Rethinking idolatry

Note: I'd really like to hear some discussion on some of these posts, as I'm interested to know how people view some of the thoughts I might bring up. So please, feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section. It creates a great dialogue. Plus, it helps me feel important. Your little comment says, "Hey, Chris. I read your blog. I thought it was neat. I don't think you're a failure; in fact, I wrote this little comment to show you how swell I think it is." My fragile little ego can be saved by your simple comments. Even if the comment really says, "You're a moron. You've never been right in your entire life and your opinions are so ridiculous I think your soul is in peril." It still makes me feel special that you cared enough to write me a note to tell me I'm an idiot. Don't be afraid, just click that little comment button. There, pathetic plea over. On to the post:

In my years as a Christian, I've heard countless sermons on idolatry. Preachers have exhorted me time and time again of all the things that I have made my idol in place of the one true God: money, time, sex, career, self-image, etc. I don't doubt for a second their intentions, and the warnings and rebukes these men of God have given are certainly true and right. However, as I've thought about this and looked at some of the biblical material, I'm not convinced any of them have gotten to the heart of idolatry. In fact, for as many sermons as I've heard on the sin of idolatry, I'm not sure that any of them have accurately described this sin.

We live in an age of misunderstood idolatry. To be sure, there are idols all around us, and not just in a Hindu temple or a pagan society. They are in our own homes and certainly in our own hearts. But in an age so far removed from the Ancient Near East, do we really understand what it means to commit idolatry? Let me explain.

If you've heard the same sermons on idolatry that I have, you have been told that an idol is something that takes the place of God -- something that compels your worship and thus robs him of his glory. This is a real danger to be sure, but to me it sounds much more like a violation of the first commandment ("you shall have no other gods before me") than the second. Look at the text from Exodus 20 as God lays out these first two commandments:

• And God spoke these words, saying, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments." (Exodus 20:1-6)

And again in Deuteronomy, he says, "You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape ..." (Deuteronomy 4:15-16).

Some traditions have lumped the first and second commandments together to make the first commandment. They typically delineate two different kinds of coveting in the tenth commandment to keep the number at ten. This is evidence that the two commands are certainly very closely tied, but I think there is a nuance that is missed when we speak of idolatry in the same way as the first commandment. I differentiate between the two like this: the first commandment tells us WHO we are to worship, the second commandment concerns HOW we are to worship him.

As you can see from the passage in Deuteronomy, God is very concerned that his people remember that they did not see any form when he spoke to them at Horeb. They saw fire on the mountain and they were (understandably) terrified, but they did not actually see God. I believe that this was a very important fact for God to remind them of, because he is not a creature. One of mankind's most persistent sins is to treat God as a super-human being rather than something totally transcendant. All the gods of Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology are essentially just humans with godlike powers. They still have weaknesses, they can engage in sinful and shameful behavior, and in fact can behave quite petty and childlike. In fact, in the first case of Israel's idolatry (i.e. the golden calf), they aren't as much trying to create a new deity as they are trying to make God more accessible to them, on their own terms. Their initiative to create this idol stems from the fact that they don't know if Moses is coming back down, and thus they have no way to know how to relate to the God that just revealed himself to them (Exodus 32). So they give Aaron their gold and he fashions the infamous golden calf. They correctly identify him as the one that brought them out of Egypt, the land of slavery, but they prefer a god that they can see and touch (perhaps even control?) rather than the terrible God who revealed himself in fire at Mt. Sinai.

It's not quite such a ridiculous sin when you think of all the ways we violate this commandment today. We like to think of God as being a lot like us, because that in turn makes us quite godly. It's quite comfortable to imagine God as a white, middle-class Republican -- maybe I'll run into Him down at the country club! This is foolish, but it happens all the time. Voltaire (a known agnostic) once said, "In the beginning, God made man in his image, and man has been returning the favor ever since." Sad, but true. In our efforts to create a more tame god, we miss out on the opportunity to behold the awesome majesty of the God of Sinai, who reveals himself in power. It's quite a poor trade, if you ask me.

So now let's test the whole comments thing ... how does idolatry manifest itself today? Do you agree with my "redefinition" (I know I'm not the only person to think this way, trust me, it's hardly "my" definition), or would you propose another? If the discussion is interesting, I may pursue the topic further in subsequent posts. If not, I'll feel like a loser and wear black t-shirts and listen to Dashboard Confessional or something. No one wants that, trust me.

Suffering: the source of religion?

Over the past few weeks, I've been thinking a lot of the idea of religion. By "religion", I don't mean the opposite of "relationship," or a set of legalistic rules. This is not a post about how Christianity isn't really a religion or anything like that. I don't even think that's fair to say, but that's a different thought (rant) for a different day.

No, I mean actual religions. Right before Christmas I took a class on world religions, and had to read several books on the topic. Over the weeks following the course, I had to write three different papers, interacting with the concept of religion in various ways. In addition, I visited a Buddhist community a few weeks ago as part of an assignment, and have carried on a bit of a conversation with one of the facilitators in the group. Being exposed to such a different tradition and interacting with the people who practice it causes one's view to be broadened considerably, and it made me think, "Why do we all have this concept of religion, anyway?" Primal societies with no contact with the outside world develop a system of religion all their own, and it typically bears strong resemblance to many other traditions. It seems as though we are all simply wired to find answers in the spiritual realm.

Surely there are both biblical and theological reasons this is so. Ecclesiastes says that God "has set eternity in the hearts of men" (Ecc. 3:11), and it seems logical that man, being created in God's image, would have an innate sense that he exists and would seek him out. But I wanted to look deeper than this. What drives us toward the divine? It's not that the standard answers are incorrect, but I wondered if they were perhaps incomplete.

As I sat in a cross legged position that would soon threaten to rupture every tendon and ligament in my legs, surrounded by dozens of meditating Buddhists, I pondered this. Towards the end of our session together, the facilitator opened up for a time of sharing. I listened to several people talk of their joy at finding a likeminded community to practice their faith (if that is the appropriate word ... it probably is not), but I also heard something else: suffering. It was subtle, but it was there. Some element of discord in their life had driven them to where they currently were, and they sought relief.

If you look through Buddhist literature, you will see much made of suffering, or dukkha, as they call it. To Buddhists, life is not merely filled with dukkha; life is dukkha. "To live is to suffer," the Buddha once said. The endless process of birth, death, and rebirth (known as samsara) is a cycle of suffering, keeping one from achieving enlightenment, and thus rest. All the pain that life brings is merely accepted as part of its nature. Buddhism offers its followers an escape to the paradisiacal realm of nirvana. Indeed, to speak to a Buddhist of the eternal life that Jesus offers is horrifying; they already have eternal life, they're trying to get out!

Buddhists are not alone in their fascination with suffering, though. Hinduism, closely related to Buddhism (much as Judaism is to Christianity), shares the same basic concepts. Many tribal religions have a concept of a Eden-like start to the world, only to deteriorate into the mess we now experience as a result of our distance from the spiritual realm. Humans in this world must appease the gods to ensure their supernatural assitance to overcome suffering in their lives. In order to prevent a drought, one may pray or sacrifice to a god of the sky; to avoid crop failure, one might make an offering to a godess of fertility. Jews and Muslims view suffering similar to Christianity, as a product of sin against God and others. The thread of suffering runs through every religion that I studied, and I am convinced it plays a major role in nearly every conception of the spiritual realm.

As I sat in that circle of Buddhists and heard their concerns, I found myself thankful. I would never deny or downplay the suffering experienced and found in our world, but I know that it rests in the hands of a sovereign God who is never surprised, never anxious, never outmatched. Rather than strive to get him on my side, I can be at peace, knowing that he already is on my side (Romans 8:31). Rather than discipline myself to escape from this life of suffering, I can rest in his grace, knowing that he will one day wipe away every tear and make all things new. Suffering is a powerful reminder of our distance from God, and a "megaphone to rouse a deaf world," as C.S. Lewis wrote. How comforting to know that that distance has been overcome by Jesus Christ, and no amount of suffering on this earth can separate us from his love.

Back to blogging ...

Sorry for the neglect of the blog this winter. I've been busy with some things, but I've also been trying to decide on a direction for this blog, rather than just spewing out whatever comes to mind. After a few failed (in my mind at least) series, I've decided to get back to basics -- that is, back to serious topics (for the most part), and back to scriptural topics. I'd like to use this space as an outlet for the things I am learning, both in classes and my own study. They may not be overly funny (if you thought they were at all in the first place), but it's the way to go for me. I should have a post up shortly beginning this new trend, and hopefully we can all be part of a dialogue on the topics raised here. Feel free to use the comments section (constructively please -- calling me an idiot might be true, but not very helpful or insightful) to share your own thoughts and reactions. Thanks for reading.

Random Reminiscence (pt. 2)

A personal favorite, from February 12, 2006 ...

In the movie Fallen, Denzel Washington plays a character who makes the following statement. "There are moments in life that define your existence. Your entire life is separated into two parts: time before this event, and time after this event."

Ok, so that's not exactly what he said, but that's the gist of it. Anyway, I had one of these such moments. Now, Denzel's moment was when he found out that a demon was seeking to possess his body and ultimately destroy him because he was responsible for the execution of his former host. That's not quite what happened to me, but I believe the two events are of equal magnitude.

This moment I speak of occured 16 days ago, on January 27, 2006, when I attended for the first time the finest source of entertainment in the Denton, TX area, if not the world. Yes, that's right. I attended the weekly program of Xtreme Championship Wrestling (XCW, to those in the know) and it was everything I thought it could be. If you've never been to an independent professional (read: fake and ridiculous) wrestling show, go get about 12 guys and go right now. Get up and leave the computer behind. This post will be here when you get back. Go on.

There! Wasn't it amazing!?! Aren't you glad you went? As am I.

Our venture to XCW started on a whim one night and turned into the most fun I've had down here. A big, obnoxious group of about 15 of us showed up in force at the XCW arena, and they had no idea what hit them. My initial plan was to try and get us all thrown out, but it became quickly apparent that that was absolutely impossible, shy of brandishing a firearm. Some of the guys figured we should try and fit in with the locals, so most everybody tried to redneck themselves up as much as humanly possible, and they did a pretty darn good job of it. I chose not to even try, because I would just look like an idiot. Come to think of it, they all looked like idiots, too ...

Anyway, I'll have to post one of our group pictures later, when I can get my hands on one of them. For now, you'll have to settle for a picture of our favorite wrestler the whole night. His name is Sidd Murder, and he was the first one we saw. In fact, it pretty much went downhill after Sidd. He was awesome, though. His intro involved him coming out to a Lil' John song and dumping a gallon of water on his head while he danced around. Hilarious. Anyway, here's Sidd: (edit: apparently, the link to Sidd's picture doesn't work, but if you go here, you can see a thumbnail shot. Well worth the click ...)

Tell me he shouldn't be the XCW Heavyweight Champion!

Anyway, what made XCW such a success was the endless heckling of the wrestlers. None of them were that good, so we had to invent our own fun. This consisted of thinking of the funniest thing we could, and then screaming it. The arena was pretty small, so they (and everyone else) could hear whatever we were yelling. We would pick our favorite at the outset of the match and then obnoxiously spur him on. One of our favorites on the night was participating in a title match, and unfortunately he lost. All of us were disappointed, but not all of us gave up hope. Chris Babiak, mild-mannered film student from UT-Austin, decided to let the retaining champion have a piece of his mind. He ran over to the railing, no more than 8 feet away from this massive wrestler proudly holding his championship belt in the air, and screamed with conviction:

"I've got your momma's belt at my house!!!"

The guy was stunned. He actually started laughing. None of us expected that out of Babiak, but we sure were glad to see it.

I could talk for days about XCW, but I'll have to cut it short for now. If you're interested, check out tcwonline.net for more information. I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

Random Reminiscence (pt. 1)

From November 24, 2005 ...

So the other night I headed down to BW-3's in a town called Lewisville (about 30 minutes south of Denton) to hang out with an old friend and watch some college basketball -- and then something amazing happened.

I went to the bathroom for a routine trip, all without incident. However, as I was washing my hands, I noticed a short, pudgy little kid waddle in and head to the urinal. This kid was probably about 7 or 8 years old, with a Jose Canseco-esque mullet, complete with blond streaks to contrast with his dark brown hair. I thought nothing of him and proceded to dry off my hands. Then, he spoke. (note: I promise, these are all direct quotes. No embellishment necessary.)

"Hey buddy, want a tip?" he asked very calmly as he took care of his business at the urinal.

Somewhat suprised to have this kid strike up a conversation, I hesitantly asked, "A tip?"

"Yeah, you know, like ... information," came his matter-of-fact reply.

"Well ... sure," I said, still somewhat unsure of what advice this young man might possibly have that would warrant an interruption of precious urinating time.

"Don't eat a lot of buffalo wings with spicy sauce, or you'll be having a rough time on the toilet," he said, his masterpiece of wisdom finally unveiled. He continued, "I found out the hard way."

Unable to say much without laughing hysterically, I managed a quick reply. "Well, thanks for the tip."

This was quite possibly the highlight of the month of November for me, and I felt compelled to share it with you. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.

Random Reminiscence

A few years ago, I spent a year in Texas studying under a pastor in the area. I learned a great deal about Scripture and theology and were it not for my time there, I probably would not be in seminary today. While I was there, I kept a blog to keep up with folks from back home. Remember Xanga? Yeah, it was lame, but it worked for my purposes.

Anyway, while I did learn much from my studies in the Lone Star state, perhaps some of my best memories were some of the random events that turned into some great stories. While I was there, I lived in a ranch with 19 other guys. It was the college dorm experience I never had, and needless to say, much hilarity resulted. I had forgotten about most of these until a few weeks ago, when I stumbled upon my old xanga site and got quite a chuckle. I realize that many of my friends now have never heard these stories, so over the next few weeks, I'm going to pick some of the best ones and republish them here. They won't be insightful (with perhaps one exception), but they will hopefully be entertaining and funny. So if you like embarrassing or ridiculous stories, most of which at my expense, you will love these posts. The first will be up later today. Enjoy!

Seasons Reasons?

Note: This is an article I wrote a few weeks ago and tried to get published in a few different places. I started a bit late (either that, or it's just not that good!), so I never got a response, but I did want to share it with those that come here. I might try and rework it next year and try again, but for now, it's for the blog faithful only. Hope you enjoy it!

Ginger bread. Mistletoe. Flying deer. A fat guy in a red suit. Elves.

What do all these things have in common? The birth of Jesus Christ, Son of God.

Really?

Have you ever looked at the culture that surrounds "the most wonderful time of the year" and scratched your head? How did we get here? What's the point of it all?

As I walk through the mall, my senses are assaulted from every angle with painfully obvious reminders of the season. Trudging through the department stores, I'm lost in a forest of fake trees with gaudy ornaments hanging from every possible limb. Strange songs flood the loudspeakers, containing very bizarre messages: a large, elderly man allegedly sees when I go to sleep and when I wake up, a mutant reindeer has supposedly been promoted in the arctic north, and someone is apparently trying to set chestnuts on fire … though I'm not sure what any of that has to do with Christmas.

As I drift along through the sea of commercialism in the holiday season, dodging Santa Clauses, Rudolphs, and lunatic bargain hunters, the question looms large in my mind: what does this have to do with Christmas? What really is the reason for the season?

Dozens of church signs and pastors preaching holiday sermons offer an answer. They know the true meaning of the season: it's not sales, gifts, baked hams, or even family gatherings, they say: it's Jesus. Jesus is the "reason for the season."

As a pithy saying, this is all well and good. It rhymes, it'll preach, and for all intents and purposes, it's a welcome reminder of what we truly celebrate. I wonder sometimes, however, if we have merely repeated these words in mantra-like fashion, thus robbing it of any meaning until it becomes little more than a trite slogan.

In fact, it seems that often we forget that Christ didn't take on flesh so he could hang out with some fishermen and give us some good quotes for a few thousand years. He didn't come because heaven was getting boring and he needed a change of scenery. No, the truth is much more profound. Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and lived among men because the world was lost in its own sin. Wickedness plagued the heart of mankind; and without a Savior, humanity was destined for perdition.

During a brief perusal of national news outlets, I came across the story of Jeremias Bins. In 2006, Bins became enraged that his wife and 11-year-old stepson were spending too much time at her church. In his anger, he beat them both to death with a hammer before driving to a police station to turn himself in.

Jeremias Bins is the reason for the season.

In my local newspaper, there was recently an article reporting on the civil conviction of Jarred Hensley, the vice-president of the Supreme White Alliance. He was convicted of assaulting Jordan Gruver, a U.S. citizen of Panamanian heritage, leaving him with permanent injuries. Hensley calls himself "an equal opportunity hater," and the Ku Klux Klan "soft," which should give you an idea of his outlook on life.

Jarred Hensley is the reason for the season.

The evil would be more comfortable if it were relegated to news stories and confined to only the extreme dregs of society. Personal experience has told me this is not the case. The evil that lies in Jeremias and Jarred lies in my own heart, albeit in different forms. This week I have lied, cheated, and coveted. I have neglected the poor, spurned justice, and hated my neighbor.

I am the reason for the season.

In proper perspective, Christmas is irrevocably tied to Easter. The celebration of the birth of Jesus can only be fully appreciated when viewed in light of his crucifixion and death to pay the debt of sin owed by all mankind. Otherwise, Christmas is confined to mere sentimentalism. It is a time of awe and wonder at the limitless mercy of God. When we view the evil and depravity of the world around us, we can truly appreciate the angels' song to the shepherds and the Magi's homage to the King of Kings. This is not a Hallmark card. This is the hope of the nations and the Savior of the world.

Jesus is indeed the reason for the season; but not merely the reason for our gifts and our celebration. He is the reason for our wonder, the reason for our hope, and the reason for our very life. May we never become so enamored with the cute baby Jesus lying in the manger that we forget the crucified Son of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Newsweek draws the battle lines

It appears as though the battle for gay marriage is going to be a messy one, and we are just seeing the beginning. Newsweek recently published an article (on the cover, no less), called "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage," and the editor has endorsed the publications stance on this issue. Albert Mohler has examined and picked apart (read: demolished) this article far better than I could, so I'll link the article itself on Newsweek's website, and his response in his blog.

First, though, here's some quotes (and my paraphrases) to get your blood boiling and to entice you to read on a bit. Lisa Miller, author of the article, writes,

"The Bible endorses slavery, a practice that Americans now universally consider shameful and barbaric. It recommends the death penalty for adulterers (and in Leviticus, for men who have sex with men, for that matter). It provides conceptual shelter for anti-Semites. A mature view of scriptural authority requires us, as we have in the past, to move beyond literalism. The Bible was written for a world so unlike our own, it's impossible to apply its rules, at face value, to ours."

In other words: Screw the Bible. Let's pick and choose some broad, vague themes like "love" and "justice" and justify our arguments that way.

"My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God's knowledge of our most secret selves: 'I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.' And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for 'Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.'"

In other words: Hey, this Psalm makes me feel happy! I bet it's about gays. Also, I might add that Jesus Christ took on flesh and was crucified so people could be happy, regardless of moral and religious norms. It's in the Bible!

"Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world ..."

In other words: Hmmm, these are hard to make fit my point. Let's just throw them out!

And from the editor, perhaps the most ominous ...

"No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."

In other words: Actually, this one speaks pretty well for itself. If I could type the sound of a slap in the face of conservative Chrsitians everywhere, I would do so here.

Here's the links:

Gay Marriage: Our Mutual Joy -- Lisa Miller

Turning the Bible on its Head -- Albert Mohler

Marketing atheism

You may have heard of the rise of the "new atheism" in recent years, set forth by authors such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. In one sense, their atheism isn't "new" at all -- they still deny the existence of any higher power and purport a naturalistic worldview. However, the "new atheists" have a twist on the old atheistic argument that is quite disturbing to Christians and other people of faith. Old atheists simply maintained that religion was based on fiction. It was false. New atheists go beyond that. Religion isn't just false -- it's harmful.

Thus the proponents of the new atheism are much more aggressive than their "old" counterparts. After all, if you believe something is harmful, wouldn't you try and keep people from indulging themselves in it? Makes sense, I guess. Recently, however, a new development has arisen that irks me a bit. It seems as though the American Humanist association has put together a new ad campaign just in time for the holidays. Targeted in our nation's capital, they are devoting $40,000 to ads on buses that say, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake." Their reasoning, apparently, is that " there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of nontheists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion," according to Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the AHA. He maintains that they are not trying to argue about the existence of God through their ads or try to persuade anyone to not believe, just to maybe "plant a seed of rational thought" in thinking people's minds (what's the difference, anyway?).

I have a bit of a beef with this, on multiple levels. First of all, it's just in bad taste. Why try and campaign your atheism at arguably the most religious time of year? Even people who don't go to church show up at least once this time of year -- CEO's (Christmas-Easter-Only) in church lingo. Christmas has become such a huge part of our culture that people start thinking about it even before Halloween. And invariably, through the muck and the mire of the commercialism that dominates this holiday (different rant for a different day), people are reminded of what the true meaning of Christmas is: God became man, took on flesh, and died to save his people. Though our culture does a pretty good job of shutting God out even at this time of year, it's nearly impossible to do so completely, and I would say that people's minds are on religion for this short period more than any other on the calendar. So why try and poop in everyone's coffee this time of year? Granted, I don't think the bus ads will "scrooge" millions of people and ruin the holidays (though perhaps I just have a low view of advertising), but it's just tacky. It's kind of like going to a guy's funeral and paying your last respects by telling everybody what a tool the guy was. Even if he was a tool, you're a bigger tool for completely lacking tact. And forgive me if I scoff at the "lonely atheists" excuse. Send 'em a "Christmas is stupid" card if they're really that down in the dumps about it. It seems obvious the real reason is to reach the general public, to plant that seed he honestly referenced. And to do so at Christmas is nothing if not tacky.

Speaking of that seed, since Edwords claims his ad is intended to invoke "rational thought," let's examine the rationality of this ad. "Be good for goodness' sake." Really? Besides being hopelessly circular in nature, what does that even mean? I should do good and moral things on behalf of goodness and morality itself? To do something for someone's sake implies a sense of obligation or indebtedness. In what sense is someone obligated or indebted to "goodness." What has goodness ever done for me? Better yet, is it possible for one to be indebted to an abstract thought like goodness? Or is it patently ridiculous -- one might say, "irrational"?

A better question is, what is goodness anyway? From an atheistic mindset, I'm supposed to be "good," which at best can be defined in relative terms, for the sake of "goodness," which at best can be defined in utilitarian terms. How is it possible to do good when good lacks a concrete definition? How can goodness even exist as an abstract concept if there is no basis for calling something good or evil? Why is kissing a baby better or worse than kicking one? Who's to say? Can goodness define itself, so I can do its bidding because of my obligation to it? Or have we just dipped completely and totally into the realm of irrationality?

The fact is that without some infinite reference point in the person of God, goodness as a finite concept is completely meaningless. I can neither do an act called "good," nor can I do it for the sake of "goodness" if those terms are stripped of any meaning. When God is established as eternal and primary, then goodness as a concept flows from him. Good is defined in terms of the infinite God and we do good for His sake, because our very existence is indebted to Him (not to mention salvation, from the Christian worldview). Atheists may stamp their foot all day long about rationality, but they have a long way to go to support a cohesive thought process. In essence, the AHA has answered its own question. "Why believe in a god?" In part because the second half of their ad lacks any meaning or coherence apart from a notion of God.

Perhaps their campaign will indeed plant a seed, but it most certainly will not be rational.

Further reading on Proposition 8

If you're curious to read more commentary about Prop 8, check out this article just posted in Albert Mohler's blog. It's a good read.

For all my Republican friends ...

Just in case you thought I was "going all left-ish" on you, here's a rant for you. :-)

You might have heard of the debate raging in California over the controversial legislation known as "Proposition 8", which was passed on Election Day. Essentially, the proposition modifies the California state constitution to legally define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, thus excluding homosexual marriages. The legislation passed as a result of a California State Supreme Court decision that overturned a previously voted ban on gay marriage. Proposition 8 was designed to modify the constitution so that such a reversal could not succeed again.

I applaud the legislation because it finally honors the wishes of the people. They have already spoken once in favor of a traditional view of marriage, but the judicial branch took that away. This time, at least, the people have spoken again, and I am glad that at least for right now, the people's wishes are honored above those in the higher levels of the courts.

But now there are several protests in the streets, and have been since last Tuesday. I guess my first question is ... what exactly are you protesting? You had a chance to vote down the proposition, but the people at large clearly supported it. It would seem as though they are protesting democracy itself. But more than that, I am saddened by this article I read today on the issue. In it, an Episcopalian pastor, Rev. Ed Bacon, denounces the Christian community that supported "this act of bigotry." He was referring specifically to Saddleback Church (where Rick Warren currently serves as pastor), who was outspoken in their support of the proposition. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (I feel ridiculous typing that) has also said that the war is not over, and it will go back to the courts. He comments, "It's the same as in the 1948 case when blacks and whites were not allowed to marry. This falls into the same category."

This irks me a bit. First of all, Arnold, no it's not. This has no parallel whatsoever to the 1948 case, because this has NOTHING to do with race. It is a matter of a sexual preference, which cannot and should not be compared to ethnicity. Even if you contend that one can be born as a homosexual (which is hardly a foregone conclusion), homosexuality is by nature an active choice. You don't choose what color your skin is; you chose whom you have sex with, or more appropriately, whom you marry. It's also been suggested that alcoholism can be hereditary, yet if an alcoholic gets wasted and try to drive home, he will be and should be locked up, regardless of his genes. Now drunkenness and homosexuality are different in nature. I understand that, but both involve active choices, not a passive designation. The issue of sexual orientation cannot be judged along the same lines as one's race no more than one's preference for blondes or brunettes can be.

But that's really besides the point. My main issue with gay marriage is that it violates what is by nature a religious institution. Marriage has its origin in Scripture (or at the very least in religious communities), and has always been defined as a union by one man and one woman. A union that falls outside of those parameters may be called many things, but "marriage" is not one of them. If you want to call it a "civil union" and give them equal benefits as a married couple, I'm ok with that. I don't think a homosexual couple should be discriminated against by our government when it comes to tax benefits and legal standing. But that's a civil issue ... not a religious one.

As for you, Rev. Bacon, what is truly "disappointing" is that an ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ would fail to recognize a community standing up for a moral mandate commanded by Scripture. If you don't agree that Scripture teaches a traditional view of marriage, then that's fine. We can agree to disagree, though I'd love to hear your exegetical reasons. But to accuse someone of bigotry for taking a moral stand that they clearly believe is taught in Scripture is despicable. These aren't like the people who tried to justify the inferiority of African-Americans using obscure passages ripped out of context. These are people following very clear teachings in both the Old and New Testaments. So, with all due respect, Reverend, shame on you.

Man, I need to stop following politics ... this can't be good for my blood pressure.

Yes We Did

I have never been entirely sure what Mr. Obama has been insisting it is that we "can" do, but I'm fairly sure we as a country did it last night. After witnessing an historic election, we can all take a deep breath and think about the future. As for me, I mentioned a few days ago I would have some thoughts on this whole election season, so I won't waste any time getting down to it. And yes, it's quite long, but I think much of this needs to be said. Some of it may sound harsh, but it is all meant to be constructive and in love. Here we go ...

• I have never followed politics particularly closely, in large part due to the diarrhea of information and attacks lobbed at the American public for months on end. I grow tired of it rather easily, and have usually not been very involved in politics. I knew a little bit, but I was hardly up to date on all the issues, because all the sides were saying one thing and accusing the other side of saying something else, which the other side denied and attacked the other side for something outlandish, which was in turn denied ... and on ... and on ... and on. This election was different, mainly because of the current state of the country. I still am no guru, but this election captured my attention and made me really listen to what was being said, which brings me to my next conclusion ...
• Politicians as a whole must think we are idiots. I think I understand why I can hardly tell where a candidate stands on an issue. He won't say. He'd rather tell me about the time his opponent ran over a puppy and laughed about it with his buddies. You know why? Because he thinks that's what we care about. That's what we grab on to. Many Republicans I've heard are too busy calling Obama a Muslim, a terrorist, or the anti-Christ (or some combination there of) to hear what he actually says. Many Democrats are too busy calling John McCain senile, Sarah Palin an idiot, or ridiculing both of them for being in bed with Bush to really care what they propose we as a nation do. It's mind-numbing. It's why if I saw another ad from Mitch McConnell talking about Bruce Lunsford living in Chicago or an ad from Bruce Lunsford accussing Mitch McConnell of being "one of the most corrupt members of Congress," I probably would have had an aneurism. I think it's time we as a people stopped listening and accepting these cheap attacks as a substantive argument. I want to hear why Barack Obama's plan for the economy is inferior to John McCain's and the reasons why (or vice versa). I want to hear what you will do about the issues that threaten us, not how much of a tool you can make your opponent look like. Part of this means we stop spreading the propaganda on behalf of our own candidates. I have heard people call Barack Obama a socialist (more on this in a second) that I'm nearly certain have no idea what socialism actually is. They just heard their buddy say it, who may or may not have a clue why he even thinks it. People get a chain letter detailing the reasons why the Bible says Obama is the anti-Christ and then just spew it to all their friends without thinking for a second whether the argument even makes sense. For the sake of intellectual honesty, can we please just stop? Which leads me to my next point ...
• Barack Obama is not a socialist. Seriously. Look, I didn't vote for the man, for a variety of reasons, but this little charge has been tossed around for too long. It's ridiculous. If you want socialism, go buy a Rage Against the Machine album. Obama is calling for a tax increase for the extremely wealthy, and a tax cut for everyone else. That's not socialism, that's taxes. They're in the Bible, you have to pay them, and every government in the universe has them. It's unfortunate he chose the words, "redistribute the wealth," because all he's really doing is raising taxes for a small minority of Americans in order to give a tax break to everyone else. The people that complain that he's merely giving handouts to those who are too lazy to earn it themselves implies that everyone making less than $200,000 a year is lazy. I cannot begin to state how arrogant and elitist that sounds. For that matter, why exactly is everyone clamoring for a tax break for the extremely wealthy? If we've learned one thing from the current economic crisis, isn't it that the power of greed knows no bounds? Is it really safe to assume that by giving large companies tax breaks that they will take their savings and use it for the good of the people by creating more jobs? Take a look at AIG, who received several billion dollars worth of backing in the form of a government bailout, and then takes a $500,000 executive retreat to a resort, indulging in massages, manicures/pedicures, and other lavish expenses. Their excuse for this? It wasn't anything more than they'd always done. Case in point. Perhaps I just don't know my politics very well (which is certainly possible), but most of the people I've heard calling Obama a socialist actually stand to benefit from his proposals. Which leads me to my next point ...
• My Republican friends (in my best John McCain voice), everybody just needs to CHILL. Grab some Valium, take a deep breath, and relax. It's going to be OK. I spent a few hours watching people update their Facebook statuses last night, and it was nothing short of hilarious. You would think some people have never seen a Democrat before. We've had Democratic presidents before, and we'll have them again. Life will not cease to function. Obama will not be our dictator (as some suggested), and he will not abolish the voting process to inaugurate his reign of terror (seriously, some people actually said that). If he does, you can come kick me in the shin. I promise.
• And for my Christian friends, we definitely need to chill. I think some people have forgotten that God is never surprised by an election, nor is he ever thwarted. Every government under heaven from eternity past to the end of humanity has been instituted and ordained by God. Obama, even if he is the anti-Christ (which he's not ... that's absurd), could never thwart the ultimate sovereignty of God. "Our God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him" (Psalm 115:3). Rest in that, Christian, and act as though you believe it. The rampant panic last night does not suggest a very faithful people. Which brings me to ...
• I can't help but be disappointed by the reaction of dismay and fear last night. First, for the people threatening to leave the country ... well, you might as well pack up and go, because I can think of nothing more childish and un-American than leaving the country just because your guy didn't win (even if you weren't serious). You may have scoffed (rightfully) at the Democrats who said it when Bush was elected, and it is equally ridiculous to say it now. Also, last night, whether you like the outcome or not, was a truly historic thing in our nations history. America just elected a black President. That's HUGE. Meanwhile, most of the Christians I know are belly-aching because society as we know it will cease to exist. What a terrible message for the church to send to the African-American community. We should be marked as a people of love, rejoicing for our country's progress of racial reconciliation, and instead we pack up and make plans for Australia. Truly sad. And finally ...
• You now have an obligation, Christian. You are to pray. You are to pray for this country and you are to pray for its leaders. It's not merely a good idea, it's a command. I don't care if you hate Barack Obama with the hatred of a thousand suns, you now are obligated to bathe him and his office in prayer. So any resentment you have should be set aside, for the sovereignty of God has spoken and you have a new leader. A prayer such as, "Lord, please don't let Obama be such a tool and wreck everything" does not count. As Christians, we are called to submit to the authorities and to pray for them. There is absolutely no way around it.

There. Rant over. You can now yell at me in the comments and call me a liberal-loving moron. :-)

Irony -- breaking your promise about a political post

Since whoever is elected at all levels of government tomorrow will most likely go on to break about half of the promises they made during their mad rush to occupy their office of choice, I figured it is only fitting that I do the same. I promised a political post before election day, but I've decided to change plans a little bit. After we have elected our next President, I'll post some thoughts on this whole season, interacting a bit with the issues and commenting on the campaign process itself. Until then, make sure you vote tomorrow!

This is why I'm a UK fan ...

I'm sure some of you have seen this picture before but it makes me smile, so I wanted to post it here, especially since I haven't had time to do much lately. I'll have more time once the semester's over in a few weeks, so for the three of you that actually read this, you can expect more then. For now, I'm going to be taking a break from the REOG posts, as they're not as funny as I hoped nor particularly insightful. You might see one pop up every now and then, but I'll probably just go back to ranting and raving.

And just to ensure some controversy, I will promise at least one political post before election day. Should be fun!

Real Evangelicals of Genius #3: Rhetorical Question Answerer

For other posts in this series, click the label at the bottom of this post.

Today we salute you, Mr. Rhetorical Question Answerer. You know better than to sit quietly during a sermon. No, you narrate the subtleties for all those within four rows of you. After all, why do people ask questions if they're not meant to be answered? They don't, and you won't let them. Inner monologue? Who needs that? Not you. Even if there is no question asked, you've always got a "That's right!" or "Amen!" or "Tell 'em, now!" in your back pocket, ready to be said in a voice audible only to the guy next to you ... or shouted in a distracting manner. So here's to you, Mr. Unsolicited Sermon Feedback Person, 'cause no one states the obvious in a somewhat annoying manner quite like you.

-----------

OK, quick disclaimer. I don't have a real problem with this, nor do I think there is an underlying issue that is dangerous or destructive. I just think it's kind of funny. In fact, I love Rhetorical Question Answerer because they can make any sermon entertaining, no matter how boring or ridiculous the speaker is. This is the guy/girl that is really into the sermon, and loves providing feedback, even if it's not audible to anyone but the people around them. It's not really insightful, or necessary, but it apparently helps them, so hey ... go for it. I'm just not much of a responsive person, so I find it fascinating.

While Rhetorical Question Answerer usually just makes me smile or occasionally feel a little uncomfortable (something about social norms being ignored just makes me cringe sometimes), the real gold is when a rhetorical question is answered incorrectly. You know what I'm talking about. RQA isn't paying a ton of attention, mishears or misunderstands the question, and murmurs a "no" when the speaker is obviously hinting at a "yes" (or vice versa). They quickly realize their mistake, get embarrassed because everyone heard them say the wrong thing, and good times are had by all.

But occassionally, if you're lucky, you'll see a rhetorical train wreck. This is when God has shown favor on your congregation, because nothing beats the awkwardness and hilarity of this moment. A quick story to illustrate my point:

I spent a year in Texas after graduating college to go through an intensive discipleship program, covering Old Testament and New Testament Bible study, systematic theology, church history, apologetics, hermeneutics, homiletics, etc. One day, our church history teacher, John Brown (one of the smartest guys I've ever heard), is lecturing on some of the early church Christological controversies. He was trying to illustrate the difficulty for the church fathers to understand a man who was both 100% man and 100% God. Admittedly, it's hard to get your mind around, even when studying the texts of the New Testament. So he asks a rhetorical question to get across the gravity of the situation. "So what do you do with the incarnate, pre-existent Son of God come to Earth?" Most of us understood his question. One of us, apparently, did not. This anonymous person (let's call him "Wes Ffolkes") answers loud enough for everyone to hear, "You kill him."

I cannot overstate how awkward this was. Everyone turned with mouth agape, shocked at the near blasphemy just uttered. John Brown stammered, "What???", then burst into maniacal laughter, as did the rest of us. "Wes" was trying to imply that the Pharisees and religious leaders, when confronted with Jesus, responded by killing him. Which is true, of course, but not ANYWHERE CLOSE to what was being discussed. RQA strikes again. (I should note that "Wes" is a great guy, was liked by all, and this was not the norm for him. But he will never live this one down.)

So, the moral of the story is: if you answer a question, just be sure it's the right one. Or people will blog about you three years later. If you have a funny RQA story, please share in the comments, it could be great fun for all.

The "born again" fad?

I came across this entry in Dr. Mohler's blog the other day, and found it to be very interesting. It seems being "reborn" is the cool thing to do in Thailand. Give it a read.

Real Evangelicals of Genius #2: Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy

For other posts in this series, click the label at the bottom of this post.

Note: I don't know if this guy is a youth pastor or not, as all the images I could find were real people, and I'd kind of feel like a jerk if I put someone's staff bio picture on my blog to make fun of them. Instead, this is a picture that made me laugh, from www.larknews.com, a very funny site you should check out sometime. I'd like to think he's a youth pastor, though.

Today we salute you, Mr. Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy. You know what it takes to reach the youth of America: a fo-hawk, some tight jeans, and a cool tat of some Greek word. You know better than to bring any of those lame "senior pastor" jokes into your sermons. No, your sermons are decked out with references to "The Hills," as you sip your triple venti latte and show YouTube clips to "illustrate spiritual truths," or to watch a skater fall on his man parts. The youth are the future of America, and they're not going to come to church if it's lame! Your totally rad (is that word still cool?) youth ministry is here to eradicate lameness, complete with haze machine and electric guitar worship solos. So here's to you, Mr. Guitar-Hero-Master-For-Jesus, because no one can relate to the immaturity of an adolescent quite like you.
------------

Perhaps I'm being harsh with Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy. I'm not trying to be, it's just that I find it funny sometimes how much like a high school kid a high school pastor can act. There's nothing inherently wrong with it, but I wonder what kind of implications lay behind the actions of many youth ministries around the country.

Let me first start out by saying how much I respect youth pastors. They're vitally necessary in most church models, and what they do can have an enormous positive impact. They're also frequently pressured to get as many kids in their youth ministry as possible, so even well intentioned youth pastors can be somewhat forced to tweak their presentation (and even content, at times) for the sake of being "relevant." So I understand where they're coming from. Plus, I know several guys that do it right. But that's not who this is about.

That said, I think "relevance" has become something of an idol in many churches today. We have to make church relevant to unbelievers so they'll come and hear our message. Without going too deep into why I see this as a potential problem, you can see that at some point this can have a spiral effect, until even the content of the gospel is altered in some (extreme) cases. Most of the time, though, our strive for relevance just sends subtle messages.

It seems that by catering to the pattern and the culture that the world sets, we set the church in competition to the world by trying to provide all it offers in addition to the spiritual side of things. Christianity then becomes somewhat of a "good deal." Perhaps you will see why I think this is incorrect. Following Christ is nothing short of a total renunciation of the world and its ways. It doesn't mean that we have to live like Quakers or something, but it does mean that the church is not the place for entertainment -- it is the place for the edification of the body and the teaching and preaching of the Word of God. It doesn't have to be boring. But if we're concerned that the only way our church members will sit through a service is if it has enough bells and whistles, then perhaps we have a larger problem than relevance. Perhaps the problem lies in the health of our congregation.

You can see how this larger issue relates to Super Cool Youth Pastor Guy, but specifically my question for him is this: does a high school kid need a peer he can relate to a model he can look up to in his youth pastor? No, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I can't help but wonder if we're out of balance here.

Quasi-Hurricane 2008

Well, it's been an interesting couple of days around here. I, like about half of Louisville, lost power for a couple of days, but things seem to be getting back to normal, so I might actually get around to regular posting. Our house regained power in the middle of the night last night, so perhaps something resembling normalcy will return to my neck of the woods.

These past few days, though, I've been thinking about the curious predicament Louisville has been in since Sunday. To recap the bald facts, a hurricane went north of us to Indianapolis, but happened to cause some high winds in the area. Then 300,000 people lost power.

Huh?

Does that seem odd to anyone? The wind blew real hard for a couple of hours and now our entire city is crippled. Seems kind of ridiculous, doesn't it? There was no tornado, no lightning, not even any rain to speak of. We had gusts up to 75 miles an hour and society as we know it is upside down. I went out to lunch yesterday (my work still happened to have power ... yay), and it felt like Armaggedon. I tried to get gas because apparently everyone in the city has decided to flood gas stations and empty them out, only to find that the Thornton's I went to was out of power. Instead I decided to try McDonald's for a quick meal. No power. Subway next door? Nope. Interestingly enough, both had lights on and a neon sign that said "Open", yet they weren't open. Whatever.

Finally I find a Quizno's that has power, only to find about 30 people crammed in the lobby as 3 sandwich makers struggled to keep up with the demand, doubtless pondering just how much they hated their job that day. Long story short, I went about 3 miles to a gas station and a couple of restaurants and got back to my desk 45 minutes later. Any other day, that trip takes about 10-12 minutes. On my way home I see people lined up three deep at gas stations to try and fill up (I eventually found a place to fill up myself), while other shopping centers look like ghost towns, completely devoid of power.

And it never even rained ...

This seems a helpful reminder of just how frail we are as a people, and how silly all our bravado and chest pumping seems at times. A little gust of wind can cripple life as you know it, and send you rushing to a gas station to pay $4.15 a gallon when you scoffed at that price two days ago and would have driven another 5 miles to find a cheaper price.

Kind of makes you feel small, doesn't it?

America has talent???

I made a big mistake last night. I was sitting around, flipping through the channels (a luxury I can rarely afford), and I landed on "America's Got Talent." Wow. I've watched the show before, in pieces, but this was one of the final rounds, and I was somewhat depressed as a result. A few quick observations about my experience:

• For a show involving the words "America" and "talent," I saw very little of either last night. Two of the judges are British, and the only country that still seems to like Hasselhoff is Germany. As for the talent ... well, it was there ... sometimes ... in a way.
• I'm not sure who ever decided to make Hasselhoff a judge of talent, but one quick look at his previous work should cast a little doubt on his qualifications.
• I think this audience would give a standing ovation for a crippled dog in a Christmas sweater chasing its own tail. Seriously, every time an act begins, it's like the Beatles are performing in 1965 or something. If they are that impressed by everyone that performs, I weep for my country.
• I cringe every time Hasselhoff speaks. It feels like I'm watching the Office when Michael Scott tries to run a meeting or interact with another human being. I want to curl up in a ball and pretend he's not there.
• One of the top 20 acts is a 4 year-old girl singing "Beauty and the Beast." Seriously? Sure, she's adorable, but in the top 20? SHE'S A 4 YEAR-OLD GIRL! She can't even pronounce some of the words in the song. If the show was called, "America Is Cute and Innocent," then give her the prize, but can anyone say with a straight face she is one of the 20 most talented acts in the country? Piers Morgan, one of the judges, tells her she's adorable, but this might be as far as she goes, and the entire audience boos him. In a previous episode, he also told a man who dressed up like Britney Spears (complete with "pectoral enhancements") and did a painful lip sync to "Hit Me Baby One More Time" that he just didn't think grown men should dress up like teenage girls. The crowd booed him there, too. My weeping continues.
• Quick note from Wikipedia -- apparently David Hasselhoff is also known as: The Hoffenator, The Hoffenhessen, and my personal favorite, The Hoffetron. My comparison to Michael Scott is now fully justified.
• Jerry Springer and Sharon Osbourne are two of the most normal people on the show. Think about that for a minute.
• The point of the show is to find an act that can have a show in Vegas. I wonder if everyone voting realizes this. I've seen one or two acts that I would pay any money at all to see, much less whatever exorbitant amount a ticket will run in Vegas. But a 4 year-old singing Disney covers? A 12 year-old girl (who sounds like she's from Pike County, KY) fake beating up her dad and a bunch of other guys with mildly impressive karate moves? A group of 20 middle-aged fathers in tuxedos doing a tap dance routine? A chubby kid twirling a flaming baton? Sure, they're all talented (some moreso than others), but would I actually pay to watch them do it for an hour or two? Ummmm, not so much.

Update on my hypocrisy

Quick post today. I've been thinking a lot about my last post, and the whole Christian parody thing, and how my whole series kind of violates my own ideals. Last time I pledged to think of a new title, but I fast started to realize that the whole concept on these posts is satirical and based on the model from the ads I'm mimicking. So all that to say, I'm going to keep the original title and style, even though it is clearly a parody much like those I made fun of.

Why? A few reasons. One, it's funny. It's a great concept that those ad gurus have set forth. Plus, they always say imitation is the highest form of flattery. Two, the reasons Christian knock-off t-shirts seem ridiculous to me is not just that they copy a recognized logo or slogan. It's that they do it ALL the time, and they're usually not very funny, or even clever. It's primarily a taste thing for me, and while some people might enjoy it and like them, I just think it's kind of cheesy. I'd like to think that what I'm doing with these posts both serves a real purpose and is larger than just the shell of a radio commercial. And finally, parody can be a great form of humor, if done well and in moderation. I'd like to think I am doing it well (though you may disagree), and it's not like all of my posts are knock-offs of some kind.

In summary, I guess it's kind of like the difference between liking Weird Al Yankovic and buying his CDs. I've always heard some of Weird Al's songs and thought some of them were pretty funny. So one day I bought one of his CDs ... not so funny. He's a great distraction and sideshow, but no one could ever really take him seriously as a real artist. It's just not the nature of his game. So in closing, I guess the less I resemble Weird Al, the better.

Actually, that's true on a great many levels, in all facets of my life. Words to live by ...