reasons why

You’ve heard the rhetoric. We need to “take back” America as a “Christian Nation”. There are several issues with this and I hope to deal with more of them as this blog grows. But for now, I’d like to focus on the perception of what it would take to turn America into a Christian nation.

Those who are pushing this agenda(Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, etc.) have the idea that in order to have a Christian nation we need to enact and enforce laws which are explicitly Christian in nature. They would also have certain expressions of Christianity be demanded as the norm for society.

Now, would laws and conduct based on Christian morals make America a better country? Probably, but that is not what’s in question here. The question is, would it make America a “Christian Nation”. The answer has to be no.

Laws and standards of conduct are ultimately only external controls on behavior. While society could benefit from following Christian morals, the best we could hope for is a society of polite pagans. Christianity is not a matter of external behavior; it’s a matter of a changed heart. No amount of good behavior can accomplish that. It is a work which only God can accomplish in those who put their faith in Him.

Let’s not make the mistake of confusing morality with spirituality. No matter how upright or moral a man may seem, he is lost if he hasn’t put his complete trust in Christ as his Savior. So, let’s not get confused and think our community is more righteous just because the 10 commandments are displayed at the local courthouse. The true test of spirituality is always internal. Francis Schaeffer writes :

The inward area is the first place of loss of true Christian life, of true spirituality, and the outward sinful act is the result. If we can only get hold of this — that the internal is the basic, the external is always merely the result — it will be a tremendous starting place. (True Spirituality, chap. 1)

Everyone needs the Gospel. Everyone does not need the 10 Commandments and other such stuff presented in such a way that they actually obscure the Gospel. Let’s remember where the true need lies and make that the focus of our efforts to impact society.

It doesn’t take much to notice that Christianity is not considered a valid perspective in much of the public square today. In fact, it’s not uncommon to find the mindset that religion should not be brought into public discussion at all. However, ideas which come from such belief systems as naturalism, eastern mysticism, and atheism are not put under the same restrictions. There seems to be an almost unconscious rejection of anything which references religion and God at all.

I think part of the problem stems from what gets categorized as religion. Any religion is, at it’s simplest, a set of beliefs. And those beliefs are an attempt to describe reality. In other words, any religion is simply an attempt to answer the eternal question - Why am I here?

Naturalism and Hinduism(for example) both attempt to answer the very same question. Each tries to explain and describe how the universe works and how I personally fit into it. This is what is called a worldview. Everybody has one. Some are better developed than others, but we each have a system of beliefs and assumptions(conscious or not) that we evaluate and make decisions against. Christianity, Naturalism, Buddhism - all of these are systems which have been developed to describe how life works.

For example, why do people do commit evil acts? Christianity says that it’s because of the fallen nature of humanity. Naturalism says that it’s a particular characteristic which was/is needed for survival. Buddhism says that evil things happen as a repayment for past actions(karma).

Christianity is different in that it holds as true a personal, eternal Being who actually designed the universe to work the way it does and who makes moral demands of the inhabitants of that universe. This is a view of reality in the same way that evolution is a view of reality. Yet, a foul gets called at the theistic explanation simply because it is religious in nature. This should not be.

It is up to us as Christians to demand intellectual honesty of those who would classify Christianity - or any type of theism - out of the public sphere of thought. We must show that a worldview based on a supreme being is no different(categorically) than a worldview based on random chance. Each is simply trying to explain the reality of how things actually are.

In all of this we must be gracious and wise as we interact with people who do not share our convictions. They are not the enemy. In promoting Christianity as a valid worldview, we only hope to plant a seed which will lead to acceptance of the Gospel of Christ.

Travel through any neighborhood in my quaint little town and you’re bound to see certain signs stuck in the middle of the pristine, newly-mown lawns. No, these aren’t the 5am yard sale signs - though you’ll see some of those too. These are signs reminding me that I need to “Support the 10 Commandments”. And let’s not forget the bumper stickers; telling me that I not only need to support the 10 commandments, but OBEY them as well.

I’m sure that those who display these reminders have a variety of different reasons for doing so. But I wonder if they really get how the 10Cs relate to them as a new covenant Christian. I suspect if they did, we’d see a lot less of them cluttering up people’s lawns.

Let me state this plainly - the 10 Commandments have absolutely no authority over us and we are under no obligation to obey them. If you’re still with me, let me explain why :

• The 10Cs are part of the Old Testament law the same as animal sacrifices, temple worship, and the rest are.

• This covenant was only ever between God and the physical nation of Israel. If you haven’t noticed, we are not Israel.
• Jesus fulfilled the requirements of the Law and upon His death and resurrection instituted the New Covenant which we are now under.

Do you see that we’ve put the 10Cs into a special class unto themselves? Granted, the 10Cs are a wonderful summation of the essence of the Law and of the moral code which we find throughout scripture. That still does not change the fact that they are part of the Law which we have been set free from. If we’re going to say we should obey the 10 commandments, then we have absolutely no ground for saying we shouldn’t do animal sacrifices and stone rebellious children as well.

And do these 10Cs signs actually do anyone any good, besides making us feel like we’re taking a stand for something? I don’t think so. They do not present the Gospel to the unregenerate. They make us come across as having a holier-than-thou, judgmental attitude. And they present the Christian life as a list of moralistic commands.

So, if you really have an itch to put a sign in your yard, at least consider something like John 3:16. Better yet, just live out your life in a way that is salt and light to the world around you.

From The Pursuit of God by A. W. Tozer :

Has it ever occurred to you that one hundred pianos all tuned to the same fork are automatically tuned to each other? They are of one accord by being tuned, not to each other, but to another standard to which each one must individually bow. So one hundred worshippers met together, each one looking away to Christ, are in heart nearer to each other than they could possibly be were they to become ‘unity’ conscious and turn their eyes away from God to strive for closer fellowship.

This is a much needed reminder that the centrality of our worship should always be the triune God. Our focus should not be on others around us, nor on seeking an experience. It is with good motives that we seek to “connect” with our fellow believers during corporate worship. However, this expectation that we participate in some kind of mystical group experience is unwarranted and bound to lead to disappointment - either in ourselves or in others.

Let us instead set our affections on the One who is truly worthy. The first verse to this wonderful hymn says it well :

Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.

Along with my scintillating commentary(now, now, don’t laugh) I’ll occasionally suggest a few blogs for your perusal. If you haven’t heard of The Thinklings, I recommend you skip that rerun of JAG and head on over there.

The Thinklings is a collaborative effort by a group of guys from diverse religious backgounds. Calvinist or Arminian, Premil or Amil, you’ll find it represented on their blog.

Give ‘em a shot, and tell them Sozo sent you.

In a recent World Magazine article, an embedded reporter took a look at the pro-abortion rally held in Washington D.C. on April 25th. Amidst all the buttons, signs, and “pro-choice” rhetoric, one thing I picked up from her article was this - those who are pro-abortion think that they’re right and those who oppose them are wrong.

Now, that might seem like an no-brainer kind of statement. But for a group who values individual rights and decries the imposing of morality, I think it is very telling. The question I want to ask is “How do you know?”. How do you know that abortion is right and opposing it is wrong. How do you know that any action which hinders a woman’s “right to choose” is wrong?

The fact is, the pro-choice movement is terribly inconsistent. In one breath it condemns those who oppose it’s goals but in the next claims that other groups have no right to impose morals on them. Never mind that the idea that moral standards should not be imposed is in itself a moral standard.

But back to my question - “How do you know?”. Without a morality based on something outside the individual(i.e. God), the line between right and wrong becomes a matter of personal preference. If enough people have the same personal preference, then it can become the norm for society. But this norm shifts as people’s preferences shift.

If you hold this view consistently, that means that you can decide what’s right and wrong for you but not for anyone else. Why? Becuase there is no higher authority to appeal to. Everything is based on the individual.

So, the pro-choice activist who claims you have no right to impose your morality has just opened up a wonderful opportunity. In a manner that holds both truth and love as equally important, we need to ask the tough question - “How do you know?” - and then be willing to dialog with them in a Christ-like manner, no matter how radically different their views are. Just like Paul said, we are planting seeds(1 Cor. 3:6), but God is the one who causes the growth.

Well, instead of spending time on my own blog, I’ve been caught up in the recent discussion about the ‘will of God’ over at Jolly Blogger.

If you’ve always assumed that God had a perfect, individual will for your life or that you needed to ‘hear the voice of God’ to be a mature Christian, I highly suggest you read these posts and the comments that follow :

Is Finding the Will of God Biblical?

More on Finding God’s Will

Still more on the will of God

That should be enough to keep you busy for awhile.

The purpose of this post is not too minimize the heinous acts recently commited against Iraqi POWs. Anyone who has seen the pictures and has an ounce of sense recognizes the atrocities commited and that the perpetrators should be punished for their actions.

Instead, I just want to remind everyone of our Christian brothers and sisters who are also undergoing similar persecution in hostile environments throughout the world.

Brian O’Connor is an ex-pat Indian national recently arrested in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia :

Mr. O’Connor has received visitors and has communicated that his legs were chained and he was hung upside down and “they played football with me”. “The Muttawa came in turns of fours and kicked me in the chest and rib area, and this continued up to 2 AM on Friday morning”. He also says that he was whipped on his back and the soles of his feet by electrical wires and is in much pain as he walks. He also reports that he is in intense pain, and thinks that a rib may be broken. (full story)

In Vietnam, there are 64 known(how many unknown?) Christian leaders who are currently in prison. Two more have been killed and an additional two are unaccounted for (full story).

Also in Vietnam, there are reports of government officials “using drug injections to torture minority ethnic Hmong Christians into abandoning their faith”. This is from a letter from Zong Xiong Hang, a Hmong Christian who was tortured :

I would like you to know that on January 17, 2002, the army gave me an injection which almost killed me. They came to force us to not believe in Jesus. We all got sick and it was different from any kind of sickness we had ever had before. Everyone who got sick had chest pains and pain in their forehead. Our legs and arms were cold and numb, it felt like our blood was not going through. The pain came fast and then went away. But the most important thing is this only happened in our area of Lai Chau Province, not in the other areas. The other villages where there are no Christians did not get this kind of sickness. (full story)

Please continue to pray for these fellow believers and for all those throughout the world who are persecuted because of their faith.

For more information on the persecuted church, you can visit the International Christian Concern and Voice of The Martyrs websites.

Pragmatism, in it’s simplest terms, is the idea that if something works then it must be good. For a more techie definition you can look here or here. It is a philosophy of utility, of the ends justifying the means.

As Christians, we have been quick to point this out in secular society. But not so much when it happens behind our own walls.

Let’s take the example of Embryonic Stem Cell Research(ESCR). Through ESCR, scientists hope to be able to cure such diseases as Parkinson’s disease, heart disease, and even cancer. The problem is that an embryo has to be destroyed in order for the stem cells to be harvested. The argument is that it’s worth it if we can somehow alleviate suffering caused by these diseases.

We immediately recognize this as a pragmatic argument. The fact that an embryo - an unborn human baby - is destroyed is not considered. Just because the end result is good does not mean that the entire process can be considered good. The how must be looked at as well.

Now let’s look at something a little closer to home…

Every few years a new fad sweeps through mainstream Christianity; Experiencing God, Prayer of Jabez, Wild at Heart, Purpose Driven Church, etc. Now, all of these have a different focus, but they also have a remarkable similarity. If any concern is raised, the response of the supporters is not to address the concern, but rather to point to the “success” of the particular movement in question. Surely you’ve seen it happen. Start questioning and you’re likely to get one of the following responses :

“But, my relationship with God is so much deeper now”

“Anything that gets people to pray can’t be bad”

“I finally feel free to be my real self”

“Our church has doubled in size in the past 6 months”

What’s the common denominator? The judgment of something being “good” is being determined by results and experience. But what if that something is not true? Our first question should be does it line up with scripture rather than does it produce the desired results.

Would you steal money to finance a missionary trip? Or recommend attending a Mormon temple because they are experiencing unprecedented growth? Of course not - because stealing and Mormon teaching are in and of themselves contrary to scriptural principles. The ends obviously do not justify the means.

We should apply the same standard to teachings/movements which fall within the “Christian” camp. If the Prayer of Jabez is based on faulty interpretation of scripture, then it is wrong regardless of the results produced. The same is true for the Purpose Driven materials. It doesn’t matter how much the program increases membership; if Rick Warren’s teachings are not scripturally based then they cannot be considered “good”.

If we are to be fair and consistent, we have to apply the same level of scrutiny inside the church as we do outside the church. The next time someone brings up a concern over a current popular teaching, hold back that urge to point to all the “success” associated with it. Instead, compare it to scripture and make your judgment based on that.

I could write more on this, but I think that I got my point across(at least I hope I did). However, I do want to clarify a few things.

Although I do have an opinion on the “fads” listed above, please note that I am not attacking them directly. Instead, I am only calling into question the methods used to defend them.

It may also seem that I’m saying that experience has no place in determining truth. My position is that experience can help confirm truth, but it can never be the sole determiner of it. Your subjective experience of life should match with your objective understanding of scripture. If it doesn’t then you need to determine where the disparity is.

David over at Through a Glass Darkly is trying to keep me honest. He points out in a recent post that the ESCR example in my previous post is not pragmatic in the strict sense :

“No one really claims that ESTR[sic] is acceptable simply because it leads to treatments that work. The heart of the argument is that a fetus isn’t morally equivalent to the person suffering from, say, Alzheimer’s.”

This is a good point and David is right. At the foundation of the argument is whether a fetus can be considered a ‘person’ with the same moral status as a 1 year old, for example. So, while most arguments in favor of ESCR are pragmatic when taken by themselves, the foundation those arguments are built on is a much deeper philisophical and ethical issue.

David also takes issue with the my use of PDL as an example :

“Now let’s extend this to church movements, such as the Purpose Driven Life (PDL). It’s true that, at some popular level, people might be inclined not to examine such a movement critically because “it works.” I’m not convinced, however, that most church leaders accept the material so uncritically.

That may be true, but so far I’ve heard very few people make a scriptural argument for PDL being true(pastors and laypeople alike). Now, that’s not to say that they haven’t examined it scripturally, but only that I’ve just heard the pragmatic arguments.

Thanks to David for sharpening me! If you haven’t already, you should check out his blog and peruse some of the good stuff he has written over there.