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.
I think that is a powerful statement. Divorce is far more devastating to family life than homosexual "marriage" and is just as wrong. What was interesting was that this political scientist recognized something that much of the church does not, that divorce is a hard thing to speak out against because it is so common in the church and you can't hide it. Someone who has an abortion can come to church the next Sunday and no one will be the wiser. When a couple in a local church gets divorced, everyone knows about it.
The church frankly is soft on divorce and we are called out on it, and rightly so, by the unbelieving world. It is easy to rail against homosexuals because by and large they are not members of conservative evangelical churches and are not putting money into the offering plate. It is harder to call something a sin that so many people in the church are starting to see as, if not normal, at least a reality we have to live with.
The sanctity of human life is a cause that demands our priority and sacrifice. The challenge represented by the possibility (or probability) of legalized same-sex marriage demands our attention and involvement, as well.
But divorce harms many more lives than will be touched by homosexual marriage. Children are left without fathers, wives without husbands, and homes are forever broken. Fathers are separated from their children, and marriage is irreparably undermined as divorce becomes routine and accepted. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is sin, and it is a sin that is condemned in no uncertain terms.
Evangelical Christians are gravely concerned about the family, and this is good and necessary. But our credibility on the issue of marriage is significantly discounted by our acceptance of divorce. To our shame, the culture war is not the only place that an honest confrontation with the divorce culture is missing.
Divorce is now the scandal of the evangelical conscience.
I think that is a powerful statement. Divorce is far more devastating to family life than homosexual "marriage" and is just as wrong. What was interesting was that this political scientist recognized something that much of the church does not, that divorce is a hard thing to speak out against because it is so common in the church and you can't hide it. Someone who has an abortion can come to church the next Sunday and no one will be the wiser. When a couple in a local church gets divorced, everyone knows about it.
The church frankly is soft on divorce and we are called out on it, and rightly so, by the unbelieving world. It is easy to rail against homosexuals because by and large they are not members of conservative evangelical churches and are not putting money into the offering plate. It is harder to call something a sin that so many people in the church are starting to see as, if not normal, at least a reality we have to live with.
Best of the week entry 1
Comes from the Haiti Orphan Project. What is undeniable is that there is an enormous tragedy that has and continues to happen in Haiti. But that is not all that is going on. What I liked about the post, Haiti: Our recent trip. What we really saw. is that something else is happening in Haiti. Hope.
Indeed there is so much more than meets the eye. In fact, if you depend only on what you see, you’ll hang your head and fade away in despair. But as we visited with the pastors and leaders and especially the children, hope abounds. Joy is overflowing. It defies human wisdom. As it should. That’s “our” wisdom. But God reminds us in James, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.” That’s what we really see. We see what God is doing each and every day amidst the poverty, destruction and displacement of so many people. Lives are being changed now and for eternity. Especially our lives.
There will be tragic events in a sin saturated world. We have hope as believers that one day God will renew creation as He has renewed us and in that day there will be no tears for His people, no tragedy, only the joy that comes from being in the presence of God. Until that day comes we have the hope of Christ and can take the love and mercy He has shown us to those who need it most. When man is at his end, when the task seems overwhelming, is when God is often at work most powerfully.
Indeed there is so much more than meets the eye. In fact, if you depend only on what you see, you’ll hang your head and fade away in despair. But as we visited with the pastors and leaders and especially the children, hope abounds. Joy is overflowing. It defies human wisdom. As it should. That’s “our” wisdom. But God reminds us in James, “But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.” That’s what we really see. We see what God is doing each and every day amidst the poverty, destruction and displacement of so many people. Lives are being changed now and for eternity. Especially our lives.
There will be tragic events in a sin saturated world. We have hope as believers that one day God will renew creation as He has renewed us and in that day there will be no tears for His people, no tragedy, only the joy that comes from being in the presence of God. Until that day comes we have the hope of Christ and can take the love and mercy He has shown us to those who need it most. When man is at his end, when the task seems overwhelming, is when God is often at work most powerfully.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)