Church and Real Men

I am going to vent today. After this video by Mark Driscoll, I realized even more how badly the church needs real men. The church has done a good job reaching out to women, and is even somewhat appealing to more effeminate men. In fact, it seems a lot of younger, Christian men tend too be more feminine than the ones outside the church. Perhaps it is just that society today likes metro-sexual men. Sadly, the metro-sexual thing is a disgrace to manhood. We have young men in the church (and out) who have never worked a real job in their lives. The styles of dress are meant to make men look more like women. Seems like 90% of these guys can't change a tire, change their own oil, much less do any real car repair. They can't do a hard day's work. Back in the day, if you were a young man, you would be working in a coal mine, or logging trees, or farming, maybe even working in a factory. Nowadays, there's a taboo against hard labor. I think it's up to the church to start reaching out to the manly men; the ones who like to hunt, fish, work on cars, and shoot guns. Let's get some more ministries that reach out to that kind of man. Let's make sure all of the other young men in the church can learn how to be a man. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with enjoying the finer things in life, but I do think that manhood is losing its masculinity.

(Note: this would not let me publish the video, so go to Youtube and type in "Mark Driscoll Macho Man")

Haiti and God's New World

This week for my New Testament class, as part of our meditative Bible reading, I have been meditating on Isaiah 65:17-25. This passage (read it on your own; it's short) deals with the hope of the new world Christ will create at His Second Coming. This is the oft-cited passage filled with the imagery of lions lying down with lambs, and the world being filled with prosperity, longevity, and close communion with God. This is a picture of the future hope that we are all looking forward to. We acknowledge, along with scripture, that Christ has been exalted to God's right hand where He rules the world as His kingdom is established (Phil. 2: 9-10, Acts 2:33). As Christians who are in Christ, we have become part of the new creation that God is undertaking. We get to look forward to the bright future ahead as both hope and motivation for doing the work of God on earth.

Strangely, I am meditating on all this within the week that a huge earthquake has struck the island of Haiti and killed thousands of people. While we could ask hundreds of questions concerning the goodness of God in allowing this to happen or the origin of evil, including natural disasters, what I would like to consider is how to evaluate this with the coming Kingdom in mind. How do we understand this sort of tragedy that occurs based on simple plate tectonics? Will the coming kingdom involve such tragedy? I do not know. I do not believe we can assume all natural processes will stop when God restores the world. The Isaiah passage itself suggests that natural life cycle processes will still occur (Is. 65:20), while at the same time making the world seem rather safe through the use of the lion and the lamb metaphor. I do not think this passage is to be taken literally, because if it is, then we have a terrible contradiction (people will die, but soulless animals will not?). I believe that everything God created is good, including the forces of nature. What I think this passage is trying to show is the extent of cosmic restoration the world will undergo. So will events like this occur in the new creation? Perhaps, but with no widespread destruction like what we see there. In our resurrected bodies, I imagine we shall be immune to the effects of death and destruction, because that is the final enemy that will be conquered (1 Cor.15).

So, as we see the effects this earthquake has had on the island of Haiti, let's do the work of the coming kingdom. While we live in these present bodies that are subject to the laws of death, let's look ahead to a better time. It is the job of a Christian to help out those who cannot help themselves. The poor, the oppressed, the hungry, those who have been displaced, these are the ones who God is calling into his kingdom. Failure to assist these people is failure to participate in the mission of the kingdom of God. Sending money, help, or prayers is the least we can do as beneficiaries of God's grace. While we may not understand why God allowed such evil to happen, we do know what His will is in it. His will is for us to show the people Christlike love.

World Without End

Currently I am reading a really excellent book. It's called "World Without End" by Ken Follet. It is the sequel to his 1989 novel "Pillars of the Earth." The story follows the lives of a group of peasants and merchants living in the town of Kingsbridge in the 14th century. The story revolves around the constant struggled between the Kingsbridge priory and the ordinary folks who are trying to make a living in a harsh time period. The Hundred Years War is raging and the bubonic plague is wrecking havoc on Europe. The church officials are corrupt and the lords and kings are selfish oppressors. It is not a time I would want to live in. However, it is an excellent novel and at over 1000 pages, it still feels too short. The only complaint I have against it is that at certain points it is far too sexually graphic for my taste. Sometimes it just seems Follet could have been a little more subtle and left more to the imagination. Otherwise, I would suggest it to anyone who loves a good historical novel.

God, Satan, and Suffering # 1

I have been reading a lot of Dietrich Bonhoeffer lately and my attention has been turned to the problem of suffering in the world. Perhaps it is because suffering is a major theme in Bonhoeffer's work; he proclaimed a Christian life that embraces suffering for the cause of Christ. His adult life consisted in much suffering as he faced Nazi persecution and time in a concentration camp where he was hanged. His work, I believe, is very relevant to today's American Christian, not because we face suffering, but because we do not. Our Christian life is comfortable and easy. We do not face persecution like many in other countries do. Rather, we live our lives happily in our multi-million dollar churches, driving our new cars, wearing our Christian T-shirts, listening to preachers tell us that it is God's will for us to have material success and to live a happy and comfortable life. While I could delve into that subject, my purpose today is to address a certain idea (heresy?) that I came across yesterday evening.

I was surfing around youtube watching some John Piper and Paul Washer videos. My attention turned to suffering, as I still had Dietrich Bonhoeffer on my mind and I thought I would watch some videos on that subject. Not wanting to be one-sided, I looked up some videos done by a well-known pastor who has a huge church in the Redding area. What I heard from him on the problem of suffering sounded great in my head, but ran in direct contradiction with scripture. His argument followed as such: "God is good, Satan is bad. Cancer is bad, therefore, Satan causes cancer." He went on to explain how it is always God's will that we do not have any sickness in our lives. That God never allows sickness into our lives so that we may grow in Him and provide sympathy and support to others. All problems we have stem from Satan, and if we are truly Christians, we'll have a life free from suffering.

This is not the first time I have heard this argument. I have heard it many times before from his followers. They have made claims such as, "I would never make one of my kids suffer in order to teach them something, that's child abuse. The standards I have for what is good, I need to apply that to God, because God is good." This sounds very nice at first, but it does not line up with scripture. When we look at this theory closely, we see that it strips God of His sovereignty.

The first problem I would like to point out in this post is with the first premise that Satan is the cause of all of our problems. I would like to point out that we live in a fallen world where death and sickness is a reality for human beings. Ever since man was removed from the Garden of Eden and lost access to the Tree of Life, he has been cursed with death and disease that he did not have before. We live in a world of suffering that is awaiting the time when God will restore it completely and do away with human suffering. In the meantime, we will get sick and get injured. This is where the controversy starts. If God is good, then he cannot allow us to suffer. He wants us to be happy. This is a really great idea that is popular in countries like America that have no suffering. However, Christianity means embracing suffering as discipline from God (note I said discipline, not punishment. Discipline means training.). Lets look at what the Bible says...

Job 1-2: Satan comes into God's presence and God asks him if he has "considered My servant Job?" Satan then proceeds to torment Job, but only doing what God allows him to do. What is he argument here? God is in charge of our suffering (in this instance he initiated it). I is also interesting to note that at the end, when God finally answers Job, He does not say the reason for the suffering is Satan being bad, He simply says Job is merely a man, and God is in charge of what happens.

Matt. 5:10: "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven." Their is blessing in persecution and suffering.

2 Cor. 12: 7-10: Paul explains that he was given a "thorn in the flesh" to keep him from exalting himself. Whether this was physical or mental pain, he prayed three times to God that He might remove it. However, God tells him that "My Grace is sufficient for you" and that God is glorified through the sufferings of Paul. Did Paul not have enough faith? If it is God's will that we have no suffering and our healing is guaranteed, why did it not go away?

1 Peter 3:13-22, 4:1-2: Peter explains the role of suffering in the lives of Christians. He makes the argument that we are blessed in our sufferings because we are witnesses to Christ and his suffering. In 4:1, Peter even says that since Christ suffered, we should too, because it helps us to conquer our sin.

While the theology of material blessing, health and wealth is appealing to us comfortable Christians with itching ears, the Bible does not agree with that idea. So either the Bible is wrong and this new theology is right, or the theology is wrong and the Bible is right. I'll throw my lot in with the Bible. To say that it is not God's will for us to suffer so that we may share in the sufferings of Christ and grow closer to God as He guides us is wrong. I only quoted a couple verses on suffering, but would be happy to provide an extensive list. In my next post I shall explain how denying what the Bible says about God and suffering strips God of His sovereignty and leads to a shallow and insufficient faith.

Charles Williams revisited

I have officially become a fan of Charles Williams. His science fiction is really hard to understand, but it is really enjoyable to read. He is one of the few authors that can have a story in which the supernatural is present and visible, but does not sound silly or corny. I've been impressed by two of his main thoughts so far. The first is the way one of the characters descends into Hell (hence the title "Descent Into Hell"). This character keeps having this recurring dream where he is crawling down this endless rope into Hell (presumably). The character, so far, is self absorbed and refuses to find love and joy in other people the way God (or the Omnipotence as He is called in the book) has willed it. This idea of us creating our own Hell is very similar to Williams' friend, C.S. Lewis and his book "The Great Divorce." I personally find this idea of Hell very convincing. Like Lewis says in his book, "In each of us there is something growing which will BE Hell unless it is nipped in the bud." Lewis and Williams both seem to argue that part of the horror of Hell is that we are consumed by our selfish sin. Lewis argues that Hell even begins with a grumbling mood. Imagine that, to lose every part of the common grace we have and be completely immersed in our anger, bitterness, lust, hate, addictions, complaints. That is Hell. By indulging these facets and focusing our attention on ourselves, we begin our descent into Hell, according to Williams. It is something I have felt to some extent myself, now that I consider this. When I am angry, arrogant, self-centered, cynical, or whatever, I feel that separation from God. The result is temptation to continue descending into it, even though it makes me miserable in comparison to doing something within God's will. I cannot imagine losing all faculties of love or joy and being abandoned into that Hell that I create. So I think Williams might have a point. Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to suggest Christians can lose their salvation and go to Hell, or that Hell is merely a figment of our imagination. I believe Hell is a real and physical place. Immersion into our sin and losing the image of God is the worst part of the punishment.

The second idea I liked of Williams is his idea of Substituted Love. In his novel, he argues that Christians should literally bear one another's burdens. When one is feeling oppressed we should not just offer them encouragement, but actually say, "I will carry your sadness for a while." How this happens, I don't know. What Williams says in this novel is that when the oppression comes, the person bearing the burden will take all the pain on himself and the victim will receive some rest. Perhaps we should try this. Perhaps that is what Christ really was getting at. I don't know, but it sounds nice. Disclaimer #2: I'm probably reading too much into this novel. These ideas that I am discussing in this blog post are purely hypothetical. By no means should anyone think that I am committed to them %100. They are just thoughts to ponder. If it turns out to be unorthodox, then I ask for your pardon. Please don't burn me at the stake.

Funny stuff for a theology student

These ten steps to becoming a full-fledged, bona fide theologian are taken off another blog, so I cannot claim any part of this as my work. I just thought it was a brilliant satirical commentary on the lives of us theology students. Sadly, some of it might be more true than I would like. Enjoy.

Advice for theological students: ten steps to a brilliant career

1. As a theological student, your aim is to accumulate opinions – as many as you can, and as fast as possible. (Exceptional students may acquire all their opinions within the first few weeks; others require an entire semester.) One of the best ways to collect opinions is to choose your theological group (“I shall be progressive,” or “I will be evangelical,” or “I am a Barthian”), then sign up to all the opinions usually associated with that social group. If at first you don’t feel much conviction for these new opinions, just be patient: within twelve months you will be a staunch advocate, and you’ll even be able to help new students acquire the same opinions.

2. At the earliest possible opportunity you should also form an opinion about your favourite theological discipline: that is, you should choose your specialisation. To communicate this choice to others, you should dismiss as trivial or irrelevant all other disciplines: the systematic theologian should teach herself to utter humorous remarks about the worth of “practical” theology, while the New Testament student should learn to hold forth emphatically on the dangers of systematic theology; and so on.

3. As far as possible, you should try to avoid all non-theological interests or pursuits. All your time and energy should be invested in reading important books and discussing important ideas. (Novels in particular should be avoided, as they are a notorious time-waster, and they furnish you with no new opinions.)

4. Every successful theological student must master the proper vocabulary. All theological conversations should be peppered with these termini technici (e.g. “Only a demythologised Barthian ontology can subvert the différance of postmodern theory and re-construe the analogia entis in terms of temporal mediation”). The less comprehensible and more sibylline the sentence uttered, the better. There are some stock-in-trade terms that are de rigueur (e.g. perichoresis, imago Dei, Heilsgeschichte, Bullsgeschichte), but the really outstanding student should find creative ways to deploy a wide range of foreign polysyllabic words. Phrases of Latin, Greek or German derivation are particularly prized. (Those of Hebrew of Syriac extraction should be used more sparingly – they are usually greeted with some puzzlement, or with cries of “Gesundheit!”)

5. Now that you’re a theological student, you will discover that the world is filled with people who don’t share your new opinions. Every conversation should thus be viewed as an opportunity to persuade others of their simple-mindedness and to convert them to a better understanding. If you’re feeling shy about this, you should start by practising on your family and closest friends. And it’s not always necessary to engage in a full-blown discussion; at times a single Latin term or a knowing smirk is all that’s required to demolish another person’s argument.

6. Were you raised in a conservative Christian family? If so, your theological education provides you with the perfect opportunity for rebellion. The benefits of theological rebellion should not be underestimated: rejecting all your parents’ religious opinions allows you both to assert your independence and to imply that your parents are backward and naïve. In this respect, theological education can be every bit as effective as smoking cannabis or moving in with your boyfriend: but without all the bad smells.

7. Every true theologian is an avid collector of books. The day you became a theological student, you entered a race to amass a personal library larger and more impressive than those of your peers. Books should be acquired as quickly and as indiscriminately as possible; second-hand books are even better, since they give the appearance of having been read, which can save you a great deal of time.

8. When you are asked to preach in a parish, you should take the opportunity to display the advantages of theological education. Every good sermon should quote the words of some great theologian (a “great German theologian” is even better). And the phrase “the original Greek says…” should be used sparingly but effectively – perhaps just two or three times in a sermon.

9. The goal of theological education is a good career: preferably an academic career, although in some cases you might have to settle for pastoral ministry (or worse, just a regular job). It’s never too early to get your career on track: every essay, every conversation with a professor, every question you ask in class – these are the opportunities to show the professor how deeply you share their opinions, and how superior your own insights are to those of your classmates. In all circumstances you should revere, admire and emulate your professors. Even if they are neither wise nor virtuous, your goal is to become their perfect reflection, mirroring back to them their own opinions, preferences and prejudices. To show that you are the professor’s true protégé: this is the beginning of wisdom, and the bedrock of any good career.

10. Under no circumstances should you resort to old-fashioned pieties like daily prayer and Bible-reading. There are far too many important things to be thinking about, and far too many important things to be reading. (Church attendance is acceptable, however, since it gives you the opportunity of improving your pastor’s theological education.)

Nice painting, bad message

This might make some people upset, but I feel I need to say it. I received a link by e-mail to a website in which the author of the painting above gave his thoughts on his work. While it is a very beautiful work, is extremely well done, full of historical references and figures, the subject of the painting sends a very bad theological message. As you can no doubt see, the figure in the center is Jesus, holding up a copy of the United States constitution. To the right are politicians, judges, and college professors holding their heads in shame for bringing the country toward socialism, as the author explains on his website. To the left, are farmers, school teachers, doctors, and an immigrant (The alarming thing about that is the artist adds some strange commentary explaining that the immigrant may not be a Christian. He does not call into question the faith of the mother, the farmer, or the doctor, however.).

Behind Jesus stands countless historical American figures such as George Washington, Ulysses Grant, General Eisenhower, Thomas Jefferson, etc. Each of them invaluable assets to our country's history. So where is the problem? The problem is that the author is sending the message that God is an American, Republican, capitalist. The author believes our constitution was inspired by God and that America is God's chosen country. This is incredibly wrong. While God may have blessed America over the years in allowing us to experience unprecedented prosperity, that does not mean we are a special people. While we may have a high concentration of Christians in our country, we still should not assume that what is best for us is God's will.

When our country was founded, our founding fathers, like the rest of the European world, held a predominantly Christian sense of ethics. While most of our ethics were in line with Christian teaching, the founding fathers themselves were of dubious spiritual state. A few were devout Christians, to be sure, and I thank God for them, but most were Enlightenment secularists who were influenced by the philosophies of Renaissance philosophers. The separation of church and state was there from the beginning; they never wanted a theocracy. They knew that for religion to thrive and remain pure, it must not have any governmental influence. The way the country was expanded was definitely not in line with Christian morality. I find it hard to accept, the way our forefathers treated the Indians: conquering, taking away their land, putting them on reservations, breaking their promises to them. That is not what Christ would have us do.

The way the painting portrays us as being God's special people, is not in line at all with scripture (the Jews are God's people, actually). God is not an American, nor is he a Republican or Democrat. God is not a socialist or a capitalist. God is the one "who gives and takes away." Read the Old Testament and see that God raises up nations and brings them down. God even blesses and uses pagan nations like Assyria and Babylon. Just because we are materially wealthy, should we assume that means God is on our side. Most of us sit comfortably in our easy chairs, watching tv, driving our expensive cars, going to our churches that resemble rock concerts, considering ourselves persecuted when people laugh at our Christian t-shirts while the rest of the world lives in poverty, dying of AIDS, never hearing the gospel of Christ. America is a great country that has undoubtedly been blessed, but if we are blessed, we should bless the other nations. As a Christian, I cannot divide people into categories. We cannot try to fit God into our political agendas. Why? Because the desires of men are sinful. Political agendas serve selected interests. My job as a Christian is to reach the world with the message that Christ came to save sinners. I cannot attach myself to a political ideology. God loves the people in Iraq, Kenya, Cambodia, Ecuador, and Germany just as much as he loves us Americans. To connect Christianity to being an American is wrong. If we do that, we shall no doubt see Americans continue to trust in their nationality, rather than Christ.