Skip navigation

Category Archives: politics

Slandering & Evangelism

And when the town clerk had quieted the crowd, he said, “Men of Ephesus, who is there who does not know that the city of the Ephesians is temple keeper of the great Artemis, and of the sacred stone that fell from the sky? Seeing then that these things cannot be denied, you ought to be quiet and do nothing rash. For you have brought these men here who are neither sacrilegious nor blasphemers of our goddess. If therefore Demetrius and the craftsmen with him have a complaint against anyone, the courts are open, and there are proconsuls. Let them bring charges against one another

Acts 19:35-18 (ESV)
I find it very interesting that the city manager had heard of Paul–if not heard Paul speak–and thus had either an opinion or a lot of information. Yet despite Paul preaching and teaching about Jesus, the city manager did not believe the goddess had been slandered. Of course, it could be that the city manager was trying to keep the peace (or regain it), but from what we know of Paul, it would seem that he somehow managed to speak the truth about Jesus the Christ without slandering other religions. Can we say the same?

I ask this with nothing in particular in mind, nor anyone. Even Paul’s famous speech on Mars Hill was respectful towards those with whom Paul disagreed. What makes this respectful stance of Paul very interesting (to me at least), is that he was the central villainous character earlier in Acts. He persecuted (quite violently) followers of  ”The Way” (the initial name for Christians). However, after his conversion experience on the road to Damascus, his entire methodology changed.

It would seem that there are some lessons there.

The Pursuit of Happiness

I’ve been annoyed lately (not always a good thing before writing a post). Probably centered around the Fourth of July (the formal U.S.A. Independence Day), there is always a spate of articles about the U.S.A. being founded on Christian principles, which is somewhat true. Then there is the argument over whether Thomas Jefferson was a Christian or Deist, and the new one was John Adams. Since John Adams berated his son John Quincy Adams for being a devout Christian (perhaps it’s an Adams thing, especially when one reads the letters between John and Abigail Adams), one could question how much Christianity was in John Adams’ faith.

The issue that has brought this to the forefront for me is homosexual marriage. Nope this is not a post on homosexual marriage itself, but the conservative/traditional/orthodox (and add fanatical/hateful/hurtful to many of those who have responded) response. Oddly, for me, this is not a theological post. The question that is asked by many, what right of happiness is there? Now, this question can be applied to homosexual marriage, polygamy, marijuana, and so on equally. Including (drumroll, please) religion.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress, 4 July 1776

Note the “pursuit of happiness”. Wikipedia notes that some call this the best known English language sentence in the world. The school systems, secular institutions, and faith institutions have trumpeted this sentence for years. Thus we have declared that happiness is the most important thing/pursuit. Of course, Americans will pursue that which they think will make them happy. Currently, certain groups believe that having the right to “marriage” will make them happy. In truth, it might make certain things easier to obtain (like health care), but that won’t necessarily make any of them happier. Then there are those that believe that it is their obligation to support those who are pursuing happiness, which, in many ways, should be celebrated as concern for their fellow citizen.

Again, please don’t take any of this post as support for homosexual marriage, or even opposition to it. That is not the point of this post.

Ultimately, the issue comes down to the fruit of the harvest. The seeds that have been sown for generations is the “right” to “the pursuit of happiness”. Why is everyone so surprised at the result?

The Key is the Response to Community, part 2

(Please read part 1 first)
So, what light can this shine on our lives? Many things bind us together, some are voluntary, some are not. In the case of religion (or faith if the word “religion” bothers you), we do things together to (re)affirm our community. Circumcision was the earliest (and physically experienced) Jewish rite that affirmed community. However, things that seem similar to a certain rite (female circumcision, in this case) can actually have detrimental effects upon the community.
As Christians, we affirm our community through common worship, communion, and baptism. Baptism and communion are the primary “physical” modes to experience our communion with each other, but worship is a vital component as well. By experiencing the same things together, we forge a common identity, a voluntary community. Just as they could not be neglected in Old Testament times (for by doing so, one’s place within the community was threatened), they should not be neglected today.
This is not an old style versus contemporary versus whatever worship war that we’re talking about, but a communal and meaningful call to understand why we are together. However, the signs of communal worship (as defined by Jesus and the Apostles) are communion (with or without a common meal), baptism, and God’s Word (not, by the way, necessarily in that order).
We cannot be the church without understanding why we are the church, and what acts define the church.

Did You Know (Version 4.0)

This was released in Fall 2009, and if feels out of date already! Since I posted Version 3.0 in December 2008, I figured that getting this out there wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Next Sermon: Save the Planet?

At Preaching.com, Jonathan Merritt wrote about the neglect of Creation Care in sermons. In his article, Preaching Gone Green: Why Pastors Should Address Creation Care, he makes some valid points about Creation Care. The biggest point is that right now there is a big disconnect between Christians and the environment.

One can (and I do) equally blame the blind stereotyping promulgated by the “Religious Right” and the “Environmentalist Left”. The sad part really is that the stereotyping is almost worst within the “sides.” In other words, if a person “within” the “Religious Right” starts to state their concern regarding the environment, they quickly become outsiders. The same occurs within the “Environmentalist Left”.

I suppose I should be prepared for when I do preach on it that I’ll be in trouble. Which is just sad.

In Defense of Deficits…Or Not

James K. Galbraith wrote, In Defense of Deficits, that there is too much overreaction to the deficit the U.S. Government is running up. To his defense, Galbraith makes some very good points, some I wonder if even foreigners have thought of (or maybe they have). In many regards, I agree with Galbraith that the hyper-concern regarding deficits might actually be harmful. The government certainly can’t eliminate all the deficit immediately (which some are crying out for), as that would truly be catastrophic economically.

However, what Galbraith didn’t address, nor was it part of his article is what got us into these huge deficits. His arguments are pragmatic to some degree, but his arguments really turn into what ever the government wants, it gets. I do have a problem with that.

h/t: Tim O’Reilly

What Do You See When You Look At…

With the celebration of the birthday of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr,  we see where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. is used to bolster movements and causes that he did not specifically speak on. For example, in Raleigh-Durham, NC, a gay rights activist is torqued that a pastor who preaches a historical understanding of the bible’s view on homosexuality will be speaking at a tribute to Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (see the article in question here).

Regardless of what either person in question believes is right or wrong, both are imposing their beliefs onto Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., and for very different reasons. Honestly, with what we have been told (the King family is very careful with their messaging in this regards), both views could be considered as being compatible with what Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. believed (again, as far as we, or at least I, know).

I see this argument every year, and while I do suspect that Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. would not view gay rights as compatible with scripture, that really isn’t the issue at hand. Let’s go back in time to 2008.

Sen. Barack Obama was the Democrat Party’s nominee for President of the United States. While I freely admit that I was, and am still, not a fan of his, his passion and charisma were undeniable. His speeches were also quite good. However, what was amazing (in that he did it as well as he did, but not that he did it, as all politicians do) was  how two different political views saw a completely different person. What was even more amazing, was how supporters viewed him differently. While he was pushing for health care reform of some sort, I heard different supporters come away with different meanings of his statements and words. In other words, they put on him what they wanted to see.

It is the same, but more so, with Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Or, should I say Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.. Both Rev. and Dr. are correct, but for each person who reads this, Rev. and Dr. will probably provide different starting points, and it doesn’t matter that his doctorate was theological.

Famous people, especially dead ones, are easy to put one’s own beliefs onto. We will often look at them, and interpret everything they did or said through the lenses of our beliefs. Christians (not all, but far too many) have done the same thing. We take our beliefs (communism, capitalism, race, nationality, culture) and shape Jesus. However, if we read the scriptures and the views of other Christian people (especially from other cultures or theologies), it has a tendency to shake our lenses a bit. Sometimes more than we like.

We like our Jesus just like we like our politicians and celebrities: safe for us, but not for them. Sometimes I’ve been guilty of that, too. However, with Jesus, at least, if is safe for everyone, then we can be sure that that’s a false view of Him.

4 Feb 2010: This was cross-posted to Wrecked.org, a Christian blog. I am honored. I have been blessed and challenged by the posters and commenters that I have experienced there. You can see it here, and see the challenging posts that others have written.

Even Religious People Have Different Views?

Shocking! (sarcasm)

Surveys: U.S. Religious Activists Have ‘Widely Divergent’ Views

As much as I like some of the content on ChristianPost.com, today we have another article (see this post for another) which is too vague to be useful, other than to draw gross conclusions that can only be divisive, rather than edifying. I really hate it when news organizations (the mainstream/conservative/liberal/everyone press) don’t reference the actual questions. The phrasing of the questions is crucial!

For example, “Nearly half of conservatives (48 percent) believe scripture to be the literal word of God”. What was the question? Did they use “inerrant” or “literal” or some other word in the question? Did they ask the polled individual what they meant by that word?

In my denomination, The Church of the Nazarene, inerrancy is only applied to salvation1. So, if I answered, “the bible is inerrant in regards to salvation alone,” would that be a yes or no? Then it would be up to the poller to decide.

In regards to abortion, what are “most cases”? What kind of cases are people thinking about when they hear the question? I almost wrote that I was one of the 54%, because I read “some”. Imagine if “some” had heard “some” rather than “most”.

I guess I’m not a “conservative”. I think there needs be a lot of separation between state and church. I do not believe that because my faith helps me make decisions, that I should be banned from stating such. Nor do I think most people, if they truly thought about it, would want to squelch such (yes, there are a bunch of loud, obnoxious ones who would disagree with me).

I will say that this article notes the imbalance within the Christian community. Yes, helping your fellow man is a vital part of the Christian ethos and scripture. However, coercion by one’s government is not part of the deal. The Roman Catholic tradition has a great balance between what has become two sides, but Roman Catholics as a practical matter are having just the same issues.

The tradition, even in the Protestant Church (such as John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, and the “grandparent” of my denomination), is there. It is the rhetoric, and the American desire for a “simple”, “black-and-white” answer that is creating this insanity, along with the quick response medium of the internet (to which, of course, I’m contributing).

It is also the church, as a whole, that is at fault in the responses to this poll. What is the church teaching? Is it teaching? Is it helping its people wrestle with the faith? It IS okay to wrestle with the faith! That’s what the church fathers did!

This also does bring back to mind this article at the (evil) FoxNews: Has Christian America Come to an End?

1We believe in the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, by which we understand the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments,given by divine inspiration, inerrantly revealing the will of God concerning us in all things necessary to our salvation, so that whatever is not contained therein is not to be enjoined as an article of faith. (see Article IV in our Manual)

Do Christians Believe in Redemption (i.e., a new creation) or Not?

I saw this headline, Ky. Church Ordains Registered Sex Offender, a few days ago, and was finally able to read it. And, I finally decided to actually post something on my blog, rather than twitter.

I have to say this brief article causes me no small amount of anguish. I cannot imagine what both the man in question, the ordaining officiant, the congregation, the denomination (if any), and the surrounding community are feeling. Yes, the article provides some quips, but depth is required with such a report, not quips.

First and foremost, do all the “Christians” affiliated with the situation (including the surrounding community) truly believe:

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!

2 Corinthians 5:17 (NIV)

I am not saying this to be snarky. I have to admit, I say I believe it, and I experienced it. However, when it comes to my children, will I need something more? What would ever satisfy most parents that their child is safe? How does a church prevent a minister from being with children? It can’t, I think, and expect to be effective.

How does the church be redemptive in such a situation? Is it a no-win situation? Who will gamble their children?

I cannot question the guy and his faith. I can certainly question the wisdom of the elders of the church, the denomination, and the ordaining officiant. Were they oblivious?

Captive to Government?

T.M. Moore of Crosfigell: The Fellowship of Ailbe wrote in his emailed devotional today, the following:

It is not permitted to the Church to accept alms from pagans.

Canons Attributed to St. Patrick, Irish, 6th century

But Peter said to him, “May your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!”

Acts 8.20

During the last presidential campaign, you will recall, a group of pastors decided to test the IRS’s resolve by preaching sermons in which they endorsed a particular candidate for the nation’s highest office. Such is not permitted to organizations who enjoy a tax-deductible status with the IRS, on pain of possibly having their tax-exempt status revoked. So far there have been no negative ramifications, but it may just be that the jury is still out. The situation serves to remind us how dependent churches are on government largesse. Wouldn’t it just be easier to renounce our tax-exempt status and then preach whatever we want? Well, no, pastors will tell you, because contributions will drop off significantly if people don’t get a tax deduction for their offering.

Does that mean that not only are our churches captive to government, but individual believers as well? Is it really true that church members would not give as much, or maybe not at all, if they weren’t going to get a tax deduction? This situation strikes me as a kind of receiving alms from pagans. We give so that we can save some of the money the IRS might otherwise require of us. We guard our tongues from the pulpit so that IRS won’t take away our tax-exempt status because our people will reduce their giving to us if they don’t get a deduction. Is it just me, or does this whole situation smell oddly of Peter’s rebuke of Simon Magus? It’s sad to think that Kingdom business is held captive to bottom lines held captive to government rules held captive to pagan legislators and policy-makers held captive to the father of lies. I wonder how many other ways we allow ourselves to remain captive to the world because of some perceived benefit?

Lord, set me free from everything that keeps me from seeking Your Kingdom and righteousness as my highest priority in life.

T. M. Moore

His thoughts in regards to churches and their taxation has come to mind for me previously. While the secularists say they want a separation of church and state, what would happen if the church were free to preach truly? Would they truly be more comfortable?