Thanks

Posted on November 22, 2011 by me

I haven’t posted anything here for a long time, which they say is the worst blogging sin you can commit.  Firmly committed to the principle of grace, I can only respond, “Oh, well.”  But, I’ve been thinking, which probably means eventually I’ll be writing again.  I do plan to continue my “This I Know” series, which focuses on the simple things of Christianity that I knew as a child, and which I still believe are true.

This post will probably be rewritten at some point as part of that series.

This weeks’ revelation

I occasionally have revelations, typically when I least expect them. That’s probably why they fall under the category of revelations. I had one yesterday. Contrary to the popular concept of revelations, the heavens didn’t open, I didn’t receive stone or golden tablets (or tablets of any kind), and I still don’t understand Lady Gaga. My revelation was more along the lines of a head-slapping, “I could have had a V8!” moment. It happened as I was not having a good day and there was very little chance of interpreting the glass as being half-full. My revelation was this:

Cast your cares upon him, as he cares for you. ~1 Peter 5:7

“Him,” by the way, refers to Jesus (I just had to clarify that in case someone took this to mean I had suddenly come to embrace Obamacare.  And no, having a revelation of this sort does nothing to inhibit my tendency towards sarcasm.).

I have to say, I felt a bit foolish, as I have known this verse since I was a child. It’s so incredibly obvious that for this to be considered a revelation, I must be particularly dull. And, perhaps experiencing some adult-onset ADS, I began to appreciate the play on words in this particular translation. “Anxiety” just doesn’t have the same impact as the double use of “cares.”

It is impossible for us to say that we have no one to turn to, as Jesus is always standing there with an implied “What am I, chopped liver?” response.  There are those who will point out that talking to Jesus is not the same as talking to someone you can touch; however, I’ve never been inclined to touch most of my friends anyway. Atheists can refuse to believe he exists, but their failure to believe doesn’t change the truth of the verse. Likewise, our forgetfulness doesn’t change the fact that Jesus is there, ready to take our yoke, carry our burdens, and so on.

For this, I am thankful.

Count your blessings

As a kid, my dad would always frustrate me with that “count your blessings” thing. Often, I didn’t want to count my blessings, as I knew that I would have to let go of my grumbling and complaining to do so. It’s impossible to do both at the same time. Even if we try, acknowledging that something is a blessing—something that we have received through grace, for which we have to be thankful—causes us to have to let go of our negativity.

This doesn’t mean that we will automatically be free from our anxieties, but being thankful does point us in the right direction.

Thanks

This Thursday is Thanksgiving, probably the only holiday that is permanently fixed on a Thursday rather than on a numerical day of the month. This is not really pertinent to my topic, but I do find it interesting. Why Thursday, except to kick off a 4-day weekend? Thanksgiving is not strictly a religious holiday, although it does presume that there is Someone to thank.  You could, I guess thank yourself for everything you’ve accomplished, or sit around and thank each other. You could thank your employer for the paychecks,  and you could thank the government for the roads and so on, and I suppose you could thank universe for kicking things off with a Big Bang. But, it’s not the same.

Thanksgiving traditionally commemorates the mythological First Thanksgiving (not that it can’t be true, but mythological in the sense that it has come to represent something larger than itself), where the Pilgrims threw a feast to celebrate being alive after a difficult 1st year in the new world, and gave thanks to God the provider for what they had been given.

Being thankful—whether we like it or not, or whether we acknowledge it or not—points us toward our creator and provider. And, for those of us who can acknowledge Jesus the source of all good things, it puts us in the perfect position to cast our cares on him.

I have a lot to be thankful for. Without getting too personal, I’ll just say that I’m happy to be here. Today is my son’s birthday, and I’m thankful for him. I’m thankful for my non-birthday kids, too. I’m thankful for my wife, and for the family members that are still with us (I’ve lost a few over the years). I’m thankful for God’s provision, and a lot of other things I won’t mention, specifically the banjo.

Now that I’m older, and hopefully a bit wiser, I have learned that I don’t like to grumble and complain. No one will listen to me anyway. I’d actually much rather be thankful. I like counting my blessings, one by one. It makes me feel better, and keeps me from getting wacked out over things that won’t matter 10 years from now.

The real meaning of Thanksgiving

People always talk about “the real meaning of Christmas,” but no one ever talks about the real meaning of Thanksgiving. It’s not football, or turkey, or shopping. It’s also not about family, as good as family is. The real importance of Thanksgiving is having a day set aside to reorient ourselves toward the only one who will actually catch our cares should we decide to cast them in his direction.

And that, Charlie Brown, is what Thanksgiving is all about.

 

Posted in This I know | 3 Comments

Why worship?

Posted on September 26, 2011 by me


I read a very interesting post this weekend at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength that challenges the very core of contemporary church life: worship. If you attend a contemporary-style church, chances are you know that it’s all about the worship.  Walk into any of these evangelical churches—many with cool, new-age-sounding names like Daybreak or Morningspring, as well those with more traditional-sounding names, including one or 2 Lutheran churches—and you can expect to spend the first 20-40 minutes singing worship choruses.  This will be followed by announcements, the offering, a coffee break, and then a sermon, usually capped with another worship song or two. The more traditional evangelical focus has always been on the sermon. But, from listening to a number of these sermons in person or on the radio, it’s pretty clear that the focus is not there; it’s on the worship.

So, what if this contemporary understanding of worship is wrong?  I don’t mean off just a little bit, I mean completely and totally wrong. What if worship has nothing to do with creating a mood-altering state through hypnotic rhythms, major 7 chords, and repetitive chanting (hey, I’ve been on a few worship teams and even been a worship leader). The blogger at HMS&S even dares to suggest that God is not even interested in our worship songs:

If you were to search the commands in the books of Moses, you would not find a command where God asks for flattery. In the commands of the books of Moses, God shows remarkably little interest in receiving praise. In the Ten Commandments, the well-known command forbidding idol-worship is not, after all, followed by a command insisting on praising God. The Sabbath command does not contain a command to conduct worship services; it contains a command to rest from work. The kind of “worship” which God asks of his people as they live their daily lives is to be ethical: to be morally good. He requires of his people that they live good lives: not lying, not stealing, not murdering, not taking each others’ wives and husbands. He asks his people to be holy as God himself is holy. He asks us to follow him in his ways.

This is certainly in line with Romans 12:1. The Psalms, however, clearly call for us to praise God with music, and Paul tells us we should sing to each other. I’ve paid very close attention to the lyrics of the “worship” songs being sung in the churches I visit, and as odd as it may seem, there’s actually very little of either going on. Most songs celebrate human emotion, rather than actually talking about God. And most are neither encouraging nor educational (some are downright heretical).

But, this is not to say that singing worship songs—that is, true worship songs, focusing on God’s attributes and what He has done for us—isn’t a good thing.  I loved the songs we sang yesterday in the church I attend, All Hail The Power Of Jesus Name and At The Name Of Jesus (from an old Irish tune I decided to learn on the banjo). And I enjoy more modern songs, too, even outside of church.

So, I’m not sure if the blogger is 100% correct in her viewpoint, but I think it’s worth discussing. What do you think?

 

 

Posted in My Own Personal Religion | 5 Comments

Does atheism’s concept of morality have a Biblical basis?

Posted on September 20, 2011 by me

Today, Tom Gilson reviews a couple of books that make the argument that the concept of morality that we have today, which is shared by Christians and non-Christians alike, including atheists, originates from teachings found in the Bible.

If you’ve paid any attention at all to the writings (and speakings) of people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, you’re probably aware of their claims that morality has its source—as does everything—in the natural world. Harris’ latest book specifically argues for a naturalistic/scientific basis for morality.  They, and other of the so-called “new atheists” go further and claim that religion—and often Christianity in particular— is actually a source of evil. While many Christians know right off the bat that this is mere foolishness, and believe theologically that morality originates with God, most of us are unequipped to respond intelligently to the atheists’ [often unintelligent] claims. Hopefully these books will help to remedy that.

Gilson writes:

To grant full humanity: what Mangalwadi called the West’s greatest discovery. It was not to be found in Plato or Aristotle, not even in the Stoics. It came from the One who died for all equally, declaring all equally worthy of life, all equally significant, all fully human. Some complain (for example) that Christianity denigrates the status of women, but the charge is both historically and geo-culturally laughable, for it is only Christianity that has brought a real sensitivity to women into world culture. A great many other claims of Christianity’s faults are in the same category. Not all of them, to be sure: both of these authors acknowledge the human error that has always afflicted the Church. Still, as Hart has pointed out, the conscience by which we name those errors is a uniquely Christian conscience.

As we all know, the mere fact that there is a Judeo-Christian moral standard doesn’t mean that all Jews and Christians can live up to it. In fact, as we know, the gospel reveals that we can’t—that’s the point of the gospel. And, of course, neither can the atheists live up to any standard they set, even the broadly-interpreted “Do no harm.” “Harm” is, of course, open to interpretation. From a Christian perspective, any promotion of atheism or naturalism is doing harm in a spiritual sense.

I don’t know that I will run out and buy either of these books soon; my stack of unread books is already too high (including one really poor excuse for a book that I’m supposed to have reviewed already). But, I tend to have a soft spot when it comes to these kinds of topics… Now that I’ve blogged about them, if I find myself wanting to read more on this topic, I at least know where to find them.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy | 2 Comments

David Berlinski: Exposing the Emperor

Posted on September 11, 2011 by me

As some of you may know, one of my many tangential interests is the philosophical tension that exists between science and religion (in general terms).  Over the last few years, there have arisen a loose band of very outspoken quasi-scientists who have taken it upon themselves to rid the world of religion, or at least make anyone holding any kind of religious beliefs appear completely foolish.

In reality, it is a retelling of “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” Those wanting to be accepted by the quasi-scientific community walk around proudly displaying their “knowledge,” not realizing that they are only exposing their ignorance. The emperor—dressed in his belief in materialism or naturalism and it’s Darwinian mythology—has no clothes.

One of the more interesting figures in this debate is David Berlinski, an agnostic writer, mathematician and philosopher who is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. He is also an American in Paris, which is just kind of cool.

Berlinski is one of those guys who makes you feel smarter just listening to him. And, he has a particular knack for exposing the nakedness of the naturalists (an interesting double entendre). Below is a video of an interview with Berlinski, which is worth giving some time to (I watched it in several installments).  In the interview he describes evolution as “an exercise in conditional plausibility” and says that it is “lacking all forms of analytical sufficiency.”

And, interesting for an agnostic, he believes that the universe as we have it is perfectly aligned with what we’d expect from the Old Testament. He does not, however, claim that the universe is proof that there is a God; it is just consistent with the existence of such a being.  Like I said, he’s an interesting individual.

And, sorry about the formatting—the video is a touch oversized for the column width.

Thanks to Poweline for the video.

Posted in Faith, Science & Doubt | 1 Comment