Author: Frank

Choose Lives

Frank

I shouldn’t be alive.  That sounds dramatic, I know, but statistically it’s true.  In high school I remember debating a girl on the topic of abortion.  Her succinct argument was that I didn’t have a right to speak up because I was a male.  But I think I have more of a right than most, simply for the fact that I am alive to say something.

You see, I was given up for adoption at birth.  My biological parents were unwed teenagers; I don’t know their names or really anything else about them.  I was thankfully adopted at two weeks old; my adoptive family is the only family I’ve ever known.  I know many who haven’t been as fortunate- being shuffled between foster families, never feeling settled or ever having a sense of ‘home’.

So I should be militantly pro-life, knowing that adoption is always an option.  I was part of a youth/campus ministry for a time that had “life” as a top priority.  We would pray daily for the unborn.  I even participated in a march or two.  I got in a fight with a friend in college who refused to eat the Domino’s Pizza I ordered because its owner donated to pro-life causes.

But I’m not.

Shortly after the debate mentioned above, a good friend became pregnant.  She was salutatorian of my graduating class.  She was allowed to walk, but she couldn’t speak (our school was small enough both the valedictorian and salutatorian gave speeches).  She was vice president of our student council, but had to step down.  She was rejected, shunned, and made fun of (I confess to participating in the latter).  And when graduation day arrived, I could see the pain in her face as she held back tears.  My politics had a face.

This wasn’t some Christian school in the bible belt.  This was just a small town, rural high school that remembered a time when a pregnant teenager would be sent away to stay with an “aunt” to save her family from embarrassment.

You might’ve seen a similar story in the past week, or maybe you read the young woman’s op-ed in the Washington Post.  To say I relate is only partly true- I haven’t felt that rejection, I haven’t carried a baby to term, I wasn’t afraid of what my future had in store and how every plan and dream I had now had to change.  But I’ve witnessed it.

I’ve witnessed it as an adult too.  I witnessed it as a young girl in the teen ministry I was helping lead became pregnant and was effectively, though not officially, disfellowshipped.  But my wife and I kept our door open- severing her dinner, babysitting while she looked for a job.  Around the same time, a good friend also got pregnant (must’ve been something in the water, as they say).  She was single.  She too was rejected by the church.  So the door to our home opened wider.  Then a friend of my wife returned from deployment in the Middle East and needed help, as a single mom, getting on her feet.  Another women had the exact opposite need, her husband was deployed and needed help with her kids as a functionally, though not technically, single mother.  All of this happened within a couple of years.  I look back at times like these and can see that God was at work, even if I didn’t feel like it at the time; we had our own kids to deal with, after all!

A friend likes to quote the DJ/artist Moby, how Christians care more about the woman entering the abortion clinic than the woman leaving it.

This is how I feel about the pro-life/pro-choice debate.  My politics have done a complete 180 in the years since my Young Republican and College Republican days.

I wouldn’t say I’m pro-choice however.  I just want to say that I understand.

Despite my politics leaning right, I appreciated the (old) Democratic platform with respect to abortion: it should be available, but rare.  Sadly they removed the “rare” qualifier during the last election cycle.

But a child isn’t a right/left, life/choice dichotomy.  A mother is not a political football, being thrown downfield in either direction depending on who is on offense for the next four years.  There must be a “third way”.

Yesterday, I listened to the latest Phil Vischer podcast with their guest Angie Weszely.  Angie was representing the ministry Pro Grace.  And she expressed everything I feel.

Check out the podcast.  And check out the ministry.  To say we are “pro-life” but only care about one of the two lives (really three, the men responsible are seldom considered in the debate) is only being half-honest.  We should be “pro-lives”, plural.  And that is Pro Grace.

The Gospel According to Bono

Frank

Last week I watched U2 perform their album, The Joshua Tree, live at the Rose Bowl.  They are on tour celebrating the 30th anniversary of their breakout release.  While I like U2, I wouldn’t necessarily consider myself a huge fan to the point of saying, “OMG, I have to see this concert!”  (Although I do admit regretting not taking the opportunity to see them live on their PopMart Tour back in 1997, after hearing how elaborate and technically advanced their show was.)  But I do remember one summer listening to that album on a seemingly endless loop while painting a house with the campus ministry I was involved with at the time.  We would take breaks from the heat and discuss the spiritual themes in the songs we were listening to.  Those discussions planted seeds that grew when I read about how and when the band was baptized early in their career and how seriously, if unorthodox, Bono took his faith.

On the one hand I admired Bono’s boldness on the global stage- meeting with world leaders, advocating for the poor and hungry.  But on the other hand I found his politics and sanctimony tiring- there are times when it seems like Bono is everywhere with a solution for everything.

So a live concert celebrating the milestone of an album that played an important part of my own spiritual development seemed like a perfect excuse to see and hear the man himself.  (That, and the added bonus of taking my wife out for a rare time without the kids)

U2 wrote The Joshua Tree as a love-letter to America.  Their songs reflected the landscape they encountered while touring for their previous albums.  Bono describes their album as describing not just the physical aspects of the United States, but also the emotional and spiritual (a point he made during the concert and referenced in just about every article written about the album).  And the titular tree, standing alone in the desert, symbolized hope- reaching heavenward out of desolation.

The “gospel” that Bono preached that night was one of hope.  Prior to one of his songs, Bono proclaimed, “it’s Saturday night but let’s sing like it’s Sunday morning! Lift up your hands!”  He didn’t shy away from politics, and yes he was heavy-handed at times.  But that sense of hope permeated the concert, from his on-stage antics to the videos playing behind him (including at one point lyrics from Martin Luther King’s ‘I Have a Dream’ speech).  The album is described as celebrating not what America is, but what it could be.  And that is the good news of U2.

Regardless of political platitudes and playing up to the climate of the time, Bono gives hope for a country that his once-nemesis Ronald Reagan described as a “city on a hill”.  There is hope for a country that claims to be over 70% Christian, despite our politics and policies betraying such statistics.  There is a hope for a country with more resources than most of the world combined.  There is hope for a country to overcome systematic racism and what Pope John Paul the Second described as a “culture of death”.  There is hope for thousands of concert-goers who feel energized by current events to just do something to make this world a better place.

Maybe music isn’t the appropriate means to deliver such a gospel.  Perhaps Bono’s ego makes him a self-serving messenger (his sit-down with Eugene Peterson would suggest otherwise).  But that doesn’t invalidate the message.  We should be striving for better- better politics, better relationships, better stewardship.

Maybe we should listen as Bono admonishes us to “take it to church”

This Song is About Me!

Frank

I read this a week or so ago in my Facebook feed from the click-baity site Hello Christian: “Is the Song ‘What a Beautiful Name It Is’ Heretical?”  As expected, commenters were quick to defend the ear-worm song specifically and Hillsong’s ministry in general while criticizing the author for picking at nits (or staining gnats, if you prefer).

The author, Sam Storms, a pastor in Oklahoma who was just recently elected vice president of the Evangelical Theological Society, tried to make the point that the line, “you didn’t want heaven without us” paints God/Jesus as being needy, as if his worth relies on our “acceptance”.  Responses to the effect of, “it’s a song, get over it!’ miss his point entirely and ignore stories like Esther, to whom Mordecai pointed out that God’s deliverance of Israel didn’t depend on her, or Paul’s words on Mars Hill in Athens that God “is not served… as if he needed anything.”

As authors N.T. Wright, Scot McKnight, and others have (I believe) rightfully pointed out, the terms “gospel” and “salvation” have been diluted in Western Christianity to satisfy our personal tastes, making God no different than Santa Claus.  We “accept” Christ in “our hearts”.  We lament how politicians “keep God out of our schools” as if that’s even possible.  We church shop based on worship, children’t ministry, or we don’t even front and base it on how much time it takes out of our Sundays.  I’ve often heard the phrase, “if you were the only person on earth, Jesus still would’ve died for you.”  So in other words, the gospel is all about me.

And we hear it in the songs we sing.

‘What a Beautiful Name It Is’ isn’t the only one.  Another that always makes my skin crawl every time I hear it is ‘This is Amazing Grace’ by Phil Wickham.  I pointed this out to my pastor the other day and now he says he can’t not hear it.  The chorus goes like this:

This is Amazing Grace
This is unfailing love
That you would take my place,
That you would bear my cross

You laid down your life
So I might be set free
Oh, Jesus, I sing for
All that you’ve done for me

Do you see it?  No, I’m not talking about “all that you’ve done for me”.  Rather that Jesus took my place to “bear my cross”.  This runs counter to Jesus’ very words that following him is conditional upon us taking up our own cross.  It’s not like he said it just once either.  You can find the message to “take up your cross and follow me” in Matthew 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, and 14:27.  Yes, I know, synoptics.  But my point is, this isn’t some obscure teaching that you only find in the fine print.

Jesus puts this condition as a “must” in Matthew 16, Mark 8, and Luke 9.  You’re not “worthy” of following Jesus if you don’t in Matthew 10.  And perhaps most hard-hitting, you “cannot” even be his disciple unless you do so in Luke 14.

So it’s a pretty big deal.

Yet we sing the opposite because it makes us feel better.

I don’t think Phil Wickham or Brooke Ligertwood include such lyrics intentionally.  (Another example that I think makes it obvious this isn’t intentional is TobyMac’s ‘Until the Day I Day’ where he repeats that he’ll follow God until things stop going well (“til the spotlight fades”))  The phrases fit the rhythm of the song and rhyme just right.

But I think this individualized gospel is so ingrained that we don’t even realize it when lyrics like this slip into the songs we regularly listen to or when it permeates the language we use.  And that individualism drives our religious decisions, our convictions, and our evangelism.  So we perpetuate it and it gets worse.

Songs are meant to impact us emotionally, so obviously we like songs that make us feel good.  But our theology shouldn’t be the same way.

The Science Debate

Frank

A few weeks ago I attended a debate between a local pastor and an engineer from the local “Freethinkers” organization.  The topic of the debate was  “Does Science Confirm the Bible?” but this was more strictly defined at the event as- can the biblical account of creation be supported by biological science? (in other words: evolution versus creation) I was eager to attend as both an engineer and a Christian and as a wannabe scholar who dabbles in apologetics.

I have read some books and articles trying to reconcile science and the Bible but I had never actually seen it debated in person with specific points and counterpoints, watching the debaters think on the fly versus reciting prepared statements.  And I had just finished reading Finding God in the Waves by Mike McHargue (aka Science Mike), so such questions were fresh in my mind.  I went in with the mindset of asking myself how I would answer the questions, or what my rebuttals would be.  I also wanted to have an open mind because in my limited experience atheists, agnostics, and skeptics have legitimate points of contention and their questions should be taken seriously.

The Q&A ran long so I missed the ending.  I don’t know if they actually declared a ‘winner’ or not, but in my opinion the winner was (drumroll)…. the skeptic, and it wasn’t close.

My biggest issue, and this is true with many books on this subject as well, was that the paster refused to debate the Bible on science’s terms.  What I mean by that is that a scientific claim is made and the Christian responds with a Bible quote.  Sure, that may win over the Christians who already have their minds made up, but there’s no reason for a skeptic to buy such an argument.  And the pastor dug himself into a deeper hole by claiming as his ‘science’ rebuttals cherry-picked quotes from scientists.

Yes, irreducible complexity is a compelling argument.  But that’s a metaphysical debate, not a scientific one, despite what proponents of Intelligent Design might claim.  And yes, there are many believers (Francis Collins, director of the Human Genome Project for one) who are also scientists or even experts in these fields.  But personal quotes do not prove anything other than the what the person quoted thought about something.  Scientific proofs require evidence, measurement, and observation.  And the Christian side of the debate seldom goes down that road.

But why not?  I think on one hand we’re afraid of where that road may lead (see criticisms of scholars like Pete Enns for example).  But I think more importantly, we refuse to admit that the Bible is not a science book.  Our personal doctrines and theologies have elevated the Bible to “Holy” status and therefore is objectively true from a scientific, historical, archeological, biological, anthropological… you name it, perspective.  There is no lens through which to view the Bible as ‘not true’.  The problem  then is how we define truth.  Is it true that the earth was created in six days, or rather does that account reveal truth about who God is? Is it true that there was a literal Adam and Eve that lived in the Garden of Eden, or does their fall reveal truth about the sin-condition of the world?

In grad school I took a class called “The Philosophy of Physics” as one of the last electives I needed to knock out before I could get my degree.  The class was essentially a quantum physics class but without the math.  We discussed the philosophical implications of string theory, the multiverse, and quantum pairing.  And believe it or not the class actually strengthened, not hurt, my faith.  There was more “truth” debated in that course than I think I’d get in any ‘creation science’ class.  We need to be willing to ask ourselves hard questions.

I also think Christians are afraid of admitting they don’t have all the answers.  Maybe you’ve heard the Bible described as “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth” as if that was its only value.  When we look at the Bible in such a way, we insist it must have all the answers to every question.  When science discovers something new, we simply don’t know how to fit that new discovery into our worldview.

Because of the above reasons, Christians struggle to understand that faith and science do not have to agree.  There have been volumes written on this subject- here is just a recent example- so I won’t get into this more deeply, but it is perhaps the most important point.  Today is not only Earth Day, but also the day organizers have set aside to ‘March for Science’.  The driving concern of that march is that science has been politicized (it long has been) and that the current political powers have been dubbed ‘anti-science’ largely because of holding to biblical ‘truth’ over scientific truth.  Political decisions are being made under the assumption that the Bible is a science book therefore global warming can’t be real, evolution is a hoax, and so on.

But the Bible stands on its own terms.  It doesn’t need science to be proven.  In fact, it’s not our job to prove God, he can stand on his own.  So let’s stop approaching all of this with antagonism- science, politics, objective truth.  The only “proof” we need is our love for one another, “by this everyone will know” we are disciples (John 13:35)

Two Songs, One Heart

Frank

Do you remember the movie Deep Impact?  Maybe not, but I bet you remember Armageddon.  What about Dante’s Peak and Volcano?  Those aren’t the only examples of very similar movies being released around the same time.  Prestige/The Illusionist, White House Down/Olympus has Fallen, The Jungle Book/Jungle Book, and so on.  It turns out this is actually relatively common.  I was surprised by the list I found on wikipedia for the “Two Film Theory”.

What is more strange though is when this happens with music, call it the “Two Song Theory”.  Contemporary Christian Music isn’t immune to this phenomenon either.  ‘Grace Wins’ by Matthew West and ‘Flawless’ by Mercy Me were both released around the same time, ‘Move’ by Toby Mac and ‘It’s Not Over Yet’ by For King and Country is another example with one finding favor on some stations and the other on others (seriously, I think I’ve only ever heard ‘Move” once on Air1 which is surprising for a Toby Mac song).

But what is jarring is hearing these songs back to back, especially when they are so similar.  A week ago, Air1 was doing their pledge drive and I have to admit I didn’t want to listen to them ask for money so I was switching between them and their sister station, K-LOVE.  I’ve heard these songs before, but I never listened that closely to the lyrics.  But when I heard them back to back, one on Air1 and the other on K-LOVE, the lyrics jumped out at me.  Now I can’t listen to one without thinking of the other.  What is remarkable is that these are essentially the same songs, just from different perspectives.  One, “I have this hope… you’re with me and you won’t let go”.  The other, “If you could only let go your doubts… I swear that I won’t let you go.”

Maybe it’s a double-punch to my heart, but I can’t listen to either of these songs now without being moved.  Consider it two for the price of one.

Proportional Response

Frank

I was about the same age as my kids when President Reagan ordered air strikes against Libya.  I remember his national address interrupting whatever I was watching on TV and I was transfixed by the images of F-16s and explosions.  All I knew of war at the time was GI Joe (and how the blue and red lasers never actually killed anyone), but this event defined a ‘real’ enemy I could now include in my imaginary play.  I remember that as the news continued I would build a fort out of the cushions of a sofa where my American GI Joe soldiers gathered to plan their attack on the La-Z-Boy across the room.  Oh, to be an innocent child again.

Early in the first season of The West Wing, there is an episode called ‘Proportional Response’ where President Bartlet has to decide on what is an appropriate response to, ironically enough, Syria shooting down an American plane with a friend on board.  While military advisors recommend a nighttime strike against a military target to minimize casualties, the president wants to deliver a stronger message.  His emotions, in fact, drive him to want to “bomb the hell” out of Syria. (I recall a recent presidential candidate who speculated whether bombing that part of the world would make its sand glow in the dark, implying a nuclear response)  It was difficult to rationalize a response that didn’t ultimately make any difference, but it was the right thing to do.

I had both experiences in my mind on Thursday when I got a message from work that we had taken military action against Syria.  My wife and I had already talked about how horrifying were the images of the chemical weapon attacks earlier in the week, wondering what could be done.

I’m not sure our proportional response will make any difference.  The politics in that region are complicated and allegiances are so intertwined that it is difficult to do anything without unintentionally angering an ally or provoking an adversary.  I can’t say what we did was right or wrong but it makes sense.

From a certain point of view.

A couple of years ago, I was taking a class on Christ and Culture.  As we were talking about other global movements of Christianity, we turned to the subject of war.  In my head and in my speech I declare allegiance to a heavenly kingdom over an above any earthly rule.  But in practice…?  Once a year when we take up a special collection for world missions, I can conceptualize that foreigners and strangers are brothers and sisters in Christ.  But in my heart…?  When I realized that our national enemies may be brothers or sisters in Christ, that from an eternal perspective I have more in common with the casualties of war than the physical neighbor whose politics align with my own, my worldview was rocked to its core.  My perspective of war, geopolitics, and patriotism are forever changed.

Which makes Syria a conundrum.  Yes, the chemical attacks are gruesome and inexcusable.  And I fundamentally oppose authoritarianism because it always creates an oppressed class.  But like I said, the politics of that region is complicated, and Russia’s involvement only muddies those waters.

Why does Russia care?  The obvious answer is oil, so there is an existing economic link.  Russia also has military bases there so there is a military link.  From our western perspective, we might say it’s just an example of one bad guy teaming up with another so there may be a common-cause link.  But they’re only bad guys from our point of view.  Like I said, it’s complicated.  What has been under-reported since the Syrian civil war began is role of the Syrian Orthodox Church in all of this.  You see, the Syrian church has close ties with the Russian Orthodox Church.  So there is actually a religious link too.

What does that have to do with Bashar Al Assad, chemical weapons, and the US?  Believe it or not, the Syrian church actually enjoyed some relative freedom and protection under President Assad, which obviously would not be the case under ISIS and would be unlikely under the rule of any of the Syrian rebel groups.  So if you were a Christian in Syria, you would be grateful for Russia’s involvement and would be praying that the US keeps their nose out of your business.  You would long for a return to the status quo.

So then, what do we do?  Even if we have different denominational stripes, we have to be sympathetic to the Christians suffering in the Middle East but at the same time we have to humbly recognize that we don’t have all the answers.  Our proportional response must be to pray with the fervor of explosive weapons.  Pray for peace.  Pray for those suffering, Christian or not.  Pray for unification against the radicalization that ISIS represents.  Pray agains the patriotic jingoism that we are tempted to fall into.  That is the only possible proportional response.

See Yourself on the Silver Screen

See Yourself on the Silver Screen

Frank

My daughter has been looking forward to seeing Beauty and the Beast since the first trailer aired.  Unfortunately, she has to wait just a little longer since she’s going with her Girl Scout troop as a celebration of their cookie sales.  Many friends saw it last weekend however, and I’m told they completely loved it.  There was no mention of any “gay agenda” being forced upon them, nor was there any disgust at any explicitly homosexual scenes.  I know my daughter couldn’t care less about such controversies, and I’m willing to bet that when she does see the movie she won’t even notice the subplot and scene in question.  Despite calls for a boycott, the movie opened last weekend to a March-record $170 million box office and an over $350 million worldwide take.

But this isn’t about the boycott.  There has been plenty written about that already, most recently at Unfundamentalist Christian.  No, this is about the silver screen itself and our desire to see ourselves reflected, or rather projected, as the heroine, the princess, or at times even the villain.

My daughter wants to see the movie because she wants to see Belle dance and sing (along with candelabras, teacups, and clocks).  She likes to watch Mulan to see the girl become the hero.  She loves Lilo and Stitch because of the rambunctious girl who always seems to get into trouble, yet always finds a way to work everything out in the end.

But not everyone can enjoy movies that same way.  As a middle-class white male, I don’t have to think twice about whether or not I’m represented on screen.  And if I can’t relate to a character, it is usually because of the choices he makes or the dialogue he fails to deliver convincingly.  I don’t think twice about whether that character looks just like me or represents my demographic.

Having LeFou’s latent homosexuality slightly more explicit than was depicted in the animated movie means a lot to homosexuals who long to see themselves depicted on the screen.  For this to be the first explicitly gay character in a Disney movie is taken by some to be groundbreaking.

But this post isn’t about homosexuality either.  Because they are not the only minority group struggling to be represented in Hollywood.

I’m a comic book nerd, so I haven’t been able to avoid hearing about the “whitewashing” of characters from The Ancient One in Dr Strange, to The Major in The Ghost in the Shell; or the missed opportunity to cast a minority in The Iron Fist; or split opinions over Idris Elba being cast as Roland, the Gunslinger, in The Dark Tower; or the celebration over the casting choices for The Black Panther.

These things aren’t new.  It was a big deal to have a single mother portrayed in a leading role on Murphy Brown just as it was groundbreaking (much more so than any character in Beauty and the Beast) for there to be a gay lead on Will & Grace.  What is new to me is that now I notice.

I have a lot more to write about “white privilege” that will have to wait for another time.  But in this case, I wanted to call our attention to the fact that white straight Americans take for granted our position in society, as evidenced by the roles we see in movies and on television.  Black-ish has become my favorite TV show because it challenges my perceptions and assumptions.  I wouldn’t call myself “woke”, but I’m getting there.

As Christians, we need to have more empathy.  Period.  I’m not saying minimizing sin (if that’s your conviction) for the sake of tolerance, because that just goes in line with being politically correct.  No, empathy is a heart-condition.  It is the ability to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes and to see the world the way they do.

In the case of Beauty and the Beast, there are closeted gays who might for the first time feel accepted simply by a couple lines in a movie, who might no longer be suicidal, who might for a change have hope.  And that should be celebrated, not boycotted.

Music Monday: Faith in Music

Frank

As I’m still getting back into the routine of writing here regularly, I also need to resurrect some of my regular features- one of which are ‘Music Monday’ posts.  Here, I’ll usually offer some thoughts on a song or a an artist just to stimulate deeper thoughts when we listen to music that sometimes we take for granted as just background noise.

I’m not going to do that today though.

Last weekend I read this article at Relevant Magazine by Marc Barnes about how music critics don’t “get religion”.  (As an aside, a whole blog is dedicated to the media coverage of religion, or lack thereof.  I wonder if Marc would be interested in starting a similar site focused solely on music.)  He hits the main points I try to with these posts- that if you listen carefully, you can glean spiritual, religious, or even explicitly Christian themes and messages.  Some artists are more overt, others subvert.  But when headliners or Grammy winners (see, Chance the Rapper) turn to religion, the typical music critic doesn’t know how to treat that material.

I’m never going to be the next Lester Bangs (or his protege Cameron Crowe, yes ‘Almost Famous’ is one of my favorite movies).  When I listen to music I fail to hear the “[infused] angularity, with an industrialized blur of motion” (quoted from one review in the article).  I don’t even know what that means.  But what I do hear are themes of redemption, hurt souls crying out for hope, and finding peace in a higher power.  If you listen carefully enough, you’d be surprised how common these themes are.  Does that make them explicitly ‘Christian’ in content?  Sometimes, but usually not.  So it is up to us, as believers who live to be salt and light, to search out the redemptive qualities of the secular space and to highlight those to the rest of the world so they may understand “the reason for the hope that we have” (1 Peter 3:15)

For God So Loved the Exoplanets

Frank

I’ve always been a bit of a space nerd, moved by awe-inspiring images from the Hubble Telescope, imagining what it would be like to explore the beautiful depths of the cosmos.  Less abstract, the ever-growing list of planets discovered by the Kepler Observatory have captured my curiosity and its latest discovery, announced last week, reminded me of unanswered questions.

These questions are a staple of science fiction, exploring answers from the varied perspectives of linguists, politicians, the military, and families.  We imagine ourselves in the role of discoverer, peacemaker, victor, and victim.  But no one really knows what it would be like if we ever discovered alien life.  The biggest question, that I wish I had a good answer for, is what would such a discover mean for our theology?

Ever since Galileo got into trouble with the Catholic Church over the observation that the earth revolved around the sun, science and the church have been at odds (and probably longer, despite the many significant contributions believing scientists and mathematicians have made throughout history).  Evolutionary biology challenges the six-day creation account.  Geology challenges the age of the Earth.  Astronomy challenges the ‘firmament’ described in Genesis 1 and the notion of God spreading out the heavens like a tent.  And cosmology questions the need for an active creator.  Well-meaning and well-informed Christians can debate the theological significance of each but an undisputed discovery of alien life would turn all these debates on their head.

Most challenging, besides trying reconcile what this would mean for the existence of God, not to mention destroying the tightly-held doctrine of biblical inerrancy, would be the question of what would this mean for salvation and atonement?  Do other worlds have their own gardens of Eden?  Would sin be defined the same way for creatures that wouldn’t communicate or interact the same as we do?  What form would divine revelation take?  And most importantly, are there several alien Jesuses saving the universe one planet at a time? (After all Jesus did say there are sheep other than these, meaning us, that he needed to save.)

I expect Christians would display a range of reactions to the discovery of alien life.  I think some would be inclined to respond with skepticism in the same way they react to global warming.  Others would react with hostility to anything that would cast doubt on the inerrant, authoritative, word of God.  But I think the most common reaction would be fear as if such news was a threat- not the threat of an alien invasion, but rather the threat of their long-held worldview being wrong.

You’ve probably done this exercise at VBS youth camp, or maybe even in a personal Bible study- look up John 3:16 and make it personal: “For God so loved (your name here) that he gave his only son, that if you believe in him you shall not perish but have eternal life.”  You’ve probably heard this as well, ‘if you were the only person on the planet, Jesus would still have gone to the cross for you.’  This is a nice sentiment, but I don’t entirely agree and it is this emphasis on a personal savior and individual salvation that is at the heart of much of American Christianity theology.

But I don’t think the Bible supports that.  Throughout Romans, Paul’s most theological letter, Paul always defines salvation in context of God’s Covenant faithfulness.  Even when he quotes Joel to say, “anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Romans 10:13), it is in reference to the Day of the Lord that is a fulfillment of God’s covenant.  Jesus, while certainly emphasizing God’s love for each of us individually as well as emphasizing our own personal responsibility in following him, framed his ministry in the context of the Covenant- “Do not think I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets… but to fulfill them.” (Matthew 5:17)  I have to admit that I am influenced by scholars and theologians who have emphasized ‘Israel’s story’ to define the Gospel (most notably Scot McKnight and N.T. Wright) but I also think such a view would help us reconcile the notion of alien life and whether they would be in need of a savior.

Ask yourself this question, is your favorite pet saved?  When you were a child you might have been told that the pet that died went to heaven, but do you believe that now?  Did God make a covenant promise to dogs and cats, complete with a list of conditional curses and blessings that include the end-state of either damnation or salvation?  In the same way, we have no evidence (obviously) of God making a covenant promise to any alien civilization.  Therefore they wouldn’t need their own alien Jesus.  In fact, if God did make such a promise it would most likely be very different than we could even imagine and Jesus might not even be involved at all!

But would that mean we have to redefine the Great Commission in Matthew 28 to go and make disciples of every… planet?  Or what if that alien invasion we fear is really them coming to evangelize us?  Maybe their advanced technology has shown them how much we need saving.

And maybe they’re only 39 light years away, wandering in space, waiting to enter into their promised planet.

Romans 14 in the Age of Fake News

Frank

It happened again yesterday. While scrolling through my Facebook feed I came across an article that I knew right away was “fake”. It was posted by a well-meaning friend as well as being liked and shared by several others. The headline was compelling enough that I had to click the link to read what all the fuss was about. Everything written seemed plausible, despite the obvious typo in the headline, but then I reached the end of the article where it read, “source: ufomania.org”.

Graphic from CNN.com

Thankfully this happens less now that the heat of the campaign season is behind us. But people are still biting on the bait and getting hooked even if it is with less frequency. Later in the day another friend shared a meme (so it was without any source) making a dubious claim that put down another only to score a political point.

Why do we continue to get sucked in like this? There were numerous articles following the presidential election regarding fake news and how social media has become an echo chamber that only serves to reinforce our opinions. Here are just a couple articles that go behind the scenes. I’m going to summarize what many see as driving this phenomenon.

We desire a validation of our worldview. This isn’t limited to politics. It extends to religion, sports, and entertainment. I’m guilty of this- if I watch a move that really gets my wheels turning, one of the first things I do is check reviews to see if anyone else picked up on the same things I did.

We want validation and acceptance. That’s why we congregate around like-minded people. That’s why it is more joyful to watch sports in a crowd versus alone on your TV (and why tweeting during live events has become so popular- so much so that some sports websites even include a social media frame along with live streaming). This is human nature and why headlines that reinforce our points of view are compelling. We tolerate our own cognitive dissonance because being validated is more important than being right. At the same time seeing news, articles, or memes that fit our preconceptions subliminally convinces us that our opinions are right (thereby making other opinions wrong, which is technically impossible).

We want to believe. Sometimes we think we know something but maybe we lack confidence in its truth. So we cling to anything that builds up our personal lack of faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as “confidence in what we hope for and assurance in what we do not see” (going with the NIV translation- you can switch out confidence and assurance with “substance” and “evidence” if you’d rather rely on the King James). So faith is inherently confident and is self-reinforcing with its own evidence. This definition of faith then assumes some level of trust.

But we don’t apply faith that way. We have faith in things we hope for, but hope is only that. We hope something is true, but we lack confidence or assurance so we seek out evidence. This type of faith is the type that implicitly exclaims, “I told you so!” when we find what we think is proof. So we share articles about NASA scientists that proved the calendar is missing a day because of Joshua making the sun stand still thousands of years ago.

We get sucked in by sensationalist headlines. Did you know that in the mainstream media journalists don’t write their own headlines? Did you know that in publishing authors usually don’t come up with their own titles? There are professionals whose job is to write the headline that will get the most attention or book titles that will sell the most copies. There is research in the social sciences that takes this as far as identifying the best fonts, verbs, and even the maximum number of words to use. Online we try to maximize our Search Engine Optimization.

Over the weekend I was watching one news program where a journalist was getting grilled about a sensationalist headline that the host then claimed qualified the news as “fake”. The journalist tried, with little success, to defend his work by noting that he didn’t write the headline. He tried to steer the discussion to make the point that what some are calling “fake news” are simply examples of sensationalism or bias (both of which drive ratings, clicks, and shares).

Yet we’re guilty of promoting the sensationalism we’re being fed. In the example I opened with, which wasn’t a political story at all, the headline was catchy enough to share without even reading the contents of the article. Had the person done so, I suspect she would’ve noticed the suspicious source being “UFO Mania”. But that’s not the only example. During the election a friend shared an article about Planned Parenthood based on a headline that seemed to reinforce her worldview. She apparently didn’t read the article, because the article made the opposite point she was trying to advance. And this leads me to my last reason…

We have a problem with a lack of discernment. Much was made of the “intelligence gap” or “education gap” identified in polls during the election. But this isn’t necessarily a matter of intelligence or education. Discernment is different. A lack of discernment takes things at face value without critical thinking. Discernment is the ability to take information and question its validity, independent of knowledge, information, or opinions you already have. You can be uneducated and have discernment. This is often described as being “street smart”. At the same time, you can be highly educated and lack discernment. We see the same thing in church where someone might be described as “so heavenly minded they’re no earthly good”.

I hate to say it, but the church is guilty of promoting this lack of discernment. We listen to sermons built around verses that are proof-texts for the point that is trying to be made even if taken completely out of context. We do not follow the example of the Bereans who were of “more noble character” for checking whether what Paul was preaching was true (Acts 17:11). Meanwhile we reinforce a leadership structure that assumes a hierarchy of knowledge, holding those with a  DMin or MDiv with special esteem. Even though we have access to more information than ever before, tools that can help us study the Bible with unprecedented depth, we’re really not that much different than the peasants who were kept in line by the church by their illiteracy.

If we don’t dig deeper on matters of eternal importance, why would we expect to be any different when it comes to the media we consume? We blindly trust what a particular news source has to say the same way we nod our heads and proclaim “amen!” during a sermon that makes a point nowhere to be found in scripture.

Which brings me to Romans 14.

Romans 14 would seem like a non sequitur after the discussion of politics in Romans 13 but then we remember that this also follows the Romans 12 admonishments to “not think of yourself more highly than you ought” (12:3) and “as much as it depends on you, live at peace with one another” (12:18). Taken in that context, you could consider Romans 13 and 14 as applications of 12.

Interestingly, Paul immediately follows his discussion of politics with a warning to not quarrel over disputable matters, as if anticipating the obvious divisions to come. At the same time, he tells us to “accept the one whose faith is weak” and uses dietary laws and religious feasts as examples. What we sometimes miss when reading this is that these religious duties aren’t analogous to whether or not it’s ok to watch R-rated movies, rather they are demonstrations of one’s own religious identity.

Follow the train of thought Paul is providing us: live at peace with one another, submit to authority because everything is under the authority of God, don’t get wrapped up in disputable matters, and don’t allow those things to become central to your religious identity. In other words, don’t let politics define your religion. Because if you do, it will prevent you from being at peace with others, make you unable to submit to governments whose policies you disagree with, and lead you into useless arguments over matters of opinion (a literal translation of “disputable matters”).

Sounds a lot like the state of the church today.

Running through this train of thought is the notion that some will be able to do this easily and others will not. Some will have faith that is “strong”, while others will struggle because of their “weak” faith.

It may sound mean to say that those who revel in “fake news” are weak in their faith, but taken in this context it is the truth- they merely lack discernment. That doesn’t mean I get to look down on them or mock them (which I am seeing far too often from Christians on the progressive end of the political spectrum). Rather Paul tells me that I need to be patient with them and put aside my own convictions for the sake of their faith.

So what do we do to confront the fake news we see nearly every day? We need to remember that the Kingdom is not a matter of Republican or Democrat (to paraphrase 14:17) and that “anything not done in faith is sin” (14:23). We need to ground our politics in faith- faith has to come first- and practice our convictions with righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit (the rest of verse 17). We have to be humble enough to set aside our political points of view for the sake of others. Really, if our political discourse is causing someone else to struggle- whatever the reason, whether it is based on fake news, or is argumentative, or devalues the unnamed ‘other’- we need to knock it off.

And prayerfully by applying the word we can learn discernment, by having confidence in God’s love we can overcome our need for validation, by growing in faith we can increase our confidence in those things that are unseen, and with our eyes fixed on Jesus may we not become distracted by sensationalism because in him alone is Truth. In Christ there is nothing fake.