You Are Who You Are

I couldn't help but notice the following argument in a post on The Beginner's Mind which asserts:

Those folks who risked their lives for the good of others practice their religion in such a way as to reflect that compassion for others. Being religious didn't cause them to help end slavery or further the civil rights movement. I'm not religious and I find common cause with the enemies of slavery and champions of civil rights. Religious beliefs reflect the believer not the other way around, in my opinion. Just as an atheist like myself gladly works for civil rights, a Christian wearing the hood of the KKK would likely have little problem with black slavery.
...
That's what we'd like removed from the public sphere; this notion that true morality and social justice flows from religion and nowhere else. And, yes, this is what conservative Christians believe.

The author presents two ideas in this statement: First, that we are who we are and our beliefs and life choices simply express this - they don't change us into something we were not before. Second, if you are a conservative Christian, you believe those who are not Christian are inherently immoral - incapable of knowing right from wrong.

The first point the author makes is not only wrong, in my opinion, but also irresponsible. He states an idea that has been popular for quite a while now - Eddie Vedder sang about it in a rather bland song of his entitled "Who You Are" on Pearl Jam's "No Code" album. The refrain was "You are who you are". a nice little New Age mantra, perhaps, but not worth an awful lot when you're dealing with social issues of the day. Nevermind the fact that the remainder of the lyrics were, in Eddie Vedder's trademark fashion, mumbled incoherently. Not that it would havea mattered, for it seems the remainder of the lyrics were chosen largely because their rhyme and meter, not for any particular meaning. It's interesting to note that when one of alternative rock's premier bands writes a song about the meaning of humanity, it amounts to a song about nothing...

All of this, of course, is also contrary to what Christianity teaches in 2 Corinthians 5:17:

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!"

What the author argues is fatalistic and, in my opinion, unsustainable in the face of documentable human behavior. For example, Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade publicly repudiated the abortion right for which she so ardently strove in that landmark 1973 case, but she only did so after becoming a Christian. Theodore Weld became a Christian under the preaching of Charles Finney (a man whom he hated) and began the American abolition movement in the early-mid 1800's. In both cases, we see people ultimately behaving contrariwise to who they once were. This raises the question, did they really change? If so, then "You are who you are" loses it's definitive, fatalistic edge and becomes a meaningless mantra not quite worthy of Yogi Berra.

The "You are who you are" philosophy does not admit change. It's a popular lie that is told especially loudly in homosexual circles to keep gays who do not wish to be gay from seeking treatment. The philosophy hinders true social change, and while I'm certain the author wouldn't express it in these extreme terms, if we apply that philosophy everyone, then who can fault John Mark Karr for being addicted to kiddie porn? After all, that's just the way he is, right?

Grotesque humanistic New Age philosophy aside, one issue remains: that conservative Christians believe that morality can only be found in Chistianity. As a conservative Christian, I reject that outright - and always have. Most any Christian who knows their faith well enough knows that is false. We need only cite Romans 1 or, better yet, Romans 5:14,15 to point out that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong. After all, why would a non-Christian demand justice for wrongs committed if they had no sense of morality to begin with? While I know some in Christianity may express it in those terms, most would not. From the conservative Christian viewpoint, an atheist civil rights activist who has righted numerous social wrongs in their lifetime has no more claim on heaven than any professing Christian wearing a KKK hood.

Christianity clearly teaches it is not about what you've done or what you know. It's about Who you know and what He's done.

- Graffy

Supernatural Christianity

I've recently been listening to a set of tapes loaned to me by a friend from church. He gave them to me after I gave my "spiritual gifts" lesson in an adult Sunday School class a few weeks ago. Anyway, the album is entitled "The Fourth Wave" by David Pawson.

In this lecture, Pawson approaches the schism in Christianity that has long separated the evangelical and the charismatic Christians. I disagreed with many of Mr. Pawson's assertions, but he raised some interesting points about what brought on the schism and how we may go about reconciling it.

He points out that in these two different perspectives on Christianity, the focus of faith gets shifted according to each group's bias. He gives a tongue-in-cheek example by pointing out that "to the Reformer, the Trinity is Father, Son, and Holy Scripture. To the Catholic, it's Father, Son and Holy Virgin Mary."

His point was that as Christians, we often ignore the work of the Holy Spirit in the church and substitute Him for an unhealthy infatuation with relics and mysticism, or exegetical dogmatism.

Pawson really got me thinking on this topic. Truly, if God is still present in this world and actively working in our lives, why do we (as evangelicals) tend to limit that action to the ways we apply Scripture to our lives? I'm not saying that most evangelicals believe God doesn't work in any other way, just that we tend to believe it happens largely by reading the Bible.

I think it's a natural tendency to minimize the spiritual aspect of Christianity in it's more "intellectual" cultures. That is, the more we focus on the exegesis and exposition of Scripture, the more we tend to think of the supernatural aspects of Christianity as being past events, not a present reality. That's something which charismatics have rejected outright, and rightly so.

Paul pointed out that our battle is not with the flesh and blood, but "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12)

Paul was explicit that we are at war and the war far exceeds the reality that any of us percieve. While I don't believe every misdeed is a result of demonic attack, I do believe that when we choose to follow God, Satan raises the stakes. We battle not only against our flesh, but inevitably against demonic forces. I don't pretend to know what the spiritual war Paul indicates looks like, though I can clearly point to episodes in my own life when I am certain my struggle was with more than just my own flesh.

When I compound my own experience with that of others, the evidence is too great to ignore. I've listened to friends describe their (sometimes physical) encounters with demonic forces. One pastor in our denomination described performing an exorcism which immediately healed a woman. I cannot (and dare not) discount the supernatural aspect of my faith.

I have long held that the major difference between a charismatic and an evangelical is the charismatic tends to embrace the supernatural with alarming disregard, whereas the evangelical tends to regard the supernatural in terms of disbelief, suspicion, and even fear. Whether we see our faith in charismatic or an evangelical terms, we can neither fully understand or comfortably ignore it's supernatural aspects.

By definition, the supernatural supersedes reality as we know it. Christianity teaches that it defines reality, whether we acknowledge it or not.

- Graffy


"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13:12)

Weekly Funny

A Baptist pastor was giving his sermon one Sunday morning, his vigorous preaching captivating the audience, leaving them hanging upon his every word. Yet the preacher couldn't help but notice one young man sitting in a vacant pew, just ahead of the balcony, looking as if he were drunk. He slouched in his seat, arms thrown to the sides, with what appeared to be a sneer scrawled on his face.

The young man hadn't gone unnoticed by the other church leaders in the congregation. During the sermon, several had slipped back into the pew to talk to the young man, to encourage him to sit up and pay better attention, but to no avail.

Finally, the preacher could take it no longer. Stopping in the middle of his sermon, he stepped from his pulpit, strode down the aisle, and stood before this irreverent-looking young man.

"Son," said the preacher, "Why don't you sit up and pay attention to the sermon?"

The young man simply rolled his eyes at the preacher and grunted.

Annoyed by the audacious behavior of this unknown congregant, the preacher demanded, "Boy, where are you from?"

The young man gazed at the preacher and said in a very pained voice, "... the balcony..."

Christianity and Politics in America

[This is a little off topic for me, but my curiosity got the better of me...]

I have often heard it said that 85% of America is Christian, an assertion I've always considered it to be bogus.

To be sure, what defines a "Christian" directly influences that percentage. For example, many Muslims consider themselves (by Islamic doctrine) to also be Christian, so who's to say they're wrong? Thus, when someone describes so much of the American population as being Christian it would do well for the reader to very carefully consider the writer's bias.

George Barna, a Christian pollster, compiled some interesting statistics regarding Christianity in America:

• 9% of US adults classify as evangelicals (2006)
  
• 36% of US adults classify as born again, but not evangelical. (2006)
• Atheists and agnostics comprise 10% of adults nationwide. (2006)
• 10% of the US population identify with a faith other than Christianity (2006)

In his classifications, Barna was smart enough to realize it's not what you say that makes you what you are, but what you believe. Thus, when he classified people as "born-again" or "evangelical", he used strict criteria to define them.

To quote the website,

In Barna Research Group studies, born again Christians are not defined on the basis of characterizing themselves as "born again" but based upon their answers to two questions. The first is "have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?" If the respondent says "yes," then they are asked a follow-up question about life after death. One of the seven perspectives a respondent may choose is "when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior." Individuals who answer "yes" to the first question and select this statement as their belief about their own salvation are then categorized as "born again."

Since only 36% of Americans would classify themselves as "born-again", the statement that "85% of Americans are Christian" is clearly false. Truly, if one is to call himself or herself Christian, acceptance of Jesus' death on the cross as a substitute for our sin (made possible by his resurrection) is the qualifying belief that defines one as a Christian. To deny this doctrine is to deny what makes Christianity what it is. Also, Barna's definition of "Evangelical" is a sub-classification of a "Born-Again", that is, an Evangelical meets seven further criteria in addition to the two laid out for a Born-Again.

So where's the rest of the supposed 85%?

Barna classifies more of the U.S. population as being "Notional Christians". Such people may claim to be Christian, but do not believe that they will go to Heaven on the basis of Christ's death and resurrection (because they simply don't believe it happened). 39% of the U.S. population can be classified as Notional Christians, bringing the total "Christian" population to about 75%.

Often, the "85% Christian" statistic is quoted for politial purposes. Politically speaking, however, a profession of faith hardly equates to an alliegance to any one political party. The political breakdowns of the Notional and Born-Again Christians (including Evangelical) shows that 40% of non-Evangelical Born-Agains align themselves with the Democratic Party along with 42% of the Notional Christians.

Thus, for political purposes, if we take 75% (not 85%) of the culture to be "Christian", fully 30% of the American "Christian" population is Democrat. Another 27% may be considered Republican, leaving 43% in the lurch.

Looking at the numbers, it would seem that while religious views have created polarizations in American politics, it hardly divides Americans on public policy like some would claim. Rather, from the religious sphere, we see that the split between Republican and Democrat is nearly equal and the majority of "religious" (again, not necessarily "Christian") people claim no aliegance, though they may have conservative or liberal leanings.

- Graffy

Family Update

Hey.

Whaddya lookin' at?

Micah is now almost 5 months old. At his 4-month checkup, he weighed in at 15 lbs, 8.5 ozs. and 27 inches. He wears 9-12 month-old clothes regularly and he just recently graduated to the next size in diapers. Not sure that's a cause for celebration, though I could see how some people might think so...

In any case, he gets more interesting by the day. He enjoys exporing his vocal chords and grabbing anything that gets within arm's reach. He's taken a keen interest to solid food that mom and dad eat, though the jury's out on when he'll get his first taste.

Beyond that, he's a squeaky, drooly baby boy for whom the cat carries no great affection...

Weekly Funny

In November of 2004, Dr. Ravi Zacharias was invited to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle in Salt Lake City, Utah. He accepted - on the condition that he could choose the topic. They agreed. The speech he gave is, in my opinion, one of the greatest speeches ever given on the supremacy of Christ. In addition, this honor was very unique because the last non-Mormon person to speak at the Mormon Tabernacle was D.L. Moody at the end ofthe 19th century.

What follows is the joke Ravi told to open his speech...

An Englishman had been invited as an honored guest at a society function and as he arrived, he took his appointed position at the head table near the speaker's lectern. After seating himself, he noticed across the table a rather anxious-looking Japanese gentleman. Guessing the Japanese man was suffering cultural anxiety, the Englishman thought it might be a good opportunity to instruct him in the basics of English ettiquette.

He picked up a fork, and, looking at the Japanese gentleman, he pointed to it and said, "This be forkey." He then laid down the fork, picked up the spoon and said, "This be spooney." Continuing in this fashion he introduced each of the table serviceware, referring to them as "knifey, platey," and the like. All the while, the Japanese gentleman observed the Englishman and nodded courtesously after each lesson.

Finally, the time had arrived for the keynote address. Much to the astonishment of the Englishman, the Japanese man rose and took the lectern as the keynote speaker. He then went on to deliver his talk in flawless English.

After completing his speech and returning to his seat, the Japanese man looked straight at the Englishman and asked,

"You likey speechey?"

It's All Greek To Me

Ah, yes. How I miss the heady days of Optimus Prime and the Autobots raging against the evil forces of Megatron and his Decipticons. I miss those guys...

Anyway, I just thought I'd share some of the interesting tidbits that come out of my occasional forays into New Testament Greek.

First, courtesy of my friend Ron, did you know that never in the New Testament does the word "atonement" appear? We often refer to Christ's death on the cross as an "atoning sacrifice". But to atone is an Old Testament word that essentially means to cover over or make up for your sin. The authors of the New Testament never held that view. In the New Testament, Christ's death is a propitiation - it's a complete removal of the sins we bear - not merely a "covering over".

Second, did you know that when Jesus was transfigured on the Mount in Matthew 17, He was really transforned?

In New Testament Greek, there are four words that are used to describe changes people undergo. There are "morphoo" changes and "schema" changes. "Morphoo" changes are changes in form (think metamorphosis) whereas "schema" changes are changes in appearance only (think schematic - a figure or representation, but not the thing itself). Thus the New Testament describes changes in these four terms: Configure, Transfigure, Conform, and Transform.

So how does this apply to New Testament thinking?

In all cases except one, "schema" changes are used in a negative context. Satan "transfigures" himself into an angel of light in 2nd Corinthians and we are not to "configure" ourselves to the present age in Romans 12.

Opposite that are the "morph" changes - changes in actual form, not the appearance of it. These are always positive. In Matthew 17, Jesus was literally "transformed" (not transfigured). Paul exhorts us to be "conformed" to the image of Christ (Romans 8).

It is one thing to be changed in how you look. It is something wholly different to be changed in who you are.

When Satan transfigures himself into an angel of light, he can only "meta-schema" or trans-figure how he looks. However, his change does not reflect who he truly is. No matter how much Satan may disguise himself as an angel of light, it forever remains that - a disguise. He is still a minister darkness. He has been transfigured, but not transformed.

When Christ was changed on the mountain, we say in English that He was transfigured. But really, He was transformed. He literally became something in human form that He was not before. Paul exhorts us to "be transformed" by the renewing of our minds with that same word in Romans 12.

So what makes a transformation more than just a transfiguration? A "transformation" in the positive sense is a complete change, but it is a change that is based upon an underlying reality. Christ was transformed in body to reflect His divine nature and Paul exhorts us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds to reflect the nature God has already given us.

To simplify the idea then, to "transfigure" or "configure" is to change how we appear to reflect something apart from ourselves. To "transform" or to "conform" is to change how we appear to reflect what God already says is true about us.

So, there you have it.

Be Ye Transformed.

Weekly Funny

After waving down a taxi, a rather rushed businessman hopped into the back seat and hurriedly gave the driver his destination. The cab driver, a nervous-looking middle-aged man, nodded tentatively at his passenger's orders and and pulled back into traffic. As the trip passed, the businessman grew impatient with his drivers slow driving habits. So, he reached out and grabbed the cab driver's shoulder in an effort to urge him to pick up the pace a little.

No sooner had the passenger's hand touched the driver's shoulder did the driver let out a terrified, blood-curdling scream, slam his foot to the accelerator, and began carreening wildly through traffic. The hair-raising experience came to an abrupt halt as the cab slammed into a building facade on the opposite side of the street.

As the two sat there, somewhat stunned over what had just occurred, the driver looked back at the passenger and said, "Please! Don't EVER do that again!"

The passenger, his impatience long forgotten in the rush of mad fear for his life, looked at his driver apologetically. "Sorry," he stammered.

The driver's expression softened. "It's alright, " he replied. "It's not your fault. This is my first day on the job."

"You see," the driver went on to explain, "I used to drive a hearse..."

Vengeance is Mine, Part II

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about the indications of a vengeful spirit, which can be found in Amos 1:11, 12. You can find that original post here. From those verses, we can see the primary indicators of a vengeful spirit are:

Disregarding the relationship with the wrongdoer

Pursuing of the wrongdoer with threats of various kinds

Failing to recognize extenuating circumstances / misunderstandings

Experiencing a burning rage over the wrong committed

Bearing a perpetual grudge against the wrongdoer, regardless of time or severity of wrong

The next logical step would be to study the consequences of a vengeful spirit. Perhaps the best study on this topic the Bible has to offer can be found in the book of Esther, in the incident of Haman's persectution of Mordecai and the Jews. The episode can be found in Esther 3 - 7. At very least, I would recommend reading chapters 3 & 7.

Haman exemplifies what happens to one when they become consumed by a sense of vengeance. We can even reasonably equate his behavior with the outline provided in Amos 1:

Haman experienced a rage over Mordecai's refusal to bow to him that "tore perpetually" (Esther 3:5 & 9:5-13)

Haman bore a grudge and was willing to "keep his anger" for eleven months to see Mordecai hanged (Esther 3:7)

Haman pursued Mordecai with a "sword" (the threat of hanging) (Esther 5:14)

Haman "cast off all compassion" and let his rage rule his will by convincing the king to issue the decree that all Jews be executed (Esther 3:8-11)

Finally, Haman's sense of vengeance caught up with him when Mordecai's relationship to the king was revealed. By "pursuing a brother" Haman sealed his own fate. (Esther 6 & 7)

So what led Haman to these series of "unfortunate events"?

John R. W. Stott once observed:

"Envy is the reverse side of a coin called vanity. Nobody is ever envious of others who is not first proud of himself."

If you examine the narrative, you see that Haman had been exalted by the king. This honor basically required all who were of lesser rank to bow in Haman's presence. It's hard to imagine that Haman would not have been quite proud of this fact. So, when Mordecai refused to bow, Haman's pride took a hit. His ego was bruised and Haman wanted what he believed was rightfully his: Mordecai's worship. That is, Haman envied Mordecai's respect because he first took great pride in his own social status.

Observe Haman's behavior in Esther 5:9-14:

9 Haman went out that day happy and in high spirits. But when he saw Mordecai at the king's gate and observed that he neither rose nor showed fear in his presence, he was filled with rage against Mordecai. 10 Nevertheless, Haman restrained himself and went home.
Calling together his friends and Zeresh, his wife, 11 Haman boasted to them about his vast wealth, his many sons, and all the ways the king had honored him and how he had elevated him above the other nobles and officials. 12 "And that's not all," Haman added. "I'm the only person Queen Esther invited to accompany the king to the banquet she gave. And she has invited me along with the king tomorrow. 13 But all this gives me no satisfaction as long as I see that Jew Mordecai sitting at the king's gate."

14 His wife Zeresh and all his friends said to him, "Have a gallows built, seventy-five feet high, and ask the king in the morning to have Mordecai hanged on it. Then go with the king to the dinner and be happy." This suggestion delighted Haman, and he had the gallows built.

Haman's pride and envy, then, worked together to fuel his sense of vengeance. If he was not to have Mordecai's worship, then it would be Mordecai's death. It should also not be lost on the reader the excessive height of the gallows which Haman built for Mordecai. By hanging him 75 feet in the air, Haman had intended Mordecai to worship him far more in death than he ever could have in life. No one was going to miss this.

So what came of Haman's sordid pursuit of vengeful glory? Anyone familiar with the story knows, but it's worth examining closely as we can learn a few things about the costs of having (or even associating with) a vengeful spirit.

Haman's sense of vengeance exploited the relationships he had with others. In this case, Haman used his close relationship to the king to obtain the death of every Jew in the kingdom. That is, the king became an unwitting pawn in Haman's plot to kill an entire race of people to whom not only did his queen belong, but also the man who saved his life (Esther 2 & 6).

Not only did Haman abuse and greatly embarass the king with his vengeful ploy, but the whole situation was exposed at a very bad time - when the king was drunk. The king's judgment was impaired and it's certain the wine left him less able to control his feelings. Had the king not been drinking, Haman might have gotten away with his life. However, when the king left and re-entered the palace to find Haman begging his queen for mercy, in his drunken state he misinterpreted Haman's pleadings for an assault, thereby sealing Haman's fate. Haman was hung on the gallows he built for Mordecai, 75 feet in the air. No one, I'm sure, missed it.

Not only should we avoid a vengeful spirit, but the king in Esther teaches us that we should avoid those who do have a vengeful spirit - no matter how close they are to us. Haman abused his close relationship to the king, rendering the king an unwitting pawn in his game of vengeance. The king's rank and influence were nothing more than tools for Haman to use to feed his own pride and satisfy his envy.

There's another great example of this in Matthew 14:1-11 which chronicles the untimely death of John the Baptist at the hands of Herodias. John the Baptist had spoken out against Herod and Herodias. Herod would have killed John for it, but he feared public opinion. Herodias, however, didn't care. Her pride was injured. She envied John the Baptist's respect, and his death was the only thing that would satisfy her envy. As a result, Herod became a pawn to Herodias' vengeful ploy and he ended up risking the one thing he valued more than John's criticism: public opinion.

Haman teaches us that vengeance can leave us with a skewed view of reality, destroy close relationships, and lead us into embarassing situations which we don't see until it is too late to change our minds. The kings in both stories remind us that associating with vengeful people makes us potential pawns in their games. Ultimately, a vengeful spirit is a spirit that honors no one and is not honored by God.

Weekly Funny

[Courtesy of Pastor Jon's blog]

2005 Darwin Award Winners

1. When his 38-caliber revolver failed to fire at his intended victim during a hold-up in Long Beach, California, would-be robber James Elliot did something that can only inspire wonder. He peered down the barrel and tried the trigger again. This time it worked..... And now, the honorable mentions:

2. The chef at a hotel in Switzerland lost a finger in a meat cutting machine and, after a little hopping around, submitted a claim to his insurance company. The company
expecting negligence, sent out one of its men to have a look for himself. He tried the machine and lost a finger. The chef's claim was approved.

3. A man who shoveled snow for an hour to clear a space for his car during a blizzard in Chicago returned with his Vehicle to find a woman had taken the space. Understandably,
he shot her.

4. After stopping for drinks at an illegal bar, a Zimbabwean bus driver found that the 20 mental patients he was supposed to be transporting from Harare to Bulawayo had escaped. Not wanting to admit his incompetence, the driver went to a nearby bus stop and offered everyone waiting there a free ride. He then delivered the passengers to the mental hospital, telling the staff that the patients were very excitable and prone to bizarre fantasies. The deception wasn't discovered for 3 days.

5. An American teenager was in the hospital recovering from serious head wounds received from an oncoming train. When asked how he received the injuries, the lad told police that he was simply trying to see how close he could get his head to a moving train before he was hit.

6. A man walked into a Louisiana Circle-K, put a $20 bill on the counter, and asked for change. When the clerk opened the cash drawer, the man pulled a gun and asked for all the cash in the register, which the clerk promptly provided. The man took the cash from the clerk and fled, leaving the $20 bill on the counter. The total amount of cash he got from the drawer...$15. (If someone points a gun at you and gives you money, is a crime committed?)

7. Seems an Arkansas guy wanted some beer pretty badly. He decided that he'd just throw a cinder block through a liquor store window, grab some booze, and run. So he lifted the cinder block and heaved it over his head at the window. The cinder block bounced back and hit the would-be thief on the head, knocking him unconscious. The liquor store window was made of Plexiglas. The whole event was caught on videotape.

8. As a female shopper exited a New York convenience store, a man grabbed her purse and ran. The clerk called 911 immediately, and the woman was able to give them a detailed description of the snatcher. Within minutes, the police apprehended the snatcher. They put him in the car and drove back to the store. The thief was then taken out of the car and told to stand there for a positive ID. To which he replied, "Yes, officer, that's her. That's the lady I stole the purse from."

9. The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger King in Ypsilanti, Michigan, at 5 a.m., flashed a gun, demanded cash. The clerk turned him down
because he said he couldn't open the cash register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren't available for breakfast . The man, frustrated, walked away.

A 5-STAR STUPIDITY AWARD WINNER!
10. When a man attempted to siphon gasoline from a motor home parked on a Seattle street, he got much more than he bargained for. Police arrived at the scene to find a very
sick man curled up next to a motor home near spilled sewage. A police spokesman said that the man admitted to trying to steal gasoline and plugged his siphon hose into the motor home's sewage tank by mistake. The owner of the vehicle declined to press charges, saying that it was the best laugh he'd ever had.