A Testimony of Current Culture

Dr. Everett Piper presents a commentary on current culture. He is the president of Oklahoma Wesleyan University. If you would like the read the entire blog post click HERE. After reading the posts below I predict you will want to read the entire blog post. Enjoy!

"This past week, I actually had a student come forward after a university chapel service and complain because he felt “victimized” by a sermon on the topic of 1 Corinthians 13. It appears this young scholar felt offended because a homily on love made him feel bad for not showing love. In his mind, the speaker was wrong for making him, and his peers, feel uncomfortable."

"I have a message for this young man and all others who care to listen. That feeling of discomfort you have after listening to a sermon is called a conscience. An altar call is supposed to make you feel bad. It is supposed to make you feel guilty. The goal of many a good sermon is to get you to confess your sins—not coddle you in your selfishness. The primary objective of the Church and the Christian faith is your confession, not your self-actualization."

"So here’s my advice: If you want the chaplain to tell you you’re a victim rather than tell you that you need virtue, this may not be the university you’re looking for. If you want to complain about a sermon that makes you feel less than loving for not showing love, this might be the wrong place.
If you’re more interested in playing the “hater” card than you are in confessing your own hate; if you want to arrogantly lecture, rather than humbly learn; if you don’t want to feel guilt in your soul when you are guilty of sin; if you want to be enabled rather than confronted, there are many universities across the land (in Missouri and elsewhere) that will give you exactly what you want, but Oklahoma Wesleyan isn’t one of them."

I have read no greater commentary on current culture to date. This is where we are, like it or not! Blessings!

The New American Religion

This story regarding football and prayer should make Christians and non-Christians alike furious.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation sent a letter asking Chancellor Roger Brown of the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga (UTC) about what group Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor described as "unlawful university sponsorship of Christian prayer." UTC ended up moving away from prayer and to a moment of silence, bowing to the pressure of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, but was this necessary?

A visit to the Freedom from Religion Foundation website will introduce you to the religion of atheism, with its own monuments and marquees. The website openly promotes the religion of atheism in all its glory.

A religion, by definition, is a system of organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems and worldviews that relate humanity to an order of existence. Atheism is, by all accounts, a religion, and the proof is right there on the Freedom of Religion Foundation's own website. Atheism is a systematic organized collection of beliefs that related to an ordered existence. There are churches forming and monuments being built celebrating Atheists, and organizations like the Freedom form Religion Foundation are actively requiting converts to their cause.

If there is to be a true separation of church and state then is not that separation from all forms of organized religion? Or, are the Freedom from Religion Foundation and other groups like them merely discriminating against Christians? Either they have special considerations or atheism has become the new American religion.

David Hume and the Power of the Statement

"All the objects of human reason or inquiry may naturally be divided into two kinds, to wit, relations of ideas and matters of fact."

Such a simple statement, yet the power contained in this seemingly innocuous statement is far reaching.

Hume wrote, regarding the first kind (relation of ideas, in reference to sciences and maths. Regarding the second kind (matters of fact), Hume presupposed that all are found in the relation of cause and effect.

Hume used this reasoning as evidence that we can go beyond our memory and senses when it comes to matters of fact but not too far. Hume stayed close enough to memory and the senses so as not to severe ties with both, but ventured far enough away to justify testing the boundaries of both.

Hume assumed that knowledge of this relation is not obtained by reason but instead through experience. By reason, he was referencing a priori knowledge: knowledge that is innate and not marked by experience. Hume proposef that "every effect is a distinct event from its cause." He was stating, quite emphatically, that every effect was rooted in experience because, for him, every effect was an event, and an event began as an experience and ended as one.

Hume was the empiricist whose arguments awoke Immanuel Kant from his slumber. Kant sought to confront Hume's arguments, but Kant, too, was a philosopher, and philosophy, well, what is it really? Why, I believe it is akin to religion without the supernal dimension.

After all, Hume confined reason to the human being by label and by division. He labeled it, as do most, as "human" reason, which, as a label, was fairly solidly tied to the human being. Second, he divided reason into two distinctly human areas: ideas and facts.

We can use Hume's strategy as applied to human reason to do the same in our understanding of philosophy. While Hume proposed two kinds of human reason, he was really only proposing one kind of reason... human. While there are five categories of philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics and esthetics, all are really an approach rooted in mankind as the pinnacle and solution of all.

Statements, whether they are made by the likes of David Hume, who I think has a lot to say on human understanding, or by you and me are powerful. It is my contention that we are all philosophers of sort. We look at the world and make statements about our view of the world by the way we live in response to the world. We may not put these statements in written form, but, just the same, we make statements of meaning that affect others. As Christians, we must be sure of our statements, and we must never under-estimate the power of the statement.

Philosophers understand this better than most. Each is taught to carefully and methodically examine the life and the statement as both are to be connected in consistent ways. Both should reflect each other in the same way a mirror reflects an accurate image of who you are. If you grab another mirror and hold it up while standing in front of a mirror and reflect the image in the mirror, it is going to be you from a different angle. The angle may have changed, but the reflection will, for the most part, be consistently you.

Our statements should be of the same consistency... from different angles but an accurate reflection of who we are, and as Christians, that reflection should be Christ. Yesterday, I did a general survey of Facebook posts. I wanted to see how consistent posts where with the worldviews behind them. I chose four labels for the posts I examined: judgmental, measured, negative and positive. I deemed the labels measured and positive as those I should find from those responding according to worldview, and the labels judgmental and negative as those I should find from those responding according to the situation. Again, not very scientific, but this was just to satisfy my own curiosity.

I spent only an hour looking at posts. At the end of that hour, I tallied my results; I then went to examine the worldviews behind the posts. What I found was that almost every post was a response and a reflection of the situation and NOT of the worldview of the person behind the post. In most situations, if the original post was negative most of the responses, whether in agreement or not, followed that negative path.

Again, not very accurate, but this was only to satisfy my own curiosity, and to make the following point: the power of our statements reflect who we are to others and to us. We tend to become who we consistently are, and Facebook allows us more power in the presentation of who we are than every before.  I personally think it makes us all a bit more egocentric and adds to our already overwhelming addiction to ourselves.

This whole exercise was convicting to me, but it was also confirming that Christ is still hammering away at me each day as I become more like Him. In the gospels, Christ is always a reflection of the Father. At times we get different angles, but He is always reflecting His Father in some way. We, too, must always reflect Christ no matter our angle, our situation or our statements.

Judgement

Have you noticed how so many are so quick to judge others these days.

Jim Kelly knows, without a doubt, that Tom Brady is a cheater. John Stewart is certain that Fox News lies about everything. And, Bill O'Reilly has no doubt that everyone at CNN is liberal and biased. 

How do these people know these things? Are they brighter? Did they learn this skill in college? Are they from another planet? Sadly, I fear that judgement is just a symptom of a greater social sickness from which we all suffer: we are addicted to ourselves. There is no fear, trepidation or concern for others; only concern for self.

And, those of us in Christ are not immune to this sickness. Scripture is somewhat absolute on the whole, "only God knows the heart" thing; yet, we still think we possess an ability to know the hearts of others. There is no concern for truth or someone's reputation; there is only an all-consuming concern for self.

This sickness seems to be everywhere and has reached an epidemic state. It can be found in churches and in Christian business, in ministries and inside Christian schools. It seems like everyone is so busy judging everyone else that there is little time to left to be concerned about one's own spiritual state.

Is that the issue? Do we judge others because we do not want to see what a mess our lives really are? Are we still playing king of the hill? Are we still knocking people down so we can climb higher? Scripture makes such succinct statements regarding judgement. We are not to judge or risk being judged by the King yet, we continue to judge.

I must confess that I, myself, am a recovering judge. I lived, worshiped and worked inside a vortex full of this judgement mentality. Judgement comes in all flavors when you live by it. It is found in your humor, your faith, your relationships and your spirit. It is sprinkled in your comments. You tend think your better than others. You make fun of what others believe.And, others, well, they become expendable.

Judges live to judge. Anyone who disagrees is discarded. Conversations are laced with gossip, and alliances are drawn up. Judges tend to be paranoid and insecure. Judges never admit to being wrong, and they never ever utter the words, "I am sorry." Judges enjoy conversations with those who agree with them, but avoid those people who disagree. Differences of opinion and thought are not welcomed in the kingdom of a judge.

Thankfully, I was saved from this life, but my salvation was not clean nor easy. It was hard and rough with jagged deep cuts to my soul. It was filled with harsh realities, broken relationships and isolation. At times, I did not know if my faith would survive the process, but here I am, thanks to a Holy God who did not forsake me.

I awake each morning with new eyes. I have discovered that judging others blinds you to everything else. When you judge others you really only see one thing... yourself. You only worry about yourself. You only think about yourself. It is a dreadful addiction, and one from which every person suffers in one way or another. When you are addicted to yourself you miss what God has put in front of you in order to help you grow in Him... others. 

When others are subservient to you, as they inevitably will be when you judge them, you miss out on what God has for you. It is often others that God uses to minister to us. Judgement robs us of others and, ultimately, robs us of God.

What we do not realize is that when we make ourselves a judge we are trying to become like god, and that never ends well. There is only one judge who can discern the heart. There is only one judge who can judge without hypocrisy. There is only one judge whose judgement will stand for eternity, and that judge is not confined to a celestial body. That judge is coming again... soon.   

So, climb to the top of the hill, if you must;but, as for me, I have a growing fondness for bottom of the hill. 

Amy Carmichael

Idealism Part II: Can Idealism and Christianity Coexist?

Idealism, one might say, is mind over matter or thoughts over things or even ideas over reality. In each instance, it is the idea or the ideal that takes precedent over physical and material reality.

The danger of idealism is not the idea itself but the priority given to the idea in the scheme of living. To prioritize an idea not yet realized to the extent that one lives as if it is realized is the danger of idealism.

Plato's world of forms was one of the earliest examples of idealism. According to Plato, a form was an abstract property or quality of an object that was separated from that object and considered by itself. These forms existed independently from the things of which they are part. The form was not just the idea of the thing, but an independent thing all together.

Plato was clear; forms were pure and undefiled. Each had the purest of properties. A material object, like a ball, had several forms that completed it. It had the form of round, the form of bounce, the form of ball and even the form of color. Each form was needed to make up the composite known as ball. A ball without the form of round would hardly be considered a ball. Plato posited that each form was transcendent and pure, which separated it from all material objects located in space and time.

Plato's world of forms was an exercise in spirituality. Plato rooted them in a pseudo-spiritual realm that was other-world like. Each was the epitome of perfection for that particular form and served as the ultimate standard for that form. The form was the top priority of things in need of that particular form. But, we have to ask, is not a form merely the highest idea in regard to a particular form?

One might ask, does not Christianity and Christian thought adopt a similar position? God's word is our ultimate standard, and Christian thought and idea should flow directly from His word. God's word should assume a position of priority when it comes to our cognitive processes. There is no question that God and His ideas are not ours, but it is for precisely this reason that we are not to elevate our own ideas to a state that defines how we live, even when our ideas are about Him. Our goal is to learn more about God and His ideas through His word and live lives reflective of Him. Our ideas should flow out of our study of His word and out of His influence in our lives.

Idealism argues that the only thing actually knowable is consciousness (mankind's consciousness), and that we can never be sure that anything outside of our consciousness exists. At least Plato, in his theory of forms, provided a distinction between man and his forms. There is no such distinction in today's Idealism. An Idealist believes that the only real things are mental entities (ideas which exist in the mind), but there is a problem with this line of thinking, especially today. Today, we live in the age of self. Everyone is equally important, and all ideas are of value. In this current state, whose ideas define reality? What makes one idea better than other ideas? What do we do with opposing ideas? Certainly, every idea cannot be real? Or, can it?

In sum Idealism, as defined as a philosophical position, adheres to a view that nothing exists except as it is in the mind of man, the mind of God, or in a super – or supra-natural realm. The idealist believes that all material things are explainable and definable in terms of a mind. But modern idealism, as I referenced earlier, has shifted away from ideas of God or ideas of the supra-natural realm and towards only those ideas of man. It is mankind's ideas that define reality, and it is this shift that has made Idealism all but incompatible with Christianity.

As Christians, we are taught that it is God that defines man and his or her ideas. Today, modern Idealism elevates mankind, or at least his mind, to the status of god-like. Idealism has shifted to an extreme position: the position that the mind of mankind defines reality. As Christians, we know differently. As Christians, we know that our minds are fallen like the rest of our being. Our thoughts and ideas are tainted with as much sin as the rest of our bodies. Paul, in II Corinthians 10:5, implores us to be wary of even our thoughts as he wrote, "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."

Our thoughts are not God's thoughts, even on a good day. Idealism is really nothing more than a dualistic view of the world with the mind and all cognitive thinking somehow separated from the material and physical world. This separation elevates the mind to a higher status than everything else, therefore, allowing it to define everything else. Yet, there is no explanation on how this division works. The mind is an organ much like the heart; how is it able to define reality while the heart is not?

With a cultural shift towards pragmatism that is practically applied every where we look, Idealism is doomed to be tainted with that same pragmatic brush. As Christians, we cannot define ourselves as Idealists because that is not who we are. We are Christians, and any other label we use to define ourselves would not be appropriate. God created the world in which we live and defined every aspect of it. We, including our thoughts and ideas, are part of that creation, and it is all of creation that is defined by a Holy God.

Can Idealism coexist with Christianity if it takes a back seat to Christianity? I will explore this line of thinking in my next post. Stay tuned...






 

Christian Idealism

As Christians, we tend to be wary of idealistic tendencies because they are rooted in a realm confined to the ideas and ideology of those who do not share our beliefs.

What we fail to realize is that we, too, are idealists who operate according to a set of ideas.

The difference is that, as Christians, the ideas and ideology we believe are not ours but those of a Holy God.

Generally, idealism is the act or practice of envisioning things in an ideal or often impractical form. Idealism holds that reality essentially exists as spirit or consciousness, and that whatever exists is known only in mental dimensions through and/or as ideas. Idealists adhere and act according to their own perceived ideals; in matters of question, idealists tend to default to their own believed ideals rather than reality.

Idealists tend to pick and choose the  ideas and ideals in which they believe, and then they live and act according to these ideas, regardless of who or what they encounter. Ideas of judgement, priority and hierarchy all have tendencies extended from idealism; as Christians, we are not absolved from this extension, but this is where we should part ways with true idealism. Idealists hold their position no matter the situation or consequence because, for them (Idealists), it is the idea that matters.

There are many forms of idealism, but, for this post, I will focus only on epistemological idealism. Epistemological idealism holds that in the knowledge process, the mind has the only ability to understand and grasp objects as they really are (Those things that are true.). Ideas of truth are rooted in spirit and consciousness, and ideas of matter are suspect and not trusted.

There are tendencies in Christian culture that are similar to those found in epistemological idealism. The idea that the mind is paramount in the spiritual growth of faith could be considered a form of epistemological idealism. While most would not outwardly endorse this position (epistemological idealism), actions reveal tendencies that are manifestations of this position.

The belief that some can possess the mind of Christ and be spiritually at a higher level than others; the overt emphasis on the cognitive. The tendency to promote grace as a spiritual panacea absolving one from personal responsibility. Traditions that have become part of faith and worship. There are elements of power, popularity and relevance that take precedent over humility and servant-hood.  The church, in some instances, has evolved to an entity to defend instead of a body which serves. Each is not overtly evil or wrong, but each is an idea that, if pushed to the extreme position and considered in absolutes, could be detrimental.

These tendencies are not confined to anyone or anything; they are examples of extreme positions that connect, in ways, to idealism. German idealism had a huge impact on higher education in the late 20th century, and its influence was so deep and interwoven that some of our default positions in thought are actual extensions from the influence of German idealism.

An extreme approach tends to produce hierarchical forms of action that position one over others. I believe one of the most treacherous of all extremist approaches is the practice of the monopolization of ideas. A church, by its nature, is a bit ego-centric as an organization; it is the commonalities of a particular church that initially attract us to the church. But, after those initial attractions, it is Christ that unites Christians, in all their differences, into one body. It is the body of Christ (the church) that is different than all other bodies; it is the church that takes everyone as they are, with all their differences and idiosyncrasies, and conforms them into one body, a body of that unites in Christ. It is Christ that is our common uniting agent, and it is Christ who holds us as one. Paul reminds us of our difference in Romans 12:4,

"For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function..."

And, the church is a body of different members by design; it is in the church where all members are of equal importance, even in their difference. Paul, again, points this out to us,

"For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. (1 Corinthians 12:14-16)"


This is the major difference between the body of Christ and all other bodies or organizations. In regard to differences, I am not referring to theological or denominational differences as those are doctrinal, but I am referring to ideas of preference presented as if theological (all must agree) or heretical (all must reject).

Jesus gave clear instructions against these tendencies by presenting ideas such as "the first shall be last" and  "love your neighbor as yourself." These two commands intentionally position the follower in positions of the least so as to avoid the temptation of positioning to the ideal or formidable position (the most).

Does our calling as Believers in Christ call us to a particular position? Can a Christian be a idealist? Can an idealist be a true Christian?

I will explore these questions as I explore the interaction of idealism and Christianity in the next post.  

  



  

The Age of Post-Positivistic Bulverism

Welcome to, what I call, the age of Post-Positivistic Bulverism! Let me explain.

You and I are positivists. Yes, its true. You doubt me! Consider this: we have been raised in an age where objective fact and the scientific method rule on high.

In the past, I have found myself taking subjective data and re-orienting it in a way that makes it objective because... well, I am a product of a positivistic age. My assumption was that making the subjective objective would add validity to my theories. While this may help support theoretical issues it does not guarantee truth. What I have discovered is that objective and subjective are two sides of the same coin. Each is equally valid.

But, we are now entering a post-positivist age. There is no longer debate; positivism has won, for now. Modern philosophy empowered science and its methodology in such a way that it is now the undisputed king. We default to the assumption that objective fact equates to absolute truth. But, that just is not true. But, the issue is worse than a positivist dominance as positivism has now matured into a postivistic Bulverism.

What do I mean by Bulverism? C.S. Lewis created this term to describe 20th century thought that began with a false assumption. Lewis stated that Bulverism was the action of addressing an opinion as wrong immediately then pursuing all future thought toward describing why it was wrong without ever discussing whether the opinion was right or wrong. Lewis created a fictitious person to name this after in order to make the point even clearer. Add a Bulveristic ethos to post-positivism and you have our current state... post-positivistic bulverism.

Science rules through objective fact, and anything subjective is immediately dismissed without a thought. All future discussion is spent ridiculing anyone who believes in such nonsense as subjective fact. Sound familiar? Yet, this age of post-positivistic bulverism presents an opportunity as science has advanced beyond its protective covering. There is much in the scientific field that is now subjective and backed by assumptions and speculations with little to no objective factual support.

Listen to any discussion about evolution or about black holes and you will find lots of assumptions and speculation but little objective factual information. Google the topic "black holes," and you will find an article by the folks at NASA telling you there is convincing evidence that black holes exist, but then the next article that pops up is one on Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Her paper offers proof that it is mathematically impossible for black holes to ever form. Read the article HERE.

So, which is it? Do black holes exist, or is it impossible for them to exist? Now, just because Dr. Mersini-Houghton has math on her side does not necessarily mean she is right. The folks at NASA have observed, through the Hubble telescope, evidence that strongly suggests there is a black hole in the middle of the milky way. They have seen, with their own eyes, this truth. Then, there is Dr. Mersini-Houghton; her research suggests that what is being seen through the Hubble is not a black hole at all. How can something that is an impossibility be observed? Here is a fine example of a positivistic paradox: two viable alternatives rooted in two of positivism's most trusted allies: empiricism and quantitative analysis, yet they are at odds with each other.

Which do you believe? Qualitative facts do not lie, or do they? Numbers are only as good as the person using them, and observation is only as good as the observer and the instrument used to observe. But, we have known for quite sometime that evolution and black holes are fact; the debate for both is over, or is it? Both are theories at best, according to the scientific method. Yet, we live in the age of post-positivistic bulverism which takes scientific theories, like these, and makes them true because all discussions on both subjects are no longer regarding their authenticity, but instead, they are only about the foolishness of not believing them.

Many reject Christianity on the same grounds yet there is more proof in support of Christianity than in support of both evolution and black holes. Be wary for any debate on science's most protected theories will start with an attack on you and the foolishness of not believing in such theories, but be patient, courteous and respectful and steer the conversation back to the issue, demand factual information and watch what happens. Remember, you live in the age of Post-Positivistic Bulverism. Happy debating!

  


 

In Christ Alone

For me, this song is one of the finest modern Christian songs out there. The song is incredible, but the real test for me are the words without music. Even without music, they are just as powerful. Read them a few times for yourself and rest... in Christ alone!





 “In Christ Alone” Words and Music by Keith Getty & Stuart Townend



 

In Christ alone my hope is found,
He is my light, my strength, my song;
this Cornerstone, this solid Ground,
firm through the fiercest drought and storm.
What heights of love, what depths of peace,
when fears are stilled, when strivings cease!
My Comforter, my All in All,
here in the love of Christ I stand.

In Christ alone! who took on flesh
Fulness of God in helpless babe!
This gift of love and righteousness
Scorned by the ones he came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied -
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.

There in the ground His body lay
Light of the world by darkness slain:
Then bursting forth in glorious Day
Up from the grave he rose again!
And as He stands in victory
Sin's curse has lost its grip on me,
For I am His and He is mine -
Bought with the precious blood of Christ.

No guilt in life, no fear in death,
This is the power of Christ in me;
From life's first cry to final breath.
Jesus commands my destiny.
No power of hell, no scheme of man,
Can ever pluck me from His hand;
Till He returns or calls me home,
Here in the power of Christ I'll stand.

Comfortably Numb

As I looked at the world around me, a phrase from my high school years came rushing into my mind, the phrase,"comfortably numb."

It is the title of a song from my time in high school, and as titles go, it is tainted with multiple connotations that abound.

Yet, the phrase is too appropriate to pass by at this present time as it applies so well to those of us who reside on this rock speeding around a burning star.

The words mean nothing to some and everything to others. Combined, they form phrase and sentences... some leading to the next sentence and others with seemingly no connection at all. The last stanza reads...

There is no pain you are receding
A distant ship, smoke on the horizon.
You are only coming through in waves.
Your lips move but I can't hear what you're saying.
When I was a child
I caught a fleeting glimpse
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone
I cannot put my finger on it now
The child is grown,
The dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.

What is it to be comfortably numb? To be numb is to be emotionally unresponsive; indifferent. It is to be void of the power to feel or move normally. To be numb is to become paralyzed and unable to move in response to movement because non-movement has become comfort, but to become comfortably numb is another state all together. I am reminded of the frog in the skillet... turn the heat up slowly and the frog will never move, succumbing to death because the frog has become "comfortably numb" with the skillet.

Revelation 3:15 states,  

“I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot; I would that you were cold or hot. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.” (NIV)

I think being comfortably numb is akin to being lukewarm: being neither hot nor cold. Clearly, the scriptures warn against becoming lukewarm. Jesus, himself, teaches against becoming lukewarm in Matthew 12:30,

"Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters." (ESV, NIV)

Defined, a person who is lukewarm is indifferent, apathetic, tepid, unenthusiastic.... has become comfortable with non-movement, has become... comfortably numb.

Why do we seek lukewarmness? I know why I do. I do not want to lose what I have. I want to provide for my family. I do not want to judge. I do not want to be critical. All of these are good reasons, but they have roots in the desire to prosper, and that desire is a misguided desire when it comes to Christ.

John Calvin wrote the following regarding prosperity,

“Prosperity inebriates men, so that they take delights in their own merits.  Nothing is more dangerous than to be blinded by prosperity.”

And, why are we blinded by prosperity? Because we were created to serve and worship one... Jesus Christ. Striving for prosperity is, in essence, worshiping ourselves, at least for me it is.

Tomorrow, I will rise again and prayfully ask for help in my daily fight to avoid becoming "comfortably numb." 

C.S. Lewis

Givers and Getters

Plato wrote,

"There are three classes of men; lovers of wisdom, lovers of honor and lovers of gain."

I think he is right, to a certain extent. In today's culture, the ideas of wisdom and honor have become ambiguous. What is wise to some is not wise to others, and what is honorable in the west is not necessarily honorable elsewhere. But, there are still, and I suspect there will always be, lovers of gain.

If I where to rephrase Plato's quote for current culture, I might state it as follows:

There are two kinds of people... those who are always looking to get something (getters) and those who are always looking to give (givers) something.I suppose I could make the case that getters are those who are lovers of gain, and givers are those who are lovers of honor and wisdom.

I think, to a certain extent, we are all getters and givers. The Christian life, in my opinion, is a continuous struggle to be a giver when our DNA is that of a getter. Those of us who know Jesus Christ as Savior have already begun turning the tide in that struggle. The Holy Spirit has come upon us and started to move the battle forward in our fight against that getter mentality. One day Christ will return, and we will be new creatures with new DNA, but until that day, the battle rages daily. May we be found faithful and fighting.

Grading on the Curve

This morning our pastor (Have I told you how much I love our church?) began his sermon talking about the idea of grading on the curve. Maybe you were one of those curve breakers... you know, scoring nearly perfect on a really hard test and making it impossible for the teacher to curve the test. Or, maybe you were on the other end of the equation.

You left the test depressed, but after talking to a few of your friends, you discovered that they, too, failed the test. Your hopes rise a bit because you discover more people who failed the test. The teacher has to curve it if everyone failed, you think hopefully. You start looking for others in your class... you find a few more, and they, too, failed the test. Your hopes soar. The next day you sit in class blissfully hopeful. You have not talked to anyone who thought they did well on this test. Then, your teachers informs you and the class that two people made a perfect score on the test. Blissful hope suddenly becomes painful reality, and you are now angry at these two people who made a perfect score. How could they do this to me, you think? Why are you angry at them? They met the standard, but you did not. (Story by Dr. Rev. Randy Jenkins of Central Presbyterian Church) 

We all want to be graded on the curve, do we not? Dr. Jenkins began his sermon with Luke 5:1-8,

On one occasion, while the crowd was pressing in on him to hear the word of God, he was standing by the lake of Gennesaret, and he saw two boats by the lake, but the fishermen had gone out of them and were washing their nets. Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon's, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the people from the boat. And when he had finished speaking, he said to Simon, “Put out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” And Simon answered, “Master, we toiled all night and took nothing! But at your word I will let down the nets.” And when they had done this, they enclosed a large number of fish, and their nets were breaking. They signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink. But when Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.” (Luke 5:1-8 ESV)

Here is Peter, my favorite apostle, being who he is. He was confronted with the holiness of God and his response was immediate... complete and utter ruin. He was a sinful man in every way when the standard was the holiness of God,. And, like it or not, that is our standard as Christians... absolute holiness.

We will admit to a love affair with holiness, but do we really love it, or do we like how it looks on others? We love holiness, but as Dr. Rev. Jenkins stated, we tend to love it from afar. From a distance, we can admire it safely and speak highly of it in our own little bubble. We can use it to judge others from the safety of our bubble. And, we love our bubble because we are safe from the world in our bubble, but we also love our bubble because inside our safe and secure bubble we will always be graded on the curve. The curve, after all, makes us part of the standard, and throws out the original standard.  

Peter loved holiness too, but he was not afraid to get close it to it and let it beat him up. He wanted to be holy, even when he went about it in all the wrong ways. He had no interest in being graded on the curve. He wanted more of Christ and more of holiness and was willing to take risks and setbacks to get more. You remember Peter, do you not? He got wet, cut of an ear and denied His Lord three times. But, he was also the apostle on whom Jesus was going to build His church. Peter was not interested in his own safe bubble or the curve; he wanted holiness. His acts, and sometimes I think they were grabs at holiness before the time was right, were desperate and crazy, but they were never ever safe.

Peter knew that he was not the measure of absolute holiness; he loved and believed Jesus and knew that Jesus was. Therefore, he kept trying. He failed and fell only to pick himself up again and again and chase after Jesus. Peter wanted nothing to do with the curve. He knew Jesus was his standard, and Jesus was perfect and complete and absolute holiness. Even at his lowest points, Peter was chasing Christ and wanting more.

What is our standard? Anything other than Christ is wanting to be graded on the curve.  

Hard Truth

Silence is golden, or is it?

Silence is golden; it is better to be unheard than heard. If you have nothing good to say then, say nothing. Is silence the new golden rule? Should we avoid speaking truth? Is it better to just remain silent?

It is a really hard thing to speak the truth. There could be consequences to speaking the truth.

I believe Jack was right, most of us "can't handle the truth!" We do not want to hear the truth because then, we have to do something with it.

The truth will bring you down, and it will almost always be something you just do not want to hear. You know... a habit you have to break, an apology you have to make or sin that must be confessed. The truth will also reveal what we believe to others, and our beliefs could be different. And, that could be... a bit uncomfortable.

I mean, really, who speaks the truth anymore. The news no longer speaks the truth. You can hear the same story from three different perspectives depending on your channel preference. No truth there.

Our politicians no longer tell us the truth. They pass bills without even reading them and tell us how much better off they will make us. They tell the same lie over and over at election time (see my post on coincidence) and... well, you know the story.  Democrat... Republican... it does not matter; they do not even pretend to speak the truth anymore.

I guess it is better if we just remain in the shadows and silent, at least that will keep us out of trouble, right? Well, there is only one minor problem... 

Ephesians 4:25
"Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another."

Do you believe?

Sudden Change

 

This is Pripyat, Ukraine; it has been deserted since the nuclear accident of April, 1986. The entire population was evacuated in two days, and with radiation remaining too high for human habitation people have never returned. It's empty streets and buildings sit as monuments of a once proud city and as reminders to the world on how quickly things can change.

 

Pripyat was found in 1970 as a nuclear city and served as home to those who worked at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The city began as strictly support for the plant, but it quickly grew to become a rail and cargo port for the Ukraine province (it was once part of the Soviet Union). At the time of the disaster, Pripyat was home to almost 50,000 residents. There were 15 primary schools, 5 secondary schools and 1 professional school. The average age of a Pripyat resident in 1986 was just 26 years old, and in one day, everything changed.

 

In the early 90s, I visited Kiev, Ukraine for two weeks in the summer. Pripyat and the Chernobyl disaster were still fresh on the minds and hearts of the people of Kiev. I do not believe many outside of Ukraine know the true account of that day, at least that is my impression from those I encountered in Kiev that summer. 

 

The Ukrainian people are a humble selfless hard-working people. It is very easy to like these people.They are gregarious and so gracious, giving up their beds, tables and even food to a stranger like me. Their country has been conquered and overrun by many over the centuries, therefore, they are familiar with tragedy and heartache. This disaster was just another sudden tragic change that they would have to live through, and they would live through it with a resolution worthy of admiration.

 

As I walked the streets of Kiev that summer, I was amazed at what I saw. Every older Ukrainian face that returned my gaze did so with an unidentifiable ambiguity, at least that is what I thought. They would nod and politely offer a silent guarded hello with their eyes. It was not hostile, but it was not welcoming either; it was... suspicious. As each face looked back at me, each was missing something, something I could not quite comprehend. 

 

I ended up becoming fairly good friends with two of our translators who responded to my question late one night. What I was missed noticing were the missing smile lines. Ukrainians, they explained to me, at least the older generations, did not have smile lines because, quite simply, their lives have been filled with heartache and sadness.They are a guarded people who have been betrayed many times by others. And, now Chernobyl sits as a reminder of another betrayal, and how quickly sudden change can come to something that was to bring such prosperity. Ukrainians are not use to prosperity; they are almost afraid of it because prosperity has always been fleeting to the Ukrainian people.

My two friends spoke that night about the young Ukrainians and a new generation. Both of my friends had smile lines and smiles to go with those lines, and the main reason those smiles were producing those smile lines... both of them knew Jesus as Savior and Lord. I was young in the faith at that time, and their testimony was a testimony to me. They had given their time, given up their home, their food and their things for me and my comfort. They had so little, but, yet, they had so much. They knew Jesus in a way that I had not seen, and their lives were spent living for Him and not for this world. The world and its troubles did not trouble them. They had little compared to me, but that did not matter to them because they had Jesus, and He was their world.

 

This past Sunday, I heard a wonderful sermon regarding God and his omnipresence. He is far and near, all at the same time. He knows you and your secrets as if they are all out in open. In Amos 5, God commands us to seek good and not evil that we may live. We live, not for what is here now, but for what awaits us in heaven. We live, not for the applause of men, but for the approval of our Savior. We live, believing that God is at work, even in Pripyat; it is all part of His amazing plan. He is our trust, our beliefs, our friend, our Savior and our all; when sudden change comes, as it always will, those who know the Savior will rest in the Savior and persevere for one reason... they will live for Him and not for men.

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Constitution and Christianity

I just read another article about another school district cleansing all references to Christianity from its schools, and the reason given was to come into alignment with the constitution. This brings forth the following question: what does the constitution actually say about Christianity?

Before answering this question, it will be helpful to break down the constitution and its sections.

The Preamble begins the constitution and is, perhaps, the most famous section. It is one sentence and sets the precedent for future generations. The opening phrase, "we the people" is perhaps the most important and famous phrase in the entire elongated sentence as it establishes the motivation and the purpose of the constitution. This was a country created for the people.

Following the Preamble are the seven original articles of the constitution. These seven articles, intact from their original draft of 1787, prescribe the supreme law of the country and set up the government as it is to be executed. These seven articles establish the three branches of government and their respective powers, and most importantly, they also set up a system of checks and balances to keep each branch from gaining a supreme advantage over the other. To read both the Preamble and the articles click HERE.

Following the articles are the amendments of the constitution. Article five established the means of amending the constitution. The first ten amendments are known as the bill of rights. Amendments, per article five, must first be proposed by a two thirds vote by congress and then approved by a two thirds vote of the states. Interestingly, the states, by that same two thirds vote, can propose an amendment as well. To read the amendments to the constitution, click HERE.

That is a lose description of our constitution which will suffice to answer our original question concerning the constitution and Christianity. Neither the preamble nor the seven articles refer to Christianity; as a matter of fact, religion, itself, is not addressed at all in either section. Religion is first addressed in the first amendment of the constitution which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Christianity is not specifically addressed by the constitution, but it is also no rejected by it either. Amendment one is used as justification for removing all references remotely Christian from public display in schools and other public venues. Public displays and references to Christianity are attacked and banned in the name of the first amendment, but let me suggest that this action is not only wrong but also unconstitutional. My reason is based on this very amendment and contained completely inside the constitution, unlike those attacking Christianity.

Remember, those that are attacking Christianity are doing so through the first amendment with assistance from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Union in response to their concern about a country-wide religion. Their concern was that this new country, the United States, would follow the path of England and create a state-wide religion, i.e., the Church of England. Jefferson wrote his letter to assure them that there would be no such creation, and in that response, he inserted the phrase, "the separation of church and state," which has been used in conjunction with the first amendment to slowly purge Christianity from all public schools and venues.

I would propose that as long as there is no established law that states that the ten commandments must be on the wall of every school, that prayer must be part of every opening assembly and that Christianity is the national religion... then the ten commandments, bible verses and Christian prayer are all permissible through the first amendment of the constitution. And, here is why I can say that: to propose that those things are illegal is to violate the first amendment of the constitution because it is, in essence, establishing a national religion.

It is establishing a religious standard that all must follow which is, by the very wording of the first amendment, making a law respecting "an establishment of religion."  The conjunction "or" is an important word in this phrase as it links back to the word "law." The first amendment is clear: Congress shall make no law that either establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise of one. It is not one or the other but both. Congress shall make no law that establishes a religion or prohibits the free exercise of religion. It is a brilliant amendment because to establish a religion prohibits the free exercise of other religions, and to prohibit the free exercise of religion is, in essence, establishing a religion.

Some would argue that removing Christianity is just ensuring and establishing religious neutrality, and not establishing a religion at all. I would argue that there is no such thing as religious neutrality, first, and second, it is still prohibiting the free exercise of religion. I would base my arguments on several issues.

First, everyone has a worldview. No one looks at the world through a neutral lens. Even those who claim to believe that there is no God are still viewing the world through their worldview - atheism. By definition, atheism is a religious process. It is a world view and a belief by which one lives, and therefore, it is a religious practice that should not get preferential treatment over other worldviews, as established by the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States. One can be an atheist, but one can not assert that view over all other views. Removing a view that opposes that view is clearly an assertion in direct violation of the first amendment. It is establishing a religious preference to which all must submit.

Second, when those opposed to Christianity push legislation directly opposed to Christianity and its tenets they are, in essence, in violation of the first amendment by prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Establishing a federal law or even a federal mandate prohibiting Christianity is abridging the freedom of Christians in this country, and forcing those Christians to submit to law in violation of their religion. Many will argue that Christianity is not be banned, but instead, some of its tenets are banned in order to ensure that it will not become the established religion of the country. This will not work because when you ban one tenet of Christianity, prayer, for example, in response to another religion, atheism, the banning of that one tenet is asserting the other tenet of that other religion as the religion of the land and, in essence, establishing a national religion. I would posit that atheism is the only religious view in this country protected by legislation and enforced by the federal government. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise.

Whether you are a Christian, an Atheist, a Mormon, a Muslim, Jewish or any other religious affiliation you should be concerned with this attack on Christianity for one simple reason... it opens the door for a future attack on you. If the federal government is permitted to establish a litmus test in order to create a peremptory religious condition then all religions are in danger. The one thing we do know is that history is never static, and change... comes quickly.
 

What seems right...

What seems right... may not be right at all. This is one of the harder lessons I seem to have to learn over and over. It is a paradox of sorts as what seems right, according to me, is often wrong, but it is often wrong only when it is only according to me. Confused? What I see is tainted by what I believe, and what I believe is, not matter how hard I try to avoid this, tainted by what I see, especially when I see only with my own senses.

We need sonar to see underwater, telescopes to see the sky and microscopes to see the microscopic world and, yet, we continue to rest on our own senses when it comes to interpretation of  the spiritual world. Everyone is spiritual no matter their worldview or belief system. Why can we not see that our view of the spiritual world is tainted by what we believe to be true, which, in turn, is tainted by what we experience?

Why do we deny this truth? We do so because we live in a world that has fallen victim to the influence of the positivist revolution initiated by Descartes and his Cogito. Descartes ushered philosophy into the modern era by insisting that our existence is confirmed by our ability to think. This is a much more complex discourse than this initial idea, but for our purposes today, this initial idea will suffice. This idea, through several stages, moved thought and ideas toward the positivist side of the equation, reducing everything to the objective and the empirical. If you can't measure it, observe it or experience it, then, for all intensive purposes, it is not real or true. The scientific method became the standard for excellence and truth, and all things subjective were reduced to insignificance.

Excellence, defined as that which can be measured, is one of the pillars of positivistism. As a professor said to me recently in jest, "If you can't measure it, it is art." Humor is humor because it is mostly true, and this statement, said in jest, best summarizes current prevailing thought. As Christians, we must reject this polarized objective view because, if allowed to exist autonomously, it will destroy everything we believe in slow subtle ways until we have nothing left. We must understand and embrace the subjective as well as the objective because the world in which we live, is temporal and, in many ways, subjective, especially the world that scripture references. Our faith depends upon our belief in fundamental truths that will never be objective, measurable or experienced in this world. Our faith and corresponding belief is the bridge from this world to the next. Reducing everything to objective truth dependent upon our senses for validity equates to blowing up that bridge and planting ourselves firmly in this world with no thought or hope of the next.

We believe we are created beings living in a world that was created by a Holy God who sent His Son to save us when we were still sinners. A Son, who came, and saw us, not as we were, but as we will be in glory. He ministered to us despite who we were and how we treated Him. He subjected Himself to the cross because of His love and His mercy and not because of anything we did for Him or for ourselves. Polarized objective positivism reduces everyone to little gods who require service to them. Jesus did not come to be served but to serve, and give His life as a ransom for many. Paul writes, to the Colossians, about this truth in a powerful passage regarding the preeminence of Jesus Christ.

    He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Colossians 1:15-20 ESV)

Jesus Christ is our motivation and our reason for being. What I experience and observe seems right, but in most cases, when I examine it, in light of scripture, I find it is anything but right. Whether you are a Christian or not matters little inside this idea as some are now coming to the realization that subjective truth is just as valid as objective truth. Truth is no longer only defined by objective quantitative statistical analysis; qualitative subjective analysis is becoming accepted and valid in analysis and research.

I leave you with this warning from scripture, "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death" (Proverbs 14:12 ESV). The implication is that we all walk according to what we believe, so, we better do all that we can to ensure that what we believe is moving us towards truth and not away from it. Today, the dominant belief is that the life we live on this planet in this time and space is the only life we will live. A growing majority believe this and live accordingly, which begs the question: shouldn't it now be easier to stand out as Christians?

There lies the problem: if those of us who believe in life everlasting live in the same way as those who do not; we will not stand out, but instead, we will blend and assimilate. Living this way in Christ is, in many of the same ways,  living according to what seems right, and we already know what scriptures says about that. Living a pragmatic segmented life, Christian or not, leads to the same product; a life marked by individuality, selfishness, division and pain. Love, selflessness, service and humility all disappear. Which set of character traits seem right to you? It will depend on which world holds your hope. 

B. C. by Johnny Hart

Situational faith!