Skip to content

Category Archives for My Own Personal Religion

Thinking with the Internet Monk

Michael Spencer’s post today at his blog, internetmonk.com, prompted a good little discussion on the nature of blogging, fisking and the discussion of theology, which often (usually) trespasses into areas of personal faith and belief. Because theology (man’s attempts to understand God) impacts in a very real way how we interact with God and accept how God wants to interact with us, discussions about theology should never be thought of as purely intellectual exercises.

As I pointed out in a comment on that post, when we are confronted with some different thinking on a theological issue, it provokes us to think the issue through in light of our own theological framework. Often that process appears as a challenge or a critique, which of course it is. From the standpoint of the reader, you can choose to critique something based on a theological framework (e.g. “it’s not Reformed, so it’s wrong”), or you can challenge yourself and your theology in the process. Often my responses to things start out, “I don’t think so, because…” This could sometimes be seen as being “critical,” which is a no-no in some circles, or it could be understood as thinking out loud from another perspective. When I think of it, I do try to indicate that’s what I’m doing. Sometimes.

This week I have been provoked in a good way by a couple of posts on i-monk on the localization of Jesus. The first post was titled Where’s Jesus?: Thoughts on a Locally Available Christ (a brilliant title) and asked the question, “Where can you get your Jesus?.” As the title implies, the post discusses the concept of trying to make Jesus – or see Jesus as – more present in one place than another. Examples include the “Real Presence” at Communion and concepts like God “showing up” at a certain church. While not denying that there is truth in some of these concepts, Michael proposes:

Presenting Christianity as a system of localized appearances of Jesus distorts many things that we want to continually affirm: Jesus as the one mediator, Jesus as the ascended Lord of the universe, Christ who is in the midst of his church and present with all of his people. Maintaining the Biblical balance between “Jesus on the table,” “Jesus in my experience” and “Jesus at the right hand of the Father is a crucial task for worship leaders, pastors and teachers.

In a follow up post, he discusses what he calls a sacramental view of reality. While not everyone would agree with his thinking or his language, what he presents is a great tool for examining how we see God’s presence in our lives, and how we function as churches. It would be nice, would it not, if we spent less time in church talking about how we could make our lives better, and spent more time recognizing the presence of God around us?

My friend Ken writes a couple of posts dealing with similar issues here and here.

On that note, I’ll sign off. Stay tuned for an upcoming post discussing another of the i-monk’s thought-provoking articles, this one on transactionalism, entitled Out of Business With God.

Written on 26 September 2007 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Theological Musings with No Comments

How to read the Old Testament: Wisdom from an old dude

In keeping with prior posts on hermeneutics (that is, how to read and actually understand the Bible in some reasonable fashion), more hermeneutics, discovering the nature of God, and too many posts to link to directed at shaking a bit of sense into mindless pop Christian culture, check out Ben Witherington, once again, as he provides a great post on how we should read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.

The “old dude” I’m referring to is “Saint” John Chrysostom, one of the gems of the Early (4th Century) Church. We don’t hear too much from Chrysostom, and some may never of heard of him. It seems as though many people assume that there were no brilliant theological minds between the Apostle Paul and Martin Luther (or Calvin, for you Reformed folks). Born in 349, Chrysostom was actually a contemporary of Augustine, who was 5 years younger. Chrysostom became the Archbishop of Constantinople, while Augustine joined the Church in Italy after being converted in Milan. Of course, at that time there was still only one church, although Rome always seemed to always claim a higher status. While both men are considered saints in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the West seemed to follow Augustine’s thinking, while Chrysostom seems to carry more clout in the East. But, enough history.

The point that Witherington & Chrysostom make concerning the reading of the Old Testament is that since the coming of the New Testament (basically, I think, the appearance of Jesus) the Old Testament must be read and interpreted in light of the New Testament. Here’s a quote that Mr. W quotes from Chrysostom:

Now when you see these things merely sketched out you neither know everything nor are you totally ignorant of everything, but you know that a man and a horse are drawn there, though they are indistinct. But you don’t accurately [or fully] know what sort of emperor or what sort of prisoner it is until the truth of the colors comes and makes the face distinct and clear. For just as you don’t ask everything of that image/portrait before the truth of the colors, but if you receive some indistinct knowledge of what is there, you consider the sketch to be sufficiently ready , in just that same way consider with me the Old and New Testaments , and don’t demand from me the whole fullness of the truth in the [OT] type…For as in the painting, until someone draws in colors it is a shadowy sketch.

Much weirdness comes from reading the Old Testament separate from the New, and as a consequence confusing how the testaments fit together. Witherington says:

Now what is so interesting about this whole hermeneutical approach is that it believes that one must do justice to the history if one is to do theology and ethics right. Christianity was a religion grounded and founded in history, and so theology proper was a reflection on God’s mighty acts in history which had a before and after to them. It was not an abstract science or philosophy where one took ideas and simply linked them together without them arising out of historical events and their substance. In the end, Chrysostom’s hermeneutic mirrors that of Paul and the author of Hebrews. It would be my view that we should go and do likewise.

Good stuff again from Mr. Witherington. Go read the whole article.

Written on 30 August 2007 by me under Letter to a Christian Nation, My Own Personal Religion, Theological Musings with 8 Comments

My letter to a Christian Nation 5: Hermeneutics and heretics

Dear Christian Nation,

One of the problems that we have, and why some atheists and other forms of non-believers find Christianity nuts, is that so many of us read the Bible in ways that allow us to make it say whatever we want. Thus, we have those committed to a life of poverty, and also those committed to material wealth; we have legalists and antinomians, liberal pacifists and fundamentalist war-mongers, and the list goes on. Many non-Christians don’t understand that when Pat Robertson proclaims a natural disaster as punishment from God, or when Oral Roberts sees a 900 foot Jesus, they aren’t speaking for the rest of us. This individualized, subjective (and dare I say postmodern?) reading of the Bible is, at the very least, setting a bad example for non-Christians who are trying to make sense out of what we believe (or are supposed to believe).

This is not to say that even with good hermeneutics (the art of interpreting ancient texts such as the Bible) we won’t have disagreements; however, I’m certain that we’d have significantly less disagreement over many important passages, with just a little dedication to truth. After all, aren’t we supposed to be dedicated to truth?

Ben Witherington has posted a brilliant piece called Hermeneutics– A Guide for Perplexed Bible Readers, that should be of interest to Christians and may also be of interest to non-Christians. It may also upset a number of Christians who insist on creating their own private reality.

Witherington first makes a good case (please pay attention to this) for why Christians should work a bit harder to try to understand the Bible correctly. The problem, however, is that many of us simply don’t want to hear this; actually treating truth as something worth working on interferes with our “making it up as we go” brand of reality. In other words, hermeneutics interferes with their heresy.

Witherington says:

But why would we need a guide to the perplexed in regard to the interpreting of the Bible? After all, don’t Christians have brains and the Holy Spirit to guide them? Well yes, but all modern brains are affected in the way they think by the modern cultural milieu in which they are immersed. They are affected as well by their whole educational progress (or regress) through school as well.

And frankly, ancient Biblical cultures, languages, and modes of conveying meaning are often so different from what modern ‘common sense’ may deduce that we do need some guidelines to help us interpret the Biblical texts which came out of very different cultures and circumstances from our own, ESPECIALLY if we are only trying to interpret the Bible on the basis of one or more English translations, none of which are perfect representations of the original language texts.

Witherington also gives three rudimentary rules of interpretation, with a brief explanation of each rule:

  1. What it meant is what it means
  2. Context is king
  3. Genre matters

Some may feel that these rules are meant to explain away some things, or to discredit some “pet” interpretations; however, these are simply rules for actually understanding what the Word of God actually means. Doesn’t this seem important? However, as sad as it is, there will be many who simply reject this approach as being “liberal,” or based on reason rather than “spirit.” These people will go on with their own version of reality based on subjective, individualized, out-of-context readings of the Bible, in effect taking the position that their own understanding is more authoritative than the Bible itself.

Sounds terribly postmodern, doesn’t it? Again, I’m not against different opinions on what a text means, and certainly not when it comes down to the application of a text’s meaning. However, if you’re going to simply pull meaning out of the air, why use the Bible at all?

There will be verse-mining and rumors of proof-texting. It’s unfortunate and apparently inevitable, especially when Christians reject “the good sense that God gave you.”

Written on 22 August 2007 by me under Letter to a Christian Nation, My Own Personal Religion with 2 Comments

Heretic’s Guide to Eternity: What was I thinking?

Jossey-Bass Publishers, one of the publishers of the new “emergent” group of authors, used to sent me review copies of some of their books, saying that they liked my thoughtful, honest reviews. That is, until I slammed one of Brian McLaren’s books. Apparently they only appreciate positive honest reviews (or, they simply have a new publicist with a new list of favorites). I’ve nearly given up on the whole emerging church bunch, as they seem to be lost and wandering, looking for mystery, experience and meaning. If the Church had an emo branch, they’d be it. I’m thinking we change the name to “emogent.”

So, what was I thinking, to order a copy of Spencer Burke’s The Heretic’s Guide To Eternity (co-authored by Barry Taylor)? I guess I was hoping against hope that I’d find a thoughtful, theological look at the inclusivist view of grace. Inclusivism is a very broad term, usually seen as more “moderate” views of God’s grace, as opposed to the more “exclusivist” positions held by many conservative Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christians but not reaching the other extreme, “universalism.” Again, I was hoping to find a thoughtful, theological look – but I should have known better.

As it turns out, Burke appears to be as emogent as they get. I admit I’ve not reached the mid-way point yet, but it’s pretty clear where he’s going, and other reviews I’ve read, such as the one at Jesus Creed, confirm this. He spends an inordinate amount of time opposing the concept of religion, without ever defining how he is using the term. Basically, he doesn’t like anyone telling him what to do (again, emo). He is rejecting any sort of organized, methodical approach to Christianity, instead proposing a kind of universalist, nebulous “spirituality.” He even redefines grace to suit his own spirituality:

Religion declares that we are separated from God … Grace tells us the opposite; we are already in unless we want to be out.

… grace tells us there is nothing we need to do to find relationship with the divine.

It’s all very pretty and new-agey. But, as much as I am a champion of grace (ask those who know me), you do have to write off Paul, not to mention Jesus himself, to come to a conclusion like this. I do believe that grace is extended further than the fundamentalists tell us, but Burke’s concept of grace is simply not grace. You might as well sit on a mountain somewhere with a pyramid on your head.

Burke is perhaps most well-known as the founder of The Ooze, one of the first post-modernist Christian websites; I think it existed even before everything became emerging (does that make it pre-emergent?). The Ooze is still around, but I don’t go there. It seems to be a fairly mainstream place, but broad enough to include references to people like Steve Sjogren, NT Wright and Brian McLaren.

Now, I’m not known for being a traditionalist, or for being “religious.” In fact, I was postmodern even before I knew it existed. I’ve been challenging church forms and practices for 30 years, and I still do. However, I’ve had the benefit of 20 years of involvement in a creedal church, and being involved in many various church expressions since then. I tend to agree with the postmodernists that modernism has failed; however, to simply dismiss anything known as religion in favor of existentialist, romanticist, individualist or experiential expressions of spirituality is indeed heresy (as well as naive and foolish). Here, I would agree with Burke: He does, so far, seem to be a heretic, and not in the sense of a Martin Luther.

I am afraid that the Emogents, in wanting to strip away modernism, have forgotten that Christianity existed before modernism. And, we also can’t err in thinking that the modernist church didn’t develop some valid theological concepts along the way; all of modernism wasn’t bad. We’ve already moved past the initial wave of post-modernism and are now somewhere else, perhaps post-postmodernism. Post-modernism, in my opinion, brought nothing new into the picture, but only helped to deconstruct some modernist errors.

I will have to say though, I was impressed that Spencer Burke named his son Alden.

I do plan to continue reading the book, and maybe I’ll be surprised along the way. There’s always hope… However, as Scot McKnight at Jesus Creed does a pretty fair review of the book in 4 parts (why didn’t I read this first?), chances are I won’t bother to do another post on this book unless something really strikes me.

Written on 05 July 2007 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Reviews with No Comments

The Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future

Today, as in the ancient era, the Church is confronted by a host of master narratives that contradict and compete with the gospel. The pressing question is: who gets to narrate the world? The Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future challenges Evangelical Christians to restore the priority of the divinely inspired biblical story of God’s acts in history. The narrative of God’s Kingdom holds eternal implications for the mission of the Church, its theological reflection, its public ministries of worship and spirituality and its life in the world. By engaging these themes, we believe the Church will be strengthened to address the issues of our day.
- from “A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future”

In 1977 a group, led by Robert Webber (who passed away last month), issued what was known as “The Chicago Call,” which identified eight themes that required attention by the contemporary evangelical movement. The Chicago Call stated:

We confess that we have often lost the fullness of our Christian heritage, too readily assuming that the Scriptures and the Spirit make us independent of the past. In so doing, we have become theologically shallow, spiritually weak, blind to the work of God in others and married to our cultures.

The eight themes included the tendency toward individualized interpretations of the Bible, a disregard (or ignaorance) of the basic theology represented by the creedal statements of the past, the focus on individualized salvation experiences, and the separatist nature of contemporary movements (the unity of the Church). I remember reading it in the early 80′s and being very impacted by it (as well as by Robert Webber’s wonderful book, now out of print, Common Roots). Having been raised Lutheran (and later adopting an essentially Lutheran theology after investigating and rejecting the more trendy pseudo-evangelical theologies such as dispensationalism), but at the time serving on the board of an Evangelical Free church, this was music to my ears.

Now, years later, I am once again finding myself hearing the music of the “new and improved” call. When I first discovered the Ancient-Future Call, I nearly wrote it off as some postmodern angst-ridden emo-Evangelical document (it does make obvious use of the pomo-speak narrative); but then I saw Robert Webber’s name, and realized there may be some meat here. The Call has been updated to address a far different culture than we saw in 1977, as well as different challenges:

These external challenges include the current cultural milieu and the resurgence of religious and political ideologies. The internal challenges include Evangelical accommodation to civil religion, rationalism, privatism and pragmatism.

The AE Call is fairly succinct, focused on 6 areas. It is far more than just another expression of the Evangelical Angst that is so apparent in the Emergent-ish movements; this is an educated critique of the contemporary evangelical church from people who have managed to avoid angst, but at the same time have not been entrenched in the past, either. Read it here, and we’ll discuss it next time…

Written on 15 May 2007 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with No Comments

Exile, marginalization and the promised land

I love it when conversations converge, such as when I’m reading something on a certain topic and then someone else provides unsolicited input on that same topic. It’s even cooler when input from three different sources converge on a topic. It could be seen, depending on your worldview, as design – the concept that your thoughts are being guided by some known or unknown intelligence. Or, it could just be the random pattern generated by thousands of conversations coincidentally coming together. Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Anyway, I’ve been reading Bruce Feiler’s Where God was Born, which is an excellent, excellent book exploring the ancient & religious history of the Middle East, especially the area that was Babylon, and which is now Iraq. Feiler is Jewish, and makes some interesting points about Israel in exile, specifically how exile was good for Israel; Israel actually thrived in Babylon, and as the Bible makes clear, Israel’s fortune depended on the fortune of Babylon. (Jeremiah 29:7 – “Also, seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper.“)

Then, last Sunday I walked into a conversation about Ephesians 6, where Paul writes concerning how the Christian should live “in exile” (For our struggle is not against flesh and blood …), and how that applies to the current “Christian conservative” movement and their political strong-arm tactics.

The 3rd coincidental conversation came Monday on a friend’s blog, where he writes On Why Atheists are So Angry:

What we are angry about is the idea that we have to buy into Christianity to be real Americans. That in most social situations we have to shy away from revealing that we are godless. That we were born 500 years too soon to experience a Societal Enlightenment in which reason will have finally won out over religion. That we are told to sit down and shut up because we aren’t important enough to have our voices in the discourse over comparative religion classes. That we are called fools for not believing in God. That we have to pretend to some religion in order to run for public office.

My comment on the blog included:

Perhaps the moral of all this is that no one likes to be marginalized. … It is the nature of people that the majority tends to marginalize the non-majority as much as possible, which in my opinion is always a fatal defect.

Even though we have Jeremiah and the rest of the Old Testament to teach us how to live in exile, even though we have Jesus’ and Paul’s teachings about how to live “in the world but not of the world,” Christians still don’t know how to live in exile. We don’t accept the reality that God’s people thrive and prosper in exile. We don’t like it, we don’t want it, and we devise theologies and bumper sticker slogans (“I’m a King’s Kid!”) to prove it.

What is also becoming more apparent is that exile has taught many Christians nothing about living in the Promised Land, either. For, we tend to do exactly what we don’t like others to do to us: we quickly marginalize all minority viewpoints, we flaunt our majority rule all over them, enslave them, and make martyrs of them, the exact opposite of what Jesus clearly taught (this is in all 3 synoptic Gospels):

Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” – Matthew 20:25-28

All of this, of course, begs the question: Are we ready yet for the Promised Land, or do we (Jim Dobson, are you reading this?) need another good dose of exile?

Written on 05 April 2007 by me under Faith, Science & Doubt, My Own Personal Religion, Politics/Current Events with No Comments

Recognizing The Church That Is

A couple of posts ago I wrote about the tendency to confuse the church organization, which often needs constant cheerleading to keep it going, with The Church That Is, that just is. In some respects, we’ve all been trained this way, although perhaps not as much as in times past.

I grew up in a small town with several churches. We had many of the standards: Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Catholic, Evangelical Covenant, and occasionally one or 2 more. On Tuesdays, we’d all take an hour off from public school to go to our respective churches for religious instruction. Not much was ever discussed between us about our respective churches, and it was just understood that our church affiliation made us different from the other kids. There were a couple who didn’t go anywhere, and we all felt somewhat sorry for them – but no one ever considered asking them to come along. It was actually unthinkable to invite someone to change churches – you just were who you were.

Things are obviously much different now, although some of the more traditional churches try to keep their flocks from straying out of their pens. It’s not unusual for people to change churches, often spending a couple of years at one place, then moving to another. However, even with this more tenuous connection to a congregation or denomination, there still tends to be an identity that develops based on where you attend at the moment. You’re friends with this group of people, then move on to another group, often abandoning old relationships (we consider it “drifting apart” rather than abandonment) in favor of the new. It’s a lot like serial monogamy.

We often wouldn’t consider attending a home group or Bible study that isn’t associated with our current church, even though that group may be (or have been) our close friends. There are those of us who do, and we are looked at with suspicion by pastors and leaders (and the more “committed” members of the church) who can’t understand why we won’t abandon our connections outside of the church.

Commitment still means 100% to the organization in many places. It doesn’t matter that we may be involved in tremendous para-church (I hate that term) organizations and doing the work of the Kingdom; if it’s not a part of the “program” it doesn’t spell commitment.

There’s something wrong. With these attitudes, we become blind to The Church That Is. We meet other people who are Christians, and don’t develop Kingdom relationships with them, because we fail to recognize the Kingdom.

“Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” said Jesus. I suspect that we often miss out on the presence of Jesus in our daily lives, because we have been blinded to the reality of the Kingdom. What does it mean to “gather in my name?” I wonder if it is as simple as recognizing each other as fellow disciples, by failing to see the Kingdom in each other, and failing to recognize that The Church That Is exists wherever we are.

Why can’t the Church exist where two Christians at work meet at break to just see how each other is doing? Why can’t the Church exist at the gym during a game of racquetball? If we acknowledge the we are all the temple of the Holy Spirit and the reality of the Church exists in the connection of these Earthly temples, then the real presence of Jesus and the real presence of The Church That Is exists at that moment, at that place. There’s no need for singing or liturgy or a sermon… all that is needed is our presence.

The organizations, the buildings, and all of that is not necessarily wrong (it obviously depends on the organization…); the reality is that these are para-church organizations, set up merely to facilitate meetings and programs. Some are good, some are not so good – but, they are only tools of the real Church. We can’t confuse them with The Church itself.

The Church That Is, is. It’s as simple as that.

Written on 10 February 2007 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 2 Comments

The Church That Is

Last Sunday morning I was sitting in church contemplating how we often spin our wheels trying to achieve something that we already have, when I realized that a prime example was presenting itself in the sermon. The pastor was teaching on community, which has been a common topic in the Western evangelical church. As I’ve said before, I think one of the reasons community needs to be talked about so much, is because the Western evangelical church fails to recognize the community that exists in the Spirit, and actually undermines the functioning of community.

“Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them,” said Jesus. This should give us a clue as to the reality of community and the nature of the Church. While the “One Holy and Apostolic Church” includes all Christians worldwide (no longer practical to meet in one place), an expression of the Church – and a very real expression of community – exists wherever 2 or more gather “in Jesus’ name.” Church and community, then, are not dependent upon having a pastor, a building, a worship team, or an organizational structure. It is solely dependent upon meeting “in Jesus’ name.”

I contend that very real and tangible community (and “church”) happens daily across the globe in homes, coffeehouses, backyards and places of work, wherever people get together with a Kingdom purpose, whether to pray, serve, or merely encourage and relate to one another. These “2 or 3″ could be from different church families, different countries, or different theological positions; it doesn’t matter, as long as they meet “in Jesus’ name.”

I also contend that pastors are trained not to see or recognize this, for it often undermines the agenda of the “para-church” organizations that we call churches. In an age where a city boasts dozens and even hundreds of churches – often who recognize and respect each other – no one church can claim to be a church modality, or the only local representation of the universal Church. However, there is still a whole lot of kingdom-building (in the organizational rather than spiritual sense) going on, with many pastors jealous of any activity outside of their little organization in which their members may be involved. There is a definite tension between these church organizations (in my opinion, sodalities) and “The Church That Is,” that exists wherever 2 or more are gathered.

Take, for example, this sermon snippet:

There is no place for unholy individualism in this church. There is no place for just doin’ our own thing. If this is the place God has called you to… what it means is we begin to let go of our own of our individual stuff and doing our own thing … and we begin to ask … ‘how does what I do fit in with [this church]‘”

You can feel the tension here, can’t you? It’s one thing to say, “stop following the wide path and get on the straight and narrow.” It’s another thing to say “this church’s way or the highway.” Could it be that the needs of the church organization are not in line – and even in opposition – with the purposes of The Church That Is?

The problem, as I perceive it, is the proverbial failure to see the forest for the trees, or in our case, the failure to see community and church for the people. One pastor may look out on a church and see people off in many directions, with little or no energy to maintain the processes of the church organization. Another may look out and see wonderful examples of community and the Kingdom in action. One builds a structure and tries to make his people fit; another sees the people and tried to create a structure to support them. I think you can tell which viewpoint I prefer.

Written on 30 January 2007 by me under Church, My Own Personal Religion with 4 Comments

The Fools’ Challenge

The fool says in his heart,
“There is no God.”
– David, Psalm 53:1

Newsweek‘s Beliefwatch column this week discusses a new YouTube trend: self-damnation (there’s got to be some Latin word for that, but I don’t know it). In what is at the very least pure foolishness, the website blasphemychallenge.com is encouraging those who are pretty convinced of their atheism (along with the young and unwise) to post videos of themselves in which they attempt to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, in essence playing “chicken” with God.

I don’t really understand what their point is. So you choose not to believe in God? Fine. It is, as they say, a free country. But, why the challenge? Do the two individuals behind the challenge think they can turn their fantasies into reality by getting enough people to agree with them? Or, are they looking to subconsciously ease their fears by the “safety in numbers” theory?

Throughout history, many individuals have erroneously believed that they could change reality; the Roman rulers, for example, attempted to do so by edict. Today, we think we do it with opinion polls. Reality, as someone said, is perception. Those of us not foolish enough to fall for that postmodern hoohaw know better. As the Beliefwatch column states, this blasphemy challenge “is the ultimate no-win wager, as the 17th-century French mathematician Blaise Pascal calculated—it can’t be settled until you’re dead, and if you lose, you go to hell.”

One of the guys behind this operates his own site, RationalResponders.com; however, whether there is anything rational behind it is open to debate; certainly this challenge raises questions. And, of course, we have David’s analysis, in the opening quote. Now, I know that there are those who have chosen not to believe in a god of any kind, based on their honest analysis. These people, as with rational believers, can still carry on honest discussions of the issues. I am not sure if any of these people behind the “challenge” fall in that category. Rather, I suspect that most of them are to atheism what people like Robert Tilton and Jerry Falwell are to Christianity: they are fringe-dwellers, and can not speak for the population at large.

The real issue here, of course, is this:

“And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

“Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!”
– Jesus, Matthew 18:5-7

Jesus was no fool; those behind these websites appear to be. I dare not think about what kind of a hell they are creating for themselves. But what of the hundreds of teenagers who have jumped on this bandwagon? Have they indeed sinned the Big One? I guess that’s not for us to judge. If, of course, they still care about eternity in the years to come, then I would say that speaks for itself and is proof that they are still “savable.” If they don’t care, then only God knows.

But, a rational (which rules out many well-intentioned ministries) Christian response is probably in order. I’ll have to think about that…

Written on 03 January 2007 by me under My Own Personal Religion, Random Thoughts with 2 Comments

How am I entitled? Let me count the ways …

I was extremely tempted to write today about dear old retiring U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, and about how he is nearly equal to John Kerry, as far as making stupid statements whenever he opens his mouth goes. However, I am instead going to finish up my train of thought on the Entitlement Myth, unless I am unusually bugged about something down the road.

I am going to make this rather short, as I am, to be honest, tired of the topic, although it would be possible to go on and on and on…

People can develop a sense of entitlement from many things; by no means exhaustive (or even accurate), here’s a few:

  • Society: As I’ve already written, the “give a man a fish” approach creates both a dependency on the hand-out society and a worldview in which this is proper; most humans need to provide a justification for things that are against their nature (as I believe entitlement thinking is), and use the appeal of authority (“The government knows what is best”) or some other invalid premise (“they want you to have it”).
  • Slothfullnes: One of the 7 deadly sins (if I recall correctly), this speaks for itself.
  • Handicap status: The “minority” thinking: “I don’t have an equal opportunity, so therefore I deserve _________ .” There may be, in rare instances, some truth to this premise; however, the next step, an attitude of entitlement, is not the right conclusion.
  • Bad Theology: This one really bugs me. There are sub-sets to this one, including various forms of “faith” teachings, including the “Latter Rain” heresy, the various prosperity heresies, and a lot of the “prophetic” stuff. All of these could be cured by turning off “Christian” TV, unsubscribing from prophecy mailing lists, and simply reading the Bible.
  • Egotism: According to Chuck Gallozzi, “Egotism is the glue with which people get stuck on themselves.” This is simply being selfish, thinking we are higher than we really are. However, a mild and extremely common form (shared by nearly everyone at various times) is thinking that by nature of our own efforts, we deserve a certain benefit.

    I deal with this one all of the time, especially when it comes to my free time. I seem to think that I deserve peace and quiet, a place to rest from my labors, and some respect. This, of course, speaks for itself.

So, there you have it. Entitlement in many forms. All contrary to the Bible, as far as I can see. But, it’s a national pastime. Go figure.

Written on 04 December 2006 by me under My Own Personal Religion, The Daniel Amos Chronicles with 2 Comments