What's the Problem?

Something I am trying to figure out in the current uproar about homosexuals wanting to be married is this: What do they gain from it? What rights are they being denied?

Inheritance? I don't think so. Homosexuals can leave their belongings to whomever they please, just as everybody else can.

Insurance? This is a matter for employers and insurance companies. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't know that there are any laws that require companies to offer insurance at all; or if they do offer it, that it needs to cover spouses.

Taxes? Not exactly my area of expertise, but for a while there were complaints about the "marriage penalty," because married couples actually paid more taxes than two singles.

Maybe there is some material loss homosexuals suffer from not being able to marry, but if so, I'd like to know what it is. And if it exists, I'd like to know why it couldn't be corrected by simply changing the relevant law or laws.

Unless I can be convinced that homosexuals suffer some specific, material loss that can't be corrected by narrowly aimed legislation, but only by marriage, then I have to think that the whole movement for homosexual marriage is simply an effort to dilute the meaning of marriage.

What I mean is this: If marriage is not just between one man and one woman, but can also be between two men or two women, then by what logic can it even be limited to that? Why can't three men and a woman be "married?" Why can't polygamy be considered a legitimate form of marriage? Why can't a whole frat house be married? If "marriage" means any living arrangement among human beings, then marriage means nothing.

Geneva Collars

A friend recently wrote me about some people he knows who have left evangelical churches to join more traditional churches, such as Lutheran and Orthodox churches. I don't know that there is a flood of this going on, but I would certainly say it's a trend.

I wonder if the reason is that there is a longing for structure. When I became a Christian (early 70s) there was a lot of rebellion against authority and its structures. The cry was that, "Jesus can set you free." Now, I think that longing for freedom has spent itself, possibly because there don't seem to be a lot more freedoms to get. I think people are free to do just about anything they please, including - they percieve - in their Christian lives. Perhaps now people are missing a sense of structure, and insofar as churches have structure - and I think more ritualistic churches at least appear to have it - they will attract people. Maybe it's time to bring back the black robes, Geneva collars and candles.

A Mini Review of The Passion

I've just seen The Passion of the Christ and it is a powerful retelling of the Gospel account of Jesus' death. No surprise endings; no car chases; no nonsense. Its affect on me is to make me think of how much Jesus gave for me and this makes me so grateful.

Also, I have to warn any anti-semites out there that they're going to be deeply disappointed if they go to this movie expecting it to be some sort of slam against Jews. It ain't. And as for violence, I kind of wonder what people who go to a movie about the scourging and crucifiction of Jesus expect to see. Shirley Temple doing a little dance number? I mean, duh. Having said that, though, the violence is not over the top. It is appropriate for the topic and probably a lot more moderate than the violence in other films that critics have just yawned at.

Go see it if you haven't.

Exit Polling

I had a few minutes free today and spent those minutes at Google News repeatedly refreshing the page and looking at new stories about the Passion movie appear almost every minute. There were apparently some early screenings and I was interested to read what people had to say as they came out of the theaters. They didn't say, "It was the Jews fault." Instead, they were all saying things like, It was my fault, or it was our fault, or it was all of our fault. And if that's what people are coming away with, I think the movie is hitting the nail on the head. My sin put Jesus on the cross. He died for me, to take the penalty of my sin upon himself, and I can never repay it. I can only say, Thank you, Jesus!

Pray for Denmark, Etc.

A friend approached me the other day with an idea he believes God laid upon his heart - to create a Web site to encourage people of Danish ancestry to pray for Denmark. He's of Danish descent, as am I, so I agreed to help out. There's really nothing at the Web site yet, but it'll be at PrayForDenmark.com when its ready.

The reason I'm talking about this is not to promote the site - which is, as I said, pretty much blank - but because it occurred to me that this could be a model for similar Web sites.

Why shouldn't all ethnic groups (particularly in the United States, which is almost entirely made up of immigrants or immigrants' descendents) have Web sites to promote prayer and missions work for their ancestral homes? Why not have a PrayForGermany site, or a PrayForItaly or PrayForJapan web site? Why shouldn't Danes take it upon themselves to pray for Denmark, Chinese to pray for China, Mexicans to pray for Mexico, and so forth?

Protestant Catholics?

I was chatting with a Catholic friend about the movie The Passion. I mentioned that it strikes me as odd that the main base of support for the movie appears to be evangelical churches. What's odd about this is that I haven't heard of similar support by Roman Catholic churches. I mean, Mel Gibson is a Catholic, so why isn't the Catholic church behind him to the hilt?

My Catholic friend replied that the reason the Protestants are providing a better support base is that they are better organized than the Catholics. This struck me as a pretty weird since Protestants have no central leadership and the Catholic church does. Why, I asked, doesn't some bishop pound his desk and just say, "Get cracking on this!"?

Well, he thinks the bishops aren't very interested in promoting what Gibson is doing. I wondered if that might be because Gibson belongs to a traditionalist Catholic congregation which practices the Latin mass, which is really not what the Catholic church officially does any more. Perhaps that is why the church hierarchy feels uncomfortable with Gibson. He agreed.

That, in turn, got me to thinking about the traditionalist Catholic churches. Though I'm sure they wouldn't see it in this light, it seems they are almost Protestant in their refusal to go along with the modern mass, which, to my understanding, is the direction set by the church hierarchy and the Pope. Since one of the main facets of the Reformation was the rejection of the Pope as the final authority, the traditionalists (oddly) appear to be doing precisely this -- denying the authority of the Catholic church, and ultimately of the Pope,

But take this with a grain of salt. What I know of the Catholic Church is pretty limited, so I may just be talking through my hat.

Which Is Most Effective?

On most pages of my Web site I have links to a Web site that tells how to become a Christian. (You can see one here.) For a long time I've had these links pointing to this Four Spiritual Laws site. What I like about this site is its simplicity. It's light on graphics, so it loads quickly; it's clear and comes to the point. And besides, it is the online version of the pamphlet that led me to Christ, so I have a sentimental feeling about it.

But as I look around, I find other sites designed to let people know how to become a Christian, and some of these are beautifully done. I just noticed this one, Who Is I Am? And this one, Who is Jesus? These are beautifully designed, and I'm sure they do a lot of good, probably answering a lot of people's questions about Jesus and hopefully moving them toward accepting Christ. But on the other hand, they're a bit heavy on graphics and rather complex. If I was interested in how to become a Christian, it's not entirely clear from a glance how I might do that.

I wonder what you all think. Which of these types of online tract is most effective?

Public Baptism

Baptism, as I understand it, is a public identification with Christ's death and resurrection, and is a symbol of his cleansing of our sins. But I think that the public part of baptism seems to be a bit overlooked, and what public-ness there is in most baptisms is almost accidental.

I was baptized in a canal in Germany, to the amusement or confusion, I imagine, of those on the tour boat nearby. But because it was public, I think that in some small way it was a testimony to the world. But I suspect that was accidental. I think we went to the canal because the church didn't have the facilities. I imagine that is frequently the case.

But is the public part of baptism just supposed to be public before the church, or public before the world?

I think that generally baptisms should be public before the world, as when John and Jesus baptized in the Jordan River. The exception might be in countries where a public identification with Christ could endanger believer's lives.

I think there are several reasons public baptism is valuable. First, as I said earlier, because it is a testimony to the unbelieving world. Just the sight of a baptism says to the world, Over there is a man or woman who believes following Christ is important.

Second, the person being baptized often has (at least at my church) the opportunity to say a few words about how he or she became a Christian. Again, this is a testimony to the world.

Third, this public act of faith is a milestone that the Christian can look back upon during hard times and remember. There, on that day, I stood before all those people and obeyed Christ in baptism. I'm committed. I can't turn back now.

I'm not sure, but I wonder if the public-ness of baptism couldn't be much greater. What if baptisms were held at public pools, lakes, or at the seashore, by design, not by necessity? Or what if churches took out ads in the local paper with the picture, name and testimony of each person who was baptized?

Just a thought...

The Passion of Christ

I'm a little bit of two minds about going to see Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ. On the one hand I'm impressed by the reviews and the assurance I'm hearing that it follows the biblical narrative closely. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable seeing the suffering of our Lord portrayed so forcefully, as I've heard Gibson does. I know Jesus' suffering intellectually, but I suspect seeing it portrayed with no holds barred will hit me a lot harder. But then again, being hit a lot harder would probably be a good thing for me.

One thing that doesn't trouble me at all is the charge that the movie is anti-semitic. From everything I've heard, this charge is just nonsense. I think it was Michael Medved (a Jew) who said that some of the Jews in the movie are good guys, including Jesus himself, and some are bad guys, but all the Romans are bad guys. I guess from that you could argue that the movie is anti-gentile, or you could conclude - as Medved does - that the whole discussion is silly.

Here are some Passion related links:
The official movie site
Using the movie as an outreach
A fan site

Animals in Heaven

A while ago, my daughter, whose cat had just died, asked whether animals go to heaven.

Hmmm. I was a bit doubtful, but instead of giving an instant answer my wife and I gave it some thought. As we studied our Bibles, we remembered that in addition to heaven, God promised to create a new earth (And what better to have on a new earth than a nice orange cat sneaking through the warm grass?), and we read that someday the lion will lie down with the lamb and eat hay (Since lambs are still on lions' afternoon snack list and hay is not, I think this refers to new and improved lions inhabiting a new and improved earth). So anyway, we're hopeful that whether there are animals in heaven, that there there will be animals on the new earth (our cats, too, we hope).

Evangelism and Missions

My church has historically had something of a focus on missions, by which I mean reaching people outside of my country with the gospel. I've really appreciated that focus.

But I had a talk with one of the leaders of my church today, and it appears we are considering redefining "missions" as meaning reaching people with the gospel, regardless of where they live.

In a way that sounds noble - after all, we want to reach everybody with the gospel - but it discourages me.

If, for my church, "missions" has meant "reaching people outside of the U.S. with the gospel," and now just means, "reaching people with the gospel," then I fear we will consider we are "doing missions" if we simply reach out to our community. Being in our face, lost people nearby compel our attention much more easily than lost people hundreds or thousands of miles away, but distant people are just as real. I fear that if we don't differentiate between near and far, that people will look at the missions budget and if it is a healthy percentage of the church's budget, they'll incorrectly feel the church is doing what Jesus commanded.

For that reason I prefer the word "evangelism" for reaching people nearby, and "missions" for reaching people far away, though some people feel if you cross cultural boundaries with the gospel, that's missions. I'm not inclined to argue that, but if people hold this view then I would insist on dividing missions into "home missions" and "foreign missions," or "A" and "B," or "cat" and "dog." I really don't care what the word is, I just want the concepts kept separate.

The Raj

I just finished reading an interesting book by Lawrence James called Raj, The Making and Unmaking of British India, about the time of British rule in India.

The British, starting from a trading post, acquired control of India in a higgledy-piggledy, unintentional sort of way, as a result of a mish-mash of treaties and wars, some defensive and some aggressive, and to a great extent determined by local commanders. I've heard the British acquired their empire "in a fit of absentmindedness," a description which seems to describe this situation fairly well.

Anyway, once they acquired India, despite plenty of black marks against them, the British seemed generally quite concerned about improving it's lot. I did not read the book for inspiration, but being a Christian, this summary quote in the Epilogue about the Raj (the name for the British-Indian government) caught my eye:

"It [the Raj] had been the most perfect expression of what Britain took to be its duty to humanity as a whole. Its guiding ideals had sprung from late-eighteenth and early-nineteenth-century Evangelical Enlightenment which had dreamed of a world transformed for the better by Christianity and reason. The former made little headway in India, but the later, in the form of Western education and the application of science, did."

Armageddon and the Environment

I went to lunch with some co-workers today, and one of them said that it is the Christian belief in Armageddon that is spoiling the environment. His logic was that people who believe the world is coming to an end figure they might as well grab what they can get regardless of its affect on the environment.

Oh man! I kept quiet, but now I'm going to vent a bit.

First, I've been a Christian for a long time and I do not recall ever hearing that argument from anybody who believes in Armageddon, so I think this theory has little if any grounding in reality.

My strong feeling, based on my experience when I thought Armageddon was near (now I'm just not sure when it will be), is that when Christians are convinced Armageddon is near, it is far more likely to make them focus on heaven and their rewards there. After all, what's the point of grabbing a bunch of stuff that will just turn to dust in their hands? Further, Christians are encouraged to consider others more highly than themselves, and destroying the environment - and thus harming other people - is in contradiction to that, regardless of how soon Armageddon may occur. In other words, if Jesus was coming back tonight, would you want him to catch you torching someone else's house?

Further, I can switch this theory around and make a much more plausible argument that athiesm exploits the environment. Let me give it a try.

The athiest does not believe in God or an afterlife, therefore if he (or she) is going to get desirable things, it's gonna have to be in this life! The realization that life is temporary and there's no heaven leads athiests to try to grab all they can get regardless of its effect on the environment. Further, there are no athiest scriptures that enjoin kindness to other people, so there is no limit on their potential avarice.

I don't know that this is true, but I suspect it has a greater probability of being true than the "Armageddon destroys the environment" argument.

Focus

I was watching the Rose Parade on New Year's Day and recall hearing the announcer mention that the service organization, Kiwanis, the sponsor of one float, has as its goal the elimination of a form of mental retardation caused by lack of iodine, if I recall correctly.

This is the kind of thing that excites me: organizations that take on tasks that are tightly focused and where success is very measurable. My bet is that Kiwanis accomplishes its goal.

This reminded me of the time I attended a meeting of The Gideons, a group of mostly businessmen, which, as you may know, has as its main goal putting Bibles in hotel and motel rooms.

What struck me about these Gideons folks was how ordinary they are. Just regular people. But think what these ordinary folks have done! Probably most of the hotels in the world - at least most of those that are willing to accept them - have Gideons' Bibles in their rooms.

I suppose The Gideons could have done a little bit of this and a little bit of that, and done most of it poorly, but instead - either from humility or good sense - it has focused on doing essentially one thing, and has done it remarkably well. It's a very interesting model.

The Problem of the Conquest

One of the most difficult questions I've had in my faith is, "Why, in the Old Testament, did God sometimes command the killing of whole communities?"

People are frequently killed in natural disasters, or sometimes directly from the hand of God (as with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) and sometimes people will ask why, but I don't think that God killing people or natural disasters killing people is as troublesome as the question above.

I think the reason this question is troublesome is that we don't want these instances to be used as a precedent. If God kills, well, he is all knowing and all wise and must have a good reason for what he is doing, but we have no such confidence in ourselves.

Fortunately, I think the Bible confirms that this is precisely the attitude we should take. The times in the Old Testament when God commanded killings were limited to very specific groups. There was never to my knowledge a general command to kill unbelievers, or Gentiles, or those of a different race. In fact, the command not to murder is right in the Ten Commandments, and before the Israelites entered the promised land, they were commanded to treat kindly the aliens in their midst (Deuteronomy 10:18-19, for example). The commands to kill were only against specific, named groups.

Further, that it was God who commanded these killings was testified to by decades of miraculous signs, and not penny-ante signs such as those performed by the Egyptian magicians. These were big miracles: the miracles of Moses in Egypt, the waters parting for the crossing of the Red Sea, manna from heaven, water from a rock, the pillars of cloud and fire, the Jordan River opening up to allow the Israelite army to pass over on dry ground, and the miraculous destruction of the walls of Jericho. The cumulative effect of these - it seems to me - was powerful testimony that God really did command these killings.

But we, on the other hand, have no list from God of groups of people to be killed. And even if we thought we did, we have no miraculous confirmations that such killings should be carried out. Far to the contrary. We have not only the Old Testament admonitions not to kill and to be kind to strangers, we have the strong testimony of the New Testament as well. And even if we saw miraculous signs, I don't think that would be adequate because the Bible makes clear that not all miracles are from God.

That is why the commands to kill whole groups of people should never be used as a precedent. But that still doesn't answer the question, "Why, in the Old Testament, did God sometimes command the killing of whole communities?"

Well, the reason is given in Genesis 15:16, before the exile in Egypt. Here God says that the people were evil, but that their sin had "not yet reached its full measure." Presumably, during the years Israel was in Egypt, their sin became worse, until it did "reach its full measure" and God was ready to destroy them.

Okay, but if the Canaanites were so evil, why didn't God just do away with them himself? Why did he drag the Israelites into it?

I don't know for sure, but my suspicion is that God wanted the Israelites to take sides. He wanted them to participate with him in the destruction of the Canaanites so there would be a deep gulf between monotheistic Israel and its polytheistic neighbors. He did not want fraternizing, so he cleared an area for Israel to live in and separated the people from their neighbors with fear and antagonism. (The Old Testament has lots of separating commands, such as not to eat various foods and even not to mix different kinds of fabrics. Through all these commands it seems God is pounding into the Israelites' heads the idea of separateness, perhaps so the seed of monotheism could gain root.) Further, I think God wanted the destruction of many of the cities, animals and people to be complete so nobody could say that the Israelites' success was built upon what Caanan and the Caananite "gods" had begun and also so that what remained would not be an enticement to the Israelites to drift from God. In Joshua 24:23, after the main part of the conquest, Joshua is already having to tell the Israelites to "throw away the foreign gods that are among you." I guess they had been picking up idols as souvenirs. But already? They're already playing around with foreign gods, after just seeing the power of God?

Finally, as I read the Old Testament and the story of the conquest, I am occasionally struck by instances of mercy. It is not as if God just let the Canaanites go to hell in a handbasket without any intervention on his part. I think of Balaam, through whom - despite his sin - God spoke. This suggests to me that God's voice had been heard in Canaan during the years while Israel was in captivity in Egypt. The people were not ignorant of God; God did reach out to them. The problem is that they rejected his overtures.

I also see this in God's miracles during the Exodus. In addition to proving himself to the people of Israel, these miracles served to warn the Canaanites. Rahab mentions that Canaan had heard what God had done for Israel, and was afraid (Joshua 2:9-11), which was God's intention (Joshua 4:23-24). But apparently - except, of course, for Rahab - that message did not lead many to repentance, though Rahab's acceptance into Israel shows that this door was open. But if it didn't lead many to repentence, perhaps it did lead many Canaanites to pack up their bags and move elsewhere.

I think also of the very harshness of the command to completely destroy the people, and I wonder if that wasn't in part designed to persuade the Canannites to leave, or to repent. But did the Canaanites know about the command? I'm certain they did. The Gibeonites, who tricked the Israelites (Joshua 9:24), knew about it, so it is reasonable to think that other communities knew as well. And was there really an opportunity for repentance? I think so. The situation reminds me of Jonah preaching to Nineveh that it would be destroyed, but when the people of Nineveh repented God did not destroy it. Perhaps if the Caananites had repented they would not have been destroyed either. Finally, Joshua 24:12 says God sent hornets ahead of the Israelites to drive the people away. So perhaps only the most stubborn of the Canaanites remained.

Simplify

Wow! I've been off work since December 24 and I don't need to go back until January 5. Usually I go stir crazy when I don't have things to do, places to go and people to see, but for some reason I just feel very relaxed. I think it's because I've decided I'm not going to worry about work or projects or the state of the world; I'm just going to take it easy. So I'm getting in a bit of bike riding, and not getting in a bit of bike riding, I'm reading email and skipping email. Maybe I'll do a bit of planning for 2004, or maybe I won't. In fact, my enjoyment of this time off (and a comment by our pastor) has inspired a resolution for 2004.

Stress, the pastor said, is a result of having to get things done too soon. I think he's right. If you have a long time to finish a task, it's not stressful. So next year I want to simplify my life, not to do less, but so I have less to juggle and hopefully more time to do whatever tasks come my way. For example, I have several domain names I've purchased from various sources, and consequently, several accounts to manage. I think I'll transfer them all to the same account. I'll bet there are other things like this I can do.

In fact, I'm already simplifying a bit. My wife found a book she wanted for a few dollars less than at Amazon, where I usually buy, but -- since she uses my email account -- I asked her to please buy it at Amazon, even if it cost a bit more. I already get enough junk mail from Amazon and I don't want more from another company.

Is it True?

Here's a paragraph about Christmas that I included in my family's annual newsletter.

Just a thought about Christmas. Is it true? Is it more than a nice story? Is it true that God became a child and grew up and lived among us, teaching and preaching and performing miracles, then died on a cross, taking our sins upon himself so we can be forgiven? Did the judge really step down from the bench and take the convict's punishment? It is an astonishing claim, even if we have become dulled to it by repetition, and I pray you will honestly consider it. If you conclude that it is true then it begs you to embrace it. And if you conclude that it isn't true, well, at least enjoy the season's crisp air, lights, friends, food and fun.

Teaching and Encouraging

I wonder if much of what we refer to as "teaching" in today's church doesn't actually fall more in the category of "encouraging" or "exhortation."

This came back to my mind last Sunday when I heard a particularly good sermon on the nature of God. Usually I hear sermons telling me to be a better parent, spouse, or citizen, or how to be more fulfilled, or that we shouldn't be discouraged or we should avoid this or that sin. Sort of the "news you can use" approach to preaching. And all good stuff, but though there is certainly overlap, I think I would categorize it more as encouragement.

It's not that I'm down on encouragement - it's good and necessary - I just wonder if sometimes we forget about teaching. I think of Paul's letter to the Romans. The first 11 chapters are mostly about the intellectual underpinnings of our salvation, then in chapter 12 Paul switches gears and starts talking about how it all applies. I wish more sermons were like Romans - good solid truth followed by good solid application.

Perhaps some people believe truth that is too distant won't have an effect on our lives. But I'm not too sure. When I hear a sermon on the grandeur and mystery and love and mercy and power and justice of our God, I leave with a deep sense of fulfillment, and, I think, am much more amenable to living the way God wants me to live. I want to draw near to God, not just to hear what I should do, important though that is, but to know him better.

How Loud is Too Loud?

I just got back from a weekend retreat. It was nice, with good worship times, but the music was rather loud for my taste.

It got me thinking. People have long argued about whether certain types of music are Christian or un-Christian - I'm okay with just about any kind of music - but my weekend experience makes me wonder if there is a Christian music volume. And I kinda think there is.

Perhaps the upper limit on volume should be before it becomes so loud that people run the risk of physically damaging their ears. It seems un-Christian that attending a worship service should cause people physical harm.

Also, during the retreat I noticed that no matter how loudly I sang the lyrics, I frequently couldn't hear a word that came out of my mouth because of the volume of the music. It was as if I was just silently mouthing the words. I found this unsatisfying. I want to feel as if I am involved in the music, and if my small efforts in that regard are overwhelmed by the musicians up front, it leaves me a bit disappointed.

So I'd propose a second principle: If the congregation can't hear themselves sing, it's too loud.

The Child of Christianity

I just finished a remarkable book called, For The Glory of God, by University of Washington sociology and comparative religion professor Rodney Stark (Princeton University Press). He argues quite persuasively that a lot of what we've learned in school about Christianity's role in history is baloney. Science, he says, wasn't begun by the rediscovery of Greek learning during the Renaisance; Christianity gave birth to science. Also, he said, Christianity is responsible for ending slavery, and - unfortunately - he says it provided the theoretical basis for witch hunts.

Just to show that he isn't an airhead, let me follow as best I can his argument that credits Christianity with giving birth to science. First, he says that the Christian belief that the universe was created by God and is a real entity (rather than merely a shadow of reality, or a complete illusion) makes creation worthwhile to examine. Second, he traces how science actually came about. During the Middle Ages, he writes, Christians set up universities all across Europe, and these were not, as has been claimed, just centers where scholastics argued over how many angels could dance on the head of a pin (though I'm sure there was plenty of that), but they were schools for thinkers, many of whom had a real interest in investigating the world God created, and the scholars from these schools created science.

Too often I am able to summarize an entire book in one sentence (and I am annoyed that the author needed to spend 150 pages telling me what he could have communicated in a sentence), but I can't come close to doing that here. I've seldom read a book so packed with information so clearly presented. Fascinating!