caught somewhere between real life, simple faith, & raw emotion
Touchy Subjects
Good Without God?
013 years
See this ad? What do you think? It’s from an atheist group called Central Arkansas Coalition of Reason (Central Arkansas CoR), which is affiliated with the national group UnitedCoR, and they want to run a slew of ads like this in the public transit in Arkansas.
But their request and ads have been rejected.
My main problem with atheism is that it most often the tactics are destructive and condescending. So often it seeks to destroy faith through mocking and ridicule. It is even an encouraged tactic by people like Dawkins and Hitchens. Although atheists claim to be guided by reason above all, there is usually not a reasoned approach when engaging the community of belief. No, the free exchange of opposing ideas between equals is no where to be found. The ‘Socratic Method’ dies to immature personal attacks, because people of faith do not deserve such respect.
That being said, this ad doesn’t bother me. In fact, I think it’s a fair and reasonable way to make the point. If I was driving by a bus with this on the side and one of by kids asked, “What does that mean?” I could engage it and present the opposing view to them with respect, since it is presented intelligently–and not as an attack ad.
So why has CoR’s ad campaign been rejected by the transit authority? Allegedly because the state requires $30,000 in insurance from the atheist group due to expected vandalism from such an ad.
Whatever the case, I am all for conversations, so to speak, framed like this.
And by the way, I’m good with God.
>>>
The Idiot Genius Contradiction
013 years
In my life I have had many conversations with people who don’t believe in God. Believe it or not, I welcome them. This does not scare me. This does not intimidate me. These are some of the most important conversations I’ll have. Christians need to be skilled in these subjects and not view them as a threat. In my conversations, I frequently run into what I call:
The Idiot Genius Contradiction.
In my observation, this is a major pillar of atheists and agnostics contention to Christianity. And in order to accept it, you must accept two contradictory theories at the same time and believe them both simultaneously. Although they should largely negate each other (if we are ‘intellectually honest’), somehow they survive each other, together.
The contradiction is this:
Christianity (and Judaism to a lesser degree) is built on the brilliantly maniacal manipulative writings of an elite group of people (i.e., the Bible). This group has been able to translate, re-translate, craft, and re-craft the Bible in a way that has enabled them to control the masses, proliferate their religion throughout the centuries, and maintain their own positions of power. With it and through it they prey on fears, promise rewards, and punish disobedience.
And at the same time…
Somehow this elite group was not smart enough to make God perfect, his followers flawless, and his will universal and clear as the Caribbean waters in those same writings. Obviously, this would require no apologies and phony justifications while helping the elite ensure more power, influence, and amass more money. Instead, in the Bible, they make much of alleging God (and often his followers) as an ethical tyrant, moral monster, racial hatemonger, oppressive master, violent father, indifferent to suffering, and permissive of evil. But somehow we were all tricked into following this God while reading all of this.
In short, this elite crowd was not smart enough to frame a God that didn’t seem bi-polar and is at least good, yet somehow invented the most successful religion (Christianity) ever. It’s very similar to the 9/11 conspiracy theories: somehow President Bush was an evil genius that destroyed the Word Trade Center to line his (and his cohorts) pockets by starting a war for oil without leaving a hint of evidence–but was also the biggest bumbling idiot at the same time.
That’s the Idiot Genius Contradiction. So the Bible is brilliant and stupid all at once. Somehow both are true.
Got it? I just think it’s an interesting part of the conversations about God that we should be aware of, since it often comes up.
>>>
How Could A Loving God Create Hell?
013 years
Hell again? Yes, I find these questions fascinating. LIke when I discussed how a person ends up in Hell. Or when I dissected Rob Bell’s answer to this in his book Love Wins. So today, here is the big question:
How could a loving God create Hell? That’s the real question.
Often we are tempted to invent some type of safety-net view of eternity, because we are uncomfortable with the idea of Hell.
As brutal as the idea of hell is, it makes sense to me that decisions we make in this life would affect the afterlife. Evil needs to be dealt with. I think everyone would agree with that. But for some reason, there’s a departure from this rationale when we add the afterlife element. We don’t want it to be true in respect to that.
It’s as if we want to be able to live by our own standards and invent our own senses of morality, but we also want everyone to be rewarded in the end. Like when every kid on every soccer team these days gets a trophy, even the kids that finish in last place. No one’s better than anyone else, and no one’s s right. Everyone’s good in his or her own right. But that just doesn’t make sense to me.
Hell makes sense.
Should a Mother Teresa be rewarded along with a Hitler just because they both lived sincerely in accordance with their own heartfelt convictions? I can’t accept that premise. There must be some standard to figure out and enlighten ourselves with—if there’s a God.
Otherwise, God is a liar.
If God is real, how could he be content with a moral vacuum? I’m not. That’s why I hate it when true justice doesn’t play out in our legal system. But for some reason, I still have a problem accepting the next logical conclusion—that there might be true justice applied in the afterlife.
I certainly don’t have a problem accepting the idea that people might be rewarded in the afterlife for the good they did on earth. And when it comes to the idea of retribution in the afterlife for wrongdoing, maybe my only reason for squeamishness is selfish. I don’t want to get in trouble for the wrong I’ve done, so to let myself off the hook, I let everyone off. Everybody gets a trophy!
It’s a paradox. Though I can accept the principle of reciprocity, I still want to blame God for carrying it out, as if he’s some sort of savage for actually adhering to the principle I want him to stick to.
Isn’t that the most loving thing to do?
>>>
Atheism And Marxism Are Strange Bedfellows
013 years
I probably am going to step in it, but I wanted to make another observation from my conversations with atheists. Now I know they have plenty to say about us. That’s fine. Christians drive me nuts too. Before I get into it I also want to remind people to join my cause by praying for Christopher Hitchens in his battle with cancer. Please spread it around by copying this and posting it to your social media status: PRAY for ATHEIST Christopher HITCHENS #PrayForHitchens. And here’s why>>> http://bit.ly/hIdSco
Anyway, back to my point today and it has to do with beliefs and worldview…
It seems to me that most atheists I’ve had run-ins with are Marxists in regards to their social/political philosophy (most are Socialists and a few admit to being Communists). Have you noticed this?
Respectfully, I find this somewhat inconsistent and even humorous. It is a true lapse of the ‘unwavering’ logic they profess. I’m just sayin’. Why not have the integrity or decency to be anarchists at best (the only ‘survival of the fittest’ social/political philosophy) or Libertarians at worst (the only amoral one).
Atheists are so often averse and upset about the influence of religion on society and its ‘oppressive’ morality, which I certainly understand.
Their perfect, reasoned, and logical solution?
To revert to another form of moralism. They seek to employ all the authoritarianism of a theocracy, minus the God part.
Just a curios observation.
>>>
Atheism And Contradictions
213 years
This is not meant to be adversarial in any way. It is just an observation I have made in life.
One common argument (as I have noticed) from atheists against Christianity is all the differences. That is, they dispute Christianity because there are so many variations of it (with the denominations, non-denominations, and cults, to a lesser degree). In essence, Christianity (and Christians) can’t agree with itself, so it must be false.
Have you head that one?
It’s a fair point, until you start thinking it through a little. The logic is: because there are varying viewpoints on a particular subject (the result of free will, mind you) then none can be correct or worth considering.
Make sense? Not really.
Bring that into a marriage or friendship and see where that gets you. Not to mention, this isn’t exactly a fair point to make at all.
Atheists only have to agree on ONE THING: there is no God.
In the inverse, Christians unanimously agree on this point (that there is a God). And they agree on the most important element of Christianity: Jesus.
Beyond that, there can be no more comparing, since we have doctrine, principles, and lessons to learn from and interpret. If atheists had the same to consider they would obviously find themselves in the same predicament.
Just a thought.
PS-Please join my cause. Past this in you social media status: PRAY for ATHEIST Christopher HITCHENS #PrayForHitchens. And here’s why>>> http://bit.ly/hIdSco
>>>
Heaven, Hell, And How Do You Get There?
113 years
If you believe in the idea of Heaven or Hell in the Christian context, you probably have one of two views on how a person ends up at one or the other. If you don’t believe this, you might want to go back to checking your email or something. It’s been an interesting week for me. Following my review of Love Wins by Rob Bell titled Love Wins, Christianity Loses, and God Lies, I have been inundated by many messages. So I thought it’d be good to drill down on these issues a bit more.
With regard to Heaven, you probably either believe that everyone is in unless they opt-out…
-or-
…everyone is out unless they opt-in.
Before I explain what I mean, let’s talk about how this all plays out. The Bible ends in the book of Revelation with Jesus handing out final judgments for all of creation. Meanwhile, the devil, his fallen angels, and anyone whose name isn’t found in “the book of life” are thrown into “a lake of fire.” Some refer to this as the Judgment Day, a term that conjures up a host of emotions. (Don’t you hate talking this stuff? Awkward!)
We are also given an extraordinary picture of Heaven. It shows God living permanently among his people. There’s no evil, no temptation, no night. There are no more tears. There’s no more death, no more pain. No one will ever be thirsty. No one will ever be hungry. Everything’s bright, lighted, brilliant. Precious gems and metals are everywhere. Oceans and rivers are crystal clear to the very bottom. What’s rare on this earth is in abundance in Heaven.
Of course, we all want to get there. So how do we do it?
The secret is to have your name recorded in the “book of life.”
And how does that happen? That’s the key here. I think the answer is found in several passages in the Bible. I’ll name just one. You probably know it well: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:16-17) If that concept’s uncomfortable, don’t get mad at me. I’m just the messenger. You’ll have to take it up with the one who’s quoted as saying this—Jesus. That is, if you believe in such things.
So with regard to Heaven, is it that everyone is in unless they opt-out or everyone is out unless they opt-in?
I believe there are different measures of Hell in the same way there will be different levels of reward in Heaven. So perhaps these one word descriptions that only communicate monolithic extremes are somewhat lacking. But that’s not what I’m talking about.
What I’m talking about is how do we end up in the “inner court”–that place where we are with God all the time?
Is it that if we accept and believe in Jesus we are in? Or is it that everyone is in unless they have outrightly rejected Jesus? In other words, if a person never follows Jesus, never believes in and accepts him (as the risen son of God), but never outrightly rejects him either, will they be allowed in that “inner court”?
This is a question I often think about. And if you would like to read my detailed analysis of Hell, please download the chapter of Hell from my book for FREE here.
Either way, with Heaven in the balance, Hell does what it’s supposed to. It causes me to take stock of my life, examine who I am, challenge what I’m doing, and question why I’m here.
>>>
Quote Of The Week On Christianity From Atheist Christopher Hitchens
013 years
“I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.”
-This is from notorious atheist Christopher Hitchens. Talk about nailing it. By the way please copy and past this in your social media status: Pray For atheist CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS #PrayForHitchensHere’s why>>> http://bit.ly/hIdSco
Love Wins, Christianity Loses, and God Lies – A Review of Rob Bell’s Book
3913 years
Love Wins is “A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived” by Rob Bell. This is important stuff for sure, which is why I tackle it in my book, 10 Things I Hate About Christianity: Working Through the Frustrations of Faith, as well. So I come to this review with some knowledge on the subject. If you’re interested on a comparison you can download my chapter on Hell here for free.
In a way, Rob has been part of my life for eight years. I have read nearly all of his books, used several of his NOOMA videos as a basis for small group discussions, and listened to hundreds of his teachings (last week I explained why I stopped listening to him on July 29th, 2007, which is another story altogether). I have deep affection and great respect for Rob. It is hard not to. That is why this review is so difficult.
That being said, let me begin by stating what I agree with in Love Wins:
• God is love and more generous than we can comprehend
• People we don’t expect to see in Heaven will be there
• People we expect to be in Hell may not be there
• We are commissioned to bring healing to this earth with our lives
• Our eternal destiny will ultimately be of our own choosing, either Heaven or Hell
• God is displeased with misrepresentations of his character and nature by his alleged followers
• Yes, is his fairness, God will allow children, the mentally challenged, and the Pygmy in Africa (or anyone else) who has not had the chance to decide on Jesus into Heaven
Beyond that, Love Wins is ambiguous, dangerous, and angry.
I wanted to like Love Wins. I really wanted to like it. But I didn’t. That doesn’t mean Love Wins is poorly written, dull, or unoriginal. On the contrary! In true Bell fashion, it is passionate, deep, and relevant. But if a movie has forced acting, a half-baked story, yet manages to come through with stellar special affects, it is still a bad movie. With all the perfect expressions, appealing conversational tones, and deep passion, Love Wins left me confused and frustrated—to such a degree, in fact, I still cannot determine what the book is truly about. Other than ‘talking’ about this stuff, I cannot figure out what the overall point is.
Love Wins is purposely ambiguous. It poses many questions and answers very few. While Bell loves to try to emulate Jesus by answering questions with questions, he misses one BIG thing: an answer always came when Jesus was around. Jesus simply posed questions that invoked a pre-existing answer in the heart of the individual. Jesus also had another approach; he would enter the temple and teach from the Scriptures, explaining and answering in great detail.
Jesus wasn’t at all ambiguous on the essentials, nor evasive; he was not ‘hard to pin down.’ Jesus provided clarity at a time, and to subjects, that desperately needed it. So much so that we are still talking about his answers 2,000 years later. It’s very fashionable to pose questions, remain distant, and commit to nothing. To most, it sounds enlightened (and keeps everyone liking you), but it’s also insincere and elusive.
Love Wins is dangerous because its use and explanation of Scripture is manipulative. Sure, if a person has a pulse, then that person has a bias. We are all prone to interpret the Bible through whatever lens or worldview we have. But when a bias becomes an agenda, or even activism, with regard to Scripture, it can become very dangerous.
For example, Bell does not seem to believe in a Hell with flames of any sort or at any level, as most of traditional Christianity has held for the last 2,000 years. He believes it will be either a state (or condition) we create through our actions and choices or just a separation from God. (I elaborate on all three in great detail in the chapter on Hell in my book.)
So while explaining the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus as told by Jesus in Luke 16:19-31, Bell deals a fatal blow to the meaning of it. His assessment? This is not really a parable about Hell and the afterlife. It’s about the Rich Man holding on to his pride, status, and cultural hierarchy, because, even in his torment, he wants Lazarus, the beggar, to ‘serve’ him. For some reason, the Rich Man begging for a cool drop of water on his tongue because he “is in agony in this fire” or his plea for a special warning to his family about the potential torment in the afterlife goes completely ignored by Bell. Sure, pride can be an application of this story, but it is not the thrust. It merely serves to accentuate the seriousness of the afterlife, since the Rich (Jewish) Man is in the torments of Hell, while the (Gentile) beggar is in Heaven. It is clearly a warning about Hell and the afterlife.
Bell appears to courageously jump to the end of Revelation, since it cannot be ignored when talking about Hell. He elaborates on all the great descriptions of Heaven and healing and being reconciled with God—we all love this stuff. Unfortunately, he conveniently ignores the whole “Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev. 20:15)
Woops!
There is more, but Love Wins tumbles like a house of cards on these two areas of Scripture alone. What exactly are we being saved from then? Just our bad habits and attitudes? Bell enjoys blasting the reader with an assault of seemingly contradictory verses. Then, while the reader is dazed, confused, and off-guard, he seizes the emotional moment to introduce a controversial view. It leaves the person feeling like, “Of course this must be true…I must be an idiot if I don’t agree with it.” The Bible is filled with apparent contradictions, if you are willing to bastardize and ignore context. It is a manipulative and condescending tactic to use, since it attempts to trick the reader into agreement.
Love Wins is angry because it has all the makings of an immature, rebellious teenager trying to teach his overbearing old-fashioned parents a lesson about the new ways of the world. First and foremost, if you (or any Christian) believe that Jesus is absolutely essential to salvation or in a literal Hell with flames, Rob would like you to know that you are helping perpetuate a ‘strain’ of Christianity that is destructive, violent, toxic, venomous, and abusive. Got it?
While Bell presents himself as very magnanimous in interviews and graciously expresses that he has no desire to call out or criticize his detractors, he has done far more in this book. Bell uses fighting words throughout. If believing 1) the name of Jesus is essential and 2) there is a literal Hell with flames, makes me a fundamentalist, pre-modern, unenlightened, barbaric, blind, villainous, and idiotic, then so be it—although I would dispute the charges. Sound at all passive aggressive? It is. I know because I ‘are’ one.
So apparently all you crotchety, outdated, grandpa-like Christians need to realize (or else!):
• When God says He will reconcile all creation to Himself, He means everyone can get into Heaven regardless of your belief in Jesus
• God will let people decide to accept Jesus even after death, if necessary He will take as long as needed to convince them to come in
• You’re making people think Jesus came to rescue us from God, whom you seem to think is hot-tempered, switches modes, and is inconsistent
• While there needs to be room in Christianity for a wide range of opinions and views, there just isn’t room for your finite views on Hell, sin, or salvation
• Don’t worry about confessing the name of Jesus to be saved, just make sure you are living His story out in your own life
• There is a vein of God’s story in every culture, so whatever that plan of salvation is, it is perfectly acceptable to God and don’t judge them either
• Jesus died on the cross because that’s what they needed and understood back then, and that wouldn’t need to happen today since we’re, like, way more smarter than that
• Being ‘spiritual’ is probably enough for God, so don’t worry so much about being Biblical
• The Hippies had it right because it is actually possible to meet Jesus through smoking pot
• If Jesus and Christianity have put a bad taste in someone’s mouth, God doesn’t necessarily need them to follow Him because wherever they find truth is fine with Him
It’s funny, I commented on the last idea in my book a couple of years ago:
Since discussing God and Jesus can so often be divisive, why not create a new secular humanist faith that avoids all that? One that’s totally dedicated to promoting good deeds and good will among all. This would probably be more readily accepted. Coexistence and harmony between all creation—man, animals, and environment—would create universal peace and a heavenly state. Who could argue with that? This less offensive, more congenial religion would probably have more impact on society and culture as a whole. All we have to do is leave God and Jesus out of the equation. No biggie.
I guess my overall problem is that I read Love Wins in the context of Rob Bell being a pastor, not a writer. One of the primary roles of a pastor is to bring clarity, predictability, and truth whenever possible. But I suppose this isn’t really feasible if you believe all truth contains a vein of the truth and is therefore equally true. This explains the evasiveness and confusion. I do not believe Bell to be willfully deceptive, but I do believe he is still knowingly guarded in his opinions. He should simply be more honest, rather than opting for the creative guise of cool and distant. You just can’t have it both ways—or should I say all ways.
Bell admittedly likes to interpret Scripture as pliable and versatile (his words) if at all possible. This takes particular shape if a Scripture is especially uncomfortable. In doing so, he unavoidably opts for the guilt-free feel-good trappings of moral relativism and philosophical pluralism. I wish I could do the same. I wish it were all true and this easy. But in his framework, the Hebrew story of God and the Christian experience with God is of no affect and no importance, since following Jesus specifically or confessing his name is not totally essential. In fact, why should I even follow Jesus if everyone gets a pass in the end? Because he was really nice or said neat stuff? So what. So did a lot of historical figures. Why not live a life if debauchery and hedonism? Basically, it doesn’t really matter, right?
These thoughts fill me with great sadness. Why? Because based on what Bell says, God cannot hold us to his own standard, since He will not hold Himself to His own words.
I can make no other conclusions, according to what Rob has presented, than:
1. Love doesn’t win because there is no true choice and subsequent consequence (and this is what the nature of love is built on).
2. Christianity loses the very punch line of the ‘Greatest Story Ever Told’, since Jesus is not essential to the story.
3. God is a liar because he has called us to righteousness (and to follow Jesus) while rewarding apathy.
I am left wondering, what the heck is Christianity, what does it mean to be a Christian, and does that even matter? How does love win? Love should win because God sent his son to be a substitutionary atonement for our sins and to save us from them and Hell: He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness (1 Peter 2:24). That is the extent of His love. Nowhere does Bell make that abundantly clear. To me, that is the real story behind Heaven, Hell, and the fate of every person whoever lived.
I love Rob, but I hate Love Wins.
>>>
VIDEO: Rob Bell Cold On Hell
1613 years
Rob Bell. That’s a name that engenders all kids of emotions. He is in the news lately because of his new book Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person That Ever Lived.
I first heard of Rob Bell in 2003 when I heard a session of his from Catalyst Conference on cd. He was famous for starting a church by teaching through the book of Leviticus. Although this seemed like a bad idea (Leviticus is notoriously boring), the church exploded.
His session at Catalyst was so moving, which made sense of it all. Something about what Rob said changed me forever. And from then on I made sure to never miss a message. I listened to him teach every week via his church’s website. He had a way of teaching that was deep, passionate, and relevant to my life. I still have hundreds of his teachings in my computer. In addition, I consumed his supplemental resources NOOMA. Week after week I received from the well of Rob Bell.
Until July 29, 2007.
That was the moment he really jumped the shark. The series was “God Is Green“. I listened to this series four times to make sure I was hearing what I was hearing, because I knew this might mean a departure for me. I suspected I could no longer support or recommend Rob, so I wanted to be sure of what I was hearing.
This was a series about creation and the environment. Now, I’m all for being responsible and taking care of God’s creation. But there is a fine line. I don’t worship it. I am not subservient to it. I worship the Creator, not creation. That is a form of idolatry, as the Bible might say. And I felt God is Green crossed that line.
Yes, I believe the environment is important. After all, I live in it. But I felt Bell elevated it to a status that it was not meant to have:
Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles… They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. -Romans 1:22,23,25
Bell went so far as to say that disrespect for the environment was a sanctity of life issue. That went too far. Sure, we all love the family pet, but Spike isn’t on the same level as my children. The sanctity of life is a concept that has it’s origins in Christianity. Specifically, it refers to humans because of their obvious difference from the rest of creation–we have souls. We are God’s crowning achievement. That’s what this term refers to.
Up to then, I had begun to sense a drift in Bell’s teachings over the course of a year or so. There was something evasive. It was as if he wasn’t saying some things he really thought regarding some foundational Christian doctrines–namely, Hell, sin, the nature of the death of Jesus, among other things–and some others were becoming questionalable (like in “God is Green”). There seemed to be a faint pluralism creeping in. And “God Is Green” is where I drew the line. In fact, I indirectly reference some of his themes in my own book (the problem of exclusivity, Hell, and sin) entitled 10 Thing I Hate About Christianity. Of course, these deserve exploration.
But I never listened to another Rob Bell message again.
Now, I kept up with all his books. He’s still a great communicator. I just couldn’t listen to him teach his church Sunday morning representing the office of pastor, so to speak. It may sound strange, but it was a line I had to draw.
So now Rob has a new book called Love Wins. It’s safe to say, my suspicions were right. It is creating quite some waves across the face of Christendom. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s good to challenge the process and question the status quo, but that doesn’t mean you’re right–or I’m right–or he’s right. I am in the process of reading it and a review is forthcoming (probably next week).
But I wanted to show a video of a recent interview he did on MSNBC with Martin Bashir. What’s interesting is that it seems like Bashir is the Christian here. Yes, oddly enough, he seems to be the one defending traditional Christianity–not Pastor Rob Bell. That was a bit of a surprise. Bell even seems a bit uneasy in the clip. This I understand as I have done nearly 100 interviews for my book (two for ABC News)
The irony is, I suspect that Bell has developed what he believes to be a faith that will crossover. By redefining Hell, sin, and consequence he likely hopes it will appeal to people who are not generally open to Christianity (like the main stream media). But in reality, they are not buying into it (I have seen other interviews that have gone much the same way). It makes even them suspicious.
Here is the clip:
Michelle Obama Invaded My Church
2513 years
First Lady Michelle Obama is invading my church (North Point Community Church) today. Okay, that was a bit of an overstatement (and it sounds like I am trying to stir up controversy). Today is the 1-year anniversary of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative and she asked if she could come talk about it and celebrate the program at our church. From their own website it is: America’s Move To Raise a Healthier Generation of Kids. Of course, our church said yes. I probably shouldn’t comment on this, but, well, you know me…
Am I going? No.
And it’s not because I have to work today. I am home doing stuff getting ready to welcome our new son (#4) on Friday. And it’s not because I am a fatty or that I feel guilty about raising fat kids (I’m not, by the way. Raising fat kids, that is. But I am a bit of a fatty myself). I could go. So that no is an emphatic one.
I’m not going because I am very uncomfortable with the decision. Now, I love my church. My family has been serving and giving there for 6 years. And we are not going anywhere (ie. not leaving because of this). So this is not a detrimental decision. I am not going to talk trash. I support my church in all their decisions and trust them. It’s probably the right decision, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some cautionary thoughts or opinions of my own. In fact, this is the first time I’ve ever said anything like this because I love “all things North Point”.
I just don’t like the idea of government officials or representatives coming into churches, especially those with a philosophy of big, centralized government. It creates too many contradictions, too much hypocrisy, breeds corruption (since power attracts the corrupt and the corrupt seek more power), leads to blatant opportunism (since it seeks to sustain it’s control/power) and often not principled (which is built on core values, and if opportunism and control is your desire there is no room for core values).
For example, you know what’s really unhealthy for children? Abortion. That kills kids 100% of the time. In fact, it kills about 1.4 million children every year and has killed about 43 million since it became legal in 1973. I’m just sayin’. [source: whitehouse.gov]
I also don’t like government officials or representatives coming into churches who come from a philosophy that is constantly trying to secularize and sanitize religion from the public square or sector (unless it is politically beneficial, of course).
For example, I wrote about a person in my small group (community group, Bible study, discussion group, or whatever you want to call it) that teaches at a public school up the street. During the holidays the school had to take the decorations off of the Christmas tree because a parent complained. I don’t really get that one (being that Christmas trees are actually pagan and not Christian, or leaving it up bare being an amicable solution). And then there are the anecdotal stories of public school teachers warned not to hand out Christmas cards or say “Merry Christmas”.
So let me get this right, we can’t say Merry Christmas in the public sector more and more, but Michelle can come into churches and say Merry Government? Woo-hoo!
Beyond that, there is often criticism of religious groups trying to affect public policy (like with abortion)–you know, allegedly trying to create a ‘theocracy’. For some reason, faith is an illegitimate source for values. But there is no problem with government coming into churches to influence public policy? Let’s be honest, that’s what this is. I guess government is a legitimate source for values?
You might be thinking, “Jason, you’re so judgmental and jaded. Isn’t this neutral ground? You’re making a big deal out of nothing. We can all agree on making our kids healthier, can’t we?”
Sure, then let’s meet on truly neutral ground–like an event center or something (there are plenty in Atlanta). Then Washington could ask local churches to partner and support the agenda. That way we have a real choice. I mean, how much of a choice do you have when the President’s wife asks to speak at your church? You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
There’s really nothing neutral when it comes to politics. And that’s the point: Politicians use political power to promise policies that will benefit certain people in order to harvest votes. Make no mistake, this initiative is about increasing government regulations and spending. As it is, speculations are that there will be more sin taxes on certain foods, salt limits in food production, and portion control for restaruants. Either way, the government is set to spend over half a BILLION dollars EVERY year on this initiative (and related ones). Read that again…$$$HALF A BILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR$$$
In general, this is not a legitimate use of tax-payer dollars (which is in reality being borrowed from China, by the way, so it is not even payed for), especially when we are all broke. It’s not the government’s job to tell us what to eat or what to do. I’m sorry there are so many fat kids sitting around and eating Doritos while playing X-Box. If we’re going to spend money on kids, let’s spend it something useful–like literacy, English, science, math, technical programs, marriage and family classes, etc.
I can’t help but also think that Michelle is trying to indirectly muster support for her husband with one base that is not supporting him all that much right now. Who’s that? White evangelicals. I’m just being honest, because that’s the main demographic at my church. It seems manipulative. Make no mistake, the election cycle has begun.
Our church is now officially on the radar of the government. That makes me uncomfortable. It should make everyone uncomfortable, both the religious and irreligious. This all begs the question, what will my church say when President Barack Obama calls and asks to speak when he is campaigning for president again? It probably won’t happen. But if it does, what do you say? Again, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Plus, I can’t help but worry if this is a jump-the-shark moment for my church with regard to political influences. It’s hard to resist the exposure, for sure.
And this tension is really what the First Amendment was all about:
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.
It was meant to protect the religious citizens from government, not to sanitize the government of religion or religious citizens.
Just some thoughts from a ‘religious’ fatty.
>>>
VIDEO: Catholic Leader Calls For Dictatorship
113 years
Last week I talked about some of the things going on in Egypt. I mentioned the Muslim Brotherhood, because they are part of organizing the riots and protest. They want a Muslim Theocracy in which society is oriented under Sharia Law. Do two minutes of research and you’ll discover this is a scary thing.
Anyway, today I wanted to present something from quite the opposite side of the spectrum that, somehow, ends up at pretty much the same place. In the video below, Catholic speaker and leader, Michael Voris, calls for a Dictatorship.
More specifically, he claims that the best form of government/political system is a Benevolent Dictatorship. I’ve actually heard this quite a bit from religious people (Christians, that is), and I cringe every time.
Why? Because in a Democracy everyone gets a vote–and that’s a real problem for him.
Why? Because most people are ignorant, ill-informed, and selfish.
Obviously, all of us idiot, evil people need some distant elite to tell us how to live. Sound scary? It is.
And it is wrong. I couldn’t disagree with him more.
This isn’t Heaven. So long as there is good and evil in the world, that much power in the hands of any leader is a nightmare. Power, especially that much power, leads to corruption, oppression, and despotism.
So watch the clip below and get informed and creeped-out all at the same time.
Quote of the Week on Children
113 years
“We live in a society today where these children can be wanted children. Even if you don’t want to keep this child after you’ve had it, there’s plenty of young couples out there, that want children.”
-I know it’s Friday, but I thought this quote was appropriate considering my post earlier this week “Is Pro-Choice Ever Pro-Death?” These are words from Norma McCorvey. She once used the alias Jane Roe in the landmark court case Roe v. Wade, regarding abortion. She has since had many regrets. I know it’s an uncomfortable subject, but it is worth thinking about considering some recent statistics from the New York City Health Department.
Is Pro-Choice Ever Pro-Death?
113 years
I’m about to get serious. I’m not sure if you’re pro-choice or pro-life, but what I do know is that bringing it up makes some people angry instantly. Some recent statistics came out that SHOULD SHOCK you no matter what your position is.
This issue is always a conflict to me. Certainly I don’t want to tell people how to live their lives. Then again, there is a certain ‘social contract’ that we develop as a society in order to maintain a civilized and orderly culture–so everything doesn’t become relative and we no longer value important virtues necessary to sustain a society.
I must admit that I have a high value on life. And although abortion is often defended in the context of reducing poverty, reducing unwanted pregnancies (and abuse by default), protecting the health of the mother, protecting the rights of society in general by ensuring the rights of the individual, not objectifying women but, instead, liberating them, the truth is, over the last 30 years, none of these ‘selling’ points have proven to be true. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
A few weeks ago a tragic statistic came out. It revealed that 41% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion (here is the Department of Health Report). Did you hear that? Let me repeat it:
41% of all pregnancies in New York City end in abortion!
You don’t have to be religious or pro-life to understand that statistic is horrifying, disgusting, and even foreboding. And when this breaks down by ethnic group it gets even worse. It doesn’t count abortion with all the other death-rate statistics. That’s because it would affect the overall death-rates to such a degree that people might really start paying attention and wondering about the practice. That would bring attention to the issue that would demand some changes. At least that’s how I see it.
This all begs some thought provoking questions:
Is this what it means to be a civilized society? And is this really liberating to women? How can we as a society say we value rights and ‘the law’ when we don’t value life?
I just don’t think that works in the long run. It breaks everything down because it’s as if every value starts and builds from there. It’s kind of an unwritten mantra that is playing out in our society.
If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we certainly won’t value life in the end stages.
If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value it when it comes to considering going to war.
If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value making relationships work.
If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value making marriages work.
If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we won’t value honoring the relationships built in business on contracts and ethics (which are built on values).
If we don’t value life in the beginning stages…we don’t really value life.
We aren’t really all that civilized, are we? We aren’t really so enlightened as a society after all. It’s sad. Bummer.
>>>
Should a Shooting Kill Liberty?
013 years
I don’t know if you been hiding under a mound of snow this week. If not, then you’ve heard about the Congresswoman from Arizona, Gabrielle Giffords, being shot in the head. Fortunately, doctors say she is doing well and will survive. What you may not know is that 19 others were shot. At least 5 others are dead, including Federal Judge John Roll and a 9-yr-old girl. The shooter was 22-yr-old Jared Loughner, who has a history of mental instability.
It’s a tragic situation. It’s sad. It’s depressing.
What also bothers me is the reaction and use of this tragedy to make political gain. Many are assigning blame in order to further their own political agendas. It is truly tasteless and disgusting. Without any facts, the media, politicians and even the sheriff (in the county where it occurred) are blaming talk radio, the Tea Party folks, Sarah Palin, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc.
Really? Wow. With out any facts, motives are decided. Even the sheriff admitted this, which is shameful. He is supposed to be upholding the law. He is supposed to let the evidence speak for itself.
So is Senator John Kerry, and former presidential candidate, responsible because he said he (Kerry) should have shot the sitting president at the time, George Bush, while appearing on the Bill Maher Show?
Or is President Barack Obama responsible because he told his supporters (while on the campaign trail) to “bring a gun” to rhetorical knife fights with the political opponents? Or even recently saying in a radio interview that we (him and his supporters) need to “punish his enemies”–alluding to his political opponents?
I mean, have you ever been to a football, baseball, basketball (or any other major professional sport) game? Now there’s some heated rhetoric from the fans to the players. Now does that mean every team is filled with potential killers? Give me a break. Don’t you remember the old sayings from parent about, “Now, if your friend jumped off a bridge…” or “Sticks and stones may break my bones…”?
So who is responsible? The shooter is. Plain and simple.
He was a nut. Apparently his favorite books were the Communist Manifesto and Mien Kampf. He liked violent heavy metal and movies (according to tweets from acquaintances, from high school and community college). Clearly he was crazy.
What’s scary there are those in Congress who are already proposing legislation to limit 1st Amendment rights (freedom of speech and religion) and 2nd Amendment rights (right to bear arms). Somehow they managed to have hundreds of pages of law already done, only days after the shooting. In truth, they likely had these agendas sitting in a file cabinet somewhere just waiting for an opportunity to spin their agenda via a tragedy.
Even scarier (and more specifically), there are some senators want to ban incendiary speech and images.
What the heck does that mean and how the heck do you do that? Who decides that? I mean, how far can you take that?
Does that mean you can’t make movies with titles like “Saw” or name your band “Slipknot”? Or write a book entitled “10 Things I Hate About Christianity“? (that’s my book, by the way)
Even further, does that mean I cannot read the record of the crucifixion of Jesus to my children? Or wear a cross? Or have a tattoo of a crown of thorns, if I wanted? Or celebrate Good Friday? Easter? Or even Christmas, which is tied to the other holidays?
As terrible as this tragedy his, I believe it should lead to more freedoms, not less. And it is not a time to push ridiculous agendas based on zero facts that will never achieve the desired ends. And it is immoral to break the law (limit the rights of citizens as spelled out in the Constitution) because some loony has broken the law.
Let us simply help in any way we can and pray for those directly affected. Amen?
>>>
VIDEO: The Most Offensive Word EVER from a Public Employee!
313 years
This will be the only news item I highlight this week. I don’t want to get to heavy. But I thought this was appropriate.
Below is a video clip what NPR’s Nina Totenberg said on PBS this weekend. Notice as she’s talking. She apologizes for saying that she was at a “Christmas Party.” It’s not that she’s sorry for admitting she went to the party. She’s sorry that she had to say the word “Christmas” in order to describe it–because I guess Christmas is so offensive to so many.
How dare you Nina!
Is this what we we’re coming to in this country? Do we really have to be that politically correct? This is not liberty, this is legalism.
MERRY CHRISTMAS! CHRISTMAS! CHRISTMAS! CHRISTMAS! CHRISTMAS!
Santa vs. Jesus Once Again
213 years
This time of year always brings a little tension in my family. Many years ago when we had our first child, my wife and I had to decide between Santa and Jesus.
Now that may sound stupid to you. But most of us who’ve grown-up in America were told there’s Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God, and Jesus. We teach kids they’re all real, but they’re not all real. Eventually our kids will be okay with Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy being cute little white lies, while accepting Jesus and God as completely legit—right? Not really. At least I don’t think so, and it’s something I talk about in my book 10 Things I Hate About Christianity: Working Through the Frustrations of Faith. So Santa is something that my wife and I have spoken about in depth, because ultimately we want to be honest with out children.
Will we tell our kids about Santa?
More importantly, will Santa be the one who gives them their gifts?
On a humorous side-note, it’s funny how many atheists (and some agnostics) have railed me over the years for teaching my kids about Jesus and God—something that can’t be proven. You know, they want to wait to introduce ideas of faith and religion to their kids when they’re old enough to decide for themselves.
Sounds so intellectual and enlightened, right?
But these people have had no problem telling their kids about a fat guy sliding down the chimney with a sack full of gifts and eating the cookies and milk, his elves, flying reindeer, and somehow doing this at midnight in every home all around the world. What’s with that? Do I have a problem with the story of Santa? Not at all. We’re not Grinches. We tell our kids the story of the real Saint Nicholas. But we’ve decided that’s where it stops. Sorry Santa. No cookies for you at the Berggren home.
It’s not always easy. Last year our middle child (who was 5) confessed that he told a friend at school that day that Santa isn’t real. Of course, this is something we have coached our children notto do extensively. So we reprimanded him.
This issue may not be a big deal to you, and I understand. For us, this all came together when our oldest was about three. Like most, he was still enamored by the story Santa. We had to explain it again.
And when he added “…and Jesus and the Bible!” we were floored. Now, I’m sure there are some (that don’t believe in God) that love the fact my son made that connection. But for us, Jesus is real and we explained that to him all over again.
So there is a little dynamic about our family and Christmas. I’m sure you have some funny family dynamics as well. It’s what makes life interesting.
*Some of this has already appeared in my article 10 Things I Hate About the Holidays.
A True Christ-Mass Tree Trimmed…To Death
113 years
In Glastonbury, England there is a Christian monument that goes back 2,000 years–to the time of Christ. It is called “The Holy Thorn Tree of Glastonbury” and thousands of people visit it every year. Perhaps, we might literally call it a true Christmas Tree. That is, a ‘Christ Mass’ tree: people visit to celebrate what Christ did (his life, teachings, and death). In fact, I wish the traditional Christmas Tree we erect here in America and decorate during the holidays had it’s legend rooted in the Glastonbury Tree and not paganism, but that is another story.
As legend has it:
Saint Joseph (of Arimathea as told in in John 19:38–the guy who buried Jesus in his own tomb) travelled to this spot after Christ was crucified, taking with him the Holy Grail of Arthurian folklore.
He is said to have stuck his wooden staff – which had belonged to Jesus – into the ground on Wearyall Hill before he went to sleep. When he awoke it had sprouted into a thorn tree, which became a natural shrine for Christians across Europe.
To add to its sacred status, the tree ‘miraculously’ flowered twice a year – once at Christmas and once at Easter. It survived for hundreds of years before it was chopped down by puritans in the Civil War, but secret cuttings of the original were taken and planted around the town. –[online source]
But thee tree is no longer there because vandals cut it to pieces in the middle of the night. (see picture below)
Whether the legend is true or not is irrelevant. Personally, I don’t care for superstitious-type things like this. I am always cautious about them because I wonder if we are in jeopardy of idolatry (to use a churchy term): worshipping what is created rather than the Creator. Again, that is another story. Either way, this much is true: the tree is likely 2,000 years old and means a great deal to a great deal of people.
I think this is a terrible, tragic, and offensive act.
What kind of pathetic, disgusting, and reprobate person/people would do this? I have to wonder where the times we are living in are headed. I must confess that, to me, this is a bit foreboding. Behind closed doors when I am talking to close friends I’ll say over and over, “I think we’re living in strange times.” That is code for, “I think the world is teetering on a precipice of chaos.”
Sorry to harsh on your Christmas vibe, but that’s the truth. For example, you won’t see this happening to a Muslim Holy place. I have to ask, why is that? Are people afraid of Islam? And if you did, this story would be cycling through the news like a brushfire. It would be all about how intolerant we Westerners are, it’s a hate crime, and how awful Christian extremists are (that would somehow be worked in). Some stupid Congressman would probably propose some meaningless legislation that would waste time and money. (We would have to borrow $30 billion from China to pay for it, too.)
It may sound strange, but I often wonder (when things out of balance like this happen) if a major civil rights struggle and intolerance issue of the near future will somehow involve Christians (being the oppressed one, that is). I suppose many dissidents will say we had it coming, because of history and all.
What does change for me?
Nothing.
I’m still going to get up, go to work, and bring my kids to McDonald’s on the weekends. But I am also ready to endure, not be vengeful, and try to be a good example of the temperance, patience, and grace of Jesus. As I have said, when the world crushes me with pain, I will still stand with God.
Will you stand too?
>>>
Can Erectile Dysfunction Lead To Church Dysfunction?
113 years
Over the 22 years of my Christian faith I have visited many churches and left most of them. That’s not to say I haven’t settled down at churches. I’m not a ‘hopper’. The shortest I’ve ever attended a church I considered my ‘home’ is two years, and the longest is 9 years. But I’ve always made it a priority to find a church home–a place where I attend regularly, volunteer, and give.
Although some church experiences I’ve had have been unpleasant (they include people, after all), I’ve never been kicked out of a church. Sure, I’ve been alienated, reprimanded, and even gossiped about, but never been kicked out.
That’s what happened to Libby Ashby. She appeared in an erectile dysfunction ad that ran late at night (click on that link if you want to watch it). Subsequently, she was kicked out of her church.
The ad is funny, plain and simple. Sure, it’s a little awkward to watch knowing what I do (the background and all). If I had not known that, I’d probably give a smile and forget about it because it’s silly and stupid.
What I can’t help but wonder is if the church leaders would have been as outraged if it had been a commercial for a casino? For plastic surgery? For smooth tasting cigarettes? Or something else like that?
As George Michael said, “Sex is natural and sex is good.” The ad seems to imply that the couple is married, which is the right Biblical context for sex. So what is so offensive about the ad then?
So is ad Libby wrong or is the church leadership wrong?
Personally, I think this is a case of CD (Church Dysfunction). HA!
>>>
Hello Holidays, Bye Bye Christmas
413 years
So we had some friends over last night. We were relating some hilarious stories from our past weekend’s events (Thanksgiving). Mine included getting food poisoning on vacation, my 3-yr-old eating the pellets from the candy machine meant for feeding the ducks (because he thought they were candy, since they were in the candy dispenser), and my 6-yr-old running head first full stride into a mirror (in a mirror maze). Good stuff.
Anyway, a friend was relating the events of the weeks. Now, it was only Tuesday, so what could possibly be going on already?
He works at the public school up the street. This weekend they put up all the Christmas decorations around the school. But who could ever imagine Christmas decorations would mean trouble? Unfortunately, it does in this day-and-age where people cling to the false virtues of political correctness and ‘tolerance’ (because those crying about tolerance, never seem to be themselves).
First, everyone on staff (all the teachers etc.) were instructed to call the trees “Holiday Trees” and not Christmas Trees–because Christmas Trees are highly offensive, right?. As if that weren’t enough, a parent complained the first day the decorations were up (Monday) about the “Holiday Trees” being lit. So they had to take down all the lights on all the trees.
And it makes me wonder, who complained? it must have been either an Atheist, Agnostic, Jewish person, Muslim, or Hindu (or something). And why? Why is someone so annoyed or angry or bored, as a person, that they have to create controversy where there is none?
I’m sure you’ve heard about this nonsense in the news in some distant California town, but it’s another story to hear about this firsthand down the street in Atlanta. It’s sad really. How have we decided we have a human right in the US not to be offended? And we’ll spend money and effort defending that?
Besides, who gets offended by a Christmas Tree? Because the Christmas Tree is not actually a religious symbol (not even a Christian one). That’s the implied tension in this dispute–that a Christmas Tree is a Christian symbol and therefore not appropriate at a public school. Actually, that’s all false.
The Christmas Tree is actually a pagan symbol. The irony.
>>>
Don’t Vote: An Unauthorized Approach To Voting
113 years
Today is a BIG day in America. I have talked about having an unauthorized approach to Christianity. Today, it would seem to some that I also have an unauthorized approach to voting too. And perhaps, you might consider not voting. Let me explain.
I have been accused of wanting to create a theocracy because my Christian faith informs and influences my voting decisions. It seems like some people think that “separation of church and state” means you can’t let that happen, like I talked about with this Christian flag making waves at a war memorial. But, for me, it is unavoidable.
The truth is, most people don’t realize there was never a theocracy in the Bible. What? That’s right. Let me say it again: NO WHERE is there a theocracy in the Bible in the sense that it is used on the political discourse today.
Random House defines a theocracy as:
“a form of government in which god or a deity is recognizedas the supreme civil ruler, the God’s or deity’s laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.”
In the Old Testament, there are two forms of government that appear. There is a monarchy (King David, King Saul, King Solomon etc), but that is not the type of ‘government’ God intended for the Jews.
What God intended for the Jews was more like a commonwealth. What’s a commonwealth? Random House defines it as:
“a group of sovereign states and their dependencies associated by their own choice and linked with common objectives and interests.”
This is what happens in Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Acts. That is to say, all the people were to choose individuals of character, honesty, integrity, and wisdom to lead them in the day-day-day matters and decide between disputes that arise based on the evidence presented before them.
They were also warned about not taking money to influence their decisions and to make sure to treat everyone equally: the poor and rich. If they become corrupt, there were harsh consequences.
Although the United States of America is technically a Constitutional Republic, the commonwealth form of government is what inspired the Framers of the Constitution. Essentially, America was an improved hybrid form of a commonwealth. (Believe it or not, we are not a democracy…but we do employ democratic principles.)
It was a form of government not of might or birthright, but one chosen by the people to represent the people–and it was revolutionary.
This seems to be a far cry from where we are today in our political scene, doesn’t it? Backroom deals, earmarks, dishonest brokering, and lying have become common, all in order to get re-elected. That’s seems to be the only endgame too often. Politicians make promises to get re-elected and line their pockets. Not protecting the people’s rights. Not applying equal justice. Not being self-serving. Not leaving people alone to live their own lives.
So last night I spent 2 hours researching candidates and issues on the ballot in my area. And I tried to pick people of character. It’s not easy. Do I want to create a theocracy? No way. But I will allow, against what some people prefer, my faith to inform my values and voting decisions. And I did.
Lastly, I would like to end in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson who once said:
“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” –Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey, 1816. ME 14:384
So if you haven’t researched the issues:
Don’t vote.
If you haven’t researched the candidates:
Don’t vote.
If you don’t care about the leader so long as he fits your agenda:
Don’t vote. (It will always bite you back, in the end)
And on a personal note, if you believe in large, expansive, authoritarian, ever-growing government:
DON’T VOTE.
PS-Have a great day!
