Posts Tagged ‘Christians’

It’s That Time Again

Posted December 13, 2007 by Charles
0

capitol_christmas_tree_1995_2.jpgThe Christmas war has begun anew. It’s not quite like it has been in recent years for me, mainly because I haven’t been paying very much attention. But I was listening to O’Reilly for a few minutes today and it all came screaming back to me. Some days I can’t get enough of the ridiculous ranting from people who think that it’s important whether or not people say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays”. Other days I don’t want to hear it at all.

Chris has some good thoughts over at Rend The Heavens:

This fight to keep “Merry Christmas” alive is going to be fought year after year and probably will eventually end with “holiday” being the victor. HOWEVER, if we focused our efforts on expanding the Kingdom of God, not simply a holiday… not a culture… not the Kingdom of America… then maybe, we’d see the result that we need: Everyone bowing their knee to Jesus and acknowledging them as Savior and LORD.

I’m with him totally. For all intents and purposes, Christmas is a secular holiday. The celebration of Jesus birth is completely separated from the trees and the presents and the “peace on earth and good will towards men” business. For many Jesus is just another ornament on the tree. The way we celebrate (and the things we get riled up about) show that our priorities are way out of whack.

Related: Anti-Christmas Christians, Much Ado About Christmas

No Comprende

Posted October 7, 2007 by Charles
0

Here’s an incomplete list of mindsets that I don’t understand:

1.) Christians who believe the Bible is totally metaphoric. One such person said he chooses to believe this because the alternative is ugly. But ugly doesn’t equal untrue. This seems to spill out from a materialistic worldview, and the belief that since we’ve made many scientific advances since that time, we know that those things weren’t possible. One side says the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, that it’s all myth; the other says that the writers truly believed it, but were wrong. Both say a metaphoric reading has more meaning than a “literal” reading.

2.) Women who are willing to be accomplices in their own objectification. They dress to get men to lust after them. The only reason to show it, is because you want people to look. It would seem to me that this is a bad way to get attention, or at least it is bad attention to get. The looks (leers is more like it) women will receive from men when they wear revealing clothes are not the type that lead to thoughts like, “She seems smart,” or, “She’s the type of girl I could settle down with.” Maybe those aren’t the kind of responses you’re looking for, but that’s a whole other issue. If you are hoping to meet someone and settle down, perhaps you shouldn’t be out fishing for a lustful response from the men in your vicinity.

3.) Christians who believe that we have to choose between social justice and evangelism/discipleship (Beliefnet has a good thread on this…here). Why can’t both sides agree that the two are equally important? Sure, Jesus said in Matthew 25:31ff that those who care for “the least of these” will enter the Kingdom. But he said in verses 1-13 that those who horde their goods and refuse to share will enter. Not too many people preaching that message today. Then he said in 14-30 that those who make money will enter, and those who merely save it will be thrown “outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” I haven’t heard that sermon yet. What’s really strange is that these people, many of whom are of the liberal/progressive/emergent stripe that values a metaphorical reading as superior, take a surprisingly literal reading of the parable of the sheep and the goats…one unbecoming to their exegetical skill.

More to come, I’m sure…

All of Them? Really?

Posted June 4, 2007 by Charles
4

I was just reading Brian McLaren’s latest post over at God’s Politics, and it had a link to his organization, Red Letter Christians. I’d heard of the group, but didn’t know much about it, so I checked it out. In the first paragraph we read this: “We believe and seek to put in to action the red letter words in the Holy Bible spoken by Jesus.”

Two things about this bother me. First, it makes the letters in the Bible that aren’t in red less important. The Bible prioritizes itself; tell me what is more important: “You shall have no other gods before me,” or, “Carry no purse, no bag, no sandals, and greet no one on the road.” This is a ridiculous example, but one that is implied when you use this red-letter logic. Read more

Civics and Chrisitianity

Posted March 7, 2007 by Charles
1

One of the biggest problems affecting “conversation” and “dialogue” between progressives and conservatives, especially when Christians are involved, is that no one seems to understand the difference between social ethics and Christian morality.

The left is convinced that the church needs to adhere to contemporary Western culture’s ethical standards. Wherever they go, the church should go as well. The right is likewise convinced that the church needs to make society conform to (its particular version of) Christian morality. Both sides are wrong.

“Do not be conformed to the pattern of this world…” Paul’s statement in Romans is something that progressives would do well to focus on. The left wing of the church is getting co-opted by liberal ideals. Pluralism, feminism, reversed or merged gender roles and altered gender identity…all these have moved from society to the church.

There’s no place in the church for the acceptance of other gods or religious practices. And for any official church leader to say that there is salvation outside of Christ is…brace yourself…heresy. We don’t like to use that word; there’s just something about clearly calling out someone’s error that bothers our contemporary sensibilities.

God lays out pretty particular roles for the genders. They’re clear in Scripture and biology. Men are called and created to lead, protect, to be the head of woman as Christ is the head of the church. There’s more, but that argument is for another place. Western feminism though, is pushing for not only gender equality, but for the total interchangeability of the sexes. That’s led to the progressive Christian movement ordaining women as a norm rather than an exception, against the example of Scripture.

As with Newton’s Third Law (“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”), the right has done the same type of stupid stuff. Pushing for things such as school prayer, making same-sex unions illegal, and making women feel as though they “should” (read: must) be stay-at-home moms are ridiculous intrusions into the pluralistic world of civil ethics.

Ethics deals with right and wrong in our society, which is a mishmash of cultures and religions, and we need to be conscious of those around us with different beliefs. Christian morality is based in the Bible, and for believers there can be no other standard; but while that standard comes from the God of all mankind, we only apply it to those who’ve heard and accepted His truth, because the unregenerate mind is incapable of accepting it.

These two concepts can interact just fine in society today. For me it looks something like this: The Bible speaks negatively about the issue of homosexuality. It receives no positive treatment in Scripture. On top of that, the examples of Scripture support a marriage of one man and one woman (1 Cor 7). However, I can think of no ethical reason to deny homosexuals the right to enter into a contract similar to marriage. But the church should not bless same-sex unions. This is just one example.

My biggest pet peeve is that both sides claim the moral high ground in living as Christ wanted, but no one is following the most important of Jesus commands. The right would say that the most important part of Christianity is to “be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect,” while the left would say loving our neighbor is most important. They’re both wrong.

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’This is the first and greatest commandment.” Matt. 22:36-38

Loving God is more important than loving our neighbor. It’s more important than personal holiness. Without a surpassing love for God, neither of those things means anything. How do we love God? We obey His commands. We glorify His name. We love the good, shun evil, and devote ourselves entirely to the Kingdom.

Loving our neighbor is an idol to the left. It’s taken on a whole new meaning. To the progressive movement it means accepting them and their sins. But if we truly love them we’ll confront their sinfulness, so they can repent and turn to God. Holiness is an idol to the right. But it manifests itself not in true holiness, which is characterized by servanthood and humility, but in the self-righteousness of the Pharisees. Pretending to have no struggles is not holiness.

Both sides have a long way to go in understanding the meaning of love and holiness.

“For what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses or forfeits himself?” If we raise someone out of poverty, but don’t teach her to love and follow God, and to keep his commands, she is still lost to eternity. Likewise if we teach someone to follow all of the rules but they don’t have love for God or compassion for others, he is also lost to eternity.

Until we start talking about the same things, our debates will continue to be meaningless posturing and shouting matches. Let’s get on the same page.

Anti-Christmas Christians

Posted December 10, 2006 by Charles
4

I heard something ridiculous on the radio this morning on the way to the church. This local minister has a talk show, and today he had a guy on who wrote a book about why, as Christians, we shouldn’t celebrate days like Christmas. They even went so far as to say that Jesus “would never attend a Christmas party.” I couldn’t believe it. I was fuming and arguing with them (out loud, unfortunately) the whole way here.

And wish I could’ve gotten on the air. I mean, I can see why people get worried. If you ever visit the Christianity.com Forums, you notice every year there are arguments about Halloween, Christmas, and Easter. Well, now that I look there doesn’t appear to be one this year. Anyway, they all center around people who have apparently just discovered the true origins of our religious holidays, and thinks that a Christian who knows would stop celebrating them.

If you’re unaware, Christmas began thousands of years ago as a simple winter solstice festival. The solstice is the shortest day of the year, so some groups called it the birth of the sun, because the days would be getting longer. This developed into a religious festival for people like the Emperor Constantine, who worshiped the Unconquerable Sun. The celebration was complete with evergreen trees (they show life in the death of winter) decorated with shiny things, and gift giving and eating. When Constantine decided that the Son was better than the Sun, he switched the celebration to the birth of Christ. Over time it became the Christ Mass, then Christmas, as we know it. There is a similar story for Easter.

These guys on the radio this morning were just like the posters on the forum. They talked about how the celebration of Christmas isn’t pleasing to God. They even compared it to the times Israel was carted off into exile for mixing worship with other nations. The only problem there is that we aren’t worshiping other gods!!!! They said that Jesus never celebrated, nor talked about Christmas (duh), and we shouldn’t celebrate any holy days that he didn’t. He said that those who did are treading on dangerous ground. But I think he’s in the more dangerous position.

He totally neglects what Paul says in Romans 14:

5One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

The church became infinitely more complicated when the Gentiles came in. There were pagans, nonreligious, agnostics, and every stripe of belief making its way into the fold. What Paul was saying is,”Some of you celebrate the Jewish festivals, and some of you don’t. Some of you celebrate the winter solstice, and some the harvest festival, and some the fertility festivals. Some of you don’t celebrate any festivals at all. It matters not. Whatever you do, do it to God’s glory.” Paul was saying that it’s okay to celebrate other festivals, as long as we’re not celebrating or worshiping the gods that are associated there. And he was especially talking about the holiday that would become Christmas.

I have to work, but I’ll be back on this later…

Related: It’s That Time Again

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >

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

© Charles Jones 2006-2009 // pos51.org