vivere christus est

Don’t Like healthcare? Talk to the Bridezilla.

 

The House passed the highly controversial health care reform act today.

Many people in America, particularly Christians, view this bill as extremely unpopular citing it’s cost and federal funding for abortion in some cases.  Others view it as an expensive necessity which delivers health care to millions of uninsured and which forces insurance companies to accept citizens with pre-existing conditions.

I watched almost the entire House floor proceeding on C-SPAN.  Each representative came to the mic, had their 60 second speech, and sat down.  Talk about a good Nyquil substitute.

Republicans shouted ‘baby killer’, Democrats quoted Scripture as if 1 Timothy was written specifically to support the future laws written on a continent that wouldn’t be discovered for 1,400 more years.  Before hand, some activists shouted racial and derogatory slurs at democratic lawmakers.  Jessie Jackson responded by making fun of them publically.

Both side we’re just plain ridiculous.

But I couldn’t shake the fact that many people who protested the bill didn’t see this coming as a result of their own inaction.  If you think about it, and look past the political aspect of it all, this healthcare deal is a long time coming.

Of course the government feels the need to take care of its people – the church hasn't been doing it for centuries.  If the American church paid serious attention to the poor, I am willing to bet there wouldn’t be such a bill in existence today.

This really is more of a matter of American Church apathy to the poor which has accumulated over the years and now the government feels they must step in and do the Church’s job for them.  And rightfully so.  (Do I agree with the bill?  No, not necessarily.  But I do agree that the poor aren’t getting taken care of and someone needs to do it.)

It seems that the American Church today is more concerned with presenting a pristine facility and model community for Christians to gather in and hang out than they are with actually being Christians.

If you spend millions to build a mega awesome worship facility and then invite some people who can’t afford new clothes, a bath, and are socially awkward, it would taint an otherwise perfect environment for hanging out in.  It would probably make wealthier Christians uncomfortable and they might leave.

Good.  Let them leave, because that’s not how the Church is suppose to be run.

Scripture tells us that we are to;

1. Preach Good News to the poor (Isa 61:1)

2. Trim excess wealth to help the poor (Mt 19:21)

3. Help the poor, because they’ll always be here (Mt 26:11)

4. Learn from the poor because they are rich in faith (Jas 2:5)

5. Assist the orphans and widows (Jas 1:27)

6. Do good to all people, especially to those in our church (Gal 6:10)

7. Show hospitality to strangers (Heb 13:2) and not to simply wish the poor “good luck” or “God bless” because it’s absolutely worthless (Jas 2:16).

Also, Jesus cared so little for the accumulation of wealth and fancy worship facilities that he had to ask for the equivalent of a quarter (Mt 22:19) because He didn’t have one and He told the disciples that Herod’s Temple was worthless to the Kingdom (Mk 13:1-2).

Am I saying we should all sell every possession and live in a communistic community?  Of course not. 

And am I saying that the Church should be a free-for-all social program?  No way, Scripture also teaches that if people aren’t willing to chip in to help out, they don’t deserve anything (2 Thes 3:10).

But I am saying it is high time the Church pay more attention to the immediate missional needs in their own communities.

Single moms wouldn’t need the government’s health care program if the Church covered her and her children.  The elderly wouldn’t even need Medicare if the Church they often times invested their entire life into would care for them in return.

This view could probably be best summarized in a quote; “If every church and synagogue in the U.S. would adopt ten poor families beneath the poverty level . . . we could eliminate all government welfare in this country.”  That was Ronald Reagan.

But when put into practice, Reagan’s philosophy (which is fairly biblical) falls flat on its face.  Former New York City Mayor Edward Koch asked 350 churches and synagogues in NYC to shelter ten homeless men and women each night.  He received seven responses. 

Perhaps some of the churches were ill-equipped for the Koch’s request, however A.) they should be equipped to help the poor and B.) surely more than 2% of the churches could have assisted in serving their city and their local mission.

Now, considering the NYC example, I’m sure some may say that taking in the poor is dangerous in some places of the country.  My response… yea, that’s true.

But where in the world does Scripture teach that the Church is a place of safety?  Why, after reading the Bible, do Christians believe that the Church should be a safe place to hang out free from having to deal with the poor? (In fact, the office of deacon was specifically created with the poor in mind! (Act 6:1-6)

Obviously, common sense tells us that registered sex offenders should probably not be assisting in children’s ministry and the poor with criminal records should probably be watched, but this is all in the context of Sunday mornings.  The Church is more than the Sunday service -- why can’t men of God in the Church handle touchy situations like this throughout the week?

Now, of course, I’m not placing all of America’s social woes on the Church.  I’m not scapegoating the Church for simply existing.  There are people and even pastors who stand in the pulpit and openly call the Church lazy, no good, hypocritical, and loose.  Less they need a reminder, the Church is the Bride of Christ.  If you called my bride anything like that, we’d have a problem.

However, some brides do need a wake-up call that the world does not revolve around them.  Every once in a while, they need to step back from the situation and realize that there is something bigger than their own comfort in life.  There’s something bigger than this political healthcare debate.

They need to take a break from planning the wedding, finding the right dress, the right shoes, the perfect flowers, the best food.  They freak out over ever little nuance surrounding their wedding day, are overly controlling of their environment, and generally displeasing to be around.  Bridezilla, I believe, is the term.

I think the American Church has let herself become a bridezilla.  She is overly concerned with herself and not with the wedding day.  She is more concerned with the way she looks than the sharing of the wedding day with her groom.  She cares more about her perfect shoes, cake, and flowers rather than her groom, family, and the meaning of the wedding. 

The bridezilla church is more concerned with building her multi-million dollar church facilities so they can reach the world rather than diverting money to the poor living in their own backyard.  She is so overly obsessed with her perfect ministry programs, youth groups, adult groups, church picnics, worship styles, preaching styles, and interior decoration that she neglects to realize that her groom has a few requests of His own – namely that she takes care of the orphans and widows and brings good news to the poor.

I am definitely every bit apart of this bridezilla church as anyone else.  I only realized how inward focused we are in American churches when I met a Nigerian Christian in Germany.  He was poor and moved to Germany from Nigeria in December.  He didn’t have a winter coat, only a hoodie.

One day, he straight up said; “Kyle I need a winter coat.  Can you buy one for me?”  Needless to say, my initial reaction was bewilderment that he would ask such a thing.  A few days later, we bought him his coat.

He understands how the church should work.  Those with help those without.  Period.  No government program, no socialism, no health reform… just the Church being the Church.

We wouldn’t need the healthcare reform bill if the Church took care of it.  First, for its own people, then anyone who needs.  Of course, some churches could contribute more than others.  Of course, it wouldn’t be black and white as to who gets church-provided health care assistance and who doesn’t. 

But aren’t those added aspects to the Church better than having the government doing it?

It would be amazing to see the Bride of Christ more concerned with what her Groom has to say about their wedding day than what she has to say.

Calvin in, Jefferson Out

The Texas Education Board recently approved some changes to their student text books and one of them included the ousting of Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era deist, with John Calvin, a Reformation-era theologian.

Frankly, this left me severely confused. 

First of all, what does John Calvin have to do with the history of the U.S.? Maybe you could argue that he was a precursor to free-market theory and maybe he inspired Englishmen who sought refuge in Geneva to leave England.  But last I checked, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, was the President, and secured both the Louisiana Purchase and the Louis & Clark Expedition.  Jefferson seems more in line with U.S. history than Calvin.

But hey, I could be wrong.

Second, John Calvin was chosen to replace Jefferson because Calvin is considered a “religious right icon”.

What? 

John Calvin is a religious right icon?  *sigh* I don’t even know where to begin on this one.

As far as I know, in most Baptist churches (which is what I am assuming we are speaking of in Texas) John Calvin was a Protestant Reformer and nothing more.  His theological ideals should not be studied seriously and people like Arminius, Wesley, Origen, and Whitefield are the main players.  In short, most Baptists do not jive well with Calvinism and, well, John Calvin may have had something to do with the formation of that theological ideal.

As far as religious right is concerned, John Calvin would be absolutely appalled at his new found title.  He believed in what is called Covenant Theology – in short, it is the separation of the two kingdoms and the two should never meet.  in Calvin’s mind, there is no such thing as the ‘religious’ or ‘Christian’ right in politics.

Naturally, if you are in a predominantly Christian area of the world, then that will be reflected in the political landscape but there is a severely distinct separation of the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Man.

Calvin was not a theocrat.  He was not a dispensationalist.  He was not seeker-sensitive.  He was not political.  He was not Arminian or semi-Pelagian.

What in the world makes John Calvin a “religious right icon”?

Texas could have gone with theocrat Thomas Müntzer, or dispensationalist John Nelson Darby, or theologians John Wesley and John Whitefield, or evangelist Pat Robertson, or Religious Right founder Jerry Falwell, or …

The list goes on and on. 

But Texas chose John Calvin, the guy who re-emphasized Augustinian predestination, who taught that all humanity is so severely corrupt that they cannot “chose Jesus” and say the sinner’s prayer to be saved, denounced the corrupt papacy, fostered covenant theology, and rejected the notion of “Christian” politics.

So, John Calvin being an “icon of the religious right” is like saying Joseph Stalin is an icon of democracy.

The thing we really need to look at here is why Jefferson is being replaced at all.  Is Texas trying to cover up an “ugly” piece of U.S. history because Jefferson was a deist who ripped out all the parts of Scripture that he thought never happened?

You can’t do that, Texas.  What if everyone started ripping up parts of their history because they didn’t like it?

Think about this -- what would Scripture look like today if Jewish scribes 2,500 years ago started ripping out things they didn’t like.  What if they ripped out all the embarrassing or “ugly” pieces of their history?

• There would be no narrative of the Babylonian captivity as being their fault.
• All the major prophets would probably be gone since their main line of business was  telling Jews they were wrong and Israel to repent.
• There would be no King David and Bathsheba.
• There would be no accurate campaign losses.
• There would be no record of idolatry in Israel.
• There would be no mistakes besides those on the “outside”.

Scripture would be fake.  It wouldn’t relate to people and their lives.  It would be a standard of perfection, not an example of our mistakes.

There would be nothing but what the Jews perceived as correct, not what history says.  Then, Scripture would look just like a victory epitaph from ancient Egypt. “Here’s all our victories and none of our losses.  Pharaoh reigns forever because we’re perfect and the victors write history.”

We see how well that worked out for them.

Jesus said “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's”.[1]  Clearly, there’s a distinction between the two kingdoms – why can’t we let there be a distinction? 

Jefferson had much more of an influence than John Calvin did in the formation of our country.  Teach what Jefferson did in the school and teach what John Calvin did in the church.  Then, you’ll have the actual history of our country and the actual history of the church.

And don’t leave out the “ugly” parts - teach it all. Not just the parts you like.

Then, a beautiful thing will happen. 

Kids will start to learn something – that the world is not a perfect was we try to make it look.  Jefferson was a Founding Father of the most successful countries in history; he also owned slaves and was an adulterer. 

John Calvin was a father of the Protestant Reformation launching Europe into an era of rational theology, thinking, and freedom; he also had a guy executed because he guy disagreed with Calvin theologically.

Good things can come from bad people.  Bad things can come from good people.

Welcome to earth. 

=============================

[1] Mark 12:17

Glenn Beck: "Leave Your Church"

I usually never, ever write about politics.  Partly because I'm not usually in the loop living in Europe, but also because politics makes people go crazy.  And I'm not a fan of crazy people.

But, when I hear social commentator Glenn Beck urging Christians to leave their church if it preaches social justice... then it's game on.

Now, I have just about an equal amount of friends who love Glenn Beck as those who hate him. I find myself somewhere in the middle with the guy.

On one hand, personally I don't think journalists should cry on their television shows and contrive conspiracy theories about how the sword-and-ploughshare statue in front of the United Nations building is actually meant to harbor a secret communist message -- even though, of course, that statue is an interpretation of Isaiah 2:4 & Micah 4:3 and the original image he spoke about was actually commissioned by Woodrow Wilson after WWI, not Rockefeller.  (Should that statue be outside of the UN, indicating that it is by government these two passages will come to pass? No, but the statue is not preaching communism.)

Yet on the other hand, if we didn't have guys like Beck, then there would be no one sniffing around for foul play in politics, no matter how outlandish the theories he comes up with.  If his show is helping to keep people aware of the current political atmosphere, then I suppose for every Bill Maher there's a Glenn Beck.

But here's the deal -- if Glenn Beck is willing to advise Christians on whether or not they should leave a church based on a theological conviction that is politically swayed, we need to take a step back from the situation and ask ourselves who is controlling our opinions on the matter.

Glenn Beck is saying that if you hear your church call you to social action (feeding the poor, seeking justice, taking care of the marginalized), then you should leave it. 

"If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"

Economic justice, sure I'll give him that.  Why is a church talking about economic justice?  Scripture clearly teaches there is no such thing.

But social justice... he's wrong in that point.

Beck is purposefully and intentionally attempting to blur the line between politics and the church. He calls "social justice" a code term for communism and Nazism.  By that account, I'm assuming he would believe the term "missional" to mean communism too if he was aware of it.

That is completely and utterly insane.

What he wants is for Christians to be champions of a particular political view, not God-honoring disciples of Christ. 

Here is where, ironically, his extreme view is getting it all wrong.  According to Scripture, the church should be taking part in social justice, not the government.  So, in a sense, he is right to denounce communism.  But who is suppose to be doing the "communist" work in a society -- that is, taking care of the poor and marginalized?  The church.

So, in one swoop, Glenn Beck is denouncing all social work, be it government or the church.

If Beck is right, and social action is equivalent to communism, then rip out the Book of James and paste it in a new edition to the Communist Manifesto.

• "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." - James 1:22
  
• "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." - James 1:27
• "My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory." James 2:1
• "If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?" - James 2:15-16

I mean, honestly, with that last passage if Glenn Beck had it his way it wouldn't exist because giving poor people food is communism and nazism. 

The church is called to work; to feed the poor, to seek justice for the oppressed, to clothe the needy, to partake in social justice.  This isn't communism, because it's not a government system.  Of all people, Beck should know there is separation between church and state.

In addition, the church not only needs to be involved with social action and working, but they need to know why they are working. 

Is it to gain salvation or favor with God?  Absolutely not. 

We work to show the world that God is a gracious giver.  Jesus cares that people are poor and marginalized -- just look at His life.  If Jesus wants to continue to care for those people, He must use His body.  And who is the body of Christ?  The church. 

So who should be on the streets, preaching the Gospel, and taking care of the people?  The socially active church.  Not the government (communism), but the church.

But, some will say, now we're treading water into the social Gospel.  And I disagree with the social Gospel completely.  It teaches that the Christian church should only be for social action and nothing else.

Is social justice the only reason for a church to exist?  Should everyone be on board with only the social Gospel and only social action Jesus?  Of course not, but social action is most certainly one aspect of both the church and the life of a true disciple of Christ.

Just remember, Glenn Beck does not speak for the church.  He has every right to be heard, but that does not come with the right to be taken seriously.

If you listen to Beck, ignore him on this point.  It would be a shame if the church lent her ear to a politically motivated television personality and not to the Holy Spirit.

IQ linked to Atheism/Liberalism

I read an article from CNN.com today titled Liberalism, atheism, male sexuality exclusively linked to IQ. The premise of the article is that the higher the IQ you have, the more likely you are to become an atheist or liberal. In fact, the further evolved a person is, the more they are likely to abandon their elementary need for religion which is replaced by intellect. Therefore, only smart people realize that religion is stupid. They didn't say that, but it is certainly a conclusion present to be drawn from.

The study was done by evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa in London. But there in lies the fault to this test. The theoretical predictions of evolution itself have already made this test flawed. Let me explain.

Dr. Kanazawa's interpretation of evolution teaches that eventually humans will abandon religious belief upon realizing that intellect alone is the superior way of understand the world around us, or worldview. [1] This presupposition can lead an evolutionary scientist, such as himself, to discover results that are not actually present. Just like the creationist does when he finds a human skeleton ten feet away from a dinosaur fossil and assumes the two were neighbors.

Kanazawa later goes on to say, "It helps life to be paranoid, and because humans are paranoid, they become more religious, and they see the hands of God everywhere." So basically, primitive humans developed paranoia in order to stay alive, but this developed into fear that God will strike them down wherever and whenever.

Wait a minute... what? Paranoia is the end goal in religious belief? That's like saying sleeping is the end goal of riding a roller coaster.

See, this is where I really believe evolutionary scientists would benefit from at least one systematic theology class. As far as the Christian worldview is concerned (I can't speak for other religions), paranoia is a bad thing. Here are some verses perpetrating religious paranoia in order to aid us in our evolutionary progress;

• "There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love." (1Jo 4:18)


• "Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be frightened, and do not be dismayed, for the Lord your God is with you wherever you go.” (Jos 1:9)


• "For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control." (2Ti 1:7)


• "And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding," (Phil 4:7)


• "Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God." (Phil 4:6)

In the last verse, we have not only the direct suggestion to not be anxious, but also the source of the supposed anxiety, namely God, being presented as the very reason why we should not be anxious.

Quite frankly, Dr. Kanazawa has not done his homework and does not present the concept of religion, and by association Christianity, fairly at all.

By that logic, as a Christian I should be able to say all atheists are racist because Darwin believed in the future Caucasians, through the process of evolution, would replace black people as the superior race. [1]

I would never, ever suspect a single atheist to be racist or believe Darwin's conclusion. So why should an atheist ever make absolute claims without first reading what Christians believe?

If Christianity is actually helpful in reducing paranoia, perhaps it is evolutionarily beneficial after all.

One of the reasons given for the link between higher IQ scores and atheism was the freedom atheists enjoy to think logically or more rationally than their Christian counterparts.

George Washington University leadership professor James Bailey claimed that atheism "allows someone to move forward and speculate on life without any concern for the dogmatic structure of a religion." He makes the argument that once freed from the confines of a religious worldview, one is able to better critically evaluate and perform more logically and consistently with reality.

Again, please take a systematic theological course. Just one...

• "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere." (Jam 3:17)

I do apologize if every Christian you have even encountered seem concerned with the dogmatic structure of Christianity, but please know that not everyone claiming to be a Christian is a Christian as I'm sure not everyone claiming to be an atheist properly represents atheism.

Keep in mind, some of the history's most intelligent people were Christians or at least believed in God. It is not as if humanity was completely dumb until the Enlightenment came to our rescue which, by the way, is rapidly giving way to postmodernism.

What I'm asking for is fair representation. When evolutionary biologists conduct evolutionary psychological testing and conclude their evolutionary worldview is replacing religion, does that even sound like balanced science? This is particularly shown when the actual results of the test reveal a 6% difference on IQ scores between atheists and theists.

They do give theistic people a hat tip towards the end of the article, stating that intelligent people don't have enough babies so there will not be an increase in atheism.

Okay... great?

This not only does a disservice to Christians, but atheists too. Just because a person is born into a certain family or in a certain culture does not necessarily mean they will hope to their parent's worldview.

"Ah," someone will say, "but are there not more Muslims in the Middle-east and Christians in North America?" If you go that route, you are subscribing to a genetic fallacy.

If you were raise in Chicago, are you not more likely to believe Einstein's theory of relativity than someone from New Guinea? And isn't someone born in Oxford, England more likely to be an atheist than someone born in Oxford, Mississippi? What does this say about the truth claims of both Christianity and atheism?

Absolutely nothing. Geographical roots have nothing to do with the validity of what you believe.

Quality, not quantity.

======

[1] The original sentence read; "Evolution teaches that eventually humans will abandon religious belief upon realizing that intellect alone is the superior way of understand the world around us, or worldview." I don't mean to borad stroke those who don't believe this is an outcome of evolution, so I added that this is an interpretation derived from Dr. Kanazawa.

[2] Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition.

• "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

Air Force Pagans

The Air Force Academy has recently given pagans, druids, and wiccans a place to worship the earth outside. Using rocks that were eroding and moved to their current location because of safety reasons, Air Force officials decided to position them in a circle to give students a place to study outside. When pagan students discovered the rock formation, they asked to have the place to call their own.

The Air Force agreed.

Some Christians may be outraged at this news. Conservative pundits Fox News spun this as a tongue-in-cheek, sign of the times story. Personally, I don't like that there are enough pagans in the Air Force to warrant a specific place of worship. However, if evangelicals have a problem with this specific case of pagans getting a place of worship at the Air Force Academy... I take the side of the pagans.

This has been a long time coming.

The Air Force Academy has been under a microscope since 2005 when evangelicals went overboard with evangelism. According to some accounts they, "...promoted evangelical beliefs to cadets, used their religion as a tool for military training, and encouraged religious conformity on campus."[1]

Back then, evangelicals were allowed on campus to evangelize while other religious groups were hindered in their same attempts. For some students, attending an evangelical church service was required for a grade. Others were told they were going to hell simply for being Jewish (the reformed guy in me says -- if you tell Jews they're going to Hell, you should be sure and tell vain, religious Christians they're going as well; repentance is not exclusively for those on the "outside"). Still other students were given a choice between evangelical services or extra duties. And extra duties in the military are not fun, believe me.

The underlying cause of this aggressive evangelism stems from a lot of things, but most notably was Ted Haggard (who was removed from his pulpit for have a homosexual affair in 2005.) Haggard feared a future Islamic America and believed a Christian military would help deter such a future.

He desired to use "...strong ideology of the use of power, of military might, as a public service..." and supported pre-emptive war because he believed "...the Bible instructs Christians to proactively abolish sinners." He also believed, "...in violent warfare because the Bible's bloody. There's a lot about blood."[2]

So, if one desires a Christian military, what a better place to start than the Air Force Academy; where new Air Force leaders are trained. Haggard helped fund, along with Focus on the Family, the crazy evangelism that occurred there for nearly a decade.

This, of course, is completely insane.

The word evangelical means 'one who brings good news'. Whatever happened to that word? There use to be a time when evangelicals shared the good news through their life, reflecting Christ in their profession and conversations with people close to them. If someone asked the joy they had, of course they would share. But they would never force anyone to do anything.

I just can't imagine Jesus holding someone's grade in a class over their head until they attended His Sermon on the Mount. But I can imagine Jesus' compassion and life being attractive to people... and when they asked Jesus how to become a follower, then He would answer.

So, for me, the pagan place of worship is a long time coming. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the Air Force must swing things completely to the left because evangelicals wound them up so far to the right.

Don't get me wrong, I'm totally against the pagan outdoor worship centre. However, I'm also against evangelicals forcing people to "become Christian" as if the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the process.

If there was anyone to blame for this new pagan worship centre, it's every evangelical Christian who forcefully evangelized at the Air Force Academy.

=====

[1]

http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_363.shtml [2] Ibid.