Posts Tagged ‘christian’

Christian First, American Second

Posted November 10, 2009 by Charles
5

Christian First

Does that sound odd? Should it? Maybe, maybe not, but that’s how I feel. Rather, that’s how I hope I feel. I don’t know if I can pull it off.

The criticism I’ve been hearing of Ft. Hood shooter Maj. Malik Hasan today centers around this comment, from a classmate of his:

Well, Hasan gave a presentation on whether the war on terror was a war on Islam. I raised my hand immediately. I questioned why that type of topic was being presented at because it was so off-base, and it was allowed to continue. His radicalism grow throughout the year. He would make frequent comments that he was a Muslim first and an American or an officer second, and also that, you know, Islamic law, Sharia law took precedence over the Constitution. And we all became concerned because he’s a sworn officer of the United States and he’s supposed to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Yet his loyalties lied elsewhere.

Read more

CT on the Money…Get Religion? Get Africans.

Posted October 9, 2007 by Charles
0

A couple of really good articles from Christianity Today about religious spectacle: Amusing Ourselves on Sunday, Listening for the Whisper

And one from GetReligion:  Listening to the African Anglicans.

Can We “Change the World”?

Posted October 1, 2007 by Charles
0

Abilene Christian UniversityThat’s the motto at ACU, and if you ever go there you’ll see it a lot. It’s a fine sentiment, I think; perhaps a little broad – but it gets an A for ambition. But it always caused some problems for me theologically.

The way I see the world, evil has existed since the fall, and has never subsided. I see it in life and in Scripture. Many people see change – moral advancement. They believe progress has been made, and more will be made. They believe that we can change the world.

Even if you only looked at Israel from the Exodus through the Crucifixion, you see that evil was present in much the same form for the whole of their history. But if you continue to look at Paul’s letters, Roman and other Western history, and the world as a whole, it’s difficult to build a case for true advancement.

How can we believe that progress is being made on a global scale? There are times when the only words that can make sense of the world for me are these:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.
Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.
The venom of asps is under their lips.
Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.
Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.
There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Romans 3: 12-18 ESV

The last line is the one that catches me up. No one talks about “God-fearing” anymore (at least not around me). Even Christians avoid this terminology. I’m not sure why, but we’ve chosen to speak of God’s love exclusively, and done our best to ignore his other qualities. Now, there are obviously groups that focus too much on God’s wrath (Fred Phelps, anyone?), but most of us have moved in the opposite direction.

Anyway, that is beside the point. When people have no fear of God, they do what they choose to do without worrying about Him, His will, or His consequences. This results in rampant selfishness and individualism. This doesn’t always mean violence.

When people think of “evil” in the world they often think of major violent events and oppression: Imperialism, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the slave trade, the decimation of the Indians. What we don’t tend to think about are the individual things. We don’t associate promiscuity with evil, it’s just a bad decision – but it’s making an idol out of sex. That’s evil. We don’t think of the endless pursuit of money to be evil, unless it leads to harming someone else – but that’s idolatry, too. We don’t consider the selfishness we encounter in our daily lives, even within ourselves, to be evil. But do you know what it is? Idolatry.

“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”

Romans 1:28-32

Does any part of this list catch you as something you encounter regularly? What about envy, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossip, slander, hating God, insolence, haughtiness, boasting, disobedience to parents, foolishness, or faithlessness? How many of those have you seen face-to-face in the last week? I’m pretty sure I’ve seen all of them, and even been guilty of a few.

This is Paul’s 2000 year-old incomplete list of “unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, [and] malice.” If we’ve each seen all or most of these things in the last week or month or year, how can we think that progress is being made, or is even possible? (Keep reading, I promise I’m not this much of a downer)

I read two interesting posts about sin recently, one at Pomomusings and one at Rend the Heavens. Both are worth reading, the comments as well. One comment really stuck out to me. Robert Austell said:

How do we make a change at the community level? Change must begin with me. And so, even addressing the idolatry and sin of all Israel, Joshua will repent publicly and say “As for me and my house.” Jesus, addressing the sins of legalism and ethnic bigotry, will speak of one good Samaritan and call out individuals to change.

The two are as connected as evangelism and social justice… transformation and redemption of culture begins (as God’s work) in one life at a time, which involves personal repentance, redemption, and transformation. That means personally dealing with issues of holiness, righteousness, humility, and repentance. That means dealing with personal sin… that produces godly “leaven” for society.

I thought of this concept every time I heard someone say “Change the World” while I was at ACU and again today. Today at Garnett Wade preached about transforming and redeeming culture, which rolls right along with the portion I italicized above. I’m not sure if he was saying that we could use a morally neutral culture for good, thereby redeeming it, or that we could make culture good. I believe the former is true, but am not sure about the latter.

Much like the story of the boy who is frantically throwing starfish back in the water after the tide rolls out, we can’t change everyone or fix everything; but every person we reach, and is transformed by Christ, makes our work worthwhile. So go ahead, Change the World.

A Surprising Position

Posted July 27, 2007 by Charles
0

red-smoke.JPGI’ve been reading Donald Bloesch’s A Theology of Word & Spirit, the first in the Christian Foundations series. I chose it at random of a shelf at Mardel, and I’ve been very impressed. Of course, how could I not be impressed by the level of scholarship necessary to write such a substantial theology text?

The thing I’m really surprised about is how faithful Bloesch’s theology is to both the Word and the Spirit. He fleshes out some ideas that make thing so much clearer for me…some that I already believed but couldn’t articulate, and some that I’d never thought of before. Read more

Fear and Loathing

Posted July 16, 2007 by Charles
0

I used to be paralyzed by fear. Not in all ways, but in some.

As a college student I was so afraid that God might not be real that I refused to hear any arguments against him, in case they were really convincing. I was also afraid that my perspective on the Bible was totally wrong, so I avoided any positions that might be convincing.

Well, after reading both positions for and against God, and Biblical positions I agree with and that I disagree with, I realized that my fears were unfounded. Since then I’ve dived in and pursued every differing position I could (that seemed worth the time).

Why did I lose my fear, you ask? Because of quotes like this:

There are two ways in which scripture might be a source of morals or rules for living. One is by direct instruction, for example through the Ten Commandments, which are the subject of such bitter contention in the culture wars of America’s boondocks. The other is by example: God, or some other biblical character, might serve as – to use the contemporary jargon – a role model. Both scriptural routes, if followed through religiously (the adverb is used in its metaphoric sense but with an eye to its origin), encourage a system of morals which any civilized modern person, whether religious or not, would find – I can put it no more gently – obnoxious…

In any case, despite the good intentions of the sophisticated theologian, a frighteningly large number of people still do take their scriptures, including the story of Noah, literally. According to Gallup, they include approximately 50 per cent of the US electorate. Also, no doubt, many of those Asian holy men who blamed the 2004 tsunami not on a plate tectonic shift but on human sins, ranging from drinking and dancing in bars to breaking some footling sabbath rule. Steeped in the story of Noah, and ignorant of all except biblical learning, who can blame them?

He follows the second one with some lines about people who have blamed natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina, on sin. That’s a good argument against religion, particularly Christianity: the fallibility of humans. We always claim that all Christians are perfect, therefore anything a Christian says or does that is wrong, such as blaming natural disasters on the sin of those who are affected, reflects the beliefs and positions of the whole of Christendom.

Uh, no. And, though he asserts it to be true, the system of morals found in the Bible is not something that “any civilized modern person…would find…obnoxious.” In response I assert that no intelligent or well educated, civilized, modern person would take seriously a book about religion written by a (pop) scientist with no theological training. Particularly if said book has a shiny silver cover.

Here’s another:

“You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it’s wrong to say therefore we don’t need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don’t need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

Why is the burden of proof on the believer? The belief existed first, so, logially, the burden should be on the one questioning the established belief. We see this over and over within Christianity where the burden of proof is on the challenger of the traditional position. Those, like Luther, who have Scriptural evidence succeed; those who do not, like Marcion, fail.

Dawkins also asserts that by showing the possibility of God to be very very small, he creates an argument that is indefensible. But someone tell me this: what are the odds of random elements combining in a pool and spontaneously becoming life? Is it repeatable? Seems pretty unlikely.

These are all reasons I’m no longer afraid.

Fear drives us. What I think drives a lot of people like Dawkins is a fear that God may be real. They worry about what will happen to them or their friends if God is real and they don’t believe, so they go into denial about the possibility. The same could, of course be said of believers, but that doesn’t bother me. The real difference is found in a personal encounter with God. If you’ve never had one, you’re almost incapable of understanding why someone would choose belief over unbelief.

But since I’ve had encounters with God, and have a relationship with Christ, I understand the choices I’m making. The difference between the two is as stark as the difference between Saul overseeing the stoning of Stephen and Paul sweeping across Macedonia proclaiming Christ.

Peter Berkowitz has more to say.

Adam’s Blog reviews a book, The Minor Protection Act, about what could result from the new new atheists crusade.

Power of Suggestion is proudly powered by WordPress.org and whiteboard

© Charles Jones 2006-2009 // pos51.org