Israel, Gaza, “Divine Right,” and John Piper

Some sanity brought to a very difficult and confusing topic.

by Matt Smethurst

The Story: After eight days of bloody conflict, Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas have agreed to a ceasefire, The New York Times reported yesterday. Five Israelis and more than 150 Palestinians have been killed along the Israel-Gaza border during the past week.

Such events raise typical and salient questions. Does Israel possess a “divine right” to the “Promised Land” in the Middle East? What is the “Promised Land,” anyway? The interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been freighted with biblical significance; Israel, after all, isn’t calling their anti-Hamas campaign “Operation Pillar of Cloud” for nothing.

But are such appropriations legitimate?

The Background: In 2004, John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, delivered a sermon from Romans 11:25-32 titled “Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East.” In it, he offers seven principles concerning the ever-contentious issue of “the Land”:

1. God chose Israel from all the peoples of the world to be his own possession.

2. The Land was part of the inheritance he promised to Abraham and his descendants forever.

3. The promises made to Abraham, including the promise of the Land, will be inherited as an everlasting gift only by true, spiritual Israel, not disobedient, unbelieving Israel.

4. Jesus Christ has come into the world as the Jewish Messiah, and his own people rejected him and broke covenant with their God.

5. Therefore, the secular state of Israel today may not claim a present divine right to the Land, but they and we should seek a peaceful settlement not based on present divine rights, but on international principles of justice, mercy, and practical feasibility.

6. By faith in Jesus Christ, the Jewish Messiah, Gentiles become heirs of the promise of Abraham, including the promise of the Land.

7. Finally, this inheritance of Christ’s people will happen at the Second Coming of Christ to establish his kingdom, not before; and till then, we Christians must not take up arms to claim our inheritance; but rather lay down our lives to share our inheritance with as many as we can.

Why It Matters: Wherever you land theologically or politically, the events of the past week mark yet another distressing development in the Israeli-Palestinian saga. This is a prime opportunity to pray. Pray for the Israelis, image-bearers of God, that they’d search the Scriptures and find life in the Savior (John 5:39-40, 46). May they discover that the meeting point between God and man is no longer a place—whether reconstructed temple or geographical partition—but a risen and reigning and soon returning Person (John 4:21-26).

Pray too for the Palestinians, image-bearers of God, that they’d turn in droves to Jesus the King. Pray particularly for our Palestinian brothers and sisters in the faith; there are, after all, far more Palestinian Christians in the Middle East than the news headlines imply.

May the Prince of Peace reveal what’s been hidden (Luke 19:41-42) and bring everlasting shalom to a Land flowing with blood and hatred—with little milk and honey to be found.

Source: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/11/22/israel-gaza-divine-right-and-john-piper/

Christians, Let’s Honor The President

This is a phenomenal article about the duty of Christians to honor elected officials by Russell Moore. Check out his blog here.

The American people have decided that Barack Obama should have a second term. And, behind them, in the mystery of providence, God has decided that Barack Obama would be re-elected. So how should Christians respond to our once and future President?

Many of us have some disagreements with the President. As a conservative Christian, I believe unborn children have certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, and I wish President Obama would work to protect them. I believe freedom of conscience is the preeminent right in a civil society, and the Administration’s incursions on religious liberty are troubling. I don’t plan to back down one bit on these matters, even as our forefathers Isaac Backus and John Leland relentlessly stood up to the founding generation of leaders on behalf of religious freedom and human dignity.

We are going to disagree with the President on some (important) things; there will be other areas where we can work with the President. But whether in agreement or disagreement, we can honor. Honor doesn’t mean blanket endorsement.

I am always amazed by those Christians who will dispute the command to honor, arguing that “kings” in our system are the people, and therefore we’re called to honor the Constitution but not elected officials. But the Scripture doesn’t command honor simply for the ultimate authority (which is, of course, ultimately God, in any case). Humanly speaking, the ultimate political authority in the New Testament context was the Emperor. And yet, the Apostle Peter specifically calls the people of Christ not only to show submission to the emperor “as supreme” but also to “governors” (1 Pet. 2:13-14). The Apostle Paul calls on the churches to pray and to show thanksgiving for “kings” (plural) and for “all who are in high positions” (1 Tim. 2:1-2).

Paul imitated this when he showed due respect to the governor Felix, referring to him with the honorific title “his Excellency, the governor” (Acts 23:26) and “most excellent Felix” (Acts 24:2), even as he appealed his way up through the political process of the Roman Empire of his time. Paul showed thanksgiving for Felix, despite his part in a system with which Paul disagreed at some important points, for his “reforms” for the common good (24:3).

Behind that is a more general command to “honor everyone” (1 Pet. 2:17), to pray for “all people” (1 Tim. 2:1). We are to not only pay our taxes but give “respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Rom. 13:7).

Christians, above all people, should pray for and show respect for our President and all of our elected officials. After all, unlike those who see politics as ultimate, we recognize that our political structures are important, but temporal, before an inbreaking kingdom of Christ. We don’t then need to be fomented into the kind of faux outrage that passes for much of contemporary political discourse. And, unlike those who see history as impersonal or capricious, we see behind everything a God who is sovereign over his universe.

So let’s pray for President Obama. Let’s not give ourselves to terms of disrespect, or every crazy conspiracy theory that floats across the Internet.

That doesn’t mean slavish obedience. In a democratic republic, the President and the Congress govern by the consent of the governed. We appeal to our elected officials, and lobby them for the common good, expressing disagreement when we must. But we do this, as Paul does before Felix and Agrippa, with respect and honor, even as he seeks to persuade them of the need for religious liberty and as he preaches “righteousness and self-control and the coming judgment” (Acts 24:25).

However we voted in the election, let’s pray for God to bless our President. We can pray for him to be granted wisdom and health. We can pray that God would prosper his good ideas, and change his mind on his bad ideas. Moreover, we can teach our children to respect our President, starting with referring to him as “President Obama” or “Our President,” not as “Obama” or “the guy our parents voted against” or what have you.

There’s a time to vote. There’s a time to campaign. And there’s a time to petition. But, through it all, let’s be the people who, even as we speak with conviction, are marked by kindness and respect. When we have to differ with President Obama, let’s do that, with backbone. But let’s make sure we do all this with honor, with respect, with prayer, and, most of all, with love.

Let’s render unto Caesar, as free people with natural rights. Because we know as believers that we will eternally say “Jesus is Lord,” we can as citizens temporally say, “Hail to the chief.”

Source: http://www.russellmoore.com/2012/11/07/christians-lets-honor-the-president/

We’re all blasphemers

This was a pretty incredible article by Greg Lukianoff over at the Huffington Post about recent terrorist actions and violence in the Middle East encouraged by a Youtube video that condemned Islam. He makes some phenomenal points. Take a gander.

We Are All Blasphemers: A Response to Eric Posner

by Greg Lukianoff

Everyone is a blasphemer to someone.

I know it doesn’t feel like it. I know it’s hard for modern Americans to imagine going to jail (or worse) because of what you believe in your heart, but every single person reading this has a belief that in some part of the world or at some point in history could’ve gotten you arrested, beheaded, or burned at the stake.

Are you a Protestant? That was a burning offense.

Catholic? More of a beheading/hanging one.

Jewish? You get the idea.

And, of course, there are people like me, atheists, who are still considered heretics and (when we talk) blasphemers the world over. You can engage in blasphemy even without talking about religion. American political liberals–those of us who, for example, believe that same-sex couples have a right to get married–are considered blasphemers even by some in our own country.

But thankfully, we are incredibly lucky to live in a time and a place where we have largely decided that disagreements about faith (or lack of it) shouldn’t get you in trouble with the law.

The reason why we as Americans can’t legally be punished for our faith or for our beliefs is that our country was founded by people who sought to avoid the horrors of the religious wars that plagued Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. The United States was founded with a brilliant and, frankly, quite radical set of ground rules for how to organize society. Included within these ground rules was the crucial right to speak freely. But arguably as critical as free speech were the rules actually mentioned first in the First Amendment: freedom of religion and freedom from state-mandated or defined religious beliefs.

These provisions allowed for religious pluralism, scientific and scholarly innovation, and prosperity unlike the world had ever seen before. But lately, it seems as though we’ve gotten so used to our First Amendment rights as a country that we take them for granted and forget the deadly serious reasons why we decided that these freedoms should serve as the building blocks for our society in the first place.

Ironically, the institutions most likely to take free speech and/or other basic rights for granted in the United States are the institutions most reliant on free and open debate: our colleges and universities.

As I have reported for years in the Huffington Post and as I discuss at length in my forthcoming bookUnlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of American Debate, I have seen students on college campuses get in trouble for the mildest imaginable expression. In other cases, students suffer for their politically relevant, but locally unpopular, speech.

So it was no surprise to me that when the trailer for “Innocence of Muslims” debuted on YouTube and Islamic militants all over the globe began using it as an excuse to attack American embassies and kill our diplomats, the first prominent people to rise up and say “see, I told you we were wrong about free speech” were college professors.

First, there was professor Anthea Butler of the University of Pennsylvania who wrote an op-ed in USA Today arguing that Sam Bacile (the video’s purported maker) should be thrown in jail.

Then, this week, similar criticism came from a much more serious source: University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner.

Posner, son of famous jurist Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit,wrote in Slate that Americans foolishly overvalue free speech and that the violence committed because of the video should cause us to reconsider our free speech radicalism.

For those of us who work in First Amendment law, Posner relies on pretty tired arguments that I plan to address piece by piece in upcoming posts. But before I get too entangled in the details of what was so wrong about Professor Posner had to say, it’s important to take a step back and realize why punishing a citizen for offending a religion is so dangerous.

Click here to continue reading…

Complementarianism for Dummies

I just read a great article by Mary Kassian explaining what complementarianism is and isn’t. I think it’s extremely helpful, and I think she captured it perfectly. Plus, as a woman, I believe she is able to speak with great authority on the issues that face women, particularly in the church. Obviously the gender of the speaker doesn’t change the nature of the message they are giving—truth is truth, whether a man or a woman tells it. But I think it’s very encouraging to see so many women holding the banner of biblical complementarianism in the church and our culture.

by Mary Kassian

A little while ago a reporter asked me to define “complementarianism.” She didn’t know what it meant. And that’s not entirely surprising.

The word “complementarity” doesn’t appear in the Bible, but is used by people to summarize a biblical concept. It’s like the word “Trinity.” The Bible never uses the word “Trinity,” but it undeniably points to a triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Though the concept of male-female complementarity can be seen from Genesis through Revelation, the label “complementarian” has only been in use for about 25 years. It was coined by a group of scholars who got together to try and come up with a word to describe someone who ascribes to the historic, biblical idea that male and female are equal, but different. The need for such a label arose in response to the proposition that equality means role-interchangeability (egalitarianism)—a concept first forwarded and popularized in evangelical circles in the 1970s and 1980s by “Biblical Feminists.”

I’ve read several articles lately from people who misunderstand and/or misrepresent the complementarian view. I was at the meeting 25 years ago where the word “complementarian” was chosen. So I think I have a pretty good grasp on the word’s definition.

So I want to boil it down for you. In emulation of the popular “for Dummies” series of instructional books, I’ll give you a “Complementarianism for Dummies” primer on the intended meaning of the word.

1. It’s complementary . . . not complimentary.

The word “complementarian” is derived from the word “complement” (not the word “compliment”). The dictionary defines “complement” as follows:

Something that completes or makes perfect; either of two parts or things needed to complete the whole; counterparts.

Complementarians believe that God created male and female as complementary expressions of the image of God—male and female are counterparts in reflecting his glory. Having two sexes expands the view. Though both sexes bear God’s image fully on their own, each does so in a unique and distinct way. Male and female in relationship reflects truths about Jesus that aren’t reflected by male alone or female alone.

2. June Cleaver is so 1950s and so not the definition of complementarity.

In our name-the-concept meeting, someone mentioned the word “traditionalism,” since our position is what Christians have traditionally believed. But that was quickly nixed. The word “traditionalism” smacks of “tradition.” Complementarians believe that the Bible’s principles supersede tradition. They can be applied in every time and culture. June Cleaver is a traditional, American, TV stereotype. She is not the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like 60 or 70 years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.

3. A proletariat-bourgeois-type hierarchy has no place in complementarity.

Feminist theorists maintain that male-female role differences create an over-under hierarchy in which men, who are like the privileged, elite, French landowners (bourgeois) of the 18th century, keep women—who are like the lower, underprivileged class of workers (proletariat)—subservient. Complementarians, however, do not believe that men, as a group, rank higher than women. Men are not superior to women. Women are not the “second sex.” Men have a responsibility to exercise headship in their homes and church family, and Christ revolutionized the definition of what that means. Authority is not the right to rule—it’s the responsibility to serve. We rejected the term “hierarchicalism” because people associate it with an inherent, self-proclaimed right to rule.

Click here to continue reading

Dating tips for Christian guys

Great pastoral tips for guys when it comes to pursuing a woman in our lives.

5 Notes on Dating for the Guys

by Brandon Andersen

I work in church operations, which I means spend an inordinate amount of time with young, single volunteers, many of whom are recent converts. When I first started, it quickly became clear that most young Christians have no idea what Christian dating looks like practically. Here are some insights to help Christian men date in a way that honors God.

1. A DEFINITION OF INTENTIONAL

“Intentional” is one of those words that sounds right, but no one really knows what if means. So I would like to clear that up. Here is my working definition for intentional and how it relates to how a Christian man should pursue a woman.

The intentional man repeatedly and constantly goes first and takes on all of the risk of rejection. He always lets the girl know where he stands so she feels secure and isn’t left guessing. (On the other hand, don’t weird her out by talking about marriage on the first date.)

Approaching her initially:

• Intentional: “I’d like to take you out on a date.”
• Unintentional: “Wanna hang out sometime? My roommates are all gone this weekend.”

Paying the bill:

• Intentional: “I’ve got it.”
• Unintentional: “Can you cover half the bill? I’m pretty broke right now.” (My wife believes this communicates, “You are worth about $20, but not quite $40.”)

Following up after a date:

• Intentional: “I had a great time tonight, and would definitely want to do this again. I will give you a call this week.”
• Unintentional: “I’ll call you sometime.”

Bringing other people in:

• Intentional: “I’ve really enjoyed getting to know you. Would you like to have dinner with my Community Group leader and his wife?” (This is a way to honor her by pursuing outside accountability from a godly couple.)

• Unintentional: “I don’t know if you really wanna meet my friends yet . . .” I.e. “I don’t really want you to meet my friends yet,” and as Chris Rock says, “If you have not met his friends, you are not his girlfriend.” (In this case, there’s a disingenuousness where he’s not being fully open with his whole life with the woman and is cordonning off the relationship from other areas of his life and people who know him. This is a guy who’s only selfishly protecting himself and shielding himself from any accountability and consequences, and he cannot be trusted as the protector of someone else.)

Things are going well:

• Intentional: “I think you are a godly, beautiful woman, and I have great time with you. I would like to pursue a relationship with you.”
• Unintentional: “Soooooo, what do you think about us?” Or, “I am not sure where I stand. What about you?”

Things look like they could go well for a long time:

• Intentional: “I don’t date for the sake of dating, and marriage is a long ways away, but I couldn’t be happier with how things are going. I think you’re amazing.”
• Unintentional: “Things are going OK I guess, we’ll see.”

Recognizing the end of the relationship:

• Intentional: “I am sorry, I don’t see this progressing past friendship.”
• Unintentional: (Time passing . . . cold shoulder . . . you stop calling . . .)

Ultimately, the unintentional guy’s responses are selfish because they put his interests before the woman’s, and they’re moreover cowardly because he avoids addressing where the relationship is, leaving the woman marooned in relationship limbo.

The man in the relationship should always have an answer for three questions:

1. WHAT IS THIS RELATIONSHIP?

2. WHAT ARE YOUR INTENTIONS?

3. HOW ARE YOU DEMONSTRATING THOSE INTENTIONS RIGHT NOW?

The big idea is this, men: Don’t keep her guessing. Let her know exactly where you are at all of the time. It is a risk of course, but better on you than her. Own it.

2. CLEAN YOUR ACT UP TODAY, NOT ‘WHEN’

You’ve probably heard some guy say this: “I will clean my act up when I find the right girl.” It’s not true. The lie is that once you find the right girl, all your problems will go away—you just need the right motivation, right? Wrong! If Jesus isn’t motivation enough to grow in maturity and pursue godliness, then you are not ready to pursue a woman.

The truth is that when you’re in a relationship, you get their crap on top of your crap. That’s double crap. It is hard to start a healthy relationship with two immature people drowning in crap. Men, get your life together first, know where you are going, then invite a girl to come along (Prov. 16:1–9).

To continue reading, click here

A Different Kind of Justice

 

I just read a fascinating article discussing the 21 year sentence of Anders Breivik after he killed 77 people in Norway. This article raises so many interesting implications. What do you all think about it? Please comment in the comment section!

A Different Kind of Justice: Why Anders Breivik Only Got 21 Years for Killing 77 people

by Max Fisher

As an American, or maybe just as a moral human being, it’s hard not to feel appalled, even outraged, that Norwegian far-right monster Anders Breivik only received 21 years in prison for his attacks last year, including a bombing in Oslo and a cold-blooded shooting spree, which claimed 77 lives. That’s just under 100 days per murder. The decision, reached by the court’s five-member panel, was unanimous. He will serve out his years (which can be extended) in a three-room cell with a TV, exercise room, and “Ikea-style furniture.” The New York Times quoted a handful of survivors and victims’ relatives expressing relief and satisfaction at the verdict. It’s not a scientific survey, but it’s still jarring to see Norwegians welcoming this light sentence.

Norway’s criminal justice system is, obviously, quite distinct from that of, say, the U.S.; 21 years is the maximum sentence for anything less severe than war crimes or genocide. Still, it’s more than that: the entire philosophy underpinning their system is radically different. I don’t have an answer for which is better. I doubt anyone does. But Americans’ shocked response to the Breivik sentence hints at not just how different the two systems are, but how deeply we may have come to internalize our understanding of justice, which, whatever its merits, doesn’t seem to be as universally applied as we might think.

The American justice system, like most of those in at least the Western world, is built on an idea called retributive justice. In very simplified terms (sorry, I’m not a legal scholar), it defines justice as appropriately punishing someone for an act that’s harmful to society. Our system does include other ideas: incapacitating a criminal from committing other crimes, rehabilitating criminals to rejoin society, and deterring other potential criminals. At its foundation, though, retributive justice is about enforcing both rule of law and more abstract ideas of fairness and morality. Crimes are measured by their damage to society, and it’s society that, working through the court system, metes out in-turn punishment. Justice is treated as valuable and important in itself, not just for its deterrence or incapacitative effects. In a retributive system, the punishment fits the crime, and 21 years in a three-room cell doesn’t come close to fitting Breivik’s 77 premeditated murders.

Criminals are not primarily wrongdoers to be punished, but broken people to be fixed.

Norway doesn’t work that way. Although Breivik will likely be in prison permanently — his sentence can be extended — 21 years really is the norm even for very violent crimes. Themuch-studied Norwegian system is built on something called restorative justice. Proponents of this system might argue that it emphasizes healing: for the victims, for the society, and, yes, for the criminal him or herself. Sounds straightforward enough, but you might notice that there’s nothing in there about necessarily punishing the criminal, and in fact even takes his or her needs into account.

“Restorative justice thus begins with a concern for victims and how to meet their needs, for repairing the harm as much as possible, both concretely and symbolically,” explains a 1997 academic article, by a scholar of restorative justice named Howard Zehr, extolling the systems’ virtues. In the Breivik trial, this meant giving every victim (survivors as well as the families of those killed) a direct voice. Victims were individually represented by 174 court-appointed lawyers. The court heard 77 autopsy reports, 77 descriptions of how Breivik had killed them, and 77 minute-long biographies “voicing his or her unfulfilled ambitions and dreams.” In an American-style retributive system, the trial is primarily about hearing and evaluating the case against the criminal. Norway does this too, but it also includes this restorative tool of giving space to victims, not as evidence, but to make the trial a forum for those victims to heal and to confront the man who’d harmed them. The trial itself is about more than just proving or disproving guilt, but about exorcising the victims’ suffering.

What about the criminal? Of course, Norway is locking Breivik away in part to keep him safely cordoned off from society. Beyond that, the restorative “model encourages offenders to understand the consequences of their actions or to empathize with victims,” Zehr explains. That begins with the trial, where he or she is encouraged to grapple with the wrongness of their actions; Breivik gave no sign of doing this, a remorseless, fist-pumping neo-Nazi to the very end. The process continues during the incarceration, which is treated less as a form of punishment than as a sort of state-imposed rehabilitation. It’s not a categorial difference from the American model, which includes a number of rehab and therapeutic offerings, but, with Breivik about to enjoy some not insignificant creature comforts in his three-room cell, the emphasis is clearly distinct.

The pleasant-sounding experience of being in Norwegian prison isn’t some sign of Scandinavian weakness or naïveté; it’s precisely the point. A comfortable cell, clean and relaxing environment, and nice daily activities such as cooking classes are all meant to prepare the criminal for potentially difficult or painful internal reformation. Incarceration, in this thinking, is the treatment for whatever social or psychological disease led them to transgress. The criminals are not primarily wrongdoers to be punished, but broken people to be fixed.

In an ideal restorative trial, the criminal will not just be passively punished for his or her crime, but actively take “responsibility for making things right with victims and the community as far as possible,” as Zehr puts it. This “restitution” can include “money and services, to victims and the community.” But that’s just an ideal, and Zehr acknowledges that “society rarely achieves justice that is fully restorative.” It’s hard to imagine Breivik ever getting to this point (experts expect his sentence to be extended indefinitely), though others do, and he will be joining a prison system designed for those to-be-reformed.

Here’s the tough thing about restorative justice: it works, as long as you don’t consider retribution to be its own inherent good. Despite the lighter sentences, restorative justice systems seem to reduce crime, reduce the cost of imprisoning criminals, and reduce recidivism. There’s no comparative data on which system better satisfies victims, but survivors and family members at the Breivik trial, at least, spent days of court time listening to, crying over, and applauding one another’s stories. And this approach isn’t just for well-off Scandinavian societies; Saudi Arabia has claimed considerable success applying the restorative models to terrorists and violent extremists.

But, even if we accept all of the data suggesting that society as a whole is better off under a Norwegian-style restorative model, those numbers don’t account for the more abstract, difficult-to-define sense of justice as its own inherent good. Whatever you feel when you read about a criminal going free, see a wrongdoer get away with it, or hear that a mass murderer got sentenced to only 21 years, those emotions might be rooted in a basic human need for justice and fairness. A 2003 Princeton psychological study, for example, isolated a feeling of “moral outrage felt by those who witness transgressions.” A German study from last year foundthat people who believe they’ve witnessed injustice become less happy, as if living in a just society were an intrinsic emotional need.

Norwegian-style restorative justice subverts those human desires for justice and fairness, which does seem to have found success in reducing crime’s cost to society. Proponents, such as University of Oslo professor Thomas Mathiesen, say it’s better for society overall because it isn’t about “revenge, but sober, dignified treatment.” But is the retributive-style need for justice and fairness really only about “revenge,” or is it something more important than that? The retributive approach absolutely has its pitfalls — the American system’s heavy emphasis on punishment has a history of leading it to horrific excess and abuse – but at least it’s meant to be just. I don’t know how you balance that against the overall social good, which Norway’s gentler system seems to have found success in promoting, but the vastly different philosophies undergirding the two systems are a reminder that, even if right and wrong are universal, how society treats them is not.

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/08/a-different-justice-why-anders-breivik-only-got-21-years-for-killing-77-people/261532/

 

Really bad evangelism

I had an unfortunate moment today when I was in the grocery store. After eating some grand tomato basil soup from Panera with my buddy Matt, I decided that we ought to have some Funfetti cookies. So I walked over to the grocery store to get some Funfetti mix, eggs, and some vanilla frosting to go on top—you know, the usual. As I was in line to check out, a woman in front of me had just finished and handed to cashier what looked like a five-dollar bill and said, “It’s your tip!” with a big smile. She walked away and I saw the look on the guys face. He looked annoyed and a little condescending. I knew exactly what it was when I realized that the bill was about two-thirds the size of a normal dollar bill. I asked him if it was the Gospel. He said it was and laughed as he ripped it up into a few pieces.

As I was swiping my card, I heard him mutter under his breath, “Why don’t you go spread your ****ing message somewhere else?” I didn’t know what to do. I felt like I had to say something, but I didn’t think at that moment that a full-blown Gospel conversation was possible. So, in lieu of a real heart to heart, I figured I might at least be able to show him that not every Christian thinks that handing out contrived evangelism “tools” is a good idea.

I said, “You know, I actually work at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church down the street, but I don’t really think that handing those things out is a very effective way of presenting the message.” This time he just looked mortified because he knew that he had pretty severely insulted the very message that, as an employee of a church, I am seeking to promote with my very livelihood. As he handed me my receipt, he told me that he was sorry for what he had said, and I told him not to worry about it with a smile.

I laughed to myself on the way out just because the look on his face was pretty priceless, but it really got me thinking about how some in the church believe they should spread the Gospel message. I am sure the woman in front of me meant well. She clearly has a heart to evangelize people about Christ, which is probably more than many church goers can honestly say. Yet, her well-meaning actions actually lead to Christ and the message of grace being cursed, and the young Christian behind her had to hear it.

It grieves me knowing that even when we are well-meaning we can cause so much damage. I know that, particularly at the beginning of my college experience, I had a very difficult time discussing spiritual things with people who I disagree with, particularly those who claimed to be Christians but taught vastly different things that what I believe the Bible clearly teaches. I was and still am prone to getting very angry very quickly, not because I feel I need to defend myself but because I feel I must fight erroneous teaching to preserve the Gospel. Even this assumption is somewhat foolish because it says that I need to defend the Triune God who created me, as if He somehow needs my help to get His work done. He absolutely does not.

Fortunately I’ve grown. I’m still growing. I still need to grow significantly. But I know that I’ve learned to articulate what I believe more productively. Nonetheless, at the very height of my turn or burn approach to apologetics, I believed that what I was doing was right. To a certain degree it was—God wants us to stand for the truth—but, the methods I was using wasn’t justifiable. There was a lack of gentleness, humility, and respect for the people with which I was disagreeing. I was doing more harm than good.

And that’s exactly what happened today. A well-meaning individual did significant harm that affected more people than just her. If anything, she most likely went home feeling pretty proud of what she did. From her perspective, she shared the Gospel with someone who probably didn’t know it, and Jesus would be proud of her for it. I certainly wouldn’t want to challenge her sincerity, but I think it’s beyond simplistic to assume that God would have us approach unbelievers that way. The Scripture tells us to be wise with those who do not believe so that we don’t give them the opportunity to speak against Christ.

Christians, for whatever reason, are notorious for leaving meager tips for food service employees. But, Christians also leave their silly fake thousand-dollar bills that explain the Gospel with their tips. Imagine getting a $3 tip for a $40 dollar meal and then seeing one of those Gospel message bills. They would be so angry! How condescending! How naïve! How hypocritical! All these things would flash through their minds. Why should they believe a message of goodness from someone who doesn’t know them, didn’t seek to get to know them, and didn’t even compensate them for their service at the minimum level? The scary thing is that the message on these little cards is true—we’re sinners, we are going to be condemned, God is holy, God made a way for us to be saved, Jesus lived a sinless life, He rose from the grave, trust Him and you will live.

But stories like that abound. And it makes us all look bad. And it encourages people to curse the name of Christ in the process.

We need to be wise with how we evangelize. We need to share the message by seeking to truly know and love people, not by dropping pamphlets or mass producing little cards that give you the Gospel and tell you to pray a prayer to be saved. That’s witchcraft, not Christianity. One prayer won’t do anything. God calls us to discipleship, and some sort of expectation that your salvation is determined by saying some words without following Christ is exactly what people ought not be hearing from us. But that’s what these evangelism tools seem to suggest. Just say you believe in Jesus, read your Bible, and heavenward you go! Because of their limited scope, I don’t think they can adequately address what needs to be addressed. So they either produce blatant disregard and scorn or a very simplistic and possibly faulty view of salvation that we see demonstrated again and again in our churches when we say that if you went up for an altar call and prayed a prayer to Jesus then you’re saved.

Nonsense. Completely unbiblical. I wonder how many people believe that they are going to heaven simply because they prayed a prayer when they were 12 at a church service, but never was brought into true discipleship and daily trust and faith in Christ.  We need to take some ownership over our actions in how we approach nonbelievers. It’s far to costly to continue doing things the way so many people do. We all need to take a look at ourselves, take our good intentions, and funnel those intentions into intense study of Scripture so that we might truly do what God calls us to do.

I just don’t want to get to heaven and find out that my actions continually caused the Lord to be cursed, particularly when those who curse Him won’t be with me before the throne.

Politics and the Christian

I’m a huge fan of politics, though I often find that keeping up on current political happenings leads me to feel more frustrated and disheartened than energized. There is so much partisan turmoil, and I know that I find myself jumping right in half the time. I have particular views, I believe those views are infinitely more logical than those who hold the opposing views, and I don’t have a hard time articulating what I believe and why. Yet, what we often see is people with different political ideologies tearing each other apart without the slightest bit of grace. I know that there are times when I just want to bang my head against the wall when I see what our government is doing because I can’t imagine how anyone decided that certain things were actually good for our country. My sinful tendencies lead me to want to attack those people—”How stupid…do they even think?”—but that’s clearly not the heart that God wants us to have. So I find myself with the need to repent of my attitudes again and again as I watch the news.

I posted a comment on the Huffington Post about the possibility of Rep. Paul Ryan being chosen as Mitt Romney’s VP candidate tomorrow. You wouldn’t believe the comments I received. I’m not entirely surprised because the Huffington Post is followed most closely by people who have the opposite beliefs I have. I was clearly posting on “enemy” territory. But the frustrating thing for me, and for many people I’m sure, is that the responses didn’t actually engage anything I had to say. Instead it just ridiculed, mocked, and insulted. The assumption, like the one I often have when I see people who believe differently, is that I can’t be a thinking person to hold the views I have. I must be just some crazed, gun-carrying, God-fearing, poor-people-hating, conservative. I’m certainly God-fearing, I am conservative, and I do own a shotgun—so yes, those designations are accurate (though I don’t quite carry my shotgun around in public). But to suggest I hate poor people, the homeless, the needy, the least of these… that’s just preposterous.

Working in the Outreach department at Coral Ridge, one of our primary goals is to provide help to the homeless and others in financial distress. And that’s exactly what Christ calls us to do. To not provide help to those in need, if we have the ability, is to deny the entire calling we have received.

Obviously no one on the Huffington Post actually knows me or what I’m doing. But isn’t that the whole problem? When we make these kinds of judgments about people, we do it without knowing the people we are judging. It drives me nuts—both that I am prone to it and also that I have been a recipient of the same treatment.

Nonetheless, I think it’s extremely important for Christians to be involved in politics. We have rights in this country that are unique and unavailable in many other countries. That’s important. But what we have to remember is that the ultimate problem with the world is not that people are too liberal (not liberal enough) or too conservative (not conservative enough). The problem with the world is sin, a fallen nature, and over 6 billion people who have depraved minds that need to be transformed by the Gospel. Our political solutions aren’t real solutions. We may believe that they may help alleviate suffering, but they don’t provide an ultimate solution to the main problem—the evil of the human heart.

The only solution for that is Jesus. And may we dedicate our lives to proclaiming Him and not the platforms of our political parties.

Statistical Analysis on changing religious affiliation in the US

This is a great analysis on religious affiliation done by Tim Dalrymple over at his blog on Patheos.

 

Perhaps Atheists should be hitting the panic button

My friend and colleague David French asks whether Protestants should “hit the panic button” when they see statistical charts like these:

My answer would be: No, we do not need to hit the panic button.  But it’s a very interesting graphic and there’s much to be learned from it.

In the interest of being careful readers of statistics, let me point out a few things:

1. If 50% of Baptists left to become Methodists, and 50% of Methodists left to become Baptists, then both would have only a 50% retention rate, and yet “Protestantism” (or this section of it) would have a 100% retention rate.  So the table is potentially misleading.  Denominations have less significance than they once did amongst Protestants, so one would expect there to be more movement within denominations than between entirely different religious traditions.  So what looks like a failure to retain could be movement across the differentiations within Protestantism — and ostensibly a part of the strength of Protestantism is that it provides a variety of forms and contexts where people can find a suitable worship home.  One would need a master “Protestant” category here in order to see a retention statistic that really presents a fair comparison to “Catholicism” or “Buddhism”.
2. The information comes from the Pew Forum’s U.S. Religious Landscape Survey — and there you can find a “Protestant” category.  53.9% of Americans say that they were affiliated with Protestantism as children, compared to 51.3% now — a drop of 2.5% in absolute value, or a decline of 5% proportionally.  Most of the loss has come from Baptists and Methodists.  While I would rather see Protestants’ share growing, a five percent drop in “market share” is no reason to hit the panic button, especially when you consider that Protestants are the largest religious group in America, and therefore had the most to lose in the first place.  As immigration becomes more global, as more come from the Middle East or the Far East, the share of Protestants is likely to decline, at least in the near term.  Also, it’s worth nothing that 16 percent of Protestants became Protestants from having been something else, which is not bad movement in our direction
3. It’s worth noting the terms, too.  ”Affiliation” means different things in different settings, but quite a lot for many Protestants.  I may have retained my “affiliation” with Hinduism, but that may only mean that I endure a few rituals per year and hang a picture of my ancestor over my fireplace, not that I actively honor the many Hindu gods.  Or I may retain my “affiliation” with Judaism but that only means that I continue to celebrate Hannukah, not that I retain traditional Jewish beliefs.  There are some areas of the country where membership in a Protestant congregation is common, and a low bar.  But for much of Protestantism, being a Protestant means actually believing that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, died for your sins.   When affiliation means “belief,” and those beliefs have been under rather relentless assault by the prevailing culture, maintaining 95% of your share is not bad.

There are other interesting things to note in the Pew study:

1. We often hear about the spectacular growth of the LDS Church overseas, but here in America it appears to be stagnant at best, or even losing ground.  The LDS Church in America is losing more members than it’s gaining, and its share of the American populace has declined from 1.8 to 1.7 percent.
2. Only 51% of those who are presently evangelical were raised in evangelical churches.  In other words, nearly half have “converted” to evangelicalism.  11 percent of current evangelicals were raised Catholic and 31 percent were raised non-evangelical Protestant.  This is a decent picture of health.  Evangelicals are not attracting many from non-Christian religions, however.  Of those who have converted to evangelical Christianity, only about 4 percent come from other religions and 12 percent were “unaffiliated” (which can mean many different things).
3. Although we often speak of the growth of the “Unaffiliated” or the “Nones,” very few of those are actually atheist or agnostics.  16.1% of Americans now identify as unaffiliated, but only ten percent of the unaffiliateds identify as atheists and only 15 percent as agnostics.  The remaining 75% identify as nothing in particular.
4. Also, while there are more people joining the atheist and agnostic ranks than leaving, it doesn’t bode well for atheists that 60-70 percent of those who are raised atheist renounce their atheism.  If it were so compelling a solution over the long term, one would think the retention rate would be higher.

So perhaps the atheists should be hitting the panic button?  They’re winning converts, but no one seems to want to stay for long.  Why can’t they convince their own children?

Welcome to our future

 

This definitely isn’t Jesus centered, but it’s INSANE! Had to share it!