I just watched the Bill Maher documentary Religulous. I know, two anti-religious documentaries in one week. But have no fear, they haven't converted me. I just find them really interesting. Religulous was a lot better than the other one--much more well done, funnier, and it just made more sense. Rather than trying to prove that religion was all false, Maher just went off the basis of his perspective, that it was false already, and just set out to show how ridiculous (and dangerous) it all is. In the end, he basically concluded that all religions are dangerous and are going to bring about the end of the world all their prophecies looked forward to themselves, rather than God bringing them about in His wrath and judgment. Of course, Maher interviewed all the real crazies of the religions. Many of the Christians he interviewed I found myself disagreeing with. It made me wish that Bill Maher would have interviewed me, so I could tell him how it REALLY is. Hah. It did make me wonder though, because I'm sure he did have some interviews with really rationally-thinking Christians that made sense, but that wouldn't fit into the theme of their documentary, so obviously they couldn't make the cut.
One thing that I did like was that in the end, Maher said that the best "religion" that he had found was that of doubt. There's no way any of us can know everything for certain or have a certain claim on the truth, so why bother. It's a much more humbling standpoint than all that religious rhetoric. While I do think that we do possess a unique angle on the truth because of God's special revelation to us through Scripture, I'm in favor of this attitude. Why do we NEED to know exactly how things are going to play out when Jesus comes back? Why do we NEED to know exactly what happened in Genesis? These are the things that we argue over the most (and make us look the dumbest to the world when we do), yet these things are not essential to our faith.
After the Reformation, the Church was split apart into literally hundreds of different denominations/sects/claims to truth. People were arguing over so many minute details of theology and Scripture interpretation and religious practices that it was pure chaos. So a bunch of important guys got together and came up with a new concept. It was called adiaphora, a Greek word that literally means "non-essential." This was the category that they put everything that they argued about that was not essential to the Christian faith. It made room for disagreement, doubt, and unity within the Church. It made it so that it's OKAY to not know everything for certain. And it has to be that way if the Church is ever going to achieve any kind of unity.
One of my favorite things that my dear friend Joel Reichenbach ever said to me, when we were talking about teaching, was, "I don't want everyone to agree with me, I don't want everyone to agree with one certain denomination, I just want everyone to be as confused as I am!" Confusion is okay. We don't have to have the answers to everything, or know exactly how everything is supposed to be. Bill Maher is right, saying "I don't know" is a very humbling thing. Maybe we need a bit more of that. Maybe the world would take us more seriously if we started being more real with ourselves and with our beliefs.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
The God Who Wasn't There, and Moderation
I just finished watching the documentary The God Who Wasn't There, a film intended to disprove that Jesus really existed and to basically say that modern Christianity is silly. I didn't think that the film did a very good job of actually disproving Jesus' existence. In fact, it spent much more time examining modern Christianity than its historical foundations. Most of the project seemed like a vendetta of the director, a former fundamentalist, against the silliness of the religion that had oppressed him for so long. Nearly every time Scripture was quoted, it was taken out of context or quoted from a bad translation. I didn't think it was very intellectually honest with itself, or objective. The guy who did this went out with a mission to make Christianity look stupid. And i'm sure lots of people will believe him.
The film also took great advantage of interviews with Sam Harris, the champion of atheist antagonism. Harris has written two books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both best-sellers. Harris is very intolerant against all religion, particualarly Christianity and Islam, which he sees as the two most dangerous paradigms for modern society. I haven't read his books, but i've read excerpts, and although i think Harris is more intellectually honest than this film was, he still seems to have a predetermined antagonism in his work that hinders historical and religious objectivity.
Aside from that, there were actually some good points made in the film. One of the best ones (i thought) was that moderate Christianity makes no sense. This came up while they were on the issue of Christians and homosexuality. Because the Bible says (somewhere in Leviticus) that homosexuals should be put to death, these extremist Christians were actually right in hating homosexuals. According to the film, moderate Christians know about what the Bible tells them, but decide that that's too radical for them. So moderate Christianity makes no sense, because it says that it believes the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but then doesn't obey it. I'm actually in complete agreement with this, but from a different perspective. Moderate Christianity makes no sense. It says one thing and believes something different. It is in conflict with itself, a house divided, and it will eventually fall. From a New Covenant standpoint, in which the message of the love and forgiveness and the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is central, it is understood that Jesus is the only one with the right to judgment. I believe that, as Christians, our place is not to judge but to show love to our neighbors AND enemies, even those who are labeled as "sinners." If we are following the example of Jesus, at least, this should be our aim. But the issue of homosexuality is not the main point. When Christians read the words of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, whose teachings and actions are the foundations of our faith, and we ignore them, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! When we do that, we are contradicting ourselves.
When we read, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44), but continue to throw stones and protest funerals, we are contradicting ourselves!
When we read that Jesus judges our eternal salvation partly on how well we clothe the naked, feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit those in prison (Matt. 25: 31-46), and we continue to rest in our own comfortableness, we are contradicting ourselves!!
When we read Jesus' words saying, ""If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), and we by-pass that verse because it makes us uncomfortable to think about it, then we are contradicting ourselves!
I could go on. But the point is, for us to be true disciples, we must embrace the whole truth of the Gospel, truly seek the Kingdom of God with all our heart, and learn to love the people that God has called us to. If we do not do this, whether out of fear or complacency or discomfort, then we contradict our own talk, and we will fail. Moderate Christianity makes no sense. If we do not act on what we believe, then do we really believe it?
The film also took great advantage of interviews with Sam Harris, the champion of atheist antagonism. Harris has written two books, The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, both best-sellers. Harris is very intolerant against all religion, particualarly Christianity and Islam, which he sees as the two most dangerous paradigms for modern society. I haven't read his books, but i've read excerpts, and although i think Harris is more intellectually honest than this film was, he still seems to have a predetermined antagonism in his work that hinders historical and religious objectivity.
Aside from that, there were actually some good points made in the film. One of the best ones (i thought) was that moderate Christianity makes no sense. This came up while they were on the issue of Christians and homosexuality. Because the Bible says (somewhere in Leviticus) that homosexuals should be put to death, these extremist Christians were actually right in hating homosexuals. According to the film, moderate Christians know about what the Bible tells them, but decide that that's too radical for them. So moderate Christianity makes no sense, because it says that it believes the Bible is the infallible Word of God, but then doesn't obey it. I'm actually in complete agreement with this, but from a different perspective. Moderate Christianity makes no sense. It says one thing and believes something different. It is in conflict with itself, a house divided, and it will eventually fall. From a New Covenant standpoint, in which the message of the love and forgiveness and the Kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus is central, it is understood that Jesus is the only one with the right to judgment. I believe that, as Christians, our place is not to judge but to show love to our neighbors AND enemies, even those who are labeled as "sinners." If we are following the example of Jesus, at least, this should be our aim. But the issue of homosexuality is not the main point. When Christians read the words of Jesus, our Lord and Savior, whose teachings and actions are the foundations of our faith, and we ignore them, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE! When we do that, we are contradicting ourselves.
When we read, "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:44), but continue to throw stones and protest funerals, we are contradicting ourselves!
When we read that Jesus judges our eternal salvation partly on how well we clothe the naked, feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit those in prison (Matt. 25: 31-46), and we continue to rest in our own comfortableness, we are contradicting ourselves!!
When we read Jesus' words saying, ""If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26), and we by-pass that verse because it makes us uncomfortable to think about it, then we are contradicting ourselves!
I could go on. But the point is, for us to be true disciples, we must embrace the whole truth of the Gospel, truly seek the Kingdom of God with all our heart, and learn to love the people that God has called us to. If we do not do this, whether out of fear or complacency or discomfort, then we contradict our own talk, and we will fail. Moderate Christianity makes no sense. If we do not act on what we believe, then do we really believe it?
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Hunger
The U.N. just reported that the number of people suffering from hunger in the world surpassed 1 billion this year. Most are in Africa or Asia, but no country is unaffected. That is absolutely shocking to me. That's 1 in 6 people throughout the entire world!
I just read that in the paper while i was eating my yogurt, shortly after having consumed three hot dogs. Not that i should be guilted in to feeling bad about how well i eat (well, with three hot dogs, maybe i should), but it just makes me think that, as the Church, what are we doing? If we are to carry out and continue Jesus' mission in the world, the mission that He stated in Luke 4, where He came to preach good news to the poor, to bring freedom to prisoners, and release the oppressed, then we should be doing the same! If Jesus called us to feed the hungry, as He did in Matthew 25, why do we not take that seriously? It's obvious in reading the Old and New Testaments that God has a heart for the poor and the oppressed. If we do not have the same kind of heart, what kind of followers are we?
What are we doing, Church?
I just read that in the paper while i was eating my yogurt, shortly after having consumed three hot dogs. Not that i should be guilted in to feeling bad about how well i eat (well, with three hot dogs, maybe i should), but it just makes me think that, as the Church, what are we doing? If we are to carry out and continue Jesus' mission in the world, the mission that He stated in Luke 4, where He came to preach good news to the poor, to bring freedom to prisoners, and release the oppressed, then we should be doing the same! If Jesus called us to feed the hungry, as He did in Matthew 25, why do we not take that seriously? It's obvious in reading the Old and New Testaments that God has a heart for the poor and the oppressed. If we do not have the same kind of heart, what kind of followers are we?
What are we doing, Church?
Thursday, June 18, 2009
For Sarah
Since Ms. Newkirk complained that i don't blog regularly enough, here is a new post.
Actually, her complaint got me thinking. Why do i blog? Because in all reality, i know that not many people read this, and blogging is definitely not the best form of ministry i could be practicing on a regular basis. Blogging is a really popular thing right now, and i think it's a place where a lot of talking is done, but nothing actually gets done. We can discuss and argue and debate over issues, but what is that doing to accomplish the work of the Kingdom of God in the world? I think it definitely can have its good effects, but seriously? Is blogging just an outlet for my own narcissism, in order for people to read my stuff and know how wise and spiritual i am? maybe sometimes. that's why i'm so hesitant about Twitter. I'm tempted to join sometimes, but part of it just feels like pure narcissism wrapped up in less than 140 characters.
but in all honesty, i really do think my main motives are for good, and for good outside myself. i want to bless others with what God has blessed me. I want to teach people. I think the Lord has called me to be a teacher of His Word in some form, and since i don't really have an outlet for teaching at the moment, this is a good place. Even if one person is blessed by it, then it's worth it, isn't it? Ironically, i blogged about this a long time ago, back when i first started this blog. Jesus has called me to proclaim that which He is teaching me, and i want to be obedient to that, whatever form it may take.
So maybe i'll keep trying for now. Not just for Sarah (not that i'm not annoyed by your complaining!), not for me, but for the sake of God's people and being faithful to the calling that the Lord has placed on my life.
Actually, her complaint got me thinking. Why do i blog? Because in all reality, i know that not many people read this, and blogging is definitely not the best form of ministry i could be practicing on a regular basis. Blogging is a really popular thing right now, and i think it's a place where a lot of talking is done, but nothing actually gets done. We can discuss and argue and debate over issues, but what is that doing to accomplish the work of the Kingdom of God in the world? I think it definitely can have its good effects, but seriously? Is blogging just an outlet for my own narcissism, in order for people to read my stuff and know how wise and spiritual i am? maybe sometimes. that's why i'm so hesitant about Twitter. I'm tempted to join sometimes, but part of it just feels like pure narcissism wrapped up in less than 140 characters.
but in all honesty, i really do think my main motives are for good, and for good outside myself. i want to bless others with what God has blessed me. I want to teach people. I think the Lord has called me to be a teacher of His Word in some form, and since i don't really have an outlet for teaching at the moment, this is a good place. Even if one person is blessed by it, then it's worth it, isn't it? Ironically, i blogged about this a long time ago, back when i first started this blog. Jesus has called me to proclaim that which He is teaching me, and i want to be obedient to that, whatever form it may take.
So maybe i'll keep trying for now. Not just for Sarah (not that i'm not annoyed by your complaining!), not for me, but for the sake of God's people and being faithful to the calling that the Lord has placed on my life.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Sex and Humanity
Sex is (for obvious reasons) a very interesting topic. It's so interesting to me to observe the attitudes about sex in our popular culture, and especially within Christianity. We have moved from the Victorian-era taboo attitude towards sex, where talking about it is socially forbidden, to the post-sexual revolution, where sex is very casual and not really a big deal to most people anymore. Many Christians in this generation have turned sex into a big deal again, but in a good way. We are led by the Mark Driscoll's, who's favorite book in the Bible is Song of Solomon, and preach more about sex than most other topics relevant to Christianity. Christians have begun to embrace sex as something God-given and awesome, and propagate it as the highest form of physical intimacy that borders on the spiritual experience.
I think sex is definitely a God-given thing for us to experience pleasure, but I think the pendulum of sexual attitudes has swung all the way to the other extreme of exalting sex too much. This has been a topic talked about in several blogs that I read recently. One great point that was made was that, if we Christians look to Jesus as the archetype of all that it means to be human, then sexuality can tell us nothing about what it truly means to be human, because Jesus was never married or had sex. Sexuality can't be the ultimate human experience, because Christ, the ultimate human, never experienced it. I think that's part of the reason why so many Christians have the attitude towards marriage as bringing completeness in someone's life. Marriage and sex have been so over-theologized that if someone is still single past the expected time when they should be married, then they have not experienced fulfillment as a human being and are somehow not following God's will. Because of course, it is God's will that everyone should be married and have 3 kids and a white picket fence.
I can know the full reality of being human without ever having sex. Because Christ, my ultimate example in EVERYTHING, is the full reality of being human. Frankly, sex and marriage are not necessary to being human. This is not to discount that they are, in fact, gifts from God. There's no doubt in my mind that they are good within their God-given context, but we've just over-glorified and over-spiritualized them.
Humanity has tried making sex taboo, and we've tried glorifying sex, and neither really works. Can't sex just be something ordinary? Why does it have to be something that we haggle over whether it is good or bad, or appropriate to talk about in Church? We just need to get back to the focus of making Christ our ultimate goal, and let everything else fall into place after that.
I think sex is definitely a God-given thing for us to experience pleasure, but I think the pendulum of sexual attitudes has swung all the way to the other extreme of exalting sex too much. This has been a topic talked about in several blogs that I read recently. One great point that was made was that, if we Christians look to Jesus as the archetype of all that it means to be human, then sexuality can tell us nothing about what it truly means to be human, because Jesus was never married or had sex. Sexuality can't be the ultimate human experience, because Christ, the ultimate human, never experienced it. I think that's part of the reason why so many Christians have the attitude towards marriage as bringing completeness in someone's life. Marriage and sex have been so over-theologized that if someone is still single past the expected time when they should be married, then they have not experienced fulfillment as a human being and are somehow not following God's will. Because of course, it is God's will that everyone should be married and have 3 kids and a white picket fence.
I can know the full reality of being human without ever having sex. Because Christ, my ultimate example in EVERYTHING, is the full reality of being human. Frankly, sex and marriage are not necessary to being human. This is not to discount that they are, in fact, gifts from God. There's no doubt in my mind that they are good within their God-given context, but we've just over-glorified and over-spiritualized them.
Humanity has tried making sex taboo, and we've tried glorifying sex, and neither really works. Can't sex just be something ordinary? Why does it have to be something that we haggle over whether it is good or bad, or appropriate to talk about in Church? We just need to get back to the focus of making Christ our ultimate goal, and let everything else fall into place after that.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)