Combing the Net – 8/16/2010

I missed a couple days over the weekend, so I’ve got a few extra links for you today!

Go Easy on the Soda — A graphic about the effects of soft drinks on the body, and a special encouragement for pastors to lead by example by avoiding things that are bad for us.

Glen Coffee Retires from NFL — The story of a 23-year old player giving up a career of fame and fortune to pursue Christ.

Why Johnny Can’t Read — Here’s an article from a 1955 edition of Time magazine, discussing Rudolf Flesch’s “new” book Why Johnny Can’t Read. It was a landmark book, and has inspired several sequels by various authors, including Why Johnny Can’t Sing Hymns, which I reviewed this morning.

Calvin & Hobbes: The Search Engine — Find your favorite comic from the greatest of all comic strips, or discover a new favorite!

New Edition of God, Marriage, & Family — One of these days I’ll get around to finishing my book review on the first edition of this book, but the short version is: Fantastic. I’m sure this newly updated version will be even better!

Republicrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative — Dr. Carl Trueman speaking about his new book, which I’m looking forward to reading when it comes out next month.

Beware the Over-Hyped Stat — In the last several years there have been no shortage of polls and statistics gathered which show the impending decline of the American church. Especially popular are statistics that show that young people are leaving the church in droves. But are these stats always reliable? Kevin DeYoung offers a good reminder that statistics can only reveal so much, and ought never be an excuse for pessimism. “It seems that Christians are, of all people, most eager to believe the worst about themselves.” How sad…

Conversations on Being a Heretic — Thankfully, there seem to be fewer and fewer apologists for Brian McLaren remaining among conservative Protestants. In his latest book, he has finally revealed his true colors (in case any doubt had remained). In this interview, Scot McKnight somehow manages to remain gracious and patient despite McLaren’s condescension and refusal to give straight answers to straightforward questions, particularly in the discussion of the third question. Jared Wilson has a humorous response to this interview here.

Here’s a brief interview with blogger and author Tim Challies. He’s pretty much a rock star in the Christian blogosphere, but is an incredibly humble and down-to-earth guy. I had the pleasure of meeting and chatting with him back in April. Just a great guy all around. If you haven’t already, you definitely need to check out his blog.

Finally, this is probably the most awesome “mash-up” I’ve seen so far… Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” and “Rockin’ Robin” by the Jackson 5! (HT: 22 Words)

Discerning the Doctrines: Interspirituality, Pt. II

Last week I wrote a blog regarding Christians observing the Muslim fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. If you’ve not yet read that, you’ll probably want to start there before continuing here.

Today I want to continue this look into a current trend in many of today’s churches that blurs the lines between Christianity and other world faiths and philosophical systems. First, though, it will be important to understand that many of the terms used to describe churches — whether it be denominational designations or other descriptors such as “evangelical” and “mainline” — can have multiple meanings depending on the source. None is more potentially confusing than the term “emerging” or “emergent”. Many authors and pastors have sought to address a definition of this umbrella term, which “emerged” in the late 1990′s. One of the best summaries I’ve heard is by Mark Driscoll, who identifies 4 lanes of the emerging church in this short video clip:

Driscoll expounds on this concept in more detail here, which is in turn a segment of this sermon, in which he spends an entire hour discussing the emerging church. Highly recommended viewing if you have the time, but for now we’ll move on with the understanding that a great many conservative, Bible-teaching churches (such as my own) may even be included under some definition of “emerging”.

The question, then, is not whether the Church ought to be presenting the Gospel in a way that is conceptualized so as to be relevant to a postmodern world — finding fresh and unique ways of introducing Jesus is absolutely necessary and within the Pauline tradition — but whether the Gospel that is presented is the power of God for salvation (Romans 1:16) or a different gospel (Galatians 1:6-7). Many of today’s emergent leaders preach messages full of hope and love, but which leave out the uncomfortable teachings of Christ’s atonement and our need for a savior.

Once those crucial foundations of the Good News of Christ are removed, we are left with nothing but moral teachings. Without the Cornerstone upon which our salvation is built, who are we to determine whether our moral teachings are better than the moral teachings of another faith or philosophy? This is one of the most central questions in postmodern thought, and the reason why the Cross is so crucial. (In fact, the very word “crucial” comes into our language through the Latin root word crux, meaning “cross”.)

Because of these eroding boundaries that separate Truth from lies, we are beginning to see Christianity become more and more blended with the religions and philosophies of the world. Last month’s Ramadan fasting was nothing new, simply the latest “evangelical” manifestation of postmodern thought. In some parts of the world, Christianity and Islam are already being fused into a strange sort of hybrid religion.

Now, one might claim that this particular Nigerian congregation is simply a remote anomaly; an exception, rather than the rule. Yet the words that this Nigerian cleric and the University professor state in the video (“Abraham is the father of Christianity, the father of Islam”; “the Bible and Koran say the same things about loving your neighbors and your enemies”, etc) are eerily similar to the wording used in two recent documents printed much closer to home…

Which we’ll get to in Part III tomorrow. It’s already written, but after I got it all finished I realized I needed to break it up into more manageable chunks! There’s a lot of great information referenced and I want to make sure those who are genuinely interested have time to watch the videos and read the links.

Part III

Discerning the Doctrines: Interspirituality, Pt. I

A recent USA Today article highlighted professing Christians — most notably Brian McLaren, the “godfather of the emerging church” — who spent much of the last month fasting in observance of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The idea behind this fasting was, in McLaren’s words, “to come close to our Muslim neighbors and to share this important part of life with them.” Christians who participated were encouraged to find a Muslim fasting partner, leading to a greater respect and understanding between adherents of faiths which have rarely meshed.

While I am certainly in agreement that Christians must be respectful of all people, we must also be careful to distinguish between respecting and condoning. McLaren is correct in that Americans in general — and Christians in particular — have become increasingly anti-Muslim, especially post-9/11. We have a duty to share the gospel with people of every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, including Muslims, and in order to do that there must be a dialogue between Christians and Muslims.

The problem is that, in this instance, this dialogue has come at the expense of Christ. No effort is made to preach the Truth of God that leads to repentance and salvation. The quote from Akbar Ahmed, the chairman of the Islamic studies department at American University, is the most telling part of the USA Today article: “Here is a pastor (McLaren) who wants to understand us, who does not want to convert us…”

If understanding and respect are the sole objectives, why bother? We can understand and respect people all the way to Hell, but if we truly love them we MUST introduce them to the God who IS love! The message of love is the good news of God’s Son Jesus Christ crucified and resurrected to provide the only way for us to live eternally in the presence of a Holy God. It’s a message that brands Christians “intolerant” in the eyes of an increasingly pluralistic world. It’s a message that is not proclaimed through the religious rituals of false religions.

Some Christians who practice these rituals for the sake of “understanding” — whether it be Ramadan, the contemplative meditation of Eastern religions, the Catholic Stations of the Cross, etc — will cite 1 Corinthians 9:22 as their justification, when Paul wrote: “I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some.” The context behind this verse is that Paul lived according to the customs of the people he was trying to reach, in order that he might be able to contextualize the Gospel in a way that they might understand. In Jerusalem, Paul — a Jew — went to the temple for purification (Acts 21:26). In Asia, Greece and Italy, Paul told the Gentiles that foods the Jews had considered unclean were permissible (Romans 14:14), and that circumcision was unnecessary (Galatians 5:6).

Paul did NOT, however, participate in the worship of pagan idols or in the sacrifices offered at the Jewish temple. He preached the Cross at the Jewish temple and in the synagogues. He preached the Cross at Mars Hill in Athens, and before Caesar himself in Rome. He was beaten by the Jews. He was imprisoned by the Romans. He was mocked and rejected by the Greeks. Even other Christian leaders like Peter, James, and John, “who seemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9), struggled to accept his radical (but God-breathed) teaching of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

The true Gospel message still elicits strong negative reactions from zealous proponents of other religions, from philosophers and those who think themselves wise, from the unbelieving masses, and even from some within the Church, just as it did in Paul’s day. We ought not be surprised by this, for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8), and the ruler of this world (John 12:31) still blinds the minds of unbelievers (2 Corinthians 4:4). However, this same Gospel also still calls sinners to repentance and sets captives free!

When men who claimed to represent Christ went before the Church in Corinth, convincing the believers there that it was okay to act just like the pagans, the church became guilty of all sorts of corruption: Sexual immorality, lawsuits among believers, divisions within the church, and questionable worship practices, just to name a few. Paul wrote a series of letters to the Corinthians correcting this false teaching. He pulled no punches, calling these “super apostles” deceitful workmen disguising themselves in the same manner as Satan (2 Corinthians 11:13-14)! To Timothy, Paul described these sorts of false teachers as prideful and ignorant (1 Timothy 6:3-4). To Titus: “They are detestable, disobedient, and unfit for any good work” (Titus 1:16).

How might Paul address those in today’s churches who condone rather condemn worldliness? I imagine he’d have some harsh words for those who are celebrating Ramadan, fellowshipping with Muslims yet having no intention or desire to lead them to Christ. Paul wrote that it is to our shame that there  remain some who have no knowledge of God (1 Corinthians 15:34). He would certainly rebuke those who use his own words from 2 Corinthians 9:22 to justify themselves! After all, the very next verse reads: “I do it all for the sake of the gospel“, which is the qualification for being “all things to all people”.

Unfortunately, this is just the latest example of a troubling trend in the 21st Century Christian Church. McLaren and other “emergent” church leaders have introduced into evangelical churches much of the same spirit of ecumenism that has pervaded many “mainline” Protestant denominations (for example, many Episcopals, Lutherans, Methodists, and Presbyterians) for decades. I want to be clear, however, that this is not a blanket condemnation of any of these denominations, or of “emergent” churches in general. All of these terms (especially “emerging” or “emergent”) have been used so much that they have different meanings in different situations, just as Stevens Street Baptist Church has very little to do with many other churches also bearing the name “Baptist”. This is why it is important to examine specific doctrines, rather than to make overarching generalizations.

In my next post, we’ll examine further this trend toward “interspirituality” and “interfaith cooperation”. Is this simply another method of sharing the gospel, or is it apostasy?

See you then. Grace and peace be with you all.

Part II

Criticizing Caricatures

Over the next few hours, millions of American children will head home from school, having been indoctrinated with the Socialist ideals of hard work, perseverance, and personal responsibility. Meanwhile, conservative pundits who can find no fault in Obama’s words scramble to re-define their opposition to the speech as “based on principle” rather than on the speech itself. Really?

Since when is the office of President so ill-respected that we totally disregard everything he says? When did we stop listening critically to the words of our elected officials, agreeing on common ground when it exists, and providing civil, well-reasoned debate when we disagree?

The exact same thing has happened for the last eight years, when, in the eyes of the left-leaning media and our more liberal fellow citizens, George W. Bush could do no right. People on both sides of the aisle frequently resort to name-calling and fear-mongering, all in the name of “preserving freedom and democracy”. Funny: Last I heard, refusal to listen to opposing ideas was a hallmark of Nazism (extreme right) and Communism (extreme left), not democracy.

You see, it’s so much easier to create two-dimensional caricatures of those with whom we disagree than to listen to them, critically evaluating their arguments while clearly articulating our own. Most of us — and I’m including myself, because I have so often been guilty of this — see the “D” or “R” after a politician’s name, and automatically assume we know exactly what he or she stands for based on that affiliation.

We have gone from a nation that initially opposed the formation of political parties (for this very reason) to a nation that, by-and-large, votes the party line. Instead of cooperation and compromise, we alternate between gridlock and unilateralism. The direction of our country is determined by the “swing vote“, which consists of the few who truly do think critically and those who are most easily swayed by marketing, media, and opinion polls… and I’m going to say it’s that latter group that makes up the bulk of unaffiliated voters. Unfortunately, these fickle folks seem to be the ones calling the shots, or at least choosing who will.

I’ve been saddened over the last week by the uproar over the president’s speech to school children delivered this morning, on several different levels. Besides the fact that, as President of the United States, he’s a role model whether we like it or not, and is to be respected, if not endorsed, I think conservatives have poorly played this entire episode, both personally and politically.

Personally, in that this should have been a great opportunity for parents to give their children a lesson in discernment. As with anything children are taught at school, parents have a responsibility to know what they are learning, to compare it with Scripture, to reinforce what is True, and to refute what is not. That way, children learn to defend Truth rather than avoid lies (which they can’t do forever), and in the case of today’s speech, see that Obama, like Bush and every President before them, is neither 100% right or 100% wrong all the time. He’s not a caricature, but a human like everyone else. And like everyone else, he was once a student. One who has worked very hard to get to where he is today, which is a lesson from which all children can benefit.

Politically, in that even if the most cynical conspiracy theorists were right about a political agenda behind the speech, they walked right into a trap by making such a big fuss. An Obama administration that has been reeling lately can now point to the negative reactions to the speech — which look overblown and even a little silly, in hindsight — as “evidence” that ALL negative reactions to things the administration is doing are similarly baseless. Furthermore, it allows them to point out that the GOP’s poster boy, Ronald Reagan, also addressed the nation’s school children… only his address DID include a political agenda, as he talked about things like tax policy and gun control, and then told the students that they would be responsible for creating government some day. Twenty years later, that generation is largely responsible for voting Obama into office. So much for the “indoctrination” argument. And when the NEA challenged George H.W. Bush’s address to students in 1991, which was remarkably similar in content to the speech delivered this morning, it was ruled to have been both legal and free from violations of restrictions on appropriations for publicity and propaganda.

If politics is a game, this whole mess is a huge win for the Democrats.

I’m not here to talk about what anyone should have done, but about what all Americans must do going forward. We absolutely MUST stop with the partisan bickering. We MUST get back to civil, logical debate. I’m so sick of hearing nothing but logical fallacies when it comes to political “debate”. Attacking an issue (say, a presidential address) because you disagree with a person (say, the president) is what’s known as Ad Hominem. Attacking an misrepresented version of an issue (say, Capitalism) is a Straw Man argument. Enough already!

Consider this a call to reason. If we truly care about our country, we need to cut out the pettiness and get beyond our surface-level understanding of the issues. We need to regard our opponents with respect, not contempt. We need to quit the generalizing and name-calling, and consider that some people who have different opinions might just have good motives… without falling into the opposite extreme: Naïveté.

Case in point: Two examples of discerning men who write much more eloquently than I. Ironically, they are on opposite ends of the liberal-conservative theology spectrum (not to be confused with political liberalism and conservatism).

First is John Piper, who has written two blog posts about the President’s speech, one before and one after. And lest you think that holding the view that this was a good speech equals a carte blanche endorsement of Mr. Obama, I suggest you watch this video, which is an excerpt of a Piper sermon from May:

Finally, the man who may have said best what I am trying to articulate is a man with whom I have rarely agreed: Brian McLaren. His call for “worthy loyal opposition” is spot on. Check it out.

Grace and peace be with you all.